Peter MacKay

[Human Resources Development, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister again. She should have known that there were problems after that extensive audit and the extensive briefing when the minister's portfolio changed hands.

What we would like to know now is: When did the minister first make known these problems to the Prime Minister or the PMO? When did she do that?

[Human Resources Development, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Does the minister deny that she knew nothing of the problems in her department prior to the completion of the audit on November 17?

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing forward that issue. As the member knows, when we present petitions on behalf of our constituents, we are instruments of their voices. We are bringing to parliament a certain view.

Do I ascribe to the view that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, and that particular institution, with all that flows from it? Yes, I do. If an individual wants to have that definition placed to one side, recognizing that there are other definitions such as common law and the expanded view of common law that this legislation would bring about, I see no problem with that, as long as it is not exclusionary and as long as it is not used in an intolerant way to say that because we are married we are somehow entitled to something that another is not on a financial basis.

What happens between a couple in what is deemed to be a marriage, I have no difficulty in saying that I personally ascribe to the view that that involves a man and a woman.

Should there be another definition? The Reform Party member's colleague from Edmonton has brought forward a very interesting suggestion that we should have something called registered domestic partnerships, which would create another definition, separate from this view of what is marriage. Perhaps that is something we should look at as well.

The member across has indicated that this is a debate which has been around for centuries. We are not going to cure it in 48 hours, but at least at the committee we will have an opportunity to look at some of the options and try to achieve the largest umbrella that will help the largest number of people, which is, at the end of the day, what we all should strive for.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member and I will try to be very clear in elucidating my position as to whether I think there is a benefit that can flow from having a definition of family.

I think the definition of family and a person's view and belief of what constitutes a family is very much an individual question for every individual to determine what is his or her family and what benefits and obligations flow from that.

I came from a family of a single parent. If the traditional view of a family were that there would have to be two parents living in a household to be considered a family, my personal view is, that would be wrong.

We have the common law recognition of two people who profoundly care for one another and want to share their lives together exclusive of others. It takes away the element of the ceremony and perhaps the religious or spiritual practices that are involved in the ceremony of marriage, but it does not remove the human elements of caring and sharing, living together and mutual respect.

I am not trying to avoid the question. Do I think there is value in recognizing what is a family? Yes. Do I think there is value in defining family in rigid, exclusive and exclusionary terms? No, I do not. That may be a debate for another time. If this is about giving individuals the ability to have financial freedom and financial entitlement in a broader, more open way, perhaps that is where we should be going.

I reserve the right to look at this legislation in greater detail at the committee. I do not think that any member of the House or any Canadian should be forced to decide this in 48 hours.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member opposite. I have a great deal of respect for the work that he does both on the justice committee and here in the House. I know he has also examined this bill in great detail.

The definitions in this particular legislation, for whatever reason, steer clear of defining a marriage. They steer clear of the words that would invoke the emotion and the judgment of members and Canadians generally when it comes to defining what marriage really means. There are obviously religious and spiritual connotations. As the member has pointed out, there is a long history that transcends boundaries and cultures when it comes to marriage.

I think this legislation attempts to remove some of the emotional elements and focuses in on other very fundamental elements such as equality, justice and humanity. I believe this is very much the direction in which we should be moving. If we try to mix the two, the purpose of the bill can, unfortunately, be clouded and the objectives of the bill may be lost. I think we should stay away from what is strictly defined as a spouse and trying to define what a family is using words like tradition. The implication being that somehow the bill takes away from those definitions is the danger that is averted by the wording used here.

I take to heart what the member has said and look forward to working with him at committee to improve this bill.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this piece of very important and timely legislation, one that has obviously raised emotions on all sides of this debate. I congratulate the previous speaker and in fact all speakers who have represented their parties and their country well in this debate.

It is unfortunate in terms of the debate and the time that the legislation was introduced that we are once again put in the position as opposition to rush to judgment on the legislation, to hurry along in our remarks, and to somehow push this issue to one side.

From the tone, the emotion and the very important considerations that are brought forward by the bill and the very important debates that will no doubt take place in our communities, this is not a healthy approach. This is not the way that we should be dealing with issues of such depth.

The bill was tabled in the House on Friday, February 11. We have had the ensuing weekend, and here we are on Tuesday, forced in essence to dissect and discuss in detail hundreds of detailed pages which affect 68 federal statutes that will be amended. There are also the provincial implications and voluminous case law very much encompassed by the legislation.

I for one, as a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, do take great exception to and in fact resent the way in which the government has gone about tabling this issue. I also question the timeliness in terms of its proximity to what is perhaps one of the biggest scandals in the country's history.

There is an obvious attempt to deflect attention away from that, to somehow create an illusion that another issue will come on the agenda and perhaps bury the issue of the mismanagement that has taken place in Human Resources Development Canada, mismanagement that is perhaps systemic in many government departments.

This omnibus legislation will extend benefits and obligations to same sex couples on the same basis as opposite sex couples under the current laws of the land. The bill is entitled the modernization of benefits and obligations. There is an important inclusion of the word obligations in this act.

It is something we cannot gloss over. We cannot forget that with the entitlement aspects of the bill there are also obligations that will flow. In some instances, when we are talking about the tax implications, there are what could be viewed as or deemed negative consequences for homosexual individuals who will now be in a position where they will be paying a greater tax. They will in fact be disentitled by virtue of being deemed as in what is tantamount to a common law situation. That element is there.

The modernization as well is an encapsulation, a title which does represent something that is happening, a social change. It is an acknowledgement in the legislation that there has been a step toward recognizing the social reality that we have same sex couples living in common law situations or what is equivalent to a common law situation, as we speak. Regardless of what the legislation says or seeks to do, this is a social reality that the bill very much attempts to recognize.

The government's reasoning behind the legislation is very much a result of a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in May 1999. I am speaking about the M. v H. case, which made it very clear that governments cannot limit benefits or obligations by discriminating against same sex common law relationships. The legislation is very much an attempt to reflect and codify what the supreme court already said in May of this year.

It goes without saying that previous cases have also moved in this direction in supreme courts across the country. In various provinces there has been a recognition of the obligations and a codification of the fact that there are rights and obligations that stem from a relationship between same sex couples.

It is also very important to point out, and it bears repeating, that the principles of equality enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act are very much a part of this debate, very much a part of the consideration by all courts, most important the Supreme Court of Canada, and I suspect very much at the foundation of what is behind the legislation, an attempt to legislate and put in place the protections that exist in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The government is no stranger to borrowing from the supreme court. We have seen what it has tried to do with the clarity bill. The court has already made a pronouncement in its decision about the status of the situation in Quebec. It refers specifically to the percentage of a majority and the question itself. The government has tried to encapsulate that through Cartesian thinking in legislation that again has been foisted upon parliament and the country at a time when we should be discussing other issues.

That is not to diminish in any way the importance of this type of legislation. If this were a priority, if we take the government at its word and this were truly a priority, why did it not introduce the legislation much sooner in its mandate? Why did it not introduce it back in the fall session when we resumed after the lengthy summer recess the government orchestrated with the late recall? What legislation were we faced with when we returned? It was not legislation that I would suggest reflected the importance of the particular bill. Here we are being forced to deal very quickly with very important legislation in a matter of days.

The bill, as indicated, will affect a great number of statutes, some 68 in total, legislation such as the Criminal Code of Canada and the Income Tax Act. It will have many financial implications for all. The government sat on the legislation for many months and dropped it in our laps at a time when it needed an issue that would deflect attention away from it.

The legislation needs a great deal of examination. It needs a great deal of study which will occur at the justice committee. Unfortunately the justice committee is backlogged at this point with legislation such as the new youth criminal justice act. We have a mandate from this place to deal with organized crime. We have a mandate to deal with changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. However, this legislation is coming and will go to that committee. There will be an opportunity to dissect the legislation in greater detail, which obviously will not occur on the floor of the House.

This is what I would describe as a very technical bill. I know there is a tendency to delve into the moral issues and moral implications that arise from this discussion, but the bill is written in a very calculating way—and I do not say that in a negative way—to reflect a reality on which the courts have pronounced, toward which society has moved, and toward which the provinces are heading.

I give the government credit in the sense that for a change it is trying to be out in front of what the courts are pronouncing. For a change we are seeing an actual proactive attempt to reflect Canadian reality in this place as legislators rather than wait for judge made law to be imposed upon us or foisted upon elected individuals.

The provinces that have already moved in this direction include British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario. They have very much attempted to implement their own legislation, with which this legislation is consistent.

I strongly suggest there have been indications in the private sector that this is reflective of a reality that has occurred. Many companies in the private sector have extended the type of benefits the legislation would also extend. In fact many institutions in the country including churches have accepted and looked at some of the realities the bill will put in place.

Public policy, therefore, is not a sideline issue. It is not the sole purpose or the actual intent of the legislation. The subject of the bill or the reading of it is not about families. It is not about families per se and definitions. It does not speak of the definition of marriage. It does not use the term spouse. It is about fairness and financial equality. It is not about infringing on an individual's moral or personal beliefs.

If there is anything we can learn from this debate that we are undertaking today, it is that we should be very careful in our choice of words. I am very fearful of the rhetoric and the ratcheting up of the rhetoric that can occur because of the emotion and the strong moral beliefs that are felt and held on both sides. If anything, we have to be respectful of both sides of this debate. This is an issue that has been with us for time immemorial. This is not an issue that will be settled by this debate or by the passing of one piece of legislation.

Conjugal relations certainly denote an element of intimacy. However, this legislation is not, I would suggest, about governments making judgments or being intrusive into the bedrooms of the nation. This is about reflecting responsibilities and obligations upon individuals who have entered into a relationship upon which there is a degree of dependency. The bill is about the fiscal responsibility of the state in recognizing this human dynamic, this relationship that exists between both same sex and opposite sex partners.

There has already been, as some would call it, a disintegration of the institution of marriage in the sense that the law now recognizes common law. The legislation, in my view, takes it one step further. It expands the definition of common law to include same sex partners, that is all. It recognizes a reality that is very much in place in this country. There are same sex couples living together in a relationship that is akin to the relationship that occurs between opposite sex couples. This is a legal codification or recognition of the rights and obligations that flow from that human dynamic.

The bounds of matrimonial relations obviously have legal implications in and of themselves. This is not an infringement on those legal obligations. This is more about property, money and pensions. This is about the ability of the state to support individuals who may be in need or entitled to a pension plan for which they have contributed.

The legislation also requires that the same obligations, in terms of the contribution and the eligibility, be met, whether it be by a same sex or opposite sex couple.

There is an element of logic that has to prevail here. I know it is very difficult at times to move the debate from the moral and personal element of this. However, there is a very sterile and reasoned approach that we have to take when examining the issue of legal responsibility and the responsibility of the state to care for people.

The bill does not undermine the morality and the traditional beliefs that individuals have in their definition of family. Let us be very honest and blunt about this; what has been viewed for many centuries as the traditional family is now different for many people. It is different in their views. The family support system has become very different. I need not go further than to mention the example of a single parent, whether they be male or female. That should in no way diminish the degree of dependence and unconditional love that might flow between a parent and a child just because he or she happens to be a single parent.

Economic issues can never be completely devoid of moral implications, but let us not confuse the two. Let us not make a mistake in our characterization of the legislation. This is about extending financial benefits to those who may be in need.

The legislation has only been in our hands for two working days. I again question the priorities and the timing of the government. The Conservative Party members are looking forward to the opportunity to delve into the legislation at the committee level, to hear from witnesses and to see what the broad reaching implications may in fact be.

My initial reading of the legislation is as I indicated at the outset. It is an attempt to codify and put in place a reality that exists, a legal trend through precedent and through case law that has emerged from our courts. I would suggest that this legislation still maintains a clear and distinct designation between married and unmarried relationships. It does not tread on that sacred ground.

The term “spouse” refers and will refer, irrespective of this legislation, to married couples. That term has not been touched, altered or removed from mainstream thought as a result of the bill.

The term “common law partner” does change. It would now be expanded to include both same sex and opposite sex couples. This is different. This is perhaps the major differentiation between the bill and the Ontario legislation in the sense that Ontario designates same sex and opposite sex partners in its legislation. It makes that clear line of distinction.

There will be ample opportunity for all members of the committee and, by virtue of their membership, members of their parties and Canadians whom they represent to make amendments and suggestions as to how the bill might be improved. Some of the improvements may be to remove certain clauses of the bill.

However, it does speak again to both benefits and obligations and the responsibilities that flow therefrom. Same sex couples will have access, by virtue of this type of legislation, to the same level of support, the same pension and the same financial benefits that other Canadian couples of the opposite sex currently have based on social benefits. The important underlying element is, if they are eligible and if they have made sufficient contributions, they will still have to meet that criteria.

The legislation is consistent with what the provinces have been looking at. I believe that many provinces will wait to see how this place and the other place deals with the bill. They are hinging their future plans to encompass this type of legislation in the provinces on what we do.

Let us make no mistake. The federal legislation will have an impact on much of what the provinces do already. It will have an impact on things such as adoption and family maintenance. This is why I think it is important for us to realize that the bill does have very far-reaching ramifications that we should not take lightly. We should not be diverted from looking at the bill in detail as to what it actually does and does not do.

I know there has been a great deal of discussion by some. I would suggest, with the greatest of respect, that there is some veiled attempt to perhaps hide what may be a negative view of the legislation by suggesting that the bill is not broad enough, that it somehow does not include a parental relationship, such as a mother and daughter, a father and son, two sisters or two aunts who may live together. There is obviously a mechanism to deal with that situation and that is again in the committee.

I am led to believe that there will be ample opportunity to look at the possibility of expanding the legislation if that is what some members and some witnesses choose to do. Let us not hide behind the rhetoric. Let us not somehow put forward the position that we wish to make it broader when truly the attempt and the intent is to make it narrower and to undermine and take the bill off the agenda.

I realize that what we are looking at is a bill that has the financial element to it: tax breaks on retirement savings plans, greater access to employment insurance, collector survivor benefits under the Canada pension plan upon the death of a partner, old age security. This is the element of the bill on which we should be focusing.

Homosexual couples who have lived together for at least one year would qualify for those types of benefits, with the same time, the same qualifications and the same elements of accountability that are currently applied to common law couples. The cost is something that has been touched upon. Sources in government indicate that there will be an initial cost associated with this. However, this will be offset by the responsibilities and obligations that are created and the offsetting disentitlement that will be created by this designation of same sex couples.

We in the Conservative Party will reserve our final judgment. We will reserve our position until we have an opportunity to look at this bill in greater detail at committee. I believe this is very forward looking legislation but it is legislation that can be improved. We must go forward with a view to improving this in a reasoned, moderate and tolerant approach.

[Criminal Records Act, February 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and honoured to speak in favour of this bill. I want to congratulate all the previous speakers, particularly my colleague for Charlesbourg who gave a very impassioned and very eloquent speech. He cares deeply for children. Recently having had two young sons, twins, he knows of what he speaks.

Bill C-7, formerly Bill C-69, will further protect the public upon the release from prison of a pardoned sex offender with the disclosure of what would be relevant information should the circumstances so dictate.

It goes without saying that children are the crown jewels of our country and our future. A number of young children have appeared here on the Hill. I am speaking of young people like Ashly MacLean of Hopewell. They have so much to offer, so much promise and need our protection in every possible way.

Bill C-7 is a step in that direction, a step toward protection of our most vulnerable citizens. It amends the Criminal Records Act and makes criminal records for pardoned sex offenders which would normally be sealed available for background checks from interested parties. It uncovers information that is of vital importance to those individuals and organizations who work to protect children. Information is certainly power in these instances.

We have all heard of the high profile cases involving the horrific crimes of the Bernardos and the John Robys and the public outcry for tougher legislation to protect children and protect society in general. Tolerance is at an all time low, I would suggest, for deviant sexual abuse of any kind but particularly that involving our children.

Sexual assault is often not an issue of sex; it is an issue of power and control, the dominance of an offender over an individual. This dominance, this sexual violence or perversion and the exploitation of children is perhaps the most cowardly and heinous act that one can imagine.

The need to disclose information and protect children, those who are most vulnerable, and expose to individuals information of a past record will allow the relevant and connected organizations to do everything in their power to prevent the contact which could lead to this type of abuse.

Sadly, recidivism occurs often with those who involve themselves in this type of activity. It goes without saying that the lasting effects are almost incalculable in both the long and short term. It is not the physical but the emotional and psychological scars that individuals carry throughout their life when they have been subjected to this kind of abuse.

The high rate of recidivism among sex offenders in particular is most troubling. The potential for unknowing parents, organizations or individuals for leaving their children in the care of a pardoned sex offender is addressed to a large degree by the bill.

Presently community organizations or police departments would be prohibited from accessing files that involve the names of pardoned sex offenders. Bill C-7, in vetting each request and striking a balance between those who have the right to know and those who have the right to be protected and the right to confidentiality, is certainly a bill that we can all embrace. Access to previously unavailable information on pardoned individuals in these circumstances is what we strive to achieve.

Last year all members of the Conservative Party supported this bill as did all members of the House.

The successful passage of the bill through parliament before the recess was again a strong signal of non-partisanship and the co-operative effort that can result in very positive change. Previous members have spoken to it, and it was certainly a feeling that prevailed at committee and in the House, given the level of support the bill has received.

By the end of 1999, Bill C-7 returned from the Senate with amendments. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs cited some obvious and very reasoned concerns. One of those was the lack of expressed reference to the intent of the bill to pertain to records of pardoned sex offenders. Therefore the word sexual was added to clause 6 of the bill in order to make it clear that only sexual offences would be flagged under this proposed system.

Definite rules are then put in place, listing the sexual offences that may be flagged and the making of notations with respect to the records of those convictions. Police must have the consent of the offender and the solicitor general for the release of offender's records to potential employers or inquirers if the offender is in fact applying for a job.

Schedule of offences and the important terms such as children and vulnerable persons were removed from the regulations and placed in the bill. This allows these offences to again be subject to parliamentary scrutiny as opposed to being left to the discretion of the governor in council.

The term handicap has also been deleted from the definition and replaced with vulnerable person. It goes without saying that the term handicap is no longer acceptable in today's society, and it is more than just semantics to ensure that this bill reflects a modern view.

The Senate's position set out some very useful and poignant amendments that put a greater emphasis on what the bill seeks to achieve. It ensures a clear, narrow and limited exception in the Criminal Records Act. The changes with respect to sections 7 and 8 of our constitution and charter to protect privacy are reflected in the changes proposed by the Senate that maintain the balance between rehabilitation and the objectives of the pardon system and the need itself to protect children and others who are vulnerable.

I would now quote from Senator Beaudoin, a very renowned constitutional expert and prominent Conservative senator, who spoke to the bill when it was in the other place:

In closing these remarks, I must state that, when the committee studies any matter relating to criminal records, as is the case with this bill, or some related subject such as DNA, we always step up our efforts to be assured of compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As we all know, sections 7 and 8 of our Constitutional Charter protect privacy. This is a fundamental value of our system. I believe that it can be stated that Bill C-7, which we have before us, respects the Constitution, including the 1982 Constitutional Charter, to the best of our knowledge.

As acknowledged by members who have spoken previously, it demonstrates that the Senate has made a very significant and important contribution in the amendments that we are speaking to today.

Child care organizations, those hiring new volunteers or paid employees, will now be able to identify a candidate who has received a pardon of a sexual offence. It is only permitted if the position is one of authority or trust relative to those children or vulnerable persons and the applicant has consented in writing. This is a very important safeguard that has now been inserted into the bill by our senators.

Organizations such as Scouts, Guides, Big Brothers and Big Sisters, coaches, day care workers and others will benefit directly where there is an implicit element of trust in the good work they do.

Flagging these sexual offenders will also alert police doing background screening checks to submit fingerprints with a request for any pardoned record that may exist. If the existence of an applicant's pardoned sexual assault record is confirmed, the RCMP or the police force that did the screening can request the commissioner then provide the solicitor general with any record of conviction of that applicant.

Proposed subsection 6.3(5) allows the solicitor general to dispose of all or part of the information contained in that record if he so decides. The RCMP or police forces may disclose the information to the organization that requested this verification.

However, in accordance with new subsection 6.3(7) the organization may only use this information in relation to its assessment of the job application. Also the new subsection 6.3(3) stipulates the following:

Except as authorized by subsection (2), no person shall verify whether a person is the subject of a notation—

This is very technical in nature but I would suggest very important because these safeguards and the balance sought are addressed by these very useful amendments.

Access to the offender's information is limited to authorized police officers and law enforcement personnel. The consent form must be signed pursuant to subsection 6.3(6) by the affected individual. By requesting consent the applicant could choose to either agree or refuse to allow the record to be unsealed. Refusal would be a signal to the organization wishing to conduct the search that the applicant may not be the appropriate person for the position. If the applicant gives consent obviously the authority of the solicitor general would still be needed to unseal the record in question.

Many volunteer agencies engage in a screening process of the applicant's background. However, screening is not done with the same degree of precision or thoroughness that we know occurs with a police check. Under Bill C-7 we will be permitted to put this information into the hands of those most in need, the organizations that by their very nature can potentially set up a situation where a young person could be exposed to a person with a prior sexual assault conviction.

Police record checks are not always effective. The CPIC system has been gutted in many instances in terms of the funding. Although the solicitor general has spoken with great ballyhoo about the injection of new funding, this is less than half of what is needed to bring the CPIC system up to par.

With that said, there is a sad reality to all of this. Research confirms that the vast majority of people who perpetrate sexual abuse against children are often those who do not seek out employment in that area. Oftentimes there is no prior conviction, that is to say they have never been convicted of a crime and therefore they would not show up on a police record system. This highlights the need for education and the need for participation in a public education effort to let people know there is more that can be done to protect children. The bill therefore is not a panacea by any stretch of imagination but it is certainly significant progress.

Volunteer organizations throughout the country are obviously aimed at the enhancement of children's lives. To this end I believe the legislation very much enhances the ability we have as legislators and people of this country who have been entrusted with the responsibility to put into effect laws that will help our law enforcement agencies. This will enhance protection for children.

Pardons themselves are very much an important part of the justice system. They serve a very important purpose. They are obviously of great benefit both to the pardoned offender and to society in terms of the stigma in allowing an individual to get on with life after having served a debt to society.

With respect to sexual offences the new legislation very much strikes that balance. In terms of priority and where we in this place should be focusing our attention the bill puts it very much in the hands of our legislatures and very much in the hands of our law enforcement and volunteer agencies to protect children in every possible way, to use all means, to use extreme caution, to go that final step to see that children will always be first and foremost in our efforts to protect them.

This is not a universal remedy or solution that can be found in the legislation but it can offer this additional mechanism of protection. It does not erode the integrity of the parole system. The exceptions it now provides in the parole system may appear small but they are very justified.

In the last 28 years nearly one-quarter of a million pardons have been granted for all offences in Canada. In relation to Bill C-7 only 4,500 of those pardoned concerned sex offences. The need to protect society has to be given greater strength. The bill moves us in that direction.

It is unfortunate the government of the day would not put forward the same effort, the same resources and the same strident timetable that we have seen with respect to the bill. It should somehow rebalance its priorities in putting its resources into efforts such as this instead of into efforts such as gun registration which obviously do not seek out and do not particularly protect society in the way it would have us believe.

This type of public protection initiative and the support it has received here is an indication of the type of co-operative effort that can occur in parliament. It should renew some faith and restore some lost hope that we can, when the cause is right, rally around to pass legislation quickly and effectively that is aimed at protecting society.

As long as the government can ensure systematic and effective scrutiny of the police control processes and ensure that Bill C-7 is used only for checking criminal records and those involved in sexual offences, Bill C-7 is very much acceptable and necessary as a violation, a minor infringement, I would suggest, of the charter of rights and freedoms. It is certainly one that can be exercised in the interest of public safety.

We know the age-old adage that talk is cheap. This is action that speaks volumes. It is an unusual occurrence when we can do so in such a unanimous and unified fashion.

The greater good is what we must constantly strive for. Law enforcement agencies must strike a balance of equal treatment under the law always with a mind to protecting the innocent. We can do that in this place. A Progressive Conservative government would very much like to see the opportunity to move on laws such as this one, laws that put the emphasis on protecting society.

In conclusion, from St. John's, Newfoundland, to St. Peters, P.E.I., to Victoria, British Columbia, and all places in between in this vast country, this is a positive and laudable piece of legislation that the Conservative Party supports whole-heartedly.

[Privilege, February 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in question period today, the Minister of Human Resources Development made statements which I believe appear to contradict her earlier statements made in the House.

I would like to give notice of my intention to raise this serious matter after an opportunity to review Hansard of today's question period. I want to reserve that right and pursue this matter at greater length when I have had an opportunity to review the record at length.

[Human Resources Development, February 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have seen better skating on the canal.

On Friday the minister made reference to the Privacy Act and the protection of information when it came to the HRDC money that went to her riding.

Will the minister please tell us who authorized the release of personal correspondence between members of this House and the department which were read into the record by the Prime Minister on Monday? Why the double standard?

[Human Resources Development, February 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday in response to a question during question period, the Minister of HRDC stated that the transitional jobs fund was “One of the first areas of interest to which I turned my attention upon becoming minister”.

Will the minister now tell us what was the exact date that she turned her attention to the program, and on that day were the problems with the program discussed?