Peter MacKay

[Northern Ireland, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on good Friday, May 22 of this year, the people of both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland voted overwhelmingly in support of a peace accord.

We in this House should salute this spirit of compromise. It clearly prevailed in the hearts and minds of the people of Northern Ireland, be they Protestant or Catholic. They managed to set aside centuries of bloody conflict and endeavoured to reconcile their differences through the fine art of compromise.

Once referred to as a “terrible beauty”, Northern Ireland is now well poised to take its rightful place in the international community, free from the sectarian hatred and division that has so pervaded the past 30 years of trouble.

We in this House, regardless of political affiliation, should follow this lesson of historic agreement: that the politics of division and exclusion is destructive and that the politics of reconciliation is the most effective means to building bridges across divided communities.

Indeed, examples of what the Irish poet Yeats termed the “indomitable Irishry” can be found in the contributions of Irish immigrants to Canada like Samuel McFall of Carrickfergus and Damian Curley of Galway.

Let us hope and pray that the honourable compromise reached in Northern Ireland holds true and that peace “comes dropping” quickly and remains victorious.

[Dna Identification Act, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I must say it is an honour for me to rise in the House and participate in this very important debate on Bill C-3. It touches on an issue that I know the mover of the motion, the member for Crowfoot, holds very dear to his heart as a former law enforcement agent.

I know that other members of the committee, as mentioned by previous speakers, took an active part in the committee debate where we had a number of witnesses. It was certainly an exhibit of parliament at its best at the committee level where we had such a diverse discussion. There were a number of divergent opinions as was referred to by the previous speaker, the member from the Bloc. It was very important that the process did not grind to a halt. We had members moving amendments that unfortunately were not accepted by the government but the process itself did not bog down. We are now at a stage where this bill is on the verge of becoming law.

The sad and unfortunate situation that members often find themselves in is that they support the bill in principle and almost without exception, in its entirety but there are problems with it. There is a flaw, a fly in the ointment so to speak. That fly is a significant one. There is a significant opportunity with the passage of this bill to put into the hands of the law enforcement community the ability to fight crime in a very substantive way.

To use the minister's own terminology about prevention in the area of crime, this bill if it was amended in the way that the some members on the committee had suggested, would allow for the use of DNA at the time of charge. When I say at the time of charge, that in and of itself sets a certain standard, that standard being that reasonable and probable grounds had to exist for a person to be taken into custody and enough evidence had to exist to lay a criminal charge. If the DNA could be taken at that point in time, it could be used in a very important way to match the DNA crime scene bank that would have evidence from other crimes that had remained unsolved.

This is a golden opportunity. We talk about the use of technology and the speed at which technology is moving. This DNA data bank is not being used to its full potential in the manner in which this legislation has been drafted.

At the outset, I want to say that I do support the motion tabled by the hon. member for Crowfoot, the motion being in essence that the bill be returned to the justice committee for further debate. This arises from a situation where the government in its wisdom decided to seek legal opinions after the fact. That is, there was a legal opinion rendered by the Canadian Police Association. They sought the opinion of an eminent criminal lawyer, Mr. Danson, who after considering the situation and looking at the practicalities of the use of DNA offered the opinion to the committee that in fact if DNA was taken at the time of charge this would withstand a constitutional challenge. The timing I have to submit is very suspect here. The government chose after the committee had completed its deliberations to then seek the legal opinion of three very learned retired jurists who gave a contrary opinion.

I do not question for a minute the intent or the fact that the contrary opinion came back from these jurists. In fact it would surprise me if it happened any other way. We all know there are dissenting opinions constantly. Constantly there are juxtaposed positions taken by those involved in the criminal justice system. That is part of the process. That is part of the healthy debate and the adversarial nature of the practice of law.

But here we have again an opportunity to use this legislation to the full degree of the law. To be held back in essence is what is going on, to be held back by fear. I would not call it an irrational fear. I would not go so far as to say that this is not founded in common sense. But I do suggest that we cannot in this chamber and we cannot as members of the elected body be held back or be in constant fear that if we pass a piece of legislation here that it may in some court in some part of this great land be struck down by one judge or a panel of judges who feel that it is perhaps beyond the bounds of the Constitution.

[Points Of Order, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate the comments made by my colleagues. I think this entire parliament and the House itself borders on being brought into disrepute by having a press conference hosted by this individual, given his statements and his well-known position, as was mentioned, on the issue of the Holocaust.

It really borders on lunacy that this would be permitted to take place in this building which is supposed to be the bastion of tolerance and moderate thinking. That this would take place on Parliament Hill really challenges the bounds of credulity when one considers that this is going to happen tomorrow.

I am hoping there is some way that the government can remedy this. I am anxious to hear the response from the government House leader.

[Judges Act, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to partake in the debate today. There has been a great deal of bluster and a great deal of frank discussion about the merits of this particular piece of legislation.

To focus specifically on the motion before the House, what we are in essence contemplating and what the motion would have this House do is return this particular piece of legislation to the committee for further discussion and consideration.

As the previous speaker has indicated, it would hold this piece of legislation in abeyance until perhaps some of the more controversial elements of it have been dealt with in a more substantive way.

It also calls for the review process to kick in. Before the legislation is put in place there would be a further opportunity for scrutiny on some of the detail. In particular, we have heard the official opposition voice its concerns about the salary scale that judges would enjoy should this legislation be passed through this House. Then, of course, it will be further examined in the other Chamber.

There is a great deal of irony, of course, in the remarks of the official opposition, knowing that members of the House are contemplating raises for themselves. I think we have to be very careful, very circumspect, when we speak to this topic.

I do take some exception to some of the personal attacks and some of the remarks that have been made about the judiciary. I think we owe it to ourselves as parliamentarians to be very, very cautious indeed when we start to denigrate and question the integrity of the judiciary. It is certainly not a simple solution to castigate the entire legal process and the players in it.

I can assure members that there are many problems within our justice system. I do not think anyone in this country would disagree with that. However, I believe that the majority of people who are presently working in the justice system are doing their best. Although it is an imperfect system, when compared with other countries it is certainly something we should be proud of.

It is always easy to take the wrecking ball approach and knock down the system we have, but we must always be prepared to replace it with something that is constructive. Unfortunately, there is a tendency at times to simply tear things down without having something positive to replace them with. I feel it is important to have that on the record.

The motion itself, I will indicate quite clearly, the Conservative Party supports. We feel that there is an importance in this motion in that it calls for further credibility of the system and further transparency. It would allow for greater public scrutiny and for the calling of further witnesses to testify. It is a positive suggestion and one that appears quite non-partisan in nature. I believe this is very important when it comes to issues of justice because the benefits or the downside of justice issues really do not know political boundaries.

Once more we see far too often in the House issues of health, education and justice becoming mired in partisan remarks and personal remarks. We must sometimes be a little more tempered when we speak on the floor of the Chamber.

We are certainly for the process of examination or re-examination as the case would be with this motion. We are supportive in principle. A positive suggestion has been put forward. As a member of the justice committee I am not reluctant at all to delve into this question, to look at it further.

There are many positive things about the bill itself, if I can speak momentarily about it in the broader scheme. The suggestion that we will be having more unified family court judges will be of great benefit.

The legislation as well talks about a review process. That is a process that would in future examine the question of compensation. Let us face it. What we need in the system more than anything else is good personnel. We need judges who will be competent, judges who come from the practice of law and bring with them that experience. That personal element does not come cheap. We have to ensure that we will have individuals who are prepared in many cases to make sacrifices by leaving the profession.

We are supportive of this amendment. We would suggest all members of the House similarly support the motion, and I will leave my remarks at that.

[Crime Prevention, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada chose to hide from parliament once again by making their crime prevention announcement outside the House.

Once again the Liberal government has put its own political spin doctoring ahead of presenting substantive policy here in this House. Members of parliament have to cool their heels until tomorrow or read it in the paper to find out what this is all about.

Will the Minister of Justice commit today to stop treating members of parliament and the public like nobodies and present substantive policies here in the House of Commons?

[Crime Prevention, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice will spend $133.9 million this year launching the unworkable long gun registration system, an outrageous sum when compared with the scraps allocated by the Minister of Justice in her crime prevention strategy announced yesterday.

The minister said in Calgary on May 20 we should be embarrassed by this announcement. Can the minister tell the House now if the $32 million announced yesterday is new money or part of the same embarrassing crime prevention announced in the youth justice strategy two weeks ago?

[Airbus, May 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of tomorrow's supreme court ruling on a case involving Karlheinz Schreiber in the ill-conceived, politically motivated airbus investigation, many questions remain unanswered.

It is increasingly clear that Kimberly Prost, retired Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald, mysterious convict Mr. Palosi and the equally credible Stevie Cameron are not the main players in this entire debacle.

We know a former prime minister has been harassed and defamed by the current government's administration and, when challenged on the merits, this same government only offered a qualified apology, paid the bill and now presses on with renewed vigour like an addicted gambler doubling his bets in the hope of covering his debts.

The affront to public sensibility and personal vendetta continues. The questions remain. Why has this dragged on? When will the government show good faith and abandon this dead end trail, saving Canadians further tax dollars? In light of Air Canada's decision to purchase more airbuses, does the government fear for the future integrity of the current Prime Minister, given the Liberal history of involvement with the airbus which dates back to 1971?

[Conditional Sentencing, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to be able to speak to this motion. I believe it is an excellent motion and I commend the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River for bringing this matter forward. It is consistent with his party's motion that was debated in the House today.

The motion calls for the House to instruct the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I am a member, to prepare and bring for a bill to prevent the use—and I might suggest the word misuse—of conditional sentencing in cases where someone is convicted of a sexual offence, drug trafficking or a violent crime.

Specifically, the use of the words “sexual offence” and “violent crime” I could not agree with more.

As I have said, members of the Conservative Party support the motion. However, I find it somewhat disturbing and almost embarrassing that the government has taken the position that it would be opposed to this.

I know that this particular section of the Criminal Code originated from this government. It is unfortunate that it does not recognize that it has been misused. I do not criticize the intent so much as I do the fact that common sense should have allowed the government to see that it was going to be misused.

The application of conditional sentencing has deeply affected Canadians' confidence in the criminal justice system. It is another instance where, unfortunately, Canadians seem to have their confidence undermined when the government passes legislation that fails to protect them.

The mandatory use of this type of disposition is not something we are dealing with here, but the discretion is there. The discretion exists and, sadly, discretion allows lawyers—and I am a member of that group—to potentially push the limits.

Let us be honest. That is what lawyers do. That is what lawyers are going to do when given the opportunity. They are going to argue their case in front of a judge and try to push the limits as far as they can.

Conditional sentencing was put in the Criminal Code to address in a better way the issue of non-violent offenders. It would help to reduce the number of individuals who, if convicted, would find themselves serving time in a federal or provincial institution.

I do not argue with that philosophy. We certainly want to divert individuals away from incarceration if and when the circumstances allow it. However, the emphasis should be on the denunciation of violence, general and specific deterrents, which is something many cases, including the case of the Queen v Grady, espoused. We want to generally and specifically deter individuals and denunciate violence when a specific criminal act occurs, but it always has to be balanced with the protection of the public, coupled with the reaffirmation and rehabilitation of a person when they run afoul of the law.

Surely violent offences, sexual offences and offences involving children, in particular, were never the intent of conditional sentencing. The hon. member opposite spoke of the fact that probation exists, that probation was an option when it came to sentencing and that this is, in essence, a perpetuation of that.

I think what we want to see and what this bill addresses is truth in sentencing. Let us let the judges make that discretion. This is a halfway measure. That is what it amounts to. We want judges to have discretion, but this is on the horns of a dilemma where the person is basically allowed a second-second chance. We are putting them back on the street and saying “We are going to give you one more shot at it. If you offend again, then you are going to come back and complete the sentence that you would have received had their been truth in sentencing the first time around”.

We are becoming far too tolerant when it comes to offences of violence. The minister herself has said time and time again that this is a priority.

I really fear there is a lot of lip service, a great deal of discussion and a great deal of intent on the part of the government to address these types of offences, when what we need is hard core legislation. We need the government to do what it was elected to do. If it is going to change the law this is the place to do it.

With all due deference and respect to the Supreme Court of Canada, it does not make the law. The Supreme Court of Canada is charged with interpreting the laws that are made in this place. What we have seen in recent years is the Supreme Court of Canada setting the standard or striking down significant pieces of legislation, as it did in the Queen v Feeney, sending them back here and telling us what we are to do. That is not the way our criminal justice system should operate in this country.

Judges are, contrary to the will of parliament, using conditional sentences in cases that involve violence and sexual abuse. That was not the intent. Surely there is not one member on the government side who would stand here and say that was the intent of the legislation. It has to be corrected and it has to be done quickly.

Sadly we have seen a lack of speed and a lack of response time on the part of the government when it comes to dealing with criminal justice issues. Are there any more fundamental issues that need to be dealt with quickly and need to be dealt with in a non-partisan way, I might add?

If this is something that the government is serious about, if it is something that it really intends to do, here is an opportunity. This is a golden opportunity for it to stand and say: “We support this initiative. This is something that Canadians would want”.

That, again I would emphasize, is the litmus test. Does it offend Canadians' sensibilities? Do Canadians look at this piece of legislation, conditional sentencing, and say: “Yes, that is something that we embrace if is to protect our communities, if it is to help people to deal with issues of violence?”

Surely that is not the case. We need only to pick up an editorial article in any newspaper and it will say that Canadians are losing confidence in our justice system day after day. I ask rhetorically if the government is ready to support this member's motion. Is the government ready to act and make a difference by embracing and moving on this motion? Unfortunately I am afraid that will not happen.

No one should be getting a free ride in our justice system. I think that goes almost without saying, but precisely that is what can happen when a conditional sentence is applied. As I said earlier, it is a halfway measure. It is almost a way out for some judges in instances where they cannot quite come to grips with a certain set of circumstances, where they want to give the person another chance.

That decision can be made by our correctional services. They are charged with that responsibility now. Let the judges do their job but do not give this halfway measure, this out that judges are permitted to use on conditional sentences when they pertain to violence.

We are not saying to do away with conditional sentences altogether. That is not the intent of the hon. member's motion. It is to specify when it is appropriate to use them. That is the key issue here. It is not that the law itself is entirely bad, but it is the application with which I and other members on the opposition side take issue.

I will not recite horror cases to emphasize the need to bring the legislation about, but we are certainly aware, all too aware, of cases where conditional sentencing has been applied improperly and resulted in individuals not being sentenced properly, further undermining the confidence of the general public and certainly undermining the confidence and perhaps having a more direct and life shattering effect on victims who have been victimized by offenders and then go through the trauma of seeing the individuals who put them in that position walk out the courtroom doors. I have seen it happen myself and it is not a happy day when that occurs. Conditional sentencing is one small but very important example of what is currently wrong with our justice system.

In conclusion, the government has an opportunity. We have heard a lot of talk, a great deal of talk in the Chamber. What we really need and what Canadians want to restore their faith in the justice system is action, legislative action.

The government has failed to act on what it should be doing in condemning this type of use of conditional sentencing. It has talked a great deal about strengthening the Young Offenders Act, cumulative versus consecutive sentencing, the faint hope clause and victims rights.

All these issues have been given a great deal of air time, but we are yet to see the concrete legislation the government could and should be bringing in. That is what we are here to do in the Chamber. We are here to make laws. We are here to make changes when they need to occur. I believe the motion that has been brought forward is a step in the right direction, and that is why we support it.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the previous speaker on the content of his speech. I think he makes some very compelling points. He is obviously representing his constituents very well when he makes those points here in the House.

I want to touch on one issue that he spoke of which concerns a rather perverse anomaly that exists in our current justice system. We currently have under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the parole board someone called the correctional investigator; that is, an investigator who acts in the interests of those who are incarcerated. That person is there to represent the interests of the inmate. There is no question that there is a need for that.

However, this is the anomaly. There is no such person presently in our Canadian justice system to play a similar role for victims; that is, victims who, to use the words of the hon. member, must navigate through this elaborate system which sometimes results in revictimization.

I would ask the hon. member his opinion on what the present government should do and what his party's position is on having an ombudsman, a person akin to the correctional investigator, to act for victims and assist them in any way possible in navigating our very complicated and sometimes slow justice system.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am very glad to see the minister here in the House. She has obviously displayed a great depth of knowledge on these criminal justice issues.

The initiatives that she has taken in this policy platform are certainly welcome initiatives, but legislation is what is vital. This session of parliament is coming to a close and we are yet to see some substantive legislative initiatives.

Ten year olds, she said, might be thrown in jail if a change was made to the Criminal Code that would hold them accountable. I suggest that is not the truth. The fact is, having a system in place that would bring youth into the system at the age of 10 would allow her government to bring about the necessary change that would encompass and hold young offenders responsible.

I also want to question the minister on what policy direction we are going to see this government take with respect to the area of parental responsibility, which is a huge problem in the area of youth justice.

Finally, I would like to ask, when is the money going to be put out? When are we going to see some of the figures to indicate what these initiatives are going to cost Canadian taxpayers?