Peter MacKay

[Terrorism, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday CSIS director Jim Judd told a Senate committee that many veterans of terrorist training camps currently live in Canada. While not specifying how many terrorist suspects were in the country, Mr. Judd said that the number has three digits. He also said that terrorism is a very real threat to our national security. He went on to say that Canadian terrorists are bolstering the ranks of terrorists currently fighting in Iraq.

Clearly the government has no idea how many terrorists continue to be active, slipping in and out of Canada.

Could the minister simply state the number of terrorists active in Canada? Has it increased or decreased since 9/11?

[National Defence, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it was clear as mud. He must be hiding under his desk today because last November he had his Minister of National Defence say that there would be a clear debate in the House of Commons and that the whole issue would be before the House for a vote.

There was no debate, no vote and no information before the House. Democracy denied; promise not kept.

Canadians know that the Prime Minister badly bungled that file. What Canadians do not know is what information was before the Liberal cabinet and what information was in the possession of the Prime Minister.

Will the Prime Minister table the American proposal so Canadians can see what he turned down?

[National Defence, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, our ambassador to the United States thought we were part of missile defence. The American ambassador said that the United States was given the impression that Canada would participate. He went on to say that part of the strain was the surprise and that the Prime Minister had given them the direct impression that he wanted to participate.

The Prime Minister says that he has no knowledge of that. It sort of sounds like testimony before the Gomery commission. Cabinet documents from last May clearly state that Canada would participate in the program. There were references to a memorandum of understanding.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House just what was in that original American proposal that he was originally prepared to sign on to?

[Criminal Code, February 25th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-344, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (review of parole ineligibility) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Mr. Speaker, this is a Criminal Code amendment dealing with the review of parole eligibility. This is an issue that has been before the House on numerous occasions.

The bill attempts to repeal section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, commonly known as the faint hope clause. It would allow persons sentenced to life imprisonment for acts of high treason to murder to apply after 15 years for a reduction in the period of parole ineligibility.

This bill has the support of those in the law enforcement community, those who, I would suggest, have been affected by horrific crimes. It would affect those who have not been deemed dangerous offenders under more recent Criminal Code amendments. This bill would do away with the section that allows for early parole for murderers.

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

[Criminal Code, February 25th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-342, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (interference with a peace officer's protective equipment).

Mr. Speaker, this bill also deals with an amendment to the Criminal Code. It is specifically aimed at protecting police officers as they serve the public.

The enactment would expand the scope of current section 270.1 of the code to provide that anyone who wilfully interferes with the protective equipment of a police officer or peace officer while that officer is engaged in the execution of his or her duties is guilty of an offence.

This is a common sense amendment which has the broad, wide support of those in the law enforcement community.

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

[Criminal Code, February 25th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-341, an act to amend the Criminal Code (recruitment of children and swarming).

Mr. Speaker, this is an attempt to amend the Criminal Code to bring more meaningful deterrence and prevention with respect to what I would describe as two relatively recent phenomena of young people having been involved in the act of swarming, where violence is perpetrated on others. It often is associated with bullying in schools.

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create a specific offence making it illegal to recruit children to commit offences or to participate in the violent act of swarming.

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

[Criminal Code, February 25th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-340, an act to amend the Criminal Code (breach of a conditional sentence order).

Mr. Speaker, this bill would amend section 742.6(9) of the Criminal Code, which provides direction to the court when an offender who, without reasonable excuse, has been found guilty of breaching a conditional offence.

The purpose of this amendment would be, in essence, to create a reverse onus upon that person who has breached that order. This enactment removes the court's option of taking no action, changing the optional conditions, or suspending the order, and requiring part of the sentence to be served in custody.

I will not get into the merits of conditional sentences for certain types of offences, but this enactment in essence would give real meaning to the breaching of conditional sentences. It requires the court in such circumstances of a breach to terminate the conditional sentence order and direct that the sentence be served in custody.

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

[Criminal Code, February 25th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-339, an act to amend the Criminal Code (order of prohibition).

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a private member's bill that would amend the Criminal Code of Canada.

This enactment would change Criminal Code section 163 pertaining to the court orders that may be made with respect to the prohibition of an offender attending certain places. This would amend that section to include “dwelling house”, where an offender knows or ought to know that a person under the age of 14 years is present and that a parent, guardian or other person who has lawful charge of that person under the age of 14 is not present.

This bill was initiated by a woman by the name of Donna Goler from Nova Scotia. A very sad situation involving that family brought her to propose this type of amendment. Therefore, I would ask members to support this legislation, which is aimed specifically at helping children where sexual abuse most often occurs, which is in a dwelling house.

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

[National Defence, February 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Prime Minister made a decision on important information not shared with Canadians.

The Minister of National Defence, as recently as Tuesday, said any decision about ballistic missile defence would be discussed with members of the House. While the marginalized Minister of National Defence was assuring us of this, the foreign affairs minister was telling his counterpart, Condoleezza Rice, that we would not participate. That is dazzling duplicity on the part of the Liberals.

These latest contradictions make a mockery of the Prime Minister's promise to make Parliament the centre of national debate and slay the democratic deficit. Why was Parliament, the Canadian public and the Prime Minister's own cabinet so out of the loop on this important decision?

[National Defence, February 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what a lot of dithering mud.

According to Scott Reid, the Prime Minister's communications director, the government received a memorandum of understanding on missile defence from the Americans. After dogged dithering by the Prime Minister, he finally pulled the pin on missile defence.

True to form, he broke his promise of a full debate in the House and a vote, hiding this important information from Canadians and making decisions in the backroom of the PMO.

Why did the Prime Minister bypass Parliament and Canadians on such an important decision affecting the lives of Canadians?