Peter MacKay

[Points Of Order, November 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government House leader to table the affidavits which were referred to in numerous exchanges in this House. He advised that he would look into that and they have yet to be tabled.

I am also asking that the letters of resignation that have also been referred to be tabled.

The Prime Minister referred numerous times to a document, again in reference to questions about APEC. I would ask for that document to be tabled.

[Apec Inquiry, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister had such confidence in this process he would not have allowed his solicitor general to twist in the breeze for six weeks.

Why does he persist with Bill C-44 which will allow the government to fire the chair of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission at will. Will the solicitor general admit that a mistake is there? Will the Prime Minister remove this sword that hangs over the public complaints commission in the form of Bill C-44, which further politicizes the entire process?

[Apec Inquiry, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the new solicitor general.

Now that the Prime Minister has one less fall guy it is time to focus on the real issue, that is one of serious political interference by the Prime Minister's Office at last year's APEC summit.

The public complaints commission has never had a mandate to investigate these allegations. The government has an obligation to pursue the truth over the entire APEC affair. When will the new solicitor general, in his first exercise of office, call a complete independent judicial inquiry into the security at APEC?

[Firearms Act, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in the debate today.

The bill brought forward by the hon. member from the Reform Party is consistent with a long held position of the Conservative Party that the registry system under Bill C-68 is ill conceived and is in fact a reactionary piece of legislation that will not accomplish the goals it was set up to achieve.

Although the well intentioned persons who support the legislation have bought in the idea that somehow registering a shotgun will be an effective way for the government to respond to organized crime and violent crime, the sad reality is that this is not the case. Millions and millions of dollars are being spent by the government as a ruse to somehow hold itself up as being in favour of tougher legislation when it comes to the criminal use of firearms.

The reality is that the legislation focuses on law-abiding citizens. We have heard many members of the opposition and government members discuss who it will affect most. It will affect most farmers, fishermen, sportsmen, hunters, collectors, and individuals presently engaged in an activity which under the current law they are lawfully entitled to do. The legislation is now criminalizing with sanctions something that individuals participate in by their own free will, of their own volition.

In all reality one has to question the priorities of the government in the area of justice when it has decided to target law-abiding citizens as opposed to those who have been referred to on this side of the House as being the true criminals, those individuals who make the conscious decision to pick up a firearm and use it for an illegal purpose and not those individuals engaged in lawful activities which they are entitled to enjoy.

Let us get down to the root of Bill C-68. It is a tax on a law-abiding activity. The cost of that bill has become somewhat prohibitive in the minds of Canadians when a person looks at what it will eventually attach as a price tag. The initial assessment of the Minister of Justice who first dreamed up the piece of legislation was to be in the range of $85 million. Within months of its passage and movement in the direction of the gun registry it became clear this was not possible.

By September, the opening session of this year, 1998, the tab had run up to $133.1 million. As we approach the start-up date of December 1, one can only assume that it is in the range of $200 million. As the hon. member for Wild Rose mentioned there are estimates in the range of $500 million to $1 billion, to which he received a lot of heckling and acrimony from the government side.

How much does it cost in human life? Not one iota of evidence suggests that the legislation will save lives. Not one bit of linkage, statistical or otherwise, shows that registering shotguns will somehow save lives. That is simply not the case.

The police reaction to Bill C-68 is quite interesting. There have been statistics from the Canadian Police Association. The Canadian Chiefs of Police have spoken in favour of it. However, frontline police officers, those who are tasked with administering and enforcing the legislation, will tell us very quickly that they would far rather spend their time and efforts fighting real crime, not going with warrants to individual houses based on some premise that they might have a gun stored there illegally or that they might have an unregistered gun. They would far rather spend their time and efforts fighting real crime, not going with warrants to individual houses based on some premise that they might have a gun stored there illegally or that they might have, more important, to tie it to the legislation, an unregistered gun. It will become an overbureaucratic, time consuming exercise. Police officers admit they could spend their time in a far more effective and worthwhile effort helping to keep Canadian streets free from crime.

One questions the priorities. One questions the emphasis the government has placed on Bill C-68. Let us talk about how the bill was originally sold to the general public. There were tremendous statistics showing that the criminal use of shotguns and long guns was impacting on a rise in violent crime. The assistant commissioner of the RCMP wrote to the government and said “Wait a minute. These statistics are wrong. This is not true”.

These statistics were spun to effectively support the government's position that these guns had to be registered. These statistics were wrong. They were grossly exaggerated 10 or 100 times. The same statistics were used in the Supreme Court of Alberta in arguing a case which favoured the government by a slim three to two majority. It has now been appealed further to the Supreme Court of Canada. It begs the question why the government is to go ahead with the registry on December 1 knowing that it is before the courts?

It is always possible when a case goes before the court that judges in their wisdom decide legislation is unconstitutional. It appears that more and more of the provinces and the territories are joining in this effort, this court action, to somehow question the government priority on the issue. If that happens, why would we spend more money? It is another blatant waste of money by the government, throwing bad money after bad to somehow preempt the court. One has to question why the government is choosing to do this, knowing that a court challenge is pending.

It is interesting to note the absence of members of the NDP from this debate. They have been all over the board when it comes to gun registry. It would have been interesting to hear their remarks with respect to this bill.

The spin doctoring that has taken place is something of note. It is increasingly discouraging for Canadians to hear the government misquote statistics and their wishes in the Chamber and outside the Chamber when it comes to gun registry. One can always find statistics to support a position. That is not a difficult thing to do. However when one goes into the court of public opinion, one hears a completely different version of what Canadians want with respect to gun registry.

I want to be very clear in stating that the Progressive Conservative Party is very much in favour of gun control and gun registry, for that matter, when it comes to pistols, the weapon of choice, but registering long guns is simply asinine. It is going in the wrong direction when it comes to trying to fight crime, organized crime or otherwise.

Efforts should be put into shoring up our borders, into putting more money into policing budgets which we know have been drastically cut, and into better legislation aimed at organized crime or more sanctions for the criminal use of firearms. I am sure Canadians would applaud the government for those efforts if it were moving in that direction, but that is not the case.

The spin doctoring that has gone on is remarkable. The government has become very good at it. It has high priced individuals who spin its positions and tell Canadians effectively what it wants Canadians to believe. This is incredibly irresponsible on the part of the government.

The benefits of Bill C-68 are very negligible. One only has to look again at the government's use of statistics. Where are the statistics the government is relying on to say that it will save lives? They are completely absent from the debate because they do not exist. Is that not what it is all about? Should criminal justice not be about protecting people and saving lives?

Bill C-68 does not measure up. It does not meet those requirements. That is why we are supporting the private member's bill that has been brought forward. Let us end it now. Let us stop spending money and throwing bad money after bad to try to register long arms and shotguns that are not weapons of choice when it comes to crime.

The cost is only one aspect of the legislation, the cost and the use the government has made of these statistics. Thousands and thousands of Canadians appeared on Parliament Hill at the beginning of this session to express their outrage as to what would happen with this tax, this burdensome bureaucracy that will be put in place.

Bill C-68 is not indicative of what Canadians want. If anything, Canadians are crying out for a system that is simpler, more direct and delivers what it is supposed to deliver to Canadians.

Bill C-68 certainly does not deliver justice. It creates a false expectation for police and citizens. Police officers are already labouring under a CPIC system that they cannot rely on to be accurate. To suggest that we will have a national gun registry which will prevent a police officer from going to a house and knocking on the door, knowing there is or is not a gun behind that door, is completely asinine. It will not give the confidence police officers need to carry out their task.

Those are the reasons I put forward to support this private member's bill and I urge other members, particularly my colleagues in the NDP, to do the same.

[Solicitor General Of Canada, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we can understand the Deputy Prime Minister's sympathy for an incompetent solicitor general given his personal irresponsibility in the Airbus file two years ago.

The fact remains that the solicitor general's word has now been contradicted. He did in fact discuss sensitive government business in a public place.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister face the reality of the solicitor general's breach of office and personally urge for that minister's resignation?

[Solicitor General Of Canada, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians sadly observed the first solicitor general in history to enter the witness protection program.

The APEC inquiry is mired in conflict, has a limited mandate and has now proven indiscretions by the solicitor general. The Prime Minister should simply pick up the phone and call the solicitor general and fire him. Apparently ministerial responsibility has also gone missing.

Is the government refusing to fire the solicitor general because it is afraid of testimony that he might give at the APEC inquiry? What is more important than ethics?

[Points Of Order, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Deputy Prime Minister in numerous questions during question period quoted from a document, an affidavit, that is well known now to members of this House. Can we please have that affidavit tabled?

[Apec Inquiry, November 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what a wicked web. The APEC panel is in shambles, the RCMP is challenging the process itself, Gerald Morin and the solicitor general are both under suspicion of prejudging the outcome, there are discrepancies, denials, PMO cover-ups and the removal of any hope of a satisfactory conclusion. What will it take for the solicitor general to take responsibility, to act responsible? He has tainted this investigation hopelessly. When will he resign?

[Apec Inquiry, November 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Fred Toole and the member for Palliser filed affidavits that clearly destroy the veracity of the solicitor general. We now have sworn evidence from two people that completely contradicts nearly two months of denials. The solicitor general's story has more changes than the maritime weather. The Deputy Prime Minister has quoted extensively from these affidavits but Mr. Toole is not the person to force the resignation of the minister. When can we expect the solicitor general to do the honourable thing and resign over this matter?

[Criminal Code, November 18th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate and to be supportive of Bill C-207 sponsored by the hon. member New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.

Bill C-207 is straightforward and what I would deem a common sense piece of legislation that would in essence crack down on those who repeatedly trespass on the private property or dwelling houses from which they have already been lawfully prohibited or removed.

As mentioned, the bill would amend section 41 of the Criminal Code to make it a summary conviction offence for a person who has been already lawfully removed or prevented from entering a dwelling house or real property within the previous 24 hours to trespass on that dwelling house or real property.

With such a provision in the Criminal Code, police and the courts would have an additional tool to protect individuals who can be terrorized. As a former crown attorney I challenge any member in this House to stand here tonight and say this would not have a positive effect on keeping criminals away from their victims. It would be an effective deterrent.

In particular, Bill C-207 would give our justice system one more tool to create the ability to combat the serious problem of criminal harassment commonly known as stalking. This is a crime whose victims, more often than not, are women. Criminal harassment has been around for a long time but it has only been codified in recent years.

While I support Bill C-207 I feel that there must be more done specifically to address this problem created by stalkers. As on most issues of concern, the Conservative government actively pursued measures to crack down on stalking.

In April 1993 the hon. Pierre Blais, justice minister of the day, introduced legislation that created for the first time in the history of Canada in legal statute the offence of criminal harassment. This bill quickly received passage in both the House of Commons and the Senate and received royal assent on August 1, 1993.

This was the first of an important series of steps in providing victims of this horrendous crime with recourse within our criminal justice system. Regrettably, the effectiveness of this legislation has since proven to be less than stellar.

In October 1996 the Department of Justice issued a report which evaluated the new law's effectiveness in prosecuting harassment behaviour in the protection of victims of crime.

This report concluded that the offence of criminal harassment was not treated seriously enough by judges and lawyers. Several indicators illustrate this point.

One is that the number of criminal harassment charges withdrawn or stayed by the crown as well as the number of charges withdrawn in exchange for peace bonds are extremely high when compared with charges related to other specific categories of crime. This is something that happens quite often in the context of plea bargains; that is that a criminal harassment charge may be laid in conjunction with another charge, for example assault, and the criminal harassment charge is essentially dealt away.

This illustrates the point that sadly this type of criminal offence has not been as effective as it was originally intended.

The justice department review reported that almost 60% of criminal harassment charges are withdrawn or stayed. It is also disheartening to hear from the justice department's information that 75% of those convicted of criminal harassment receive either probation or suspended sentences. The report concluded that the severity of the sentences imposed by the courts in cases of criminal harassment has not met the expectations in that legislation.

Some members may be asking why is this a problem. It is a problem because the previous criminal record, a record of violence against that same victim, or a record of breaching court orders, does not assure a stronger sanction from our criminal justice system, which is what this legislation in effect is intended to do. It gives crown prosecutors, police officers and ultimately judges greater ability to impose sanctions in response to criminal activity. Moreover, the great majority of accused criminals are released prior to their trial even though many of them had previous criminal records. Many of them had records of previous breaches of courts orders and many of them had been violent to their partners in the past.

The bottom line is that the justice department's report from 1996 seems to indicate that the strong anti-stalking legislation message has not been received by Criminal Code provisions and those who practice law in this country. It has not adequately been implemented.

We need more than a codified definition of criminal harassment. Although I support Bill C-207 and its simple positive intent, we need legislation that extends much further, legislation that would clearly and unequivocally state that Canadian society does not accept this type of crime in any way, shape or form.

I therefore use this opportunity to highlight a related piece of legislation, Bill S-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code respecting criminal harassment and other related matters. Fellow Nova Scotian and Progressive Conservative Senator Donald Oliver introduced Bill S-17 in May.

Many members of the House, particularly members of the Reform Party, have an unfortunate propensity for taking needless cheap shots at the upper house. While the Senate is an institution no doubt in need of change and in need of comprehensive change to reflect Canadians entering into the 21st century, the majority of senators as individuals are making positive contributions in federal legislation. We have witnessed such positive contributions, particularly laudable legislation such as Bill S-13 which was the subject of debate today.

We also have Bill S-11 regarding amendments to Canadian Human Rights Act from Senator Erminie Cohen, sponsored in this Chamber by my caucus colleague from Shefford. We also have another example in Senator Forrestall, another fellow Nova Scotian Conservative, who introduced several successful amendments to the Canada Marine Act this spring. Senator Forrestall's hard work even drew applause from the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, whose New Democratic Party favours outright abolition of the Senate.

Instead of using the Senate as a tired political prop, to which my colleague from Calgary West appears chronically addicted, let us work with senators to ensure that Canadians get the best legislation from this parliament.

In that vein I hope that Bill S-17 presently before the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs will make it to the House. If it does I look forward to obtaining the support of all hon. members and even the sponsor of this bill. Regardless of political affiliation we should be worried about preserving the law in order to help pass good law into being.

Turning back to Bill C-207, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party we speak in favour of it. It is consistent with our party's overall tradition of keeping Canada's streets safe through effective legislation. I cannot say enough, however, that we need more co-operation on all sides of the House to ensure this type of effective legislation passes. Specifically, we need to do more to get tough on stalkers and protect innocent Canadians. This bill goes a long way to accomplish that end.

If we continue to work together and ensure that bills such as Bill C-207 and Bill S-17 are passed there will be no confusion among Canadians as to what the purpose of parliament is, that Canada has a zero tolerance policy with respect to criminal harassment. This is a laudable aim. I urge all hon. members to support this legislation. Again I commend the hon. member who moved this motion.