Peter MacKay

[Government Contracts, June 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, section 23(4) of the ethics guidelines clearly states that a minister should not hire or contract with companies where members of their immediate family are employed.

The ethics counsellor, after investigating the former Minister of Public Works and the lucrative contract received by his son's contract, did not think to check if there was a direct benefit to the minister's son. In light of new evidence showing this internal credit for Mr. Gagliano Junior, will the Prime Minister order his ethics counsellor to reopen this investigation?

[Petitions, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition deals with child pornography and calls upon Parliament to protect children and to take all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochism involving children are completely outlawed and banned by this honourable place. This petition is tabled in the name of many constituents of the Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough area.

[Petitions, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, another petition deals with the issue of muscular dystrophy, spinal cord injury, Alzheimer's, diabetes and cancer research and calls upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat these debilitating illnesses.

[Petitions, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls upon the government to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Act. This specifically deals with rural route mail couriers who often earn less than minimum wage and have working conditions reminiscent of another era. It calls upon the government to deal with the issue to improve their collective bargaining rights and conditions of their workplace.

The third petition also deals with the issue of rural route mail couriers and a repeal of section 13(5). The petitioners are from the Antigonish, Goshen and Guysborough areas.

[Petitions, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to table on behalf of my constituents pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The first petition calls upon Parliament to protect the rights of Canadians to be able to share their religious beliefs without fear of prosecution. This is a specific reference to amendments to sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code. This petition contains a number of names from the Pictou County area.

[Agriculture, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this morning's promise of a future compensation package for farmers affected by BSE is another cynical attempt to pre-empt the western premiers' request for aid.

The need for compensation is urgent and immediate. There is a product backlog and liquidity is the big issue.

When will the government relax the two week waiting period for workers affected by the ban of Canadian beef and when will it provide a fair and immediate compensation package for farmers who cannot afford to feed their cattle?

[Federal-Provincial Relations, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, federal-provincial relations on this Prime Minister's watch have hit an all time low. Six out of 10 provinces oppose the long gun registry. The same number have said no to the softwood lumber offer. The federal government's neglect of SARS and BSE continues to wreak havoc on the Canadian economy.

When will the government start to show respect for the provinces and convene a first ministers conference? Will the Prime Minister convene a first ministers conference to deal with these crises?

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, what my hon. colleague will find is that I am in support of the changes that were made. The process, I would agree, was a derivation and has set a dangerous precedent. In fact, we made that argument in both Houses. We argued here and in the Senate that this was not how the matter should have proceeded.

It does reflect a need for respect of the practices of the House of Commons. I am afraid that we are often on a slippery slope when we start to take this type of cavalier approach.

The end product, the legislation itself, has been improved. The way we went about doing that, in accepting the unprecedented move that was made in the other place to divide this bill, is more a reflection on the Department of Justice and the presentation in the improper form in the first instance.

What occurred here, the hon. member will know, is that the bill was receiving incredible internal criticism from the Liberal government, and it had proceeded to such a point where it could not pull it back, or at least it chose not to for reasons of expediency. Therefore the changes that should have been made in this chamber in the first instance did not occur.

What was happening was that there were provisions in Bill C-10 that related particularly to the Firearms Act, and there were deadlines looming. What the government had to do then was take this unprecedented move and divide the bill in the other place so that it could carve out the sections of the Firearms Act to meet looming deadlines, arbitrary as they were, and try to foster this feeling of legitimacy of the Firearms Act itself.

We all know what has happened there of course. Six provinces have now opted out in terms of prosecuting and have thrown it back into the lap of the government. One billion dollars has been wasted and police across the country have been left in confusion with no further ability to benefit from this type of legislation because, as we know, individuals will not participate in this to a large degree.

It creates a scenario where a dangerous precedent was set. This bill was improved but other legislation was left in a very flawed form, mainly the Firearms Act.

I agree with the member that what has happened here sets a dangerous precedent. This bill may be better but the firearms legislation remains a completely dangerous and improper act that should be repealed, and that has been the position of the Progressive Conservative Party for years.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity, first, to congratulate the hon. member for Perth—Middlesex for his election to the House of Commons. We in the Progressive Conservative Party are extremely proud of him and the work that he has done already in his first week here in Parliament.

The question that he has put forward was one that was hotly debated at the justice committee, and has been discussed here on the floor of the House of Commons itself. The question is one of wrongful prosecution and charges being brought forward in a malicious way or being brought forward in such a way that harm could come about to the reputation to legitimate activities, particularly those of farmers involving the practices necessary in the slaughtering of animals, and often in the case of ceremonial slaughter, which has great religious implications. I assure my colleague there was a very thorough examination of this.

My feeling is that this legislation has been considerably improved. One would hope that the protections will be there. It will still fall to the administrators of justice clearly, those being the frontline prosecutors, judges in the courts and defence lawyers who will be making the arguments, to ensure there are no wrongful prosecutions.

This is not a perfect system. The justice system itself is one that has evolved and the law has evolved in this case. I would suggest that this protection does exist. Having taken the justification, the colour of right protections, back into this protection section, I believe that common sense will prevail.

Having visited the beautiful constituency of Perth—Middlesex, I understand there is a large agriculture sector in the member's riding. The farmers have been watching this very closely, as have those who are involved in the production of fur and other areas where people work with animals. I believe this law is there to protect their interests and I am confident we will see every effort made to ensure the two needs will be met: the protection of animals, as well as the ability to carry out a livelihood unencumbered by an unfair and unjust prosecution.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague from South Shore specifically, the bill would not be as effective and would not be in the best interest of Canadians had it not received a number of amendments. Certainly the amendment with respect to aboriginal people, the amendment which brought this specific protection that deals with colour of right or legal justification, would have been absent from the bill. There were a number of important amendments that I feel took place. The clarity which has been achieved is attributable to the work that has been done in the other place.

We can all debate the merits of the Senate itself and the need perhaps for parliamentary reform, but clearly that purpose was achieved in this instance. I would suggest that there will be certainly rancorous debate in this place for years to come, hopefully not too many years, that will result in an improved and enhanced ability to have this type of second examination that improves upon the bills and the important work done in this place.