Vic Toews

[Supply, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to contribute some comments in respect of this very important motion which reads:

That, in the interest of transparency, the government should ensure that the work that has been done by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts into the sponsorship scandal be continued after the Prime Minister calls a general election and until the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is reconstituted in a new parliament by establishing a commission under the Inquiries Act.

As a member of the public accounts committee, I have been astounded at the tactics of the government in shutting down this committee. Let there be no mistake about it. It is the government, not simply Liberal members, that is shutting down this committee.

The die was cast in respect of this committee from the beginning. The government stacked the committee with three members of the Privy Council. Those three Privy Council members take their marching orders not from Parliament but from the Prime Minister. There is a direct connection.

We saw that connection when one of our members, during question period, asked the government to explain its actions in respect of the public accounts committee. Who stood up to answer for the government? A Liberal member of the public accounts committee who is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

The member had the gall to come to committee and pretend that he was trying to get to the bottom of the scandal while at the same time simply attempting to stall the work of committee by being the Trojan horse inside the committee and carrying out the Prime Minister's dirty work inside the committee. We have seen the fruition of that conduct by the motion of the Liberal majority on that committee to shut the hearings down and to break the Prime Minister's word in terms of getting to the bottom of this.

The work of the public accounts committee is not something that is peripheral to the operation of Parliament. It is fundamental. It is central and essential to the operation of Parliament. The purpose of Parliament itself is to provide supply to the government. At the same time, government is under an obligation to account for its spending. How it spends taxpayers' money that has been entrusted to it is fundamental to its role of accountability. It is fundamental to the role of Parliament to have the government account.

By shutting down this process the government is destroying a fundamental aspect of parliamentary democracy that goes back to Magna Carta, when the Crown was first held accountable in terms of how it raised money and the fact that it was responsible, perhaps not in a democratic fashion at that time, to the people.

The destruction of the committee hearings is a fundamental attack on parliamentary democracy and the fundamental role of Parliament in providing supply and holding the government accountable.

This is about accountability. Yet, when members and others question the government about how it is dealing with the public's money, the reaction of the government is not to account for the money but to attack those who raise the questions that they are obligated, by virtue of their office, to raise.

Massive amounts of public money are being misspent and misappropriated. This is not something that is new to the sponsorship issue. We knew that in respect of the gun registry. There was a constant reassurance to Parliament that the gun registry would not cost more than $2 million. The former justice minister, then health minister, now the Deputy Prime Minister, indicated that she would resign if spending went over, I believe the amount was $150 million.

Yet, funds kept on being expended, with no way for Parliament to determine accountability. Thanks to one of my colleagues, the member for Yorkton—Melville, his persistence in holding the government to account brought to light the massive overspending by the government on that gun registry.

What was the government's response until the truth finally came out and was confirmed by the Auditor General's report? It was always to attack the messenger and to attack the member for Yorkton—Melville because he was asking the questions.

Now the attack has shifted to the Auditor General. We heard those comments day in and day out at the public accounts committee by Liberal members attacking the Auditor General's report until finally, in an unprecedented way, the Auditor General had to come back to the public accounts committee and say the process was correct--a process, incidentally, that was confirmed by international audit peers and which Liberal members knew and yet insisted on attacking them--and that her conclusions were correct.

So, instead of working to get to the bottom of the matter, we have members like the President of the Treasury Board attacking the Auditor General's findings, relying, as was stated earlier, on fictitious reports and saying that the real loss was only $13 million. As if that would be an excuse that $13 million missing was somehow not significant for Canadians.

These kinds of attacks are nothing new. We saw the attacks on the president of the Business Development Bank of Canada, Mr. Beaudoin, and the length that the government went to, to discredit him, while all he was trying to do was his job which was to be accountable to the taxpayers of Canada. We saw how the government attacked a reporter, Ms. O'Neil, and used heavy-handed legislation designed to deal with terrorists to attack a journalist and then to defend that use.

The government never answers the questions. It attacks the person asking the questions. That is the process; that is what it does. The Prime Minister promised to get to the bottom of this matter, but there is obviously an attempt to thwart finding the truth.

Yes, we have heard from over 40 witnesses and some have indicated frustration with the process. It is not the most efficient process. Members on the committee are given either eight or four minutes, depending on which round of questioning. Some of the more sophisticated witnesses understand that very well and take advantage of the committee process by dragging out their responses knowing that when the eight minutes expire they can go on to a new questioner, usually a Liberal friendly questioner. They understand that.

The purpose of the public accounts committee was to ask the witnesses to come forward not to be cross-examined in the manner of a judicial inquiry but to ask them to come forward to explain their involvement and any other comments they want to add. For most of the witnesses who were senior government members and former ministers, it was like pulling teeth. They would not give an inch unless they were absolutely trapped into conceding something. That says loads about the commitment of the government to get to the bottom of this issue.

What was very heartening was to see the integrity of the more junior members of the public service. They came forward and gave answers in a clear, straightforward manner that put the senior officials of the government to shame. It put the heads of crown corporations and former ministers to shame when administrative assistants clearly answered questions because it was their duty as public servants to do that. That should be a great encouragement to the people of Canada to see that there are public servants, indeed the public service, committed to ensuring that Canadians get value for their dollar. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about their political masters.

What did the Auditor General's report tell us? Certainly, we did not learn about it from the government. The Auditor General's report told us, like in the case of the Auditor General's report on the gun registry, that Parliament was not informed about the program. Parliament was misled about how the money was spent and that those responsible broke the government's own rules. There was a deliberate attempt to hide the source of money. Sometimes it was done in order to get around Treasury Board rules, that is, the transfer of money from public works to crown corporations and then onward.

This was done deliberately. We are not dealing with small amounts of money. The Auditor General stated that it was not $100 million that she was concerned about but that the documentation for the $250 million spent on the sponsorship program was deficient. It could not be justified.

It is not enough for former ministers and senior people to come forward and say that everything was in order when they left the department and that if it was not then maybe it was with the ad agencies. There was an onus on government to ensure that the documents were in place but those documents were never in place.

There was a deliberate attempt to hide the source of money with the result that the Auditor General said that the entire $250 million and the spending of that money was not justified in terms of the paper trail, in terms of the documentation that was necessary to assure Canadians that money was properly disbursed.

Who was responsible? Well, the current Prime Minister was the minister of finance and the vice-president of Treasury Board. It happened on his watch. No one in Canada was in a better position to stop the scandal as it unfolded.

We have the same Prime Minister telling Canadians that he will get to the bottom of this issue. When? Certainly not before an election. He has made sure that his Privy Council members on the public accounts committee carry out his orders to shut down the committee and that deliberations regarding matters that Canadians should know are held in camera. Significant motions that affect the use of taxpayer money have been held in camera. Who authorized these to be held in camera? The secretary of state said that it was the chairman.

I will not breach an in camera confidence but he appears to have done that right now. There is no interest in the opposition keeping this matter secret. The committee is run by a majority of Liberals. It does not take Canadians long to figure out who is responsible for maintaining secrecy in the proceedings of the committee. If I am wrong in that respect I am sure the secretary of state will correct me.

Whether it is the $161 million computer scam in National Defence; HRDC where the Auditor General audited $580 million worth of programs in two or three programs and found the same lack of care to which taxpayers are entitled in respect of their money; or the Virginia Fontaine matter in Sagkeeng just outside my riding, what is the ultimate result?

The ultimate result is that I have constituents telling me that they need money for water systems, for highways and for health care, but the money has disappeared into the pockets of Liberal friendly advertising firms. That is what Canadians know at this point and that is what they will be asked to comment on in the next week when the Prime Minister calls an election.

[Supply, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be making a comment and perhaps the member can also provide some clarification.

As I recall the discussion in committee, it was not that the opposition was opposed to the release of the Guité testimony; it was that the opposition said that the Guité testimony should be released at the same time that Mr. Guité testified in public so that the comments he made would be seen in that particular context.

The Guité testimony from 2002 related to a small fraction of the money that went missing. Rather than have the Liberals try to manipulate the entire process and say that this was all that would happen, and of course at that time we did not know whether there was going to be an election call, we were very concerned it would happen, that Mr. Guité's testimony of two years ago would simply be put forward. Then somehow they would suggest that we knew everything that happened through the testimony that was held in camera in a specific context and we would not be given the full flavour. Therefore the opposition voted against releasing the testimony of Mr. Guité given in 2002 until Mr. Guité came to the committee, spoke verbally to us and presented an entire picture.

That is my recollection of why the opposition did what it did. I am wondering if the member has any comments on that.

[Criminal Code, May 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add a few comments on the motion. I am a little concerned about why the government has at this late date brought this bill forward.

As the member who just spoke knows, the justice committee has been mandated to review this legislation in 2005. This appears to be no more than an election ploy designed to garner a few votes indicating that maybe the government is, after all, serious about fighting crime at this late date in its tenure.

Having read the bill I am concerned that what will happen, if the bill is brought forward in the next Parliament, is that it will tie the hands of the committee rather than allowing the committee to take a good strong look at the legislation and determine what needs to be done.

This is a direct contradiction of what the government has stated, that the committee is to be the master of its own process. This seems to be a direction by the government saying “this is as far as you go and no further”.

I noted with interest some of the comments by the member suggesting that the legislation was great legislation as it was because the courts had upheld the legislation. Frankly, I do not think that is a test of good legislation at all. The test of good legislation is not whether the court agrees with the legislation but whether it is effective in carrying out its purpose. Its purpose, of course, is to reduce crime by apprehending offenders.

Instead, we have a bill that simply has the lowest common denominator. Therefore it is no surprise that courts uphold the legislation. The reason there is no interference with constitutional rights is because there is no effective legislation in terms of apprehending individuals.

The government has chosen to depart from a constitutionally sound process. Let us look at the fingerprint situation. For a long period of time we have accepted that if people are charged with an indictable offence they are fingerprinted. There should be no difference with the DNA if it is done in an unobtrusive way. Similarly, there is no problem with the Constitution.

However, what the government is doing is limiting the powers of the police, not in a way that is in any way mindful of constitutional liberties but in a way that simply ties the hands of the police officers.

I have yet to hear a valid argument presented by the government on why we do not take the same approach with DNA as we do with fingerprinting. If someone has been charged with an indictable offence, DNA testing should take place in the same way as we do it with fingerprinting.

However it would not be automatic that the DNA is taken even where there are convictions. What the Liberal bill would do is divide the offences into different types of offences. There are three different types of DNA data bank orders: retrospective, prospective and retroactive.

In respect of the retrospective, the designated offence must have been committed before June 30, 2000 and the offender was convicted after that date. Prospective means that the designated offence was committed after June 30, 2000 and retroactive. In the retroactive situation, there needs to be an order of a judge in respect of the individual who was convicted before June 30, 2000 and is still under sentence.

One of the problems with the legislation is resourcing. If a crown attorney is required to go to the courts for these kinds of orders, given the burden on these crown attorneys and other justice officials to actually proceed to court, the chances that these orders will actually be taken are virtually nil.

This is very reminiscent of the Liberal sex offender registry. The Liberals said, after years of pressure from the Conservative opposition, that they would bring forward a sex offender registry but that the sex offender registry would not include anyone who had been convicted prior to the date of the registry coming into force. In fact, we would have had a registry with absolutely no names on it. It is quite disgusting that after a dangerous sex offender goes through a trial and is convicted by a judge or a jury that somehow there would be a violation of the offender's rights. That is just so much nonsense.

It is time the government balanced, not only the rights of a convicted accused, but the rights of the victim. It seems that the victims are consistently forgotten in the legislation and, indeed, the ability of police officers to effectively protect potential victims, never mind those who have already been violated by offenders.

The legislation brings forward all kinds of procedural matters that would hinder the ability of police officers and other justice officials to do their job.

I will not oppose the referral of the legislation to a committee but I am concerned with it. I am concerned that the government is trying to bind the hands of the committee and that the committee will not look at effective options for dealing with these problems because it will consider itself bound by the direction of the government as set out in the bill.

I would like to hear from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice that in no way will the legislation bind the legislatively mandated review that will take place of the DNA registry in 2005.

With those comments I am prepared to allow this to proceed forward to committee. I trust that the Minister of Justice will be giving the House and all Canadians some assurance that the committee will be entitled to look at the broader scope of the issues involved here.

[Supreme Court of Canada, May 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking about the report. I am speaking about the Prime Minister breaking his word. The Prime Minister has had 10 years to do the job, but instead of fixing the democratic deficit as he promised, he is only preoccupied with controlling the levers of power.

Will the Prime Minister stand up and tell Canadians that no future Supreme Court of Canada justice will be chosen without substantive provincial input and without parliamentary review of the nominee?

[Supreme Court of Canada, May 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, instead of reforming the judicial appointments process as he promised, the Prime Minister is only establishing temporary half measures to get him through the next election.

As a result, the appointment process for the next two Supreme Court of Canada justices will have no substantial input from the provinces and zero input from Parliament.

Why is the Prime Minister simply continuing the process of making sure that only he has the real say on Supreme Court appointments?

[Canada Marriage Act, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add a few comments to this very important debate. I am somewhat surprised that there is no vote in respect of this bill. I think if the member opposite had the courage of her convictions, she would not have opposed a vote on this matter.

The bill's purpose is to negate the decisions of the British Columbia and Ontario courts of appeal that struck down as unconstitutional Canada's common law definition of marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. I think the approach, while admirable, is the wrong approach.

At the same time I want to say that the Liberal approach to this problem has in fact been manipulative and undemocratic from the beginning. Instead of holding a legitimate debate and a vote on a particular bill, in Parliament, where issues of social importance rightly belong, with legislation in front of it, the Liberals have abdicated their responsibility by leaving the issue in the hands of unelected judges.

My Liberal colleague has indicated that there is a bill, but it is a draft bill. Who gets to provide input on the draft bill? Certainly not I as a parliamentarian. I cannot speak to that bill. It is only the government ministers and staff who have had input on that particular bill. It is not in the House. It is going to the courts.

This is not a comprehensive process. This is a process that has been stood on its head.

The better approach is to put a proper bill before the House and have a vote on that bill after the debates have occurred. The Liberals, knowing that an election is coming, have decided to punt the bill in draft form over to the courts so that they will not have to debate this issue during the course of an election.

Liberals say that this is a comprehensive process. It could have been a very simple process. We had the B.C. Court of Appeal decision, we had the Ontario Court of Appeal decision and we had the Quebec Court of Appeal decision. We had all of the issues before us in the context of actual court cases. They could have simply appealed that decision. They chose not to. They chose to take an extraordinary, unusual step. Rather than appeal, they have created the device of a reference.

A reference has been used, especially in cases where there is no appropriate mechanism to bring all the issues before the court. It is especially difficult to get things before the Supreme Court in a hurry if advice needs to be provided, but none of the usual criteria for a reference are present here.

We had a court of appeal decision. It could have simply been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. We had all of the issues that are now set out in this reference document before the Supreme Court of Canada had there been an appeal. This is clearly an evasive measure in order to avoid political responsibility and to punt it to the next Parliament so that Canadians do not see where the Liberals stand on this particular issue. That is why I say it is manipulative, it is undemocratic and it is certainly an unusual process.

On January 28, 2004 it was referenced to the Supreme Court of Canada. References essentially are questions that are put to the Supreme Court of Canada, questions that could have been put to the Supreme Court of Canada in the context of an appeal with all of the necessary factual bases from the cases themselves. This reference was expanded to include the question of whether the traditional definition of marriage, that is, between a man and a woman, is constitutional. However because they expanded the questions, they had to delay the hearing until October, clearly after the anticipated election date.

The government is under an obligation to not interfere with the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General in terms of providing legal advice. What is telling about the government is that in this case it has instructed justice department lawyers arguing the case that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. Those are the directions that have been given to the justice department lawyers.

This is not some kind of discussion of the issues. The Liberal government, under the Prime Minister, has been very clear. He and the Minister of Justice have told Department of Justice lawyers to argue that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. That is an improper intervention by the Prime Minister in a constitutional case because the Minister of Justice and Attorney General does not speak for the government when it deals with the laws of this country. He speaks for the people of Canada and all parliamentarians here.

We see the reference in this case being used for crass political purposes in a subversion of the role of the Attorney General. The Minister of Justice has complied with that subversion. The Prime Minister has in fact instructed it.

The Minister of Justice has said that the government support of same sex marriage is unwavering. This is not going to be a full discussion of the issues, certainly not by the government. This is going straight to the Supreme Court of Canada and telling the Supreme Court of Canada that the Government of Canada, led by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, declares the definition unconstitutional.

Here we have the unusual step of a Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister asking the court to strike down legislation. That is what they are doing because that is what they have asked their lawyers to do. Those are the comments that were made by the Minister of Justice and by the Prime Minister.

We know that the federal government's position on same sex marriage is that it should be within the definition of marriage and that the traditional limitation of marriage on a man and a woman is unconstitutional. As the Minister of Justice has said, the government's support of same sex marriage is “unwavering”.

In light of the Supreme Court reference and the direction that the court is given by the government, any subsequent free vote in the House is laughable. It is a joke. The government knows, because it is cooking the books in the Supreme Court of Canada by the nature of the representations it is making, it is going to be rubber stamped by Parliament.

Parliamentarians are simply going to say, “The Supreme Court of Canada said so, so we are not going to have any debate. We are just going to rubber stamp this”. That is what is so despicable about the entire process that the Liberals have adopted.

The court has the power to reject the reference. It can say, “We will not hear this reference”. It has that discretion. This is not a hearing of the usual type.

With all due respect, what the Supreme Court of Canada should do is pump this matter right back to Parliament and say, “We will not be used as a political tool by the government to get it out of a jam”. That is what the Supreme Court's obligation is in this respect. That is what it should do.

[Criminal Code, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my comments to this very important bill. The stated 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 these provisions.

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

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

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 an automatic period in custody. That automatic period of custody was found to be unconstitutional in the Swain decision in 1991. Instead the court could choose an appropriate disposition or indeed defer the decision to a review board.

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, 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 that was referred to earlier. Second was the dangerously mental disordered accused provisions that would allow the courts to extend the cap to a life term. The third was the hospital orders provisions for convicted offenders who at the time of sentencing were in need of treatment for a mental disorder.

This bill takes into account the recommendations of the justice committee of June 2002. Bill C-29 addresses six key areas. These are all issues that were thoroughly considered by the committee. I understand that these are not necessarily exactly the way the committee has recommended them and that is why the committee will no doubt examine very carefully what has been put into the bill.

However, indeed the amendments 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, 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, the allowing of victim impact statements to be read.

In the case of a criminal trial where a person has been found guilty the concerns of the victim of course are very relevant. They are necessary in the sentencing provision to determine whether the impact on the victim should also be reflected in the sentencing.

Here we are dealing with a substantively different situation because we are not looking at the guilty mind of an accused. We are dealing with a mentally disordered person. We therefore have to be careful how we use these victim impact statements in this context. I think it is important for victims to have a voice but we have to remember that this does not form exactly the same role that it does in a criminal trial where a criminal may not express any regret after having been convicted and it is important for the victim to have his or her say in that context.

The streamlining of the transfer provisions between provinces is another issue. It is important that there be the appropriate consent of the jurisdiction to which the individual is being transferred. I understand the bill attempts to ensure that there is the appropriate consent in that context.

The repeal of the unproclaimed capping provisions and the like are important. Why were concerns raised over these sentencing provisions? They were raised because it seemed that where a person was found mentally disordered, the period of incarceration could be a lot longer than a comparable sentence in the criminal courts. Somehow there was a suggestion that maybe it would be unfair to have a mentally disordered person subject to a longer period of custody than someone who had been in fact convicted of a criminal offence.

Here again is the difference in the intent. With the criminal conviction, obviously punishment is a key goal of the criminal justice system, as well as rehabilitation. When we talk in the mentally disordered context, we are not talking punishment. We are not talking about rehabilitation in the same way where there is a cognitive element in terms of rehabilitating an accused. In the mentally disordered context we are trying to deal with the health of the individual. Therefore if it takes longer to help the person, so be it. The capping provision is simply not appropriate.

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 the review process that provides a mentally disordered person with some safeguards.

On the issue of the stay of proceedings for the permanently unfit accused, there is some concern related to how the safety of the public can be guaranteed. I look forward to that particular discussion at the committee, because even if the person is not personally responsible for his or her actions because of the mental disorder, there is still an onus on society to ensure that the individual does not cause further damage to his or her fellow citizens.

As I indicated, the objectives of the bill are generally consistent with the recommendations of the June 2002 committee report, a report which members of both the former Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Parties approved. I look forward to having the discussion in committee.

[Bill C-250, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my concern at the decision of the Liberal majority in the Senate to invoke closure on Bill C-250 and to pass the bill into law. Bill C-250 broadens the hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code.

Former Prime Minister Diefenbaker warned that enacting these kinds of laws could have an adverse effect on fundamental Canadian freedoms, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression. His concerns are directly applicable to Bill C-250.

Unfortunately, most of the Liberals in both the Senate and the House of Commons rejected Conservative efforts to amend the bill in order to address these concerns, while at the same time ensuring that Canadians were properly protected against criminal action.

I would like to thank concerned citizens across Canada, including those in my riding of Provencher, for their ongoing efforts and dedication to prevent this ill-conceived bill from becoming law.

[Sponsorship Program, April 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, not even the Deputy Prime Minister, never mind the Prime Minister, is willing to stand up and say that those comments are irresponsible. She will not even say that in the House.

By keeping Mr. Lapierre at his side and with the Deputy Prime Minister refusing to admonish Mr. Lapierre, they are sending out a very clear message to the RCMP investigators. The commissioner is her deputy minister.

Why do the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister remain silent when their political appointees are trashing the justice system?

[Sponsorship Program, April 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, wherever the Prime Minister goes in Quebec on his pre-election non-campaign who is in the photo? Jean Lapierre. There they are standing close together.

Canadians assume that when Mr. Lapierre speaks it is on behalf of the Prime Minister. Why then is the Prime Minister refusing to reprimand Lapierre for blatantly trying to exert political pressure on the RCMP into the sponsorship scandal?