Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I could have missed this but I thought we passed the motion and we were now going to the introduction of petitions.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 40% of the vote.
Division No. 247 October 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I could have missed this but I thought we passed the motion and we were now going to the introduction of petitions.
Petitions October 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many constituents in Ontario who are requesting that parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a provision, as supported in Bill C-340, regarding the right of a spouse's parent, the grandparent, to have access to or custody of the children or the child.
Petitions October 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many constituents here in the national capital region who are calling on parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include the provision as supported in Bill C-340 regarding the right of spouses, parents and grandparents for access to or custody of the children or the child.
Space October 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, in these days of technological achievement countries are racing to open new frontiers. The sky is no longer the limit. Thousands of satellites circulate around our planet and thousands of others are lost in space. Since the 1960s there have been many space missions, some of which were not completed.
Members may remember in 1978 when a Russian spy satellite containing 100 pounds of uranium plunged through the atmosphere over the Northwest Territories. Members may also remember in 1996 when part of a Russian space probe plunged into the Pacific ocean. At this very moment thousands of pieces of broken space equipment are circulating above us with many more to come.
With 434 days to the new millennium Canada should take the lead and co-ordinate efforts with other interested countries to clean up space. We have over 5,000 intelligent experts who work in space and related industries. These men and women are the best in the world. With their support I am confident we can pass on to our children an even better future.
Supply October 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand where my colleague got the information that the public has no faith in the public complaints commission. It is the opposite. Canadians have every faith in the public complaints commission.
Canadians have every faith in our democratic institutions. They know that anybody who appears before this commission will have a fair hearing. The counsel for the commission clearly stated that he will assist the witnesses, that he will help them out in order to make sure their case is heard before the commission.
Frankly, and I said this a little earlier in a question to a member of the NDP, had any mishap taken place at that meeting, my colleagues from the Reform Party would have been the first ones on their feet in this House trying to attack the government for not providing security to our guests, dignitaries visiting our country for this international meeting. They would have been the first ones to stand and attack the government.
They cannot have it both ways. They have to let the police do their work. This is a police initiative. The police are doing what they have to do within the framework of the law in a most comprehensive and humane way. Let them do their work. My colleagues should back off and let the commission conduct its hearing. They should stop yapping on this issue until such time as we get a report.
Supply October 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, you heard it yourself. I have never seen anyone so totally out of touch on the issue. It is my colleagues in this party who are standing up now to speak. The member's colleagues are undermining our democratic institutions and our democratic process. They are the ones who are undermining the ability of our police to do their work. They are the ones who are taking the time of the House of Commons in order to debate an issue we have gone through over and over again.
The commission is an independent body and not a court of law. Any citizen has the right to appear before that commission and have his or heard case heard.
Now the member is telling me that he wanted the students to spray police. What a shameful suggestion for my colleague from the New Democratic Party to make in this House. It is obvious he is not serving the institution as well as he should be. Otherwise he would have stood up and said that he would not make any comments before the commission made its finding, that he would not comment before the commission had a chance to hear the cases and make its report to parliament. Frankly, the hon. member is out to lunch.
Supply October 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak against the motion proposed by my colleague across the House for many reasons, one of which is because this motion is purely and simply politically motivated and partisan in nature. It is not in the public interest and it has created a lot of confusion throughout the country.
All my colleagues had to do was look to the solicitor general's report on the public complaints commission which was tabled some time ago in the House. I think if we were to have a close examination of this report we would see that it speaks eloquently to the important civilian oversight role the commission plays in our society as a whole. This report discussed how important it is to stay true to the form and function of its mandate as parliament intended.
The introductory message from the chair is quite to the point in this regard. Madame Heafey wrote:
Our role at the RCMP public complaints commission is to help to maintain the harmonious relationship that must exist between the public and the RCMP. The commission's primary mandate is to ensure that the public complaints process is conducted with impartiality and fairness both to members of the public and members of the RCMP.
The chair goes on to say that the process can be too often litigious, with the net effect being to restrict the benefits that flow from the resolution of disputes, disagreements and misunderstandings.
In her annual report the chair vows to focus more sharply on effective results:
The commission must always seek the least formal and most efficient options to resolve complaints, without compromising the values of impartiality, fairness and transparency.
I forgot to mention that I will be splitting my time with one of my colleagues.
It is this issue of the relative informality and less legalistic approach to dealing with and resolving complaints that is so important to the average Canadian. The commission can make findings and recommendations based on a balance of probabilities, not the criminal law standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. It is this kind of pragmatic and practical approach that Canadians find reasonable. The commission chair writes:
Often, the commission, as a neutral third party, is able to pinpoint the cause of disharmony between the public and the police, with the result that both parties can acknowledge and accommodate their differences.
The chair of the public complaints commission goes on to say that the commission is not a court of law. This is important for my colleagues to hear:
Even in more challenging disputes, we must not lose sight of the fact that the commission's public hearings are, essentially, inquiries of public interest; the commission should not be fettered by the kind of precise rules that govern criminal and civil trials. Timeliness and efficiency contribute to the credibility of our response.
Here in a nutshell is what is so important about the process, one which would be adversely affected by injecting into it extra counsel that is publicly funded.
The chair promises a revitalization that will in the year ahead strengthen the commission's ability to make a positive and constructive contribution to Canadian society.
I would like to remind my colleagues on the opposite side that Canada is a very peaceful nation which places a premium on the rule of law. Our police always respect this rule of law and the value of human rights. The public has a high regard for the police. One only has to compare public sentiment toward the police in this country with that of other democratic countries with roughly equivalent systems of government to see that we live in one of the finest democracies in the world. We have the finest police forces in the world at all levels, municipal, provincial as well as federal.
As the commission pointed out in its annual report, complaints about the RCMP normally arise from the stresses of policing. Usually these issues are more about degrees of conduct than about true violations of Canadian standards and values. This may or may not be the case with the issue at hand, but it is clear that too many of my colleagues are rushing to judgment. Society's expectations of police are high and nowhere are they higher than with the RCMP.
The RCMP, our federal police, also act as the provincial police in eight of the ten provinces as well as the territories. The RCMP has given Canadians exemplary police services over the years. They are determined to maintain that high standard. That is why the RCMP, as does the government, want this hearing to take place, to be expedited and to come to its finding as soon as possible.
I think that as Canadians watch the hearings in Vancouver take place, they see a vital Canadian institution in full flower. They see a comprehensive public hearing being conducted with rigour and fairness by a very able panel assisted by very able staff.
The public sees a commission counsel who leads the witnesses through their testimony, introduces documentary evidence, protects the witnesses and explores all facets of the issue. The public is getting the most exhaustive examination of the issue possible.
Members should also be mindful that the commission initiated this hearing. It was not at the government's request; the government did not ask for this hearing. The commission decided independently to undertake it on its own. Its finding will be independent and unfettered by government influence. The government cannot edit the report; the commission presents it as its findings.
In short, let the commission do its work using the process put in place by parliament. Let us not second guess its outcome, its ability, nor its ambit. Let it follow the evidence and testimony wherever it may lead, for the benefit of all Canadians, with the ultimate aim of reconciliation.
I do not want to belabour the issue but my colleagues on the opposite side are trying to milk this issue for all its worth. It is plain partisan politics, pure and simple. I find it shameful for my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to stretch the issue to that extent without full knowledge of the mandate and responsibilities of the commission in its independent role.
Supply October 20th, 1998
Madam Speaker, let us be clear here. What we have before us is an issue where the students are the ones who are launching the complaint against the RCMP.
What would have happened if, for example, the RCMP did not take the controlled action it took at the demonstration in order to ensure the security of our guests attending the conference?
The gentlemen on the opposite side would have been the first ones up in the House to attack the government for not ensuring the safety and security of those who were here as our guests.
This is a tremendous waste of our democratic process. These guys are standing up and trying to milk what I believe is an important issue for political expediency, nothing more, nothing less.
Family Service Canada October 19th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Family Service Canada, a national charitable organization with a mandate to promote the well-being of families in communities.
This organization provided full services in counselling to more than 400,000 Canadians. This year it launched a national initiative called images of families. Canadians of all ages are encouraged to send photos or stories capturing a moment in the life of their family. Details can be obtained through Family Service Canada.
Volunteers, staff and members of Family Service Canada are to be commended for being there for our children, our country's most valuable resource.
Petitions October 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many constituents in the national capital region and from elsewhere across the country requesting that parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a provision, as supported in Bill C-340, regarding the rights of spouses, parents and grandparents to access or to custody of the children.