Peter MacKay

[Agriculture, June 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, those ministers' assurances are not allaying fears across the country. We have to dispel any fears that it is unsafe to eat Canadian beef.

Today, Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg called on Canada to reform its testing standards. He is not the only one troubled by our nearly four month delay in reporting the case. We saw the harm from the delay in the government reaction to SARS. We have seen the harm in the delay of the helicopter program. The minister's feeble response this morning does not cut it.

When is the agriculture minister going to bring about the implementation of measures to expedite testing?

[Agriculture, June 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of delays, it took just one day, a single day, for the government to accept a proposal to buy luxury jets, approve the sale, issue a contract and take possession.

Canadian farmers and plant workers are losing their livelihoods waiting for the government to debate and decide if the agriculture sector is indeed hurting.

When will the government offer a compensation package for the cattle industry? Why can the government purchase luxury jets and have that deal go through in a day while farmers have to wait weeks?

[Agriculture, June 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure those sympathies are appreciated but it has come to light that an influential U.S. cattlemen's association has written to American politicians urging that the American government extend its ban on Canadian beef for up to seven years. This would have a devastating impact on the Canadian economy.

If the government can afford to waste billions of dollars on a useless long gun registry, contract cancellations and massive government mismanagement, why can it not heed the advice of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and compensate Canadian farmers for their losses as a result?

[Agriculture, June 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. market has been closed to Canadian cattle exports now for two weeks. The industry is losing $11 million a day.

When we add up the cost to workers on the farm, in the processing plants or driving the trucks that carry the beef across the border, that total rises to a staggering amount of over $420 million.

Could the acting Prime Minister tell the House why he is against providing much needed financial assistance to the literally thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods are at stake?

[Softwood Lumber, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, of course we like free trade. We invented it, unlike the minister opposite.

The Minister for International Trade is ignoring the representatives of the softwood lumber industry but listening to the handful of CEOs who donated in excess of $30,000 to the Liberal Party. This proposal is jeopardizing our market share, our economic interests and the future of our fellow citizens.

Will the minister commit immediately to have the Government of Canada withdraw its latest proposal?

[Softwood Lumber, June 2nd, 2003]

That will be short-lived, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the chair of the Alberta softwood lumber trade council has called the government' s latest softwood lumber proposal to the United States a slap in the face to the industry. He says it ignored Alberta in favour of the input of a few CEO's who just happened to donate to the Liberal Party of Canada.

Why was the input of the broader interests of the lumber industry in western Canada ignored, while the input of a few select corporate donors becomes the official position of the Government of Canada? Will the government immediately withdraw this insulting proposal?

[Citizenship and Immigration, April 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is a start, but not only is Canada unable to deal with thousands of individuals who should be deported, apparently we have a revolving door policy that lets them walk back in.

Recently in Toronto, two known Jamaican career criminals were charged with armed robbery and hostage taking. With fingerprints on file and extensive records of over 20 years for similar offences, both had been deported to Jamaica three times, accompanied by immigration escorts.

Would the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration indicate how he plans to tighten the entry points to stop the revolving door policy of deporting criminals so that they are thrown out and stay out?

[Citizenship and Immigration, April 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, along with the 36,000 persons awaiting deportation, the Auditor General's annual report states there is no coordination between the immigration lookout system and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency at Canadian border points.

The last study on the issue was in 1991 and showed that customs officers missed up to 80% of those who should have been referred to secondary inspection by immigration officers. When will the minister instigate action on the blatant shortcomings of his department?

[Situation in Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the right hon. member for Calgary Centre for his as usual insightful and reasonable remarks on this issue. I think he is right to be focusing now on the issue of reconstruction. Having seen the Gordian knot of a position tied by this government and the convoluted and contortionist attempts now to somehow reverse itself and its position, I think that in regard to the time for attention to what role Canada can reasonably play the question that comes to mind for most Canadians is this: Is it too late for us to have credibility on the issue?

I think the right hon. member has waylaid some of that concern in suggesting that Canada can still play a very significant role. My question to him is with respect to that role and having any real say in the reconstruction effort. Is it too late for Canada to play a substantive role in having an actual presence on the ground, given that we know the government has been disingenuous in suggesting that we are not there with ships in the gulf, with soldiers on the ground as part of British forces and participating in the AWACS effort? Is it not right to suggest that Canada could now acknowledge and be straightforward in saying we have people there and that we are going to condone that presence and send more if required, to have an actual presence and then get on with the job of reconstruction?

[Sex Offender Information Registration Act, March 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague from Mississauga South would have been quite so scathing in his condemnation of his own government, but his point was the same.

The government has brought forward what may be a half measure. The issue of recidivism is extremely serious when it comes to pedophiles and when it comes to those who have demonstrated a propensity toward sexual aggression toward children. For that very reason, those who are currently incarcerated for those offences, as I referred to earlier, should be included in this system. The retroactivity of this would cut in half the information that needs to be put forward if we do not include that element of the legislation.

The fear the government has of a constitutional challenge is one that I often refer to as constitutional constipation on the part of the government. There is some kind of blockage every time there is a suggestion that there may be a challenge in the courts. That is ridiculous. Of course there will be a challenge.

Let us just get on with it. Let us make the bill proper in its first instance and get it into play so the police can do their work, communities can be protected, and most important, children can be protected. This is exactly the very pith and substance of what we are trying to do. I know the member supports that. Members of the Progressive Conservative Party have been adamant in insisting on a stand-alone retroactive system and we will continue to push for that.

I look forward to working on the justice committee with the hon. member.