Peter MacKay

[Ethics, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there certainly is a gap all right: between the minister's position and the truth.

While the former finance minister's so-called blind management agreement allows for the briefings on matters related to Canada Steamship Lines in exceptional circumstances involving an extraordinary event--pretty subjective--the member for LaSalle--Émard has refused to answer the question. But as the person responsible for enforcing the code of conduct for ministers, would the Prime Minister tell the House what was exceptional or extraordinary about a sweet deal in Indonesia that would have allowed the former finance minister to peek through the blinds?

[Iraq, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to be circulating in circles. Speaking of procrastination and uncertainty, listen to this: Canada's ambassador to the UN has proposed a plan that would set a deadline of March 31 to verify Iraqi compliance. Just last week, following the ambassador's speech to the UN, the Prime Minister told reporters that it was not Canada's policy to propose a deadline.

So as usual the Prime Minister has left great confusion and uncertainty. Does the Prime Minister agree or disagree with our ambassador? Will he confirm that Canada is proposing a decision date of March 31 and will he share it with the House?

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments and sadly could find no connection whatsoever with the subject matter before the House. I have great respect for the member and I know that he comes from a part of the country that is extremely concerned, in particular about government waste and accountability.

Among other things, the Auditor General's report said it was inexcusable that Parliament was kept “in the dark” over the blatant waste and mismanagement of the gun registry. I want to ask the hon. member, having put so much emphasis on the issue of health, would he not agree that the $1 billion and the further money that is being plugged disingenuously into the system would be much better spent doing the types of things he just outlined? Does he not agree that the money could be spent in a way that would effectively protect Canadians' health, that would in fact enhance people's current health, rather than a gun registry that has no connection to public safety whatsoever, none?

We know that criminals will not participate. We know that it is of no assistance. We know that it was presented to the Canadian people in an extremely disingenuous way because the costs have ballooned out of control. I know that the hon. member is a very common sense gentleman. I know that he does listen to his constituents. Would he not agree that the $1 billion spent on the gun registry, like the $1 billion that it cost to cancel the helicopter program, like the $1 billion that went unaccounted for in HRDC, like the other hundreds of millions of dollars spent in advertising contracts for work that was not done, is what the Auditor General was talking about?

Does the hon. member not see the connection in what the Auditor General, his constituents and all Canadians are telling him, which is that his government's priorities are completely out of whack? Would he not agree that the money being spent is not having an effect on public safety, that it could be better spent on programs and health like he suggested? Would he not agree that this is a common sense change that might occur?

[Health, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of all Canadians have experienced depression and anxiety personally or have a relationship with someone who has. One in three feel others would think less of them if it were known they suffered from these conditions. The prevalence of depression, anxiety and mental illness, and the continuing stigma attached to those conditions are just some of the key findings in a new survey conducted by the Canadian Mental Health Association.

In Ontario, the Progressive Conservative government set up a task force across the province to investigate the issue of mental health and make recommendations as to how government can better serve the public in this regard. I am proud to highlight Nova Scotia PC Health Minister Jane Purves' announcement last Thursday that Nova Scotia will be the first province in Canada with mental health standards.

Naturally, we must do more to remove the sense of shame and misunderstanding that seems to follow mental health issues. Very often early diagnosis and treatment of these disorders can lead to a vast improvement in quality of life and social interaction. Far too often the criminal justice system becomes the default solution.

In Parliament, we must be vigilant to move mental health issues out of the shadows. Through education and awareness we can make a difference.

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend's remarks. I know that he is a long time participant on the justice committee and I have a great deal of respect for him. He spoke at the beginning of his remarks about the priorities and why this particular motion was before the House.

I need not remind him that even his government's own budget was certainly off base in terms of many of its priorities when it came to the military and fixing the ongoing problems of health care, so we will not delve into that trap.

However, I want to ask him seriously about the facts, figures and statistics he quotes that seem to support this gun registration, and let us be very clear that this is what we are talking about here. It is not this ongoing attempt by the Liberal government to blur the issue of gun control versus gun registration. Everyone is for gun control. Previous legislation was in fact what put in place these checks and balances that allowed for research and background information checks on individuals who were participating in terms of getting firearms acquisition certificates. That is a completely separate issue.

What the government has so disingenuously done in blurring the issue is confuse gun control and gun registration. I want to know not about the billion dollar waste that went into it knowing it does not work, but does he think that Hell's Angels and other individuals with criminal backgrounds will ever participate? Does he think that will happen?

[Black History Month, February 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I stand in the House today to lend my voice to the chorus raised in recent weeks in celebration and support of our African Canadian communities.

My riding of Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough is home of vibrant African Nova Scotian communities in Trenton, New Glasgow, Antigonish, Monastery, Upper Big Tracadie, Sunnyville and Lincolnville.

From the Afrikan Canadian Heritage and Friendship Centre in Guysborough to the Black Community Development Centre in New Glasgow, to Brothers and Sisters of the African Diaspora in St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, African Nova Scotians in the riding are intricately involved in weaving the rich tapestry of culture, music and economics that is Nova Scotia.

With this year's celebration of the Black Business Initiative, African Nova Scotians continue the tradition of community development groups like the Tracadie Baptist Church.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, and my Nova Scotia colleagues, I wish to offer my congratulations and thanks to the African Nova Scotian communities which continue to be part of Nova Scotia's forward and upward movement into the new millennium.

[Terrorism, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear the words of the hon. member for Regina--Qu'Appelle. He brings a practical, historical and sometimes hysterical perspective to the House.

I am pleased as well to see that this list has been expanded now to 19, as the minister has stated. I am concerned by the inefficiencies and the fact that many things the government does these days are a constant public relations effort to garner the most attention, and it announces things three or four times. However the addition of the entities is an indication of the depths to which we must now delve when seeking the security of Canadians, the very rights and freedoms that Canadians enjoy, and the fact that we can never take these issues lightly or take them for granted.

We are living in a brave new world, as the minister himself has indicated. There can be no doubt that the balance of our collective right to security along with the individual's rights and freedoms must be weighed, but in clear cases where the welfare of our citizens has been challenged, we must act. The minister talked about his government acting in a timely fashion. I could not disagree more. The minister stated that the addition of these three would have far-reaching implications. In that he is correct.

I am encouraged by the minister's announcement and glad to see that he is starting to listen to the concerns raised by the Progressive Conservative Party and others, and other Canadians, calling upon his government to react quickly and decisively when faced with information of this nature. Sadly that was not the case when it involved Hesbollah.

It seems that the government has been dragged, kicking and screaming in many instances, to come forward with the action that we see today. Given the extremely disturbing information of the past few days with a call to arms by Osama bin Laden to the people of Iraq to engage in further terrorism against our neighbours, we see how real the threat is. Terrorism is not going to go away and terrorist organizations are not going to cease. We must remain vigilant in the face of grave danger.

This recent announcement of three new entities, bringing to 19 the total that have been banned in Canada, is at least a step in the right direction. Any form of terror or threat to human life, safety or security must be condemned in the strongest of terms. What we are talking about here is the ability to fundraise and funnel money to terrorist acts.

The snail's pace with which the government has acted in the past is disturbing, Hesbollah being the most obvious example. These organizations operate in the shadows. Once money is collected there are often very few ways to track the money and see what it is being used for in the final analysis. The decision today to take action and combat these groups should be welcomed, however the minister's statement is that the government is working closely with the international community, and in particular our good neighbours to the south. This is a message I do not believe many Canadians will accept.

Under the Liberal government, Canada's place in the world has been devalued and diminished. Our relationship with the United States has been weakened by the government's policy of never missing an opportunity to criticize, waffle or belittle our most important and closest ally. The government has been anything but timely, diligent, comprehensive or balanced in its approach.

Americans and Canadians have seen what the Liberals have done to our military and our international reputation. Cuts to the police, coast guard and the armed forces, and the elimination of ports police are the real stories. They have starved the armed forces to the point where they are no longer taken seriously when most important decisions are made.

Canada has the 9th largest economy in the world, but in the year 2000 our defence expenditures represented 1.2% of gross domestic product, ranking us 17th of NATO countries, somewhere in the range of Luxembourg.

The government and its lacklustre performance has made Canada invisible on the world stage. Listing is a start but lagging along, waiting for public opinion, and for polls to crystallize is not the way in which Canada should be operating.

The government needs to do more than just spout rhetoric on how we deal with terrorism. While we welcome the action of the minister today, we must remain cognizant of the fact that the Liberal government has done little else.

[Privilege, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I also support the points that have been made already and that the member for Sarnia—Lambton has brought forward in an unusual way. It is unusual for a government backbencher to, in such a forceful way, outline the failings and the inadequacies of his own government and his own minister on this file in particular.

We are talking about a motion that I raised in the House back on December 5, 2002, in which $72 million were taken away from this program by the unanimous consent of the House. All members of the House agreed that the firearms program should be reduced by that amount.

That does lead to questions as to: How is this program operating fully now? How is it that the government is continuing to fund this program? What are the sources of the funding that has continued?

The reports that have been brought before the House of Commons, the Hession report, also challenged the ability of the government to continue to fund this program without borrowing from other departments or borrowing from other areas.

The Auditor General also spoke of Parliament being kept in the dark, which is a substantial and damning statement to hear from the Auditor General.

We know that Bill C-10A was rammed through the Senate and will be coming back to us asking for more money for this particular program. The government is now scrambling to get this program fully funded through a piecemeal piece of legislation that has been picked apart in the other place and that will be sent back here. Now it is trying to shunt this issue to one side while millions more are going into the program.

Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically refer you to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice , Marleau and Montpetit, where it states at page 741, and I would ask for the Chair's particular attention to this point:

Once adopted, the legislation will authorize the government to withdraw from the Consolidated Revenue Fund amounts up to,--

And I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, “up to”:

--but not exceeding, the amounts set out in the Estimates for the purposes specified in the Votes.

We know, as a result of that December 5 motion, the government specifically reduced, unanimously, in the House, $72 million from the budget to operate the firearms program.

How is it, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton and other members of the House ask, that this registry is still operating at full capacity? How can that be? The spirit of that vote is being violated by the Minister of Justice continuing to operate this program. The spirit and intention of the House in reducing the funds by $72 million was obviously a signal that we were not supporting the continuation of the firearms program.

I would suggest that the hon. member has made a very salient and relevant point when he asks: Where is the money coming from? How is it that Parliament is permitting this to continue? How is it that the minister is continuing to fund this program?

The new budget is supposed to be coming forth. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be an attempt to reduce by some other amount, whether it be a dollar or more, and back door this funding for the program as we have seen in the past.

I would suggest that now is the time to cut this off, to put an end to this ridiculous, retroactive use of taxpayer money to fund a firearms program that is not working, that is not protecting Canadians.

The Minister of Justice is being misleading when he talks about Canadians being for gun control. This is not gun control. This--

[Government Spending, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, just on the eve of the election the former finance minister promised relief to Canadians from high heating costs.

The program was badly managed and resulted in some deceased and incarcerated Canadians getting cheques, but with an unseasonably cold winter and a crisis in the Gulf, will the current Minister of Finance tell us, is there a risk of predatory pricing?

Since his government refused to get rid of the GST, would it consider removing the GST on home heating fuel for this fiscal year?

[Firearms Registry, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister did not hear my question. I am not asking about gun control. I am asking about gun registration, the system that is not working.

The Hession report states that the organizational structure of the firearms program is cumbersome, unfocused and inefficient. The latest government plan will gobble up an additional half billion dollars over the next six years and cost $62 million annually to operate. These issues are further aggravated by the existence of multiple headquarters in Edmonton, Ottawa, Montreal and Miramichi.

Clearly the political decision to spread the wasteful system around added to the cost and confusion. How can the minister justify these expenditures given the dubious records and results?