Peter MacKay

[Division No. 358, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if there has been a misunderstanding of the request that was made by the hon. member from the Bloc from the Reform Party. Given some of the commotion that was taking place at the time he made the request, I would again ask for unanimous consent that the minister be permitted to take questions for a defined period, 10 minutes or more. I ask that that be put to the House once again.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and discuss this important matter. As the public complaints commission resumes its hearings today into the APEC security fiasco, it is my pleasure to speak to this matter.

On November 23, 1998, I asked the Prime Minister during question period when the government would call a complete independent judicial inquiry into the security at APEC, a relevant question then and now. Because the public complaints commission has never had a mandate under the RCMP act to investigate the Prime Minister's office, the public complaints commission has never had the opportunity to delve into allegations that the RCMP was only following government orders when it pepper sprayed protesters in 1997.

The embarrassing actions of the Liberal government and the solicitor general of the day to avoid broad accountability prompted some to call for the end of the RCMP public complaints commission. In the aftermath of resignations, indignation and media manipulations, the commission went into hibernation and only recently returned to the spotlight when the new committee chairman, Ted Hughes, a very able and learned jurist, was appointed.

Since his appointment by the Prime Minister, Mr. Hughes has shown his ability to make an impartial and fair process work. Mr. Hughes has stated that he will go where the evidence leads him and that his questions will be answered. Mr. Hughes must have the Liberals shaking in their boots with this attitude because as he has stated he will not rule out issuing a subpoena that might call for the testimony of the Prime Minister at this inquiry.

During question period in November the Prime Minister responded to my question by stating: “The inquiry can ask on all subjects it wants of anybody in the bureaucracy and even in my office and not only of the RCMP”. I wonder how comfortable the Prime Minister is with that statement now that he does not control the commission like a puppet on a string.

Whether it is the public complaints commission or the building of summer cottage access roads, the Prime Minister likes to have his own way and people in place to control the outcome when he does not have his own way. This time, however, the process will not be easily manipulated. Canadians are left still wondering about the meaning behind the former solicitor general's famous comments on his ill fated plane ride when he stated that Hughie would take the fall.

What is next? The RCMP has been directed to chase after dead ends in the Airbus scandal, so will the Liberal government make the RCMP again take the brunt of the criticism after the decisions of the Prime Minister's office which actually led to the APEC scandal? I am hopeful that this current version of the public complaints commission will have the mandate to look at what happened as a result of the PMO's direction should those events transpire and as it relates to the RCMP's handling of these protesters.

As I mentioned, I am cautiously optimistic that the commission will now be able to draft a report that will give us answers that get to the bottom of these important questions. This being said, I am hopeful that the public complaints commission will be able to make a proposal for the proper and meaningful retribution of student protesters involved in the APEC scandal.

These are questions Canadians deserve to have answers to. Now that the commission is back in full operation and is down to the business of looking at these issues as they are brought forward by lawyers like Cameron Ward for the protesters currently giving evidence, we are hopeful these answers will be carefully studied by the government. There is an opportunity here to perhaps restore some of the lost faith that came about as a result of the events in Vancouver.

As Mr. Speaker is a very ardent supporter of individual rights and has always taken an interest in transparency and openness in government, I am sure you would agree this is an ample opportunity for the government to do the right thing for a change, to have an opportunity to let the public see what is actually behind some of the inner workings of this government.

I thank the House very much for its indulgence and I am anxiously awaiting the response of government.

[Criminal Code, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I too am honoured and pleased to take part in this debate. I offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Yukon for bringing about this very important matter and giving us in the Chamber an opportunity to discuss this issue.

The defence of provocation I would not go so far as to call an obscure section of the Criminal Code but it is one that does not receive broad application.

It is one that I did come across in my time as a crown prosecutor in Nova Scotia. It is a section that has a fair bit of confusion surrounding it. Much like the defence of self-defence, it is extremely difficult for jury members, in particular lay persons without legal training. I would even go so far as to say that many in the legal profession have a great deal of trouble interpreting sections such as this including provocation.

The motivation behind the hon. member for Yukon in bringing this matter forward is certainly laudable. I am also familiar with the very tragic case of Susan Klassen. I had the pleasure of meeting her sister when she attended a justice conference here in Ottawa last summer. Her motivation is beyond question. I note from her remarks that it is something she feels very passionately about, and rightly so.

However, as we progress in the law we must be aware that there is a true danger in taking single cases in isolation and using that as a motivation to entirely change the law. I am not suggesting that is entirely what is happening here, but there is always a danger in holding up one particular case as a means to entirely revamp or, in this proposed scenario, withdraw a section of the Criminal Code.

That is not to say that there is not often a great deal of need and in fact a legitimate desire to change a section of the Criminal Code to make it operate in a more efficient and just way for Canadians at large. However, to remove section 232 of the Criminal Code, I would suggest, would ignore the fact that there is a real element of human frailty encompassed in that particular section.

The Criminal Code is a document that is not immune to change. However, there are certain sections of the code that have been in place for some period of time. One would make the strong argument that they have been subject to considerable judicial interpretation and expression over a long period of time, which does have some weight when one considers the desire to remove that section completely from the code.

With respect to Motion No. 265, I would suggest that there is really a need for change, but perhaps not a need to go as far as this motion would suggest, which is to withdraw the entire section completely because of an unpopular or an unjust interpretation of that section.

All sections of the Criminal Code, however old, are written in such a way as to allow for judicial interpretation. Upon first glance, sections of the Criminal Code may seem to be outdated, yet when subjected to judicial interpretation they are brought up to speed in a number of ways which allow a judge to ensure that justice does prevail.

Detractors may argue that problems arise in judicial interpretation and that allows for decisions such as we saw in the B.C. court case involving Shaw. That particular case once again highlights the danger in taking one particular instance of a judicial interpretation and suggesting that we must then repeal an entire section of the Criminal Code.

I am a firm believer in change for our system. I am also confident that the judges of the supreme court will correct the ruling with respect to child pornography. With that said, the Criminal Code is a written reference by which Canadians conduct themselves. It is intended to provide guidelines for our society, for a safe and orderly environment and it is an embodiment of a moral standard that is to be upheld by those who choose to live or visit Canada.

It is true that the Criminal Code is not perfect. How could it be? It is made by man. Yet to allow the dissolution of an entire law simply to appease the demands of a special interest group would set a very dangerous precedent and would lead to constant band-aid solutions to very specific problems.

The oversimplification of any law would limit judicial interpretation of the code when dealing with future cases.

Being quick to enact a change each time a particular case emerges through the courts and is handed down, I suggest, would be very dangerous and would lead to an eventual dismantling of our Criminal Code or such disarray or uncertainty amongst the judiciary, law enforcement agents, lawyers and, most importantly, the general public that this type of confusion would further undermine an already very sceptical and cynical public.

The Department of Justice has been asked for commentary on this particular section, among others, such as self-defence and the defence of property, but in particular the defence of provocation. This is an extremely useful exercise.

It is important to say at the outset that provocation is not a complete defence, as has been mentioned. It mitigates, it brings a murder charge into a manslaughter situation and denotes a lesser degree of culpability.

Concern over the issue of the defence of provocation stems from societal progress. In the early 1990s critics felt that this section of the Criminal Code promoted outdated values and was used to defeat modern egalitarian principles. However, it affords a degree of protection that is legitimate, perhaps limited at times, and as a blanket statement it does not lower or lessen the level of accountability in all cases.

Currently the Criminal Code allows for the defence of provocation. However, in recent years the nature, the use and the existence of this law has become more narrowly defined. The objective and the subjective tests that are incorporated into this section provide some degree of protection.

Moreover, the successful use of the defence of provocation in a number of well publicized cases raises public concern. However, there is no suggestion here that this law condones violence in any way, shape or form. In a legal sense it takes into consideration the deprivation of a person's reason and ability to respond rationally and proportionately to a very stressful situation. Where they might have acted otherwise, the defence of provocation does particularize and individualize the law.

I do not believe for a moment that the law condones violence. In fact the law protects those who find themselves in this condition of mental anguish or distress. This condition could stem from an extreme situation, such as mental, physical or emotional abuse. Therefore, persons who found themselves reaching that point of distress should not be deprived of the ability to raise this issue at trial, not for the purposes of completely removing responsibility for their actions, but for the purposes of putting a particular scenario into a particular circumstantial scenario before the trier of fact and the jury.

The Criminal Code can protect persons if it remains in its current form where non-partisan judges are left to interpret the code and hand down a decision that will address the needs and concerns of modern society. Specific interpretations or specific factors, such as age, race, sex or religion, are taken into account when a judge is faced with weighing the applicability of provocation. A taunt or the provocative action or remark is also taken into consideration, so it is very much an individualized and tailored piece of legislation.

Issues of self-defence and defence of property have also been singled out for change.

Again, I commend the member because this is a very timely intervention. It is fair to say that it is an extremely complicated and confusing section of the Criminal Code that requires greater study and greater definition under the current provisions.

The Department of Justice has expressed a desire to look at these proposed changes. As was previously mentioned, it has already made certain recommendations as they pertain to the defence of provocation.

With respect to dealing with this particular motion, the Department of Justice has expressed that willingness. As we have seen with other cases, and particularly situations involving changes to the Criminal Code, this government does not exactly have a great record to stand on in terms of its timeliness of response, but hope burns eternal in this regard. One would hope that the non-partisan level of debate that we have heard here will also prevail when it comes time to look at this situation at the committee.

Issues dealing with the legality involved in the interaction between men and women are in a constant state of flux in today's society. Working toward creating a level playing field is a constant challenge to our legal drafters, as well as those who are left to interpret these laws. We cannot either change the law as frequently as society changes or react in a very shortsighted way when occasion occurs.

I commend the hon. member again for taking the initiative to bring this matter forward. The Progressive Conservative Party is not opposed to looking at this matter further at the justice committee or perhaps even looking at making specific amendments to the bill that has been brought forward.

The wording is what troubles me. I am afraid that it would be perhaps pre-emptive and an overreaction to simply remove this from the Criminal Code at this time.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the remarks of the hon. member. He has quite correctly pointed out that this is not about simplistic approaches. He listed some of the beneficial changes that have occurred under this government's administration.

There should not be the usual sanctimonious tone that we are becoming so accustomed to in suggesting this Liberal government is the only government that has ever enacted anything positive to the Criminal Code or anything that had a beneficial impact on Canadians.

With respect to one element of his speech concerning organized crime, organized crime is becoming a growing problem on the streets and in the communities throughout the country, particularly in coastal areas in places like Nova Scotia where I come from which has a very vulnerable coast line with contraband material and drugs coming into the country.

The hon. member is being a bit economical with the truth when he suggested this government has somehow done a great deal to combat organized crime considering the $74 million that was taken out of last year's organized crime budget.

I would like to hear a little more detail as to what is actually being done by this Liberal government to combat increasing organized crime in Canada.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I know he has a personal interest in such matters.

The short, flippant answer to what is going on in the government's mind would be, not very much. However, to delve into this situation and to put it into perspective, the cadet training college has been closed for upwards of four months now. Yes, that may be a short term saving for the government in terms of its bottom line which, as we know, is what is driving the finance minister these days. However, the bottom line is also that the short term gain is going to result in very long term pain.

As the hon. member has pointed out, much like the nursing shortage that is going to emerge in this country in years hence, the same could be said of policing.

The RCMP is a very proud institution with a great deal of history, but officers need proper training. Even with the reopening of the facility, there is talk about shortening the actual training period.

This comes down to a very shocking decision with respect to priorities on the part of the current government. Why it would do so is beyond me. Most individuals with whom I have talked in the policing community or in law enforcement find that this is simply a staggeringly shortsighted decision.

I commend the government for at least having recognized that it was a mistake in the first place and for reopening it; however, I cannot help but make the analogy with the current budget. The government is basically coming in the back door, taking out the furniture and the television, and wheeling an old rocking chair in the front door. It is taking out more than there was in the system in the first place.

I thank the hon. member for the question. I hope that greater emphasis and greater priority will be placed on criminal justice and on the training of officers so that in the years and months to come we will have a sufficient police force, a sufficient pool of trained officers to draw from so that Canadian communities will once again receive and enjoy a level of protection. There is a thin red line of protection—and I use red because we are talking about police scarlet letters—that exists between the policing community and the community itself, and the protection which it has come to respect and deserve from the criminal element.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and always an honour to rise in the House to debate issues of such substance. I commend the hon. member who brought the multifacted issue before the House for debate. It touches on a number of very important subject areas.

Many criminal justice debates that take place in the House are done on what one might describe as a visceral level. It is fair to say that issues such as child pornography, sentencing or truth in sentencing certainly conjure up very strong emotions for individuals throughout the country, particularly those who are most affected. I am speaking of victims.

It is fair to say that significant steps have been made in the past number of years to address the inadequacies and the injustices that exist with respect to the treatment of victims in our criminal justice system. I would even go so far as to praise the justice minister for having recognized this.

I would also take the opportunity to praise the late Shaughnessy Cohen for her work on the justice committee as chair and in heading up a round table discussion in Ottawa that included many stakeholders in our justice system as it pertained to victims rights.

I will speak more specifically to some of the elements of the motion before the House today. When we speak to issues such as the recent decision out of British Columbia in the case of the Queen v Shaw that talks of the ability of a person to possess child pornography, it certainly conjures up a statement made by a law professor, Victor Goldberg in Nova Scotia, at Dalhousie University, when he said that bad facts make for bad law.

Often times we tend to get caught up in an individual case and hold it out as the standard or as an example of how the law should change. Often times that is a useful exercise, but we have to be very careful because proportionality and a measured response are implicitly important in the criminal justice system.

That is not to say that I or members of the Progressive Conservative Party in any way, shape or form condone the decision that was made with respect to child pornography. The suggestion that we brought forward was that it was an instance where there should have been direct intervention from the justice minister. There should have been an immediate response.

In cases such as that one the public perception is very important. For justice to be done it must be seen to be done. This is an old legal maxim from the myths of antiquity. Having practised law, Mr. Speaker, you would understand the importance of responding quickly but proportionately.

What should have happened and what we respectfully submit should have taken place in this instance was that the justice minister had an opportunity to refer it immediately to the top court to have the Supreme Court of Canada issue a ruling on the case immediately so that there would be clarification for law enforcement agents. There would be clarification for judges, in particular in the province of British Columbia, but right across the land. There would be a renewed sense of confidence in our justice system that is so sorely lacking these days.

I want to touch briefly on the changes that have been brought forward through this new legislation, the youth criminal justice bill, which was tabled last week in the House. Again I cannot help but feel some sense of regret and a sense that it was a missed opportunity by the Minister of Justice to bring forward perhaps more meaningful legislation that would resonate across the country and restore the sense of justice.

It is fair to say that over the past number of years there has been a constant disintegration and erosion of our confidence as it pertains in particular to the way our laws apply to young people in this country.

The law itself is not all bad. The philosophy of the Young Offenders Act I think is one that we all agree with and one which we all embrace, and that is that young people do in fact have to be held to a different standard than an adult, a mature person. However, this particular legislation, rightly or wrongly, has been perceived as something that was set up to protect a young person as opposed to protecting society. At the end of the day, what justice in this country is all about is ensuring that those who choose to live within the ambit of the laws that have been formulated over the years and put in place through precedent and legislation are protected. Those laws are there to protect people who choose to live that life.

There are those who step outside those laws. They choose to do so for a reason. There are all sorts of philosophies about how criminal behaviour stems from poverty and many social ills, mental illness and others. However, at the end of the day the public has a right to be protected from those individuals, whatever the cause. They have the right to feel safe in their homes. They have the right to feel safe walking down the streets of their communities. They have the right to feel that when their children leave the house in the morning they will return home safe and sound.

What we have to do is ensure that those laws are not only properly in place but properly upheld and interpreted.

There has been much to do and much talk in recent days and months of judicial activism and the accountability level of our judges in this country. It is a very slippery slope when we begin to openly criticize our judiciary. They are entrusted with perhaps one of the most important jobs that can be performed in this country. In fact I would go so far as to say that judges, in the day to day carrying out of their duties, the individual discretion which they can exercise in a courtroom is perhaps one of the most powerful, most compelling employment situations that we see, perhaps even more so than an elected official, perhaps even more so than the Prime Minister.

It is vitally important that those judges are given the tools and the laws to enforce what they feel is appropriate in the circumstances.

The young offenders legislation I suggest was a missed opportunity to perhaps give those judges greater tools, with respect specifically to lowering the age of accountability. Members opposite have made a great deal of this situation, saying that members of the opposition are advocating a very strict hammering approach that would see young people, 10 or 11 years old, thrown in jail. That is not the suggestion and I have not heard anyone espouse that position.

We are talking about a mechanism that would put in place the ability to trigger some form of social reaction that would bring a young person into the system at the earliest possible instance. Early intervention is what it is all about, the pre-emptive strike, this approach that has been so vociferously advocated by the government and yet it is overlooking an opportunity to do this. It was from its own justice officials that this idea came forward. I believe there is a failing in that regard.

With respect to the resources that have been allotted to this initiative, this legislative change that is to occur for our young offenders, it is fair to say that there are scarce resources under the existing system of the Young Offenders Act and even with the injection of money that has been proposed this will not adequately compensate those in the social services, those in child welfare, who are going to be utilized even more so under this particular legislation.

It is once again a very tricky shell game that has been brought forward, much like we saw with the budget itself and the suggestion that greater resources were going to be put into health care. It does not compensate for the amount of money that was taken out.

The same can be said of our justice system. Over the past number of years, particularly since 1993, we have seen drastic cuts to our policing services and our social welfare services that work so closely with law enforcement and our judiciary. Mr. Clark, the leader of our party, has made this a priority. He very recently held a press conference to point out the inadequacies with respect to the funding that has been allotted in particular to our national police force, the RCMP.

We are very glad to see that the decision has been made to reopen the RCMP cadet college in Regina, but there is the obvious question: Who closed it? Who made that priority decision to stop training police officers in this country?

It comes down to political decisions and political will to change the law. There is an ever present opportunity on behalf of the government to respond with laws that are not only appropriate but which address the problems being brought to light by members of the opposition and by members of the government.

As we speak, there is a bill at the justice committee to increase the discretion of a judge to allow for consecutive sentences for the worst of all possible crimes, the most heinous crimes perpetrated in today's world, such as sexual assault and murder. This bill came from a government member, yet the resources and the effort being made by her own party are extremely discouraging when one considers the effect which the adoption and imposition of this bill could bring at the end of the day.

I am very pleased to have an opportunity to discuss these most important issues. We are in the process of bringing about, hopefully, much needed change to impaired driving legislation. This has been itemized as something of great priority in this country. The issue of drug trafficking and organized crime has also been given a keynote appearance in this debate. We hope there will be further debate on these very important issues. We in the Progressive Conservative Party embrace the opportunity to participate in this debate.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the chronicle by the previous speaker is so accurate. All this was of course set out in the red book, which is almost as red as some of the government members' faces whenever these inconsistencies are brought up.

I think the hon. member does raise a very good point when he talks about the actual issue here being sovereignty. It is not so much sovereignty. The Bloc, in fairness, has brought this motion forward to examine the issue, an issue that is taking place everywhere else in the world and, as previous speakers have indicated, something that is very likely going on right now in the Department of National Revenue. The issue is not necessarily about sovereignty today. It is about examining something that needs to be looked at.

We want to make it very clear. I do not know if there is some hidden agenda here that was alluded to by the hon. member. Perhaps we should beware the ides of March. The Conservative Party is not supportive in any way, shape or form of having a dollar tied to the Americans or having a common currency. We are supporting, however, looking at this issue further in a committee. That is the position we are putting forward.

[Young Offenders Act, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, on the subject of the criminal justice system for young offenders, the Minister of Justice noted that members of gangs that help carry out crimes could be charged.

I wonder how a person could be charged for being an accomplice to a crime when it is not possible to charge the youths committing the primary offence.

[Young Offenders Act, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, massive Liberal cuts to transfer payments for programs like child welfare and social services have left Canadians with a very tattered social safety net.

The new criminal youth justice act will now divert non-violent youth offenders into an already overburdened system. Since 1993, cuts to existing programs currently prevent youth from getting the necessary direction they need. This coupled with the refusal by the minister to strive for a 50% share of administrative costs smacks of double talk.

How will the minister's youth criminal justice act deal with reformation for non-violent youth without greater resources?

[Young Offenders Act, March 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am also very pleased to take part in this important debate which, as has been mentioned several times already, is a real tribute that the hon. member for Surrey North has paid to the memory of his son.

Aside from some of the rhetoric that tends to emerge in debates such as this, I will not say there is no merit in some of the changes that have been brought about through this legislation. However, I do believe there is also a great deal of missed opportunity when I read through some of these sections, in particular the subject of this debate under Bill C-260, parental responsibility.

This section, proposed in its current form, is very commendable. It will have an effect, one hopes, in terms of sending the proper message to parents and guardians who are predisposed to ignore the conditions put in place by a court.

However, there is a misconception about the actual effect this will have on the ability of the courts to hold a parent or guardian responsible for the actions of a young person. This is after the fact treatment. This is not the ability of the courts to have any true sanctions against a parent ignoring or abdicating their responsibilities for their young person, whether their child or a person for whom they are acting as a parent.

The wrong impression that many have is that somehow through some sanctions a person will be brought into court if their child has been accused or is being charged with an offence before the courts and that somehow the courts will actually be able to hold the parent or guardian accountable. That is not the case at all. It is important for that to be clarified.

This amendment through the new young offenders legislation will allow the courts to hold criminally responsible a parent in certain cases. For example, a young person enters the process and is released on a form of recognizance, which is merely a contract to the court to comply with certain conditions such as a curfew, non-association, an abstention from contacting a person or place or staying away from drugs and alcohol if they were involved in the commission of an offence. If that young person does not comply with those court ordered conditions and the parent or guardian who signs that contract similarly with the court is not holding up that standard, which would be expected, if they abdicate that responsibility and willfully do not ensure that every effort is made to ensure that the young person complies, then they can be charged criminally and brought into court.

This section will accomplish that. It also raises the level of accountability because it brings it from a six month maximum to a two year maximum, making it instead of just a summary offence a hybrid offence. It does accomplish that and does so with the best of intentions. The member for Surrey North should receive great accolades and great congratulations for this.

In the broader scheme we need to take a more holistic approach when it comes to youth justice. We need to ensure there is an entry level emphasis and a proactive approach taken. In order for that to happen the existing social services, child welfare and the social welfare net, need to be enhanced and up to par. Currently that is not the case.

When we talk about an integrated approach and this new legislation working cheek and jowl, hand in glove with existing legislation that unfortunately will not happen.