Vic Toews

[Grants and Contributions, March 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the contracts for the phoney reports and all the sponsorship contracts were signed off by Charles Guité who left public works and is now a lobbyist for the ad industry.

Today we learned that Mr. Guité's private company, Oro Communications, was one of the top donators to the re-election campaign of the current Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

Will the minister clear the air by asking the auditor general to investigate Mr. Guité's handling of all sponsorship contracts while he was head of advertising at public works?

[Grants and Contributions, March 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Groupaction tried to pass off a recycled document as a $550,000 original. The document is not the only thing that seems to have been copied. The entire Gagliano-Groupaction affair is a carbon copy of the kickback scheme run by Pierre Corbeil which led to influence peddling charges.

Will the Minister of Public Works and Government Services assure the House that the auditor general will look into the entire system of giving lucrative advertising contracts to the most generous Liberal donators?

[Parole Board, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, every member in the House is sorry but we are in a position to do something about it and Canadians expect us to do something about it.

Since the Liberal government has been in power all it has been doing is handcuffing our police forces in terms of resources. Now police must contend with a parole quota system that puts hardened criminals back on the street early and present a danger to our police officers.

Why will the solicitor general not commit to ending early parole instead of giving us those kinds of platitudes?

[Parole Board, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a 29 year old police officer was tragically shot and killed in Montreal yesterday adding to a growing string of violent attacks on police officers, including two recent attacks in my home province of Manitoba. In some of these attacks the suspects were wanted for parole violation.

Why does our solicitor general continue to put our police at risk by accelerating the process of early parole that will see even more dangerous offenders released from his club fed style prisons?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 1st, 2002]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-49, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 27 on page 16 with the following:

“schedule and a prescribed airport except if it is

(a) an aerodrome north of the 55th parallel of north latitude that is not served at least five times per week by non-stop round-trip jet service to an airport south of the 55th parallel of north latitude, or

(b) an aerodrome where the population of the adjoining city is less than 3,000 persons.”

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-49, in Clause 5, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 23 the following:

“(6) Despite any other provision of this Act, no charge shall be collected with respect to departure from a terminal at a listed airport unless screening was operational at that terminal as of September 10, 2001.”

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand your ruling is that Motions Nos. 10 and 17 are not to be heard because they could have been put at committee. Unfortunately I was not able to attend that committee because I was at the procedure and House affairs committee which is dealing with the matter related to the minister of defence.

As you well know, Mr. Speaker, the procedure and House affairs committee has been going virtually non-stop. I simply did not have an opportunity to introduce Motions Nos. 10 and 17 at the finance committee. Had I not been tied up in a motion that I think has precedence because of the extremely sensitive nature of that matter, I could have attended the finance committee and introduced these motions.

Therefore, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider your ruling in that respect and allow both Motions Nos. 10 and 17.

[Justice, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in less than three months two RCMP officers in Manitoba have been shot, one of them fatally. Just last week the home of another Winnipeg police officer was firebombed in a suspected gang related act of intimidation. In both shootings we know that some of the suspects were wanted for parole violations.

While criminals in Canada are increasingly more willing to use violence against our police officers, our solicitor general continues to accelerate the process of early release that will see more dangerous offenders released from his club fed style prisons. This not only defies common sense but it puts police at an unacceptable risk.

In order to restore public confidence in our justice system and to give police the support they need the Liberal government must act immediately to require criminals to earn their parole and to restore badly needed funding to our frontline police officers.

[Species at Risk Act, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favour of the amendments put forward by my colleagues on the issues of federal-provincial jurisdiction and criminal intent. The hon. member for Lanark--Carleton, the hon. member for Lethbridge and the hon. member for Red Deer have moved amendments to address these issues.

I want to continue the theme raised by the member for Souris--Moose Mountain. If the past record of the federal government and its environmental efforts are any indication, this bill is a disaster waiting to happen.

When I was first elected in my riding, constituent after constituent and municipality after municipality in southeast Manitoba told me that the biggest threat to agriculture in that area was the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I could not believe it. Fisheries and oceans is destroying drainage. Agricultural land is being destroyed. Costs are being added to the municipalities.

The reeve of the RM of Morris told me about the construction of the dyke around the town of Rosenort, a very progressive, hard working community in the flood plain in the Red River Valley. Doing an environmental assessment and looking at fish habitat in the middle of the plain added an extra $200,000 to the study. I thought it was an isolated example. Constituent after constituent and municipality after municipality tell of the heavy-handed approach of the federal government in working with the province and the municipalities.

Last weekend I was in Kola, Manitoba which is in the Brandon--Souris constituency. It borders my colleague's riding of Souris--Moose Mountain. One can imagine how dry it is in these areas. Again I was told by constituents in the Kola area that the biggest threat to agriculture is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. There is no co-operation with local authorities. It is destroying agriculture.

Along with the heavy-handed unco-operative approach of the department and the federal government in general, now there is this endangered species bill, and what do we see? We see a clear rejection in the bill of one of the most important legal principles in a just and democratic society. That is the requirement that there be mens rea or a guilty mind before one can be convicted of a criminal offence. Not only should the culpable person have to have physically committed the act, but there must have been an appropriate degree of criminal intent. That is fundamental to our system of justice.

Bill C-5 as it stands today provides for various offences in which there is a very low level of mens rea, certainly not the level of mens rea necessary or consistent with a free and democratic society. This makes many of the landowners and farmers in my riding very nervous.

There are hundreds of species at risk and it is not always easy to recognize them. Not only do farmers and landowners bear the financial burden of expropriation without compensation as the bill now allows, but they could face expensive, cumbersome criminal prosecutions. Indeed they could even be put at risk to private prosecutions. Farmers and landowners are having a very difficult time. They do not need this kind of heavy-handed legislation to address what is admittedly a serious and significant problem.

The bill makes criminals out of very inadvertent acts. We want to prohibit the possession of certain species, the destruction of certain species, the selling or trading of certain species. However, there should be no criminal consequence for individuals who were inadvertently involved.

If someone were to buy tea in a health food store and that tea contained an ingredient on the list, he or she could be liable under the bill for a criminal charge. The mens rea convention exists in order to ensure that unintended consequences of normal human activity are not made criminal. If my colleagues agree with me that plowing or buying tea or picking a common flower should not be criminal acts unless there is the appropriate criminal intent, then all of us agree that these clauses should be amended to include words such as “knowingly” or “wilfully”.

Consider the lack of mens rea required and the sentences available. Courts may impose fines up to $250,000 for an individual and $1 million for a corporation. Many of these corporations are family farms so the money always comes out of the same pocket.

We as the Parliament of Canada must seriously contemplate the wording of the legislation before imposing this type of harsh, punitive legislation on the people of Canada.

I would also like to briefly comment on the jurisdictional matters in respect to Bill C-5. I have alluded to the very apparent lack of co-operation by the federal government and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in particular with municipal and provincial authorities.

As it stands today, where a province does not have endangered species legislation or does not have adequate legislation according to the federal government, the bill provides the federal environment minister with the power to impose this law on that province. It is important to remember that whether or not provincial laws are inadequate is a unilateral determination by the environment minister.

The environment is a shared constitutional responsibility. This heavy-handed approach to relations will not protect endangered species. It will hasten the destruction of these species by continued legal wrangling.

It is for this reason my colleagues have recommended deleting the provisions that assign this unilateral power to the minister. We have added an amendment which provides that the minister may make a recommendation to apply the federal law to the province or the territory if a territorial or provincial minister has requested that the recommendation be made. These amendments remove the unilateral power to impose federal law onto provincial jurisdiction. The federal endangered species act would still apply to federal lands and to aquatic species or migratory birds.

I cannot stress enough the co-operation that is necessary with landowners, resource owners and municipal and provincial governments. Imposing federal laws on provinces that will only create legal and other battles is not in the best interests of endangered species. Unless we work together, this legislation will fail. If the government decides to work with the provinces and property owners, not only will property owners and resource users benefit, but it will be in the best interests of endangered species.

I urge all members to support these amendments so we can move ahead on this matter.

[Zimbabwe, February 6th, 2002]

Come on, Bill, do the right thing.

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Surrey North.

The hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona questioned the procedural acceptability of the motion with respect to the mechanism to carry the bill through the House. The procedure is almost an exact rewrite of Standing Order 68(4). It had to be repeated in the Alliance motion because Standing Order 68(4) establishes a mechanism for government and private members' motions. Since we are dealing with a supply motion the procedure had to be included in our motion. That is why it is procedurally acceptable. It is the same procedure used last spring in adopting the impaired driving bills. In any event it is a technical issue.

One of the most critical issues facing parliamentarians today is that our children continue to be at risk of sexual exploitation by adult predators. It has become increasingly clear that the government can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed every day in Canada against innocent young victims.

We have no way of preventing all these crimes. However we must do everything in our power to stop those who would prey on children and to penalize them if they commit these crimes. It is our duty as parliamentarians and members of the chief law-making body in Canada to do everything we can to root these offenders out of our communities and ensure they are never given a second chance to abuse a child. We cannot do everything but we can do something. Enacting a national sex offender registry is one thing that is entirely within our power.

As members know, last March the Canadian Alliance took a stand on the issue in the House of Commons. We asked members to vote in favour of implementing a national sex offender registry. Everyone including government members voted for our motion. At the time everyone agreed it was necessary to protect children from pedophiles, yet absolutely nothing has been done to protect our children from people who believe they are justified in ruining young lives.

Although everyone in the House and elsewhere knows it is not accurate, we have heard the solicitor general repeating the mantra that Canada already has a sex offender registry. He says it can be found within the Canadian Police Information Centre or CPIC. This is erroneous information. However he will no doubt continue repeating the mantra, as will other members of the Liberal Party, in an attempt to assure Canadians something is being done. I think he believes if it is repeated enough Canadians will start to believe him.

The Liberal government refuses to incorporate the changes we have asked for because they might be too difficult or expensive to administer. I do not understand how the minister and members of the government can continue to ignore the compelling and alarming evidence of the immediate need to implement the changes.

Data indicate that a rapid response during an investigation of child abduction for sexual purposes is absolutely critical. Studies indicate that of the victims who are murdered, 44% are dead within an hour of the abduction, 74% are dead within three hours, and 91% are dead within 24 hours. There is a compelling need to have information and access it quickly. The national sex offender registry would give police authorities that information.

The hon. member indicated CPIC already has this information. It does not. There is no requirement for sex offenders to register when they change address. If sex offenders have completed a period of incarceration and any probation or parole that might follow it, there is no legal onus on them to register the change so police authorities know where they might be.

A quick, complete and searchable sex offender registry such as we are proposing would assist police by identifying all registered sex offenders living in a geographic area, something the current CPIC does not do. In excess of 75% of the time an offender lives within a two kilometre radius of where the incident occurs.

As I have said many times, the registry we are proposing could incorporate elements of the CPIC system. Why the system has not been updated after so much time is totally mystifying.

Not only have the provinces demanded a national registry from the government, out of desperation some provincial governments have acted. The Ontario government should be commended for proceeding where the federal government has failed to act.

Tired of waiting for a federal government that says all the right things but does not do the right things, the Ontario government has implemented its own provincial registry through Christopher's law, legislation it named after a young victim who was brutally raped and murdered by a convicted pedophile on federal statutory release. The provincial government has had to clean up the mess because the federal government will not act in a responsible fashion to enact the appropriate laws.

In 1993, following the inquest into the death of 11 year old Christopher Stephenson, the coroner's jury recommended the federal government create a national registry for convicted, dangerous, high risk sexual offenders and require each such offender to register with police in the jurisdiction where they reside or will reside. That was almost a decade ago. Because nothing was done by the federal government with respect to the coroner's recommendation, the government of Ontario had to act.

It is not only members of provincial governments who support the registry. Along with provincial premiers, justice ministers and solicitors general, the RCMP commissioner has said we need it.

The Liberal member opposite told the hon. member from Prince George he had spoken to a police officer who thought everything was all right. Last March the Canadian Police Association, which consists of 30,000 police officers from across Canada, issued a press release supporting our initiative for a national sex offender registry. The member may have had a conversation with one police officer but 30,000 officers in the CPA said they supported a national sex offender registry.

In a 2001 policy resolution paper the Canadian Police Association clearly stated:

Despite persistent government claims to the contrary, the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) does not provide police agencies with adequate information and notification concerning the release or arrival of sex offenders into their communities.

Noting that a federal-provincial-territorial working group reported on the issue in 1998, the CPA recommended the report be followed.

The commissioner of the RCMP has said that we have elements of a sex offender registry but that we do not have an effective sex offender registry. He stated in committee that we need legislation, money and manpower or personnel to do it.

It can be done. The Americans have done it under the umbrella of federal legislation. I believe 46 states have now adopted it. The minister's excuses are wearing thin. The government's excuses are wearing thin. I urge members to support the motion.