Peter MacKay

[Social Insurance Numbers, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the key word she just used was “today”. The issue of SIN card abuse was raised four full years ago by the Auditor General.

Today's status report tells us 900,000 horses are out of the barn. There is no comprehensive plan in place to protect Canadians' safety and well-being and the HRDC minister is now scrambling to put forward new measures four years after the problem was flagged and a full year after September 11. It is not as if the minister has not experienced a full on disaster in her department before.

My question is simple. Why the delay: incompetence or neglect?

[Social Insurance Numbers, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the RCMP arrested 15 people believed to be part of a human smuggling ring.

Last spring we learned that immigration forms were used to procure forged passports for illegal migrants. The Auditor General says that identity fraud is a growing concern. We know that 1.6 million social insurance cards were used by short term visitors, refugee claimants, seasonal workers and foreign workers and that 900,000 have still not been cancelled.

Could the Prime Minister or the minister for public security tell the House if any of the people arrested in yesterday's human smuggling ring were carrying false or not yet cancelled social insurance cards?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most apropos thing the parliamentary secretary said was that it takes a lot of time. The government has now been in office for 10 years.

With respect to the throne speech, clearly one of the biggest disappointments was the repeated lack of commitment for the Canadian military. We know that we now have subs that will not go down and helicopters that will not go up. We saw the spectacle in Afghanistan of sending soldiers into a combat zone with uniforms that were forest green in a desert.

We know that there are battleships, frigates in the Canadian navy that will be needing refits. There was public speculation by the Minister of Defence himself about the possibility of selling off tanks.

The neglect of the Canadian military is at an all time high. We have heard from Senate report committees. We have heard from the Auditor General. We have heard from Liberal backbenchers. We know that the military from the top brass to the men and women in uniform in the trenches have all been crying out for the government to do something to address the shortcomings that are demoralizing and debilitating the Canadian armed forces.

When will the government step up and do something to protect those in the Canadian military who protect us?

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to follow my colleague from Nova Scotia who was very magnanimous in his remarks. He comes from a Dutch family background. Along with the many Scottish names that make up many of the big farms in Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough there is a huge Dutch community of farmers that do tremendous work, and have brought great productivity, great pride in agriculture, and a tremendous work ethic to my community back in Nova Scotia.

This emergency debate application, as everyone knows and as has been pointed out, was moved by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, seconded by my caucus colleague from Brandon--Souris who has been active on this file. It has been noted that this is the third agriculture debate that has come about as a result of prices in the industry in the country. It is the third of six agriculture debates moved by the Progressive Conservative Party. Out of a total of nine, five emergency debates have been moved by the Progressive Conservative Party, one by my colleague from St. John's East on the issue of overfishing and the other on the softwood lumber crisis facing the west coast and the country moved by the member for Cumberland--Colchester. The Progressive Conservative Party has always been and continues to be active in the natural resource sector, fighting for those who are making their living from the land the way that Canadians did from the very beginning.

I recall growing up in rural Nova Scotia as a young kid. Our farm was small by comparison but there were kids who would come to school, I will never forget, who smelled of the barn. There were other kids in school who would make fun of that, but these kids had great pride. These kids had gotten up early and had done their chores before they came to school. These kids were instilled with the principles that would serve them their whole lives, that work ethic, that commitment to the family industry, that commitment to do hard work and to put in a full day. It served them well throughout their lives because I remember those kids then and I have seen many of those kids recently who have grown up to be productive members of their communities.

This issue is as Canadian as it gets. This crisis is one which has gripped many families. It has huge social implications, life and death implications, people who have been forced to the brink of bankruptcy and many literally have taken their own lives. I have heard it said by many farmers that the loss of the family farm is like a death in the family, that is how critical the issue has become.

We have heard the statistics quoted with respect to the money that was put in in previous years, the money that has been coming, but the issue is the delivery. The issue is that it is not enough and it is not getting there soon enough to allow farmers in many instances to carry on, to get through the next season, or to make it one more year.

There were references by previous speakers, including my colleague from Nova Scotia, about the Hay West program. The Hay West program was a wonderful effort, again a truly pan-Canadian effort that saw farmers coming together from different parts of the country to help other farmers. It was done purely out of the goodness of their hearts and there is nothing that rekindles people's faith in the human spirit more than gratuitous acts of kindness. That is what the Hay West program was all about. I am proud that Nova Scotia took part in that.

I say to my colleagues in the west and other parts of the country, to those in need, there is more hay. There is more hay if we can get it to them. I have farmers coming to my office asking how they can get it there. A good friend of mine, Hector MacIsaac, suggested a novel idea. What if there was a way to get cattle to the east to pasture them there? This might be a way, rather than to have cattle starve, to pasture them over the winter or in barns where hay exists. This might be at least another way to prevent the starvation of animals.

These types of reciprocal arrangements and acts of kindness have been there for a long time. In the east, during the hungry 30s, fish, food and clothing were sent from eastern provinces to the west. I am sure that it would be reciprocated.

I know that there is a great empathy that exists in regions like ours in Atlantic Canada. We have been through the collapse of the fishery. We understand hard times.

This approach that has been taken to reach out to help people in need is one that truly has to be encouraged and applauded at times. Caring, compassionate people span all politics and regions. It is something that Canadians do and do well. We take care of our own. We are not, unfortunately, able to say that at this point in time because we are not doing enough to help the agriculture industry.

The statistics we have seen talk about the need for a more comprehensive safety net. The hon. member for Malpeque, who I also know has personal knowledge of the plight of the farmers because of his experience growing up on the island, has stated there is the willingness there. I am hoping he will be able to bring that type of pressure to bear on the government and the cabinet, to get that money there immediately, to put the resource support there where the need is greatest.

I could spend the brief time that I have attacking the Liberal record about the cuts that have been made in all sorts of sectors including agriculture. Between 1993-99 program payments to agriculture programs decreased by over $1 billion. We could all talk about the waste in other programs where money has been spent for frivolous purposes when one compares it to the importance of the agriculture sector, yet that is not productive. What we need to do is look for solutions right now. We can put the politics aside.

We need to look for a way to facilitate the continuation of farming, a way to save those who are hanging on by those hardworking hands, waiting for that money to get there. It has to get there right away before the season is over. We know that we are working with strict timelines.

The previous administration, the Progressive Conservative Party, by comparison when one looks at the record and the commitment to the agriculture sector, had a great deal in place. In one crop year, 1991-92, the GRIP and NISA programs delivered about $2 billion to farmers in a single year. That is an example that the government could learn from because in those years farmers similarly were facing terrible devastating conditions of pestilence, drought, and flood. We are talking about apocalyptic types of conditions that are like the horsemen of the Apocalypse galloping through western Canada at this time.

Members like to talk about the debt. It is always pointed about the $42 billion deficit that they inherited but let us get one thing straight. The previous administration inherited a $38 billion deficit, $12 billion of it that was racked up by the current Prime Minister when he was in the finance department. We can leave that record aside. We can talk about that another time.

What we need to do is talk about programs that will help farmers now. Fast effective programs that will get the money where it is needed, that will protect farmers, and then and only then can we put in place a long-term sustainable solution that will allow them to get the money for seed, for crops, for support, and for all of the various types of processes that take place.

There are many issues associated with farming. There are many ongoing crises that will continue unless the government steps up. We are calling upon it to do so. That is what this debate has been about in principle. We are hoping that the solutions and the concrete answers that farmers are looking for will be coming soon.

[Petitions, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present, on behalf of constituents of Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, a petition calling upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to revisit fisheries policy as to the effect it is having on the people of Canso. The petition is signed by residents from all over the three counties, including Boylston, Sunnyville, New Harbour, Port Felix and Dorts Cove. The petition calls upon the minister in particular to reconsider decisions with respect to Canso, the fisheries and the denial of quota and for Parliament to take such other measures as may be considered appropriate to restore the economic vigour of the town of Canso.

[Points of Order, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief point of order with respect to the correctness of the Journals of the House of Commons. I know the Chair takes great pride in assuring their accuracy.

The Speaker will naturally recall that on last Friday the Chair delivered a ruling concerning the motion offered by the government concerning the revivification of dead parliamentary business that fell victim to the government's prorogation last session. Your Honour's ruling was that the government's motion was flawed in form and directed that the government motion be divided for the purpose of voting.

There are many rulings of little consequence to the actual business before the House of Commons but, by contrast, Friday's ruling had the effect of altering the question. Indeed, it created two questions where there had previously been one the day before.

There is no reference to that ruling in the Journals. What we are left with is a record that makes no sense. The Journals report that the government leader moved two distinct motions at once. It would be easy for those who consult the Journals to interpret the record as indicative that the government moved by right to move two motions at once.

Avid readers of the Journals, such as myself and others in my employ, simply seek that the record report accurately what occurred on this matter before the House. The Journals are the record of the proceedings of the House. It is my respectful view that your ruling Friday was a precedent in that it altered the question then before the House and therefore the ruling should be recorded and reflected in the Journals.

If the House had altered the motion by amendment, that fact would have been recorded. In this instance, Your Honour used the undoubted power of the Chair to divide the question and, in that fact, and I would suggest it should be the Chair's view, it should be recorded in the Journals as part of those proceedings.

[Government Contracts, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that was a nice attempt at distraction by the minister responsible for ACOA. What is news is there is a Senate vacancy for P.E.I.

Examples of patronage and ethical lapses by the Liberals seem to be piling up on the island. Last February the federal government announced a $5 million improvement to the Confederation Centre of the Arts. The minister bragged of this last week.

Could the minister advise whether that $5 million contract was (a) untendered and (b) awarded to P.E.I. Liberal Party president, Tim Banks, the same Mr. Banks who holds the $17 million contract and lease for the Greenwich development centre in the minister's riding?

[Government Contracts, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the ethics counsellor can sort that one out too.

The plot thickens in P.E.I. In a note prepared by the executive director of the Canadian Police College it indicates the minister's adviser, David Nicholson, was actually acting on behalf of the minister's brother's college.

Was the minister's adviser, Mr. Nicholson, acting as a lobbyist for the minister's brother's college while employed by the office of the solicitor general? If the minister can follow that one, please tell us.

[Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is beyond hilarious to hear the government House leader calling following the rules an abuse of process, rules that he himself participated in putting in place not a year ago. However, I digress.

My direct question for the hon. House leader deals with legislation pertaining to the Indian Act, Bill C-61. I note with interest that the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, who is now heading up the sixth party in the House of Commons, is musing publicly about the need for further consultation with the aboriginal Canadian community on that bill, yet the government is prepared to reintroduce it without any further consultation. Why does it want to reintroduce Bill C-61 unchanged, given the discontent expressed by members of his own party? I am assuming they are still members of his party.

[Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am very pleased with the ruling that was handed down by the Chair today with respect to Motion No. 2 before the House, which came before us in an omnibus fashion and which the Speaker in his wisdom has now divided into its relevant parts.

Clearly what it stems from is the arrogant disregard that the government holds for Parliament itself. We know that the House was suspended for a number of weeks at a time when both an international situation and a domestic situation demanded the early recall of Parliament. Iraq, the crisis on our farms, which the Chair again has recognized, the collapse of grain supplies, the government's war on the provinces, all of these issues are more demanding and urgent than the way in which the government has treated them, and the consideration of Parliament is necessary.

Ironically, the government House leader is again using closure to get his way after presenting this motion to the House. How democratic. Having denied the representatives of the Canadian people the right to meet in Parliament as scheduled, the government now wants to strip the House of the right to consider the business under the normal parliamentary rules. What the government has done, essentially, the government House leader in particular, is that it wants to have all of the perceived benefits of prorogation to allow for the vacuous throne speech to occur, but none of the consequences, again typical of the government's arrogance and lack of accountability which have become so common. Very little has changed from the last session of Parliament.

Canadians are now looking at the spectacle of the great hunter from LaSalle--Émard, the former finance minister, travelling the country, distancing himself from his government's own performance and record. Over the summer this very same member went on this long journey of national discovery, listening to Canadians, hearing their concerns, walking among the people and having them line up to touch the hem of his garment, and there were even a few miracles performed along the way. One of those miracles was that the member for LaSalle--Émard discovered the deficit, the democratic deficit that somehow exists, and now he bills himself as the slayer of that deficit, financial and democratic, while we await the discovery of the ethical deficit plaguing his government.

On the quest of the new dragon, the democratic deficit, the trail took this huntsman to a meeting with the Assembly of First Nations where the dragon slayer told the first nations people of Canada that they needed to be consulted more on Bill C-61, that what they wanted was to have the bill not reinstated but reconsidered by Parliament. As a result of the government House leader's move, that is not in fact going to be the case. We believe that the House should be provided with an opportunity to revisit Bill C-61 and that the House should heed the words of the man who would be Prime Minister.

It was interesting to hear the Minister of Transport get so exercised when he felt that the integrity of the ethics counsellor might have been impugned by my reference to him being the corruption approval officer. This is the same ethics counsellor who we know lost signing privileges for inappropriate conduct prior to his appointment as the ethics counsellor.

Given what has taken place here today in the House, the Solicitor General's refusal again to come clean on some very important ethical matters, I now would look forward to those who feel similarly that the democratic deficit is not being conquered but widened as a result of the government. I believe the government needs sufficient time to consider its actions and to reconsider the approach that it has taken to this Parliament. I therefore move:

That this House do now adjourn.