Peter MacKay

[Run Against Racism, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House as a proud participant of the 10th anniversary of Run Against Racism, its motto being “Together we can make a difference.”

Last weekend the founder of this event, Henderson Paris, and many residents of communities in Pictou County came together for one common noble purpose: to heighten the awareness of racism in these communities and throughout Canada.

This ultimately will help alleviate racism from society. People of all ages and races came together to lend their support for this worthwhile cause. This event was held in conjunction with the International Day to Eliminate Racism and Discrimination observed worldwide on March 21.

The goal of this annual marathon is commendable in its efforts to eliminate racism everywhere. Efforts such as this touch on the hearts and souls of every member of society from the youngest to the most senior. We hope that one day the dreaded perils of racism and discrimination will be eradicated completely.

I express sincere congratulations to Henderson Paris, a resident of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, who started this marathon 10 years ago. His efforts are applauded and admired. Next year's run will be highlighted as part of New Glasgow's 125th birthday and millennium celebrations. I encourage all—

[Division No. 363, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to commend the member for Mississauga East for her diligence and persistence, much against the will of her own party. I do not want to get into the partisan side of it. I do not want to respond to the remarks in the previous intervention with respect to which parties best represent public interest.

There is a very important element here of representing what it is that the public wants. As has been quite clearly demonstrated by the comments of the member for Mississauga East, this is a very emotional and visceral issue for most Canadians when we start talking about volume discounts and shortening the parole eligibility of murderers.

We are talking about repeat offenders, those who have not committed just one offence but have committed multiple offences and offences on the very high end of Criminal Code violations in terms of their seriousness. The consecutive sentences that would result from this private member's bill would obviously—and I defy anyone to argue otherwise—protect Canadians from those specific offenders to which these sentences would attach.

Implicit in the bill is the very genuine intention to deal with habitual criminals who are released by virtue of early parole. The current government and the current commissioner of Correctional Service Canada have a very insidious plan with respect to the release of prisoners on parole, a 50% release plan that would see by the year 2000, 50% of current inmates back on the street through one form or another.

This is something that should be alarming and shocking to all Canadians. The point of the bill is to ensure that convicted offenders, murderers and rapists, do not have an opportunity to go out on to the streets and perpetrate the same types of offences.

The most startling and disturbing statistic was that the likelihood a person who has committed an offence of murder or rape will reoffend, compared to average law-abiding citizen, was 100% more likely to commit a murder or a rape after being released on the conviction of such an offence.

I invite the member for Mississauga East to respond to the intent of the bill and what it would accomplish in terms of its broad spread application on our parole system and the effect it would have in terms of protecting Canadians from repeat offenders for these types of offences.

[Points Of Order, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a totally unrelated matter, although I agree very strenuously with the comments put forward by the House leader of the New Democratic Party.

This morning in the British parliament Prime Minister Blair made a lengthy statement to the British House of Commons concerning the deterioration of the situation in Kosovo. This appears to be a situation that will also involve Canadian military forces and their involvement in the possible military action.

I ask the government when we will hear a similar full statement in the House of Commons concerning Canadian citizens who will perhaps be called upon to be put into action with respect to the situation in Kosovo. Our armed forces are waiting.

[Transitional Jobs Fund, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last fall the human resources minister announced the creation of a Canada jobs—

[Transitional Jobs Fund, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in less than two years we have seen the transitional jobs fund become a source for Liberal Party kickbacks. We have seen the Liberal fundraiser convicted—

[Transitional Jobs Fund, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that Jacques Roy, an employee of the President of the Treasury Board, gave confidential information on transitional jobs fund applicants to convicted Liberal bagman Pierre Corbeil.

Now the Prime Minister's special representative, Denise Tremblay, made sure that the transitional jobs fund doled out big dollars to convicted criminal Yvon Duhaime. What assurances can the human resources minister give that Denise Tremblay or others have not disclosed jobs fund information to be used for illegal purposes? What safeguards are there?

[Transitional Jobs Fund, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen this type of shady behaviour before in the transitional—

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, my question pertains to the discriminatory practice of paying workers in one region of the country, members of the public service, less for work of equal value for the same work done in another region of the country.

I would like to know from the minister whether there is any intention on his part or his negotiator's part to delve into this issue with a mind to making an equal rate of pay across the country. Will the minister enlighten the House as to whether he is amenable to moving toward this in the future?

[Division No. 358, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened closely to what the hon. government House leader has said. However, by his very admission what we heard was that at least one other member, other than the President of the Treasury Board, knew about this.

The point that has been made by the opposition House leader is still very relevant, that perhaps not only members on this side of the House have been denied the privilege of this information that is very telling and would impact on how members would cast their votes, but also members of the government side of the House. They would have very much liked to have been informed that a tentative agreement had been reached.

We are talking about the process in government Motion No. 21, the process that would very much impact on the way this debate was to be constructed and the vote that would finally be taken on the bill itself. This is information that was purposely withheld. Therefore, I suggest that there is a breach of the privilege of hon. members which would impact on the way that they would cast their vote. It is a prima facie case.

I suggest that there is enough evidence before the House for the Chair to make a ruling on this matter.

[Division No. 358, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of privilege. The hon. government House leader has just admitted that he is in essence an accomplice to what took place because he came into the House and made reference to the fact—