Peter MacKay

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government's solution to the problems in our national police force has been to commission a $1 million study to review the RCMP's mandate.

The problem is not the mandate but the lack of funding provided by the government to the RCMP for national policing. While the U.S. state department has deemed Canada a haven for organized crime, the government has slashed the RCMP budget by $174 million since 1994.

When will the solicitor general use his power at the cabinet table and immediately restore funding to the RCMP to ensure adequate protection for Canadians?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the proud tradition of the RCMP, an internationally respected institution, is being destroyed by the Liberal government.

Spending this year for our national police force has been cut by $89 million. As a result the RCMP training academy in Regina has closed and detachments all over the country are running by skeleton crews.

The government has consistently pursued wasteful spending policies to the detriment of all Canadians.

Will the solicitor general sit idly by and watch our national police force deteriorate beyond repair? What is he going to do?

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to pose a question to the member opposite.

I listened carefully to the comments of several members today including the member opposite from Scarborough Southwest. He commented specifically about the fact that he was present in the House when this legislative change was first inserted in the Criminal Code. That was done by a Conservative government.

The motion yesterday was brought forward by the Conservatives and similarly received unanimous support of the House. I believe there is room for some common ground and some compromise on this issue. I am referring to a middle ground with respect to positions that have been outlined throughout the day by various members.

The Reform Party has proposed what I think is fair to characterize as a fairly extreme response. Given the emotion that is wrapped up in this issue, its seriousness and the implications thereof, that is not outlandish. However, the previous speaker indicated quite clearly that there is a need for rational response. There is a need for due process, a word the minister has used throughout the day.

In all sincerity, I ask the member, is there not a compromise in a referral to the Supreme Court of Canada? That is a response that would leave it in the hands of the judiciary, which is not always embraced by the Reform Party. There is a cynicism that exists in that regard, but it would expedite matters.

We all know the old maxim about delay being the deadliest form of denial. We have seen denial by the government. We saw denial in the late intervention with respect to the referendum. We saw delay with respect to the introduction of changes to the Young Offenders Act.

Would this not be an infinitely reasonable solution for the Minister of Justice to act now with legislative authority from the supreme court act and the Criminal Code to refer this matter of extreme importance to the Supreme Court of Canada where nine judges of the highest court in the land could pass judgment on the issue and we would have a definitive answer?

Then we would also have the fallback position that is being proposed by the Reform Party that if need be at that time this measure, which could be described as perhaps too extreme' could then be invoked.

Let us leave the word pedophelia and all the emotion out of it. There is a need for timeliness here and that has not been the government's trademark. Would the solution not be to go to the Supreme Court of Canada?

[Points Of Order, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking for clarification from the Chair on an apparent ruling that took place during question period. It was with respect to a question posed by the hon. member for West Nova to the minister.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague the member for Shefford not only for her remarks but also for her earlier intervention. Yesterday she put before the House of Commons a motion which received unanimous consent and which basically affirmed and reassured Canadians that section 163 of the Criminal Code is something this House of Commons respects.

She put very bluntly before the House the question that needs to be asked and that is, when is the government going to take a proactive approach to this? This is not something we should be waiting for. We should not be sitting on our heels waiting for the B.C. Court of Appeal to rule again, perhaps incorrectly. That matter will be decided.

This is something where the Minister of Justice and the government must intervene quickly. Pornography, particularly child pornography, has to been seen as a rot or a rust on the morals of this country.

Does the hon. member not feel that the quickness and the need for intervention for the protection of our most vulnerable citizens, children, is not something that would warrant the government to move on quickly, either through a supreme court reference or through the motion that is presently before the House?

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his remarks. The analogy of nuclear deterrent is a very good one.

Would there be support in his party, and I do not want to characterize this as a halfway measure, for the initiative by this government to send this question directly to the Supreme Court of Canada where it is not taken immediately out of the hands of the court system? We should encourage faith in our system and give Supreme Court of Canada judges an opportunity to rule again on this issue. I say again because there already has been direction from the supreme court on this issue. Would the hon. member and his party support that initiative which was asked of the Minister of Justice yesterday?

[Justice, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, most Canadians were shocked and outraged in the wake of a B.C. justice's ruling dismissing charges of possession of child pornography as unconstitutional.

There is an urgent need for clarification for law enforcement agents, the judiciary and all Canadians. The protection of children afforded by section 163 of the Criminal Code should be paramount.

Will the Minister of Justice do more than simply intervene in the B.C. appeal and will she reference the Sharpe case to the Supreme Court of Canada immediately?

[Apec Inquiry, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my direct question to the solicitor general is, will he give this House the assurance that there has been no ongoing influence by him or his government over the Liberals' friend Shirley Heafey who has been appointed and over her decisions as chair of this commission?

[Apec Inquiry, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, is that not a trite answer. I can almost see the solicitor general's lips moving from the ventriloquism of the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Apec Inquiry, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I can answer that. It is because a judge would be independent.

The APEC commission has ground to a halt amidst further controversy with the main players investigating each other and exchanging allegations of bias and interference. The commission panel has become a joke with more twists than a cheap detective novel. While this makes for good drama, it is a terrible way to uncover the truth. The current process lacks the credibility and the mandate to thoroughly investigate what happened at APEC.

Will the new solicitor general show this House and Canadians that he is not just a puppet of the Prime Minister and appoint an independent judicial public inquiry?