Peter MacKay

[Criminal Records Act, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to take part in this debate. I can assure the hon. member who just spoke that it will be unanimous in terms of our support. The Conservative Party as well is very much in favour of this bill as we were of that of the hon. member for Calgary Centre. His Bill C-284 was the impetus to the government's adoption of this particular notion.

As outlined by previous speakers who referred to Bill C-69, this particular act that is to be amended will now incorporate and permit law enforcement agencies, and by virtue of their co-operation, agencies such as Big Brothers, Scouts Canada, kindergartens and those who seek to have persons in positions of trust in their employ, to inquire through the police and through the solicitor general's department about the appearance on a person's record of a prior sexual assault conviction. Prior to this amendment there was no ability to do so with any certainty.

As has been mentioned a balance always has to be struck when one is attempting to disclose information that was deemed to have been pardoned. This country's pardon system has often been questioned. This bill and the amendment to this type of information is very positive.

Along those lines, May 3 to May 7 was sexual awareness week. The city of Lethbridge promoted this week by bringing to the attention of Canadians the issue of sexual assault. It made this comment in its literature: “It is not an issue of sex; it is an issue of power and control”. That is very true when it comes to the disclosure of information to protect those in our society who are most vulnerable. I am talking here about children who are very vulnerable when exposed potentially to individuals who have been convicted of sexual assaults.

This bill, which will amend the Criminal Records Act and other acts as a consequence, will provide the necessary protection. It allows access to records of pardoned individuals which was previously unavailable. It will work in conjunction with another bill which is currently before the House of Commons, Bill C-79. That bill is aimed specifically at bringing victims more into the picture with respect to our criminal justice system. It is intended to allow access in particular by the police and agencies to this vital information which concerns sex offenders who had received a pardon previously.

The safeguards to protect the individual's rights exist within the legislation. The solicitor general has a degree of discretion where, as referred to, police officers are now mandated to make the disclosure when the request has occurred and the proper vetting has also occurred. There are safeguards and scrutiny will take place before the information will be disclosed.

We are all aware of high profile individual cases that have become very public, one of which rocked our national sport of hockey. I am referring to the Toronto Maple Leafs scandal involving an usher, John Roby whose case is now coming to a close. Mr. Roby was facing 35 charges of molesting children and showed very little remorse throughout the trial.

This type of predatory violence is something we must do everything possible about in this House and certainly in our law enforcement. We must do everything within our means to ensure the proper information is disseminated to society so people will know and can identify those persons who are preying on our most vulnerable the children.

Prior access to criminal records may not have helped in that case. This is a situation where this is not retroactive for cases that have already been heard. But in similar future situations where there is a high rate of recidivism, which is the case when it comes to sexual assault complainants, they need to know that individuals have in the past engaged in this type of despicable behaviour. These records will be flagged.

Individuals who have engaged in that activity and who have been for whatever reason granted a pardon will have their records flagged. Agencies will be permitted to gain access to that information and then make informed decisions as to whether they would put a person with that type of record in a position of working in close contact with children.

Another tragic case which has garnered much public attention is the case of Alison Parrot, an 11 year old who was raped and murdered by Francis Carl Roy in 1989. Alison's mother tried to seek justice in the death of her daughter yet there was a further tragedy. Mr. Roy should not have been on the streets. He had two prior convictions for the rapes of teenage girls and had assaulted another woman only days before Alison Parrot was raped and murdered. The judge decided to protect Mr. Roy's right to presumption of innocence and agreed to the defence motion not to disclose to the jury the prior convictions in the other cases.

This will be an issue for another day, but I suggest again that when it comes to the protection of children, information is power. It is power in the hands of those who need it most, mainly the police and agencies that oversee children through their education or caregiving.

Bill C-69 will set up a sex offender registry which will be accessed over the Canadian Police Information Centre, the CPIC system. That information will be quickly available to police officers who can then pass it on to those who make the inquiries. This again is important. Speed of access is very important. When a person applies for a job or volunteers for an organization, the information needed for the decision to hire or not to hire is required in a very expeditious way.

Another measure that would enable people to notify these agencies like CPIC is by making direct inquiries through the solicitor general's department. Again this is a welcome change.

If we continue to enact legislation such as Bill C-69, we may some day reach a point where the Canadian public will again begin to believe in our justice system and have greater faith in the ability of our law enforcement agencies to protect them from sexual predators.

There is always talk in situations such as this one of the charter of rights and the individual's rights to be protected. We know that a pardon is an extraordinary remedy when a person has already been convicted and has gone through the proper legal channels. However there are some instances, and obviously the protection of children is one, that outweigh that individual's rights to keep this information private.

I suggest that there is a recognition of this by the government and the efforts of the hon. member for Calgary Centre and all participants of the justice committee. I would commend the witnesses who also came forward and spoke in favour of this legislative initiative.

Criminal records concerning a pardoned offence will only be released by the solicitor general or the RCMP after there is written notification given to the affected offender. There will also be an element of vetting as to the appropriateness of this decision.

Community rights in most instances should prevail. Statistics have shown that since 1994, 700 pardoned individuals have reoffended. This is somewhat disturbing, particularly when it again bears on the protection of children.

I believe in democracy. Therefore, I believe in rights for everyone, including former sexual offenders. I can understand the minister's dilemma: she must always try to ensure that the rights of all Canadians are protected.

With Bill C-69 the minister tried to come up with a bill that will protect all Canadians. In a democracy we must debate bills, to allow elected representatives to suggest possible changes. Normally, these changes will improve the legislation. However, a balance is necessary.

[Young Offenders Act, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the amendment to the main motion. The amendment keeps in mind that Bill C-68 has borrowed from and incorporated much of the intent the hon. member for Surrey North had in mind when the bill was originally brought forward.

I acknowledge the ongoing efforts of the member for Surrey North in this regard. Through no fault of his own and through no desire of his own, he joined a very exclusive group in the country, and that is being the survivor of a murdered victim. As a parent I think the bill and the incorporation of the bill into the Criminal Code serves as a tribute to his son Jesse.

This a very commendable focus of what in most circumstances would be a very bitter and negative energy. He has put forward what is a very positive motion which will hopefully help to prevent, perhaps in some way, matters such as this where a parent is not being held accountable and not making significant efforts to supervise a young person who is bound by a court order.

There has been much discussion throughout the debate on Bill C-260 about the new youth criminal justice act that has also been debated in the Chamber. We in the Progressive Conservative Party like all Canadians were looking forward to the changes that were coming about as a result of deliberations and as a result of the long delay endured on the issue of changes to the Young Offenders Act.

As has been stated time and time again in the House, in the media, in the coffee shops and in general debate throughout the country, the Young Offenders Act was not serving its purpose, not serving our criminal justice system, and not serving Canadians at large.

Unfortunately the new bill is a disappointment. There was an opportunity, which the minister chose not to exercise, to make changes that would have had a more significant effect. That is not to say that commendable changes have not come about. Certainly there is an element through some effort on the part of the member for Surrey North to bring in some form of parental responsibility. It is a positive measure to have the ability now to identify certain dangerous young offenders and the ability to transfer certain types of offences. That would be seen in a positive light.

However other offences have been excluded for some reason from consideration. Although we are not through the final stages of the bill, there will be an opportunity to propose amendments. At least there will be an opportunity to fix some of the glaring omissions on the part of the Department of Justice. Time will tell.

The introduction of the new bill was given a great deal of focus in the media. There was a great deal of hype and much discussion outside the Chamber by the minister. It is with sort of a heavy heart that we are facing a situation where this change to the Young Offenders Act does not exactly hit the mark.

Some of the areas where obviously there is a downturn or a failing is the inability to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 10. There is also an omission in the area of focusing on the use of weapons in the commission of a criminal offence and making mandatory minimum sentences for young offenders in situations where weapons have been used.

The focus of the bill was to be on violent versus non-violent offences. There was much discussion and acrimony about the fact that young people should be given an opportunity and should be treated differently under our criminal justice system. That is the philosophy of the old bill, of the juvenile delinquents act, and of the bill before the House.

There is difficulty in saying that we have to be more pro-active and pre-emptive when it comes to treating young people under our criminal justice system. There has to be an acknowledgement that the resources also have to be allotted.

The enforcement and administration of the legislation have to acknowledge that currently there is a funding shortage and that currently the federal government is not holding up its end of the bargain. The original intent of the old legislation, the Young Offenders Act, was that the federal government would pick up 50% of the cost of administration. Similarly the new legislation would have the same fiscal or monetary attachment. That is not the case.

We also know that the present social services are in many cases the first line of defence, that is child welfare offices, offices that have to deal with the protection of children. These offices are drastically underfunded, yet at the same time the bill will put a greater emphasis on those agencies.

I would be reticent not to mention the fact that the police are given greater powers of discretion under the new bill. It is a very laudable intention that police officers be allowed to exercise greater discretion in the field and perhaps on occasion, rather than formally charging a young person, be permitted to take the young person to his or her parents or back to the station and administer a tongue lashing, for lack of a better word. Sometimes that will have a better impact on the young person than having them go through the very formal and very sterile court process.

With all of that in mind, if the intent of the new legislation is to have this proactive attempt by police to circumvent more formal processes, there also has to be an acknowledgement that it will be a very onerous task for police in terms of taxing their time, their effort and their current resources.

They simply do not have those resources. We know that because time and time again we hear it from the policing community and from the chiefs of police. We know that the RCMP is drastically underfunded at this time. We know that its budgets have been cut time and time again. In general terms we have seen billions cut out of transfer payments to provinces that go to the administration of justice in individual provinces.

It is nothing short of lip service. It is very lame for the government to suggest that it will give more responsibility to the police and the frontline agencies which will be tasked with administering the new bill and at the same time tell them not only that they will not get more money to do so but that they will not get the same amount they used to have to administer the Young Offenders Act. There is an absolutely hypocritical nature to the bill.

With respect to what some other justice ministers in the provinces have said, I will quote from the Alberta Minister of Justice, Jon Havelock, who said in relation to contemplating the tougher spin which has been put on the legislation that to increase penalties, increase the jail time and ensure that those who were repeatedly committing offences are dealt with more appropriately under the act, the money will have to be in place.

New Brunswick justice minister, Greg Byrne, said that he could not remain partisan when speaking about the new bill. He said that it should be tougher on violent offenders. This creates an interesting dilemma for the Minister of Justice because she has cautioned Canadians that the provinces will have to come on side and enforce the provisions of the bill which will become law before the year 2000.

During the minister's year long consultation process with many of the provinces she stated continually that they were being properly consulted. Consulted is one thing but being actually listened to is another. It has become patently obvious that the ministers of justice of many of provinces, including Alberta, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and even New Brunswick, are sorrily disappointed with the outcome and the final draft of the bill.

It demonstrates to me that it is another example of broken promises. If this is the consultation that takes place, and yet at the end of the day the provinces are ignored, it is not something that will further good relations.

The federal government and the provincial governments agreed a long time ago that they would divide the cost of administering the Young Offenders Act. This is certainly the intention of the provinces today. They are still asking the federal government to pick up its fair share of the cost of the administration. No where have we ever seen the commitment of the federal government to do so.

The minister's attempt to please all of the provinces by taking bits and pieces of the suggestions and implementing them into the bill will eventually please no one, and I would suggest that includes the hon. member for Surrey North.

With the introduction of Bill C-68 we saw a lot of bells and whistles and a lot of publicity about what it is going to accomplish, but at the end of the day we saw a very cumbersome bill that will be extremely difficult to administer. The bill is twice as lengthy and includes twice as many clauses as the old Young Offenders Act. We know that the old Young Offenders Act was a very cumbersome piece of legislation. This will be a field day for lawyers, a nightmare for judges, and it will not accomplish for Canadians what we had hoped it would.

[Criminal Code, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to Motion No. 528. I am always honoured to follow the lead of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra who I think has added, in his very articulate and vastly insightful way, to the debate today.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to address the motion which defends section 43 of the Criminal Code and invokes the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when necessary. I suppose that when necessary clause defines the issue to some degree.

Is there a need? Is there a pressing concern that would require this to happen? That in and of itself is something that could be debated for some time. I am not questioning the merits of what the hon. member has done by bringing the issue forward. It is my feeling and the feeling of my party that this debate is useful to clarify and perhaps reinforce section 43, in particular for the sake of many parents and teachers who deal with the challenges of raising and educating today's youth.

Parliament has in its wisdom enacted such a section of the Criminal Code. I would go further and say that it has been consistently upheld by our courts at the provincial supreme court and Supreme Court of Canada levels. Consistently case law suggests that it has been upheld.

There are instances of which hon. members have been made aware or perhaps personally encountered where the degree of force has been brought into question as to how much or how far a parent or person acting in the stead of a parent can go in correcting a misbehaving child or youth.

Again I do not mean to trivialize the issue in any way by saying that this is not a wildfire epidemic which is sweeping the country. I am not aware at least of any issue of spanking taking place throughout the country that has resulted in a major court challenge or in repeated community disruption.

The wording in the section defines the issue, and that is reasonableness and community standard. These words are encompassed in the Criminal Code. They define how far a parent or a person in a parent's place can go in disciplining a child in response to a misbehaviour or perhaps an action taken by a child. I do not feel that section 43 is in any jeopardy at this time.

The hon. member also brought forward certain studies and psychological and methodological evidence which is also helpful in the debate to define just how far a parent can go and the reaction or the response of that child to physical correction.

As well it helps to define the fact that this is not a situation where we are talking about child abuse. I do not believe the line is that grey at the present time. There are instances where quite clearly the corrective methods undertaken are disproportionate and very injurious to a child.

The hon. member referenced the fact that there were instances that one can envision when harsh words and a berating attitude or a barrage of language can be perhaps even more painful and have more deleterious and lasting effects on a child than, for lack of a better word, a simple physical corrective measure where a child is stopped physically, for example, from picking on a younger sibling or partaking in what is deemed to be a dangerous activity; a teacher takes a child firmly by the arm and marches him or her down to the principal's office; or one simply removes something from the child's possession if it poses a danger to himself or herself or another child.

These types of physical corrective measures are envisioned by section 43 of the Criminal Code and certainly the type of measures to which my hon. colleague refers in his remarks. All of that to say that I do not see the line as being that blurred when one applies the reasonableness and the community standard test in place currently in the Criminal Code.

When physical injury results, when marks are left on a child because of the overreaction of a parent or a person in authority, that would cross the line. When that occurs and matters, through the natural course, wind up before the courts, and there is an opportunity for a judge to review the evidence and the circumstances, this section is put to the test.

It is understandable that there is concern about this. However, I would suggest once more that this is not a matter which is in need, at least at this point, of taking what I would suggest in the context of the greater debate would be a disproportionate response, that being the use of the notwithstanding clause.

By invoking the notwithstanding clause, as was referred to by the hon. member opposite from Vancouver Quadra, the pith and the substance of doing that would be tantamount to a parent overreacting and responding in a very disproportionate way and using a far too extreme form of response or violence to what a child has done.

I do not mean to diminish what the hon. member is trying to accomplish, but even the reference of the notwithstanding clause in relation to this section, I suggest with all respect, diminishes the importance of what this section is really intended to do in the context of our Constitution and in the context of the application of it to our criminal law.

We have seen cases that have come forward quite recently, such as the case of the Queen and Sharpe and the Queen and Feeney, in which there is perhaps a need for discussion in the context of what those cases dealt with. When it comes to the protection of children from exploitation through pornography, when it comes to the rules and the laws of search and seizure that empower police officers in pursuit of criminals that have engaged in very violent activity, those are recent examples for which one might envision the invoking of the notwithstanding clause.

For those not intimately familiar with this, what it would do is essentially strike down a judge's decision and delay or put into abeyance the significance of the ruling for a period of five years.

In the greater context, I reiterate with all respect that using this type of constitutional power in the context of this section would be extremely ill-founded and ill-timed.

Turning back to the substantive debate, what is being discussed is the use of corrective proportionate response in the disciplining of a child. It is fair to say that in these very trying and troubling times, for youth who are in need of an early start and proper direction in their lives, there are occasions. Mr. Speaker, you may have been subjected to a spanking at some point in your life, as well as other members present. I am sure that it made an impression, but not the type of impression that would leave a mark on one's physical person. We are talking about the type of impression that leaves a person with the feeling that perhaps they have done something wrong and that they should not engage in that type of activity.

When we talk about this type of physical corrective measure we have to be very prudent in encouraging people to do it on the one hand, but at the same time we do not want to exaggerate the impact this would have on a child.

When we talk about this section of the Criminal Code, we want to be careful not to dismiss the issue of child abuse because that is something that is not sanctioned by section 43 of the Criminal Code. It is there to ensure that children are protected, but that parents and those acting in the place of a parent are permitted in certain very specific instances and factual circumstances to exercise discretion and the implicit responsibility that they have to physically correct a child, and often to do so for the protection of that child.

I am very supportive of the efforts the hon. member has made in bringing this matter to the floor of the House of Commons. I am very pleased to take part in the debate, but I would again suggest that this is not a Criminal Code section that is in jeopardy currently. It is not a Criminal Code section that is in danger at this time of being struck down by any current litigation of which I am aware. The issue itself bears discussion and it will continue to be respected by our judiciary and by those in the country who hope to and who will uphold the laws of the land.

[Correctional Service Canada, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is evidence to the contrary when it comes to public safety.

Will the solicitor general confirm that he or his colleague, the Minister of Justice, are in receipt of a letter allegedly sent by Tyrone Conn, the inmate who was serving 47 years for armed robbery, who escaped from Kingston Penitentiary last Thursday? In the letter Mr. Conn mocks the liberal penal system, its wardens, its lax security and gun registry.

Will the solicitor general advise whether he is in possession of the letter, its authenticity and the status of Mr. Conn?

[Correctional Service Canada, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, despite the denials of CSC commissioner Ole Ingstrup, the 50:50 prison quota is still in effect.

Canadians continually hear of prisoners walking away from correctional institutions, being given unescorted bus tickets to freedom and using grappling hooks to scale prison walls. It is obvious that the commissioner will quickly see the release of 50% of all prisoners in Canada.

Will the solicitor general admit that there are growing indicators, including the scathing comments of the auditor general, that CSC is facing a crisis that will put Canadians at risk?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 10th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to discuss Bill C-68 once again. The motion before the House proposed by the Bloc Quebecois looks at the possibility of in essence striking the entire bill and sending it back for further discussion.

Although we in the Conservative Party have great difficulty with some of the initiatives, and perhaps more so with the perception of what the bill will actually accomplish, I think it would be a giant step backward to completely throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to youth justice. That will not accomplish what we in this place hope to accomplish, which is to fix a existing fundamental problem when it comes to youth crime.

One major problem with the Young Offenders Act since its introduction over 15 years ago has been the impression the act has given young people that they will not be held accountable for criminal behaviour. Right or wrong, that is the impression out there and that is what is drastically undermining public confidence in our youth justice system and our justice system in general.

An attempt has been made by the government to address some of the problems. I will be very straightforward in pointing out some of the steps that are improvements on what we have seen. Obviously the ability to bring parents into our justice system is something that has to occur. However what will occur in this instance is not the full package.

What will happen now is that the parents of young offenders who have been apprehended and are in the process of going through court and potentially being released back into the community will now be forced to come forward, sign, and essentially make a contract with the province and the attorney general's department that they will ensure the conditions deemed appropriate by a court will be followed. They will be brought to court themselves and charged if those conditions are not adhered to. That is what will be accomplished and that is a laudable attempt to fix some of the problem.

However, what we do not see happening is parents being brought forward to answer for where they were in the first instance when a child was involved in a criminal act. Why is it that a young person was out breaking into a neighbour's house or stealing their car at 2 o'clock in the morning? That accountability we have not yet achieved and sadly we will not through this piece of legislation.

There has been much ado, much discussion, much debate and acrimony about the age of accountability. Again I think the key word in all of this is accountability. The Liberals have countered attempts by the opposition to debate this issue by saying “Look at this overreaction on the part of neo-Conservatives who want to somehow throw 10 and 11 year olds in jail for criminal acts”. That is not the case at all. That is certainly not the position that has been taken by the Conservative Party.

What we want to see happen, obviously, is that if by some misdirection or some misdeed a 10 or 11 year old finds himself or herself involved particularly in a violent criminal act, there will be some mechanism by which to bring that young person to account, not necessarily through the full hammer of criminal sanctions in a courtroom, but at least there should be the ability to trigger a response.

As it currently stands, that does not exist in our Criminal Code. It exists in other countries. It once existed in our Criminal Code under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act.

As I said at the outset, the issue is accountability. The issue is the state, the province, the police and our social services having a mechanism by which to bring to account and to bring forward some recourse for a young person at that tender age.

Certainly the whole principle behind the Young Offenders Act and the principle behind the new youth criminal justice act is to recognize that there is obviously a difference in the level of accountability that will be levelled upon a person under the age of 18. We are saying that it should be taken one step further. Drop it down a bit further so that we can at least start the process of rehabilitation, bringing that person into a system, be it the criminal justice system or be it a diversion into the social welfare net. There has to be something to start the process.

We know that when violent crime is involved the response has to be quick. The criminal justice system, I suggest, is best suited and best equipped to make that intervention and then to follow through. After the fact, when an arrest has been made, when the justice system has been given the tools to act, then we can decide what the long term recourse will be.

To accomplish all of this the provinces will have to receive greater funding. This has been the crux of the issue with respect to the provinces and their responses, both positive and negative, when one starts to look at the overall strategy as to what is to be accomplished in our youth justice system.

The Progressive Conservative government has to take some fault in this as well because when the justice system was first set up to encompass the Young Offenders Act we never saw the 50% share of the funding that has to be shouldered by the federal government. That has never occurred. The Progressive Conservatives froze that funding. The Liberals then went further to cut it to the point where, in some provinces, it is below 30%.

The irony in all of this and the reason for giving some background is to recognize the fact that much of what is sought by this youth justice system, that is, earlier intervention, preventive measures, a proactive approach taken to justice, which are all wonderful buzzwords and laudable goals, cannot be accomplished unless we have the opportunity to put into the hands of the provinces the proper funding to administer it. We know that the drastic cuts that have been handed out by this federal government have had an absolutely deteriorating effect on social services throughout the provinces.

The brunt of this legislation and the administration thereof will fall on the provinces once again. The 50% funding that should be coming from this government to accomplish all of the goals, as laudable as they are, simply will not happen without that resource allocation.

Once again we have seen the government speaking grandly, giving a grandiose plan as to what it would like to accomplish. There has been a great deal of absolutely wonderful press conferences and announcements that have been made time and time again at the press gallery instead of here in the House of Commons. That was all done in the run-up, in the raised expectations of the new youth criminal justice act. However, those goals, those accomplishments that the government has put forward, will not be achieved unless the provinces are given the money.

There has been a lot of discussion in the Chamber as well about the approach that has been taken by the Quebec provincial government and there are statistics to back it up. La belle province de Québec c'est la première province pour la justice when it comes to the treatment of youth. The difficulty with this legislation is that once more we see a very cynical position put forward by the government. Not only could it have borrowed from what Quebec has done, it has said “If you do not do it our way you can opt out and not receive the money”. Not only is the money not sufficient, the provinces can decide not to do it the federal government's way and they will not get the money.

We see an approach that time and time again has left Canadians feeling very cynical, feeling almost despondent about the way we accomplish these goals. They are common goals. We in the House should certainly be able to put partisanship aside when it comes to accomplishments in our youth justice system. However, every time we get into these issues emotion and partisanship prevails and we get bogged down in debates, casting aspersions on who did what last. The Tories did this. The Liberals did that. It is the Reform Party. It is the Bloc. It is the NDP. That is not going to accomplish these goals.

There are issues in health, taxation and justice that we should be trying to work toward in a very positive fashion instead of continually dredging up the past. We could go back to John A. Macdonald, if we want to do that. We see it and we live it every day in this place.

If the government is serious about accomplishing these things and if it is serious about aiding the provinces in the administration of this new youth justice act, it should not simply spout figures like the $206 million that is going to be handed to the provinces in the next three years, it should live up to the commitment that was originally intended and that was that the federal government would pick up 50% of the tab when it came to the administration of justice and the administration of this new youth criminal justice act.

I, like other members of the House, look forward to participating at the committee level, proposing changes, working with my colleagues, both in opposition and on the government side, to achieve these laudable goals.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 10th, 1999]

With regard to the preparation of the budget presented on February 16, 1999: ( a ) what expenses were incurred by the Minister of Finance and the Department of Finance for outside media advice, speech writing, and promotional and strategic services; and ( b ) what steps were taken to ensure that outside consultants were not able to use budget information for commercial purposes?

[St. Francis Xavier University Graduates, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to extend congratulations to the graduates of St. Francis Xavier University in my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

St. FX was founded in 1853 by Bishop Colin MacKinnon in Arichat, Cape Breton and in 1855 it was relocated to the beautiful community of Antigonish.

St. FX defined its true mission and purpose in the 1920s and 1930s with the creation of the Antigonish Movement and the Extension Department. It took direct action to help communities take control of their economic and social destiny gaining international recognition.

This is the same university that is world renowned for its famous “X”, the official symbol of the university. It is also the university of one of Canada's former prime ministers, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney.

On May 2 degrees and diplomas were conferred on St. FX's graduates. This is a significant milestone that these talented young men and women have achieved. Graduation is a special time and an opportunity for students to celebrate their achievements with family and friends. Many of St. FX's new graduates will be entering the workforce to embark on their chosen careers and to begin a new and exciting phase in their lives. On behalf of the PC Party I congratulate the new St. FX's graduates and all 1999 graduates.

[Trade, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, tonight the Prime Minister will thumb his nose at the Canadian voters again when he accepts an honorary degree from Michigan State University.

The university is using this occasion to celebrate the success of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

In 1988, members will recall, in bitter debates across the country, the Liberals demonized the Conservative free trade initiative. Canadians will recall that the Liberals promised to tear up the agreement when elected.

In 1993 the Liberals insisted in their red book that they would renegotiate the NAFTA and scrap it if unsuccessful, something they conveniently forgot when elected, much like their shifty stance on GST, helicopters and the Pearson airport.

The Prime Minister himself repeatedly said “It is not a good deal”.

Tonight, when the Prime Minister delivers his commencement address to the assembled university graduates, it will be interesting to know if he tells the truth about his disregard for the Canadian electorate. Will he remind them that he, along with the Ministers of Finance, Industry, Canadian Heritage, International Trade and other serving Liberal cabinet ministers used the NAFTA issue to cynically exploit the concerns of Canadians? Will he tell the graduates that winning is everything? Will he tell them that it is not necessary to keep promises? Or, will he suddenly see the light and tell the graduates the truth?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I find it remarkable that we would get such a lame answer from the parliamentary secretary.

As the B.C. attorney general and others plead with the solicitor general and the RCMP for financial aid, the government proudly states that it has allotted $115 million. Yet, according to internal RCMP documents, the CPIC needs over $283 million to be effective. Apparently the staff shortages in the RCMP show that even this is insufficient, given these meagre tolls.

Why is the minister standing idly by while the government destroys our national police force through these harsh budget cuts?