Peter MacKay

[Pictou County, April 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to acknowledge the exemplary efforts of the Pictou Regional Development Commission in my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

The goal of PRDC is to consolidate Pictou county as one of the leading commercial and industrial areas of Atlantic Canada. It does this through its highly qualified team of professionals who strive for corporate success.

Several international corporations earning billions of dollars in annual revenues have found Pictou county to be an excellent and profitable base for their operations. These same industries have been responsible for generating a diverse range of opportunities for businesses of all sizes.

Geographically, Pictou county is ideally situated for businesses that rely on effective distribution networks. The county contains links by sea, road, rail and air that connect directly with destinations across North America. A number of commercial and industrial properties in Pictou county have on-site rail access providing access and efficient transportation to destinations throughout North America.

I congratulate PRDC for its valuable community contributions. It is organizations like that which continue to work toward the betterment of our area and our province. Their work is noticed and appreciated.

[The Late Frank McGee, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today the House pauses for a moment to recall the parliamentary career of the Hon. Frank McGee who served as a Conservative member of the House from 1957 until 1963. Mr. McGee represented York—Scarborough, which in 1957 was an area of tremendous growth. I believe this riding is now comprised of seven seats.

In an age before members had offices or large staffs, Frank McGee had a quarter of a million constituents to represent, an awesome task. He did so on his own. He did research in the library. He did a lot of the legwork. His speeches remain a testament to his elegant speaking style and his Irish heritage of which he was so proud.

It is well known that he vigorously opposed capital punishment and worked for the repeal of provisions of the Criminal Code that allowed for corporal punishment and the use of the cat-o'-nine-tails, a practice like capital punishment, which he felt was based far too much on revenge.

Looking back at the Diefenbaker years it is difficult to recognize that Canada today. Mr. Diefenbaker introduced legislation to authorize the use of English and French on cheques and other financial instruments, which is difficult to believe in a time like today. In speaking to the bill Mr. McGee had this to say:

This measure touches on a larger issue, the issue of brotherhood, tolerance and understanding. That is an issue which cuts across many of the inheritances with which the pages of Canadian history unfortunately are soiled.

Frank McGee was a grand nephew of Thomas D'Arcy McGee, a Father of Confederation who was assassinated for his outspokenness. Frank McGee knew all too well of the diversities and the challenges posed by public life.

Mr. McGee was a vigilant and hardworking member of the House. To the qualities of brotherhood, tolerance and understanding Frank McGee added public service and political participation.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, we express our sympathies to his family for his loss and we send our gratitude that Frank McGee was willing to continue the great tradition that was started by his family.

[Privilege, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to belabour this point. I think that the previous two opposition members, the House leader for the New Democratic Party, as well as the Reform Party, quite succinctly put forward the case. However, I want to add the concerns of my party's members that we seem to be spinning our wheels on the issue of disclosure of documents, even prior to other members of the House of Commons having an opportunity to review them in any depth.

The government House leader has given his assurance, as he has in the past, that he wants to deal with this in a straightforward way and that he will do his best, but that does not seem to be working. It does not seem to be enough.

I implore upon you, in your capacity as Speaker of the House, to put forward some substantive action that will deter this type of behaviour because it really does degrade this parliament and individual members of the House when we see this happening time and time again with very little reprisal.

I am afraid that is what it is going to take. There is going to have to be some serious intervention on the part of the Speaker, or on the part of a committee, where there is some sanction that is handed down and a message that is given and received before this type of behaviour is going to be stopped.

One would hope that members of parliament, members of the House of Commons, would respect that, but it does not seem to be enough to date, so I simply add those humble remarks.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for his very insightful and in-depth remarks. It certainly signifies his awareness and his contribution as well to the process and to the justice committee in particular.

In the latter part of his remarks, he raised a very important issue with respect to a false impression or perhaps an unfair expectation on the part of victims upon hearing that there will be this policy office, which I think he characterizes correctly as being a lens on a lot of other federal legislation in terms of efforts to improve victims' participation in our justice system.

I would like to follow up on the issue of an office of an ombudsman filling the need of many victims for information sharing. I am sure the member conducted town hall meetings. I know I conducted one in Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. Repeatedly the number one complaint of victims was that they did not receive the information quickly. Sometimes they even received contradictory information from various sources in the justice system.

One person in particular who has a very strong feeling in this regard is Lynne Charron who lost her father Ferdinand to a terrible murder. She was very much in favour of an office where information could be obtained, a 1-800 number, and a system that would provide timely and important information to victims on matters pertaining to their cases which might be pending before the criminal justice system. Equally important, in the aftermath when a person is incarcerated and parole is pending or rehabilitative programs are being attempted, victims have an ongoing unwilling attachment to a person who has intruded upon their lives. Members such as the member for Surrey North can certainly attest to that.

Does the hon. member opposite feel that this is an important step his government could take? The next step would be a national victims office with an ombudsman, similar to the correctional investigators office, to provide these needs to victims in a timely fashion.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it was Bill C-69. Bill C-79 is the bill before the House. I may have misspoken.

I am not going to single anybody out but I will take the opportunity to say that efforts have been made by members of the committee to suggest that, in the context of the new legislation, Bill C-69, certain offences be absolutely excluded from the granting of the pardon, or at least the protection that a pardon provides to prevent the public at large from obtaining knowledge of a previous conviction against the person whether it be a sexual assault or a violent offence. I believe that type of information is pertinent and the public have a right to know to be protected in their communities.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I certainly understand the frustration and difficulty that his constituent would feel and that perhaps the hon. member himself must feel.

There is also another piece of legislation coming forward in this place very soon, Bill C-79. I think the issue of pardons, which makes this a rather unique situation where information such as that cannot be shared and cannot be considered by a court in the granting of a peace bond, which this particular victim is seeking, will be addressed better in that legislation than in the bill currently before the House.

A peace bond is certainly a discretionary instrument that a judge has at his or her disposal.

The issue itself of this person's security and her feeling of frustration in not having the information available to her and more importantly the court not having that information available to it in deciding whether or not she has a legitimate case, and obviously she does, to have a peace bond granted, I believe, will be addressed better by Bill C-79.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as previous members have mentioned, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-79, which I feel is a very positive piece of legislation brought forward by the minister. I congratulate her on her wisdom in recognizing the recommendations that were put forward by the justice committee.

I also want to take a brief moment to recognize the contributions of the previous speakers and previous members of the justice committee for their positive contribution to this bill, which has now come to the stage where it is before the House for debate.

At this time in our country's history and in the world's history the issue of victims rights is certainly something about which there is a raised awareness. We have seen in Kosovo every evening news coverage which shows disturbing images of people dying, people being injured and families separated, crimes being committed under the guise of war. We continually hear of accounts of terrible crimes being perpetrated on individuals at the hands of Milosevic's forces.

It saddens me to think that victims such as this will never have an opportunity to reach justice or to seek justice or retribution for these attacks. It also makes me and I think others reflect on how lucky we are to have a criminal justice system in this country that at least attempts to address those issues of victimization.

I would also be remiss if I did not pay some tribute to the late Shaughnessy Cohen, the chair of the justice committee at the time of the drafting of this report, and also recognize her very significant contribution to this cause, which I believe is embodied in the legislation that is before the House.

We are fortunate to live in a society that is progressive with regard to our criminal justice system. I think this bill displays an attitude of non-partisanship concerning a justice issue as important as this.

As a crown attorney I found myself considering daily the rights of victims and the issues they were wrestling with in seeking judicial retribution from criminal parties who preyed upon them. We need to recognize that there is also more that we in this parliament and we in the justice system can do to address further those needs.

As I said at the outset, I believe that this is a positive step forward. With that being said, the Progressive Conservative Party will support this legislation and will continue to work toward improvements to our Criminal Code which will entrench the rights of victims during the prosecution of offences.

I also want to commend the minister for accepting that these recommendations are necessary and timely. However, supporting the protection of victims and supporting legislation that perhaps sometimes raises expectations beyond their real means is a very dangerous thing to do. It is a shame that the Liberal government has once again failed to recognize that these amendments to the Criminal Code are going to cost a great deal of money to implement. While Bill C-79 is comparable to the youth justice bill in that regard, the government has enacted legislation that is essentially going to leave the provinces holding the bag in many instances with respect to the cost of implementation. In the House of Commons we have unfortunately come to expect this to a degree.

With respect to false hopes and expectations, we have seen that type of legislation before in two bills, ironically both labelled Bill C-68. However, for the victims of crime who want their ideas to be heard, and for their safety and protection, the actual implementation of this bill is very timely and very important.

The biggest disappointment, as I said, pertains to resources.

It was also mentioned by previous speakers and certainly at the time of the round table that was held in the summer and during the implementation and discussions of this bill that there was hope there would be a national office to address the needs of victims. It was hoped that there would be one central point where victims could go to receive information, a place where victims could receive answers to their very serious questions, having gone through a justice system that often seems very sterile and cold. That was the hope of the Progressive Conservative Party as well as other members of the opposition who were involved in the drafting of the report.

The victims office would be modelled after what is called the correctional investigator's office. For the benefit of those present who are not aware, there was a correctional investigator's office set up to address the needs of those who are serving time in federal institutions, those who are paying their debt to society. The office has a budget of close to $2 million and is staffed significantly to address those needs. I am not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, but to not have a similar office with a similar budget, at the very least, for victims of crime, I find completely perverse and offensive.

Correctional services currently has an investigator who deals with concerns and complaints of prisoners. To suggest that victims should not have similar treatment is certainly paying short shrift to the suffering which victims have endured.

Since elected to parliament, it has been increasingly clear to me that victims in our justice system are in need of such an office. As a critic for my party I have had the opportunity to speak to victims of crime. Previous to that I spoke with victims and dealt with victims quite regularly. These individuals are not looking necessarily to change the outcome of a trial or to have the judge or the prosecutor act upon their every demand.

I believe that this piece of legislation and the report that led to the enactment of these changes is quite aptly named “Victims' Rights—A Voice, Not a Veto”. I think that encompasses the spirit of what victims are looking for in our justice system. They are looking for the recognition that they should be heard and that their input should, at the very least, have some impact on the court decisions that have to be made.

Victims are also spouses, children, parents, siblings; many of whom have lost loved ones as a result of criminal activity. All of those individuals often are extremely affected by this. The previous narrow definition of victims is also something that had to be changed. We certainly welcome the fact that we see that encompassed in the bill today.

Our party also understands the need which Canadians and victims of crime have to get support from their elected officials. I think that a very important signal is being sent today in the non-partisan and, for the most part, very positive comments that we have heard emanating from all members who have spoken to this bill.

I certainly feel that the office which I mentioned has been an oversight. It has to some degree been overlooked by the minister. There is still hope that burns eternal that in future months and future opportunities that will arise in this place that will change. I know that hope exists also amongst the stakeholders in the community who have worked so tirelessly to bring legislation forward to this point and who have worked with the minister and her departmental officials to encourage them to open or to move toward an office such as this.

The reason for not doing so appears to be jurisdictional. We have heard a number of comments made by my colleague in the Bloc about the fear that exists—and perhaps it is a legitimate fear on some occasions—about jurisdictional matters treading into the matters of the provinces. However, not only are victims rights a non-partisan matter, but when it comes to positive change I would suggest that this is not an issue that would offend anybody with respect to treading into jurisdictional matters. This is a purely good news initiative.

We should have an office that would work in conjunction with existing offices in the provinces. I know that Ontario and, to a large degree, Quebec have been leaders in this particular area. I am sure that a schedule or scheme could be worked out where victims could be given information and there could be a better co-ordinated effort to provide this type of information through one central office that should, in terms of its national scope, be coming from the federal government and not the provinces.

The minister herself was quick to admit that it is the provinces which administer justice at the street level and she quite correctly points out that fact. However, the federal government is ultimately the drafter of much of the legislation and is ultimately the one to pay the piper. It should take the leadership role in setting up a national victims office and naming the person who would act as an ombudsman and an ongoing source for the information which victims need.

It is not only in the first instance when victims become victimized—and we all know that begins the moment it happens— it is also the follow up and ongoing contact that the victims seem to be most offended by in our criminal justice system. That is where that type of office would be extremely important, in addressing those very real needs of victims.

There are other positive amendments that I will speak to briefly. I welcome and to a large degree commend the minister for recognizing the need. One of those positive issues includes the sections that pertain to the publication ban of a victim's name or a witness's name. That protection of identity will make it easier for victims to take part in court proceedings.

There are also amendments that will permit a victim impact statement to be heard at a parole eligibility hearing to ascertain whether a person should be released at the time of serving a certain portion of their debt to society.

The initiatives that will permit the oral presentation of a victim impact statement are extremely important. The knowledge element of informing a victim that a person convicted of a life sentence will in fact be eligible for parole at some point is once more a bitter-sweet bit of knowledge. I am hopeful that at some point in the future we will see the removal of section 745 from the Criminal Code so that this terrible piece of information will not have to be made known to a victim that parole eligibility exists for a first degree murder conviction.

Improvements have also been made concerning the conditions upon the release of an accused with respect to the participation of the accused in programming and the participation of the accused in their own rehabilitative efforts. Amendments were also made to improve the criteria of a victim impact statement. One of those mentioned includes the protection of both victims and witnesses in their participation in the system. The impact is often the only way victims can express their concerns and feelings resulting from incidents of criminal behaviour.

I do not want to leave anyone in the Chamber with the impression that this is entirely a good piece of legislation. I believe there were some missed opportunities which existed for the minister to perhaps go further with respect to matters such as the enactment of a victims' office and an ombudsman. Certainly there is a further need, and it is not a legislative need, but a need for the recognition that there is going to be a cost associated with this.

I was very encouraged to hear the comments from the previous speaker, the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria. He pointed out quite aptly that there is going to be a greater emphasis on crown prosecutors, and I would go further and say on judges as well, that emanates from this bill. It has been my experience that most crown attorneys have been doing much of what is now enacted in this legislation when it comes to information sharing. This bill will certainly be the impetus for crown attorneys to do so in a more systemic way.

Unfortunately victims have had no one to turn to for assistance at the federal level when those individuals were faced with lack of information. Oftentimes that fell to the discretion of crown prosecutors when it came to the drafting of things such as victim impact statements. So clarification does come from this bill, which is certainly a welcome and necessary change.

In my home province of Nova Scotia there is a victim services division within the Department of Justice. There are very dedicated individuals like Judy Whitman and Coreen Popowich who work in the New Glasgow office who daily make great contributions to the cause and needs of victims.

In Quebec le Bureau d'aide aux victimes d'actes criminels, BAVAC, provides information and assistance to victims of crime. We have seen Progressive Conservative governments in provinces like Alberta, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Ontario which have also increased the level of services available to victims at this time.

Again we see that the provinces have had to act upon a problem and have used their political expediency because of the fact that the federal government has not been moving quickly in this direction.

We heard from previous speakers the fact that much of the initiative for this legislation was announced publicly. Huge press conferences were held and ministers toured the country. It has been very slow to see the change that was initiated and which has come forward today. That is not something the federal government can be proud of. The federal government is getting on board.

Initiatives were taken in the previous parliament by members of the Reform Party as has been mentioned. Once more the victims themselves and their advocates and members of that community who have lobbied so strongly for these needed changes are truly the ones who should feel a sense of redemption and should be reaping the credit and the reward that is due today.

Under normal circumstances one would think that this would be a day for celebration. Certainly a great deal more can be done to ensure that victims are going to be participating in a system that affects them greatly, that has affected them and will continue to do so for a long period of time, if not until the end of the day.

The fact that legislation such as this is slow to come about must leave victims with somewhat of a sour taste in their mouth. In my opinion, our justice system has been moving in the wrong direction for a long time. There is almost a feeling of begrudged giving in on the part of the government when it comes to acknowledging the role of victims in our system.

If this bill was treated like that of the Young Offenders Act in that the provinces themselves were so active in lobbying for change, then I would have hoped that this bill would have come about in a much more timely fashion.

Certainly a federal agency would go a long way to assisting individuals like Carolyn Solomon of Garson, Ontario. I want to cite this example because it is one which I think epitomizes some of the problems not only in the correctional system but throughout the entire process.

In 1997 Mrs. Solomon lost her son Kevin who was murdered by Michael Hector. Hector was a federal parolee who was not properly supervised. Moreover, Hector's parole supervisor was not provided with sufficient information about this individual to make informed decisions about his release. This was no doubt due to lack of funding, lack of resources and also I suggest in some small part, due to the fact that Correctional Service Canada was already initiating the early phases of its 50/50 prison release quota.

Michael Hector breached conditions of his parole and should not have been out on the street in the first place. Consequently he was free to kill. Three young individuals lost their lives as a result, including Carolyn Solomon's son Kevin.

Mrs. Solomon wanted to know, and rightly, why Michael Hector was permitted to breach these conditions of parole and not held accountable at that time. She wanted to know why Correctional Service Canada did not provide Michael Hector's full criminal record and psychological record to his parole supervisor. She also wanted to know why the parole supervisor took everything that Michael Hector told him at face value, a sense of self-reporting, and why there was no in-depth investigation of the information statements that were provided by the parolee.

To their credit, Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board have a mechanism in place to promptly undertake a review when cases like this are botched. Mrs. Solomon was a victim, as was her son, of Michael Hector's crime which resulted from mistakes by Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board and they are charged with investigating themselves in the wake of this tragedy.

I raise this point because of the fact that there was an opportunity to also incorporate some of these entrenched rights of victims within the changes we are currently looking at in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act review. As was previously mentioned, there was an opportunity to encompass these recommendations from the entire justice panel and they were simply ignored. Once again, if we could put aside the partisanship and move toward positive change in our justice system, surely it would be much the better for Canadians.

More recently there are other sad examples of this which I do not have the time to cite at this moment. Anyone who has been involved and who has been a victim of crime will know that this is a focus which we in this place must have if we are to improve our justice system.

The bill itself I admit is a positive step. We have arrived at this point through a great deal of effort by all and I commend those individuals. I look forward to continuing to work with those same individuals in this place and at the justice committee to make improvements.

[Wayne Gretzky, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Wayne Gretzky retired from the National Hockey League marking the end of an amazing era. While redefining the game using his skills to reach new heights, he brought teammates, fans and a nation closer together.

True to his roots, he represented his country in international play and made Canadians proud each time he donned the Maple Leaf. The Great One improved Canada's hockey image and shaped the game's style.

As an ambassador for hockey and for Canada, his class leadership defined a remarkable career.

There is an element of humility to Wayne Gretzky's stardom which sets him apart. His love for the game and commitment to excellence made him a true role model, a responsibility he never shunned. To the end, Gretzky downplayed his endless personal accomplishments and records.

Our hockey cards, the No. 99 and tucked in sweaters provide wonderful warm memories. Our parents had heroes like Joe DiMaggio. We had Wayne Gretzky.

In his last NHL game, the scoresheet will show one final assist, fitting, for he always emphasized team first.

In a complicated world he allowed us to escape for many precious moments.

The hall of fame and new challenges await you. We wish you and your family a lifetime of happiness. Thank you, Wayne Gretzky, for all you have given our country and our game.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the commitment of the hon. member to this issue. As chair of the justice committee I commend him for his ongoing efforts in this regard.

I have some problems with the bill with respect to the effort that has been put into it on behalf of the government to give the perception that it will be the cure-all and the end-all to some of the problems that existed in the previous Young Offenders Act.

I would like the hon. member to comment on the fact that the bill from my perspective involves many substantive changes, leaving it open for new interpretation by judges, prosecutors and lawyers across the land. This legislation will lead to a great deal of new judge made law and the type of law that will potentially open loopholes.

I am sure the hon. member will agree that within the bill there is greater discretion in areas when it comes to transfers. There is greater discretion on the part of the police who will be asked at the front end to decide whether they should lay charges. There will be a long period of time before the full implications of the bill are felt. It is a very complicated act.

Would the hon. member tell us why the government did not try to draft a more streamline piece of legislation?

[Seafreez Foods Limited, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to express my extreme disappointment and frustration and those of the citizens of Guysborough county with the decision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for rejecting an application from Seafreez Foods Incorporated, one that was requesting to harvest 1,000 tonnes of shrimp off the Strait of Canso.

As astonished as I am with the minister's decision, it does not compare to that of the 150 workers who were temporarily laid off only hours after the federal government's decision to reject the Seafreez application.

Seafreez Foods once employed 800 people. Now Seafreez only employs a handful. It is due to the lack of support and understanding that this minister and his government display toward the fisheries in Canso, Nova Scotia. For far too long, the fishermen of Canso have seen fish being caught only kilometres off their peer to be trucked elsewhere by others for processing. It is ludicrous and offensive.

The fishing industry is the lifeblood of Canso. With these fishermen not fishing they are obviously not working, which is precisely the problem. The lack of work in Canso today is primarily due to the minister's illogical decision to reject Seafreez's application for increased stocks last Friday.

Seafreez has exhausted all possible—