Peter MacKay

[Criminal Records Act, April 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-284. I commend the work of the member for Calgary Centre in tabling such an important piece of legislation. Bill C-284 is important in the sense that it focuses on one of the highest priorities, if not the highest priority the criminal justice system should have, which is the protection of children from abuse.

Conservative estimates indicate that one in three girls are sexually abused before the age of 18 while one in six boys are sexually abused before the age of 16. These are tragic and disturbing figures. As a former crown attorney I often dealt with cases that put a human face on these statistics.

Even more frightening is the fact that most abused and neglected children never report these incidents to the proper authorities. This is especially true of cases of sexually abused children since there may be no outward sign of the physical, psychological or emotional harm that has resulted. Furthermore, sexually abused children are often reluctant to report these crimes for they feel intense shame, and secrecy is often the result.

For these and other reasons we must focus our attention and our efforts to combat child abuse at the prevention level. It is a serious matter of public interest which Bill C-284 if passed would help to address.

As outlined by previous speakers in the House, this bill amends two existing statutes, the Criminal Records Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The amendments to the Criminal Records Act would allow for limited disclosure of criminal records of persons pardoned for sexual convictions against a child. This disclosure would occur when the pardoned person applies for a position of trust over a child. The information would be provided to those individuals with responsibility for the child who are considering such an application. Any inappropriate disclosure of information by these individuals would be subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.

Put simply, these changes would give organizations that deal with children an additional tool to scrutinize potential employees or volunteers before they are placed in positions of trust, in positions where children are most vulnerable where a relationship of trust might exist. Groups such as Scouts Canada, Girl Guides of Canada , Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Canada and minor sports teams would have access to information that is extremely relevant to the selection process they must undergo.

For those who would object on the grounds of privacy rights for pardoned offenders, I suggest they examine the reality of sexual offenders. Among criminal offenders, those convicted of sexual offences have one of the highest rates of recidivism.

Our children are far too important to risk having repeat offenders enter into positions of authority and trust. We must give child centred and youth centred organizations the tools to prevent further tragedies of sexual abuse. It is a sad irony that we presently have a government that cracks down on law-abiding gun owners and leaves tens of thousands of hepatitis victims twisting in the wind but nevertheless feels that the rights of convicted child sex offenders should take precedence over children's safety.

The second component of Bill C-284 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act. It would permit organizations to refuse to employ individuals in so-called child trust positions on the basis of persons having been pardoned of sexual offences against children. This amendment is a logical step in this bill. Once an organization has access to relevant information, it should certainly be free to act upon that relevant information without fear of reprisals.

I share the view of those who believe that rehabilitation is a laudable goal. I also believe that securing employment for offenders re-entering society is often critical to ensure that they do not become repeat offenders and that rehabilitation can occur. This in turn helps protect public safety and confidence in our criminal justice system which is something that has been sorely lacking in recent years.

However, we need to draw the line at allowing convicted sex offenders irrespective of whether they are pardoned to secretly enter into positions of trust over children. On balance it is far too important. The consequences and the potential for harm are something we really have to consider in this instance.

Canadians need peace of mind that organizations in which they entrust their children's safety have taken all precautionary steps necessary to protect their children's safety. Bill C-284 gives these organizations another very crucial weapon to fight child abuse. This bill is a reasonable compromise between the rights of offenders and the rights of society, which is something that we always wrestle with in our justice system. In particular this bill protects our most important citizens in this country, our children.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus, I urge all members to support this legislation. Let us support our volunteer driven organizations that deal with our children and the future of our country. Let us support our families and the safety of our children. Let us do it and let us do it quickly.

[Petitions, April 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to table a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of the constituents of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, specifically the Sisters of Bethany in Antigonish.

The petition states the position of the group, which opposes the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. The petitioners caution the government on the mode in which the negotiations have proceeded and request that a moratorium be placed on the ratification of the MAI until full public hearings have been held across the country so that Canadians may have an opportunity to partake in the discussions and put their opinions forward.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased, as always, to rise in the House of Commons to pledge the support of the Progressive Conservative Party for Bill C-12.

My colleagues in the Conservative caucus and I support the legislation because it expands the scope of pension benefits for many courageous Canadians who presently serve or have previously served as peacekeepers throughout the world.

Specifically Bill C-12 would provide peacekeepers who are members of the RCMP with the same pension entitlements in the event of illness, injury or death as peacekeepers from the Canadian Armed Forces. The legislation in essence is long overdue.

If Bill C-12 is adopted, provisions of the RCMP Superannuation Act would correspond exactly to provisions of the Pension Act regarding coverage and benefits for injuries, illness or deaths incurred while on peacekeeping missions. RCMP peacekeepers would therefore be put on a level playing field with all Canadian forces counterparts.

Our position in the global community is unique since for the last 40 years Canada has built a proud tradition as peacekeepers in the world. Cyprus, Egypt, Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia and Haiti are but a few of the countries where Canadian men and women have put their lives on the line to help preserve the cause of peace, proud Canadians all.

Indeed Canada has been at the forefront of developing and implementing modern peacekeeping operations in the world. This is due in no small part to the active involvement of thousands of members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Following the first 30 years of participating in peacekeeping nations and operations throughout the world the nature of Canada's peacekeeping changed. In 1989 RCMP officers were deployed to Namibia, the former southwest Africa, as it made its transition from the South African protectorate to an independent and democratic nation.

No longer would peacekeeping remain the sole domain of the Canadian forces. These brave men and women who will henceforth have support from their peacekeeping colleagues in the RCMP will continue to do Canada's work abroad.

Since 1989 more than 600 members of the RCMP have participated in United Nations missions to the former Yugoslavia, Haiti and Rwanda. I personally have had the pleasure of knowing a member who took part in such a mission. From the constituency of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, Guy Piché, a member of the Stellarton RCMP detachment and a dedicated officer, served his country proudly in Haiti.

The RCMP has successfully complemented the Canadian Armed Forces and their involvement in peacekeeping. By expanding upon the earlier successes of Canadian forces in many of the world's trouble spots, RCMP members have met the demand for peacekeepers in developing nations.

We should pause for a moment and reflect on what peacekeeping means. It is more than a buzzword. Peacekeeping means providing tools to developing countries to help support a stable and democratic government, namely an effective security force in place which will ensure and respect human rights and dignity.

RCMP members avail themselves to provide skill training in areas such as investigation, first aid and case management. They have also provided monitoring for individual officers and monitoring for development of civilian peace officers.

Finally peacekeeping includes maintaining a safe and secure environment in which developing peace forces can operate without fear of reprisals. The last element of peacekeeping is probably the most dangerous for those in the RCMP. Like their Canadian forces colleagues in the traditional peacekeeping settings, RCMP officers will face violent opposition to their presence in some instances. They will place themselves in harm's way because of warring factions. This is the ultimate in bravery in the fight against unruly forces.

United Nations and the bill define these peacekeeping locations as special area duties. The everyday reality is much more precise. These are deeply troubled areas in which Canadians are putting themselves at grave risk of injury, illness or death for the cause of peace.

For these reasons the intent of the legislation, to put Canadian forces and RCMP personnel on an equal footing with respect to the Pension Act, is certainly a positive one, which I feel should receive priority and attention from the House and from the Senate.

I should note, however, that the situation of imbalance between Canadian forces peacekeeping benefits and the RCMP peacekeeping benefits was neither planned nor deliberate. It occurred under the evolution of Canada's international military and security role during this century.

At the beginning of the 20th century there was no such thing as peacekeeping. Soldiers for the peacekeeping force were, merely by the absence of full scale war, doing their duty abroad. Such a war became a reality in the first world war in which Canada paid dearly with the price of the lives of many of the young generation of Canadians who took part.

In the wake of the first world war's carnage, the government of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden introduced the Pension Act, which provided compensation for disability and death related to service in Canadian forces. The Pension Act, however, maintained a fundamental distinction in the eligibility of benefits between wartime and peacetime military service. That distinction remained almost 80 years later.

Put simply, if an injury, illness or death was attributed to or incurred during the first or second world war, a pension shall be awarded under section 21 of the act. This was around the clock coverage. Peacetime service would result in the same benefit as wartime service, only if it could be established that the injury, illness or death was sustained on duty and attributed to service. The difference was clear. If there existed a state of war, 24 hour coverage was provided. However for anything less much stricter restrictions would apply.

After the second world war Canada continued to be involved in international military operations during peacetime such as in Korea and the Persian gulf. Canada also introduced and executed the innovative notion of peacekeeping which nonetheless placed Canadian forces personnel in hazardous conditions not normally associated with traditional peacekeeping service.

In response to that evolution, the federal government introduced the Appropriation Act No. 10, 1964. The bill then allowed cabinet, through order in council, to designate special duty areas outside Canada in which members of the armed forces would be eligible for the same pension benefits as under section 21 of the Pension Act.

In other words, there was 24 hour coverage for Canadian forces personnel in these special designated duty areas, whether in military operations such as in Korea or the Persian gulf or peacekeeping activities such as in the Middle East or the former Yugoslavia.

Various governments have issued more than two dozen such designations. Our Canadian forces personnel have therefore been eligible for pension benefits in the event of illness, injury or death incurred in these special duty areas.

The RCMP meanwhile have been eligible for the same pension benefits as those listed under section 21(2) of the Pension Act, but the illness, injury or death provisions incurred through peacetime military service was deemed to be equivalent to illness, injury or death entitlements for members of the RCMP.

The principle was confirmed under the RCMP Act in 1984 and confirmed in the first RCMP Superannuation Act in 1959. This was a logical provision for the domestic RCMP service. In an area such as Canada where peace is the rule, it makes perfectly good sense to link this type of pension eligibility to duty rather than to service.

Therefore in special duty areas peace is the exception and not the rule. That is why the federal government, I surmise, has changed the pension eligibility rules for Canadian forces personnel which were in effect for 30 years. I suspect that is why the federal government must now change the pension eligibility rules for RCMP personnel who are now very much an integral part of Canada's international commitment to peacekeeping.

This is the sole purpose behind Bill C-12. For the reasons I outlined, it is with pleasure that I pledge the support of the Conservative caucus in a very non-partisan way. I suspect that this will be of tremendous benefit to existing members of the RCMP and future generations who partake in this very noble duty abroad and within Canada.

[Firearms, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we get the same non-answers every time we ask this question.

In light of the recent suggestion that the Canadian Police Association may withdraw its support of gun registration, I ask the Prime Minister if he will speak with Department of Justice officials and ask them to issue a clarification in the Alberta court case which outlines the RCMP's concerns with respect to the faulty firearms facts.

[Firearms, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think she had it right. But it may be mythology.

I attended a briefing yesterday by the minister's officials in which the RCMP were in attendance. They refused at that time to sign an affidavit which would justify those figures.

I am asking again, will the Minister of Justice or her departmental officials agree to withdraw the information or at least correct it on the record before the Alberta Court of Appeal?

[Firearms, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is an old legal maxim stating that withholding the truth suggests falsehood. I would like to return to the flawed information used by the Department of Justice to justify gun registration.

Last summer the RCMP commissioner raised serious concerns about incorrect public policy resulting from firearm statistics.

In the name of integrity, will the Prime Minister advise whether the misleading information used six times before the Alberta Court of Appeal will be corrected?

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, April 2nd, 1998]

With respect to the Canada-Nova Scotia Infrastructure Works program: ( a ) what projects have been approved under this program since June 2, 1997; ( b ) what was the location of each approved project; and ( c ) what was the financial contribution made by the Government of Canada for each approved project?

Return tabled.

[Committees Of The House, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me real pleasure to speak on this matter. The motion put forward by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville is a very important one and one that should cause a great deal of concern on all sides of the House.

Obviously there is a great deal of information that has come to light in recent days, the correspondence that has been read into the record, the references to the fact that the RCMP commissioner and members of the RCMP are questioning the validity and the accuracy of the statistics, the very statistics used for the justification of this bill.

This bill was contentious without any of this new information that has suddenly come to light. Equally troubling is that representations were made by the Department of Justice to the Alberta Court of Appeal. Four provinces and two territories are currently debating the constitutionality of Bill C-68.

I take the hon. member's reference to the six times these statistics were referred to in the pleadings at the Alberta Court of Appeal. The mere thought that members of the justice department may have knowingly made reference to these statistics alone is cause for us to slow down and take a second look before this proceeds any further.

This is an incredible revelation to think that this could have knowingly occurred. If the RCMP made reference back in July to the department, the commissioner took the time and effort to write to the minister or the deputy minister bringing this to their attention, telling them that he in fact did not in essence want the RCMP's name associated with these statistics.

Let's face it, the RCMP's name being associated with these statistics and the weight that was placed on that by the Department of Justice in justifying its position on Bill C-68 could be one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated on the Canadian people.

This is a very serious allegation and we cannot go any further until we get to the bottom of this.

The Minister of Justice has suggested that there is a methodological approach that would explain this difference and how these statistics were spun by the department and that this would somehow counteract the RCMP's contention that there is a real discrepancy here. It does not take a great deal of in-depth knowledge of criminal law to see that the discrepancy here cannot be accounted for by a minor methodological approach in the explanation of the use of long guns in violent crime.

Statistics are available. The RCMP is questioning these statistics. It is now saying that it accepts the process that may have taken place, but the process is yet unknown. We have not heard from the Department of Justice on what has transpired specifically between the RCMP and its department to explain the difference in the figures. I believe this is where we have to go next before we proceed any further with this very contentious piece of legislation.

[Income Tax Act, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very intently to the comments by the hon. member from Yorkton—Melville as well as to the parliamentary secretary.

I rise on the same subject matter. It has been brought to the House's attention that the data on which Bill C-68 has been based are seriously flawed. On July 21, 1997 the commissioner of the RCMP wrote to the deputy minister of justice informing him that the RCMP data used by the government and by the department officials during the debate over Bill C-68 were in fact flawed.

This is shocking. The statistics that were put forward and the references in both letters mentioned by the hon. member in the opposition set out that there is a serious problem here that has to be addressed. The commissioner states unequivocally that the incorrect reporting of the RCMP statistics could cause wrong public policy or laws to be developed and cause researchers to draw erroneous conclusions. That was in July 1997.

There is a lot of water under the bridge and a lot of things have happened since that time, including a challenge to the Supreme Court of Alberta by four provinces and two territories.

The serious question is have those statistics been put before the Alberta Court of Appeal without qualification, without correction if that is what is necessary? This is a very serious matter if that is in fact what has happened.

The allegations by the commissioner himself that they do not want the RCMP name attached to these statistics unless corrections are made speak in and of themselves to the confidence that the RCMP has in these statistics. Yet there is no disclosure, there is no open dialogue here on the part of the government. What we are getting here is that the RCMP is now satisfied, or certain members may be satisfied.

We want to know what has transpired from the time the commissioner wrote to the minister or deputy minister and what is this talk of methodological difference or somehow this has been glossed over. What does methodological difference mean? Does that mean economical with the truth? Does that mean these statistics have been used to spin a certain purpose or a certain objective?

There are many concerns that arise out of this bill, not the least of which is the broad widespread opposition that exists in rural parts of Canada.

The cost element again is something that has been exposed as being completely erroneous. The government suggested that it is going to cost $48 million. It has already exceeded $100 million. It is going to exceed $500 million.

Recent information that has surfaced and been brought forward to the House must cause the government serious concern. There are questions that have to be answered by the minister or by the government. If the conclusions that have been drawn, conclusions the government wanted Canadians to draw, are based on seriously flawed statistics that do not truly represent the incidence of violent crime and the use of firearms in the country, that is something that has to be addressed and has to be corrected soon.

The e-mails and letters that have been sent back and forth between various government officials and members of the RCMP have to be looked at in a very close and meticulous way before we go any further with this piece of legislation.

The minister has a duty to the House of Commons and she has a duty as a lawyer to slow the process down and give Canadians the truth on what has taken place in this process.

As a member of the opposition it is my responsibility to ask questions. As members of the government it is their responsibility to give us answers, and truthful ones.

[National Defence Act, March 19th, 1998]

He fired me.