Peter MacKay

[Nunavut Act, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to this bill.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-57. I thank my colleague from the New Democratic Party for permitting me to speak before her. I also want to indicate to the Chair that I will be splitting my time with the member for St. John's East.

This bill will amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut court of justice. It will also amend other acts as a consequence. It is a very important step in our justice system.

I would commend my colleague from South Shore who has been a strong and vigorous spokesperson, not only on behalf of his riding, but on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party and all Canadians with respect to his responsibilities as critic for the Indian and northern affairs portfolio.

I also want to take the opportunity to commend the efforts of the hon. member for Nunavut. Although we do not share the same political affiliation, I know the member is deeply committed to achieving progress for her constituents as they enter the 21st century as residents of Canada's newest territory.

Her participation in Tuesday night's hockey game also showed that she is one of the Liberal Party's smoothest skaters. I look forward to hearing her provide some lessons to her less limber and perhaps less timber happy colleagues, especially the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Before I begin my remarks on Bill C-57 I want to highlight an often overlooked participant in the creation of the Nunavut territory. He was a leader with foresight and vision who pursued an aggressive and activist agenda. He was the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, who as prime minister set the wheels in motion to establish the Nunavut territory by signing the Nunavut land claims agreement in 1992. The creation of Nunavut is yet one more reason why Mr. Mulroney was named a Companion to the Order of Canada. Furthermore, it was under his government, as well as that of the Right Hon. Joe Clark as constitutional affairs minister, that aboriginal people became full participants at formal constitutional negotiations for the first time in Canadian history.

It was refreshing to hear the Minister of Finance say a few weeks ago that it was because of the PC government's economic plan that the budget is now balanced. It cannot be stressed enough that it was the previous Progressive Conservative government which gave aboriginal peoples a voice at the constitutional table, a voice through a royal commission, a voice through the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and a voice for our Inuit people now through the signing of the Nunavut land claims agreement.

Today we are debating another piece of legislation that was introduced by a government with a proud legacy, that is, the government of the Progressive Conservative Party. Although our party's ambitious policies were unpopular at the time, history has shown that it was by and large the Progressive Conservative Party that brought forward these initiatives for the betterment of Canada.

Bill C-57 deals with the best way of providing a court system for Nunavut, which is a new and expansive territory. There have been those who object to granting the people of Nunavut a single court system. They may object, on the basis of jurisdictional concerns, that this bill would create an intrusive precedent. They may object on the basis that this bill might somehow violate the equality provisions of the charter of rights and freedoms and create constitutional problems. I believe this piece of legislation addresses those problems in a fair and practical way.

As the justice critic for our party, I do not share the objections that have been raised by some opposition members. Bill C-57 appears to recognize the unique circumstances in which the people of Nunavut live. First and foremost in this unique environment is that the Inuit people will form a strong majority of the Nunavut population; 17,000 of the 22,000 residents or 77%. Nunavut's territory also represents approximately one-fifth of the overall size of Canada, yet its population is only 22,000, less than one-quarter of 1% of the entire population.

In that context, let us compare Nunavut's size and population with other jurisdictions. Nunavut's 1.9 million square kilometres fall just under the figure for Greenland. Nunavut is five times the size of Germany, four times the size of Sweden and one-fifth the size of China. With those expansive territorial boundaries we must factor in population distribution. Nunavut only has one-hundredth of one person for every square kilometre of its physical territory. Canada, as a whole, has nearly three people living per square kilometre. Ontario has 11 people per square kilometre.

Nunavut's main human and territorial characteristics are not only unique to Canada, they are unique to the entire world. For example, Nunavut has only 20 kilometres of highways.

Moreover, there is disparity between communities. The largest community is its future capital, Iqaluit. More than 3,000 people call Iqaluit home.

The community is located approximately 2,000 kilometres from Ottawa and the average temperatures range from -30° Celsius in January to 15° Celsius in July. Iqaluit residents experience 24 hours of daylight in June, while they find no more than six hours of daylight in the month of December.

Grise Fiord is Nunavut's most northern community. In fact, I believe it is one of Canada's most northern communities and it is a community I had the pleasure to visit some time ago. It is a full 2,700 kilometres from the capital. The population is only about 130 people, who experience an average temperature of -35° Celsius in January. These hearty souls also live in 24 hours of daylight in June and around the clock darkness in December.

I experienced a number of challenges practising law in rural Nova Scotia. At that time I always found it a pleasure to work with the law enforcement community and those who administer our criminal justice system. By and large, I found that many of those individuals work long, hard hours and go above and beyond the call of duty, like police officer George Mageney in the community of Stellarton, in my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, who I have a great deal of time and respect for.

It is nevertheless difficult for me, drawing upon my own experience, to perceive how court proceedings as they relate to criminal, civil or family law, would occur effectively and efficiently in such a large jurisdiction as this new territory. With such a small population and with such diverse communities, this will truly pose an incredible challenge to the people of this new territory of Nunavut.

However, as has been mentioned previously, Bill C-57 amends several existing federal statutes. It amends the Nunavut Act to establish a single level of trial court at the superior court level, to be known as the Nunavut Court of Justice.

It amends the Judges Act to provide for three superior court judges on the Nunavut Court of Justice and also to provide for full membership in the Canadian Judicial Council for senior judges in each of the territories.

It amends, most consequently, the Criminal Code to provide for new structures and procedures for the Nunavut Court of Justice in the following areas: jurisdiction of judges; summary conviction appeals; a new statutory form of release; judicial interim release; and elections as to a mode of trial.

All of those technical changes that occur within our Criminal Code are encompassed in Bill C-57.

It also amends the Young Offenders Act to ensure adequate structures and procedures for a single level of trial court, consistent with the new structures and procedures in the Criminal Code.

I believe the drafters of this legislation should be credited because it does mesh nicely with the existing provisions of the code.

I therefore welcome Bill C-57 as a positive measure that recognizes the unique characteristics and conditions of the people and the territory of Nunavut. However, I have a number of concerns which were not completely addressed at the justice committee by the minister and her officials.

The first concern deals with the greater use of justices of the peace. The Department of Justice believes that with appropriate training there is potential for greater use of justices of the peace to conduct preliminary inquiries and in some cases summary conviction trials. I endorse this concept. My concerns mainly arise out of the training and the funding for such training that will ensure that those who appear before these justices of the peace will receive adequate treatment under the law, the same treatment that they would receive from a properly ordained justice, if I can use that term.

I share the belief of many that the greater use of justices of the peace would not only benefit this single justice system in Nunavut, but also some of the courts, as our friends in Nunavut would say, in southern Canada, that is, the rest of Canada.

If the role of justices of the peace is to expand, training must be assured. Unfortunately, responsibility for this training falls solely under the responsibility of the Nunavut territorial government. So the federal government is once again, in some instances, able to wash its hands clean and download to a territory or a province. It is therefore problematic for the federal government, through Bill C-57, to open the door for increased responsibilities for justices of the peace without assuring that they will in fact be able to fund this new initiative.

We need only look at the federal government's downloading of the funding of the young offender programs in the rest of Canada to fear that similar problems could arise in Nunavut.

We need to ensure that Bill C-57 accurately reflects both the needs of Nunavut and the obligation of the Government of Canada to protect the due course of justice.

I join my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus to support the bill as it is very positive in content. Let us continue to build upon the legacy of Inuit self-government left by the Progressive Conservative government.

[Young Offenders, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last spring, the Minister of Justice announced that her government would be introducing a new young offenders bill.

Winter is now at our door, but the minister has not delivered on her promise. Canadians from coast to coast are sick and tired of waiting.

When will the minister act on her promise to introduce the legislation this country so badly needs?

[Guysborough County, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, once again the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is making decisions that are costing jobs in Guysborough County, Nova Scotia.

In July I joined with the town of Canso, the Canso Trawlermen's Co-op and the local chapter of the Canadian Auto Workers in supporting Seafreez's request to the minister that the Canso plant continue to be allowed to process turbot caught by foreign offshore vessels.

Had the minister acted promptly, 300 jobs would have been created during the first six months of 1999. Moreover, Canso trawlermen would have had the opportunity to work on offshore vessels.

Instead, DFO waited five months before finally granting the request from Seafreez. Instead of 300 jobs for six months, the people of Canso and surrounding communities will be lucky to get 150 jobs for six weeks.

Meanwhile, there will be no offshore jobs for the trawlermen because of DFO's unacceptable foot-dragging.

On behalf of Guysborough County, I urge the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to be more prompt in his decisions and start to work with our local people in bringing prosperity and hope to the local fishery workers and their families.

[Organized Crime, December 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I also want to begin by congratulating the new solicitor general, who is an Atlantic Canadian. I can certainly say that he is going to have his hands full in the next number of months.

I must say that today's statement is an absolute and utter disappointment coming from the solicitor general. It really consists of nothing more than another promise in a long line of promises from the Liberal government to introduce new anti-money laundering legislation.

This is the fourth time in two years that the Solicitor General of Canada has made this specific promise. The present minister is the third consecutive minister to make the promise.

Let me refresh the memory of the current solicitor general.

In September 1996, at a summit on organized crime, the solicitor general of the day spoke of the grave concerns with the same grave words used by the solicitor general today regarding the increased threat posed by organized crime.

The solicitor general at that time promised to introduce new legislation to enact new financial reporting requirements regarding suspicious transactions and cross-border money movement.

Thirteen months ago, in November 1997, the solicitor general's immediate predecessor stood in the House and delivered his first and last ministerial statement on organized crime. He too promised anti-money laundering legislation.

In April of the same year, the same solicitor general reiterated the same promise to yet again introduce anti-money laundering legislation at an organized crime summit.

While the government held summits and made promises, organized crime continued to increase and flourish in this country. In particular, Canada has earned the unsavoury international reputation as one of the better places in the world for criminals to hide their illegal cash. That is not a partisan comment on my part. That is the conclusion of the U.S. State Department.

In its annual report on the international narcotics control strategy, the State Department of the United States called Canada “an easy target for drug related and other types of money laundering”. The report also put Canada in the same low category as Brazil and the Cayman Islands for its organized crime. The U.S. State Department also cited Canada's weak money laundering laws as the main reason our country is viewed as a safe haven for many international criminals.

More promises from this solicitor general are not good enough. The law enforcement community is tired of the promises and is tired of hearing about pending legislation. They want action.

It is not unlike the Minister of Justice, who has repeatedly expressed her commitment to table young offender legislation in this House. We are still waiting.

In August 1998, a senior CSIS official said that organized crime in this country was at a crisis level. It is ironic that yesterday's report from CSIS indicated that there are international crime syndicates operating in this country. They have identified 18 international crime syndicates operating at this time.

This government's repeated broken promises to introduce new legislation against organized crime have kept Canada's doors open.

I am also extremely disappointed that the solicitor general decided not to address the organized crime funding crunch in any meaningful way in his remarks. The platitudes ring quite hollow for all law enforcement agencies when they do not see the dollars coming from this government to back them up. Simply recognizing the problem is not good enough. Calling it serious is not good enough.

Initiatives in pending legislation do not cut it. Last spring I challenged the solicitor general of the day to justify the $74 million cut in this fiscal year to the RCMP's organized crime budget. The solicitor general said that my information was wrong, much in the same way he denied having an inappropriate conversation with Fred Toole, much in the same way the Minister of Transport denied allegations today.

Those allegations came from the commissioner of the RCMP and the auditor general. The fact is that the RCMP in their documents indicate that $74 million or 13% was cut from RCMP funding for policing services.

This was reaffirmed in a letter of July 1998 from the RCMP commissioner. The one and only strategic priority of the RCMP federal policing services is protection against organized crime.

Specific responsibilities of federal policing services include the government's anti-smuggling initiative, proceeds of crime, coastal enforcement, immigration enforcement and the criminal intelligence program. These areas are all in decline.

How does the solicitor general honestly expect this House or the RCMP, our national policing organization, to do its job in fighting organized crime when the budget has been absolutely gutted by the finance minister? Both the solicitor general's predecessor and the RCMP commissioner publicly called for more resources to combat organized crime. Front line police officers in every major Canadian city from St. John's to Vancouver are overwhelmingly asking that this resource be allocated.

It does not matter what the solicitor general says unless he is prepared to back up the words. The presence of biker gangs on the streets of Canada is becoming all too common a sight. The strongest message that the solicitor general could give today against organized crime would be to restore funding. Instead we get more of the rhetoric that we have heard time and time again.

Today's statement by the new solicitor general provided him with a golden opportunity to put his own stamp on his new ministry and to prove that he is more than just a nice guy who is busy undergoing on-the-job training.

RCMP, CSIS, corrections officers, customs officers and all of our law enforcement officers deserve our congratulations, particularly given what they are working with these days. I urge the new solicitor general, if nothing else, if he really wants to do something about organized crime, to visit the finance minister and make a strong pitch for what is needed, more funding.

[Criminal Code, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Mothers Against Drunk Driving recently highlighted the sad fact that more than a year has passed since the justice committee agreed to review the impaired driving provisions of the Criminal Code with the goal of amending the present statute. Although the committee's work is under way, public hearings are not scheduled to begin until February of next year.

Let us contrast this approach with my home province of Nova Scotia where the legislative assembly unanimously passed legislation to toughen drunk driving laws just two weeks after the bill was tabled.

I congratulate Nova Scotia Conservative leader John Hamm for sponsoring this legislation and getting Liberals and NDP to put aside partisan bickering and advance the positive measures that will crack down on drunk driving.

With the holiday season upon us, let us in the House follow Nova Scotia's example of non-partisan participation in expeditiously strengthening drunk driving provisions of the Criminal Code.

[Privilege, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this place.

I gave you notice of this matter of privilege, and each party House leader, with respect to a news release yesterday by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. I have sent Mr. Speaker a copy of this but it is short enough that I would like to read it. It is dated December 2:

The Minister of Public Works and Government Services today announced the creation of the Parliamentary Buildings Advisory Council to provide advice on the Parliament Hill renovations.

“The Parliamentary Buildings Advisory Council will provide an important support mechanism to the renovation projects of Parliament Hill”, said [the minister]. “The Advisory Council will aim to make a valued contribution to improving the level of information, consultation and co-operation on preserving these important heritage assets”.

The Parliamentary Buildings Advisory Council will be comprised of membership from the private and public sectors, including: representatives of the Senate; House of Commons; the Library of Parliament; the National Capital Commission; Canada Heritage; as well as representatives of the private sector architectural and engineering professional associations.

The Advisory Council will be an independent advisory board that will advise the Minister of PWGSC, as the authority accountable for the Parliament Hill renovations.

These texts are also available in French.

I have been disturbed for some time by the cabinet's attitude toward parliament. Ministers seem to take great pride in avoiding interaction with this House. A dangerous culture grew in the last parliament in which cabinet ignored this House and its members. I can count on one hand the number of ministerial statements that have been made since this parliament reconvened. Those statements have been most often and appropriately prompted by expressions of public sympathy for disasters, yet they have not been announcements by government on policy or matters that should be brought to the attention of this House in the first instance. The House of Commons is the place where the government is most answerable to the people who elected the members of this Chamber.

A culture of spin doctoring and media manipulation appears to have grown. To date this House has been prepared to ignore it and to remain silent, while our right to be informed of government action and policy decisions has been superseded by default by government to the news releases. It appears there is no one in this place, nor in government who asks whether this is an announcement that should be made by the minister to parliament. It is time for the House to draw a line in this regard. I think that everyone in this place would agree.

Mr. Speaker, two days ago, in response to pleas from the opposition House leader, you admonished the fact that there were alleged leaks. You quite properly appealed to members at that time to respect this House. You said: “The best place for announcements is here in this House, where we are. This is where they should be made”.

This situation is very much akin to the situation you were dealing with at that time. It is very similar. This is a ministerial announcement. The place for this to have been made is here in this Chamber. I would suggest there is not a member here who would disagree with that. The minister of public works is dealing with a very important situation at this time.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I attended two meetings at which you and other House officers were present. We met at the Board of Internal Economy. We met with respect to a situation that had arisen in the Chamber coming out of question period. I would wager that you as Speaker were not aware that this ministerial statement was taking place.

As members of this place we are entitled in the first instance to hear in this Chamber of such important matters. Are we not members of this place? Do we not deserve that respect? I am certain that if other members had been aware of this announcement there may have been reference to it. There may have been reference to it at the informal meeting we held in your office, yet there was none. Obviously the government was aware while opposition members were not aware.

The simple fact is that the minister of public works has attempted to avoid the House of Commons on this issue. There is good reason for that. It is becoming plainly obvious to everyone that there are serious problems with this project and the budget that has been attached to it.

The minister may try to play tough guy with the public servants, but we are watching him. This is an abrogation of ministerial responsibility. The minister obviously does not want to listen to the responses of the opposition parties and it is well known that he brooks no opposition. Just ask the public servants who were hung out to dry by the minister before the examination by the auditor general.

As members of parliament we have an obligation to discharge and the place to do that is here in the House. We cannot effectively do so if the ministry is systematically avoiding coming into this House to enter into parliamentary dialogue and exchange.

We have been patient with the government and we have tried to make this place work, although there have been times when it has stumbled.

The public works minister seems to think this place is a museum. He calls this place a heritage asset. But we are here as an asset ourselves to parliament. Although I am not one content to sit on the shelf while the minister of public works runs roughshod over the House of Commons, I suggest that this is an insult and that he owes it to this place to consult and he owes it to this House to make announcements in this place if it is to truly be respected.

The particular museum piece is through with passive acceptance of the norms of the last parliament. We are signalling that this is unacceptable and we invite other members to participate in this question of privilege and to join in this fight to assert that the authority of this House is to be respected, not only by the opposition but by government members as well. Ministers have a duty to this place and to those who use this building.

Canada is not alone in suffering the attack of the spin doctors. Your colleague in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, Speaker Betty Boothroyd, has repeatedly stated: “When there is a major change of policy, a statement should first be made in the House”.

Mr. Speaker, I am mindful of citation 352 of Beauchesne's and I am not arguing that there has been a breach of privilege per se, but I do argue that there is contempt of the House. I would ask you to reserve your decision on this point in order that you may consider the consequences of allowing this conduct to continue and to continue unchallenged by the Chair and by the opposition.

Have we reached the day when this House is so weak willed that we will allow this to occur? Surely that cannot be the case. The time has come for parliamentary assertion of respect, not only for the physical premises, not only for these buildings that the minister of public works seeks to remedy and to fix, but respect for the members and all of the rights and privileges that flow from this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, there is a remedy that goes beyond a simple admonition from the Chair and I ask you to find that there is a prima facie circumstance to permit consideration by the House of a motion instructing the minister of public works to make a statement in the House, fully outlining the government's intention with respect to the restoration of the parliamentary precinct.

Mr. Speaker, this is a request that a statement be made in the House and that perhaps the Speaker also consider issuing an admonition and that the minister apologize. If you are prepared to permit this motion, I would move that that take place and that we refer the matter to a committee, if that is appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come and I believe, in respect to you, that you took a step in that direction yesterday by bringing the House leaders together and looking for solutions that will improve the way this Chamber works. I am appealing to you on this matter. This is not the first time this has happened. In fact it has become the norm in parliament that ministerial statements are made at the press gallery and not on the floor of the House of Commons.

I am a new member of this Chamber, but in the short time that I have been here I have seen this trend continue and I find it absolutely insulting, not only to members of the House but to the Canadian people. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate your consideration of this point.

[Points Of Order, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to add to the remarks of my colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona. He is absolutely right when he says that those who are perhaps the most active in this raucous behaviour that is delaying question period are the direct beneficiaries of that behaviour and that the people who pay the price are those in the smaller parties.

Let us have something else on the record. The loss of two or four questions from the two smallest parties in this House is significant in terms of our overall presentation and our ability to participate in a fair way in the question period process.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal to your sense of fairness and even-handedness that you do intervene and that you move quickly. There should be some consequence for the type of behaviour we have seen displayed.

There are certain members who continuously and repeatedly ask questions that cause this place to deteriorate into an uproar and there seems to be little consequence for that behaviour.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you and ask you to use your discretion in the Chair to move quickly. As has been stated previously by the hon. member from the NDP, there has to be some sense of fairness and justice if question period is to work.

I certainly do not have the experience of the previous member, but in the short time I have been here, in the past number of months, I have seen the deterioration. Perhaps today was an aberration, but I believe that there has been deterioration. There has to be some intervention on the part of the Chair if this behaviour is to stop.

[Firearms Act, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the regulations under the Liberal government's ill-conceived Firearms Act will begin to take effect in this country.

Despite the lack of evidence that this government's law will reduce crime-related activity, despite the spiralling costs to establish a new bureaucracy and despite the Supreme Court of Canada challenge by four provinces and two territories, the Liberal government proceeds at full throttle. Even worse, the Liberals have insidiously spent taxpayers' dollars to surreptitiously promote the Firearms Act as a crime reduction measure when it should be better labelled “the false hope act”.

The opportunity exists for the government to step back from this costly boondoggle. As well intentioned as the legislation might be, the focus should be on real crime prevention and crime fighting initiatives, focusing on the root causes of crime, improving Canadian police investigative computer systems, implementing a DNA data bank registry and allocating more resources to front line policing. Let us put the priorities straight and stop this costly measure now.

[Extradition Act, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate.

It is always a pleasure to participate in debates in this place, particularly with respect to such an important piece of legislation as Bill C-40.

This bill, as previously mentioned, will amend the Canada Evidence Act, the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. It will also amend and repeal other acts as a consequence.

Again, I would like to highlight that it is my pleasure to participate in a debate on such a substantive piece of legislation sponsored by a government that has a well-earned reputation for a light legislative agenda. Moreover, the Minister of Justice and the solicitor general, both former and current, are well known for their great delay in responding to the call of Canadians to bring much needed law and order legislation.

In more simple and less partisan tones, this legislation will essentially merge a 100 year old Extradition Act and the Fugitive Offenders Act into the new and modernized Extradition Act. I share the belief of the parliamentary secretary that the objectives of this bill are certainly positive, beneficial and laudable.

Several events justify the revision and the update of the Extradition Act. Expediency is an important aspect of this legislation, as previously mentioned by my colleague in the New Democratic Party, just as there is a need, I would suggest, for speeding the immigration process, which is also an area of vital concern to this country.

Not only is the current legislation over 100 years old, it does not deal with modern criminality like telemarketing fraud and the use of the Internet to commit offences outside of our jurisdiction. Sadly, criminal activity is keeping pace, if not surpassing, the rate of change in society and technocrime is all too present in our modern world.

The present act is not flexible enough to accommodate changes arising from the globalization of criminal activity such as the drug trade, organized crime and transborder crimes. As previously mentioned by other speakers, organized crime has reached a crisis level in this country. According to our own police and security officers there is a drastic need to intervene.

The Liberal government currently has the impression that Canada, particularly its ports, is open for business. There is an obvious need for legislation to stem the tide of crime.

The Extradition Act was last amended in 1991 by the former Progressive Conservative government. Bill C-31 considerably reduced delays in extradition cases. At that time groups within the law enforcement and security intelligence communities were already requesting a complete overhaul.

The former PC government also passed legislation known as the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, a bill which this House also seeks to amend under the legislation.

Our former government in its legislation, nonetheless, enabled Canada to co-operate more effectively with other countries in the investigation and prosecution of transnational and international crimes, such as acts of terrorism, drug smuggling and money laundering.

Sadly, the U.S. state department's most recent annual international report, the international narcotics control strategy report, listed Canada as currently being one of the more attractive locations to launder illegal cash. Under the Liberals our country falls into the same category as Brazil and the Cayman Islands when it comes to international crime.

There is certainly a need to talk less about fighting international crime or organized crime and a need for more action, something which I hope the new solicitor general will address in his annual ministerial statement on organized crime later this week. I know that all of us in opposition are anxiously awaiting that moment.

As previously mentioned, Bill C-40 proposes to merge the Extradition Act and the Fugitive Offenders Act. The new act would allow Canada to meet its international obligations since it would allow extradition to international criminal courts and tribunals, including war crime tribunals. It is apparent of late that traditional impressions of war crimes have expanded and changed and there is a need for a strong international response.

A person would be extradited under this act if the act was committed outside of Canada, but it would also be considered a crime within Canada, commonly known as double criminality. There are some constitutional experts and lawyers who view this as potentially problematic in this country when it comes to judicial interpretation.

There are requirements for some interpretation of evidence to become more flexible. This would also bring Canadian extradition procedures and practices more in line with other countries. Granted, there must always be safeguards when it comes to the consideration of certain types of evidence, particularly hearsay evidence that is not certified or in some way sworn testimony.

The government, however, hopes that the new legislation will prevent fugitives from considering Canada as a safe haven to avoid facing the judicial system of their own country or the country of origin, where the crime was committed.

The new act also retains the Progressive Conservative amendments of Bill C-31 which were there to maintain the efficient extradition process.

Canadians have continually expressed concerns about Canada's extradition laws. They want to prevent this country from becoming a safe haven that would harbour criminals, criminals who arrive to avoid prosecution within their own countries.

Over the past number of years several high profile cases, such as the Ng, Kindler, Maersk Dubai and Narita Airport bombing cases, have become well known within the country and as well have highlighted and caused Canadians and our extradition partners on the international level to express concerns. These cases have also demonstrated the need to reform and modernize our extradition laws.

I was pleased to add my name to many who objected this summer to the scheduled deportation of former Maersk Dubai crew members in the province of Nova Scotia. New Brunswick Conservative Senator Erminie Cohen played a key role in soliciting support for these brave men and for that we should all thank and praise her.

Perhaps members who continually denigrate the upper chamber should take a page out of Senator Cohen's book and look beyond partisanship. She is one of many senators who work hard to raise issues which are sometimes given short shrift in the House of Commons.

One of the major concerns with the legislation is that Canada requires the countries requesting the extradition of a fugitive to submit their request according to a fairly narrow approach to what is acceptable evidence.

The rules of evidence are relaxed and hearsay evidence is relied upon heavily. Documents from foreign jurisdictions can be received for consideration at an extradition hearing. There is concern with respect to the certification of these documents and their acceptance carte blanche without the ability to cross-examine the subjects of the affidavits or documents.

Safeguards, however, would exist. There would be a great deal of discretion and emphasis placed on the minister to determine whether these documents are acceptable.

However, this creates some difficulty, especially for countries working within a civil law system where they rely on facts and accept a wider variety of forms of evidence which are permissible before the courts. There is a real potential for harm here and reprisals for wrongful convictions know no boundaries.

Other concerns include the difficulty for Canada to meet its international obligations with respect to international criminal courts or tribunals, as Canada cannot extradite a fugitive to such a body under the present regime. Over 100 years ago when extradition legislation was first adopted in Canada, many forms of telecommunications and other forms of communication did not exist, nor did airplanes, nor did the modern forms of transportation.

The current legislation is silent on newer crimes such as telemarketing fraud, theft of information by computer, the use of the Internet to commit an offence in another jurisdiction, and is not flexible enough to accommodate changes arising from the globalization of criminal activities. The increased levels of drug trading, organized crime and transborder crimes obviously come quickly to mind. However, this new legislation does move in that direction.

The increased mobility of individuals is a reality that did not exist but has to be kept in mind when anyone is drafting new legislation. It also highlights the need for effective extradition relations with our international partners. That has become crucial. The world is a smaller place, yet criminals have greater ability to access places where they can hide to escape justice. Following a comprehensive review and consultations with our many partners, we know that the Extradition Act and the Fugitive Offenders Act require major changes to reflect today's procedures and practices.

The bill tabled by the Liberal government will provide a single act that will simplify the extradition process in this country. It will also simplify the process for our partners who wish to extradite a fugitive from Canada back to their country and, reciprocally, for Canada to bring fugitives back to our country. At the same time the bill will provide enhanced protection and safeguards for persons who are the subject of extradition requests, in essence raising the standard of protection.

The proposed legislation would make our extradition process more accessible to foreign states by bringing the extradition processes and practices closer to those of other countries. More important, it would prevent Canadians from being the subject of unfair requests for extradition.

One aspect of the legislation where there is neglect, and it is a common theme for this government, is the issue of funding. We have often seen in this term and in the previous one that the government has passed legislation without any comprehension of the costs that would be associated. The Liberal government has repeatedly talked tough on the issue of organized crime, yet we know from the auditor general's report that it slashed $74 million from the RCMP's organized crime unit in the last fiscal year. It is an apparent contradiction. The words do not appear to be followed by the act.

The Liberal government can no longer deny that the implementation costs of Bill C-68 are skyrocketing. Some estimate that by the time this cumbersome legislation is operating the cost will be in the range of $350 million. Some estimates have gone as high as $500 million.

We are discussing a very important piece of legislation, sponsored by the Minister of Justice, yet there remains a shortfall of $200 million for our national policing services. Since 1993 we know that CSIS has lost more than 20% of its overall employees. No matter how well intentioned this legislation or other pieces of legislation, the government has to recognize that law enforcement agencies need the resources to implement the law. I cannot for the life of me understand how the government expects its law enforcement agencies to do so otherwise.

There were a number of positive amendments proposed at the justice committee. I commend my colleagues for their participation at the committee. Some of the very common sense amendments to correct this legislation pointed out glaring examples of the need for review from a balanced perspective, a non-bias perspective, particularly when it comes to matters of justice.

The participation of criminal lawyers at the justice committee was very significant in the proposal of some of these changes. Some of the changes were implemented and brought forward by members of the opposition. I acknowledge the government's openness with respect to some of those amendments. Unfortunately, however, only some of the amendments were accepted.

My colleague in the Reform Party has highlighted much of their participation. In particular, there is one change that talked of the need to include a definition with respect to Bill C-40 in clause 44 which refers to:

—nationality, ethnic origin, language, colour, political opinion, sex, sexual orientation, age, mental or physical disability or status—

This amendment was very important. Obviously it keeps the definition very much in line with other pieces of legislation, most importantly the charter. It is important to note that the Reform did not propose this exact amendment. In fact the sexual orientation definition was not part of its proposed amendment.

With respect to the amendments the government was amenable to them. It demonstrates the importance of having an opposition do its job, do its homework, be prepared to participate and bring forward useful and meaningful amendments.

One such amendment that has received some attention already in this debate was the increased discretion of the minister with respect to this piece of legislation. It refers to the minister herself or himself, depending on the individual and their ability to assess the situation and determine the appropriateness of the extradition itself. A very significant and subtle balance must exist between the appropriate political authority of the minister in deciding surrender orders or extradition orders and the minister's role in processing these orders.

Proposed amendments were voted down at the committee level which I think would go a long way to meeting that balance. There would be judicial review at some point or perhaps a panel of individuals who would therefore examine the factual scenario to decide the appropriateness of the extraditing country's request.

A higher level of diligence is now placed upon the minister under this piece of legislation. There are significant consequences for a wrongful extradition. There are significant consequences for Canadians in reverse to have to leave this country.

All efforts must therefore be made by the minister to make the significant inquiries to ensure that the request is legitimate and that the documentation which is forwarded is in line with the entire act. I hope that is the intention of the justice department.

It is somewhat contradictory to have the Department of Justice on the one hand limiting the minister's authority with respect to suggested changes to the final appeals process under section 690 of the Criminal Code, when on the other hand in this piece of legislation the department wants the minister to have expanded discretion in determining extradition and surrender orders.

There was another anomaly I wanted to mention which occurred at the justice committee. It was the participation of Kimberly Prost who served as senior counsel for the international assistance group, a key section of the justice department's department of extradition. As I understand it she had full participation in the drafting of at least parts of bill but she did not formally appear before the committee. Of course the government would know the reasons for that.

I am also concerned with the resulting charter implications. These implications were previously mentioned and highlighted by criminal lawyers who appeared before the committee. Particularly under Bill C-40 it is difficult to understand how we will apply the human rights standard adopted in the country under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Despite the flaws and despite the government's intransigence in accepting some of the opposition's amendments, the bill has significant weight and merit that are worthy of support.

Tabling of documents was another aspect that was mentioned and covered by previous speakers. Obviously this is no longer required under this piece of legislation as in other pieces of legislation. It is curious, however, and consistent with the government's approach of talking about transparency that when it comes to putting it into action there appears to be a different level of accountability.

As I previously mentioned, the bill will receive the support of the Conservative caucus. The bill is consistent with the prior Progressive Conservative government's activist approach to modernizing our extradition laws. Perhaps the Senate through its legal and constitutional affairs committee will be more even handed in considering amendments to Bill C-40.

In conclusion, on balance Bill C-40 has many positive measures that outweigh the drawbacks and it is legislation we feel is worth supporting.

[Treasury Board, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there are still a lot of unanswered questions. An internal HRDC report was prepared regarding numerous complaints received from transitional job fund applicants that they were getting phone calls from Liberal Party workers.

The report then concluded that “It is possible to fear that all projects approved or recommended so far have been subject to such calls”. If the Corbeil tollgating scandal was an isolated incident, why were Liberal Party workers harassing transitional job fund applicants during the months leading up to the 1997 election?