Peter MacKay

[Justice, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Ontario Court of Appeal refused a request to unseal Justice Fred Kaufman's report into the 1959 murder conviction of Steven Truscott. The court said the report's contents are a matter of public interest but are protected by solicitor-client privilege that only the Minister of Justice can waive.

Steven Truscott, who has the most to lose if this information is prejudicial to his case, has called for the release of that report. In the interests of the public, will the Minister of Justice waive the privilege so Canadians can finally see the material that the judge and the minister himself concluded was a miscarriage of justice for Steven Truscott?

[Air-India Flight 182, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on this national day of mourning, we remember the lives of those lost on flight 182, 20 years ago today. On behalf of the Conservative Party, I want to offer our sympathy, condolences and prayers for the families of the 329 victims of this horrific terror.

We offer our condolences to the families of the victims of this tragedy.

Neither the passing of years nor the machinery of state have provided answers to those whose lives who were changed forever on June 23, 1985.

Twenty years ago, families were ripped apart and forever altered by that deadly explosion over the cold North Atlantic waters off the coast of Ireland.

It was the worst terrorist act originating in Canada in our nation's history. An evil act of indiscriminate terror killed someone's child, someone's mother, someone's father, someone's family. Over 80 children were killed. Six parents lost all their children and over 20 complete families were killed.

An act of pure evil and indiscriminate terror still wounds the entire Canadian community. This assault on sensibility is an open wound with no answers still, and no justice for those whose family members or friends we remember at this time.

We share with the families in the memory of their lost loved ones.

We do so in full frustration that many questions still remain unanswered. These questions deserve to be answered and all of us need to know that our government, our country, has done its all to find out what happened.

Most important, who committed this crime? Who caused this slaughter of innocents? Were there any failures by anyone in authority who might have altered this sad history?

In recent years, we have come to realize that not all matters of security can be examined in public, but they must be examined by competent and trustworthy individuals. Important questions have to be answered, and whenever possible, they must be answered publicly.

People in my home province of Nova Scotia, particularly around Peggy's Cove, were similarly confronted with a tragic disaster in 1998, which also resulted in a great loss of life. The Swissair crash forever changed the lives of families of victims but also of those who lived in surrounding areas.

Therefore, I want to remember and thank the people of Ireland, who cared for the remains of the victims of this murder and honour their memories still. They have for 20 years cared for the families of the victims. As they gathered with family, friends and officials, the people of Ireland demonstrated again at the service, as they have for over 20 years, their sympathy and support at a critical moment of remembrance. Today we thank them for their compassion and their humanity.

But above all, by remembering the victims murdered on Flight 182 on June 23, 1985, we accept our collective responsibility to them and to their families to see that difficult questions are asked and answered.

Today we honour the memory of their souls. We offer our compassion to those who have experienced enormous grief and heartbreaking losses yet have carried on with courage and conviction, determined to seek the truth and find justice, and ensure, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, that a tragedy such as this never happens again.

I am reminded of a poignant expression which tells us that in order to lose someone we must first have had them, and so the magnitude of one's loss becomes the measure of life's gifts.

[The Budget, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what unadulterated nonsense from the Minister of Finance, knowing his own party dithered on these bills.

In the other place Liberals are deliberately delaying the passage of their own bill and the Atlantic accord to step up pressure to pass the NDP add-on, prop-up bill.

Let us be clear. The Liberal Party is now cutting deals with the separatists to appease the socialists to support its corrupt government. Again, the government is in bed with the Bloc and nuzzling the NDP.

Why is the government playing political footsies with its new friends, and partisan games with Atlantic Canada and the lives of Atlantic Canadians?

[The Budget, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that a House leader would suggest that the Senate could deal with a bill that it does not have.

Conservative Senators proposed fast tracking Bill C-43, the original budget, so that it could be passed in one day. In fact, that would have meant that the offshore royalties to Atlantic Canada could begin flowing today. It is costing Newfoundland and Labrador $132,000 a day and Nova Scotia $55,000 a day in lost interest.

Why is the Prime Minister allowing his Liberal dominated Senate to punish Atlantic Canada by delaying the benefits of the Atlantic accord? Will the government pay the lost interest to those provinces due to his deliberate disingenuous dithering?

[The Budget, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the Prime Minister was not serious when he said that it is time to put politics aside and pass the budget. The Liberal leader in the Senate is cynically playing politics with the government's own budget bill by holding up its passage. It proves again that the say anything, do anything, deceitful Prime Minister will do anything to cling to power.

The Prime Minister has his leader in the Senate deliberately slowing down the passage of the budget bill until the NDP add-on Bill C-48 passes. His mismanagement of the House has led to the impasse.

Why is he now punishing Atlantic Canadians to achieve his own partisan political gain?

[Ethics, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Andrew Stark, a University of Toronto professor and noted expert on conflict of interest, said it was puzzling that the Ethics Commissioner was not investigating the Prime Minister's chief of staff for his involvement in MP vote buying for rewards.

Mr. Stark noted that the commissioner has just completed a report that investigated both the minister and her ministerial staff and that his refusal to investigate PMO chief of staff Tim Murphy is “inconsistent with what he's just done”.

Given the latest ethics report on Liberal wrongdoings, can the Prime Minister clarify whether he and his staff are subject to the conflict of interest code, and if so, why are they not being investigated? Why the special treatment? More who you know in the PMO?

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. Prior to the election, the former minister vowed she would never use temporary resident permits for election purposes. Au contraire: it comes to light that during the campaign 128 permits were granted by the minister, 74 of 76 were supported by Liberal MPs, 43 were authorized in the last week of the federal campaign alone, and four of those permits were issued to friends of the minister's campaign worker.

Why, I ask again, did the government so blatantly abuse the ministerial permit process for partisan purposes during the last campaign? Why?

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner's shady grey report on the former minister of immigration is black and white about one thing: issuing of temporary resident permits by the former minister during the election campaign was a clear violation of the conflict of interest code.

The commissioner writes that “the permits themselves seemed available...to the relatives and associates of those who were assisting the re-election campaign”.

Manipulating the process is the Liberal way. Why has this ethically challenged government allowed our immigration system to be abused in such a crass and partisan political way?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it seems inconceivable to me that the NDP would be advocating such an approach because, as he said, of the importance of the jobs and the importance to the community for individuals who are working in unions and, in particular, in the auto sector. They need that company to thrive and prosper. If the company does well, then the employees do well. It seems very much out of step with reality.

What is most difficult to comprehend is that the Minister of Finance himself was so clearly committed to this in the original budget and then he swallowed himself whole. Ralph the wonder invisible dog swallowed himself whole and committed to letting the NDP set the stage for the budget which did away with the tax cuts that would have helped the auto industry, my colleague's constituents included, and instead abandoned all principle to cling to power. That is what it was about.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has worked very hard on this particular issue and, as usual, his diligence has paid off in that much of his digging has uncovered the government's secret plan to close many of these experimental research farms which do, as he said, provide vital research and vital information to farmers who are combating many challenging times in terms of plague and viruses affecting animals. We have seen the effects that can result from terrible afflictions, such as BSE, and the impact they have on the entire agriculture sector. However it goes beyond that. All resource sectors were ignored in this particular add on budget on the part of the NDP and the Liberals.

Agriculture, a vital sector of our economy that provides food and that provides so much in terms of employment, lifestyle and a basic way of life for Canadians, has been completely ignored in the priorities set out in Bill C-48.

In regard to the member's question, the government and the minister from the area have been completely disingenuous in suggesting that closing the experimental farm in Kentville was just an off the cuff suggestion from the department. This was a concrete plan to withdraw funding and to eventually close the research station in Kentville, just as my colleague has seen in his own riding with the Nappan Experimental Farm. Commitments were made, then commitments were withdrawn and that facility is slated to close. That is very disingenuous to Canadians and the agriculture sector that relies heavily on that facility for the important research that it needs.

It is like withdrawing money from education or health care. Agriculture is a stable part of the economy of Nova Scotia as it is throughout the country. However the government seems to be blind in its misspent priorities and its complete adherence to the one priority, which is to cling to power at all costs. The Liberals will make whatever deal they have to make with the NDP or others to cling to power at all costs in order to preserve a hold over the partisanship that allows them to make appointments and control the industries and the ministries.

The government is out of step with Canadians, out of step in its priorities and is certainly letting Canadians down, particularly in our area when it withdraws funding from important research centres like the one my colleague has mentioned.