Peter MacKay

[Information Commissioner, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the NDP member from the province of Nova Scotia. I congratulate him on the work that he has done prior to his arrival in parliament. I know that he is going to continue to do good work on behalf of his constituents.

With respect to the information commissioner, he has a depth of knowledge that may be of benefit to Mr. Reid at some point. I am sure that if he does not know Mr. Reid, in very short order he will become acquainted with him.

Again I think that the non-partisan commentary that has taken place in the last moments of debate here and throughout the process of selection of Mr. Reid is a very good and a very refreshing start. It is something that we can learn from, to rise above the partisan nature when it comes to these types of appointments.

I am sure the hon. member would agree that we are very hopeful and encouraged that the information commissioner role filled by Mr. Reid will continue in that same vein. Although he once wore the same red uniform of the government, I do not suspect that this is going to factor into his decision making. He has proven himself to be a man of great integrity and a man who realizes the importance of arm's length from government when it comes to the dissemination of information.

[Information Commissioner, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the eloquent remarks that seem to be a common theme with respect to this subject. I think they reflect the non-partisan nature which this process has unfolded.

Certainly Mr. Reid has a lot of the qualities that I think all of us are looking for when it comes to filling this important post.

The question itself is as to the support of the Progressive Conservative Party for individual private members' bills and legislation that is currently before the House. Without knowing the specifics of that particular type of legislation, I am certainly not in a position to wholeheartedly embrace any legislation without having first had the benefit of reading it. Depending on each particular bill, we would have a critic portfolio that would be assigned to look at that bill.

Any legislation tied to the Office of the Information Commissioner in the furtherance of openness and disclosure and transparency that is going to lead to greater confidence in government and greater confidence perhaps in the bureaucracy that surrounds us in this place would certainly be encouraged and supported by members of the Conservative Party.

In light of the debate in the last few days, we have seen that there needs to be a little bit of introspection as to the role not only of government but of backbenchers and opposition and the way in which we interact in this place. The information commissioner may very well be called upon in very short order to be an integral part of that process, when it comes to the interaction and the exchange of information that takes place between all members and other branches of the particular parliamentary precinct that we work.

I thank the hon. member for his comments. I thank the Chair for its indulgence.

[Information Commissioner, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate. I am pleased as well to follow the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona as I often find myself in debate speaking on the heels of his remarks.

He has quite fairly and accurately set out or chronicled the events that led to the appointment we have before the House today. I do not intend to delve into any great detail other than to add that I think his chronology is quite accurate. I want the record to show that the Progressive Conservative Party put forward the name of Mr. Reid but in a very informal way.

It is important to note this was not a set in stone process. Suffice it to say the name was very well received and received in a very timely way by the government. As the hon. member mentioned, the timing of his appearance before the committee leads one to believe or at least be somewhat suspect that it was not a new name or the suggestion was not the pivotal factor in the government's decision to bring forward his name.

Be that as it may, we have before us an individual who is obviously very qualified, an individual who will fulfil the very important role of information commissioner. The information commissioner would be an officer of parliament and not of the government. That is a key point. The commissioner will be our commissioner, the commissioner of the Canadian people, the commissioner of this place, this House, not the government's commissioner. In light of that, I was pleased that I was a part of the consultation and part of a process that resulted in this nomination being before the House today.

Earlier speakers have touched upon the fact that we have seen an improvement in the process of the selection of the information commissioner. Although it is not perfect and some flaws still exist, it is an improvement. The hon. member used the expression of baby steps. It is perhaps a little more than that. At least now we have a transparent process that allows members of a committee to directly question the nominated candidate. I refer to him as a nominated candidate but it was really not that formal.

This name came forward as the result of a conversation between myself and the government House leader. I presume a similar conversation took place between the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona and the government House leader. The process moved along somewhat differently than it had in the past where the Prime Minister, on the initiative of a party suggestion I would assume, appointed the commissioner.

I do not intend to go through the entire chronology of what happened but there is a necessity in this debate to have a little review of the history of the information act itself. It is a proud history with respect to the involvement of the Progressive Conservative Party.

The Access to Information Act is generally acknowledged as having been sired by the late Ged Baldwin who sat as a Progressive Conservative caucus member from the district of Peace River. Mr. Speaker, you may remember the late Ged Baldwin. Mr. Baldwin began his campaign for the freedom of information legislation in 1969.

The Progressive Conservative government of the Right Hon. Joe Clark introduced the first government sponsored bill for access to information in 1979. Mr. Speaker, you would certainly recall that, being the student of parliament I know you are. The bill, which did not satisfy all of Mr. Baldwin's wishes, did go a long way to setting up what we now have before the House in the form of an information commissioner. Despite the casualty, the unfortunate fall of Mr. Clark's government, this initiative was continued by subsequent governments. The present statute was sponsored and passed by the Hon. Francis Fox in 1982 and was proclaimed into law in 1983.

A fourteen year struggle preceded the point we are at today. It was a struggle to forge what Mr. Baldwin called an unholy alliance of parliament and press and the public versus the bureaucracy. Mr. Baldwin saw the existing statute as a beginning. He placed great faith in the commissioner of parliament to improve the existing law.

After 15 years of experience with the 1983 law, it is generally recognized that the law needs review and improvement. The act was drafted before the explosion of computers, including the appearance of computers even here in the Chamber, and electronic mail which is routinely in use in parliament, and the universal use of the delete button that accompanies every computer. There are certainly new conditions, new physical parameters, electronic and technological advances that perhaps even Mr. Baldwin with his great foresight and knowledge of the use of information could not have foreseen in those bygone years.

These are important issues for us in parliament to address today. I acknowledge in the name of Mr. Reid which is before the House today, that who is better to advance this cause than a former parliamentarian? Who better to understand the needs of parliament itself than an individual who has been elected, a person who understands the system and how parliament works with the expectations and the pressures that come to bear?

I am pleased and state uncategorically that we in the Conservative Party support the nomination and the affirmation of Mr. Reid to this position. The Hon. John Reid has demonstrated an ability to achieve results within parliament. This will be very important in his new role as commissioner and certainly very important in the task he will take on to bring parliament into the 21st century.

He has a record of integrity and independence, a person who has shown he is not afraid to stand up for what he believes in when called upon to do so. He has told prime ministers and party leaders that they were wrong on occasion, perhaps at a cost to his own political career. He does bring a spirit of commitment to access to information, as well as a distinguished history of parliamentary service. I think this will serve parliament well.

Equally important, Mr. Reid is prepared to address the culture of secrecy that sometimes surrounds this place and is ever present in our public service. This challenge is formidable in the sense that we know a great deal of bureaucracy exists. There are times when the information is so extensive and massive it seems it is almost impossible to sort through the volume of information.

As the reports of the previous commissioner have pointed out, it is going to be a very challenging task that awaits Mr. Reid.

In closing, I acknowledge the diligent work of the retired commissioner John Grace. Mr. Grace served the Canadian people well, served the post to which he was appointed very well, and we are grateful to him. We in the Progressive Conservative Party and all Canadians are grateful to the yeoman service he did as the information commissioner. We are content that his vigorous efforts will be continued and strengthened by the appointment of Mr. Reid.

To put some finality on my remarks, I add the names of the caucus of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to the list of previous speakers wishing Mr. Reid Godspeed and congratulations for his well-deserved appointment. We hope that he will bring great honour and integrity to his new post.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you will find unanimous consent to deem the question to have been put, a division requested and an order deferred until 10.00 p.m so that we might spend more time debating the next item on the Order Paper. I believe there is unanimous consent, if the Speaker would request it.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very intently to the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo and I have a great deal of respect for the work that he did within the justice system prior to becoming a member of the House. He has displayed at the justice committee a great depth of knowledge in the area of victims' rights. I know he has made a personal commitment and has been a part of various systems within his riding. He encourages restorative justice. He has spoken very eloquently with respect to victims.

On balance, given a choice of priorities, would the hon. member prefer to see astronomical and staggering amounts of money set aside by his government to further this ill-conceived gun registry? We are talking money in excess of $133 million thus far and the amount is still accumulating as we speak. It will go up to the half a billion dollar mark before this is up and running.

It is not going to impact in any significant way on violent crime. It has been stated time and time again and I think the hon. member will also agree that for crimes committed in fits of passion it will not matter whether a serial number is stamped on the butt of a rifle. Violent criminals are going to be loath to register their guns.

I ask the hon. member this question in a very non-partisan way and on an intellectual level. Would he not prefer to see his government's commitment to justice result in moneys spent in the area of furthering the cause of victims or furthering the cause of front line police officers, to beef up our justice system in that regard? Would he not prefer putting the money into some of the more innovative approaches to justice that he speaks of, some of the preventative programs he has initiated in his own constituency? Would this not further the cause of justice as opposed to this priority decision that has been made on this ill-fated ill-conceived gun registry?

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for that question. When it comes to impaired judgment, his government has certainly led the way.

With respect to the specifics of his question, the blood alcohol level has been lowered to point zero in a number of countries in Europe. I believe Australia has gone to a zero tolerance with respect to alcohol consumption. The Conservative Party is not suggesting that, although it is certainly something that would deserve a great deal of debate. We are suggesting and I have put the initiative forward that we should consider lowering it to .05. I know that Conservative governments in Manitoba and Ontario are also considering making this change to their provincial legislation.

It is something that is currently before the justice committee. We will be getting into the area of impaired driving in the fall. I hope it will be on the legislative agenda sometime shortly after we get it at committee. I look forward to the hon. member's participation in the debate.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

I do not mean to sound alarmist but this is the scope of this legislation. And the interim leader of the Conservative Party is the honorary chair of the rifle association. I know her personally to be a very straight shooter.

I appreciate the question and I look forward to further debate on this issue.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the question and the opportunity to answer it.

I know the hon. member himself a former police officer has been very involved in the law enforcement community. I suspect he would be very reticent to suggest that anyone in this House is against gun control or the safe use of firearms.

Bill C-17 as I said in my remarks is the most substantive piece of legislation aimed at the safe handling of firearms and the safe storage of firearms. That is completely different, completely outside the parameters of what Bill C-68 does.

I do want to correct an inaccuracy. The Conservative senators did work in a very substantive way to see that Bill C-68 was not passed. It has never been a derivation from our platform that we did not feel that the registry of long guns was a complete waste of money and it was something that was not necessary. In terms of priorities in the area of justice, it certainly should not be a high priority and it certainly should not be a legislative initiative that is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars which is what is coming to light. Perhaps it could be a billion dollars before this is over.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I want to respond first by thanking my colleague from Chicoutimi for his very kind remarks. I take it as very high praise coming from a parliamentarian such as himself who has continually distinguished himself in this House, regionally and nationally. My father had the honour of serving with him. I take it as a great honour that the member would make those remarks in this place.

To answer his question, if an answer is possible, I suppose it is a question that many in the opposition ask when we see the performance of this government on certain issues. The member has referred to historical decisions that they have made. One might call them hysterical if they were not so far reaching. One might call them hypocritical if one examined the record as to what was said previous to this government taking office. It does lead one to question as to why we have the electoral response that we have and the regional breakdown that exists within this House.

We know there was a great deal of dissatisfaction expressed against the Progressive Conservative Party in 1993. There was a huge price paid for the necessary and brave initiatives that we paid a price for and now this government rushes to take the credit. That is something history will sort out. I suspect that history will be very kind to the Conservative Party. We are hoping that in the very near future the Conservative Party will be restored to government and that is certainly the aim of our party.

We continue to make positive suggestions and positive constructive criticisms of this government in the hope that the environment is going to improve for all Canadians. That ultimately has to be the purpose of an opposition that wants to be credible and wants to one day form a government which we in the Progressive Conservative Party certainly do.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to take part in this debate which focuses on the expenses and the priorities of the government. Particularly in this portion of the debate we are looking at the Department of Justice and the priorities that have been set by the minister and this government as they relate to justice.

Since the Minister of Justice appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and did so only for a couple of hours, it is important that we have an opportunity now for a more open and transparent debate where we can exchange ideas and perhaps explain or at least go to some lengths to let the taxpayers know where their money is going as it relates to this very important department and perhaps even give some useful suggestions as to how we in opposition, and the Progressive Conservative Party in particular, would suggest that some of this money should be spent.

One of the very important initiatives that we have seen is the presentation of a DNA databank. This is without a doubt perhaps one of the most important crime fighting tools that we will ever see in the life of this parliament, if not in the life of many previous parliaments.

What it is aimed at specifically is using technology to combat crime. What we are talking about here is very violent crime, crimes of a sexual nature, crimes of violence that involve the most heinous invasion of a person's well-being.

If we are truly to take advantage of this particular piece of legislation, one would hope that the police would be given the opportunity to optimize the use of DNA; that is, that they would be able to take the DNA from a suspect at an appropriate time when a certain criteria has been met, namely, that enough evidence exists within the police officers' investigation to lay a charge, and when that does happen, when that particular bar has been crossed, the police will then be given the opportunity to take a DNA sample and use it in an investigation, use it perhaps to compare it to samples from crime scenes that had been taken previously. If a match occurs, then a very important link has been made to an accused individual and a crime. Due process, of course, will allow for the presumption of innocence, if it exists, to prevail.

This is an important piece of legislation that in its present form has come before the House and is flawed. There was an attempt made by members of the opposition on the justice committee to remedy that. We moved what I considered to be useful amendments. Unfortunately, and to the detriment of this legislation, the government chose to vote those amendments down.

I would suggest that this can be changed. This could be fixed quite simply by the initiative of the House.

There are other areas which are quite similar to this where the government could invest money, such as improving the Canadian police investigative computer system, the CPIC system, which police officers routinely use to track or to update themselves on the criminal involvement of suspects and those involved in committing offences against Canadians.

The violent crime linkage analysis system is another very useful system that, with the proper use of the police, could go to great lengths to help fight crime.

The government, however, has chosen not to touch that. It has chosen not to invest or to put the necessary resources and funding into these areas. Again, I really question the wisdom of that. The government, by doing so, is showing that it has no interest in optimizing this cutting edge technology that would, and I suggest could, prevent and, equally important, solve existing crimes.

I only use this example to emphasize this point. There are over 600 unsolved murders in the province of British Columbia alone. The statistics across the country would be even more disturbing and more staggering.

This is one area where the government could emphasize the necessity of putting resources into a specific area of technology and helping the police with this important crime fighting tool.

Another general area that I would refer to the House is the fact that the provinces themselves should receive greater funding, greater assistance in the administration of our federal laws. The Young Offenders Act is a prime example.

The federal government traditionally has been called upon and is legislated to supply or pay 50% of the cost of administering this federal act called the Young Offenders Act. In truth what is happening here is it is paying only on average 30% of the administrative costs of the Young Offenders Act.

There has been downloading of the majority of the cost to the provinces since 1994, and since 1994 we have seen a slashing of over $6 billion from transfer payments. Those cuts have hurt not only justice but certainly in a broad sweeping fashion health care. The hon. member from the Reform Party spoke of the cuts to education. It cut the absolute basic necessities of Canadians.

This downloading on to the provinces and subsequently on to the municipalities can only serve to further undermine the justice system, the health care system, the education system and take away the provinces' ability to administer necessities to Canadians.

Is the federal government prepared to put its money where its mouth is? We have heard numerous announcements and those announcements, most traditionally in the area of justice, come outside of this Chamber. They are either leaked to the media or the government chooses to have a press conference as opposed to a ministerial statement of policy in the House. I certainly question the wisdom of that.

Is the minister really prepared to pony up and pay the provinces and ensure that the provinces have these resources to administer changes that she has initiated, changes she spoke of in her youth policy initiative? She has indicated she wishes to scrap the Young Offenders Act entirely, to throw it out, the baby with the bathwater approach. One questions the wisdom of that.

There is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that the Young Offenders Act requires changes. It requires significant changes such as lowering the age of accountability, bringing the parents into the system so that they too will be accountable and will be asked the hard questions as to what their role has been in supervising their child when that individual might be out committing an offence, or changing the Young Offenders Act where the emphasis is placed on prevention.

I know the Minister of Justice has contemplated these changes. She has spoken of them at length. She has given great master's thesis presentations on what she would like to see happening within the justice system, but what we see lacking throughout these entire machinations and the process that we see when the minister makes these announcements are any of the hard figures, any of the concrete amounts, the dollar amounts that would be required to bring about this change.

The Young Offenders Act is just one of many changes that the government has spoken of, has taken the initiative to raise the consciousness of Canadians about and yet we are waiting and the clock is ticking. We see it time and time again where the government says it is going to do something and then when pressed on the issue or asked when we will see some legislation tabled in the House, the response has become a patented response. It has become the rallying cry of this government, in a timely fashion it will happen. There is a process that we must go through.

I certainly can respect that there is a process but as with health, as with education, when the time is rolling by, when the necessary changes that could have a positive impact are delayed, the result can be catastrophic. It is tantamount to not giving treatment in health care. One only has to look at some of the terrible examples of individuals suffering from afflictions like hepatitis, like cancer, and if the treatment is not administered the results can be death and injury.

That is equally true within our justice system. If there are preventive steps that can be taken, if there are measures that can be implemented that will improve the system, help prevent crime and help solve crimes that continue to be outstanding on the police record, if we can do something about it, why shouldn't we? Put aside partisan politics and move as quickly as possible to see that those legislative initiatives are taken.

On this side of the House, and I can only speak for the Progressive Conservative Party, if we saw that happening, if we saw positive changes like the DNA bill in its perfect form coming through this House, we would jump to our feet to support that. There would be no hesitation on our part to see those things happening.

Although the minister's policies look good on paper and certainly make for good press, we question their timeliness.

Another suggestion we have with respect to the Young Offenders Act would be to provide judges with more powers to provide or impose mandatory treatment or therapy when a youth embarks on a troubled career or the wrong path, and have that early intervention.

Further, the concept of restorative justice has become very prevalent in the discussions around young persons and actually more broadly within the justice system itself. Once more there has been a great deal of talk about what the government would like to do in this area but we have not seen anything concrete develop. We have not seen it materialize as yet. Restorative justice is something that certainly would be a positive initiative. It would be something I believe the government would receive a great many accolades over if it were to actually invoke that type of legislation.

I will mention one other area I spoke of previously, further parental responsibility, involving the parents in the justice system where they would more fully appreciate the consequences of their children's actions. They, for lack of better words, would be called to task as to why their children were permitted to be out after a certain hour of the night, perhaps breaking into somebody's house or behaving violently, perhaps because they are emulating something they have seen in their own homes.

These are not new initiatives. I will not say this discussion is redundant but it is certainly information that is available. It has been discussed at justice committee. It has been discussed by the government's own experts. Recommendations were made for things like lowering the age of accountability and the government has chosen to ignore that. We in the Conservative Party question the wisdom of the minister in ignoring that advice.

Where is the money being spent? Where do this government's priorities lie? It is incredible, and it has become almost a ruse in this country, the staggering amounts of money being put into the ill conceived and not thought out long gun registry. The howls from the government benches when anyone mentions this are quite incredible. There are indignant cries of “you are against gun control, against safe handling of guns”. That simply is not true.

I think the record will show quite convincingly that it was a Conservative justice minister who brought in Bill C-17 which was the most comprehensive legislation aimed at safe handling of firearms. The legislation spoke of safe storage. It spoke of safety courses that were to be implemented. It talked of trigger guards and keeping of ammunition separate from weapons.

The Conservative Party has always been consistent in its approach that it does favour safe handling of weapons. Simply putting a stamp with a serial number on a rifle and having that databank, a computer system that records who owns certain guns, is not in any significant way going to help combat the criminal use of firearms. We are targeting innocent Canadians who take part in sport shooting, recreational hunting, who go to firearms ranges. Why on earth would the government choose to spend the amount of money that this ill fated system will cost?

The cost has absolutely ballooned. The original figures said $85 million. We know that with the start-up date of this legislation fast approaching the cost has already gone far beyond that original figure. We are talking about a figure that will be tripled or perhaps quadrupled by the time this legislation comes into place, half a billion dollars at the worst estimate.

The government has chosen again to put the money into an area that will not have a significant effect when it could put money into something such as the suggestion yesterday of having an advocate or ombudsman for victims within our system. It costs only $1 million to have an advocate, the commissioner for correctional investigations. It would cost $1 million to have an advocate for victims and the government chooses not to do that. That is a conscious priority decision that the government has made. One has to question why the government would decide to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on this gun registry.

I will refer to another very questionable decision and a priority choice by the government, the now nefarious and subversive investigation into the entire Airbus affair.

There is an investigation into a Canadian citizen and a former prime minister. This brings the entire office of the prime minister into disrepute when this type of scandalous investigation is embarked on.

The truth is that the former prime minister under investigation has been harassed and defamed by the current government's administration. That again was a choice that the government made.

It certainly is not just about cost when a person's reputation is attacked and resources are put into it for perhaps some politically motivated reason. We know there was an out of court settlement of $2 million. The cost of having government lawyers pursue that through the various court levels and appeals certainly expanded or doubled that cost. All this at the end of the day resulted in a very jaded apology and yet this investigation continues. It has expanded in its scope. There are more officers working on this file than before and to what end? Canadians need to know this is a choice the government has decided to make and pursue in the area of justice. It is certainly anything but justice that this is allowed to occur. It is a farce and Canadians should know that it is a farce.

What can we do about it? We can talk in the House endlessly and talk until the cows come home. We can make suggestions but it is the government ultimately that bears the responsibility and has the ability to act on these initiatives.

Many improvements could be brought to the system without spending a great deal of money by refocusing the choice as to where the money was spent and by taking the money out of the gun registry system. It is sad because the money is being spent and has been spent to a great extent. We know it is going to cost more. Police officers question whether it is going to improve the current justice system. The officers and those who are working directly on the front lines in our justice system are the ones who are best charged with the knowledge of whether this is going to work, and they say no.

Another example of a potential change in our justice system that would not cost the government a great deal of money would be the change to the Criminal Code with respect to impaired driving. It would be easy for the government to take an initiative to make changes to our Criminal Code as it pertains to impaired driving. On a number of occasions I asked the minister when that was going to happen. It has been before the standing committee. It has come back before the House and yet regretfully we are not in a position to bring about those changes.

I put these statistics on the record only to demonstrate how important it is that we deal the Criminal Code changes soon. Once again it demonstrates that as time goes by there is a very heavy price to pay in the area of human lives. Impaired drivers kill 4.5 people in Canada every 24 hours, every day of the week. In 1995, 1,519 people were killed in Canada by impaired driving. Impaired drivers killed 17,630 and injured 1.1 million in Canada from the years 1983 to 1991. Shocking statistics. The havoc wreaked on the highways of this country as we speak in the House should be cause for concern for all.

It is very clear that alcohol has significantly increased the risk of motor vehicle accidents and yet we have not dealt with that in a substantive way in the House. We have not rushed to try to remedy the situation. That is another example of a change that could be made.

Another example is section 745 in the Criminal Code, bringing about truth in sentencing. Individuals who are serving life sentences for committing the most heinous of crimes are still given the opportunity in this section to apply for parole. It truly is a shame.

I make these suggestions in good faith and with the hope that the government will react in a positive way. I will be very interested to hear what the government has to say.

Before I sit down I want to amend the motion that is before the House. I move:

That Motion No. 1 be amended by adding after “$1,930,805” the following:

“, less $49,000, an amount equivalent to the Minister's statutory salary and motor car allowance”.