Vic Toews

[Sponsorship Program, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that is a minister who every day shows contempt for this House and, more important, contempt for the people of Canada.

The Prime Minister knows that the independent Gomery inquiry in no way impedes his ability or his obligation to disclose the truth to Canadians here, today, in Parliament.

Rather than relying on a non-existent principle, why will the Prime Minister not simply stand up and tell the truth?

[Sponsorship Program, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that Canadians are being stonewalled by the minister.

The Prime Minister claims that he had no involvement in the sponsorship fiasco, yet a growing mound of evidence points in an opposite direction. This failure to immediately disclose the extent of his involvement casts a dark shadow on his ability to lead the Government of Canada.

If he has nothing to hide, he should stand in the House and explain to Canadians his direct communication with the ad agency Groupe Everest.

[Criminal Code, October 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my comments on this important bill. First, however, I would like to thank the people of Provencher who have seen fit to re-elect me. I thank them for their vote of confidence.

The people of Provencher want this minority Parliament to work. They want their parliamentarian to fight for the issues that are worth fighting for, the issues that are important, but they also want me as their representative to work in cooperation with the other parties to ensure that we get our work done here. I think this bill is one of those cases. Not only is it possible to work together, but I think the principles of the bill are important and we should work together in this particular case. That is why I am supporting the bill.

The purpose of the bill is to modernize the mental disorder provisions of the Criminal Code to make it both fairer and efficient while preserving the overall framework of the provisions.

In June 2002 the standing committee tabled a report calling for legislative reforms and looking at the Department of Justice consultations on the mental disorder provisions for guidance. The executive committee review that was conducted was as a result of a statutory requirement under Bill C-30, which had been introduced in 1991 and which itself was the subject of many years of consultation.

The report that was put forward in 2002 was approved of by all parties. In fact, the result of the review is an important example of how committees, when they are focused on the issues rather than on partisan politics, can work in a cooperative fashion. This report is a demonstration of that cooperation and the value of committee work.

Bill C-30 had a significant reform provision relating to persons not considered criminally responsible. That bill replaced references to terms such as “natural imbecility” or “disease of the mind” with the term “mental disorder”. It extended its application to cover summary convictions for less serious offences as well. Instead of being found not guilty by reason of insanity, an accused could now be held not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Such a finding no longer resulted in automatic periods in custody. That automatic period of custody was found to be unconstitutional in the Swain decision back in 1991. Instead, the court could choose an appropriate disposition or indeed defer to the decision of the review board, which has already been mentioned here before.

Furthermore, under that provision the courts and the review boards were obliged to impose the least restrictive disposition necessary having regard to the goal of public safety. I think this is very important: this board is not simply looking at releasing individuals as quickly as possible, but also has to keep in mind the issue of public safety. Not only do the boards look at the issue of public safety, they look at the mental condition of the accused and the goal of his or her reintegration into society.

Bill C-30 came into force in February 1992. The proclamation was delayed for three major initiatives: first was the capping provision; second was the “dangerously mentally disordered accused provisions” that would allow the courts to extend the cap to a life term; and third was the hospital orders provisions for convicted offenders who at the time of sentencing were in need of treatment for mental disorder.

Bill C-10 takes into account many of the recommendations of the justice committee's report in June 2002 as well as further input from the Department of Justice consultations with stakeholders. The amendments of Bill C-10 address six key areas: first, the expansion of the review board powers; second, permitting the court to order a stay of proceedings for permanently unfit accused; third, allowing victim impact statements to be read; fourth, the repeal of unproclaimed provisions; fifth, the streamlining of transfer provisions between provinces, and sixth, the expansion of police powers to enforce dispositions and assessment orders.

A couple of concerns have been raised with respect to some of these key areas, for example, victim impact statements to be read at a hearing involving one of these mentally disordered individuals. We must make it very clear that in a criminal proceeding, where an accused is mentally competent, the victim impact statement is very important in the context of whether or not an accused shows any regret, the impact on the victim's family and the like.

However, in this situation where we are dealing with a mentally disordered person, the same concerns would not necessarily arise because we are not looking at the guilty mind of a person. We are dealing with a mentally disordered person and must be careful how we use this victim impact statement.

It is important for victims to have a voice, but we must remember that this victim impact statement in this context does not form exactly the same role that it does in a criminal trial. A criminal may not express any regret for what he or she has been found liable for. It is important for the victim especially in that context to be able to tell the tribunal or the court exactly how that crime has impacted on the family.

The streamlining of the transfer provisions between provinces is another issue. It is important that there is the appropriate consent of the jurisdiction to which the individual is being transferred. We must remember that these facilities are usually under provincial jurisdiction and we do not want to unilaterally push individuals into one jurisdiction out of another jurisdiction. There are issues of costs and other concerns. The bill does attempt to ensure that the appropriate consent is obtained.

The repeal of the unproclaimed capping provisions is also very important. Why were concerns raised about these sentencing provisions? They were raised because it appeared that where a person was found mentally disordered, the period of incarceration or confinement could be a lot longer than a comparable sentence in the criminal courts.

It is important to remember that, for example, if on a regular assault causing bodily harm, a person could get a few months in jail or a conditional sentence. Whereas in this context, we are not looking at strictly the issue of punishment. We are looking at rehabilitation, so the issue then does not become how long is the sentence, but rather how long a period of time in custody is required in order to assist the person to get over the mental disorder to the extent that this is possible.

As I indicated earlier when I spoke about the victim impact statements, again there is a difference in the intent. With the criminal conviction, obviously punishment is one of the key goals of the criminal justice system as well as rehabilitation. When we talk in the mentally disordered context, we are not talking about punishment. We are not talking about rehabilitation in the same way. What we are trying to do is ensure that persons are in custody for as long as they need to be there in order to get the help that they need from the appropriate medical personnel and facilities.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Winko decision that a potentially indefinite period of supervision of a mentally disordered person was not unconstitutional since it was not for the purposes of punishment. However, there is a review process that provides a mentally disordered person with some safeguards.

I am pleased to add my support to this bill. I want to emphasize the work that was done by the member for Fredericton as the chair of the justice committee. I believe he shepherded this bill along in a responsible fashion. I am not going to say that was always the way he conducted himself, but in this case he did and I am proud to support the bill.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, when I was in the provincial government of Manitoba, the federal Liberal government cut off the funding for health care for first nations people in Winnipeg. All off-reserve natives had previously been under the care of the federal government and the funding was cut off, and simply dumped onto the provincial government in a very short order. That created tremendous hardships in a place like Winnipeg.

I grew up in Winnipeg and I know what some of the concerns are. What I saw consistently when I was in the provincial government was a failure by this government to address that kind of concern.

I also saw the collapse of the reserve system in many places because it had not been getting the proper support from the federal government. I then saw the phenomena of native people leaving first nations communities in droves and going to Winnipeg. The federal government, of course, having cut off the province from any assistance, left the province in an incredibly difficult situation.

I am wondering whether the government will re-examine the idea that it, too, is responsible for first nations people, not just in the first nation community, not just on the reserve, but constitutionally. It is responsible for first nations people in our urban centres, even though they are not in first nations communities any more.

Does this member take the position that the Government of Canada is only responsible for first nations people who have chosen to stay on the reserve, in very deplorable conditions might I add?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question, specifically in respect to the national child care framework being proposed by the government. I noted the member mentioned statistics, that there were working mothers with 3 million children and that there were approximately 500,000 daycare spaces, which left about 2.5 million government approved daycare spaces that needed to be created.

My specific concern is that my riding is primarily a rural riding. I would like to use the quote from J.S. Woodsworth of 1922. As he said, is this just a program where one group funds it but gets none of the benefits? That is what many rural Canadians feel about the national daycare program, which creates spaces in large cities but gives none of the benefits to rural Canadians.

There are many examples of that kind of disparity. I know the member rode his bicycle to work. In rural Canada, where work is sometimes 30 to 40 miles away on a gravel road, it is a tough thing to do.

However, I want to focus just on the child care. How do we help rural Canadians with those specific needs?

[Government Appointments, October 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians want to hear from the person who actually made the decision, not his messenger.

The Prime Minister's position that further transparency would politicize the process is simply disingenuous. The fact is that this process was only designed to retain the absolute authority in the Prime Minister's hands.

Why has the Prime Minister abandoned his commitment to democratic reform in favour of centralizing power in his own hands?

[Government Appointments, October 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to bring transparency to the appointment of Supreme Court of Canada judges. Instead, he sent the justice minister to tell Canadians what he decided in private.

The promise of transparency has been abandoned for a rubber stamp process. Why did the Prime Minister break his word again?

[Supply, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the issue was not whether or not we wanted the Auditor General to come back. We all wanted the Auditor General to come back. We were relying on the scenario set out by KPMG in terms of how the witnesses were to come back. Rather than imposing our own political partisan view on when witnesses should come back, I agreed that however the experts in setting out the case decided what should be the order of witnesses, that was how it should be done.

The Auditor General, it is true, did not say that $100 million was stolen. What she said was that $250 million was missing, that the documentation was not there to justify that.

[Supply, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there are 40 witnesses that have been heard from, or thereabouts, and there are another 90 or so. What I would like to point out is yes, there are a lot of witnesses to be heard, but remember, we have heard one-third of them.

The witnesses were not chosen on a partisan basis. The witnesses were chosen by an expert company that we hired to assist us in developing the testimony and bringing it forward in an orderly process. We have spent no doubt thousands of dollars in terms of that process and that will now all be lost. Whether it is tens of thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars, just with respect to the experts from KPMG, I do not know. I believe it was money well spent in an attempt to proceed in a non-partisan fashion. Obviously that now will be lost if the committee is shut down.

We note that the committee will not be sitting next week. There is no reason that it could not continue to sit next week, but the Liberals have specifically decided to shut it down. Hearing more witnesses next week would not be throwing good money after bad. In fact it would ensure that the hard-earned money that we have already put into it would be used to bring forward the necessary conclusions that Parliament needs in order not only to determine what happened but to ensure that it does not happen again.

[Supply, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows that was totally improper. He has prejudiced my trial in respect of that issue. That was on command of the Prime Minister, given his relationship with him. As you have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that will form the basis of another issue.

However, now that he has improperly prejudiced my position, I would like to discuss the fact that this matter has been going on for four or five years. We know the timing on this matter is politically motivated and that it is coming from the Prime Minister's office, but there is one significant difference. In my case, the issue is not of money that has gone missing or stolen. No money is missing or stolen and no allegation. Indeed, there is not even any allegation of personal responsibility on my part. However, in the case of the sponsorship scandal, it involves $250 million of taxpayer money missing.

Speaking as a former crown attorney, when $250 million is missing outside of the accounts, where is that money? Canadians are entitled to ask that question. The member wants to prejudice my fair trial as he has just done, and I will raise that issue in the proper forum, but what I ask Canadians to do is to ask what happened to the $250 million. They know that in my situation not a dime of public money was taken or misplaced, but $250 million has gone missing under the sponsorship program.