Peter MacKay

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my learned friend knows that hypocrisy is not a word we can use in this place. There is something rotten in the Liberal dome. The malevolent king of slush playing Robin Hood in reverse has somehow been caught in the squeeze. There is a big difference between giving money to the NHL, giving money to the banks, giving money to fat cat Liberals. When it comes to a job creation program we are supposed to be helping Canadians.

I am surprised that my friends in the NDP have not raised the issue that changes to the EI system took place in the early part of this administration which now keep money away from needy Canadians if they are a few hours short of qualifying. Yet the government seems prepared or more than willing to put money into companies that are already making money. It seems prepared to give money to businesses. Yet it will keep money away from needy Canadians who are a few hours short of qualifying for EI. This is a very shady approach on which Canadians will judge the government harshly in the next general election.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to that question. We know in the past the government has said one thing while in opposition but when it made that stroll a couple of sword lengths across the floor it did something completely different. Of course we want the same standard applied across the board. We are very anxious to see transparency and truth in government. We are sitting here on the edge of our seats in anticipation that it will happen, but will it happen?

The hon. member opposite loves to raise the spectre of Mulroney, but I will tell the House that when this is all over I think the name he knows well will replace it. The promises of a new approach, the promises of a new administration, are all in jeopardy now.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. As alluded to by my colleague, the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche, it is very timely that the official opposition brought forward this motion.

As time passes it is like the dance of a thousand veils that we are seeing from the government. We are seeing more and more information coming forward. I would suggest this is not coming forward in a very voluntary and forthright way, as members of the government would have us believe. In fact, the minister literally had the proverbial gun to her head when she knew that access to information requests had been made and that this information was inevitably going to be made public.

Let us start with the premise that the HRDC ministry is set up for a very legitimate purpose. There are areas in the country which obviously need assistance in job creation. As the hon. member opposite suggested, we are not, as an opposition, suggesting that every single program in the country was somehow not legitimate. We are suggesting that it is coming to light daily that a significant portion of them were not legitimate. It is absolutely astonishing when we hear, and when the Canadian public hears, that there are companies which received money that did not even fill out an application. It is absolutely astronomical when one considers the implications.

How did the money get from the government coffers into the hands of an organization that apparently did not even request it?

I believe the most appropriate characterization of all of this is mismanagement. I would suggest that the minister has been very economical with the truth when it comes to the disclosure of information. She has suggested in numerous statements that HRDC knows where the money is, that it is all accounted for. We can go to our bank accounts and see that withdrawals were made. We have the cheques to suggest that the money was received. The question is: How was the money spent? Was it spent in line and consistent with the applications, if there were applications? Was the money accounted for? Was it tracked? Was there any mechanism or system in place which guaranteed the legitimacy of the company or the exercise for which the money was applied?

In my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough there are regions, in Guysborough County for example, where unemployment is in the range of 20% to 30%. It is devastating for the people in that part of the country. This program, if we are to have faith in it, is aimed specifically at helping depressed regions.

The tragedy in all of this, and my colleague from the NDP alluded to this, is the absolute cynicism and the absolute loss of any remaining shred of credibility that the government and parliament might have in the country. It is on the chopping block. It is now on the altar.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that when people look at this their trust and faith is going to go further underground. We heard members of the government, these same individuals and the Prime Minister when in opposition, assuring Canadians that things would be different.

It was only a matter of time before someone raised the terrible spectre of Brian Mulroney. By comparison, and time will tell, we will see just how legitimate some of these claims are when stacked up against the Mulroney administration.

We all recall that image we saw of the rat pack, appropriately named. Who can forget the image of the current minister of heritage scrambling over desks, howling like a banshee, to get at a member of the Mulroney government? Where is she now? The silence is deafening when it comes to questions being asked of her own government.

My colleague from New Brunswick also alluded to the fact that this is hard-working taxpayers' money. This is the blood, sweat and tears of Canadians who give their money to the government in good faith, on the understanding that it will be spent in a responsible fashion, in the belief that the money is going to be used for legitimate purposes.

What we need from the government is an accounting. What we need is some semblance of responsible reaction, some transparency. These are the types of words the Prime Minister was very free to throw around while in opposition but very reluctant to embrace now that he is sitting on the government benches. Of course, that is not new. We saw similar platitudes and comments made about things like the GST and free trade. All of these were going to change. They were scrapped along with the helicopter program and most of the red book promises after the election.

What we need now is for the government to be completely open about what has taken place. It appears that this so-called scandal goes back to the very beginnings. It goes back to 1993, almost immediately after the government came to power, under the ministry of that now infamous name, Doug Young. The voters of New Brunswick had the good foresight to send Mr. Young a message in the last election. I suggest, and again time will tell, whether under his tutelage in this department the policies, principles and infrastructure were put in place to allow for this scandal to brood, fester and continue for years after.

We saw an unprecedented attempt by the current minister. It was a simultaneously behind covering and face saving exercise to point behind her to the previous minister, but I think she has to go back a little further to Mr. Young, to the very beginning.

I credit the media for this truth seeking exercise. It really began in the off season. It is astronomical when we think about it, but we know the Prime Minister in his comments to his caucus last week said that they should sit tight, batten down the hatches and this would go away. They have a budget coming and there are other things they can distract the Canadian public with. They can talk about clarity. They can talk about the muddy, ill timed, ill conceived bill they have foisted on the country, and hopefully the real issues of the country will go away, such as the problems in health care, the overburdened taxation system, the problems in education, crippling student debt, underfunding to the military and underfunding for the law enforcement agencies, all of which are not priorities. They will talk about constitutional matters which in the meantime will hopefully distract from the burgeoning and ballooning scandal taking place in the HRD department.

The timing and sequence of events set out by my colleague from New Brunswick about the infamous fax sheet that was sent with the deleted date were very interesting. Obviously I suggest an attempt was made to distance the minister from knowledge of the first instance when the matter was brought to her attention.

We know there was a shuffle in cabinet or a change in ministries in August. It stands to reason that an extensive briefing would take place when a new minister took over. The audit was already under way. Surely the previous minister would have had some conversation with the minister to let her know that this was something that might happen on her watch because it had already begun.

The communication breakdown is not new is this instance. We know of a similar situation. The current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had dropped in his lap the fact that the Marshall decision was before the supreme court. His predecessor did not take the time to let him know that there was a crisis brewing. A lot of Chinese walls and walls of silence seem to surround the government when it comes to sharing bad news. It certainly does not want to share bad news with the opposition or the Canadian public.

This is something that goes to the very root of democracy. This goes to the very confidence of Canadians in their government. As painful and as ugly as it may seem, this entire exercise of uncovering what has taken place in this department is necessary if we are somehow to try to restore some semblance of integrity. It is very sad that using the word integrity in the political process has almost become an oxymoron.

I know hon. members opposite do not like to hear this. It is really tough to get hit with the truth, but I want the Canadian public to know that the Progressive Conservative Party supports the motion wholeheartedly. This is perhaps the beginning of the end for the reign of error of the Liberal government.

Canadians are cynical beyond belief and apathy has begun to set in. Parliament has been darkened by the performance of the minister and the government in this regard. The flag over the Peace Tower should be flying at half-staff today. The death of what remaining faith there was in the hearts and minds of Canadians may be on the altar today.

We need an external audit. It is obvious to everyone in this place and to the millions of Canadians who are watching that this has to take place if there is to be any shred, any scintilla of credibility left in the government. All of what it has said and now all of what it has done are before the Canadian public and have to be laid bare.

I welcome the opportunity to have taken part in this debate and I welcome the opportunity to continue to ask relevant questions of the government. Hopefully we will get some answers.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Calgary—Nose Hill. She has done a tremendous job in bringing forward much of the information that enlightens Canadians on the style this government has undertaken.

My question very much flows from the question posed by the previous member. Throughout this scandal we have seen that efforts have been made almost to point the finger at the past. It is almost unprecedented that a minister of the crown blames her predecessor. I would suggest and I would like the hon. member's response as to whether this is very much systemic. This goes far beyond one minister of the crown or even the previous minister. I would suggest this goes back almost to the very beginning of this administration.

There is an old maritime expression that the fish stinks from the head. I would suggest there are a lot of maggoty fish in the barrel. Does the hon. member agree this is a systemic problem that should be investigated in a much broader fashion? We have 37 projects of 459 projects of 30,000 in one year. I suggest it is much more widespread than the current minister would have us believe.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, February 8th, 2000]

With respect to Mr. Ole Ingstrup, Commissioner of the Corrections Service Canada, will the government provide a detailed breakdown of Mr. Ingstrup's business related travel expenses?

Return tabled.

Question No. 30—

[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?