Debates of April 12th, 2005

RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Chair, I quite often disagree with my hon. colleague but his comments tonight with regard to the judiciary and the lax way that they apply the law is absolutely right on.

I have spoken to the family members of the fallen RCMP and they have all expressed similar concerns. There is no question that this individual should not have been on the street.

When we look at the statistics in Calgary showing that only one in ten people who operate grow ops serve any time at all and only 50% of those do less than a year's time, then we realize we have a problem. Either the judges are not applying the laws or we do not have strong enough laws.

This is an issue of debate that we have had in the House with regard to how we send this message to our judges. We can certainly do it by bringing in minimum sentencing for grow ops, so that we send a message to our courts that we are not going to tolerate the lax way that they apply the law.

The other thing that I would say to my hon. colleague concerns Bill C-17, the marijuana bill that was introduced in the House and which sends the message that marijuana is okay. The bill would decriminalize marijuana by allowing an individual to carry up to 60 marijuana cigarettes without having a criminal record. However it is worse than that. If one is under the age of 18 the penalty for that is actually halved and it is only $100 to carry around 60 marijuana cigarettes. We have to understand that this marijuana can be up to 30% THC, so it is a very potent product.

I wonder how the judges and society will look at that legislation when we are saying that we should get tougher on marijuana, on grow ops and on drugs. How can the government introduce a bill that sends the message that marijuana is not only okay but that we will actually make dealers out of our youth? Does that not send the message that we should just go soft on this product? It just does not make sense.

I have talked to front line RCMP in my riding about drug laws. I have had an opportunity to do a significant amount of that, particularly at the memorial services and funerals for the slain RCMP officers in my riding. When I asked them what they thought about decriminalizing marijuana and going soft on it, they could not believe that the House would bring in legislation and take that approach to a product that is so dangerous and causing such devastation in our society and in our communities.

I challenge my hon. colleague to put legs to his words and condemn the legislation that his government and his party brought into the House and are trying to push through and make law in this land. How can he say that it is good law in light of what he has just said about the message that needs to be sent to our judicial system?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, when it comes to the decriminalization of marijuana, the member's comments are absolutely wrong.

The fact of the matter is that the current law is not working. It is not being enforced uniformally across the country. There is no question that the bill would decriminalize small amounts of marijuana. The member must recognize it would not legalize marijuana, but it would impose fines and penalties on people caught with small amounts of marijuana. In terms of that process, young people should recognize the fact that what they are doing is against the law. The fact they had to pay a fine or a penalty is proof of that. I realize they will not get a criminal record.

If people are caught with marijuana in downtown Toronto, they will get a slap on the wrist, but if they are caught in my community in North Wiltshire, P.E.I., they would probably have a criminal record which would affect them for life. That is not a uniform law across the country. We need to recognize that as the reality.

Moving to the second step in terms of marijuana grow operations and the courts, this is still open for debate. Is 15 grams too high? I personally believe it is. I think we should be down to five grams. Are the penalties strong enough? I think they are close. In terms of marijuana grow operations, it does not get us to what the member is asking regarding minimum sentencing, but it is getting pretty close.

The bill sets up a system where judges must justify why they are not imposing sentences as intended by this Parliament. This will lead to stronger sentences for marijuana grow operations. I do not favour minimum sentences, but so help me if judges do not start imposing the law as intended by this Parliament, then we will have to move. Some of us who are now opposed to minimum sentences would be willing to move to minimum sentences if judges in this country do not impose the penalties intended by this Parliament.

I see the so-called marijuana legislation as changing things substantially. First, clearly outlining through an education program that smoking marijuana is wrong. Second, it is against the law. Third, marijuana grow operations are a clear violation of the laws of this land. It is better outlined in legislation in terms of what those more serious sentences should be. At the end of the day we will be moving people away from smoking marijuana, and damper down and kill the scourge of marijuana grow operations which are much too prominent in this country right now.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Chair, that is an absolutely ridiculous line of thinking to think that this piece of legislation will send a message to our courts and to the people of this country that marijuana will be dealt with in a severe way.

This piece of legislation does just the opposite. It sends the message that we will go soft on it because it is almost legalized and by the way, let us cut a special deal for our youth who are the ones who are using the most of it. Do people realize that marijuana is the drug of choice, actually the product of choice, for people under the age of 25 in this country? It is above cigarettes.

I do not understand my hon. colleague being so compassionate about trying to help the RCMP. Those officers had tears in their eyes, that he spoke so passionately about. I would want to ask them the same question, or have him ask the same question about this piece of legislation that sends such a strong message to society that we will just go easy on this drug and all will be well.

I am okay with the RCMP decriminalizing small amounts and having the RCMP apply a penalty. However, let us make that penalty not half as much, let us make it twice as much. Let us send the message that we are sick and tried of criminals abusing our kids in this society. No longer should we have to put up with that or should we have to stand by and just watch it happen.

We have an opportunity in light of this debate and this incident that has happened. We can draw a line in the sand and say we are going to fight back harder or we can retreat and give up the marijuana debate in this country, and say that it is okay for society to engage in it.

Those are the choices that we are going to make in this House and, in doing so in this House, in society. Does my hon. colleague still feel so passionately that this piece of legislation sends the right message to the kids on our streets?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, yes, I feel passionately about the RCMP. I feel passionately about dealing with the problems that those RCMP officers at the detachment in Surrey and elsewhere across the country raised with me.

This bill, in terms of the marijuana bill, and we are not debating that issue, we are really talking about the RCMP tonight, will in fact start to deal with the problem much more aggressively: first, through an education program; second, through the fact that there are penalties and fines, and that it is not acceptable that the law is not being policed uniformly across the country right now; and, third, that there are greater penalties for marijuana grow operations and stronger directions to the courts, in terms of dealing with marijuana grow operations.

As I said in my earlier remarks, the RCMP officers on the ground have told me clearly that they do not believe the courts are penalizing marijuana grow operators to the extent they should be, and they are disgusted and discouraged with that.

The marijuana legislation outlines that intent more aggressively and puts more responsibility on the judges, in terms of abiding by the intent of this Parliament, which is to increase the penalties for those marijuana grow operations.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Chair, we cannot talk about the law enforcement role of the RCMP in Canada without mentioning the closing of the nine RCMP detachments in Quebec. Like a number of hon. members, I believe that the closing of these detachments will reduce the RCMP's ability to enforce the law in those communities, since these closures will create a void.

Since I first arrived on Parliament Hill, in September, I have personally attended four meetings with the RCMP, including three with the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. However, none of these meetings had the expected effect, namely the reopening of the detachments. No alternative was suggested and there was not even a glimmer of hope. The government's decision not to put off the closure of the RCMP detachments in nine municipalities of Quebec has made the mayors and residents of those communities quite angry with the government.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is as receptive as an oyster. And based on the representations made by the Bloc Québécois since the announcement, I can only conclude that the minister thinks that affected communities have the ability to protect themselves by just closing up, like oysters. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and I would love to see the minister come to explain her decision to seniors in my riding. These people no longer feel adequately protected and I understand them.

The spokesperson for the mayors' coalition, Guy Racine, told us that the RCMP's withdrawal from their communities is a serious threat to the safety of the affected populations and opens the door to more crime.

I would like hon. members to pay close attention to the following. In its 2004 annual report on organized crime in Canada, Criminal Intelligence Service Canada states the following, and I quote:

Illicit drug activities fuel violence unlike any other criminal activity. There are socio-economic costs associated with the illicit drug trade such as property crimes, assaults and homicides.

We can already see that the RCMP's absence from the field will have harmful consequences on the safety of neighbouring communities.

The same report stresses that “organized criminals will exploit less controlled areas”. It is noteworthy that the Executive Committee of the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, or CISC, is chaired by none other than the RCMP Commissioner himself. How can he approve such a report and maintain his decision to close nine detachments? What credibility will he have now in defending these closures?

The closure of the RCMP detachment in Granby represents a terrible loss for the community, because in the absence of a strong police presence, criminals and organized crime have a free hand. The government is giving up the war on marijuana grow ops, drug trafficking, contraband alcohol, biker gangs and terrorism, while at the same time weakening the enforcement of numerous federal laws.

People pay municipal taxes for their local police services, income tax to Quebec for the Sûreté du Québec and to the federal government for the RCMP. Yet the RCMP is moving out without consulting the public or transferring any resources for the local police to take over their operations. Will the municipality have to levy higher taxes to hire more officers to take over?

Commissioner Zaccardelli's decision is contrary to the mayors' requests and it totally ignores the recommendations made by the members of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, as well as the motions moved by my political party.

But the commissioner said the following:

I want to reassure all of you today that the RCMP is committed to delivering its mandate and to providing all Canadians with safe and secure communities. In Quebec, as in Ontario, our mandate is to provide federal policing services—

Let us talk about Ontario, where the same thing happened in the late 1990s.

During discussions with some of the police forces affected, I learned that there had been no prior consultations, just as there had been none in Quebec. The RCMP closed down its Timmins, Ontario, detachment and those in neighbouring communities. At that time, Commissioner Zaccardelli assured the mayors of the affected communities that regional detachments would still provide service via satellite offices. According to the Timmins police chief, Richard Lapierre, these promised services never materialized.

How can we think things will be any different in Quebec? Do you think that the RCMP will keep its promises any better there? It is using the same strategy and the same arguments, that is, centralizing resources so as to better fight organized crime.

Yet Statistics Canada data clearly demonstrate that the crime rate has, generally, risen significantly after the RCMP have been withdrawn for purposes of centralization. Let us take the example of Peterborough/Lakefield, where it is reported that violent crime increased 37%, property crime 5%, and Criminal Code offences by 16% between 1996 and 2001, despite a very small population increase of 4%. As well, there was a 22% increase in the number of Criminal Code offences between 2000 and 2001.

The commissioner can insist that public safety will not be affected, but statistics on the redeployment of resources in Ontario prove otherwise. The commissioner has turned a deaf ear to the demands of mayors and parliamentarians. He is the only one who believes this, other than his colleague Bourduas in "C" Division in Quebec. The experience in Ontario should instead encourage the commissioner and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to suspend this decision, which is harmful the public, all the more so since these same communities are generally located along the borders.

On December 9, Commissioner Zacardelli stated that, even though the RCMP has the mandate to patrol unguarded border roads, it does not have the necessary resources to maintain detachments. If it has the mandate but not the resources, who is ensuring border security? We now know, denounced by its union, the border services agency no longer has the resources needed to ensure border security. Border officers alone are on the job, without any protection or means of defence.

One incident that drew my attention to the situation at the border occurred just before the holidays when agents counted at least 17 vehicles illegally crossing the border. However, this is one of the most highly staffed border crossings in Quebec. There are approximately 50 officers working at any time at Lacolle, but this did not stop these vehicles from illegally crossing the border, none of which was intercepted despite being reported. One of them was even a bus. What was it carrying? Weapons? Terrorists? We do not know.

How can the minister keep repeating her confidence in this controversial but very problematic decision for public safety?

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Madam Chair, the hon. member opposite indicated that his constituents feel less safe because of the reorganization of the RCMP offices. The RCMP have never been first responders. Perhaps he was trying to suggest that the Sûreté du Québec does not do its job.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Chair, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and law enforcement in Canada.

Our national police force and law enforcement agencies play a vital role in today's uncertain global environment. We face numerous threats, both natural and man made. While Canada may not be a primary target for a terrorist attack, the inclusion of Canada on a list of countries threatened by Osama bin Laden was a chilling reminder of these threats.

The complex and dangerous times in which we live demand a comprehensive, integrated approach to public safety and security, an approach which manages the multi-faceted nature of the threats we face and which considers the need to work cooperatively across disciplines, jurisdictions and borders to achieve our shared objectives.

As the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have pointed out on a number of occasions and as Canada’s national security policy emphasizes, a government’s most important duty is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens .

For this reason, in December 2003, the minister created the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and its portfolio. On April 6, 2005, Bill C-6 establishing the department came into effect.

The objective of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada is to reduce a number of risks Canadians must face, from crime to threats involving national security to natural disasters.

Its mandate consists in meeting people's need for public security, ensuring that civil protection agencies are prepared to confront the range of threats facing the public, and protecting our interests abroad.

This new department is part of a larger portfolio that includes the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Correctional Service of Canada, the National Parole Board, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canada Firearms Centre and three review bodies.

By integrating these closely related roles and responsibilities, the government has maximized emergency preparedness and responses to natural disasters and security emergencies. It is also advanced crime prevention and improved connections to provincial and territorial public safety partners.

The creation of the Canada Border Services Agency in December 2003 enhanced the safety and security of Canada by bringing together all the major players involved in facilitating legitimate cross-border traffic and supporting economic development, while stopping people and goods that pose a potential risk to Canada.

Using innovative and state of the art technology and risk management techniques, the Canada Border Services Agency ensures our borders are open to low risk people and goods, but closed to terrorists and criminals who would threaten the safety and security of our country. The Canada Border Services Agency also detains and removes inadmissible individuals in accordance with Canadian law.

Established within the CBSA in January 2004, the national risk assessment centre operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It acts as a focal point between intelligence agencies at the international, national and local levels. It increases Canada's ability to detect and stop the movement of high risk people and goods into the country by using sophisticated intelligence techniques and technology.

The government has also improved coordination among public safety agencies, both domestically and abroad. The RCMP, CSIS and other agencies continue to share relevant and timely information with other departments and agencies on activities that may constitute a threat to Canada's security.

The Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has also managed the integration and improvement of federal emergency intervention systems set up to respond to incidents—real or virtual— threatening national security. This work led to the development of the national emergency response system.

That system was designed so Canada would always be ready to act in the event of an emergency or national threat of any sort. It will permit highly orchestrated federal intervention and collaboration with many intervenors country wide required to take measures in a national emergency.

It should be noted that the government did not create the portfolio of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for it to work in a vacuum, but for it to be an integral part of a co-ordinated strategic approach to protect the public and national interests. This action is set out in the national security policy, which was made public last year.

The new policy adopts an integrated approach to security issues across government, employs a model that can adapt to changing circumstances and reflects the Canadian values of openness, diversity and respect for fundamental rights and freedoms. In addition, the government invested $15 million to establish a government operations centre to provide stable, around the clock coordination and support across government to key players in the event of national emergencies.

While housed in the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the government operations centre functions on behalf of the Government of Canada. It serves as its strategic level command and control centre providing 24/7 response to emergencies affecting the national interest.

In order to connect with the communities that might see themselves at the front, unwillingly, in the fight against terrorism, the government recently set up the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security . It brings together men and women from various ethnocultural groups in order to engage the Canadian public in an ongoing dialogue on matters of national security within a diversified and multicultural society.

Canada's national security policy is far reaching and aggressive. The government remains fully committed to its implementation.

Since September 11, 2001 the government has invested $9.2 billion on security enhancements. In budget 2001 alone, the RCMP received more than $800 million over six years for public security and anti-terrorism initiatives. For fiscal year 2004-05 the RCMP was allocated $82 million for counterterrorism initiatives.

More recently in budget 2005, $433 million was earmarked for strengthening the delivery of secure and efficient border services. Some $88 million was committed for improving automated targeting and the sharing of information between Canada and the U.S. on high risk cargo. Some $222 million was allocated for marine security systems.

With these significant investments, the government will greatly enhance the investigative and intelligence collection capacities of our law enforcement agencies, increase the number of our border personnel, and allow strategic investments in technology.

In closing, I would like to note that it is through the use of better tools and coordination that security intelligence and law enforcement communities are able to work in a more integrated fashion to counter threats to Canada's security. The creation of the public safety and emergency preparedness portfolio brings greater collaboration and focus to the government's efforts. Through the national security policy we must do what we can to ensure our nation is secure from threats, natural or man made, and our citizens are safe in their communities.

The government remains committed to implementing Canada's national security policy. It will continue to do everything it can to help keep Canadians safe and secure in the most effective way possible.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Chair, I listened to my colleague's comments on national security and how passionate he was about keeping Canadians safe. I too am concerned about keeping Canadians safe in light of this incident. It draws attention to a number of failures of our court system that does the opposite. It shows that Canadians are not safe because of the lack of laws.

I want to comment on a newspaper article that speaks to the issue. The president of the Canadian Professional Police Association, Tony Cannavino, agreed with the comments of Mrs. Myrol when she said that we needed the Prime Minister to give power back to the police and that we needed to take power away from the Supreme Court and give it back to the House of Commons. He represents 54,000 police officers across the country. He went on to say, “even if you see that sentences were to rise from 10 years to 15 or let's say 20 or maybe life in prison, we know that no judge will give those sentences”. He said, “So what we say is, we need minimum sentencing that they will act as a deterrent”.

I wonder if my hon. colleague is as compassionate as the 54,000 police officers in the sense that we need to protect Canadians by making our courts a tougher place, by ensuring they apply the law and by changing the law so they have no option. They are not applying it today.

My hon. colleague from the Liberal Party who last spoke was concerned about the courts not applying the law. Does he have the same opinion and would he agree with the president of the Canadian Professional Police Association with regard to his comments on minimum sentencing?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Chair, the government works very closely with the Canadian Professional Police Association and Mr. Cannavino. In fact, I was at an event last week where I was asked to present a number of awards to police officers from across Canada for various acts of bravery. The government has a high regard for that organization and listens intently to its advice on various policy matters.

I think my colleague from Malpeque made the statement, with which I have some sympathy, that at the present time we have laws on our books that the judiciary does not seem to apply the full force of those laws. Grow ops seem to be a good example.

When I was out in British Columbia, I met with the RCMP. I talked with friends and other contacts in British Columbia. They were quite frustrated with the fact that a lot of these grow op people were recurring offenders. They were not getting the sanctions doled out to them which were already available on the books. This is why the government is looking at the marijuana bill. Part of that bill is to toughen up the sentences on the operation of grow ops, and that is what we need to do.

I too concur with the member from Malpeque. I hope and am confident that the judiciary will use the tools that Parliament has given them and act on laws that are already on the books. Failing that, in individual cases and for example with grow ops, the government might have to look at imposing tougher sentences.

I am not so convinced of the need for minimum sentencing. I think we have to have some discretion in the judiciary to hand out sentences. Every case is a question of the law and a question of the facts and every case is unique. However, I too look for the judiciary to apply the law as it was intended by this Parliament.

I am not quite sure what Mr. Cannavino had in mind when he said that he wanted the House of Commons to prevail over the courts. I am not exactly sure he put it that way. Perhaps what he is getting at is the need for Parliament to revisit some of the laws that have been passed by Parliament. Each situation would have to be looked at individually.

In the case of grow ops, I am quite frustrated, as I am sure we all are. That is why our government has committed additional resources to the RCMP to establish a grow op investigative and enforcement team. We need to do more and we need to ensure that the judiciary applies the laws that are already on the books. If the judiciary is not going to do that, then perhaps we have to revisit some of those laws.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Chair, my hon. colleague has just said that perhaps we would have to revisit those laws if the courts were not applying them. It is obvious the courts are not applying the laws. If they had, James Roszko would have been behind bars, not victimizing police officers and threatening people in my communities. If they had, this incident would not have happened.

If we do not apply the law much more aggressively, it will repeat itself. That is the reason why we need to take note of this debate in the House today.

If we only take note of it and walk away and do nothing, then we fail not only the fallen RCMP, but we fail our communities and our country.

I want to say this very clearly and plainly. Is the member saying that when the courts are not applying the law, he is agreeing with Mr. Cannavino when he says that we need minimum sentencing? In that way we ensure the courts do apply at least a limited amount of protection for society when it comes to significant crimes that happen in our communities. That is really where we are going with this. I do not know another lever that we can use as a Parliament to ensure that the courts apply the law to act as a deterrent and to ensure that our communities are safe from criminals.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Chair, I do not want to get involved in sweeping statements. There are certain laws that would have to be looked at in their totality. As the member for Yellowhead probably knows, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has said that she is prepared to look at parole and sentencing. However, we have a subcommittee of justice set up to look at that precise question, but it is not prepared to deal with it.

In fairness, the subcommittee has a big workload. In fact one of the major preoccupations right now is the anti-terrorism legislation. Fair enough, but the minister has said that she is prepared to look at parole and sentencing provisions in Canada. Can we get that dealt with by a committee of this House? I do not know, not so far. Maybe the member for Yellowhead could talk to his colleagues on the subcommittee on public safety and emergency preparedness and see if it is prepared to put in a few extra hours from time to time to deal with that very question.

I know I have some frustrations. For example, we know that in the books of the Criminal Code, for primary offences, let us say of murder and rape, judges are obliged to submit the DNA to the DNA data bank, but only about 50% of that data comes in. The government has orchestrated a major effort through the provincial attorneys general and through educating judges to ensure that the DNA comes through to the DNA data bank. These are primary offences and this is a part of the Criminal Code right now. Therefore, I hope the judges are listening and that they take their responsibilities under the Criminal Code to ensure that the DNA for primary offences get to the DNA data bank.

We have a broad range of issues, strategies and tactics here. Rather than generalize, I hope we can deal with the specifics. As I said, the Deputy Prime Minister has said she is prepared to look at sentencing and parole through a parliamentary committee. We know that if it is done through some other panel or other process, it will not get the full attention and support of the party opposite. I know the minister would like to do it through a parliamentary committee, so maybe he will talk to his colleagues and ensure that we can do that at the subcommittee.

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to speak tonight. I will be sharing my time with the member for Fort McMurray--Athabasca.

The RCMP desperately needs our support. The killing of four police officers pointed that out. They did not die in vain, and that is the message we must get across to the government.

The courts are too lenient. Victims' rights are not paramount. We are always worried about what is going to happen to the poor criminals. We are always worried about whether their rights are going to be defended.

There are dangerous offenders in all our communities. There are the Roszkos with 30 some charges against them and our courts do not do anything about them. The courts keep letting them off. Slick lawyers convince weak judges that these people should be let out. We blame the police. We plea bargain. More and more of these liberal judges are appointed, and look what we get.

Pedophiles are being released. I had one in my community who committed 10 offences. I asked the then justice minister, who is now the Deputy Prime Minister, what I should tell the parents of the 11th victim. She told me we were always harping about this, that we always wanted to go after criminals. There was an 11th and 12th victim. They were five and six-year-old little girls. That is what this liberal justice system does for us.

We have to protect the rights of Karla Homolka, who killed her own sister. We sure would not want to do anything to upset her.

Murder suspects are being released. I was in Vancouver this weekend and heard about someone who was here as a landed immigrant and had committed 10 offences. The judge let him out. He had been charged with crimes back home and we certainly would not want to send him back home where he might face some different punishment than what he would receive here.

We are seeing a liberal justice system and Canadians are sick and tired of it. They want us to support our police. They want our courts to enforce the maximum of the law that is available.

James Roszko is a perfect example. His father called him the devil. His brother would not talk to him. His neighbours were afraid of him. The police were afraid of him. Yet, this person was out. Every one of our communities has one of these individuals. They are around because of our liberal justice system.

Why was this man not declared an habitual offender? Why was he not put away to protect innocent victims? When money is seized in drug operations, why is it given back for the defence of the criminal? Why is it not given to the RCMP in order to catch more of these kinds of criminals and to shut down grow ops? Instead, we give it back to the criminals to defend themselves. What kind of a justice system is that?

We wasted $2 billion on a gun registry when in fact we could have put that money into technology for police officers. Gang activity is going on in all parts of our communities. These gangs are infiltrating everywhere. It is time we put an end to that.

It is time we sent a message from this place. We need to let people know that we support our police officers. They are doing a great job considering they have no support from the government. We need to change that.

We need to tell criminals that victims have rights, that we care about the victims. We need to tell them that our system is going to do everything to protect victims, not create more of them. We need to tell gangs that our police have the best technology. Gangs have great technology. In many cases the RCMP will tell us that the technology that gangs have is better than its own.

We have a sex registry with no sex offenders in it. We give them the right to tell a judge this might hurt their job opportunities. We are not worried about the victims. We just seem to be worried about the criminals. The government is sending the wrong message. It wants to decriminalize marijuana. All that will do is tell people that crystal meth or whatever is okay. It will tell people that drugs are okay.

There are four dead police officers, two of them were from my riding. I am here today to say that we should support the RCMP. Let us do everything we can in this place to send the right message, not the message that is being sent by the government.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Chair, I listened very intently to my colleague and I agree with everything he said. He is one individual who feels the pain probably as much as I do with regard to these RCMP officers because their families live in his riding. Two of them came from his community. I had the opportunity to attend the two funerals of the two RCMP officers in his riding in Red Deer, Alberta.

He was at the funeral and memorial service. When he sees officers gunned down in this kind of situation in the prime of their lives, how has that impacted him? Has he felt the same emotion that I have experienced and indeed the entire country when this sort of thing happened?

I wonder if he could comment on how that situation impacted him.

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Chair, that was probably one of the worst weekends of my career here in Parliament when I attended those two funerals.

I think first of Anthony Gordon, visiting with his mother, visiting with his wife who is expecting another child in July, and seeing his two-year-old son who will never have a dad. That hits one pretty hard. It creates a lot of emotion.

When I hear this Liberal namby-pamby about what we are going to do with criminals, it just makes me furious.

I will never forget the Brock Myrol family who gave a eulogy to their son saying what a great person he was and what kind of a young man he was. I am a parent myself, but to hear parents do that I could not do what they did that day. It was very touching.

Here was a young guy being buried in a superman T-shirt because that was what he was like. He always raised the bar. He lived by the Lone Ranger's Creed . It would be my pleasure to read this into the record tonight because this was the creed of this young man who died because of James Roszko with 30 charges and being let out every time and never paying the penalty that he should have by law. The creed states:

I believe that to have a friend,a man must be one.That all men are created equaland that everyone has within himselfthe power to make this a better world.That God put the firewood therebut that every manmust gather and light it himself.In being preparedphysically, mentally, and morallyto fight when necessaryfor that which is right.That a man should make the mostof what equipment he has.That “This government,of the people, by the peopleand for the people”shall live always.That men should live bythe rule of what is bestfor the greatest number.That sooner or later...somewhere...somehow...we must settle with the worldand make payment for what we have taken.That all things change but truth,and that truth alone, lives on forever.In my Creator, my country, my fellow man.

I think that sums it up. Maybe we should give some real serious thought as to how we can improve this justice system. That is the message I got. I do not want those four young men to die in vain without the government getting that message that we must change the way this justice system works. We must make it mean something. We must crack down on these thugs who literally are running our country in many cases because judges are just not doing their job.

That is how it touched me. I certainly talked to the parents and have said to them that we must do something about this. It is our job to carry this message here and to ensure it is heard. I give a lot of credit to my colleague who has done so much on this because two of the officers were from his community as well. We must get this message across.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Chair, it is an honour for me to speak on the subject of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

On March 3 Canadians were bitterly reminded of the dangers and sacrifices that face our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, and our friends who decide to make the move to join the RCMP. Four young constables were murdered by James Roszko. Of the four RCMP members, Constable Leo Johnston was from my riding of Fort McMurray—Athabasca.

Constable Johnston was born and raised in Lac La Biche, Alberta and served the community with courage, pride and honour, and a determination to make a difference. Constable Johnston had a twin brother who is also a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. His brother, Constable Lee Johnston, described Leo as:

Leo also knew what it was to be a fighter and what it took to be a warrior...He did not give up...He fought--refusing to believe in any outcome but victory.

And because of his determination and courage, he made a difference.

And he did make a difference.

In my riding of Fort McMurray—Athabasca, there are eight RCMP detachments, including Fort McMurray, Athabasca, Boyle, Faust, Fort Chipewyan, High Prairie, Lac La Biche and Red Earth Creek. In these eight detachments, there are a total of 157 RCMP officers who patrol the riding and serve our country.

The riding of Fort McMurray—Athabasca is indeed very difficult to patrol. It is 167,000 square kilometres. That means one officer has to patrol over 1,000 kilometres. RCMP officers must patrol one of the most dangerous highways in Canada, highway 63, which has the highest death rate in Canada per kilometre.

In addition, many officers currently must commute to and from Fort McMurray to do their job because it is just simply too expensive to live in the community. Housing costs are astronomical. It costs $330,000 for a trailer. For young RCMP officers, the starting salary barely allows them to live in the community.

In Fort McMurray and Lac La Biche, RCMP members are severely overworked and severely underpaid. Northern Alberta is an expensive place to live.

Canadians may find this hard to believe but in Fort McMurray a truck driver working for one of the oil sands plants makes over double what an RCMP member makes. This is simply illogical and is not right.

The value of work that these brave men and women do for us is simply immeasurable. Their contribution is enormous. Their service to the community is invaluable. These men and women should be fairly treated and rewarded adequately for their service.

I was a litigator for over 10 years in Fort McMurray and I worked with RCMP officers daily. I have personal friends who are members. I understand the incredible sacrifices and the tremendous workloads that they have.

According to a 2000 statistical report, in Fort McMurray the police force handles, per officer, 118 Criminal Code incidents. That is three times the national average for a police officer and over two times the Alberta average. The average RCMP officer in Fort McMurray has three years experience. We need more police officers and we need adequate compensation for them. The Liberal government takes the position that we are still in the 19th century.

Journalist Peter Worthington reveals the Liberal strategy of law enforcement in an anecdote he wrote in the Winnipeg Sun :

An RCMP anecdote I grew up with as a kid on the Prairies, was the story of Chief Sitting Bull and his Sioux Indians, who sought refuge in Canada after annihilating George Custer and his 7th Cavalry at the Little Bighorn in 1876.

When the time came for the Sioux to go back to Dakota, the U.S. cavalry was waiting at the border to escort Sitting Bull back to a reservation.

A lone Mountie was at the head of the long line of Indians, and the nervous cavalry officer (the fate of the 7th Cavalry ingrained on his memory) asked the Mountie: “And where is the rest of your troop?”

The Mountie shrugged: “Oh, he's back at camp, cooking breakfast”.

I look forward to the time when a Conservative government can implement policies that can provide better resources for the RCMP. For example, a Conservative government will institute mandatory minimum sentences for violent and repeat offenders. A Conservative government will require the registration of all sexual offenders and dangerous offenders. A Conservative government will repeal the expensive and ineffective gun registry, and will protect the public by prosecuting and punishing the criminals.

It is time for a change, not only in this government but a change in how we as Canadians serve and protect the people in the RCMP who serve and protect us.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Chair, of course we all mourn the loss of four RCMP officers. I went to the memorial service myself, but for the members from Fort McMurray, Athabasca, Yellowhead and Red Deer this has a special meaning. They were and are very close to it.

I think we need to be cautious about trying to represent what occurred in Mayerthorpe as being symbolic or representative of a system gone wrong or bad, because that is simply not the case. Of course, all the facts will come out when the RCMP and others do their review. This chap, Mr. Roszko, seems to me to have been a deranged, delusional individual. We cannot guard against that, no matter what; we can take all the precautions we want. Was there a big public outcry in Mayerthorpe over the years to put that chap away for good?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Yes. Maybe all that evidence could be tabled in the House. Perhaps that will form part of the RCMP inquiry.

The other aspect is that we have to have some grounds in this country to do that. We have a system of fairness and natural justice. We cannot lock a person up forever and throw away the key because he or she has committed some crimes, no matter how bad those crimes are. As I have said before, the Deputy Prime Minister has said that she is prepared to look at sentencing and parole if we could find the time at the committee to do that.

I would like to correct some “facts” that have come out recently that are not facts. It has been suggested that the government is not supporting the police. As the RCMP commissioner himself has highlighted, resources to the RCMP have gone from $2 billion a year to $3 billion in about five or six years.

On the gun registry, the members opposite know full well it has not cost close to $2 billion. Has it cost too much? Yes, but it is not even close to $2 billion and they know that. In fact, police officers are making about 2,000 inquiries a day on the gun registry and it is having an impact on homicides and suicides in this country. It is having a significant impact. In fact, the worst problem with guns is the long guns in terms of homicides and suicides. The members opposite know that as well.

The member has talked about gangs. This government introduced the anti-gang legislation and in fact it has resulted in the lock-up, prosecution and conviction of a whole range of criminals in the province of Quebec and across the country. In Toronto, the anti-gang legislation was used to arrest a whole number of gangs. The anti-gang legislation is working.

The government does have a sex offender registry and the member knows that full well. It was implemented with the cooperation of the provinces and territories in December.

[An hon. member]

How many are on it?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

It was agreed with the provinces and territories to implement the sex offender registry. If we are going to get caught up in the emotion, let us also sift through and deal with the facts.

If members want to deal with sentencing and parole then they should tell their colleagues on the justice committee and the subcommittee to treat this as a priority. The Deputy Prime Minister says she wants to do it.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Chair, I did not hear a particular question in that but as far as indicators go, I guess in seven years 30 offences under the Criminal Code is not enough. I suppose one officer for every thousand square kilometres in that area of the country is not enough. I guess three times the number of files that other places in Canada have as the average is not enough of an indicator for the Liberals. That is why we need a change in government.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to speak to one of the serious challenges we face in fighting organized crime and terrorism, both in Canada and beyond our borders.

The world of the 21st century is one where borders are no longer barriers to doing business and where capital is increasingly mobile. Open global markets, coupled with new technologies, enable individuals and businesses to buy and sell products and services in a matter of minutes, sometimes a half a world away.

While international trade and technologies bring many benefits to Canadian society, there is a dark side to globalization. Organized crime and terrorism feed on this virtual elimination of political and financial boundaries and they are growing exponentially by exporting the same international and technological resources that support legitimate social and economic activities.

Threats to Canadian security today come in all shapes and sizes, from every continent on the planet. They can include terrorism, organized crime syndicates or cyberstalkers preying on our children. Anyone doubting these threats need only turn on the TV news at night.

There is a new level of sophisticated collaboration among criminals and among terrorists. Organized criminal groups now work together to minimize risk and maximize profit. Indeed, their activities are defined by profit, not territory, and by innovation, not tradition.

New illicit profit-making schemes such as identity theft, email fraud and Internet child pornography have exploded in recent years. International terrorist groups have also shown how frighteningly effective their modern organizations can be, most tragically through the events of 9/11. These groups are globally networked, highly adaptable and innovative in their approach.

Clearly, modern crime and terrorism require modern security, intelligence and law enforcement solutions that not only keep abreast but stay ahead of these threats.

I can assure the House that the RCMP is on the front lines of this campaign. Fighting organized crime and terrorism are both considered strategic priorities within the force. The RCMP is addressing all of its priorities through a vigorous emphasis on intelligence, investigations, enforcement, protection and prevention, and education.

The RCMP understands that modern law enforcement means working smarter. It means being flexible enough to respond quickly to changes in the environment. It also means being informed by accurate, actionable intelligence drawn from a broad range of reliable sources.

Equally important, activities must be integrated with the effects of other law enforcement organizations, both at home and abroad, and must rely on the same knowledge of modern technology used by organized crime and international terrorism groups.

Let me highlight a few examples of the way these principles are being put into practice here in Canada and overseas. One that comes quickly to mind is the way the RCMP fights organized crime in our country. In order to determine priorities, develop strategy and allocate resources where they will have the greatest impact, the RCMP works with other members of Criminal Intelligence Service Canada to gather intelligence on known criminal groups and networks of people trafficking in child pornography or fraudulent schemes.

One of the force's most effective tools is an organized crime threat measurement technique called Sleipnir, which allows the RCMP to actively identify its highest priorities in the fight against organized crime by comparing and ranking criminal groups based on the level of threat they represent to Canadian society.

The recently announced child exploitation tracking system, CETS, is also an example of modern police work as well as the power of partnerships. Through the RCMP's national child exploitation coordination centre, police forces across Canada are partnering with Microsoft to develop and implement a cutting edge software system that combats cyberspace child pornography. CETS will lead to more arrests for this heinous crime and assist in identifying and rescuing the victims of child pornography.

The RCMP is also working as well to ensure that Canada is not used by international terrorists as a safe haven or a staging area for threats against other countries. Members of the force participate in integrated national security enforcement teams, INSETs, along with their colleagues from federal departments and provincial and municipal law enforcement agencies to collect, share and analyze information about potential threats to national security.

In addition to INSETs, the RCMP has implemented several programs related to cross-border security, including the integrated border enforcement teams called IBETs, the airport coastal watch program, and the marine security and ports initiative.

The IBET mandate is to “enhance border security and security at the shared Canada/U.S. border by identifying, investigating, and interdicting persons and organizations that pose a threat to national security or are engaged in other organized criminal activity”.

Following the signing of the Manley-Ridge 30-point smart border action plan in December 2001, the RCMP received funding of $25 million per year for five years to expand the IBET concept. Members will be pleased to note that the cross-border crime forum will use the IBET concept as a best practice and a model for strong Canada-United States relations.

The force has earned a well deserved international reputation as a leading edge police organization, in large part because of its ability to continually adapt to meet the changing needs of our times. While we can still find officers on horseback, we are much more likely to find RCMP employees keeping the peace in Haiti and Côte d'Ivoire, involved in strategic planning meetings with international counterparts, hunched over a computer combating cybercrime, or gathering intelligence on criminal and terrorist activity.

The RCMP is considered a model of modern police enforcement, respected for its strategic use of resources and the latest technology as well as for its emphasis on cooperative approaches to fighting organized crime and international terrorism.

The secretary general of Interpol, Ronald Noble, on a recent visit to Canada, complimented the Canadian model when he said “whatever you call the highest category of support and participation we have, Canada is in that category”. Mr. Noble, who is an American, also countered the misperception that Canada is a superhighway for terrorists when he said “they got it right that Canada is super, but not a highway”.

We can no longer combat domestic crime and hope it stops at our borders. We have to recognize that crime in all its forms is often nurtured in conditions of poverty and social distress, whether on Canadian or foreign ground, and in the end knows no borders. That is why we need to foster partnerships with all prospective partners, whether their resources are great or small.

Through its international policing services strategy, the RCMP helps other countries avoid crisis and maintain stability through peace building and peacekeeping. It helps coordinate the program that selects peacekeepers from the policing community on behalf of the Government of Canada. It also trains foreign police forces to use the very techniques of modern law enforcement that work so well here at home.

Generations of Canadians have valued the courage and commitment shown by members of the RCMP as they have strived to keep our homes and communities safe and our country secure for the past 130 years. We can all be extremely proud that this longstanding tradition of excellence can still be counted on today.

I am sure all members of the House join me in commending the RCMP's exemplary use of modern policing to make our ever-evolving world a safer one to live in, whether as Canadians or as citizens of other nations. Without the RCMP's efforts, the world would undoubtedly be a far more dangerous place.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Chair, I know that very recently my colleague was asked to chair a subcommittee of the justice committee looking at the whole issue of prostitution and what Canada could or should not be doing with respect to its public policies and laws in that area.

I believe the subcommittee had a work plan which involved going to jurisdictions that have acted in different ways to deal with this very difficult problem of women and men at risk in the current circumstances. I know the committee wants to study that, but I guess its travel budget was not approved. I am wondering if the member could comment on the work and work plan of the committee given these new circumstances.

Also, when I attended some meetings of the parliamentary assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, a rapporteur made the comment that in those countries that have relaxed the laws against prostitution there seemed to be some linkage with the increased flow of human smuggling, the sex trade type of smuggling. I hope the member looks at that particular question in committee, but I wonder if he could talk generally about the work program and plan of his subcommittee and why this is such an important issue for Canada.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Madam Chair, indeed the issues which the member touched on in the latter part of his question about human trafficking and the increase in laws that perhaps liberalize or legalize prostitution, unfortunately we are not going to be able to travel to those jurisdictions to see it first hand as opposed to reading it on paper. We will not have an opportunity to cross-examine and certainly I think our report will suffer because of it.

Notwithstanding that, the issue of prostitution is very complex. It is an issue of poverty and homelessness. It is an issue of exploitation of women and the physical, sexual and psychological abuse of women. Certainly more reprehensible is the exploitation of young women, teenagers and children.

It deals with health issues and the spread of communicable diseases such as HIV-AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. It deals with the migration of women, the smuggling of women. It deals with drugs and drug addiction. It is a whole microcosm of minor issues that force women into economic prostitution, where it is the end of the month and they do not have sufficient funds to feed their children or pay the rent. It is issues of mental health for women, as well as men and young boys. It is not just a female problem. It is a male and female problem.

Often we do not address the other half of the equation. It is a two part philosophy. There is a male element in this too. They are the johns, the clients, who could be an individual's son, father, uncle or brother. Similarly the sex workers could be someone's mother, daughter, grandmother, aunt or sister. They are human beings with a lot of problems. Most individuals do not wish to be there. They feel they are trapped and they cannot get out because of criminal records. They certainly would not want that life for any of their children.

It is a very complex issue. We commenced hearings here in Ottawa in February. We will continue our hearings perhaps until the end of June. We have crossed Canada consulting people and organizations that deal with sex workers. We have spoken with many sex workers, the high track, as they call it, the low track, which are the street workers, as well as escort services. That is another area. We see the ads in the local newspapers and in the yellow pages, but we do not hear much about them. People say that perhaps that is okay.

In dealing with these individuals there is a certain prejudice that these women are trash so they are not worthy of consideration. That is simply not the case. For those who feel that way, shame on them.

We have had cross-country consultations and we will continue with our study, even though we have been restricted a little because of the denial of travelling to those areas that have different approaches. In Sweden they do not criminalize the sex workers themselves but they go after the clients, the johns. Amsterdam and Utrecht in the Netherlands have a more liberalized approach. In England it is lawful for individuals to operate in their own homes. New Zealand introduced a year ago a new law legalizing prostitution.

People perhaps do not realize that in Canada today the actual sex act between consenting adults for money is not illegal. What is illegal is the asking for that service, which is solicitation, pimping or procuring, that is, obtaining women or men to prostitute themselves, or having common bawdy houses where this activity goes on. Transporting someone to a bawdy house is a crime, but the actual sexual act between consenting adults for consideration is not unlawful.

I could go on forever on this issue. We have learned a lot. I have heard the snickers and chuckles too. Shame on those members.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Chair, we really need to focus. The incident in Mayerthorpe really brought to light the significant amount of failures in our criminal justice system, in our drug laws, in a gun law that does not work, and the lack of resources for front-line RCMP. I absolutely cannot see the relevance between prostitution, but nonetheless, I have a question with regard to my hon. colleague's comments. What does he think about the need to increase the resources of the RCMP and the need to toughen up those drug laws and our criminal justice system as the family members of those fallen RCMP have asked for?

What would he say to those family members? We have come to the House to debate this issue, to take note of an issue. Do we go one way or the other? Do we walk away from this and call it a one-off, or do we decide to move our criminal justice system to one that actually will work in the best interests of Canadians?

Would my hon. colleague stand and say to the family members how he would respond to that question? When he stands, the family members will be watching, so perhaps he could speak to the family members when he answers.