Peter MacKay

[Public Safety, October 25th, 2005]

More dithering confusion, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday during Toronto rush hour traffic, another gunfight erupted. That is the third shootout in as many days, 40 since July. The Prime Minister cynically blames the Americans and links it to guns flowing across the border, yet less than two months ago the Deputy Prime Minister said there was no evidence of increased gun smuggling and that blaming the Americans is “simplistic”.

Gun battles are erupting almost daily and the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister cannot shoot straight. Can the Prime Minister explain why he blatantly contradicts his public safety minister? Is it predictable pre-election posturing? Is it Liberal anti-Americanism? Or did he just read another poll?

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member knows that how to get things done is to actually take action. What has been missing on this file is the Prime Minister himself, as he is missing tonight, missing in action, not taking action. It is all about photo ops as opposed to follow ups.

I visited the Windsor crossing this summer with my colleague from Essex. One of the most apparent things there is the issue of the Ambassador Bridge. People can drive onto the bridge from either side without being stopped until they are encountered on the other side. Reverse clearance would simply address this issue but yet again on such a critical issue, where $1 billion in trade a day takes place, the government is doing nothing.

My colleague talks about rhetoric. The air has been thick with rhetoric tonight from the government side and yet it was not until my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest, as was pointed out, the chair of the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association, took the initiative to bring this matter before Parliament. It was not the government that initiated this important debate.

Some of the other important groups, like Canadian-American Border Trade Alliance, have been talking about this issue. Members of the opposition have been talking about this issue, certainly those affected on both sides of the border. Businesses, individuals, Canadians and Americans both are concerned and yet where is the big, gaping, vacuous hole in the debate? It is the Prime Minister, as he is on so many important issues, until a poll might be done to tell him what to do.

This is not the time to dilly-dally any further or to dither away on such an important matter that is going to cause catastrophic results should this legislation proceed. As my colleague has pointed out, the BSE crisis and the softwood crisis do not even compare to the impact economically that this will have, as well as the security concerns.

I ask my colleague again, as my friend from Windsor did, why has the Prime Minister waited and dithered on such an important issue knowing full well the catastrophic impact it will have on the Canadian economy? Even tonight we have nobody from the government side prepared to come forward to state unequivocally that this will be addressed with Condoleezza Rice. He is right to say that members of the Congress and members of the Senate in the United States are pulling back on this. The President himself unequivocally stated reservations about this legislation.

Where is the Prime Minister? Where is a single, solitary, on the record public statement suggesting, as my colleague from Niagara said, that we are opposed to this and that we, in no uncertain terms, recognize that this will have a terrible impact on our economy? What we have heard time and time again is the provocative, objectionable language from the government directed toward the United States, including from the ambassador recently, I am quick to add.

The Canadian ambassador suggested--wait for it--that the American government is dysfunctional. I know the American system of government is not perfect but imagine those words coming from a government in a country where we have an unelected Senate, where we do not review judicial appointments and where we have all kinds of difficulties in the government with respect to corruption. It is like the Prime Minister going to the United Nations and lecturing on corruption and keeping one's word. Can anyone imagine? Talk about taking hypocrisy to catastrophic new heights.

The government has no lessons to give the Americans when it comes to dysfunctional government. Forceful, straightforward, diplomatic language is what is needed on this file, not provocative, insulting language about the President, not the type of language that we have heard coming from members of the government benches toward the American people. That kind of objectionable language does not get us anywhere. It does not move this file or any other file forward. What it does is suggest that somehow we are preaching from the pulpit. What it truly suggests and what we know is coming in the coming days in this election is, of course, domestic politics, which is bashing the Americans for the purposes of gaining electoral support.

I ask the hon. member opposite to tell us when the Prime Minister will show up on this file.

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I compliment my colleague on his submission, as well as my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest who is really responsible for having this matter come before the House with his emergency debate application last week, which was sadly turned down by the Speaker at that time.

With respect to the documentation that my colleague suggests should be contemplated, I think the real issue here is that it should not be necessarily limited to a single document, at least not at this time. He would know that just over 40% of Canadians and somewhere in the range of 30% to 34% of Americans are currently in possession of a passport. One of the overriding concerns is that if the western hemisphere travel initiative is to come into effect within the next year or two years, as is currently legislated, there will be severe repercussions at the border, as he has suggested, with respect to trade and security.

I am quick to point out that while I agree there is a greater danger of a threat crossing from our border or likewise from the American side coming into Canada happening at a remote border crossing, it is his government that has made significant cuts in withdrawing police from rural communities, not arming our border guards, not giving them sufficient protection and training. I would also be quick to point out that it was in fact at a major crossing in British Columbia where Ahmed Ressam was stopped on the American side of the border, not the Canadian side. This is not to be alarmist or to suggest for a moment that our border agents are not doing good work and being very diligent, but we are not supporting them to the extent that we should.

I make that observation and ask my friend whether it is in fact his real belief that the documentation should be limited to one document. I hope I was mistaken in my hearing when he said that it should be a document that is simple to obtain. That would in fact undermine the entire purpose of the document itself, if it was easy to obtain. It has to be a document that is certainly secure and one that would make the greatest use of the technology that is available.

We have some very sophisticated programs, such as Sentry, NEXUS, FAST and others the member alluded to. The trouble is they are not fully implemented and integrated with the American system at this point. We are not sharing the information to the extent that we should with our own officials, let alone with their compatriots on the other side of the border.

I hope that we will hear some assurance tonight from the member or from his government that Canada and the Prime Minister in particular are going to make maximum benefit of the fact that the Secretary of State of the United States, Condoleezza Rice, is in our country, as one member so famously put it, as we speak. She is in Canada today and will be tomorrow. I hope that this issue will be brought up at those high level meetings and will be done in a diplomatic and forceful way so that the Americans understand the implications for our country and for their own. I am sure they are quickly coming to realize that the ramifications may in fact be worse on the American side of the border.

I would hope as well that we will get some guarantee from someone on the government side that the Government of Canada will be making a submission to the Department of Homeland Security, as it has requested, by October 31, which is rapidly approaching. We hope that that submission will be fulsome and forceful and that it will in fact set out Canada's position as has been solicited by Mr. Chertoff.

I am asking my hon. colleague and friend to give that assurance to the Canadian people because time is of the essence. We do not want to dither away this opportunity as has so often been the case under the woeful leadership of the Prime Minister.

[David Dingwall, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let us stick to the facts.

On the Prime Minister's instructions, David Dingwall's lawyers are negotiating with the Privy Council Office to secure his entitlements. That would include severance pay. Now he wants the possibility of his cost of living factor on top of his salary to be considered as well. The government has yet to produce all of David Dingwall's expenses. That might include other expenses that will rub Canadians the wrong way.

We know that Canadians who quit their job do not get severance. Why is the Prime Minister taking such a hands-on approach in negotiating a severance package with David Dingwall?

[David Dingwall, October 21st, 2005]

There is a buffet of baloney, Mr. Speaker.

David Dingwall clearly said at committee that he was entitled to his entitlements. That includes severance on top of everything else. There are two solitudes in Canada: hardworking, tax paying Canadians and Liberals with entitlements.

The government can produce no law that requires this severance payment, no written legal opinions, and no common law precedents, yet the Prime Minister is directing the Privy Council Office to negotiate David Dingwall's entitlements.

Why is the Prime Minister encouraging this Liberal culture of entitlement with this negotiation with David Dingwall?

[David Dingwall, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is now clear that the Prime Minister himself is directly responsible for the decision to pay David Dingwall severance for quitting his expense abusing, high paying job at the Mint. The Liberal culture of corruption has now progressed to the Liberal culture of entitlement.

The Minister of National Revenue told us yesterday that Privy Council lawyers are operating under the instructions of the Prime Minister to pay the legal minimum. Labour lawyers such as Howard Levitt and those in his own caucus have already said there is no legal requirement to pay severance to an employee if he quits.

Why exactly is the Prime Minister directing his officials to pay anything to David Dingwall?

[David Dingwall, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that all roads from Dingwall lead to the Prime Minister. They were cabinet colleagues, partners in ad scam and cooperators at the Mint. He is a bit like gum in the Prime Minister's hair or maybe the Prime Minister has gum in his pants because he cannot get out of his chair.

In praising and defending Mr. Dingwall, the Prime Minister said that under his tutelage the Mint returned a profit. He boasted of this and yet at the Mint this profit occurred while there was a contract in place with, wait for it, the Department of Finance.

Will the Prime Minister admit that the Department of Finance during his time was covering the operating costs of much of the Mint's expenses that boosted its bottom line?

[David Dingwall, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in Liberal Ottawa the truth is the first casualty when the government feels it is in danger of being held accountable or defeated.

Now the latest example is the Liberals' denial that there were severance discussions with Mr. Dingwall and yet Mr. Dingwall told us yesterday that while he did not have discussions with the PMO or the PCO specifically about severance, there were discussions about entitlement to entitlements. One man's entitlement is another man's severance.

Will the Prime Minister show some leadership, get out of his chair, come clean and finally admit that his government did indeed have severance relations with that man, Mr. Dingwall?

[Correctional Service Canada, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is sadly uninformed about her own department. Is it any wonder why Canadians are starting to think that the inmates are running the penitentiaries?

Let us look at some of the access requests that were disclosed by her department: information on the inmate phone call monitoring system; information on drug scanners and the results of these scans; and all procedures and policies related to the use of drug scanners and drug dogs checking visitors. This information could cost correctional officers their lives, and it is certainly useful for escapes.

Could the minister just explain why this information about security systems is being given to inmates? What is next, picks and shovels?

[Correctional Service Canada, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, shockingly the Liberal government is allowing prisoners to use the Access to Information Act to obtain information about prison security systems and the personal details of the guards.

Recently, a partial list of Correctional Service employees in Quebec was released to a prisoner and one guard was distraught to learn that a prisoner was attempting to get her name, rank, qualifications and where she previously worked. Guards have a legitimate concern, in particular, that prisoners may gain access to their addresses.

Why is the government making it easier for prisoners to get sensitive information about the guards that could endanger these officers and the Canadian public?