Peter MacKay

[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—

[Employment Insurance, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the attention of the House yet again an issue that has been before the Canadian public for some time. I am talking about the failure of the solicitor general's department to take control of some of its own internal agencies.

With respect to this issue, the CSIS agent had sensitive documents taken from a car while at a hockey game in Toronto. We know that the head of CSIS has commenced an investigation, but since that time more security breaches have been exposed.

The solicitor general by his acquiescence has been putting in question the good name of the CSIS agents and the RCMP. The problem is obvious. There is no accountability from the top officers at CSIS or the solicitor general and those within his department.

The recent sad chapter involves a CSIS agent at a hockey game with top secret documents pertaining to the plan of the country with respect to internal security. The solicitor general should have said the puck stops here. Obviously that has not happened.

Time and time again we have seen the non-answers, the rhetoric and the tired preprogrammed responses of the solicitor general in the House. He states that he takes national security as a serious matter, that it is a top priority for the government, and that there is a process which has to be followed. Bunk. This is absolute nonsense. If this were the case things would change. They do not change and that is very obvious.

The solicitor general did not inform the head of SIRC, Paule Gauthier. She found out through reading the Globe and Mail almost a week after the event occurred. The solicitor general said he was informed of the event by the director, Ward Elcock. We know Mr. Elcock does not have a great deal of respect for this place or certainly for parliamentarians. He has no respect for SIRC and no respect even for the minister, I would suggest.

The director, aided by the minister, has undermined the role of SIRC. It appears at worst that he deliberately covered up the theft of the CSIS plan or at best acquiesced and sat on it. The solicitor general seems oblivious to this. The lights are on but there does not appear to be anybody home. Furthermore, no one has held the head of CSIS, Mr. Elcock, accountable. The CSIS board has had vacancies for years. It was only this summer that the inspector general's role was filled, just prior to this fiasco being uncovered.

The solicitor general said that he did not inform the Prime Minister's Office. Yet the Prime Minister was overseas making comments about it and trying to downplay it as a serious incident and a serious breach of security. If the solicitor general did not inform the Prime Minister, how was the Prime Minister able to make such pointed comments? Who informed him and what faith should we have in a solicitor general who keeps this from the Prime Minister?

The solicitor general took great licence with the word immediately when the theft had occurred three weeks before and had already been reported in the Globe and Mail before it was uncovered at all. Why was SIRC not informed immediately?

If the solicitor general is covering up for CSIS, this needs to be exposed. Was he trying to hide the embarrassment of the incident from the Prime Minister and the Canadian people? If everyone is informed and the process is going to work, everyone has to be informed.

The solicitor general obviously does not understand his departments. He does not understand the individuals who are involved and he cannot continue to pass the buck. These are very serious communication breakdowns. We already know that the RCMP and CSIS are not communicating effectively. Obviously the solicitor general is not prepared to step in and see that his departments are co-operating.

The parliamentary secretary will tell us in a few minutes that things are fine. It will be the same broken record response that we will hear from the solicitor general. He will parrot the same line, but we know this is a problem in the country right now. The solicitor general should have at least asked to call the director before him and make him take account for what occurred.

Canadians are very worried, as they should be, about national security. The solicitor general and the government, by their actions, demonstrate that they do not take these matters seriously. They demonstrate that they have no respect for the concerns of parliamentarians and Canadians at large.

[Minimum Sentences, December 14th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to take part in the debate. It is certainly an issue that is becoming one of great national concern, more and more so with each passing day, to the alarm of many Canadians.

Smuggling has been going on in Canada for over a century. In my home province of Nova Scotia, which was very famous for rum running during the days of prohibition, there is a strange aspect of human nature. There has been a bit of romanticism about that aspect of smuggling.

It has been a problem of law enforcement. Stepped up efforts have managed to bring this problem under control in some parts of the country. Nowadays smuggling is becoming more and more a high tech and dangerous issue of drugs, guns and pornography. Some days we hear time and time again on the news that Canadian coastlines are being besieged with these kinds of contraband material.

Romanticism is certainly lost in this debate, particularly when we hear stories of human smuggling and the slavery of Chinese migrants trying to gain access to Canada. Thousands are brought in, as people are being constantly reminded through the daily media.

One specific problem gaining media attention involves Asian criminal gangs known as snakeheads, which are referenced in this motion. It seems more reminiscent of a James Bond film when we hear the facts of this case. There have been claims of an RCMP cover-up after files were deleted from the immigration computer at the Canadian commission, now the consulate general in Hong Kong. There are intriguing words like triads, Chinese Mafia, snakeheads, people smugglers and project Sidewinder. There are local staff with high level security clearance using their posts to accept bribes in return for distributing approximately 2,000 blank visa forms. The allegations are being made against the RCMP by one of its own, which has made this case all the more chilling and disturbing.

RCMP Corporal Robert Read has made the allegations that the RCMP is covering up aspects of a visa scam at the Canadian diplomatic mission in Hong Kong. Read has been suspended for talking to the media in the Vancouver province about this Hong Kong investigation and is now subject to investigation. It has all the makings of an espionage thriller that would make a John Le Carré novel seem unbelievable.

Sadly it is not the case that we are able to look at a movie and hopefully come to some sort of happy ending. In the real world the RCMP corporal is being discredited while his legitimate hard earned evidence is being ignored.

Poor Chinese migrants are being treated as human cargo as they spend their life savings trying to get to Canada, only to find themselves in slave labour in return for this passage to Canada. Snakeheads and triads are making a fortune smuggling bodies and providing slave labour to their triad connected businesses in North America.

It is unthinkable to most Canadians that this could be happening, and meanwhile the federal government has failed to take decisive action. This past summer snakehead boats with their human cargo continued to besiege the B.C. coast, and the government had no plan of action other than waiting for the weather to change.

With no budget for the coast guard, deep cuts to the RCMP and sparse navy patrol on the water to intercept these vessels, Canadian coastlines are vulnerable. Refugee status to migrants being granted while still onboard is one way to approach the problem but with sparse resources we are unable to do it. No moneys from the government can be spent in this area. Yet it appears that the government will continue with funding for gun registration and funding for other programs that pale by comparison when viewed in terms of the seriousness of the issue.

This is a human tragedy, and yet the government has not taken meaningful action on this specific problem. It was a Bloc motion that forced the government into accepting the idea of putting the matter before the justice committee as a start. Sadly we know it will take the committee a long time to address the matter, given the agenda it is currently faced with.

As we have seen with other RCMP officers like Corporal Read, when they find themselves in conflict with their political masters or the high ranking brass in the RCMP, they are castigated, singled out and then abandoned.

An initial investigation into this possible cover-up of project Sidewinder was surprisingly stopped shortly after it began in 1992 due to lack of evidence. As we have seen in other investigations like Bre-X or Air India, when they are cut short the public is left to wonder what is the true outcome and what is really at work. Yet we know in other investigations that are politically motivated, like the creation of the Airbus scandal, that the money seems to be there and the investigation seems to go on endlessly.

When RCMP officers like Corporal Read are assigned to a file they are not given the support they need. Read made some very significant discoveries and found gaping holes in the original investigation. He was completing a report into why 788 files containing sensitive background information on businessmen and criminals had been deleted from the computer assisted immigration processing system, CAIPS, but was yanked off the case at the last minute just as he was beginning to get close to the truth. He protested and continued to repeat his allegations in an attempt to have the RCMP reopen and continue the case, yet they fell upon deaf ears.

Read was suspended for speaking to the media. Out of frustration he turned to the media. The RCMP is not actively investigating the triads. Instead it has begun to investigate him. It is the irony of ironies.

Even as late as the end of November the solicitor general was oblivious to the issue. As he stated in the House, it is up to the RCMP to decide what measures to take. He suggested that Corporal Read should take this issue to the Public Complaints Commission. Little did he know that Corporal Read had already done this and was told by the commission that his case was beyond its purview.

Again this is a clear indication that the solicitor general is sadly lacking in some of the fundamentals of his own department. If this is a case of RCMP misconduct then the solicitor general should look into Corporal Read's request to have his complaints addressed by an independent commission.

Read said that he had already brought his complaint of the alleged RCMP cover-up to the Public Complaints Commission, the auditor general and CSIS, and yet there is still no investigation. It is a shocking revelation.

For that reason I commend the hon. member for Lakehead for bringing this issue before the House of Commons. It is hoped that in listening to this debate perhaps the Liberal government will realize that its inaction has aided the proliferation of snakehead-triad organized crime in this country.

These are all important messages that are being transmitted. We have yet to see the government react. Will it receive this message? Time will tell.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will say right off the bat that we are not supporting the Bloc position on this. We are clearly opposing this for very different reasons, reasons that pertain to national unity as opposed to setting up a plan for dismantling the country as this bill will do.

The hon. member has very articulately and clearly set out a less than proud record that the Liberal government has amassed. He has chronicled some of the reversal of unfortunate positions that the government has engaged in over the last 50 years. It has occurred on wage and price control and on the price of gasoline. It occurred on the GST. It occurred on free trade. The list goes on and on.

The hon. member is perfectly right when he suggests that the trust that Canadians should place in the Liberal government at this time should be very suspect. We should be very wary of where the government is going with this legislation at a time when its record is obviously not the best, when it has asked Canadians in the past to trust it and upon being elected has simply done the opposite.

The question is very timely and very apt given the amount of trust that the government is seeking from the people of Canada on this important issue.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member has not stated the position of the Conservative Party or Mr. Clark at all. We very clearly said that the issue of 50% plus one is completely absent from the legislation. It is a very reckless piece of legislation in the sense that it puts forward just part of the equation. Fifty per cent plus one is the rule of democracy and it has always been that way. It is how elections are decided. It is the democratic principle the world over.

Fortunately, we have never been faced with that situation nor do I suggest we would ever be faced with one person deciding the breakup of the country. This legislation does not speak to that issue nor does the Supreme Court of Canada clearly pronounce itself on what 50% plus one would do if the situation ever arose.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my dear colleague for Richmond—Arthabaska. Unfortunately, I cannot express myself in the other official language of Canada, but my passion for the French language, for Quebec and for the country is as great as his.

History has been very kind to this country. We have enjoyed a great deal. We have enjoyed freedoms, bountiful gifts of natural resources, prosperity and peace for much of our history. However, we continue to struggle with national unity. Although our country was forged from the fire of two warring nations on this continent, we continue to be engaged in some form of warfare. That is not the wish of the Conservative Party.

There is little that is certain about the aftermath of this debate, but one thing can be sure: passions will be inflamed and emotions will run high. This bill makes secession respectable and more accessible. This bill is not about clarity; it is about confusion. It will not lead to a conclusion, but more confusion.

It is ill-timed to introduce this legislation before the country. The national agenda has been hijacked and it will cause contentious debate to erupt at a time when the focus should be elsewhere.

My fear is that the Liberal definition of clarity will give separatists the winning condition which they have sought. A red flag has been waved. We question, as Conservatives, the process and the timing.

Strategically, the Prime Minister has brought this legislation before the House immediately prior to the holidays, ensuring that this debate will continue without opposition. We understand that this was done over the protestations of senior cabinet ministers, caucus colleagues and many advisers within the province of Quebec. As before, Canadians will once again embark on this divisive, destructive debate.

This legislation is not a positive framework for negotiation. It is in fact a provocative and threatening attempt at undermining a lasting relationship that we have enjoyed in this country. Instead of drawing Canadians together, this legislation provides a road map to secession. It codifies a process to permit a province to leave confederation and it says nothing of actions to create a common purpose, but it will bring about fear and loathing.

This is not progress for Canada. It is not leadership. It is not the leadership that we should expect from a government and from a prime minister. We have already received an opinion from the Supreme Court of Canada which clearly recognizes the requirement of a clear question. No one is against clarity. Why is it necessary to repeat this in legislation? It becomes a classic double-edged sword.

It will allow or be perceived to allow the federalists the power to cut off disingenuous separatist tactics. Premier Bouchard is once again going to be elevated into his rhetorical and lofty debate over self-determination. He will tell Quebecois that English Canada has abandoned them and in the end it will be imposing its will over Quebec.

Why are we allowing this to happen at this time? This issue detracts from many important issues: health care, unemployment, education, brain drain, agriculture, fisheries and, of course, poverty. All of these issues are real issues, real issues that face Quebecers and all Canadians. These are some of the pressing issues that we should be debating at this time. Positive efforts to address them are being delayed by this ill-timed, ill-conceived initiative.

Government efforts should clearly be focused elsewhere. We should be convincing Quebecers to stay rather than making provocative threats. Like the sword of Damocles, this legislation will hang precariously over the heads of Quebecers from a thread.

We are left to believe that the Prime Minister is embarking on a legacy building attempt. Running roughshod over the objections of others, he calls this nation building. We know the often quoted phrase that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Canadians should not forget about the Prime Minister's participation in flawed constitutional repatriation attempts or how he helped cynically to torpedo past attempts at putting the country's contentious unity debate to rest.

Canadians will, of course, recall how he disappeared in the 1995 referendum campaign. What confidence should Canadians and the provinces have that the Prime Minister will do their bidding? He has clearly demonstrated in the past that he does not understand nor respect Quebec. He appears as the Prime Minister who is trying to define or defend his legacy with the imposition of this bill.

Canada should not be put in jeopardy to appease the Prime Minister's ego or afflict his legacy in envy on the rest of the country. This is a personal, meanspirited and divisive process meant to provoke Mr. Bouchard and Quebec at a time when the Quebec premier is mired in real issues, issues such as labour unrest, high unemployment and financial problems in health care and education.

The Liberals are going to try to capitalize on what they perceive as a vulnerable period in the life of the Pequiste government. The Bloc, the Pequiste and Mr. Bouchard appear to be at their lowest level of popularity, but this issue, make no mistake about it, will breathe new life into the debate of separatism. The smiles on the faces of our Bloc colleagues here, members of the House, signal that this has begun. The war has begun. The Bloc and Bouchard will reload and get ready for this divisive debate. Obviously the Conservative Party opposes this legislation for reasons much different than the Bloc. The Liberals will carefully word their press releases and try to spin it that somehow we are cozying up to this movement. Let us make it very clear that is not the case.

The Conservative Party has always stood proudly for a united country. Our party has always sided with history on nation building from Macdonald to Clark. Make no mistake about the love of this party for our whole country. It is a birthright that we will not neglect.

The possibility of an early referendum and an early election is signalled by the introduction of this legislation. Let us be clear on one thing. The timing, the wording and the method all indicate that this legislation is about crass politics, putting Liberal electoral fortunes ahead of the long term fortunes of the country.

The Prime Minister has proven time and time again that he is a ruthless, reckless partisan. This is a very dangerous game. While it is politically clever, it ensures Bloc seats, helps the Reform Party, keeps the country polarized and the implications for Canada are grave. The potential backfire of this manoeuvre could cost us dearly.

It is ironic that the Reform Party has aligned itself with the Liberal government. This is the same party we all recall that ran ads with red slashes through the faces of Quebec leaders in the 1997 general election, and yet it purports to understand Quebec.

We just heard from the NDP leader who spoke adamantly against the bill, railed against the politics of the Prime Minister's move, and yet she stated that her party will support it, a weak and submissive move.

There is currently no provision in our constitution for a province to secede. However, for the first time in our history, this bill would have Ottawa spell out the steps for separation. The legislation will now give Canadians an entrenched plan through legislation to dismantle the country. It legitimizes the separatist movement. It is not necessary but it is temporarily politically popular.

I hope I am wrong in my prediction of an early referendum, but I suspect we will see an unclear question, not about separation but about the right of self determination, which sadly the separatists could win.

The Liberal government and its brand of federalism is autocratic and insulting. The Prime Minister and his government are acting like bullies. Co-operation and compromise, the essence of federalism that built this country, are put aside. Parliament is ignored, the caucus that the government has brought together has been brought in line and some cabinet ministers have been silenced. That is not democracy.

Mr. Charest, who went to Quebec for the right reasons, is finding that now he has to fight a prime minister as much as he has to fight the separatists. The federal Liberals continue to wound the man who has preserved stability in Quebec. As he has done on many occasions in the past, the Prime Minister has directly undercut Mr. Charest.

Provincial premiers will wait to see how this plays out but there is certainly unease. No real discussion or consultation took place, just perfunctory calls informing them of the legislation. They were not given the opportunity for input or opinion. Instead, they were dictated to. The responses from the premiers have been less than enthusiastic. We have seen from the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and certainly New Brunswick that there is increasing discomfort with the Prime Minister's pre-emptive move.

Lukewarm support is not going to help the country at this time. All parts of the country will be affected. My home area of the maritimes is certainly very much in jeopardy as a result of what has occurred. It will not be clarity. There will be a profound negative effect if the government continues on this line.

The legislation is silent on the issue of 50% plus one. We know that 50% plus one in this House will defeat a bill or will defeat a government. The Prime Minister himself received the electoral support of only 38% of the Canadian population, so he is very unclear on this particular aspect of the legislation. It is contrary to democracy to suggest that anything other than 50% plus one is to be accepted. This is a hasty and poorly drafted piece of legislation.

The Progressive Conservative Party has always endorsed the approach of co-operative federalism. We have often liberated the country from the straitjacket of false federalism of the Liberal Party of Canada. Currently, we are involved in national grassroots policy consultation to best determine how Canadians would make this legislation acceptable.

In the season of goodwill and reconciliation, the Prime Minister has chosen the opposite direction. He has undermined the historic partnership and widened the two solitudes. We hope to be able to introduce some useful amendments that would at least enhance the legislation. We will wait to see, with anxious hearts, how the Liberal government will react to those legislative changes.