Peter MacKay

[Justice, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government believes sincerely in wasting taxpayers' money. They are not good managers of money. Rotten registries, fancy planes, subs, helicopters, HRDC: all of this proves they are not good money managers.

According to an RCMP study, CPIC is already overloaded and inoperable 10% of the time. The present CPIC infrastructure will be strained further with the addition of this category.

If the Liberals can dedicate millions of dollar to a retroactive, ineffective, stand-alone registry, why will the Solicitor General not dedicate the necessary funds to an effective, stand-alone, retroactive program to protect Canadians from sex offenders?

[Justice, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government is a terrible manager of taxpayers' money.

I ask the Minister of Justice to assure Canadians that he will not be cutting the already depleted transfer payments to provinces in the areas of family law, legal aid, youth justice and aboriginal justice. Against Canadians' wishes and their best interests, he says he is going to find $72 million within his department's existing budget to prop up the disastrous failed long gun registry.

If the minister believes there are programs in his department that are already overfunded, could he tell us just which ones he plans to cut? Where is he going to find that $72 million?

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his remarks and I share many of his concerns, particularly with the commentary on government mismanagement and waste of taxpayer money. Two of the emerging themes in the debate over prebudget consultations seem to focus in on the need for money, obviously for health care and our Canadian military. We can discuss at length helicopters, submarines and personnel and the need to give them the support they need.

Clearly health care has been the dominant debate in the country but I have an issue with respect to something that spans both those important programs, and that is support for veterans and, in particular, support for gulf war veterans who are suffering from, in many instances unknown and as yet undiagnosed ailments which seem to be associated with their time spent in the Persian Gulf. Many of them are suffering symptoms akin to multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, a severe ailments which seem to be associated with uranium poisoning. They are not receiving the government's support that they need and in many instances the medical help that they require for their quality of life.

Does my colleague have any suggestions or any constituents who might be similarly affected and does he agree that this is an obligation on the government to address this very important syndrome, gulf war syndrome, that is prevalent in the United States as well?

My constituent, Perry Holloway, and his family are terribly affected. Sue Riordon from West Nova in Nova Scotia has been championing the cause for these gulf war veterans. I met with some people on the Hill just this week. They are severely concerned about the lack of attention that this government has afforded them.

Does my colleague have any comments on that?

[Firearms Registry, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last week the government was forced to withdraw its backdoor request for an additional $72 million for the farcical firearms fiasco. There was evidence of enormous cost overruns, blatant mismanagement and no connection to public safety. Against that, the justice minister has stubbornly refused to cancel this ridiculous registry.

Examples of the government downloading the costs and cuts, and leaving the program administration to the provinces include: legal aid, youth justice, health care, and infrastructure.

Will the minister guarantee Canadians he will not surreptitiously sneak more taxpayers' money into the gun registry or leave the provinces holding the empty bag?

[Parliament of Canada Act, December 10th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I will speak very briefly to the bill before the House, Bill C-219, keeping in mind that it is not a votable item.

I do very much respect what the hon. member is attempting to do with his bill. I understand completely the intent of the bill, but I must profess my bias at the outset. It is a personal bias. I am not speaking on behalf of my party in this instance.

It is a private member's bill, but I very much would encourage Canadians to continue the swearing of allegiance to the Queen of Canada. I listened with great interest to the previous speaker from Lanark—Carleton, who I think has given a very insightful and knowledge based recitation of the evolution of how we have adopted this particular oath of allegiance. Keeping in mind the historical difference between Canada and the United States and the evolution of our two countries, we evolved from a Dominion and from a Commonwealth, whereas the United States broke away through an act of war. That is very much a part of their history. We obviously in fact have retained closer ties to the United Kingdom and to the monarchy and the Queen in particular.

This past summer was a wonderful example of how Canadians responded to the presence of the Queen. My colleague from St. John's West is very proud of his Irish heritage. Ireland, within the United Kingdom, has had a diverse history and a history that has at times been very contentious, but there is no denying history. I think we have to be very careful when we embark on any sort of revisionism. I am not suggesting for a moment that this is what the hon. member is doing, but there have been attempts by learned authors and others, including on some occasions members of Parliament, to rewrite history in a creative way that is not really reflective of where we came from.

My own personal view is that we should embrace this particular link to Great Britain, to our very origins, and embrace the fact that the Queen has continued, in a very diligent and forthright way, to continue this lineage, this connection to our country. It is something that I as a Canadian feel very proud to continue.

We saw huge crowds of people, many of whom were young people who in their lifetime may not have even seen the Queen in Canada, yet I felt that this was a very heartfelt and genuine outpouring of affection and a link, a real connection, to the country's history.

I have personally taken the oath, as has every member of Parliament, with respect to this declaration. Yet there is no practical reason that a person who chooses not to swear allegiance to the Queen would ever be prevented from entering the House of Commons, as is the case in Great Britain in fact, because we know that members of the Bloc Québécois take their seats in the House of Commons having not professed this particular oath of allegiance. I would suggest that this tradition to allow an individual to accept or not to accept allegiance in this particular instance is within the Constitution. It is something that we should never truly engage in to prevent an individual who has been democratically elected from coming to this place.

This is a private member's bill. I am not going to get into the issue of the contentious and ongoing debate on how private members' bills come before the House, on some of the discrepancies in that issue and how the government has continually dropped the ball and left this problem hanging, as is the case. It is probably a microcosm of its approach on many issues in the country. That would be too partisan and too biased and this is not the time for it.

The bill is one that gives us an opportunity to at the very least debate the issue, to hear from members of Parliament, as a healthy and obviously useful exercise.

It is a pleasure for me to speak on this bill. I think this is an important debate. It is an opportunity for the members of the House of Commons to express their personal views. It is wonderful and great that each member be given a chance to participate in this debate in a very personal way.

This deals directly with one of the first formal entrances that one experiences upon being elected, one's oath and commitment to one's constituents, country and, if one chooses to do so, to the Queen.

I wish to congratulate my colleague for the work he has done on this particular bill. He has brought forward a thoughtful bill and obviously it is an issue he feels strongly about. I would encourage him to continue on this venture and to engage parliamentarians as to whether they want to see this particular formal entrance into the House of Commons.

I agree with him and the sentiments he expressed near the end of his remarks. He spoke of the need for representatives to represent their constituents, and the concerns and the interests of those who they represent, and to be answerable and accountable to the people, not only of their constituency but of the country. That official oath to Canada, to the Queen, is indicative and important of that commitment by all elected officials at the federal level and we see this in provincial and municipal governments as well.

On behalf of the constituents of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough I am proud to say, and I can say with fairness, that the constituents in my riding have expressed to me, and members of the Monarchist League of Canada have expressed quite clearly, that they are satisfied to continue the traditions of recognizing the Queen as the official head of Canada. They wish to continue the symbolism and history that comes with it, and the Governor General as Her official representative in Canada. It is something that is inextricably linked to our country's past and something that we should proudly embrace.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, having spent some time in a courtroom, I know that if the representations made by ministers of the crown and by members of the government were made under oath, I believe they would have been found in contempt of court. I believe that under provisions of the Criminal Code they could have been liable.

Do I believe that the consequences of those misrepresentations could result in criminal charges? The consequences of where that money went and the fact that much of it is unaccounted for, in my view, should very much be the subject of an RCMP investigation. That in and of itself may lead to some concrete criminal charges.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague from Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca is a medical practitioner and knows a great deal about the practical side of health care and its application.

He talked about the diagnostic role of government and mentioned the illusion of government being effective. I would agree that this government and this Prime Minister rival the man they call Reveen when it comes to presenting something as being good for Canadians, when we know in reality it is costing them hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars.

The member also talked about study-itis and reports. He is absolutely right. There are very recent examples of that. The report “For the Sake of the Children” is a perfect example of the tremendous effort by both Houses to produce a report that would have resulted in some very practical changes to our law. What we saw today was a half-hearted effort on the part of the Minister of Justice to please everyone. The result is no one is satisfied and problems remain unsolved.

The member has certainly experienced the same frustration that I and other opposition members of Parliament have where the government calls upon the use of a study and the use of reports as a delaying tactic. If I could use a legal maxim to my friend who is a medical practitioner; delay is the deadliest form of denial. The government is best at delaying and denying that problems exist. When problems hit it square in the face, it blames somebody else. That is a sad legacy.

The member and I both believe that Canadians deserve better. We believe there is a more constructive way to approach governing this country. We on this side of the House have to be diligent, as I know my friend has been in his work, in coming up with new policies and ways to approach government and the very significant problems of which there are many. Canada is slipping. Our place in the world is in decline and under threat under this government.

I would very much encourage him to work with members of the Progressive Conservative Party to look for creative solutions and ways to present to Canadians an alternative that will result in restoring and re-establishing Canada's place in the world and improving the quality of life for Canadians.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the prebudget debate.

Much of the debate this afternoon has been laced with a great deal of cynicism and there is a reason for that. My colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and my colleague from Wild Rose gave voice to the frustration that is felt not only by members of the opposition but by many Canadians, given the government's record of spending, mismanagement and corruption. It comes down to something more fundamental than that. It comes down to the priorities the government has set for itself and by virtue of that, what it has set for the Canadian public.

With regard to the use of taxpayers' money, and it cannot be understated that it is taxpayers' money, there is but one source for government spending and for government programming. It comes from the hard work and sacrifices of Canadians. There is a huge budget that is spent every year to buttress and to bring forward social programs.

Of course, the biggest expense associated with any social spending in the country is health care. Canadians have to ask themselves two very simple questions. Has their health care improved in the past 10 years under the government's management? Have their taxes gone down? Those are two very fundamental questions that have to be contemplated in the context of any budget or prebudget consultation.

Yes, consultation takes place, but whether it matters becomes the subject given what has occurred over a prolonged period of time, particularly under the tenure of the former finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard. He sat at the table and made very important decisions that had a profound and very negative effect on Canadians, in particular the cutting and the gutting of billions of dollars out of the Canada health and social transfer. That decision that was taken by the government has had a life altering effect and I dare say without being too overly dramatic, a life ending effect for many because of failed health care services.

I represent largely a rural constituency in the province of Nova Scotia. The Guysborough Hospital has been forced to make do with antiquated equipment and with insufficient personnel. St. Martha's Regional Hospital in Antigonish is facing the same challenges, as is the Aberdeen Hospital in New Glasgow. Without adequately addressing health care in the budget, those problems will continue.

Having said that, we all know there are many other areas that need to be addressed. One is the military. I would be negligent if I did not raise the issue of the very partisan decision that was taken by the government in 1993 to cancel the helicopter program not at a cost of millions of dollars, but of billions of dollars. The cost of the contract cancellation itself was in the ballpark of $500 million, but there were spinoff costs that went into this partisan, very biased exercise of drafting and redrafting the procurement process in order to save face for the Prime Minister rather than saving lives for the military. That is very indicative of the level of corruption within the system.

That helicopter procurement process is now bumping along. It is into its 10th year since the cancellation. Most projections are that it may in fact be another 10 years before we actually take delivery of the helicopters. The government relented and finally bought some, but it took delivery of them in Nunavut out of the glare of the media and to avoid any kind of scrutiny. That again is indicative of this process of posturing, this constant process of avoiding accountability and doing everything for show rather than for effect.

There is a long record of that going back to the very beginning of when the government and its administration came to power. There was the blatant promise that it would get rid of the GST, the hated tax that was brought in that was intended to address the deficit, which it did. What did the former finance minister do? What did he write about in the red book, that now infamous document, that red faced, red book reversal document? He was going to get rid of it. The Prime Minister spoke of it at length during campaigns but it did not happen, of course.

The government reaped the rewards of that. It reaped the surplus that was created. At the same time the government continued about this very hypocritical process of telling Canadians one thing and doing another.

Another example was free trade, which again was condemned. Liberal members opposite campaigned adamantly against it. All sorts of misinformation was spread. Then lo and behold, after the election the Liberals embraced it and called it their own. The hypocrisy knows no end in the government.

The health care issue is the one impediment in the budget and all subsequent budgets that will prevent any substantive spending in other areas. This is the issue that has to be addressed. Clearly, until we have the health care issue in hand, we will not be able to adequately address some of the other deficits that have been created by the government.

Make no mistake about it, the deficit is not gone. The former finance minister of the Liberal government did not eliminate the deficit. It was transferred. It was transferred to the provinces. The government created a deficit for students in their incredible mounting debt. It created a deficit for the military. It created a deficit for our international reputation, which has suffered egregious harm under this particular government because of the very provocative attitude that has been expressed in particular toward the Americans and in particular because of its inadequate funding for the military and our inability to live up to our international commitments.

The legacy the Prime Minister is desperately seeking is really one of mismanagement of public money. It is one of corruption and deceit. The Liberal legacy goes like this: $1 billion on a faulty firearms registry; $1 billion on an HRDC boondoggle; hundreds of millions of dollars in shady advertising contracts; billions of dollars as a result of the cancellation of the helicopter program; patronage; pork-barrelling; corruption; cover-ups; arrogance; hypocrisy; offending the Americans; demoralizing the military; transferring deficits to the provinces; creating crushing student debt; ignoring the environment; soft on crime; and hard on taxpayers.

Why should Canadians think for a moment that the government is to be trusted? Why, after that 10 year record, would Canadians for a moment think that the government should be trusted on this budget or any other budget?

We have seen the Janus faced positions taken by the former finance minister and the Olympian backflips he has done on all kinds of issues. He truly is one of Canada's most talented contortionists that we have ever seen in the history of Parliament. He has done all sorts of backflips on issues since stepping out of the cabinet. I forget now, was he fired or did he step out? They could not even get that right.

If truth be told, he should have been fired for the job he did as finance minister. On his watch we saw the Canadian dollar fall to its lowest point in Canadian history. It is now hovering down around 62¢. That is an absolutely crushing problem for productivity, creativity and innovation in the country. The low dollar policy of the government has been crippling for the Canadian economy. It has been going along in spite of the government's management, or mismanagement.

When I hear the words of the member for LaSalle—Émard, the former finance minister, it reminds me of a cow on roller skates on a frozen pond; it goes off in all kinds of shaky, shifty different directions. It is really not something that conjures up a great feeling of trust or security when one thinks of future leadership under that particular member of Parliament.

I want to turn back to the issue of consultation with Parliament and the process itself which should be useful in helping the government to identify the priorities of Canadians. In fact, what we have found again is an attitude which is very arrogant and dismissive of the provinces. We saw that with respect to Kyoto. We saw it with respect to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. We have seen it on numerous occasions wherein the provinces have been left holding the bag for administering government programs, for the costs associated with the shortfall because of cuts to the CHST, the costs associated with the creation of new administration.

While on that issue, there is the ballooning of bureaucracy under the government which, I hasten to add, is another broken promise. I understand that we have in the past three to four years expanded the Canadian federal bureaucracy by over 30,000 people. That is more people than in four small towns in Pictou County combined. That has not resulted in a more efficient or streamlined public service. Service delivery has not improved. We know that taxes continue to be a huge problem for the average Canadian. It is a huge issue when one considers that payroll taxes are still far too high and capital taxes continue to curtail business, expansion, innovation and productivity.

There are all sorts of other areas in which Canadians are basically carrying the can for the government and making sacrifices. If we put it into very simple terms, what would the result be if average Canadians in their places of employment were faced with the fact that hundreds of dollars had gone missing?

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to some of the constructive suggestions brought forward by my friend across the way. I know that he has consistently been a person of compassion and one who looks for answers.

I want to come back to the issue of priorities and integrity within the government. We have seen ample examples in recent days and months and we can go back to the very beginning with the many reversals in the red book on GST and free trade. One of the issues that continues to be a shortcoming of the government is its inadequate funding and attention for the military. We can talk about cuts to ports police and the Coast Guard, all of which contribute to the inability of the military to do its job at home and abroad.

Would the hon. member go out on a limb and tell us when we might expect to see the helicopter program, that his government cancelled, actually go forward? Will it take the retirement--

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his remarks, particularly on his reference to Canadians deserving better. He spoke of the need for lowering capital taxes, the need for lowering payroll taxes, the need, I would suggest, for the elimination of very discriminatory capital gains taxes and other means by which Canadians can be given the opportunity keep more of their hard-earned money.

What he speaks of in terms of what is missing, I would suggest, can be fixed somewhat by a change in tax policy on the part of the government, which we have not seen forthcoming now in almost a decade. We have seen very shifty priorities coupled with a very arrogant, dismissive attitude toward the provinces and an effort to download onto the provinces.

The former minister of finance has been flipping around the country pretending to be the leader of the fifth or sixth party in the House rather than taking responsibility for his own actions as finance minister. Basically if he is saying to “trust us now”, I would suggest that if he said it was raining outside I would go to the window.

Would the hon. member agree that in fact the government itself has really nothing to boast about and what we need is a change in attitude and a change in priority in terms of where money should be spent and where and when governments should get out of the way and let the private sector do its job?