Peter MacKay

[Extradition Act, October 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-40, an act respecting extradition to amend the Criminal Evidence Act, the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. It will also amend other consequential pieces of legislation and the amendments may have some ripple effect throughout the country in our justice system.

It is truly an honour and somewhat shocking to be speaking on two substantial justice bills on two consecutive days. This is probably the first time since I have been elected to parliament that we have been debating two justice bills in such close proximity.

I am very hopeful and optimistic that this perhaps signals a change in priorities from this government. I am hoping this is a sign of good things to come. Hope burns eternal in that regard. I also hope that the justice minister is not going to find herself on a flight home this weekend with a Liberal seatmate and chat about justice matters in such an open way as her colleague, the solicitor general.

In more simple and less partisan terms this legislation essentially merges our 100 year old Extradition Act and our Fugitive Act into a new and modern Extradition Act. This is following the lead of other countries and the sensible calls from many in our country.

I share the belief of the parliamentary secretary that the objectives of this bill are positive and even noble. Several events justify the revision and update of our Extradition Act.

Not only is it 100 years old but it does not deal with modern criminality. Modern criminality involves such things as telemarketing fraud and the use of Internet to commit an offence in another jurisdiction.

Sadly we have seen a great rise in this type of criminal activity in Canada of late. These technological realities draw attention to just how outdated this legislation has become.

The present act is not flexible enough to accommodate changes arising from within the globalization of criminal activity such as drug trade, organized and transborder crimes.

Organized crime has reached crisis levels in this country. This under a Liberal government comes according to a very reliable source, mainly the police and security officers who are daily forced to deal with this type of activity.

My hope is that this type of legislation will certainly be a step in the right direction and will certainly help stem this rising tide of criminal activity.

The Extradition Act was last amended in 1991 by the former Progressive Conservative government. Bill C-31 considerably reduced delays in extradition cases and at that time groups within the law enforcement community and security intelligence agencies were already requesting a large overhaul of the entire system.

The former Conservative government also passed the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act which also becomes the subject of this debate today. The Conservative government's legislation, however, 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, as I mention this the U.S. State Department's most recent “International Narcotics Control Strategy Report” listed Canada as one of the most attractive locations for laundering illegal cash.

The Liberal government has let our country fall into this category and it is mentioned in the same breath as Brazil and the Cayman Islands. This is not a glowing reference that comes from our international best trading partner, the United States.

Bill C-40 does propose changes to merge the Extradition Act and the Fugitive Offenders Act and this new act would allow Canada to meet its international obligations since it would allow extradition to international criminal courts and tribunals, including war crimes tribunals. A person would therefore be extradited if the act committed is considered a crime in Canada and in that state.

Requirements for some form of evidence would then become more flexible and this would bring Canada's extradition procedures and practices closer or more in line with those of other countries. It raises the level of co-operation and of course we always have expected a high level of co-operation from our trading partner the United States.

The government hopes it would prevent fugitives from considering Canada as a safe haven and avoiding having to come to grips or to face justice within their own country or within Canada depending on where the crime had been committed. This new act also retains the Progressive Conservative amendment to Bill C-31 to maintain an effective extradition process.

Canadians have continually expressed concerns about our extradition laws and they want to prevent their country from becoming this so-called safe haven for fugitives.

Over the past number of years several high profile cases such as Ng, Kindler, Maersk Dubai , which occurred on the high seas and resulted in arrests in the Port of Halifax, and the Narita airport bombing have caused a raised consciousness of some of the shortcomings of the current legislation.

As well, there have been numerous concerns expressed by our extradition partners at the international level and this again demonstrates the need for reform and modernization of this law.

Indeed I was pleased to add my name to the many Canadians who objected this summer to the scheduled deportation of those involved in the Maersk Dubai as witnesses and crew members. New Brunswick Conservative Senator Erminie Cohen played a key role in soliciting support for those brave men who had the courage to come forward and report to authorities the atrocities that occurred on the high seas. I publicly commend her for her efforts in that regard.

One of the other major concerns with this current legislation is that Canada requires countries requesting extradition of a fugitive to submit their request according to a fairly narrow approach to what is acceptable evidence. This creates real difficulty especially for countries working within a civil law system. They are forced to rely on facts and accept a wider variety in terms of the type of evidence that will be admissible.

Other concerns include that difficulty for Canada to meet its international obligations to the international criminal courts or tribunals as Canada cannot extradite a fugitive to such a body under the present regime.

When extradition legislation was adopted in Canada over 100 years ago many forms of telecommunication we now know did not exist, nor did airplanes. The current legislation is silent on some of these newer types of crimes such as telemarketing fraud, theft of information by computer, use of the Internet to commit an offence in another jurisdiction. It is inflexible in that regard.

The increasing mobility of individuals is a reality that did not exist. This again makes it difficult for effective extradition relations with our international partners and again highlights the critical need for changes in this act.

Following a comprehensive review and consultation with many of our partners, the Extradition Act and the Fugitive Offenders Act required many major changes to reflect these modern procedures and practices. This bill tabled by the Liberal government would provide a single act that exemplifies the extradition process in Canada for our partners who wish to extradite a fugitive from Canada to their country or reciprocally for Canada to bring fugitives back to this country to face justice here.

At the same time this will would also provide enhanced protection and safeguards for persons who are the subject of an extradition request.

It is a well known maxim that we do not take our charter rights outside of Canada. But this does set up certain guidelines that will ensure that Canadian rights are protected both within and outside our country.

This proposed legislation would bring the extradition process into the 20th century and certainly make it more accessible to foreign states, bringing our extradition procedures and practices closer to those of other countries and, more important, prevent Canada from becoming a safe have for fugitives who want to avoid facing the full brunt of the law in countries where they commit crimes.

One aspect of the legislation that is neglectful and where there is a common theme is that of financing. The government passes law apparently without any appreciation of the cost. Most recently we have seen pronouncements from the solicitor general with respect to organized crime. His tough talk on organized crime is resonated throughout the policing community. Yet at the same time we learn from the auditor general that $74 million has been cut from the RCMP organized crime budget for this fiscal year, a very apparent and shocking contradiction.

The Liberal government passed Bill C-68 and will no longer deny that the implementation cost is now in the range of $350 million when the former justice minister told us at the time that the cost would be $85 million. Some estimates place the eventual cost at somewhere in the range of $.5 billion to $1 billion.

So we are now discussing two bills sponsored by the Minister of Justice. Yet there remains a shortfall of over $200 million in the national policing services. Since 1993 CSIS has lost more than 20% of its employees and its operating budget again is in decline. No matter how well intentioned this legislation, how does the government expect its law enforcement agencies to enforce this type of law without adequate resources for front line policing?

But the police soldier on. I have had the pleasure of working with many police in our country, officers like Kevin Scott—

[Apec Summit, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there are double standards around here lately.

The solicitor general needs to be one of the most discreet and security conscious members of the cabinet, as does the Minister of Justice. He needs to be trusted by our police, our intelligence, agents and our allies. In one conversation the solicitor general destroyed that trust. He spoke of APEC, Frank Moores and a pork barrel project in his riding. He cannot separate the private from the public.

This is inappropriate behaviour on his part. It is a firing offence. When will the solicitor general resign?

[Apec Summit, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in 1996 the Prime Minister accepted the resignation of the member for Don Valley East when he breached the government's supposed ethical standards.

Yesterday the solicitor general admitted to discussing the location for the centre for correctional justice, a cabinet decision that could lead to a commercial advantage to insider information from the solicitor general.

Will the Prime Minister please explain why the member for Don Valley East lost his cabinet position and the solicitor general keeps his? Why the double standard?

[Criminal Code, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, a fellow Bluenoser. He is obviously very aware of the fact that Nova Scotia in particular, because of its extensive coastline is very vulnerable to the importation of illegal drugs and other contraband material.

With respect to any number of the questions he posed, regarding Canada's increased foreign aid as a means of attacking the continued worldwide problem of production of drugs by less financially sound countries, it may sound somewhat shallow but my initial reaction is that we have a great deal to do in our own country first.

Canada has had a wonderful international reputation for having given foreign aid to any number of countries, in any number of causes and causes that are very important and very real. As the hon. member knows, we have a very significant economic problem facing our country, with a $600 billion debt, a dollar that is continuing to fall on the international markets and decreasing confidence from outside the country as to the economic stability of Canada. In simple terms we have to clean up our backyard first and foremost. If we cannot take care of things here, we are not going to be in a position in the future to extend that helping hand.

Regarding the member's comments on the ports police specifically in Halifax which is close to his riding, there has been a very unfortunate decision made by the current government to devolve or do away with Canada's ports police on both the east coast and the west coast. I know that there have been efforts made to absorb some of those officers into the existing forces, like the Halifax Metropolitan Police and the RCMP.

The fact remains, and the member has highlighted it in his remarks, that the ports police served a very specific purpose. They had specific training. They had a specific aim in combating the movement of contraband material through ports in Canada.

The member makes the significant point that there are a number of communities in Nova Scotia that not only do not have the presence of law enforcement officers, but are virtually becoming wastelands because of the departure of their citizens. Nova Scotia and other maritime provinces have been facing this reality and this unfortunate situation for a long time. Young, talented and educated people are leaving because of the lack of work and the lack of economic opportunities. That does not apply only to the young, it applies to young and old and everybody in between.

This gives me the opportunity to state uncategorically that this government has not done its job with respect to taking care of all of the regions of this country, in particular the regions such as the province the hon. member and I share and call our home.

[Criminal Code, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am as always pleased to rise and take part in the debate, in particular a debate as important as this involving substantial changes to the Criminal Code of Canada.

Bill C-51, as has been previously mentioned, is an omnibus bill to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The Minister of Justice and the solicitor general both tend to avoid substantive changes to our statutes. I was surprised to see that the government had tendered this bill to change the legislation in June.

Optimistically I would like to believe that this is finally a sign that this government takes issues of law and order seriously, but for reasons that I will outline later I remain sceptical.

This omnibus bill is nevertheless positive legislation. I want to state that at the outset. The federal government, the provinces and the territories share jurisdiction over a number of these issues. The bill itself takes into consideration many of the consultations which have taken place between these levels of government.

As mentioned by previous speakers, it would amend the Criminal Code with regard to homicide, child prostitution, conditional sentencing and parole. These are serious issues of which all Canadians should take note. It was also amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, dealing specifically with sentencing and criminal liability for on duty law enforcement officers. Finally, the bill would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to exclude those convicted of organized crime offences from the eligibility for accelerated parole review.

This comes at a time when organized crime units across the country sadly are being cut or scaled down by the current government. In my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough the local Stellarton detachment has undergone this downsizing. Able and very dedicated officers like Constable Pat Martin sadly have been taken away from the crime and specifically the drug units of this detachment.

I would like to outline some of the significant provisions of this bill. The Criminal Code currently disallows the prosecution of an individual for murder, manslaughter and other capital offences after more than a year and a day have passed from the death of the victim, regardless of how clearly it may be proven that the victim's death was caused by the accused. This was certainly a situation sadly in need of change. This bill would remove that provision in light of advances in forensic science and the medical profession.

It is ultimately the government with the support of the NDP and the Bloc, however, that decided to neuter the DNA Identification Act which would further strengthen and stress the importance of this particular amendment.

Other amendments to the Criminal Code included in this bill would simplify the prosecution of an individual if he or she attempts to procure the sexual services of a prostitute that they know is under the age of 18 years. It would also allow police officers to use electronic surveillance and technology in this area to investigate prostitution related offences.

I am very pleased to note the government's amendment to the conditional sentencing provisions in Bill C-51. If an offender breaches his or her conditional sentence this bill now allows the justice system to permit the issuance of an arrest warrant until a court hearing is held on the breach itself. Again, I view this as a positive amendment.

The breach hearing limit of 30 days would also be changed to permit the court to deal with the offenders who cannot be found or brought to court within that time period.

It is, however, very unfortunate that the government did not choose to further restrict conditional sentencing provisions period so that no offender convicted of a crime of violence is granted a conditional sentence. This is a situation I would strongly urge the government to reconsider. It should be remedied and, at the very least, there should be efforts made to ensure that conditional sentences are not applied to certain designated offences such as sexual assault and capital offences and those involving high end violence.

The amendments themselves would ensure that offenders with ties to organized crime or gangs would no longer receive accelerated parole review. I view this as positive change. While this is an extremely positive step, I would like to know why the government has lectured members for months that it would be inappropriate to propose amendments while statutory review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act was underway at the justice committee.

Once again we have seen a bit of a contradiction in what the government says and what the government does.

If the Liberal government is willing to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in this way before the statutory review is complete then surely it should be willing to support positive and constructive amendments to the CCRA review from private members in this House on both government and opposition side because I know there are government members who have brought forward very intelligent and insightful private members' bills as they reflect on the criminal justice system.

I also question the government's true commitment to fighting organized crime given that the solicitor general and the Liberal government itself could be doing much more in this area. Recent revelations from the auditor general seem to indicate that contrary to what the solicitor general announced publicly about this government's commitment to organized crime, the reality is that millions of dollars have been taken out of the RCMP budget.

We also know that in the last year to year and a half we have seen the devolution of the ports police in areas like Halifax and Vancouver. I assure this House that one very prevalent factor waiting in the wings is the decision to make Halifax a post-Panamax port. With this decision there will be significantly increased traffic on that port. Instead of a specialized police force, the ports police aimed at combating organized crime and the importation of drugs, weapons and other contraband materials, now we have that duty being passed on along with other duties the current Halifax metro police and RCMP are charged with.

It is not a partisan comment on my part. That is simply the conclusion that has been reached in examining these facts. I do not reach this conclusion alone. Each year the U.S. State Department prepares a report called “International Narcotics Control Strategy Report”. In its most recent report, the State Department singled out Canada as an easy target for drug related and other types of money laundering. The same report also listed Canada in the same category as Columbia, Brazil and the Cayman Islands as an attractive location to hide illegal cash. Finally, the same report was very critical of Canada's lack of legislation to control cross-border money flow.

The Canadian Police Association, as it is a very insightful group, has also echoed similar concerns. London police Chief Julian Fantino, head of the organized crime committee in the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, said that money laundering is an easy feat in Canada. According to some reports, the RCMP has estimated the value of laundering money in Canada between $3 billion and $10 billion. The solicitor general recognizes this problem, should be aware of it and should act on it.

During the government's first ever annual statement on organized crime, the solicitor general promised new anti-organized crime legislation that would finally require significant steps toward combating this situation. It would also require that financial institutions report suspicious transactions and cross-border currency movements.

As a matter of interest, the solicitor general's predecessor and the current Deputy Prime Minister made a similar commitment in September 1996 following the conference on organized crime. Sadly, Canadians continue to wait and organized crime continues to penetrate this country.

In April of this year the present solicitor general repeated that promise again and had a conference that was very well publicized. There was a great deal of ballyhoo about the solicitor general's initiatives and spoke quite openly about his intentions for combating organized crime.

He made the same promise to the police in the past year in August and in the span of nearly two years this government has made the same promise on four separate occasions but have delivered nothing.

I would concede that the solicitor general has a laudable commitment to consultation as well as airline conversations but he also should know that the law enforcement community has had enough and does not want any more shallow promises. The government is incessantly holding conferences under the guise of consultation and yet there do not seem to be any meaningful consequences that come about as a result of these consultations.

The solicitor general's dismal response to the problem of organized crime and this government's manipulation of consultation has become a tool of delay and frustrated police to the point where the executive director of the Canadian Police Association recently stated to the media: “Quite frankly, we don't care what this government has to say anymore”. That is a very telling comment from the Canadian Police Association when saying this in response to the government's commitment to organized crime.

Are we to believe the brave talk of the solicitor general? Given his credibility problems of late, that does stretch it quite a bit. The solicitor general since June 1997 has said we would do away with any problem recognizing his statements that fighting organized crime is one of his strategic priorities.

We are patiently waiting, as are the Canadian people, the Canadian Police Association and indeed all police associations across the country. Police and the public are forced to judge the solicitor general's commitment to strategic priorities by actions and results. Words alone, no matter how tough they sound, just do not cut it when it comes to fighting organized crime.

There are also significant amendments with respect to telemarketing fraud. Proceeds gained from deceptive telemarketing practices that would be subject to seizure and forfeiture under Bill C-51 are a positive step. This bill would also make it illegal to generate currency by copying bank notes by computer assisted or electronic means. Certainly forgery has become a problem in this country as it has around the world.

I commend the government for this positive amendment although it is unfortunate that we have yet to see other measures aimed specifically at organized crime in this country.

Given the rising market value of forged currency, this amendment would establish theft and smuggling of other valuable commodities such as diamonds, gemstones or any rock or ore. It is a positive focus of this omnibus bill and would make offences aimed at those types of forgeries punishable under the Criminal Code.

Bill C-51 is also an amendment to legislation regarding non-communication orders. Previous speakers have highlighted this as one of the more positive and more significant changes brought about by Bill C-51 and I tend to concur with that assessment. This amendment would allow a judge who remands or denies the bail of an arrested person into custody to order that they not communicate while in custody.

Mr. Speaker would know that unfortunately this does happen and where the riding of Kingston also includes the Kingston penitentiary, there are means now available for prisoners to contact victims or contact other cohorts involved in their crime or perhaps involved in the case itself that may still be pending before the courts.

I suggest this is a very significant amendment that has been brought forward and one which I commend the government for.

This amendment would the allow judge who remands the arrested person into custody to order that they not communicate with any witness or any other person between the time of the arrest and the bail hearing for judicial interim release hearing. The law currently deals with the judge's power to order non-communication orders only at the time of the bail hearing. That lag time in between does permit for this communication to occur.

With respect to gaming which is also touched by this bill and the Criminal Code, we would like to highlight the fact that under this bill to exempt international cruise boats from offences pertaining to the Canadian gaming provisions is a positive step as well. Cruise boats would be able to operate casinos while in Canadian waters, but not in Canadian ports. This has very broad sweeping ramifications for the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec as a significant number of cruise ships currently attend ports in both of those provinces.

The bill would also allow provincial governments to conduct and manage dice games in order to compete with similar operations that are under way in the United States. There are tremendous earnings and tremendous amounts of money that change hands over the dice games.

I have some concern with this provision in light of the ongoing capitulation of the provincial Liberal government in my home province of Nova Scotia in dealing with the ITT Sheraton casinos in both Halifax and Sydney. I would like to see this amendment further scrutinized by the justice committee to see exactly what the long term ramifications will be.

Bill C-51 would also provide that a peace officer or agent is not guilty of an offence while acting under and for the purposes of upholding the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This amendment is aimed specifically at support for front line police officers and officers who find themselves in the line of duty in a situation that results in a charge surrounding their behaviour. This would be outside any internal disciplinary action that might be taken under a forum like the RCMP Public Complaints Commission which is going on currently in Vancouver.

This allows an opportune time to suggest to the House that the commission as we have come to know it is aimed specifically at police conduct, not the conduct of any individual outside the RCMP Act. It is not the forum to look at situations such as political interference that might come from sources like the PMO or other bodies in Ottawa. The RCMP Public Complaints Commission is a body that has a mandate set up to look at RCMP conduct and to call witnesses and as we see under the current process, to look at the actions specifically of officers of the RCMP.

This particular change to the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is an important move forward. Our party is in support of this particular change. The act has been sorely lacking and needs to have a change in this manner.

In conclusion I would like to express the guarded support of the Progressive Conservative Party for these initiatives. We would like to see further amendments as they are deemed appropriate under this omnibus bill. Hopefully the government will take a more open, constructive and non-partisan attitude toward bills that are brought forward in the House as they pertain to justice and criminal law in Canada.

We would have liked to have seen a number of changes to other bills such as Bill C-3, the DNA data bank bill, or to the Bill C-68 regulations at the very least if we could not have that bill struck completely from the rolls. We would have liked to have seen some amendments that perhaps would have been a little kinder to organized shooting clubs and to members of the public generally who are engaged in the lawful exercise of either hunting or sport shooting. Sadly however, partisanship raises its ugly head in the justice system as it does everywhere else.

I would like to give our guarded support and our guarded optimistic view that the government has recognized the need for changes in these justice bills in this omnibus bill. Bill C-51 is seen as a positive step forward.

A number of bills will be coming before the House in the next weeks, months and years, bills such as the bill put forward by the member for Mississauga East that deals specifically with the issue of consecutive sentences. I advise the House at this time that the Progressive Conservative Party will be in support of the hon. member for Mississauga East in her ongoing efforts to have the bill brought to fruition.

I will bring forward a bill with respect to changes to the sentencing and probation provisions of the Criminal Code as they pertain to the ability of a judge to put certain restrictions on those convicted of sexual assault or assault against children. It would allow a judge the ability to put restrictions so that a person convicted of those types of offences would not be able to attend the dwelling house and be in the presence of a child without the supervision of an adult.

I would take this opportunity again to commend Ms. Donna Goler from Nova Scotia for bringing this to the attention of all members of the House. Her ongoing efforts in this area are extremely significant in light of her own personal tragedy.

Again, I am very pleased to speak on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada with regard to these important changes to the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

I would be glad to take any questions from hon. members present with respect to my remarks.

[Points Of Order, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House on a point of order to protest the Chair's acceptance of the words fabricated and fabrication as used by the solicitor general in response to a question from the New Democratic Party and the use of the word fabrication directed in response to a member from the Bloc Quebecois.

I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to citation 494 at page 151 of Beauchesne's. Both these words are, I would suggest and in my submission, clearly unparliamentary and I would ask that the Chair ask for those words to be withdrawn.

[Apec Summit, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Canada a government of integrity, yet he has delivered a solicitor general who talked openly about sensitive government matters in public.

The solicitor general took an oath to respect the rule of law and he violated that oath on an airline chat about APEC and numerous businessmen and politicians connected with Airbus.

Who is reliable? Who is credible? Who is discreet? The solicitor general general strikes out on all three of those. Will the Prime Minister now show some integrity, some leadership and ask for the solicitor general's resignation?

[Apec Summit, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for weeks the solicitor general has lectured the House about the impropriety of comments on APEC. Yet all it took was a flight home and the solicitor general became Mr. Chatterbox.

He chatted about APEC, Airbus, and private citizens attached to the subject of an ongoing ill-founded investigation. The solicitor general's lack of judgment proves him unfit to be in cabinet.

Will the solicitor general be accountable for his mistakes? Will he act honourably? Will he resign?

[Marriage Act, 1997, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as with all debates in this hallowed place, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the Interpretation Act, put forward by the hon. member opposite.

As mentioned by numerous previous speakers, the purpose of the legislation is to ensure that marriage is void unless it is between one unmarried man and one unmarried woman. This is a strict legal definition. As with all legal semantics there is a broad range of interpretation. Social mores and marital convention are perhaps even more complex.

I congratulate the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest for bringing forward the legislation. It fosters a healthy debate within the Chamber, one that many feel needs to be pursued actively by Canadians from coast to coast. In my view the legislation crosses traditional party lines, extends beyond the elected representatives in this place, and needs to be examined by society as a whole. By its very nature the bill is personal and leads to as many opinions as the persons prepared to voice them.

While members of parliament may stand today in the House of Commons and loudly and proudly proclaim their parties' positions on what constitutes marriage in the legal sense, I would venture a guess that these opinions are not representative of their entire parties or even of their entire caucuses.

Although the Reform Party has offered the definition of marriage as referred to in Bill C-225 as being that of between a man and a woman, that definition was in relation to proposed fiscal reforms and not in relation to amendments to the Marriage Act.

Perhaps there will come a time in the House in which all members, regardless of political affiliation, will be able to express themselves on a legislative measure similar to the one proposed in Bill C-225. That time however is not here. With a private member's bill there has not been full debate, particularly amongst the Canadian public at large. Before such a debate occurs in public it must occur in society.

We need a larger public venue for as many Canadians and members of parliament as possible to take part in the debate. We need to be circumspect, tolerant and measured when approaching issues of human relations. Perhaps the venue should be through a legislative committee or a royal commission. Having said that, I do not profess to offer the position of the Progressive Conservative Party with respect to this bill.

This bill reflects a moral question. It is one which each and every Canadian needs to reflect upon and ask themselves what they consider to be a married couple. It needs to be fully debated in a forum in which all Canadians may participate and voice their opinions, regardless of political affiliation.

Canadians are demanding less rigid partisanship and I feel this legislation is a prime opportunity for members and the Canadian public as a whole to demonstrate such willingness for change.

Personally I do not see how Bill C-225 would improve the social and economic condition of Canadians. Although Statistics Canada points to the growing number of common law relationships and single parent families, will Bill C-225 change this reality of Canadian life?

I could not agree more that strong parental role models are needed and are crucial to the development of the child. Sadly this is not the case throughout the country. I hasten to add that more often than not good role models are becoming a rare commodity in our communities. If parliament passed a law such as Bill C-225 I would seriously doubt as to whether it would result in increased marriages between men and women.

Bill C-225 operates under the same assumption as the Liberal government's firearms act and the recent amendments; namely, that legislation will automatically result in a change hoped for by its proponents. It is a false hope.

What evidence does the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest or any other member have that would support this contention? How would Canadians benefit from this legislation? It begs the question: What priority should it be given at this time?

Let us talk less about legislation and more about real people and real families. Let us talk about a young couple, recently married, both with huge student loans. The wife is expecting a child and would like to stay home and away from professional life. Yet this couple cannot afford to sacrifice the wife's income so she can remain at home to care for her child.

Another example is of a husband and wife married for 10 or more years with two children. The husband is unemployed and unable to find work. The wife has taken a minimum wage job to support the family, thus taking her away from the family. They are struggling to make ends meet and the entire family will suffer.

Changing the Marriage Act will not impact on those scenarios one iota. It would not improve the conditions for those families. It would not improve the conditions for the couples and it certainly would not improve the conditions for the children. I challenge anyone to state otherwise.

I would like to propose another series of measures which would improve the quality of life for Canadian families, be they in the traditional role espoused by many in society or be they part of the growing trend toward new types of families, such as single parents and common law couples. We need to be talking less about amending federal statutes and more about choices that the federal government is making with respect to Canadian families.

Let us focus our time as parliamentarians on reducing the tax burden for Canadians instead of spending more time on amending the Marriage Act. Let us urge the government to increase the basic income tax exemption from $6,456 to $10,000 a year. This measure would take two million lower income workers off the tax rolls and save money for every single Canadian taxpayer.

Let us urge the government to cut employment insurance premiums to remove the largest single barrier to job creation in Canada today or urge the government to reduce the tax credit of up to 17% interest on student loans. Let us increase annual RRSP contributions which are limited now and change the rules so that low and middle income workers can save more money by purchasing RRSPs, or make the $4,000 registered education savings plan, the RESP contribution, tax deductible and allow part of the current RRSPs to be transferred without a penalty to RESPs. Let us spend our time as parliamentarians identifying cost effective and fiscally responsible ways to index the child tax benefit as proposed by my caucus colleague, the hon. member for Shefford.

Let us spend our time and effort urging the government to devote more resources to early intervention programs to prevent youth crime before it occurs. The Minister of Justice has already admitted that the level of support in her government for early intervention is currently embarrassing.

There is a shocking miscalculation of priorities that emanates from the government side of the House. Let us spend time highlighting the fact that the federal government only covers 30% of the cost of enforcing the Young Offenders Act, yet it will not listen to the provinces when they tell the Minister of Justice that her proposals are currently too weak.

Let us do more than just talk abut the threat of organized crime in this country and talk about how we can improve the peaceful existence of Canadians. Those are tangible, positive initiatives to truly strengthen Canadian families.

The Canadian family needs support. It is under tremendous pressure as to how it reacts as an institution to this pressure and it will determine the course that this country takes in the next generation. Canada's parliament needs to take decisive action to nurture our families.

In no way do I want to detract from the efforts or the motives of the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest, yet I am left to ask the same question repeatedly. What is the government doing to improve the situation for Canadian families as they currently exist? Will more young mothers and fathers be able to choose to stay at home and care for their children because the Marriage Act has been amended? I do not think so. Will there be more economic opportunities or employment opportunities as a result of these amendments? Again I would say no. Will we have fewer divorces or fewer child behavioural problems resulting from the proposed amendments? I do not believe so.

To me the answer comes from my constituents, those families who work hard, get by with less and live a reduced quality of life. They are the backbone of Canadian society. It is truly heartbreaking when an elected official gets visits, telephone calls and letters from constituents who are having trouble because of no fault of their own, trying to raise their family and trying to make ends meet. Not once have I heard someone come forward and ask me to change the Marriage Act. That is not the key to the solutions for the problems facing Canadian families.

As but one of 301 members of this House, I would therefore suggest that we establish a public forum, either a legislative subcommittee or a royal commission, to allow Canadians to express their collective opinion on this subject if it is deemed necessary.

This would be consistent with the approach that was taken by parliament in reviewing the Divorce Act through a special joint committee on child custody and access. Canadians need to hold open, vigorous and energetic debate on the amendments to the Marriage Act before parliament does so.

In the meantime, parliament has a responsibility and an obligation to Canadians to focus its time and resources on issues of priority.

[Apec Summit, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, do Canadians have to wait for the solicitor general's next flight home for straight answers on this issue?

The Prime Minister has spent weeks hiding from Canadians on APEC. He hid behind his spin doctors who attacked APEC witnesses. He hid behind the solicitor general who will not talk about this issue in the House, but loves to talk about it on Air Canada. Now the Prime Minister's human shield, the solicitor general, is a human sieve.

Will the Prime Minister himself answer questions on this issue and demand the solicitor general's resignation?