Peter MacKay

[Prisons, March 4th, 1999]

They are nice platitudes, Mr. Speaker, but Canadians need to know who is running the show. The CSC is bullying the National Parole Board and individual wardens into meeting this quota and implementing a 12-step reintegration program.

The government has a duty to protect Canadians first and foremost. By releasing more prisoners and ignoring the legislative safeguards and early warning mechanisms, Canadians are being put at risk.

The solicitor general must demonstrate accountability and responsibility for this dangerous cost cutting measure. How will the minister explain this outrageous quota system to Canadians who are falling victim to crimes of repeat offenders?

[Prisons, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are shocked to learn that federal prison wardens have been instructed to boost inmate release by 69% by the end of this year.

CSC commissioner Ole Ingstrup has urged officials to ignore technical parole breaches such as alcohol use and association with criminals and reduce refusals for detention. In a June 1998 memo, Ingstrup calls for a 50:50 quota split for convicts in prison and those on parole by the year 2000. This has become a virus in the justice system.

Will the solicitor general confirm that the Liberal government is promoting a get out of jail free quota system for the release of Canadian prisoners?

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I question the hon. member with respect to this budget and his government's priorities when it comes to law and order in this country.

We know they have a record of late of being very soft on crime. We are still waiting for the tabling of the Young Offenders Act. We know there have been massive cuts to the organized crime budget. We know the RCMP computer system is rusting out, yet millions and millions have been pumped into a useless gun registry system.

Why has this government set such a low priority for law enforcement in this country?

[Airbus, March 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, he should tell that to a former solicitor general.

For years now Canadians have witnessed this farcical saga that resulted in a forced half-hearted apology to Mr. Mulroney, followed by RCMP investigators then continuing and expanding the investigation.

With law enforcement cuts resulting in the impending collapse of CPIC, depleted organized crime budgets and the closure of a cadet college, I question the government's priorities.

When will the government cut its losses, put an end to this ill-founded investigation and focus on the replenishment of scarce police resources for the better protection of Canadians?

[Airbus, March 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP investigation into the Airbus affair has cost Canadian taxpayers nearly $4 million and counting. Despite the fact that investigators have absolutely no evidence to justify chasing these false allegations, they have stepped up their efforts. This amounts to a vindictive and politically motivated pursuit of a former Prime Minister.

In light of this ongoing embarrassment for this Liberal government, when will the solicitor general stop wasting taxpayers' money and call off his Liberal posse?

[Young Offenders Act, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure to speak in response to my learned friends. I thank in particular the parliamentary secretary and the members for Scarborough East, Laval Centre, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, and Surrey North.

The last statement made by my hon. friend opposite spoke of open endedness. What is truly open ended is the justice minister's promise to table legislation. It has been open ended and we have not seen it yet.

This is not an open-ended motion. This is a motion that would suggest a 50:50 share. That is equitable. That is split down the middle. There is nothing open ended about it.

My learned friend from Laval Centre spoke of Quebec's success in dealing with youth crime and youth crime initiatives. I do commend her province for that. The member indicated that it is an example that other places, mainly Canada, can learn from. I agree with that. I think we can learn a lot from the different provinces and the approaches they have taken.

The point is that the funding and commitment made by the federal government in its initial commitment to youth justice are not being held up. The government is not holding up its end of the bargain.

In particular, there was a comment made by the parliamentary secretary with respect to the current funding and commitment from this government.

I was left with the impression that she was indicating that if the provincial government received more money from the federal government, somehow this would result in higher incarceration rates. That is absurd.

What is so absurd about it is that at the same time the parliamentary secretary speaks of youth justice initiatives such things as restorative justice and alternative dispute resolution need to be funded. More funding does not simply mean more incarceration. The provinces have to exercise that discretion, but that was the impression left.

We are talking about the federal government simply holding up its end of the bargain. One would expect that the government would at least feel a twinge of moral obligation to increase its share of the young offender programs. Morality and the Liberal government seem to be mutually exclusive on this point.

The underlying issue in Motion No. 508 as with any policy area affecting federal-provincial relations is the Liberal view of government. Federal Liberals profess to have an unparalleled understanding of what is best for the country as a whole. They have a very sanctimonious and arrogant view of what is best for the country and how best to spend the country's money.

When it comes to taxpayers money no one can tell anybody the Liberal government has a great track record. As we witnessed in the social union negotiations, the federal Liberals painted the provinces as somehow the enemy of health care and social spending. We have seen successive budgets. We have seen the education budget. We have seen the health care budget. One would hope that someday we might see a justice budget coming from the government.

Conditional sentences, child pornography inaction, gutting the organized crime budget of the RCMP and the doomed false hope Firearms Act are all questionable Liberal priority performances on justice issues. Such sweeping generalizations from the government toward the provinces, characterizing them as such, is very irresponsible. Provincial and territorial governments are not the inherent enemies of co-ordinated national policy efforts. They want all levels of government to work their best and in this case work their best to address the problems in our youth justice system.

In our federation the federal, provincial and territorial governments must work together as partners, not competitors. The provinces want to be included in the decisions. They want the federal government to simply hold up and pay in its amount. They want the federal government to honour its commitments. Above all, they would like just a little respect from the federal government.

Motion No. 508 allows the Liberals to reverse the reputation they have earned over the years in federal-provincial relations. It allows them to tangibly demonstrate they are committed not just to changing youth crime legislation but to ensuring the law will be adequate.

As I mentioned at the outset, laws are only as effective as the ability to enforce them. The Minister of Justice and the Liberal government can acquire much needed credibility in renewing their efforts and their commitment to the youth justice system by increasing the federal share of the young offenders program.

As this is my final word on the matter in a final desperate attempt to bring the matter forward, I would ask that there be unanimous consent given to make this matter a votable item.

[Young Offenders Act, February 19th, 1999]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should increase the federal share of financial support for the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, with the eventual goal of dividing the costs on a 50:50 basis between the Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly very pleased to speak in the House today to Motion No. 508. In fact there is nowhere I would rather be aside from my province of Nova Scotia. I am anxious to get there and not to be at the only alternative conference that is happening this weekend.

The motion put forward states that the government should increase the federal share of financial support for the provisions of the Young Offenders Act with the eventual goal of achieving funding on a 50:50 basis between the Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments. This was the original intent of the legislation that goes back over 10 years.

When I refer to 50% throughout my remarks I am not referring to the ill conceived 50% release plan which is being surreptitiously hoisted on an unsuspecting public through the solicitor general's department. What I am referring to is the fact that the federal government has backed away from the commitment made in the original legislation to fund the administrative costs of the Young Offenders Act.

Everyone in the House is aware that the laws are only as effective as their ability to be enforced. The RCMP's ongoing financial problems testify to this challenge, be it in the overall budget or in the efforts of the force to try to combat organized crime.

The Liberal Firearms Act is another example of waste before the Canadian public. The spiralling costs and administrative problems are yet other examples that the Liberal government will put this type of legislation for political gain ahead of the actual costs of the law enforcement community.

The costs of the implementation of the Firearms Act could reach as high as an estimated cost of $350 million. These estimates could be even higher. This comes from the government's own officials.

Recently I met with representatives of the National Firearms Association who are travelling throughout the country promoting a more practical and simpler approach to firearms legislation and certainly putting greater emphasis on actual safety and actual use of government funds.

While the Liberal government advocates hundreds of millions of dollars for gun registry, the Canadian police information system that will house the data from this piece of legislation, the important tool police officers use for information purposes, is coming apart at the seams and is in need of a drastic influx of federal money, $200 million by some conservative estimates, to make it operational.

The Young Offenders Act throughout the country is perceived as not working for the average Canadian. It has been said aloud by the government and by the minister in particular on numerous occasions that we can expect changes or a revamped version of the Young Offenders Act in the near future or, to use the minister's often quoted phrase, in a timely fashion.

Eighteen months have passed since these pronouncements were first made and this legislative initiative is still forthcoming.

The Young Offenders Act is in itself an important tool for law enforcement in the community but there are financial limitations facing our justice system.

Regardless of how the federal government proceeds with the new youth crime legislation, if it does not assume a fair share of the cost, it cannot realistically hope that the existing or any new legislation will meet the intended ends.

The Minister of Justice admitted in October that substantial extra funding is needed to successfully reinforce Canada's youth justice system. And as the minister made that promise in January to introduce new young offenders legislation, as she had on previous occasions, once again one is left to wonder when it will be coming and why in the budget this very week we do not see an indication of a government commitment to this new proposed piece of legislation.

The minister's promises in the past have proven suspect on this particular issue, so Motion No. 508 in its simplest terms is an important opportunity for this House to express its collective favour in terms of putting fair funding and fair dollars on the table when addressing the issue of youth crime.

While proposed legislative solutions vary among parties and members of this House, I hope there can be some non-partisan approach taken to this issue. The government itself has a responsibility to assume its fair share of the programs and the services that are being currently administered by the provinces to assist in the execution of federal youth crime legislation.

As most members will recall, the Young Offenders Act is relatively young legislation, having come into effect in 1984, and while the statute falls under federal jurisdiction most of the consequent services and programs for young offenders are provided by provincial and territorial governments.

The original commitment of the federal government was to share the risk of implementation of the Young Offenders Act. This included the financial risk. The federal government therefore undertook to contribute an amount approximately 50% of provincial spending on young offenders programs and services.

It should be noted that a disparity among the provinces was created by these cost sharing agreements. Prior to the Young Offenders Act the cost sharing agreement fell under the Canada assistance plan and was based on child welfare related objectives and essentially restricted to custody costs, the previous legislation being the juvenile delinquents act.

Under the original Young Offenders Act cost sharing agreements, custody costs continued to be included and the list of programs covered by the 50:50 agreement expanded to include post adjudication, detention, alternative measures, which is a more recent initiative, and bail supervision programs.

Other items such as probation and predisposition reports have been added similarly to the list of cost shareable programs and the services that were intended under this agreement.

It was the nature of that agreement whereby the federal government's contribution was determined by how much the provinces and territories would spend on federal youth offender services.

This caused a disparity which I referred to. Nearly 75% of the federal dollars in the mid to late 1980s was directed to custody and custodial programming. This resulted in less federal support for provinces with lower custody rates.

Because different provinces and territories obviously have different priorities, the federal government should not financially punish those jurisdictions for focusing on non-custodial programs which is what I see as implicit in the budget.

I must stress, however, that in negotiating a new funding arrangement the federal government should likewise not punish provinces that favour custody in their approach to enforcement of the Young Offenders Act or the equivalent youth crime legislation whenever that may come.

Equity and a level standard approach is what is desirable in the final analysis. I should note that I specifically left out any reference to funding formula mechanisms, the reason being that I do not want this debate to become bogged down in custodial arrangements versus alternative measures. That debate would be for another time.

This motion deals with global funding which, regardless of the funding formula, heavily penalizes the provinces and territories. When the original cost sharing agreement expired in 1989 the federal government of the day, facing serious fiscal problems, froze its future share of the cost sharing program at the funding level.

That, I will admit, was a Progressive Conservative government but the funding was frozen at the levels which existed at that time and the amount that was set aside at that time was $156 million.

Although admittedly a Conservative government along with the actual funding cuts in subsequent years, and I refer specifically to 1996-97 when 3.9% of that original cost sharing was cut and 3.5% in 1998-99, the overall federal share of eligible provincial costs on young offenders programs fell an average of approximately 30%. In actual dollars that translated into a little less than $145 million.

Although the federal government froze and then cut its financial contributions, the nature of the funding formula remained intact, resulting in a persisting disparity between the provinces.

Regardless of the disparity the fact remains that all provincial and territorial jurisdictions have suffered at the hands of the federal government's decision. This is another example of federal downloading that needs to be corrected before any realistic overhaul of the Young Offenders Act can happen. The provinces and territories are rightfully upset by the abandonment of the federal government. They are funding the majority of the costs and on a national overall average they are funding 70% of the young offenders programs which are constitutionally a federal responsibility.

It is no wonder that a level of animosity then emerges from these provincial-federal talks, in particular in the area of justice.

Meanwhile the federal government only covers 16% of the cost of provincially mandated programs such as health care, post-secondary education and social assistance. Is it any wonder that provinces are now clamouring that the share of the young offenders programs, which they assert is a federal responsibility, be allocated on a similar scale?

Simply put, the provinces are encouraging the federal government to revert to at least a 50:50 basis with future federal funding arrangements reflecting a reverse share of the federal-provincial funding for health care and social programs instead of a 30% share which they are currently carrying.

What this would demand is dollars. By my calculations the federal government is covering 30% of the costs which are set at approximately $144 million this fiscal year, and an 84% share would come to around $400 million annually. But we know, as a result of the budget, that this will not happen.

An honourable and reasonable compromise to this would be for the federal government to commit to returning to the 50% share that it once assumed. We are not suggesting that this would happen overnight. In actual spending this would amount to roughly $240 million. The wording of Motion No. 508 is such that it would allow the federal government to phase in its increase in spending. The details and timeframe would be negotiated through a new cost sharing arrangement between the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

Sadly, if one believes recent articles in the Post , the minister has ruled out any return to the level of funding that was provided in the past.

I am left to believe that the federal government will not resume a 50% share of the federal Young Offenders Act or whatever form it takes any time soon. Hopefully the Liberal member designated to speak, the parliamentary secretary, will clarify this assertion by the minister that there is no intention on the part of this government to return to its rightful share. There appears to be no logical reason why the federal government would not assume its fair portion. After all, the federal government's credibility, and especially that of the minister, appears to be extremely suspect by the majority of Canadians and by the majority of provincial and territorial governments on this issue.

Beyond the youth crime issue itself there is a litany of other issues where the federal Liberal government has disappointed its provincial and territorial counterparts.

Four provinces and two territories representing almost 55% of Canada's population have filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the Liberal government's Firearms Act. This does not bode well for the confidence that these provinces hold in their federal counterpart.

I am sure the province of Nova Scotia will be adding its name to that list of those challenging the act when it elects a Conservative government. It is a very questionable set of priorities when it comes down to an issue as fundamental as the Young Offenders Act and the federal government's abdication of its responsibility.

Another example of this abdication comes from the call of at least four provinces for the establishment of a national sex offender registry. Once more we have seen the federal government being very slow to act let alone react to calls for such a registry. It is something I have followed closely. Colleagues on this side of the House have tried to get the attention of the federal government on a number of justice issues only to be rebuffed with the response that the government has its own agenda which it is committed to following.

It is therefore equally important in timing when one looks at the crisis facing our current law enforcement community, in particular the RCMP, with respect to the funding costs it has undergone since the Liberals were elected in 1994. RCMP Commissioner Phil Murray has admitted the force cannot continue to function with its current funding and that an underfunding of the RCMP affects provincial and municipal governments. This again represents a form of downloading. The CPIC system has been described as rusting out. This is the CPIC system which would now also carry the additional burden of gun registry and DNA databank legislation. It is like putting more and more weight on a tired old mule, and that is going to collapse. When the RCMP problems were particularly acute in British Columbia, that province's attorney general mused about the establishment of a new provincial police force in British Columbia.

Then there is the issue of replacement legislation for the Young Offenders Act. I have spoken to the delay and to the continual promise that this is coming. These promises and the broken promises are not new to this government. Many of the recommendations put forward by the opposition in committee were not adopted by the current government.

In December 1997 the federal Minister of Justice met with her provincial and territorial counterparts at the annual meeting. She promised at that time there would be new young offender legislation coming at their next meeting. That meeting has come and gone. She showed up with empty hands. The legislation was not there and it is still not before the Canadian people. When the federal Minister of Justice met with her counterparts at the end of October 1998 she showed up with empty hands.

I urge all members to join with me in supporting this motion, in bringing it forward for debate and in placing a high priority on the federal government's assuming its official responsibility with respect to the funding of the legislation that is forthcoming for the current Young Offenders Act in its present form.

[Apec Inquiry, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government will claim that it has transformed the APEC inquiry into a transparent truth seeking process. However, with the greatest respect to Justice Hughes, a full judicial inquiry would best accomplish this. The chair has stated that he will go where the evidence leads, perhaps to 24 Sussex. He wishes to make it a true and open process.

The question that remains is simple. Will the Prime Minister agree to testify under oath to his actions at the APEC summit?

[Apec Inquiry, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the solicitor general bowed to public pressure and the urgings of Justice Hughes to finally pay the legal fees of the student complainants at the APEC inquiry. Although the government lawyers outnumber those of the students by 25 to 2, at least after 12 days the solicitor general finally read the writing on the wall. Delay and deny have become trademarks of the Liberal government.

Will the solicitor general now indicate just how much the government is willing to spend to ensure fairness? If he is not willing to so indicate, will he tell us when he will?

[Criminal Code, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased as well to rise in the House and have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code as it relates to genetic manipulation or what is more commonly known as human cloning.

I look forward to taking part in this debate. This is a very laudable initiative that has been taken by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois. The amendment is one that has been clarified by her remarks and by the amendment put forward, and the bill is certainly a very positive one that we in the Progressive Conservative Party embrace.

I commend the member for Drummond for her efforts in sponsoring the bill. The issues surrounding human cloning and development to the use of reproductive technologies touch upon many moral and ethical concerns, but we in parliament cannot shy away from challenges that are presented by the leaps and bounds presently occurring in scientific research.

As mentioned by other speakers, Bill C-247 would amend the Criminal Code by adding after section 286 a prohibition for genetic manipulation that leads to human cloning. This in and of itself is an important and necessary step.

It is no easy task to bring forward a private member's bill, particularly to this stage in the legislative process. Bill C-247 is a very timely motion in light of recent technological developments that have resulted in, among other things, the first successful cloning of sheep. I am not talking here about the new Liberal re-election strategy.

As was once thought impossible becomes reality, we as lawmakers must be prepared to act in advance of other new reproductive and genetic technologies, which are NRGTs for short.

While not making too partisan a point I wish to point to the former Progressive Conservative government's positive contribution to this issue. When our party formed the government we had the foresight to lay the groundwork on the development of policy options which reflect on this matter.

In 1989 the P.C. government of the day established a royal commission on new reproductive technologies chaired by Patricia Baird. The Baird commission's mandate was to examine the social, medical, legal, ethical, economic and research implications for new reproductive and genetic technologies with particular regard to their implications for women, reproductive health and well-being.

Following extensive consultation with Canadians the Baird commission report tabled its findings and the new Liberal government in November 1993 had that in hand. That was five years ago. Now the commission has highlighted the need for the federal government to adopt a comprehensive public policy on new reproductive and genetic technologies.

In response to the Baird commission the Liberal government announced a voluntary moratorium on NRGTs in 1995 and that continues to stand today. As other members have pointed out, the effectiveness of this moratorium has been seriously undermined due to its voluntary nature.

In 1996, for the record, the Liberals recognized the weakness of the moratorium and introduced Bill C-47, the Human Reproductive and Genetic Technologies Act. This law prohibited 13 specific practices: the cloning of human embryos; the buying and selling of eggs, sperm and embryos including their exchange for goods and services for other benefits; germ line genetic alterations; the transfer of embryos between humans and other species; the creation of human animal hybrids; and the use of human sperm eggs or embryos for assisted human reproductive procedures or for medical research without the informed consent of the donor or donors.

Those were among the initiatives. This comprehensive list was certainly a welcome attempt to restrict the misuse of new reproductive technologies. However sadly the bill died on the order paper.

The Liberal government committed to developing in consultation with the provinces, territories and stakeholders additional legislative means. However that did not occur. The Liberals did not consider Bill C-47 to be a priority and since it died on the order paper, we have not seen any reintroduction. I again commend the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois for taking such initiative.

Furthermore, as with so many other pieces of important legislation that died on the order paper from the previous government, the Liberals have yet to introduce anything even remotely similar to Bill C-47. We have remained in a vacuum with nothing but a flimsy, practical, unenforceable moratorium.

Thankfully the member for Drummond has taken this initiative and has attempted to fill the void left by the government's inaction. Thankfully it appears that the government is prepared to put partisanship aside and support this worthwhile measure.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party I am pleased to reiterate our support for Bill C-247. This legislation draws a very clear line in the Criminal Code against human cloning. There is a very eerie and perhaps unnatural black hole that we must be cautious about leaping into without knowledge of where we are going.

It is important to note that although Bill C-247 is an important first step to fill the void left by the Liberals, there are plenty of other legislative initiatives that have to be taken by the government.

Indeed out of the 13 specific procedures that would have been prohibited by the government's legislation in the last parliament, only two are proposed for prohibition under Bill C-247. Furthermore, this bill does not include a national regulatory regime with a mandate to enforce controls on improper genetic testing.

The Liberal government, therefore, has an obligation to introduce a comprehensive piece of legislation similar in content to what was introduced in the previous parliament. This would build on the great merits that are presently before the House in the means of Bill C-247.

Along with completing the work that has been commenced by the member for Drummond, any legislation from the government should also reflect the emerging consensus for a national regulatory regime to manage the field of reproductive and genetic technologies. This regime must also be managed in a way that will protect the health and safety for those most affected and those most affected, as was previously referred to by the member from the New Democratic Party, are for the most part women. Women are the ones who will be most affected by this area of scientific change.

We are approaching the third anniversary of this government's tabling of the Human Reproductive and Genetics Technologies Act. In light of this dubious anniversary, I hope the government will soon stop dragging its heels on this important issue and follow the example set by the member for Drummond and introduce wide ranging legislation to control new reproductive and genetic technologies.

The health minister was very active, although perhaps misdirected, in his previous portfolio as minister. I encourage him to start moving in the direction set by the member for Drummond.

I commend the member for this action. I give her the support of the Progressive Conservative Party and we hope this bill will receive the unanimous support of all members in this House.