Peter MacKay

[Human Resources Development, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if there was nothing to hide the minister should have been in here in November explaining what was wrong in her department.

This morning at a press conference we heard from the same HRDC officials described by the minister as being in the dark ages. Over the course of this scandal the minister has blamed everyone from the previous minister to the press.

Would the minister now have Canadians trust the same officials she claims created the problem to investigate themselves? Before the minister resigns will she embark on a full, impartial, independent investigation into this scandal in her department?

[Human Resources Development, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal research department's has been working overtime. Earlier in question period in response to a question from the member for Madawaska—Restigouche the minister said “I had to improve the audit”.

Was changing the date on the cover page only part of the improvements to the audit? I suggest changing an audit is illegal. Why was the minister trying to hide the truth about when she received the report?

[Privilege, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Earlier today the Department of Human Resources Development gave a news conference which was astonishing in its degree for the contempt that it showed for this place.

We have a situation where the government is unable to properly account for over $1 billion in public money. I would strongly urge the Chair to take under advisement that there is a responsibility on the minister to have been here in the House, in her place, prepared to speak to this matter and to make a public statement.

The minister and the Prime Minister have decided to distance themselves from this fiasco by simply taking it outside the House of Commons. In so doing I suggest they destroy centuries of practice which are at the core of our freedoms in this place. The government must be accountable to this parliament, representatives of the people.

The government continues to bypass the House and marginalize the abilities of all members to ask questions and to interact directly with the minister. Ministers have an overriding duty to advise the House of actions which go to the core of the management of public money in this House, which is the sole source of authority for the legal expenditures of public money. By hiding behind a press conference by unelected officials, the same officials who created the situation—

[Criminal Code, February 7th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today in favour of Bill C-202, an act to amend the Criminal Code and strengthen the laws involving criminal flight from police pursuit.

I will begin my remarks by recognizing the efforts of the policing community in bringing this matter to fruition. This is a very practical and admirable amendment. Those congratulations must also extend to the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge and his supporting mover from Leeds—Grenville. They have both displayed exemplary perseverance and a non-partisanship that is uncommon and remarkable in this place. The member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge obviously recognizes the need for greater good in areas of justice and public protection. I offer him our unconditional support. Chapeau, monsieur.

The Conservative Party has always supported crime prevention and police forces across the country. We have continually demanded that government correct the problem of underfunded and overworked police forces that are trying to deal with the growing violence that exists in the country, especially amongst youth, biker gangs, organized crime and cross-border terrorism. The example we saw in Washington state in December 1999 exemplifies some of the problems that exist in law enforcement in the country. Human smuggling and other issues are the daily tasks that face our men and women in blue.

The RCMP Public Complaints Commission, speaking specifically to this bill, issued a report last December calling on police to take measures to reduce death and injuries caused by dangerous police chases. This has highlighted the problem that exists in the country and highlights recent government neglect of policing and public safety. Funding cuts to the RCMP and indirect cuts through transfer payments have also affected municipal police forces. Other problems have been created because of government policy in the area of prisoner release, like dangerous prisoners being placed in minimum security prisons. I note for the record that Gary Fitzgerald is still on the loose from Ferndale prison. We also have a weak youth criminal justice system.

The government has consistently shown that combating criminal activity is not a priority. Yet we see a backbench member, the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, bringing forward what is obviously a very informed and exemplary piece of legislation.

I understand from a reliable source that this is the first time a backbench member has been able to achieve this level of change within the criminal code. He has obviously come up with a good piece of legislation. It is surprising and disappointing that his party was not able to do so through the Minister of Justice. Perhaps the hon. member on the back bench should be on the front bench.

While the Liberals have misplaced billions of dollars at HRDC, the RCMP cannot even investigate major fraud files in British Columbia because of a lack of resources. Simply repeating bland generalities, as we have heard from the solicitor general, does very little to help frontline police officers. I suggest that it increases the growing cynicism and sense of frustration in those brave men and women. Hopefully the RCMP will not be forced to engage in its own fundraising efforts similar to what we saw in the controversial true blue campaign in Toronto because of the lack of government support.

I hope Bill C-202, which has been delayed since December, will receive no further delays. There have been attempts to amend and improve the legislation, which has been embraced with open arms by the hon. member. It must be underlined that this bill is far too important to be engaging in partisan politics or to be holding it up. It is important for frontline police officers and innocent civilians who could be injured or killed as a result of high speed chases.

Bill C-202 will serve as a deterrent. Many of the substantial changes, which have been outlined by previous speakers, are: up to five years in prison for evading a police officer using a motor vehicle or injuring someone in the process; up to fourteen years for a person killed in a pursuit by irresponsible driving; or, a life sentence for those who engage in such an activity. We should have no qualms about codifying in our criminal code that escaping from the police, who are in pursuit of a person, poses a danger to everyone on our highways and roads.

Whether it be in a community of a small town or a large city, it goes without saying that this type of activity is extremely dangerous. Whether a person is injured with a knife, a gun or any type of weapon, or a car that is used in a irresponsible fashion, the criminal code has to be amended and codified so our judges and our justice system can respond appropriately and proportionately. The judges of this country must be given leeway to respond to and reflect on the gravity of these types of offences.

These amendments, which we are supporting, toughen up the original draft and allow more judicial discretion. We know judicial discretion is a wonderful thing if it is properly exercised. The amendments surrounding flight, and the type of carnage, injury and death that can result, are aimed at doing just that; toughening up response and responding appropriately with general and specific deterrents aimed at both treating the offender with a firm hand and sending a message to the general public that our system is adequately responding and responding in a way that is appropriate.

Minor aspects of this bill involve those who cause police chases. They are now being charged with crimes that include crimes under the Highway Traffic Act, offences which vary from province to province. Dangerous driving and criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death are already there but this singles out and puts the focus on a specific problem. It also brings about a greater form of continuity and a common response from the provinces across the country. We all know that consistency and an even-handed approach is what the criminal code should try to portray.

Issues of flight from police came to the forefront last year, particularly in Toronto. March 21 marked the death of Father Ilce Miovski, age 50, and March 27 marked the death of Valeri Kovaliv, age 41. Both were pedestrians, innocent victims, hit by runaway vehicles fleeing the police. It was only March and he was 1999's fifth victim of a police chase in or around greater metropolitan Toronto.

Enacting tougher legislation would reflect the public's abhorrence to such reckless and dangerous acts and would deter flight from police. It would make an example of criminals who place innocent lives at risk through such thoughtlessness.

Lives at risk often include the lives of police officers who often drive outdated unsafe police cruisers due to cutbacks. Innocent bystanders on the street are most at risk when killed in the midst of a car chase.

Criminals may be fleeing from an unpaid parking ticket or a speeding charge which has led to such a chase. Many flee because there are legal consequences for relatively minor criminal offences.

We all know there are other instances where high speed chases are a result of criminals who know that when they are taken into police custody they will face serious ramifications for outstanding warrants or other criminal acts that they may have committed prior to becoming engaged in the chase.

Many in the country feel that police chases using such tactics as roadblocks, spike belts, helicopter surveillance et cetera would be a more effective approach. In reality, increasingly we find that the lack of funding impacts greatly on the ability of the police to engage in other types of responses. These devices do not always help.

A very real example involved Calgary police Constable Richard Sonnenberg who on October 8, 1993 used a police spike belt to stop a car from fleeing police. The car was driving, as I understand it, at 170 kilometres an hour. The car veered away from the police spike belt and hit the officer killing him instantly.

The police are very often faced with making split second instantaneous decisions. We must remember that anyone is at risk, anyone can be killed when these types of chases begin.

A further tragedy was that in the case of Mr. Sonnenberg the criminal was given a six year sentence for criminal negligence causing death. This underlines the importance of the provisions of Bill C-202.

We know that life does not mean life in this country, but I would suggest that the recognition of this type of offence resulting in the loss of life and it being codified in the criminal code sends a very important message to all. The need to give our justice system the ability to respond appropriately to those who escape justice does send that message.

Increasingly police are faced with this difficult situation. We know that the public complaints commission has released some very pointed and useful responses that the government should be quick to embrace.

I want to conclude by saying that we can do more, but this bill certainly addresses part of the problem and it is a big part that we in this House can all embrace and pass quickly. It is a very smart and reasonable step in the right direction, a direction that recognizes the attempts to address the serious problems with flight from police. I urge all hon. members to support this bill and others aimed at improving Canada's criminal code.

[Correctional Service Canada, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister of agriculture and high seas hijinks wants to hallucinate further.

It is obvious that the demands for a $4 million jet are not enough for CSC commissioner Ole Ingstrup, he needs to hobnob on the high seas. The jet-setting Mr. Ingstrup is living the lifestyle of the rich and famous while taxpayers foot the bill.

The solicitor general must take responsibility for this lavish corrections commissioner. Did he know or did he authorize such a waste of taxpayers' dollars? And if public safety is such a number one priority as we have heard ad nauseam, what will the solicitor general do to ensure that this type of accountability occurs against such appalling folly?

[Correctional Service Canada, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, here is a whale of a tale. A coast guard ship was called off search and rescue standby, stripped of its helicopter pad to make room for a dance floor, and dispatched on a party cruise for Correctional Service Canada. The party was dubbed a special project, given its own special assignment code and cost close to $7,000 for such essentials as liquor and lobster tails.

During the cruise a fatality occurred in the waters off Newfoundland. Why were senior CSC officials tripping the light fantastic on the deck of a lifesaving vessel at the expense of taxpayers while potentially putting people's lives at risk?

[Canada Post, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, typically that explains nothing. Surely the minister is aware of treasury board guidelines requiring all government contracts to go out for a competitive bid unless they meet a very narrow criteria, or unless one's name is André Ouellet.

Will the public works minister direct the president of Canada Post to stop trying to sabotage the competitive bidding process and guarantee that all other Canadian companies will have an equal opportunity and equal chance to bid on this $5 billion contract?

[Canada Post, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, three months ago the government said that it would provide Canadians access to all government services and programs on the Internet by the year 2004. The secured channel project, a $5 billion contract to build the electronic gateway, will be one of the largest contracts ever awarded by the federal government.

Is the Minister of Public Works and Government Services aware that André Ouellet, president of Canada Post, is negotiating behind his back with senior officials and ministers that the contract be given to Canada Post without ever going to public tender?

[National Security, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is very clear. There is an astronomical void in the solicitor general's department and it begins at the top.

This document indicates quite clearly that the department is on complete auto pilot. We see meaningless comments littered throughout this document with respect to the priorities of the government and the department.

We know that cost cutting is the actual priority of the department. Although we hear time and time again about public safety being the number one priority, it has become clear that it does not even appear to rank in the top 10 when we look at this document and what is being done by the department.

There is a place in society for private security, but private security should certainly not be replacing our police forces. This seems to be a direction in which the department is headed.

The tabling of responses often comes after the fact, as we have seen in the case of leaked information in 1996 when a CSIS agent left sensitive CSIS documents on a disk in a phone booth. Almost two years later a report was filed. This report is even less relevant than the report filed on that lost information.

On the more recent leak that occurred at a hockey game in Toronto, I would think the solicitor general would be prepared to stand in his place to say “The puck stops here. I am head of this department. I will get to the bottom of this”.

We know that it took almost a month before there was any action by the department. There was no action whatsoever against the director of CSIS who was complicit with the solicitor general in keeping this information from SIRC, the watchdog that is supposed to oversee the actions of CSIS.

That information came to the attention of the head of SIRC through no other source than the Globe and Mail , which belays again the fact that quite clearly these very interconnected and supposedly co-operative departments are not co-operating at all. In fact they are operating in little fiefdoms separate from one another in an effort perhaps to try to compete for scarce resources. Perhaps they simply do not communicate because they are not getting any direction from the head of the department.

The solicitor general was armed with the information of the leak and chose not to pass that on to the head of SIRC. We know that he did not even pass it on to the Prime Minister although the Prime Minister was overseas and making comments about this not being a serious matter, that he was not too concerned about it, and that it was something that should not preoccupy Canadians. Yet he did not even have the information from the solicitor general.

It is an absolutely shocking revelation that this is going on at a time when we know that our borders and our coastlines are being inundated with the entrance of illegal immigrants and that organized crime is on the rise in this country.

I spoke to a member of the RCMP from Montreal very recently who was involved in internal operations. He told me that there has been a doubling of clubhouses of Hell's Angels in and around the city of Montreal in the past six months. We know that on both coasts the same is happening. The Russian Mafia, the Asian Mafia and our age old motorcycle gangs are all on the rise. All this is going on and the solicitor general persists in contemplating cuts to detachments.

We know that for a period of time on his watch our national training facility in Saskatchewan was closed. Very recently we had the rights of RCMP advertising turned backed over from the Disney corporation. The government is running this most serious and necessary department like a Mickey Mouse operation, so it is very ironic that Disney held the rights to the department.

What does the solicitor general do today? He comes before the House and tables a report that is littered with meaningless platitudes. A grade nine student could have come up with a better document to set out the current situation within our national security.

The solicitor general took great licence with the word “immediately” when he spoke of the theft of the documents from a car outside a hockey rink in Toronto. He told the House that he had informed the director of his department immediately. Weeks had gone by before the matter was even brought before the House, and it was not brought about because the solicitor general took any action whatsoever. Why were CSIS and and SIRC not brought to task over their handling of this? Serious communication breakdowns occurred.

We know the RCMP and CSIS do not communicate well already. Obviously the solicitor general does not communicate well with his own department or with the prime minister. We saw the worst breach of national security in 15 years. Obviously our partners outside our borders, MI5, the CIA, the FBI and other national security agencies, are looking at Canada right now with a very jaded view as a result of the way we have handled matters in the last six months.

When will we get some accountability and some responsibility from this department and particularly this minister? It is obvious that the shortcomings of CSIS senior managers were seen directly without the discovery of the mishaps. Yet the CSIS director has had no accounting and has never appeared before a parliamentary committee with any substance. In fact when he does come, he folds his arms and says “Gee, I would like to tell you more but I would have to kill you”. This is the attitude and the type of response we get from the director of national security to members of the House who are elected to serve the people of Canada.

The former CSIS chief of strategic planning criticized the way the matter was being handled by the government. This department and this office are on complete auto pilot. This latest fiasco is an international embarrassment. There is no mention whatsoever in this document, not even an acknowledgement, that there are problems within the department. This document completely betrays the fact that this department is out of control.

CSIS and the RCMP in particular have had their budgets cut to ribbons by the government. Agents and officers are working overtime and working with extremely large workloads. The National Post reported that this was the fourth time in the last four years that CSIS and the RCMP had lost documents as a result of who knows what.

Canadians are worried about personal and national security. They should get little solace or little comfort from the document tabled today by the solicitor general and his hollow, meaningless comments in this regard.

[National Security, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask to share my time with my Bloc colleague. We have been talking a lot about clarity in the last number of days. One thing is very clear and that is this is probably the most poorly written and vacuous report we have ever received from the solicitor general's department. We do know one thing—