Peter MacKay

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that word.

What steps has the minister taken to assure Canadians that his office is no longer an information source for Liberal shakedown artists like Pierre Corbeil?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House the file is not closed and perhaps we need more charges.

The President of the Treasury Board has someone in his office who has breached public confidence and brought his minister and the government into disrepute. To suggest otherwise is mendacious.

What steps has the minister taken to assure the Canadian—

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the President of the Treasury Board has said, the privacy commissioner and human resources development have advised us that information concerning grant applications to HRDC must remain confidential until both Quebec and federal ministers approve them.

For example, how can the minister explain that on February 20, 1997, one month prior to the minister for manpower in Quebec's approving the grant, Raglan Company received a visit from now convicted criminal, Liberal fundraiser Pierre Corbeil to improperly solicit funds?

How can the minister allow confidential information to be abused in such a blatantly criminal manner?

[Michelin Canada, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is good economic news in Pictou county, Nova Scotia. On April 9 Michelin Canada announced an additional investment of $75 million to expand its operations at its facilities in Granton.

By installing a new rubber mixing line at the Granton plant, this innovative company will not only create upward of 70 jobs, but also will contribute $15 million worth of contracts for local companies. This amount is in addition to the $25 million directed to local contractors that resulted from the previous Michelin expansion.

I am however concerned about the recent musings from the Liberal government to phase out the Atlantic Canada investment tax credit. Along with Nova Scotia's strong work ethic and great quality of life, it is one of the many attractive incentives to private sector job creation.

I urge the government to continue this tax incentive so that we will have more economic success stories like Michelin, a cutting edge company that directly employs more than 3,500 Nova Scotians.

[Canada Evidence Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to follow my colleague from the province of Nova Scotia. I am equally pleased to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill S-5.

This bill, as has been previously mentioned by a number of my colleagues, will amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Canadian Criminal Code with respect to persons with disabilities. It will also amend the Canadian Human Rights Act with respect to persons with disabilities and it will make consequential amendments to a number of acts.

Let me say at the outset that like my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party, and I am sure all members of the House, I support this legislation. This is a classic example of non-partisan legislation of which we can be proud. It reflects a spirit that we do not often see in this House.

This bill was adopted by the Senate in December 1997 with one major amendment. That amendment was indeed very important since it dealt with the grounds of discrimination prohibited by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For one reason or another, the original legislation as tabled in the Senate did not address all of the grounds of discrimination prohibited by the charter. The Senate's amendment to correct that situation was very important.

I would suggest that this amendment which was passed by our colleagues in the neighbouring House was a very positive one and I congratulate them for their efforts. It shows that the Senate can, in fact, constructively participate in this process.

As a result, Bill S-5 came before us rectified and consistent with all the provisions of the charter of rights and freedoms.

Finally, my last comment on this subject is that the Senate was very helpful in passing this bill in an expeditious way. It helped to speed the process that is very important to having this piece of legislation in place.

I will move to my comments with respect to Bill S-5 as a whole.

The bill sets out a very important principle and one which we embrace, that is, the attempt to remove the barriers to those who want to participate fully in society, and I am specifically referring to those with disabilities.

This bill is a good example of circumstances where the principle of identical treatment versus equality simply does not always work. For those individuals and groups who are disadvantaged, identical treatment does not always lead to equality. This bill addresses that problem and rectifies it by removing discriminatory barriers to ensure equality. I fully support this principle and the bill in its entirety. In general, it is a very good piece of legislation.

I will first deal with the amendments to the Canada Evidence Act. Clause 1 of the bill will make two amendments to this act. First it provides for the use of any different means necessary to allow a witness who has difficulty communicating by reason of a physical disability to give evidence in a court. For example, the use of a sign translator to help a hearing impaired person testify is a concrete example of how this section will help improve participation for those with disabilities.

Certain problems might arise. With respect to translation, there is the question of who would choose the translator. Would they be chosen by the court or would the person suffering the hearing disability be permitted to provide a translator? In the context of a criminal trial, I suggest this is very important and should be given some specific attention.

The second part of clause 1 will add section 6(1) to the Canada Evidence Act. This new section would allow witnesses to use any sensory means, for example their sense of hearing or smell, to identify an accused person. This would allow a person who is visually impaired to participate fully as a witness or potentially, and sadly, as a victim in a criminal trial. It would allow them to identify the accused.

I have had personal experience in a trial where the victim suffered head injuries and subsequently lost their sight. The accused was not apprehended until 12 years later, at which time the victim was called upon to testify. In that case there was other evidence to consider and there were other witnesses. However, that gives a concrete example of how this new amendment could effectively improve the current situation.

As a whole, these two amendments to the Canada Evidence Act represent a step forward with respect to the use and application of technology in our courtrooms. They remove physical barriers that are present for some people and encourage full participation in our criminal justice system. The justice system and the criminal courtroom itself can often be an intimidating environment, and these are positive changes.

Clauses 2 and 8 of Bill S-5 will amend the Criminal Code of Canada. The most important of these clauses will create a new criminal offence. This provision, which will create section 153.1 of the Criminal Code, recognizes that any person in a position of trust or authority who sexually abuses a vulnerable, disabled person will be guilty of an indictable offence, punishable and liable in prison for a term not exceeding five years or guilty of an offence punishable by summary conviction.

A parallel can be drawn between this new section 153.1 and the section relating to sexual violence against children, the current section 153, which also constitutes an offence. In essence, it is designed to protect a specific and more vulnerable segment of our society.

At first, although I had some reservations that this new section was not strong enough because it results in an offence punishable by a maximum of only five years, it is important to identify specifically the need to protect those with physical and mental disabilities. Such an offence is a morally reprehensible act. The Criminal Code should reflect society's revulsion of such an act. That is why I had the initial reservations with respect to the maximum sentence being only five years.

However, the new section sends an excellent message to those in the population who engage in such horrific activities. It creates a new specific criminal offence to address that.

I want to also indicate that I was pleased to see that the government decided to remove the word “invite” from the description of the offences and replace it by the stronger words “counsels” or “incites”. This I believe is intellectually sound and it makes the offence a much more precise one.

I would like to indicate that I support this new section and the changes to the Criminal Code. I hope it is not going to be used frequently. As a former crown prosecutor, I think what I would tend to suggest is that the current section 271, which refers to sexual assault for anyone, is much broader and calls for a stronger sentence of ten years as opposed to five. The crown attorneys of the land are going to have to make those individual decisions.

Clauses 4 to 7 of the bill also modify the Criminal Code and make it easier for a person with a disability to serve on a jury. Accommodation must be made to enable a disabled person to then be selected as a juror to fulfil their important civic responsibility, although I must say in my experience that I have seen many Canadians who, sadly, reflected an indication that they did not want to be on a jury. But this at least opens that door for those with disabilities who want full participation in our justice system. Again it sends an important message.

Clause 8 authorizes video testimony for disabled individuals who have difficulty communicating directly during a proceeding.

These changes in the Criminal Code I believe are designed specifically for those with disabilities. The changes will enable them to have full access to our justice system, which is something that organizations for the disabled have been long calling for.

My final remarks will address the changes to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal which Bill S-5 in essence creates by virtue of the legislation. The creation of a tribunal specializing in human rights is certainly welcome and one that has invoked great response and is embraced by members of the House.

The Canadian human rights area is an increasingly complex one and one that has certainly been very litigious over the years.

I would like to raise some concerns, however, about this tribunal, and previous members have spoken of these concerns. For example, the Minister of Justice under the legislation will have a great deal of discretionary power and measures to allow them to intervene or to invoke disciplinary measures on members of the tribunal. The fact that the minister can be so directly involved certainly might raise some concerns about the independence of the tribunal.

Section 485 also brings forward a concern and that is with respect to the necessity that full time members of the tribunal reside in the national capital region. This, on its face, appears to be some form of regional discrimination. Certainly there are people throughout the land who are competent to sit on the tribunal. There are competent individuals throughout Canada and I would suggest this is again something that might be re-thought.

I also regret that the motion put forward by my colleague in the Bloc did not pass at the committee level. That motion proposed that it be mandatory for a member of a tribunal who is coming to the end of his or her appointed term to continue to the end of a particular hearing. That is to say, if they were scheduled to depart and a tribunal hearing had begun, they would be permitted to finish the tribunal hearing. I believe this is something again which could be modified.

Finally, I will refer specifically to the Canadian Human Rights Act and note that clause 14 of the bill, which will modify section 14 of the Canadian Human Right Act, specifically adds an anti-retaliation clause to the act. I believe this is something that is extremely important which did not exist previous to this legislation. An anti-retaliation clause means, in essence, that a person who files a complaint cannot then be open to retaliation or threat of retaliation by a defendant. This again is an improvement over the current legislation.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada support this legislation. We have always been generally supportive of changes to the criminal justice system for persons with disabilities and I believe that persons with disabilities in Canada will embrace the legislation and benefit greatly from it. It promotes the expansion of access to our justice system and it promotes and expands access to the courts which in many cases can be very intimidating for both victims and members of the public generally. The jury system will benefit from this and the criminal justice system generally will benefit. It also clearly expands human rights in Canada.

For all the reasons I have stated throughout my remarks I support this bill and I am sure all members of this House will do likewise.

[Treasury Board, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this file is not closed. Last fall the President of the Treasury Board denied the involvement of his office in the Pierre Corbeil affair, yet it was his special assistant, Jacques Roy, who provided confidential information to help a Liberal Party fundraiser, a now convicted criminal.

The President of the Treasury Board has denied that link all along. In light of what has happened, will the President of the Treasury Board take some responsibility in this action, reopen the investigation and tell us what happened? Come clean.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday in the House I asked the parliamentary secretary again when he expects to provide an answer to Question No. 21 which was asked on October 2, 1997.

This is bordering on lunacy. It is bordering I suspect on a breach of parliamentary privilege when a person has to get up in the House and ask 10 times when the answer is going to come. Not only are we not getting the answer, we are not even being provided a timeframe as to when that answer might come.

Because of the high regard I hold for the parliamentary secretary, I do want to put him on notice that this issue is not going to go away. The case is not closed. I would like to have some idea when we might expect an answer to Question No. 21.

[National Security, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in response to the solicitor general's statement on national security.

I am also pleased that this forum is being utilized by the government and that we had the opportunity to hear a ministerial statement on such an important area. It is a very timely appearance by the solicitor general.

As has been mentioned by previous members, there has been a great deal of talk in this area. The solicitor general has repeated his pledge from last summer and again last fall to introduce new legislation on money laundering and cross-border currency controls. The fact remains that to date we have not seen that. There has been a great deal of consultation, which again I believe is a very important part of the process, but I would encourage the solicitor general to act on these initiatives.

Canadians are concerned about justice and security issues. They require more than just rhetoric. They require concrete action.

We have heard a great deal about the intention to crack down on money laundering and cross-border currency controls since September of this year. To the government's credit it did pass anti-organized crime legislation in the spring of 1997. However, like many of these initiatives, I would suggest it was not a full effort. There continue to be huge loopholes in the federal legislation, particularly when we look at what Canada has done compared to other countries.

As an example I would cite the U.S. State Department's report, “International Narcotics Control Strategy”, which singled out Canada as an easy target for drug related and other types of money laundering. The report goes on to compare Canada to countries like Columbia, Brazil and the Cayman Islands as countries which are open to money laundering and places to hide illegal money.

That report identified the fact that Canada's international position is not glowing. Lack of federal legislation leaves our country open to this type of illegal activity.

This, in light of some of the other developments that have happened in this country, in particular the government's decision to disband the ports police, causes grave concern for opposition members as well as the Canadian public at large.

The problem remains. In the 10 months since the solicitor general has taken this post there have been many promises made, but we have yet to see the delivery of those promises. Canada continues to be open for business as far as organized crime is concerned.

The solicitor general did assure Canadians on Monday that he was on the job with respect to organized crime.

He also told us that he was going to bring biker gangs to their knees and eradicate organized crime. This is again a lot of tough talk, but we are waiting patiently and encouraging the solicitor general to act on these initiatives.

I would also put before the House the opinion of Scott Newark, the executive director of the Canadian Police Association. He offered this statement very recently to the solicitor general: “Anyone can talk tough. Let's see some action. Here is a guy who has some power, but I have not seen him exercise it yet”.

We have to be concerned when members of the policing community say those things. Mr. Newark went on to say “We are not interested in what the government says any more. We have had some very constructive and doable things that have run into a wall of indifference”. I am very concerned about the confidence in the policing community when those sorts of comments are being made publicly by a gentleman like Mr. Newark.

The solicitor general outlined specifically some of the positive measures of his department and the initiatives to improve national security that would result in changes to our Immigration Act, the Extradition Act and the Official Secrets Act, among other statutes. I would certainly hope that these measures do not have a long shelf life.

I commend the solicitor general for identifying the priority area of CSIS. When this organization began a decade ago many assumed that the end of the cold war would result in a decrease in the need for international security. Sadly, this has not been the case.

Certainly in Canada we have seen a rise in the area of organized crime. This perhaps poses one of the biggest threats to national security at this time.

Page 9 of the 1997 CSIS public report states: “There are many activities in addition to the traditional threat activities which cause or have the potential to cause threats to the public safety of Canadians and the national security of Canada”. Therefore, our focus may have to shift on the internal threats posed by organized crime.

In conclusion, I applaud the engagements of the solicitor general on behalf of CSIS to form intelligence activities, to enhance the protection of computer infrastructure, to review our counter-terrorism strategies and to apprise the government of foreign and domestic activities which may compromise public security. However, with that said, I am still concerned about the lack of resources to effectively implement these very laudable plans. Since the government took office in 1993 there have been more than 700 employees cut from CSIS, more than one-quarter of the total workforce.

I urge the solicitor general to engage his cabinet, in particular the finance minister, to see that this is not just talk and that these plans are going to be implemented. Like my colleagues, I look forward to working on the justice committee with the solicitor general.

[Criminal Code, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will indicate at the outset that I am in support of Bill C-262 which was first introduced in October by the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

It is not often that we in this House have an opportunity to debate a piece of legislation that, while brief in detail, could have a very important impact on protecting the public at large.

As mentioned by previous speakers, and in particular my colleague from Nova Scotia, we have an opportunity in the House to impact directly on our criminal justice system. The Minister of Justice has stood in this House many times and in response to questions from the opposition benches has said there are no simple answers. That may be partly true but at times there are simple answers. This bill in its present form is a very straightforward and simple answer to a problem that exists in our Criminal Code.

My colleague from Nova Scotia has already spoken about some of the nuances that exist when it comes to sentencing, the principles of sentencing and the difference between a provincial and federal sentence and the designation of two years plus or minus a day. I will not go into detail on that.

There is an opportunity here to allow judges to have greater discretion in the sentencing process, that is, judges who in the first instance place sentences on offenders and put in place conditions in the instance of a provincial sentence. Judges are in a unique position to assess the circumstances of the offence. They would have the benefit of the input of defence and crown counsel. They would have potentially heard a trial and made rulings of fact. Therefore the judge in the first instance has the unique opportunity to craft a sentence that is best aimed at meeting the principles of sentencing which are reformation and rehabilitation, not to mention the protection of the public and society's denunciation of certain criminal acts.

This bill allows judges to become more involved in the process for sentences that go beyond the two year mark. I would like to commend the hon. member as well. This is a unique and straightforward bill he is bringing before the House.

I want to make a few comments with respect to the Reform Party's position on this. In the past we have heard derogatory remarks in this House from members of the Reform Party about judges generally. I am not going to get into the details of that.

It is important to note that this bill gives judges more discretion. It is very important that we in this place do not stand up and be overly critical of a certain institution, such as judges, and then turn around and want to empower them with greater discretion in what I would interpret as a means to give judges greater respect and control within the justice system.

Bill C-262 clearly gives judges additional power. With that comes additional responsibility. Although judges have been given greater discretion by this legislation, I caution Reform members about some of their comments about judges generally. When members of Canada's Parliament refer to judges in this institution I do caution them.

As referred to earlier, the justice committee has a great deal on its plate. I would like to inform the hon. member that I took the opportunity today, because I knew this piece of legislation was coming forward, to ask the director of Correctional Service Canada what his reaction would be to this initiative. I was interested by his response.

The director felt that it was not necessary. He felt that there were sufficient safeguards in place and that Correctional Service Canada and the parole board had the ability and were in a better position to craft the conditions of release when a prisoner had served his or her time or, as we have come to know it, a portion of his or her time prior to being released. I was somewhat surprised that he responded so quickly with that. As I indicated earlier in my remarks, I think this opportunity to have judges craft a sentence in the first instance early in the process might have long term ramifications.

One thought which came to mind while I was listening to some of the remarks of the other speakers would be that the parole board or Correctional Service Canada would have the discretion to add or subtract certain conditions based on the progress of the offender or the rehabilitative steps the offender had made while incarcerated, depending on whether it was a long term or a short term sentence. The parliamentary secretary to the minister has referred to the fact that it is perhaps not necessary because for long term sentences the parole board or Correctional Service Canada are in a better position to assess that progress.

Again I hearken back to my earlier remarks. It is very important in all the steps an offender goes through from apprehension to eventual release into society that all the interested parties should have and through this legislation could have greater input into the process.

I want to refer quickly to a couple of cases. These are factual cases before the committee.

One involves an individual by the name of Raymond Russell who was a convicted killer. On May 29, 1996 he murdered Darlene Turnbull in her Vernon, British Columbia home. At the time Mr. Russell had been released on full parole and was boarding with Ms. Turnbull. Problems came to light as a result of a Corrections Canada inquiry after the fact. The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime has done a great deal of research into this case.

The National Parole Board in conjunction with CSC did the report. It focused on the fact that there was a lack of exchange of information. It highlights the fact that apparently in many instances a breakdown in information exchange is occurring in the justice system. It poses very grave consequences for the public at large if all that information is not available.

In the context of this bill, we have an opportunity for judges early on to have input into long term sentences. They would then be subject to those conditions the judges might deem appropriate in the first instance and would be subject to review from the contemplated time of release to see if they were still appropriate. Although the Minister of Justice has said that there are no simple solutions, I would suggest that this is a very simple change that could take place. We should embrace it.

One thing Canadians have hoped for and have come to expect is that we should be looking for solutions that make the law more pliable and more applicable. If that involves updating or changing the law, we should encourage that.

There are times when the law could be made simpler. It could be made more user friendly. It could be more user friendly for police officers who have to be the first line of contact when the law is broken. It could be more user friendly for victims and people who are brought into the system through no will or no want of their own.

Another case involves Michael Hector who was a convicted armed robber and on parole when he was involved in the murder of three innocent people in the Thunder Bay area. He was on parole at the time he committed these heinous crimes. Prior to his release the National Parole Board had granted him day parole. It came to light that factually some of the conditions that had been placed upon him were not being followed.

It highlights again the need for appropriate conditions to be in place. They have been described in some cases as abstention from alcohol, non-association with prior comrades, or staying away from playgrounds in the case of a sexual offender. Those types of conditions could be diagnosed. Perhaps I am using that word inappropriately.

A judge in the first instance could make that determination and put those conditions in place. They could be reviewed prior to the offender's release, whether that is two, four, six or eight years down the road. They could be reviewed by the parole board and deemed to be appropriate or not appropriate. The important thing is the conditions are there and everything humanly possible is done to ensure that the proper conditions are in place.

I support this piece of legislation. I commend the hon. member for bringing this bill to the floor of the House. I am sure the policing community, the victims advocate community and the public at large would see this as a positive change to our Criminal Code. I am encouraged that all members have spoken favourably on it.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, we support this legislation.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the failure of the government to respond to Question No. 21 which was tabled in the House on October 2, 1997, seven months ago. I have regularly asked the government when it would reply.

The parliamentary secretary has constantly been vague, verging on stonewalling when asked questions about a response to this inquiry. The question concerns visits of ministers to the Drummondville-Trois Rivieres vicinity during a time that we now know—it has been confirmed—a Liberal fundraiser was engaged in criminal activity.

We keep hearing the words “timely fashion” and “in due course”. There is every reason to believe that ministers of the crown were used as props in these nefarious activities. I invite the parliamentary secretary to outline for the House what actions he has taken during the time period when we have been repeatedly asking for this very basic straightforward information.

I want to know if the parliamentary secretary is refusing to come clean on this or if we will actually get some answers. There has been an admission of criminal involvement in this matter. We want a response and we want one soon.