Peter MacKay

[Sponsorship Program, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we do not write letters like that.

Let us look at it further. He received a chummy invite to Mr. Boulay's 50th birthday--

[The Prime Minister, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister went from his Dr. Heckle to Mr. Hyde by refusing to answer questions about his involvement in ad scam. Instead, he dodges and deflects attention with outrageous claims about Conservative health policy.

The Conservatives' real agenda is to stop the illicit flow of tax dollars to Liberal Party friends, to end the shady practices of cash-stuffed envelopes for government contracts, money laundering, kickbacks to the Liberal Party to run campaigns.

Canadians know it is the Liberals who have the real hidden agenda on health.

In 2003 the Prime Minister said, “In terms of private delivery, I think it has to be judged on a case by case basis”. The Deputy Prime Minister said that she had no problem with the introduction of private hospitals, or this dandy from the Minister of Foreign Affairs,“The Canada Health Act does not preclude delivery of services by private elements”.

Under the Prime Minister's watch, credit card health care expanded in Quebec. He himself is the patient at one of the most successful private clinics in the country.

It is high time this high-handed hypocrisy ended. It is time for the Prime Minister to come clean on his hidden agenda on health and to come clean with Canadians on his involvement in ad scam.

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I, along with my colleague from a neighbouring riding in Nova Scotia, have queried the minister and have repeatedly made the point that this drug section does invaluable work. In fact, compared to other parts of the province, including metro Halifax, this has been per capita the most successful drug section in the province of Nova Scotia. Its ability to shut down grow ops, to make arrests and to break up drug rings and circles of trafficking has been remarkable. Members of the section are to be commended, as are all those in the law enforcement community, for the work they are doing in this regard.

To withdraw that service from northern Nova Scotia at this time is an absolute travesty. To withdraw those officers, to reconcentrate, to reallocate, to do what we have heard the minister and even the commissioner of the RCMP describe as simply reallocating resources, is again a withdrawal of services. It is taking law enforcement officers away from the source of the crime and leaving people vulnerable. Drug use and drug trafficking will grow in those areas, as opposed to having the officers front line, on the street and in close proximity.

I know many of the officers personally who are involved in the efforts to ensure that the streets of our communities are safe. They are actively engaged in doing that important work and the government is preventing them from doing so by withdrawing that support and closing that particular drug section and moving it to metro Halifax. That is not to say that Halifax does not have a problem as well, but we are taking officers away from the actual source and the actual problem with drug proliferation in northern Nova Scotia.

It should be stopped. If the decision has been made it should be reversed. What the government should be doing is putting more officers in this drug enforcement unit as opposed to closing it or withdrawing the support.

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, the short answer is, yes. Mandatory minimum sentencing puts the emphasis on deterrence. It actually raises the stakes for those who choose to flaunt the law, for those who choose to engage in the illicit proliferation of drugs.

Grow ops are a huge problem. A massive epidemic is the way it has been described by many in the law enforcement community.

It is causing a lot of spinoff crime. Because of the stakes, because of the money, because of the activity that encompasses drug use, drug proliferation, we are seeing more murders, more break and enters, more terrible addictions that lead to all sorts of other crime and all sorts of other moral decay.

We know that in British Columbia this is the biggest export from that province. This is a huge challenge with our relations with the United States of America, as well. This is another collateral damage as a result of letting this issue run rampant.

It is about resources. It is about having the ability to shut down those grow operations. Part of that is ensuring that there will be consequences, mandatory minimum sentences, deterrents, put in the mind of those who would break the law. As well, it indicates that the justice system is prepared to take these crimes seriously.

Sadly, the government appears to be moving in the polar opposite direction. Talking about decriminalizing marijuana and lessening the consequences sends the complete opposite message of what we should be trying to attain here. We should be telling those who grow marijuana, who produce drugs that there are consequences. Crystal meth and other drugs like OxyContin are rampant in Nova Scotia, and Cape Breton in particular. These are life altering, life destroying drugs. This is happening in this country.

The law enforcement community is that thin blue line which is there to protect us, to enforce the law. When the law enforcement officers have done their job and placed the criminals into the hands of the criminal justice system, the crown prosecutors, judges, lawyers, those around the justice system who support that program, there has to be consequences. There has to be a mandatory minimum sentence, because of the money involved.

It is becoming the cost of doing business to be arrested, to pay a fine or to be placed on probation. Those consequences are not real. People know that, particularly those in organized crime, particularly those who see the profit and are prepared to take the risk. There must be serious jail time. There must be serious consequences if we are to try to combat the scourge.

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I too am very honoured to take part in this debate. I must begin by similarly expressing condolences and heartfelt support for the families of Anthony Gordon, Leo Johnston, Brock Myrol and Peter Schiemann, whose names will be engraved on the peace officers memorial behind Centre Block on the last Sunday in September this year. Sadly too many officers' names adorn those memorial plaques.

As was expressed so eloquently by my colleague, the issue now becomes what can we do to ensure that such terrible incidents as we witnessed Mayerthorpe do not happen again. Those Mayerthorpe murders stand as a serious wake-up call to all Canadians.

The entire RCMP family, those who wear the red serge, assembled and were shocked more than anyone that such a thing could happen. There will be a fatality inquiry. There will be some answers forthcoming for the family.

In this place as legislators, what actions can we take? What are the initiatives that we can commence? My colleague is to be commended again for raising the issue and allowing this debate to take place so that we can have this serious discussion.

The shortfall of resources first and foremost has to be noted. In a report that came from internal RCMP documents that were disclosed as a result of the Arar inquiry, a senior officer speaks of realignment, which is interesting language that was used by the minister herself. Realignment really means withdrawal from rural parts of the country and a concentration in perhaps bigger areas.

I want to quote from that report. The officer, speaking from the RCMP anti-terrorist financing group stated, “If the human resource issue is not addressed we run the risk of jeopardizing the safety of Canada and its citizens as well as potentially embarrassing the Government of Canada and the RCMP on the domestic and international levels”. The document goes on to talk about that shortfall and the ramifications.

The government has a lot to be held to account for in the decisions that it has taken. It really comes down to priorities. Although this is a very serious debate and some might try to label it as a partisan one, we in the opposition have a duty. We owe it to Canadians to point out the inadequacies and the decisions that the government has taken that are affecting the lives of Canadians and the life and limb of RCMP officers and others who are tasked with enforcing the law. The priority decisions to take money out of budgets at a critical time, to move officers away from our border for example, which has been pointed out quite recently in reports, jeopardizing the safety of Canadians have to be addressed.

We know it is a priority policy decision taken by the government to withdraw officers, just as it is a policy decision to continue to fund the gun registry that does not adequately protect Canadians, does not give value added to the task of protecting Canadians. The decision to close forensic laboratories delays the disclosure of evidence and delays the production of evidence that is to be used in courtrooms, which oftentimes unnecessarily leads to acquittals.

There are also the issues around the early release of prisoners, as my colleague referred to. Some police in my area back in Pictou County, Nova Scotia call it the catch and release program. They wear little fish hooks with the barbs taken off. This is their feeling of frustration.

The RCMP and all those in the law enforcement community are looking for leadership from the government. They are looking for the necessary tools, resources and technology to do the job that is asked of them. It is life and death for them and for those communities that they protect.

They do so much good work outside their normal policing duties. They are the face of our community. I think of people like John Kennedy who has a wonderful innovative program, Adopt a Library, in Pictou County, Nova Scotia and hopes to make it national. It is meant to encourage literacy. Our police participate in so many levels of society.

The RCMP are such a source of pride for Canadians. It is a symbol of this country, a symbol of virtue, integrity and all that is good about Canada.

We cannot fail them in this hour. We cannot fail them in the wake of the tragedy that took place and which took the lives of those four young dedicated men in their prime.

This important debate hopefully will bring further attention to this issue. We in the Conservative Party hope to move the ball forward on this file. We hope, more importantly, to be in government one day very soon, when we will be able to address these issues in a more substantial way.

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I as well would like to commend my colleague from Yellowhead for the incredible work that he has done not only in initiating this debate, but also in supporting the RCMP officers, their families and bringing this issue to the forefront as a priority for all Canadians.

In his remarks, the member touched on the resource issue, as did my colleague from Nova Scotia. There is a need to ensure that there are proper resources, that there is the necessary legislative support, that there are sufficient officers, sufficient support staff, sufficient technological resources. There is an increasing complexity in the job of an RCMP officer, of any peace officer in this day and age, in the time and effort it takes to draft warrants, to produce evidence, to go to court and prepare witnesses. It is a very taxing and extremely complex occupation.

As was highlighted by my colleague, this is not to mention the implicit danger every day when an officer, a man or a woman, gets up, puts on the uniform and walks out the door and responds to calls. More than anything else it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that the necessary resources are there to ensure that there are sufficient officers on the front lines.

We have seen the withdrawal of the RCMP from rural Canada. In particular, in parts of my province and parts of my colleague's province of Alberta, the outer areas of Canada, detachments have closed. As was referred to by my colleague from Quebec, there has been a withdrawal of access to these officers from the communities that need their protection.

Does my colleague have any thoughts on this issue? Rural Canada in particular seems to be the recipient of the cuts. The minister who was here momentarily referenced the forensic laboratory in Edmonton. The closure of the forensic laboratory slows down the process. In some cases it jeopardizes the evidence that has to be produced in court to secure convictions.

Ensuring that convictions, ensuring that individuals who are labelled as dangerous, those who have been sentenced and placed on probation, ensuring that all those conditions are enforced comes down to person power. The RCMP, our police first and foremost, are those first responders. Those individuals put themselves in harm's way holding people accountable, enforcing the law.

I suggest that there is no greater task and responsibility of the government than to ensure that those men and women are in place and are properly resourced.

[Border Security, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it was a U.S. congressman who said this.

In addition to having little information about terrorists or dangerous offenders, our unarmed border officials have to contend with inadequate backup from police. Over 50 border crossings, many with a single agent, are at least 25 kilometres from a police station. Internal RCMP documents show that on some weekends at Quebec crossings there is little or no police coverage. What is the government's response? Close more detachments and leave the border agents to fend for themselves.

Again, when will the government beef up border security and expand RCMP support for these entry points?

[Border Security, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the record will show the Prime Minister did not answer the question or who picked up the tab.

U.S. Congressman Mark Souder, a senior member of the homeland security committee, says that Canada risks becoming a junior rather than a joint partner in North American border security. One of his chief concerns is the same as voiced by Canadian border authorities: inadequate and incomplete watch lists and no computers available to provide accurate and updated information.

At least 62 border crossings do not have 24/7 real time live access to CBSA computers. Instead officials have to sift through reams of paper to determine if the person crossing the border is a terrorist. When are these glaring gaps at the border--

[Canada Border Services Agency, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, do you want to know how bad it is? The Hell's Angels have called our Prime Minister a pirate on their website and he now has a parrot answering questions in the House.

While we cannot always get access to relevant information on our database, the Americans can access our information and we ask for it back.

When will the government stop compromising Canadians' safety and our reputation and provide proper resources, technologies and personnel for them to do the job to protect Canadians at our borders?

[Canada Border Services Agency, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is the Prime Minister's problem. He keeps changing his story, depending on the day.

According to border officials, our current watch lists are so poor that updated information about terrorists and violent criminals at large does not show up on our system. It is not sophisticated enough to display relevant information simultaneously. It gets worse. Eight individuals identified by the FBI as terrorists are not listed as armed and dangerous on our lookout database.

While we cannot always access relevant data, U.S. border officials have complete--