House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.
Questions Passed As Orders For Returns April 2nd, 1998
With respect to the Canada-Nova Scotia Infrastructure Works program: ( a ) what projects have been approved under this program since June 2, 1997; ( b ) what was the location of each approved project; and ( c ) what was the financial contribution made by the Government of Canada for each approved project?
Return tabled.
Committees Of The House April 1st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it gives me real pleasure to speak on this matter. The motion put forward by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville is a very important one and one that should cause a great deal of concern on all sides of the House.
Obviously there is a great deal of information that has come to light in recent days, the correspondence that has been read into the record, the references to the fact that the RCMP commissioner and members of the RCMP are questioning the validity and the accuracy of the statistics, the very statistics used for the justification of this bill.
This bill was contentious without any of this new information that has suddenly come to light. Equally troubling is that representations were made by the Department of Justice to the Alberta Court of Appeal. Four provinces and two territories are currently debating the constitutionality of Bill C-68.
I take the hon. member's reference to the six times these statistics were referred to in the pleadings at the Alberta Court of Appeal. The mere thought that members of the justice department may have knowingly made reference to these statistics alone is cause for us to slow down and take a second look before this proceeds any further.
This is an incredible revelation to think that this could have knowingly occurred. If the RCMP made reference back in July to the department, the commissioner took the time and effort to write to the minister or the deputy minister bringing this to their attention, telling them that he in fact did not in essence want the RCMP's name associated with these statistics.
Let's face it, the RCMP's name being associated with these statistics and the weight that was placed on that by the Department of Justice in justifying its position on Bill C-68 could be one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated on the Canadian people.
This is a very serious allegation and we cannot go any further until we get to the bottom of this.
The Minister of Justice has suggested that there is a methodological approach that would explain this difference and how these statistics were spun by the department and that this would somehow counteract the RCMP's contention that there is a real discrepancy here. It does not take a great deal of in-depth knowledge of criminal law to see that the discrepancy here cannot be accounted for by a minor methodological approach in the explanation of the use of long guns in violent crime.
Statistics are available. The RCMP is questioning these statistics. It is now saying that it accepts the process that may have taken place, but the process is yet unknown. We have not heard from the Department of Justice on what has transpired specifically between the RCMP and its department to explain the difference in the figures. I believe this is where we have to go next before we proceed any further with this very contentious piece of legislation.
Income Tax Act March 31st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very intently to the comments by the hon. member from Yorkton—Melville as well as to the parliamentary secretary.
I rise on the same subject matter. It has been brought to the House's attention that the data on which Bill C-68 has been based are seriously flawed. On July 21, 1997 the commissioner of the RCMP wrote to the deputy minister of justice informing him that the RCMP data used by the government and by the department officials during the debate over Bill C-68 were in fact flawed.
This is shocking. The statistics that were put forward and the references in both letters mentioned by the hon. member in the opposition set out that there is a serious problem here that has to be addressed. The commissioner states unequivocally that the incorrect reporting of the RCMP statistics could cause wrong public policy or laws to be developed and cause researchers to draw erroneous conclusions. That was in July 1997.
There is a lot of water under the bridge and a lot of things have happened since that time, including a challenge to the Supreme Court of Alberta by four provinces and two territories.
The serious question is have those statistics been put before the Alberta Court of Appeal without qualification, without correction if that is what is necessary? This is a very serious matter if that is in fact what has happened.
The allegations by the commissioner himself that they do not want the RCMP name attached to these statistics unless corrections are made speak in and of themselves to the confidence that the RCMP has in these statistics. Yet there is no disclosure, there is no open dialogue here on the part of the government. What we are getting here is that the RCMP is now satisfied, or certain members may be satisfied.
We want to know what has transpired from the time the commissioner wrote to the minister or deputy minister and what is this talk of methodological difference or somehow this has been glossed over. What does methodological difference mean? Does that mean economical with the truth? Does that mean these statistics have been used to spin a certain purpose or a certain objective?
There are many concerns that arise out of this bill, not the least of which is the broad widespread opposition that exists in rural parts of Canada.
The cost element again is something that has been exposed as being completely erroneous. The government suggested that it is going to cost $48 million. It has already exceeded $100 million. It is going to exceed $500 million.
Recent information that has surfaced and been brought forward to the House must cause the government serious concern. There are questions that have to be answered by the minister or by the government. If the conclusions that have been drawn, conclusions the government wanted Canadians to draw, are based on seriously flawed statistics that do not truly represent the incidence of violent crime and the use of firearms in the country, that is something that has to be addressed and has to be corrected soon.
The e-mails and letters that have been sent back and forth between various government officials and members of the RCMP have to be looked at in a very close and meticulous way before we go any further with this piece of legislation.
The minister has a duty to the House of Commons and she has a duty as a lawyer to slow the process down and give Canadians the truth on what has taken place in this process.
As a member of the opposition it is my responsibility to ask questions. As members of the government it is their responsibility to give us answers, and truthful ones.
National Defence Act March 19th, 1998
He fired me.
National Defence Act March 19th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, on March 12 there was a press release from the minister's department announcing that Jerry Pitzul was the new judge advocate general. This appointment seems to exactly hit on what the minister is looking for. It has the element of a civilian and the element of a former military person.
I understand Mr. Pitzul has been out of the military since 1995 when he took on a position with the Nova Scotia government as director of the public prosecution service. It now appears he is being brought back into the military with a new rank, a raise in pay and new responsibilities.
He is praised in this release as being an extremely competent man. Was an appraisal done of his performance in the province of Nova Scotia? It speaks of his immense experience in Nova Scotia but the man never tried a case there.
I ask the minister if there is any beginning to the wisdom of this latest appointment.
Firearms March 19th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Justice if the same flawed statistics that were used by the Liberal government to justify gun registration were also relied upon by members of her department when they made their pleadings before the Alberta Court of Appeal. She did not answer that question.
She also referred to a letter that she tabled in the House dated December 30. In that letter there is a reference by the commissioner to a letter from her department dated September 25. Will she answer yesterday's question and table that letter today?
Questions Passed As Orders For Returns March 18th, 1998
With respect to the Canada-Nova Scotia Infrastructure Works program: ( a ) what projects have been approved under this program since June 2, 1997; ( b ) what was the location of each approved project; and ( c ) what was the financial contribution made by the Government of Canada for each approved project?
Return tabled.
Bill C-68 March 18th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the minister obviously did not hear my question. The minister took an oath as a lawyer and as the Attorney General of Canada that she would at all times supply the courts and the pubic with accurate information.
I repeat my question. Did the minister knowingly supply flawed information for the Alberta Court of Appeal? If she did so, will she resign?
Bill C-68 March 18th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, based on the commissioner's letter of July 21, 1997, which I would like to table today, we now know that the Minister of Justice, past and present, relied on and made use of flawed public information as it pertained to Bill C-68.
The minister knows that there are four provinces and two territories presently before the Alberta Court of Appeal debating the constitutionality of Bill C-68.
According to the letter of the RCMP commissioner informing the minister in February, 1997 that the firearms data were bogus or, to use her words, methologically mistaken, did the minister supply the Alberta—
Bill C-68 March 18th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is becoming very apparent that the government did use false information prior to and during the election campaign for its own political gains. The commissioner confirmed this in his letter. Furthermore the RCMP have demanded that the record be corrected and the minister has yet to comply.
Will the minister commit now to correcting the data and provide Canadians an opportunity to accurately debate information that might result in flawed legislation?