Peter MacKay

[Apec Summit, September 30th, 1998]

The Prime Minister has already bought the loyalty of his personal protege, Jean Carle, with a patronage appointment.

[Apec Summit, September 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, would the solicitor general perhaps accept the fact Elections Canada has indicated that five members of the Public Complaints Commission made a financial donation to the Liberal Party of Canada in—

[Apec Summit, September 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, like the Prime Minister, the Solicitor General cannot or will not answer questions about APEC. He cannot cite a single section of the RCMP Act which extends the commission's mandate into the Prime Minister's office, nor can he explain to Canadians why they should trust the independence of the RCMP complaints commission which is almost entirely selected by the Prime Minister himself.

I ask the solicitor general: Why should Canadians trust a minister who understands little, says less and covers up for the Prime Minister?

[Apec Summit, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, not even the Prime Minister's imaginary homeless friend believes that the government is not involved in this APEC matter. The mandate of the RCMP Public Complaints Commissioner is not holding him back. He admitted as much yesterday in his statement.

Will he commit to making a ministerial statement in the House to convene a public inquiry if the commission confirms next week that its mandate does not include the involvement of political interference?

[Apec Summit, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last night the Prime Minister proved once and for all that his government really is the home of the whopper when he said that his government had never been involved in scandal in the last five years.

We now know that all but one of the RCMP public complaints commissioners were appointed by the Prime Minister. Why should Canadians have any faith that the public complaints commissioner will get to the bottom of the APEC peppergate scandal when this is not arm's length or accountable?

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the hon. member opposite from the Liberal Party talking about the arm's length independent relationship between the RCMP and the Prime Minister's Office and government given the facts that are now being examined regarding the APEC summit.

My question specifically relates to this legislation. I was a member of the justice committee when we debated the bill at that level. We know that DNA evidence is inculpatory as well as exculpatory. It is evidence that can be used to free individuals, not only to convict them.

The debate over intrusiveness has drawn a lot of fire from both sides of the House. Intrusiveness for whom? Intrusiveness for an individual charged and arrested? I would think that many individuals in this country, given the opportunity to clarify the situation, would voluntarily want to give their DNA if they truly felt they had nothing to do with a particular criminal matter.

My question specifically surrounds the assertion that this type of evidence is going to protect Canadians to the full extent that it could, given the fact that if an individual is picked up on a charge in one part of the country, this legislation, in its current form, will not allow the police to take a DNA sample to cross-reference it to an outstanding matter to which there may be DNA evidence at the crime scene that was entered into the DNA data bank. This hypothesis was brought forward by the police community.

If an individual is picked up in one part of the country and charged with an offence, the police cannot take the DNA. If there is existing DNA at another crime scene, a murder or a rape, the individual will be released because presumably there will be no evidence to hold him based on the seriousness of that particular crime. We do not have returnable warrants in most parts of the country, so the person can then flee the jurisdiction and therefore be held unaccountable.

This scenario is a real one. It is something that will happen without a doubt.

I ask the hon. member to address that situation and tell us how that gives any assurance whatsoever to Canadians that this legislation goes far enough to address that.

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

I am a lawyer.

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I could not help but notice that in the remarks by the hon. member there was reference made to Bill C-68. That bill can be compared to the faint hope clause because it really should be called the false hope clause. In fact, this bill is not going to do exactly what we are talking about here, protect law abiding citizens, because it is aimed specifically at law-abiding citizens.

What does the hon. member think or what is his party's position with respect to the application of the infrastructure that is now in place with respect to gun registration, the computer terminals, the hook-ups, the incredible spiralling cost that we now know exceeds $135 million or $134 million and is going to perhaps double again by the time that this is actually implemented, even with the delay that we have seen in anticipation that the Alberta Court of Appeal will strike it down some time within the next few days?

I wonder what the hon. member would say to the suggestion of applying this infrastructure, the computers, to the use of registering criminals under this new Bill C-3.

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the previous question with great interest, even more so than the response by the hon. member.

This ongoing government position really astounds me. It reflects the charter constipation that seems to exist on the government side of the House when it comes to certain important pieces of legislation.

There is a fear that somehow these judges may decide to strike down a piece of legislation because hypothetically a lawyer out there somewhere in Canada lurking in the bushes might decide to challenge based on a constitutional infringement. That is absolutely asinine. I can guarantee that it will happen because that is what lawyers do. In this instance, with regard to this particular bill, to fear that this might somehow be challenged under a charter infringement is ridiculous.

My question for the hon. member is with regard to the use of DNA data banks and when and at what point in time should the police be permitted to take this piece of evidence and use it not only in the investigation they are pursuing but also use it in comparison to the DNA data bank that will eventually come into fruition.

Why would we in this House not pursue the goal to arm the police rather than to give them a toothless piece of legislation, one that goes to some degree in the direction that we want? Why would we not go all the way with DNA? Why would we in this House not like to give the police an opportunity to do their jobs, to do the very best they can to protect Canadians in their communities and to do the very best they can to raise the alarm and work toward a justice system that truly does reflect the will and desire to protect people in their communities?

[Apec Summit, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, day after day Canadians have been forced to witness the sad spectacle of the Prime Minister cowering behind the solicitor general and his broken record responses about the independence of the APEC inquiry that is going on.

Why should Canadians have any confidence that a government that ignored the findings of the Krever commission and the findings of a human rights tribunal on pay equity will respond to any finding by that so-called independent body when it has ignored the findings of every other independent inquiry the country has had?