Peter MacKay

[Criminal Code, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak in support of Bill C-258 as moved by the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.

This bill is consistent with Progressive Conservative policy to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code, better known as the faint hope clause. It is also consistent with a motion that I tabled in the House last year similarly calling for the repeal of section 745.

It is sadly ironic today that the Liberals are defending the faint hope clause since yesterday we heard their defences of Bill C-68, which should be henceforth known as the false hope clause.

The Liberals have truly shown themselves as more than happy to give faint hope to convicted killers such as Clifford Olson, as previously mentioned, while giving false hope to Canadians worried about crime committed with firearms.

Although the amendments proposed in the bill by the hon. member would not apply retroactively, it would at least ensure that murderers are fully held accountable for the crimes that they commit. Accountability is a very important principle in our justice system and one which many feel has been neglected of late. From the Prime Minister's recent performance in the House, it would seem that accountability is also being neglected in the Chamber.

An injection of accountability into our justice system is something most Canadians would surely welcome. This would be taken into account with other principles of rehabilitation, as has been mentioned by friend from the Bloc; general and specific deterrents; other sentencing principles; and principles of justice and fairness.

In early 1997 the Liberal government of the day amended the Criminal Code to restrict the provisions for judicial review. Three fundamental changes were enacted at that time. First, offenders who committed multiple murders would no longer have the right to apply for section 745.6 under the Criminal Code.

Second, applicants, including those serving time for murder at the time of the amendments coming into force, would no longer have the automatic right to a section 745 hearing, going instead to a superior court judge to decide whether the applicant could then show a reasonable prospect for success before the application moved any further.

The third amendment to that section would require that a jury reach unanimous consent to order a release instead of the previous threshold of only a two-thirds majority.

While those amendments were certainly well intentioned, they contained a number of flaws. The new provisions implied that a single murder should be considerably less serious than multiple murders. Since multiple murderers convicted after January 1997 would be ineligible to apply for judicial review under section 745 at the time, it brings into question the overall fairness when one considers it from the victim's point of view.

As they would later do with the hepatitis C victims, the Liberals apparently drew an artificial line in the sand with respect to multiple murders as opposed to single premeditated murders. I would suggest that all premeditated murders should be treated equally under this provision. Does it not degrade the memory of the murder victims and the suffering that was inflicted upon them and their families to draw this sort of distinction?

My second criticism of those amendments was that the government's much touted amendments of section 745 amounted to no real changes with respect to the way judicial review hearing processes were conducted.

I am sure all members will agree the process is extremely important in that the hearings for early parole eligibility remain with the very limited information about the crime committed by the offender. To seriously restrict information with respect to the crime committed during these hearings is akin to restricting information with respect to the crime itself during the original trial and sentencing proceedings.

The Liberal amendments also created another level of bureaucracy, that is the government's decision to replace the criminal's absolute right to a hearing with an absolute right to apply for a hearing which might also lead to further appeals within the system.

One of the arguments the Minister of Justice, the solicitor general and their respective departments advanced at this time against the over reliance on incarceration is therefore lost. The Liberals make this contention while they create another level of bureaucracy to facilitate the release of convicted killers.

It is a sad and telling statement on the priorities of the government. It provides different ways for murderers to get out of jail while victims of crime still to this date have no voice, no advocate within the criminal justice system at this level. The Minister of Justice and the solicitor general can only scratch their heads and wonder why Canadians continue to have a cynical and distrustful view of our justice system.

Section 745, regardless of the Liberal government's amendment a year and a half ago, continues to force families of victims to relive the murders and to relive them at the cost of the taxpayer. Some would say that the lack of a death penalty is the hallmark of a civilized society, but there are certainly many Canadians who would suggest it is certainly uncivilized to force the families of murder victims to once again go through this type of judicial revisiting of the offence itself. We certainly witnessed that just over a year ago with Mr. Olson's hearing in British Columbia.

Perhaps the families of murder victims should launch a legal challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the basis that a section 745 Criminal Code hearing violates their section 7 charter rights that everyone including these victims have a right to life, liberty and the security of persons and a right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Is a section 745 hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice? I doubt it. I challenge any hon. member in the House who supports section 745 to rationally assert that this is fundamentally just. I fear that it might come to that and that the victims of crime and their families will have to go to court to get a judicial opinion with respect to this piece of legislation.

The Reform Party has often made its views very clear in the House about judicial activism. I suggest there is a graver danger at work, that is legislative pacifism where society's most vulnerable individuals, victims and in many cases children, have no other public forum to have their views addressed by the courts. What are we doing in the House if we are not doing everything to protect those persons?

Therefore I would suggest that section 745 needs to be repealed, and the sooner the better. We in the House need to reflect upon the wishes of those individuals who are unable to speak for themselves. This is why I put forward the premise and the suggestion that the government should be establishing an independent ombudsman for victims which would also be in accordance with the government's repeated position that it wants to do more for victims. This would be consistent with that wish. Victims would be given a greater voice within the justice system. They would be given an independent person, a place of appeal, for information, a place where they could go to have their voices heard.

I urge all hon. members of the House, especially the government members who spoke so passionately in favour of victims rights, to justify their support for Bill C-68, to join with opposition members in supporting the bill. As such, at this time I move for unanimous consent to make this bill deemed a votable item.

[Criminal Code, September 23rd, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-433, an act to amend the Criminal Code (order of prohibition).

I am indeed very pleased to have an opportunity to present this private members' legislation, an act to amend the Criminal Code respecting orders of prohibition as they presently exist in the Criminal Code.

This bill would amend section 161 of the Criminal Code. If passed, the bill would allow the courts to make an order of prohibition prohibiting the offender from being in a dwelling house where the offender knows or ought to know that a person under the age of 14 is present, and the person having care or custody of that child is not present.

At this time I would like to also pay special tribute to a fellow Nova Scotian, Donna Goler, who brought this particular matter to the attention of all members of parliament. Ms. Goler is a survivor of sexual abuse and brought this loophole in the Criminal Code to the attention of myself and others.

I hope that by tabling this bill, this House and this government will act to adopt this measure to help prevent crimes of the most heinous nature against children. I ask for the support of all hon. members in passing this bill through the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Points Of Order, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning an announcement made this morning by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

He made a statement outside this House concerning matters of considerable concern to this exact House, namely the costs associated with a multi-year renovation and restoration project for the parliamentary buildings.

The government's reluctance to make this type of ministerial statement in the House shows contempt for this place and it is something we have seen in the past.

Keep in mind, as well, that this statement was made at a time when most caucuses were sitting and members of parliament were unable to attend.

This is the exact House that these renovations apply to. This is also the House that occupies the most parliamentary space during this restoration period.

We are members of parliament who are answerable to the public, which does not always differentiate between the actions of the ministry, the departmental officials or the membership of the House of Commons.

The minister became involved in a very public dispute with a senior official in his department. That senior official was subsequently removed from the responsibility of this parliamentary project, which has been the subject of considerable debate, considerable criticism and rumour.

There are large chunks of the renovation which were in the original budget that have now simply evaporated, so there are massive costs still to come.

The minister owes it to the House to come to this House and give a full public accounting.

[Apec Summit, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what part of this is not a criminal proceeding. The Prime Minister and the solicitor general do not understand.

This is a question of political interference from the highest office in the land and the Prime Minister is hiding behind this. Canadians deserve to know what has happened in this affair. There should be a detailed explanation, and I ask the Prime Minister again, or the solicitor general, will they guarantee that they will broaden the mandate of the public inquiry to allow for the question of political interference to be examined at that level.

[Apec Summit, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is now clear that we have a triple E Prime Minister: evasive, elusive and erroneous.

The Prime Minister clearly showed his contempt for Parliament yesterday by hiding behind the solicitor general on APEC.

The solicitor general clearly showed his lack of knowledge in his own portfolio by confusing an RCMP complaints commission with a public forum.

I ask the Prime Minister, not his human shield, the solicitor general, did he or his office give the RCMP instructions to remove the protesters from the UBC campus and will he give an accounting in this House?

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. It is a rare opportunity to respond to a question in the presence of the Minister of Justice, in anticipation of what she is going to say.

I am sure we are going to hear a great deal about the methodological approach of the government and the statistics that it has been using to justify this particular bill.

However, the point is well made. The emphasis should be on the criminal use of weapons, not targeting those who are using guns for a legitimate purpose, recreational or otherwise. It should put the emphasis on what criminals are doing with their guns. This legislation does not do that.

As the member of the NDP suggested, why not put those statistics into front line policing and into areas where the police will be able to enforce the current laws, rather than create a new cumbersome process that simply will not work?

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond very briefly.

I thank the hon. member for her remarks. She knows of what she speaks. It is clearly a fact that it is not guns that kill people, it is the person pulling the trigger.

Her question allows me to make another point, which is that this registration system is aimed at helping police officers to identify which homes are going to house these firearms. It is aimed at putting a serial number on a gun, on an inanimate object. That is not going to prevent the object from killing or maiming a person if it falls into the wrong hands.

The point to be made is this. That information is not going to be accurate. Canadians, by their very nature, are transitory. Knowing where those weapons are, who houses them, who is in possession of them is going to be an absolute impossibility.

As has been stated many times before, criminals are not going to participate in this registration system. The information is going to be inaccurate. Police officers are not going to be able to rely on the information with any degree of confidence. I suggest that this will create a false sense of security amongst the policing community and amongst Canadians generally.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

It is seconded by the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its indulgence. It is always an honour to follow my colleague from the New Democratic Party, a learned counsel, justice critic and fellow Nova Scotian. He has given a view from his perspective on this particular debate and I hope to add my humble remarks.

With respect to the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, I am pleased to pledge our party's support for this particular motion before the House. It reaffirms the position taken by the hon. Jean Charest in the last parliament, in the last election and the position of our party throughout this debate, the unwavering opposition to this ill conceived long gun registration.

The focus here should not waver. It is about long guns. It is about shotguns and rifles. The emphasis here is on long guns.

One of the key commitments I made to the constituents of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough was that I would continue to oppose this piece of legislation. It is ineffective and unproven mandatory gun registration. The legislation concentrates and targets law-abiding citizens as opposed to criminals who would be using firearms.

Bill C-68 clearly does not approach and does not affect the root causes of crime. One of the first motions I tabled in this House last September was to achieve the very goal which this particular motion sets out to achieve.

This motion is very timely. Obviously when we hear the cries of thousands and thousands of law-abiding gun owners who have assembled here on the hill today, there appears to be some opposition to what the government is going to do with this piece of legislation.

Others have already detailed the specific problems with this particular act. Those problems were highlighted at the justice committee with the numerous amendments that were struck down by the government. I would suggest they were useful, non-partisan amendments that were aimed at improving the act. If we cannot kill it, the very least we can do is try to improve it.

In the past several weeks I have had the opportunity to personally meet a number of representatives from organizations in my home province of Nova Scotia, individuals such as Tony Rodgers of the Nova Scotia Wildlife Federation to review the negative impact that has already resulted from this act.

Businesses in the province of Nova Scotia and like businesses in other provinces are going to be extremely negatively affected by the implementation of this legislation because, as we know, it is going to force businesses to subject themselves to an extremely bureaucratic, cumbersome registry system that is not going to impact on the criminal use of firearms.

We know, and it is a proven fact, that Canada already has one of the toughest gun control laws in the world. We are now furthering that by adding burdensome registration fees which amount to nothing more than a tax, which was alluded to by the member for Fundy—Royal.

The Liberal government and its well intentioned allies I might add have attempted to sell this issue of firearms registration as a question of crime control and safety. It could not be any further from the truth.

The Liberals have made it an issue of black and white: proponents of Bill C-68 support gun control whereas opponents of Bill C-68 oppose gun control. That is completely untrue. Let us make this perfectly clear. I do not think there is anyone in this House, anyone in the opposition, who has any opposition to gun control per se. This is about long gun registration.

Firearms owners I know and meet on a regular basis are some of the most responsible in handling guns and the most responsible and supportive of effective safety measures when it comes to the handling of firearms.

If we want to do something specifically aimed at those who use guns for a criminal purpose, let us toughen up the code sections, let us toughen up the response of the courts to those who use firearms in a criminal way.

It came to light last spring that statistics used by the government to justify the mandatory registration of firearms were seriously flawed. This came specifically from the commissioner of the RCMP himself, words like exaggeration and misuse of these statistics were then met by the reply of the Minister of Justice that these were simply a difference in methodologies.

This seems to me to be a convenient excuse for the government to dismiss the facts it does not like to hear. Is it any wonder that the provinces of Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and two territories have embarked on a challenge in the Supreme Court of Alberta to strike down Bill C-68.

Another fact the government conveniently ignores is that under a Conservative government Canada adopted tough gun control legislation through Bill C-17, which was passed through this parliament in late 1991 and came into effect over subsequent years. In fact this government played a part in implementing some of those pieces of legislation.

Under this previous gun law, applicants were required to obtain firearms application certificates, FACs, which required them to take a gun course, undergo police checks and wait up to 28 days. Handguns were considered restricted weapons and owners were required to have ownership permits. Handgun permits were only issued to certified gun collectors and sports club members who were taking part in shooting competitions. Private ownership of most military assault weapons was banned or restricted. Those wanting to hunt were required to take mandatory hunting courses or required to take firearms handling safety courses.

The previous law also included stringent storage and transportation regulations, making it an offence to breach these regulations.

With all of these tough restrictions in place, what did the Liberal government then do upon assuming power? Did the Liberals evaluate the effectiveness of the law? No. They embarked on a new form of intrusive and restrictive gun registration which, I submit humbly, was a knee-jerk and emotionally driven reaction to tragic circumstances that occurred in this country.

The Liberals have cited national opinion polls reporting overwhelming support from Canadians for this legislation. I wonder how many Canadians, particularly urban Canadians, really understand what the impact of this legislation will be. Would they be so supportive if the legislation was prefaced with the fact that Canadians already possess some of the most stringent gun control and registration laws?

Perhaps these public opinion polls are of concern to some in the House, but the practicality here is that this legislation is not going to impact on the criminal use of firearms.

The former minister of justice also promised that it was only going to cost $85 million, despite evidence from witnesses at the original justice committee hearing that put the price tag as high as $500 million.

We have heard from all sorts of groups throughout this country, including aboriginal Canadians, predominately Canadians from the rural centres, who participate in perfectly legitimate legal activities involving the use of firearms such as hunting and target shooting. These people have overwhelmingly voiced their opposition to this act.

Since the former minister's promises, we are now coming to the conclusion that the Canadian firearms centre and its administration charges are going to exceed $133.9 million to this point in time and we have not yet seen a single gun registered.

The justice department will not deny the reports that are appearing in the media that this is going to escalate to the point where it may exceed $500 million. For this reason I wrote to the auditor general last week to urge his office to conduct a money for value audit on the Canadian firearms centre and the divisions of the Department of Justice responsible for the implementation of this act. Canadians need to know why this money is being spent in this fashion.

I question the government's priorities. This amount of money could easily be spent on front line policing, as was suggested earlier. It could be spent on homes for battered women. It could be spent on all sorts of justice initiatives, including the minister's much awaited and much ballyhooed young offender changes that we are anxiously anticipating.

I would also suggest that outside the area of justice, the money could be spent in the area of compensating hepatitis C victims and compensating public service employees who have been long awaiting compensation.

Without any doubt, the priorities of this government have to be questioned. Why not focus on the root causes of violence? Why not use these resources in more effective ways?

Time and time again we have seen this government switch its priorities at the last minute. In recent days we have seen its decision to delay this further. Why not take a hard look at what is taking place in this country with respect to this piece of legislation?

Before I conclude I want to commend the NDP for its decision to have a free vote. I can assure this House that there has been much debate amongst our party. We are going to be voting as a unified front on this, which comes about because of much consultation with our constituents.

I make this plea to all members of the House. Let us not target law-abiding citizens, let us target criminals. Let us support this motion and replace Bill C-68 with anti-crime legislation, not anti-gun owner legislation.

I would like to amend the motion by adding the following words to the main motion:

; and that this House also urges the government to conduct a public, independent evaluation of the 1991 firearms legislation with respect to reducing firearm-related crime before it proceeds with any new firearms legislation.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. Generally speaking we in the Conservative Party embrace many of those comments. We are united in that approach, but I would quickly add that we are not united in anything else with the Reform Party.

My question for the Leader of the Opposition is with respect to costs. I know this is a broad, sweeping piece of legislation which touches on civil rights and other property related issues like the ones before the court in Alberta.

This debates today comes on the heels of the debate yesterday concerning Bill C-68. In terms of priority and the spiralling costs, would not the money be better spent on a registry that registers criminals and not guns?