Peter MacKay

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as much as the minister would say the file is closed and the matter will go away, I want to point out that it is a fact that it was an employee of his who provided confidential information to Mr. Corbeil. It is a fact that Mr. Corbeil then, in turn, used this information to participate in an illegal kickback scheme to the Liberal Party.

It is a fact that the person involved in the office of the President of the Treasury Board could not have participated in this if the information had not been provided. It is a fact that the President of the Treasury Board, who denied the involvement of his office, is wrong.

In light of these facts, will the President of the Treasury Board clean up his office or resign?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think there is more to add.

Canadians need to know that private information given to the government is not being used for a Liberal Party graft.

Last week it was confirmed in a Montreal courtroom that Jacques Roy, special assistant to the President of the Treasury Board, turned over government information to a convicted extortionist, Pierre Corbeil.

My question to the minister is, what disciplinary action has been taken for his employee, or does he condone this activity by his employee?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last week the President of the Treasury Board stated that he did not see any problem with what his employee, Jacques Roy, was doing since the information he gave up for legal fundraising was actually public information.

Will the minister stand in his place today and tell the House that applications for funds for federal departments are public information prior to their governmental approval?

[Elizabeth Fry Week, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the week of May 4 is National Elizabeth Fry week during which time Elizabeth Fry societies across the country will hold activities to enhance public awareness and education regarding the circumstances of women involved in the criminal justice system.

National Elizabeth Fry Society week is always the week preceding Mother's Day as the majority of women who come in conflict with the law are mothers. In fact, the majority of these women were the sole supporters of their families at the time they were incarcerated.

When mothers are sentenced to prison their children are sentenced to separation through no fault of their own. On the occasion of national Elizabeth Fry week let us support the important role of the Elizabeth Fry Society in identifying community based alternatives to costly incarceration for non-violent offenders.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, as previous members have expressed, I am very pleased to take part in the debate.

The members previous have also indicated this is a very crucial and important piece of legislation that will certainly aid police officers and Canadians generally in their never ending fight against crime.

I want to address the motions in the order in which they appear. With respect to the first motion, which is moved by the member for Charlesbourg, although I certainly agree with the purpose for which he has brought the motion forward, I would suggest it is a motion or an amendment that is already addressed in the current form of the bill. Clause 4 of the bill is clear. Any further tinkering with this clause would only lead to potential misunderstanding, which of course could then lead to unnecessary litigation.

I find myself in the untenable position of having to agree with the government that the legitimate concerns are in fact met. Although there is always concern for misuse of this important technology, I believe the principles set out in the preamble will address that point. I certainly would not call it a pointless or irrelevant motion but simply duplicitous.

It is a very complicated bill. There can be no debate on that issue. We as members of the House, and particularly those participating in this debate, have an obligation to try to simplify where possible the legislation, not to complicate it.

Motion No. 2 was proposed by the member for Sydney—Victoria. For the reasons I previously stated I feel it may be a motion that is addressed in a more direct form in the current drafting of the bill.

It is not the principle that we disagree with but rather that the bill might become unduly complicated by making this amendment. Certainly there is evidence that this type of DNA data can and perhaps will in the future be used for other purposes.

With respect to how it will be used as it stems from this piece of legislation, safeguards are in place and sections of the bill will be addressed in other amendments which we will be debating on the floor today. It is perhaps duplicitous. Safeguards currently exist in the act. Any improper or illegal use of the DNA evidence would be addressed by existing sections of the act.

The third motion is proposed by the member for Charlesbourg with respect to the use of DNA, or how the commissioner would ensure that DNA was not being abused, is a motion that I embrace, a motion that I think is a good one.

It is aimed particularly at protecting the privacy interests of individuals. It ensures accountability and is aimed at correcting or addressing any misuse of information. It is a good motion. It is one that I hope all members of the House will consider and take seriously.

It would allow for a more complete and perhaps a more thorough investigation of the DNA databank. It is an important safeguard. As I have indicated earlier, it is a motion we should support. It would also ensure that improper use does not occur.

The fifth motion in this grouping proposed by my hon. friend in the Bloc is a motion that I believe in principle we should support. However, as has been indicated by the parliamentary secretary and the member from the Reform Party, there are provisions in existing legislation that would allow for an audit outside a defined three year period.

In essence this concern has been met. I am pleased to hear that the parliamentary secretary is supportive of that position. Therefore the legitimate concern raised by the hon. member is addressed. It is certainly there for a very crucial intent, that is to balance the protection of the public and the crucial need of law enforcement officers to use this trace evidence and DNA sample evidence for their legitimate fight against organized crime and crime generally, coupled with the need for the privacy concern interest.

We have an obligation to ensure that is what happens by the enactment of the legislation. There is a great deal of responsibility weighing upon us in that regard.

I conclude by saying that of the motions before the House in this juncture of debate, we support the last two but have some difficulty with respect to the prior two motions which appear in this grouping.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Soon.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I apologize for rising but on this point I do want to bring to the House's attention that this grouping I suggest is inappropriate in the sense that Motions Nos. 1 and 2 have absolutely nothing to do and have no bearing on Motions Nos. 3 and 5. I am not suggesting they be voted on differently. My understanding is that all these motions will be voted on individually, but Motions Nos. 1 and 2 should not be in the same grouping as Nos. 3 and 5.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think it bears mentioning that it was received at our office by regular standard mail. It was not sent by courier to our office, just to differentiate from what the parliamentary secretary said.

I think the hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair also raises an important point that this information has distributed in one language, and that point was raised by the hon. member from the Bloc.

I suggest that if a prima facie case does not exist, at the very least we should be given an opportunity to review this material in its entirety. If it was important enough to seek this decision and important enough to get to an important group like the Canadian Police Association, surely that in and of itself bears out the argument that we as members of parliament debating this issue on the floor of the House should be given an opportunity to digest this information.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret that I bring this matter forward, but I feel I am under a duty to do so. It arises out of Bill C-3 which will be before the House today for amendment.

It also bears on government action which I feel impedes members of this House in their consideration of this bill which is scheduled for report stage today.

An essential part of the debate on Bill C-3 has to do with a disagreement over an important constitutional question. Eminent counsel outside the government were requested to give an opinion with respect to the options the government was considering. The chief law officer for the crown, the Minister of Justice, decided to go outside her department to secure the opinion of these three distinguished lawyers who had in the past been members of the judiciary. This information was made known to members of the justice committee on April 20 when the minister appeared before the committee for main estimates.

The Minister of Justice felt it was necessary to get this judicial opinion outside her department as it bore directly on the issue of the timing of the taking of DNA which is central to the debate before the House today.

Over the weekend I learned that on Friday evening the opinions of these three eminent jurists were made available to the executive director of the Canadian Police Association. At the same time, those opinions were not made available to members of the justice committee, or at least not to the members of the opposition I spoke with. The information was made available to the director of the police association, but not to the justice committee.

The House of Commons will be asked to vote on questions relating to this very important opinion which the Minister of Justice felt it necessary to seek. I suggest that, as members of the House, we have been placed in a disadvantaged position. I and my staff worked on this issue over the weekend, as did other opposition members in preparation for today's debate. We did so without the knowledge of the opinions sought by the Minister of Justice. I only received these opinions this morning.

I believe the opinions were made available, but it would appear they were not delivered to the office in the same manner that they were delivered to the director of the Canadian Police Association. I understand he received them via courier to his house in Brockville, while we as members of this House did not receive them until this morning. I took the liberty of providing those opinions to my colleagues in other parties because they had yet to receive them at all.

I would suggest that the government's actions demonstrate that it cares more for the opinions of an interest group than it does for those of members of the justice committee who are being requested to speak on this issue in the House today. The government has failed in its obligation to treat this House with the same respect as it does those who are not members of this Chamber. It is the “cheque is in the mail” response. The government went to the trouble of having this decision rendered and then did not go to the trouble of having that information provided to us as members of the committee.

This is not to show any disrespect for interest groups, in particular the Canadian Police Association. It is certainly entitled to this information as well, but the same courtesy should have been extended and the same effort should have been made to ensure members of this House had that crucial information. Instead the government chose the slowest and least cost effective means to transmit the material. We in this House have been asked to approve departmental estimates and to provide the department with our feedback on this important piece of legislation, and yet the government has communicated this information to us by the slowest of all possible means.

I submit there was a breach of parliamentary privilege. The government's purpose in securing a legal opinion was to influence the deliberations of the vote that will take place on Bill C-3, yet it has failed to give sufficient time for us to fully consider these important legal opinions.

I point the Chair to citation 31(10) of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's where a Speaker on the issue of ministerial communications to the House stated:

The question has been asked whether Hon. Members are entitled, as part of their parliamentary privilege, to receive such information ahead of the general public.

I can find no precedent to justify this suggestion.

I am not arguing that we have a priority to receive it before members of the public, but at the very least we should receive it at the same time. This information relates directly to the point that will be debated in the House today. It relates directly to the point with respect to the timing of the taking of DNA. I assure the House that will be the position taken by members of the opposition. There is an obligation to make that information available in advance. This action by the government, I would suggest, was not only contentious, but ill-thought out and ill-advised, given the fact that this information is before the House. Haste makes for bad law and that is the danger that arises when situations like this occur.

Therefore, I believe it is incumbent upon the Chair, at the very least, to consider this issue prior to the commencement of the debate. We need time to review these decisions. We need time to digest the opinions of these jurists who have been called upon by the government to render a decision and to consider them in the debate here prior to speaking to these amendments.

I would suggest it is urgent that we deal with this in a timely fashion, to use the minister's words, and that we do so prior to the commencement of the debate today.

[Criminal Code, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased to speak on Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I would suggest at the outset that this is a very timely and important bill.

Let me start my remarks with a quotation from the mover of this bill, the hon. member of Mississauga East, from a speech which she gave in the previous parliament. The bill was then labelled Bill C-321, the ancestor to the present bill:

Since I reintroduced this bill I have sadly been visited by too many victims of crime who have now come to realize that they are also victims of parliament. Some had lost children, some had lost parents, some had lost spouses, but all had lost faith in the courts, lost faith in parole boards and, most of all, lost faith in parliament.

Very sad words. I must say again at the outset that I commend the hon. member for Mississauga East for her dogged determination and pursuit of this very important principle and for bringing this bill forward again.

How true her statements ring when we look at what has happened this week in the House. We and the Canadian population have seen that the Government of Canada has displayed some callousness toward victims. Although I listened very carefully to her words, I must say that the quality of mercy is strained by what has happened to the victims of hepatitis C.

I do want to say with that on the record that I am glad to see there is at least one member who does care for victims. I know she has been working very hard over the past number of years to bring this matter forward in the form of a votable motion.

She stated in her remarks that there were three basic principles behind this bill: inhumanity and to avoid it, improving humanity toward victims, and certainly to protect us against those who offend. I congratulate her on her work. I am happy to see that members in this House and some members of her own government have decided to make this a votable item.

The member for Mississauga East has moved this important bill and has given a very eloquent speech before this House. This is the kind of intelligent, impartial and passionate speech we see far too seldom. Her speech clearly described how difficult it is for victims of crime in this country to face the justice system and how far too easily it is for them to lose faith.

Today parliamentarians have an opportunity to speak on this important piece of legislation to help improve our justice system, to help bring to Canadians confidence in the system and more important to improve the protection of society from violent offenders. These are very collective and substantive suggestions the hon. member has made. Again I state on the record that I wholeheartedly and unequivocally support her motives.

Bill C-251 provides for truth in sentencing, something we must see. It is a very brief, straightforward and easy to understand amendment to the Criminal Code, something which we and all members of this House should encourage.

When it comes to the issue of sexual assault and section 271 of the Criminal Code there is a substantial need for this amendment. There is a need that sentences which are imposed by judges be served consecutively so that the punishment reflects the gravity of the offence.

At the present time there is the ability for these types of sentences to be served concurrently. That is, if there is more than one offence or the offence of a sexual assault occurs at the same time as other offences such as break and enter, theft or simple assault, the sentences are served at the same time. It is tantamount to having loans from three different institutions and only having to pay back one loan, to put it in simple terms.

The principles of sentencing are set out in the Criminal Code of Canada. Section 718 of the code sets out what legislators in the past have tried to do and tried to reflect in the sentencing principles. Section 718.1 states: “A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”. It goes further in setting out what these principles are and it speaks of the need for reformation and rehabilitation to be balanced against the more important, I would suggest, principle and that is the protection of society.

The Criminal Code states: “Where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh”. Try to explain that to victims. Try to explain that to those who have lost their loved ones or had their loved ones attacked, beaten or killed. It is hard to impose this very strict and I would suggest heartless, callous principle and make them understand.

We have to revisit the principles of sentencing. The suggestion by the hon. member is a good one.

Bill C-251 would expand the ability of judges to impose a fair sentence. No one should be getting a free ride in our justice system. Sadly, that is precisely what happens on occasion. We permit sexual offenders and other offenders who commit two, three, four or more crimes to serve one sentence at one time. It is absolutely absurd.

The name Clifford Olson has been mentioned in this Chamber far too often. I shudder to even mention that man's name. This is an individual who killed 11 children and is serving one life sentence. He should be serving 11 life sentences. The manipulative and self-serving evidence that he gave at his section 745 hearing is an absolute disgrace. It is a black eye for the entire country and our justice system in particular. There is no meaningful sentence that would ever reflect the heinous nature of the crimes that waste product committed.

One cannot help but be alarmist and reactionary when one hears the individual circumstances that surround some of these crimes, but one has to be thoughtful and thorough when approaching the subject of sentencing. Common sense has to apply at some level. For people like Olson and Bernardo, to suggest that 15 years to life is an adequate response is absolutely ludicrous.

This is why I hope that the member for Mississauga East will also support members of parliament on the opposition side when we continue to call for the abolition of section 745 of the Criminal Code, the so-called faint hope clause. I am sure that based on the time she spent watching this debacle in British Columbia she will be of a similar mind.

The principles of her bill are completely undermined and useless as long as we continue to have section 745 in the Criminal Code. It is my belief that each of the innocent lives that were taken deserve at least the validation of having a consecutive sentence to represent their lives.

Conditional sentences are another subject, but that is another matter that has to be revisited. I would suggest that serious sexual assaults and violence should never be considered by judges for the imposition of conditional sentences.

It is also my belief that a person who commits multiple crimes should be given an appropriate sentence to reflect each and every one of those offences if committed at a different time with different circumstances.

Bill C-251 addresses that. It does so in a substantial and common sense fashion. Therefore I support the member and I support her bill. I support truth in sentencing. I support a justice system that does not marginalize by bargaining away the ability of society to protect itself and reflect its revulsion of violent crimes.

The second clause of Bill C-251 also amends section 120 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It requires offenders sentenced for first and second degree murders to serve their full parole ineligibility period on the sentence, plus one-third of a maximum of seven years, whichever is less. Again it is an innovative way to ensure that there is some truth in sentencing.

There are times and factual circumstances when the judge should impose a sentence that would really reflect what the crime represents. If a judge says 25 years, it should be 25 years and that should be the end of it. That would give the offender and society the belief in their justice system.

When a person is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life for first or second degree murder, and after being sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life in respect of another crime, why should that sentence not be served consecutively? It is a very good motion on the part of the hon. member.

Simply put, cumulative sentences play a very important role when it comes to parole eligibility. With a double murderer, Bill C-251, would be the best way to address this. The victim's family of the second murder, are left with the fact that their victim is not being addressed by the justice system when the sentence has to be served concurrently.

A person capable of serious violence and sexual aggression is a risk. It has to be a priority. It has to be something that we are prepared to address. This bill is worthy of our support.

Bill C-251 is a step toward improving our justice system overall and our sentencing principles. We must do more. We must continue to work toward this important goal.

In conclusion, I and the Conservative Party support this bill wholeheartedly and congratulate the member for Mississauga East.