Jim Pankiw

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal ministers have been caught breaking sections of the government's conflict of interest guidelines by helping friends and supporters get government jobs and contracts. The auditor general has called in the RCMP to look at the awarding of contracts by Public Works and Government Services under the scandal plagued tenure of Alfonso Gagliano and his successor in the portfolio of public works who is the Liberal House leader once again.

With new revelations of scandal surrounding the disgraced former defence minister the situation would appear to be the tip of the iceberg. There has been a long Liberal history of such corruption starting with former Liberal minister Pierre Corbeil's conviction for influence peddling and culminating in the recent scandals at public works and defence.

The corruption problems further highlight the lack of ethical standards and integrity shown by the Liberal government. A full and complete investigation needs to be conducted. Canadians deserve the truth about the extent to which Liberal ministers have played fast and loose with taxpayer dollars by giving patronage contracts to their friends and supporters. It is clear that the Liberals should honour their 1993 election promise to have an ethics counsellor who reports to parliament. Mr. Wilson is nothing more than a figurehead with no real power.

Canadians need to know the extent of corruption surrounding the Liberals. This can only be realized through a full and independent inquiry into how the government has abused the contracting process. The extent to which the government's sponsorship program slush fund has been abused by the Liberals is now exposed. It is so riddled with corruption the auditor general has been called in to investigate. Government contracts should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny instead of backroom deals between Liberal bagmen and their supporters.

In question period I asked why it is that when the Liberals were in opposition and there was any hint of conflicts of interest, patronage payoffs or scandals of that nature they demanded full, independent investigations into the incidents but now that they are in government and all these conflict of interest situations are developing they refuse to conduct a full and independent public inquiry.

The minister's response was that my question was as clear as mud. I repeated the minister's own words in the House when he was in opposition. He had demanded that the House examine all aspects of government contracts including those relating to advertising. He had talked specifically about advertising contracts. He had tabled a motion in the House demanding a parliamentary investigation.

I finished my question by asking if the minister would guarantee that all sponsorship program slush fund contracts would be examined by a parliamentary committee and that the government would adopt the auditor general's recommendations regarding the scandal. His response was that my second question was only half as clear as the previous one.

The minister is completely avoiding the questions. They are clear, simple and straightforward. I want to know why there is a double standard. The Liberals called for independent inquiries into conflicts of interest, patronage and scandal when they were in opposition. Now that they are in government and being plagued by the same problems, why will they will not do it? It is a simple and straightforward question. I would like it answered.

[Child Predator Act, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues from Saanich—Gulf Islands, Crowfoot and Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for expressing a degree of support for the intent of my bill.

I want to express my profound disappointment that Liberal members refused to allow the bill to proceed through a legislative process. I would like to state for the permanent record that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine spoke against the intent of the bill, and I will be making some comments on that in a moment.

I would also like to state for the record that the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration and the member for Brossard—La Prairie are the ones who declined unanimous consent of the House to allow this legislation to proceed. I urge the constituents they are supposed to represent to bear that in mind at the time of the next federal election. The priority of their Liberal members of parliament was to mollycoddle child sex offenders as opposed to protecting our children.

I am astonished at the remarks made by the Liberal member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine who in her remarks said that putting criminals behind bars would not protect the public and that it was important for offenders to be released into society. It is clear that she is detached from reality. She does not appreciate the obscenity in releasing a guy like Karl Toft who was convicted of 34 sex offences against children and as I stated in my previous speech the number is probably in the hundreds. He would only serve nine years behind bars and then be released into our community. That is obscene and offensive.

The Liberal members are shirking their responsibility as representatives of their constituents by not allowing the bill to go forth. Once again I would like to express my profound disappointment at their lack of willingness to represent their constituents who would virtually unanimously agree that releasing such a deviant into society after only nine years, considering the number of victims that he has left in his wake, is completely unacceptable. Their unwillingness to allow this child predator act to go to committee is inexplicable and highly disappointing.

[Child Predator Act, May 27th, 2002]

moved that Bill C-437, an act to provide that persons who commit a sexual offence involving a child serve the entire sentence imposed without early release or parole and be found to be child predators, and to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, in summary, the child predator act defines the expression “child predator offence” to cover sexual offences involving children that include sexual activity by the offender. It would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to prevent any unescorted temporary absence, day parole, full parole or statutory release being granted to a person who has committed a child predator offence or who has been found to be a child predator under the new provisions of the criminal code. Thus, the bill would ensure that the full term of the sentence would be served in custody in every case of a child predator offence.

Further, the enactment would amend the criminal code to provide for an application to a court to find a person to be a child predator on the basis of having committed a child predator offence and having shown an inability to control sexual behaviour or an indifference to the consequences of that behaviour for victims.

The enactment would allow the court to order an offender who is found to be a child predator to be held in custody for an indeterminate period if the offence were a second or subsequent child predator offence and would require the court in all such cases to order counselling and, in the case of any subsequent release, avoidance of contact with children, electronic surveillance and monthly reporting to police of residence and place of work for at least five years after his or her release.

If the offender is not found to be a child predator the court, on passing sentence for a child predator offence, may still make any or all the orders specified in the enactment and find the accused to be a long term offender and shall in all cases order avoidance of contact with children and monthly reporting to the police.

The Minister of Justice would be required to establish procedures to ensure that any breaches of an order, including a failure to report to police, would result in an immediate issuance of a warrant for the offender's arrest and the notification of the relevant police authorities.

One of the Liberal government's biggest failures has been its refusal to strengthen the criminal justice system and its ability to deal with violent and repeat offenders. The result is that we feel less secure in our homes and communities.

According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, crime has steadily increased since 1993. However it was not until recently, when the regional psychiatric centre in Saskatoon was forced to accept convicted pedophile Karl Toft, that people in that community really understood the extent to which the criminal code did not adequately protect society.

Toft is the notorious child sex offender who received a 13 year sentence for 34 sex attacks on boys while he worked at a youth training facility. What is truly disturbing is that Toft, whose victims could ultimately number in the hundreds, became eligible for parole after serving only a fraction of his sentence. Not only was Toft eligible for parole, even though his prospects for rehabilitation were poor and he was a high risk to reoffend, he actually qualified for release into a community based halfway house.

It should have been a foregone conclusion that a predatory offender like Toft would have to spend the rest of his natural life behind bars. However at the time of sentence he was given concurrent as opposed to consecutive sentences. Therefore, despite the heinousness of his crimes against children, Toft became eligible for parole after serving only two-thirds, nine years, of his sentence.

As a result, and following a brief evaluative stay in Saskatoon, National Parole Board officials quietly released Toft. This occurred despite the objections of his victims who have been forced to live with the emotional and physical scars of what was done to them.

As a result, I introduced this private member's bill designed to prevent a repeat of this situation. Bill C-437, the child predator act, would ensure that all individuals convicted of a sex related crime against a child would serve their full sentence and be declared a dangerous offender. The dangerous offender designation is essential to keeping pedophiles behind bars indefinitely. There would also be greater emphasis placed on deterrents because the sentencing provisions would apply to first time offenders.

From a judicial perspective and where the safety of our community is concerned, the child predator act is a common sense approach that puts the safety of our children ahead of the rights of pedophiles.

While the Liberal government refuses to consider changes to the criminal code, the onus is on elected representatives at all levels of government to continue telling it like it is in the hope that public opinion will force changes to be made.

I have the psychiatric evaluation of child sex offender Karl Toft. I do not have time to read it all into the record but I will read one paragraph which will highlight the seriousness of the situation. The psychiatric evaluation reads:

You have been diagnosed as a homosexual pedophile...the highest risk category for sexual reoffending even after intensive treatment, with a personality disorder with schizoid and anti-social features. The prognosis for individuals with this profile is generally poor as therapy is difficult.

Despite that evaluation, the guy was released after having served only two-thirds of his sentence, having been convicted of 34 sex offences against children.

Releasing pedophiles into our communities is highly dangerous and I am appalled that they spend such little time in prison. The bill would prevent the release of deviant sex offenders into the communities where they prey upon our children.

Studies prove that pedophiles are incurable and are a threat to our children. They belong behind bars. The Liberal government has refused to make child predators subject to an automatic dangerous offender designation when they are sentenced, which would ensure that they remain in prison indefinitely.

I of course appeared before the committee that reviews private members' business to request that this bill be deemed votable but the Liberal members who sat on the committee declined that request. I would like now to request the unanimous consent of the House to deem the bill votable.

[Tax Credit, May 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the statistics quoted by my hon. colleague in the years 1994 to 2000, as he pointed out the overall rate of homicides was down so using the actual number is misleading. The important statistic to look at is the percentage of homicides that were committed with the use of a firearm. That in fact has gone up 3% in the case of murders and almost 20% in the case of attempted murders. The way he attempted to misrepresent those statistics is misleading.

Further, the Canadian Police Association, against the advice of many of its rank and file members, initially endorsed the plan of the Liberals. However, the association said the support was contingent upon demonstrated results of a decrease in the use of firearms in the commission of violent crimes. In fact, all the statistics show the trend to be otherwise and is ample reason to scrap the plan. It is clear the Liberals are not prepared to do that.

My hon. colleague said that the plan will be fully implemented by next year. If the statistics next year and in the following years continue to show an increased--

[Tax Credit, May 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, on February 27 I asked a question of the government with respect to information I had obtained from a question on the order paper with respect to the use of firearms in the commission of violent crimes.

Statistics have shown that since 1994, when the Liberal government implemented the firearms registration act, the use of firearms in the commission of violent crimes has gone up. In the case of murders it has increased by 3%. In the case of attempted murders there has almost been a 20% increase in the use of firearms.

My question was with respect to the statistics that showed a trend of an increasing use of firearms in the commission of violent crimes, which was contrary to what the Liberal government predicted would happen when it implemented the bill. With respect to the enormous cost that is being incurred by taxpayers, should the government not admit now that it was a huge mistake and take measures to correct it by scrapping the legislation, ending the targeting and harassment of law abiding firearms owners, sports shooters, hunters, ranchers and farmers?

I did not receive an answer to that question so I will ask it again. In light of the statistics that demonstrate a trend in the opposite direction of the government's prediction that the firearms registration act would cause a decline in the use of firearms in the commission of violent crimes, should the government not admit that it does not work and that it is not achieving the desired result?

Some $800 million have been spent thus far and we are still a long way from full implementation of the program. The Liberal government promised, when it implemented the act in 1994, that it would only be $85 million, so the costs are ten-fold greater than what it said it would be. That large sum of money, $800 million, and any future money to be spent on the firearms registration act and its continued implementation could be directed to constructive uses.

For example, not taxing the money from Canadian taxpayers in the first place would be a tremendous boost to the economy and create jobs. Furthermore there is serious underfunding of some federal programs. We have a health care crisis with increasing waiting lists that could be partially remedied because part of the problem is lack of funds. Surely if that $800 million were to be injected into the health care system we would have some tangible and substantial benefits.

It could be put into infrastructure projects such as highways, bridges and road systems. With respect to the issue of crime we could have put that money into policing and had real and tangible results that would benefit our communities in terms of making them safer.

We have a drought on the prairies. Agriculture is in a perpetual state of crisis and $800 million would do a lot to alleviate the competitive disadvantage our farmers face against the unfair subsidies of our trading partners, the United States and Europe.

Should the Liberals not admit that it was a mistake and take the proper corrective measures now, stop the mandatory registration scheme and redirect those resources into more productive uses?

[Right to Work Act, May 1st, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-453, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (trade union membership to be optional).

Mr. Speaker,the purpose of this enactment is to allow workers to decide whether or not they wish to join or be represented by a trade union and to provide that no union dues are to be deducted from the wages or the salaries of employees who are members of a union. It also prevents discrimination by the commission against persons applying for employment on the basis of whether or not they wish to be a member of a union.

Rank and file union members are often denied a meaningful say in how negotiations are conducted on their behalf. The purpose of the legislation is to give workers greater freedom and choice with respect to how they are represented in the collective bargaining process. Although the bill is restricted to federal labour relations, I encourage the provinces to demonstrate leadership by enacting similar legislation on behalf of workers.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Medically Unnecessary Abortion Referendum Act, May 1st, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-452, an act to provide for a referendum to determine whether Canadians wish medically unnecessary abortions to be insured services under the Canada Health Act and to amend the Referendum Act.

Mr. Speaker,it is my pleasure to introduce the bill, the title of which of course speaks for itself in terms of the intent.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Excise Act, 2001, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is the case that Pierre Corbeil was convicted of running a kickback scheme and influence peddling operation inside the Liberal Party and the government. We also know that Jon Grant, former manager of the Canada Lands Company Limited, stated that when Alfonso Gagliano was minister of public works he required that all land deals in Quebec be vetted through him. There was therefore political interference and the landing of jobs for friends. There have been breaches of the code of ethics and criminal activity as well.

I will get back to my question. I am here tonight because I still have not been provided an answer. My hon. colleague has another opportunity to address the House and I hope he will answer the question. The current minister of public works when he was in opposition demanded that parliamentary committees investigate allegations of conflict of interest--

[Excise Act, 2001, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on March 12 I raised the issue in the House of the ongoing scandals involving the Liberal government, scandals which include allegations of conflict of interest, patronage and kickback schemes. I will highlight three examples. First, a fellow by the name of Pierre Corbeil was convicted of running a kickback scheme for people who sought grant money from the Liberal government. Upon his conviction it was revealed that there was an organized influence peddling operation inside the Liberal Party.

Second, a Quebec based advertising firm called Groupaction Marketing Inc. received $60 million in contracts from the Liberal government and kicked back $100,000 in donations to the Liberal Party.

Third, the former minister of public works was embroiled in allegations of improper political interference, conflict of interest and breaches of the code of ethics. He was removed from cabinet but given an appointment as ambassador to Denmark.

The question I asked in March was to the current minister of public works. When he was in opposition he was the public works critic. At the time he was fervent in his position that allegations of conflict of interest should be investigated. I asked him why it was a good idea to investigate corruption then, but now that he is the minister he is refusing to do so. The minister did not answer the question. That is why I am here. I am hoping to get an answer tonight.

I will put the issue in context. On May 1, 1986 when the current minister of public works was in opposition he asked the then deputy prime minister about one of the deputy prime minister's colleagues who was in a conflict of interest position. He asked how he could ignore the conflict of interest guidelines and tolerate such interference. It makes one wonder. If it was not appropriate to tolerate political interference by a cabinet minister when he was in opposition why would he tolerate political interference from his predecessor, former minister of public works Alfonso Gagliano?

On September 27, 1988 the current minister of public works said allegations of conflict of interest and breaches of the code of ethics should be referred to a parliamentary committee for investigation. The same suggestion has been made to him in the current environment with all these scandals going on. However the minister has refused to conduct a parliamentary investigation into the granting of contracts and allegations of conflict of interest and kickback schemes.

On another occasion when he was the public works critic the current minister of public works asked the government to dismiss from a cabinet a minister who was in a conflict of interest. He specifically stated that the punishment should be dismissal from cabinet. I am taking that directly from Hansard .

I will restate the question I asked in March. When he was in opposition the current minister of public works wanted to investigate corruption through parliamentary committees and dismiss ministers from cabinet who were in conflict of interest and in breach of the code of ethics. If it was a good idea when he was in opposition why is the current minister of public works now refusing to act on these things?

[Government Contracts, March 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to sneakily avoid the question. He has flip-flopped on his own motion which reads “to examine all aspects of government contracts including those relating to advertising”. He tabled this motion in the House specifically demanding a parliamentary investigation into government contracts relating to advertising. Those are his words in his motion.

Will the minister guarantee that all sponsorship program slush fund contracts are examined by a parliamentary committee and that the government will adopt the auditor general's recommendations on this scandal?