Peter MacKay

[Arts and Culture, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government's reckless spending practices are a bad joke.

The mobile and well-connected Jean Carle of APEC and Shawinigan infamy is at it again. It seems that everywhere the PM's prodigal son goes, taxpayer money is sure to follow. Recently released documents indicate that the Prime Minister's BDC cleanup man landed at Just for Laughs in Montreal, just in time to secure an additional half a million dollars from his former employer, the Government of Canada.

Why is the government increasing funding of scarce taxpayer dollars to Just for Laughs if it is doing so well as the Minister of Canadian Heritage indicated? More important, why was the money given retroactively?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question by my friend from Crowfoot.

We know this amendment was aimed very much at bringing parity to the justice system as it pertained to aboriginal people, both in the adult court system and in the youth court system. The reason for the amendment was to ensure that we were treating aboriginal people in a similar fashion. We also know that the minister's own department has made a policy decision not to have the same parity as it pertains to the victim surcharge that would apply in the youth court system.

His own department, as Canadians would know and as the minister has recited here today, brought in 160 amendments to its own bill, almost the same number of provisions in the new legislation. The new legislation is of course double the size of the old Young Offenders Act.

Would the minister also confirm for the House today that not only did the Senate recommend this particular amendment but that there were 12 others that were in fact polled or vetoed by his predecessor? Would the minister confirm that?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this has become an emotional issue for many, including those in the minister's home province of Quebec. We in opposition and I think Canadians generally recognize that he inherited the mess from his predecessor who in turn had inherited it from her predecessor. It has been around for eight years.

Can the minister indicate whether he has had serious consultations with his provincial attorneys general since taking his new post? Can he speak to the financing of the implementation of the new youth criminal justice act? Somewhere in the range of $207 million is earmarked for its implementation, and I stand to be corrected. However we are hearing from provincial attorneys general that the legislation's implementation costs would be much closer to $100 million per province and territory given its scope, complexity and cumbersome nature.

Has the minister had consultations with his provincial colleagues? Can he speak to the issue of bridge funding and the costs associated with this cumbersome and costly bill?

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I have a question that is germane to the process that will be undertaken in reviewing the entire affair.

Does the hon. member feel it would be appropriate, given the direct involvement of a minister of the crown and the Prime Minister, that the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, the chief government whip and all parliamentary secretaries who are part of the procedure and House affairs committee remove themselves from any proceedings that pertain to the matter? Given their innate bias and their connection to the Prime Minister and the cabinet, does the hon. member think it appropriate that they sit in judgment of the affair?

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member for Davenport that I have immense respect for him. He has made significant contributions over his time in this place. He is a dean in the Commons.

However I have to take some issue with the suggestion that there should be higher priorities than the trust that Canadians can have in the cabinet.

My question for him is along those lines. He certainly understands the importance of confidence. He understands the significance that rests in a minister whose judgment, and not only his judgment but whose word, has been questioned. I do not ascribe any motives to his very spirited defence of the Minister of National Defence. However I do question whether he agrees that the standard expected must be higher and whether in fact partaking in a debate in which we are very much putting before Canadians legitimate concerns that members of the opposition have, and I suggest that members of his government may have, about those standards, must be examined and debated. Surely it is worth taking the time to do that.

I was glad to hear him reiterate the word of the House leader of the government that this matter will be put to a vote and will in fact be sent to that committee. However, does he not agree that it is worth taking the time to at least have the discussion in this place when it comes to ethics, when it comes to standards and when it comes to the truth that is expected from ministers of the crown?

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the seriousness and the passion of the question from my friend from Fraser Valley.

I wish to emphasize that the issue of proof is very much what lies at the root of this issue. Our system would crumble if we were to pull a balaclava over the truth every time disputes arose and leave Canadians wondering what happened. Our justice system and parliamentary democracy would crumble.

It shakes one's confidence to wonder if there is a need for a committee. I would not go as far as to suggest that members of parliament must be sworn under oath when we become parliamentarians. However we have sworn an oath. We swore an oath to serve our people responsibly by coming here. That aura should be constantly around us. It should be omnipresent in the Chamber.

There are certain precedents within Canada and within the Commonwealth that apply here. I can find no better words in responding to the member's question in the context of a minister who finds himself in the eye of the storm over comments that have been made than to refer to a volume entitled The Question of Confidence and Responsible Government authored by Eugene A. Forsey and G.C. Eglington. The then prime minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, who originally came from Lorne, Pictou County, Nova Scotia, in responding to questions about the resignation of ministers within his government is quoted on page 23:

This government has always upheld the fundamental principles of ministerial responsibility, and that the appearance and reality of integrity are indispensable parts of our system of government. I have insisted, and our party expects, that responsibility should be maintained...The penalties in public office are high. It is my intention to recommend to His Excellency the Governor General that the resignations be accepted--

That precedent has always been there. It is expected. It is something that is very much germane and relevant to our discussion. One would hope that we will maintain the expectation of the public that ministers will take responsibility for their actions and their indiscretions.

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Or the inclination to do so, as my friend points out.

This exercise will allow us at the very least to put it to a committee, albeit Liberal dominated, which will have to hear from witnesses, from the minister himself, perhaps from the joint chiefs of staff and from personnel in the PMO and the PCO as to how this occurred, how this fundamental breakdown in the sharing of information came about.

Parliamentary democracy, I would strongly submit, and I know that the Chair would agree, hinges on accountability and responsibility. When we see this sad spectacle of the minister of defence avoiding and not answering questions, sweating and stewing before the cameras, it does a great deal, I would suggest, to undermine the confidence of Canadians in our system and in what is happening in our military.

Heaven knows that we do not need to do any more to demoralize our soldiers given the debacle over their equipment, their uniforms and now their mission. We have to be very careful not to delve into any suggestion that the military has made mistakes, has withheld information or has done anything in any fashion that could be construed as wrong or inappropriate. This is a political debacle. This is not about the actions of our brave men and women in the theatre of war.

The question here about casting aspersions or questioning the word of a minister is a very serious allegation. It is a very serious thing. That is why, of course, the parameters of parliament do not permit us to use words like lie, mislead or mistrust. These types of references are forbidden in this place, which the Chair is more than familiar with.

However, I would suggest that for far too long members of the opposition, and by virtue of that the fifth estate as well, the media, always have given the benefit of the doubt to the Prime Minister and this government. They have always maintained that surely they did not do this intentionally, that surely this was not information that was intentionally withheld, that there could not be that degree of incompetence.

I think it is far more palatable, in fact, for Canadians to think that the government did intentionally withhold information than to think that this was purely an act of incompetence, that there was such a fundamental breakdown in the chain of command and the way that the information should have flowed into the Prime Minister's Office. That is probably something that the vast majority of Canadians would simply find unacceptable or so distasteful that they would not want to think it could happen.

Yet there is doubt. There is a real question in people's minds as to what happened, what exactly transpired this week in terms of that vital information about Canadians' actions in the theatre of war not receiving the appropriate attention and the appropriate level of importance so that it would wind up missing the Prime Minister. These actions occur and eight days later the Prime Minister maintains, and there is a real question here as to whether that could in fact be true, that he did not know, he was not aware. That is a scary thought. Canadians overwhelmingly want to believe in the competence and the integrity of government, yet this has been shaken this week in a significant way.

Of course the debate on the handing over of prisoners will, I suggest, be taking place at some point and already has begun, and there is also the decision to seek guarantees from our American colleagues to ensure that proper treatment will be shown to these prisoners and that they will be treated under the Geneva convention. Donald Rumsfeld has given guarantees that a decision will be taken in short order. A tribunal will decide whether this designation of unlawful combatants is the correct one or whether the Geneva convention should attach in its entirety to prisoners of war. That debate will no doubt occur, but again, to emphasize, this subject matter has been out there for a long time yet in the context of that, even when it occurred, when Canadian soldiers took prisoners of war or unlawful combatants, somehow there was a blockage or a breakdown in that fact being communicated to the Prime Minister, to the highest office.

As a result, when questions were asked here in the House of Commons and different versions of those facts were perpetrated, were put out by the minister, that, I would suggest, has very much wounded not only his ego and his political career but it has wounded Canadians' ability to trust and have confidence in the minister.

That leads me to the point of what will become of the minister. What will become of this committee? We know that when the minister, his staff and individuals who no doubt will be called before the committee are given an opportunity, there will be a tendency to just brush this aside and wash our hands of the issue as quickly as possible because they will not want this to fester and be a distraction to parliament. I would suggest that this is not the way we should proceed, by any means. This is such a serious situation and it has long term ramifications, not only for this situation. As I alluded to earlier, what happens when a Canadian soldier is taken into custody? What happens when there are soldiers who, God forbid, lose their lives in the theatre of war and the information does not make it back to high command, to the parliamentary precinct and into the Prime Minister's Office?

That is what we have to be concerned about as well, because a very dangerous precedent has been set. That is what we need to address and what we need to alleviate as much as the political future of the minister; it is to ensure that the integrity of the system will be protected. There must be consequences for there to be accountability.

Madam Speaker, I know you would agree that if the minister stays in office it will shake people's confidence if there are no consequences. The standards of the Prime Minister and in fact the entire standards of the House of Commons and the parliamentary system demand that there be consequences and that ministers take responsibility.

I believe that in this country there is an incredible appetite on the part of the public at large for politicians to stand in their places and admit when they are wrong, admit when mistakes are made. That in fact would be well received, granted not if it happened too often, but when it does occur. I think that in many ways we should be encouraging that taking of responsibility but that has not been the reputation and that certainly has not been the record of the government.

We know that the Prime Minister when in opposition made very bold and brash statements, as opposition members do, about what he would do when he formed the government, how his ministers would be directly accountable, how their actions would be transparent and open, and when those ministers made mistakes, what would happen? They would take responsibility. They would fall upon their proverbial swords. We can all be very metaphoric in our examples of what should happen, but it is really at the very root of parliament that parliamentarians, and ministers in particular, are directly accountable and responsible to the people who elect them. They have to act responsibly when they make mistakes.

There is also another issue of confidence that I have not touched on. That is the confidence of our allies, the confidence of those countries that are working with us to address this horrible issue of terrorism that is rampant. The actions of government as they reflect on our military operations are very much under the microscope at this time. We are very much out there in the world right now by participating in this monumental effort to address the dangers and perils of terrorism, so our allies' confidence is also of great importance to us and does factor into the minister's decision if he chooses to remain and if the government chooses to simply try to put this issue aside.

In the parliamentary tradition ministers are collectively responsible for the actions of their colleagues, so in fact this is a reflection on the entire government. This is not simply about one member of the cabinet. The cabinet speaks with one voice. That has been the tradition in this place. If it is the government's position that the minister can simply slough this off, walk away and move on with his very important responsibilities, then that reflects on the entire government. There is a moral ethic that has to be applied by the minister, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister acting in his stead.

It is unfortunate in many ways that it took a ruling from the Chair. It is unfortunate that the government and the minister essentially have been forced on bended knee to account for their actions, because we know this issue was on its way to page 10. It was not going to be a priority, yet by virtue of the hon. member from Portage la Prairie moving the motion and other members of the House, including the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, making the case that this is not something that can be washed away, we are now at this important and pivotal point.

The public has to be confident that when the actions of government or ministers are transgressions, and here we are talking about fundamentals, about what in legal terms would be the equivalent of perjury, putting untruthful statements forward, they have to be dealt with in the most serious fashion. It is not a matter of simply putting this to committee and forgetting about it. That, I would suggest, would further undermine confidence in the system.

We are very hopeful that when the issue finds itself in committee after a vote in the House it will be dealt with in the same serious nature with which we have seen the Speaker of the House and other members address it. There should be no assumption that when the House sends a minister to committee there will be a rallying around that minister on the part of the government. There certainly should be a great degree of independence in place.

We have seen previous occasions in this parliament where the Minister of Justice, not through personal actions of her own but through the actions of her department, found herself on two separate occasions appearing before the committee. Again that is a precedent that has been set and it should be followed, but this differs greatly in the sense that we have a minister who himself has made certain statements and taken certain actions that have drawn into question his truthfulness, his veracity. When the issue goes to committee, the committee will no doubt delve into this in greater detail.

I am pleased that this has occurred for one reason and one reason only: The parliamentary tradition of holding ministers to account may be something that now will be taken off the shelf, dusted off, revisited and enforced.

One would hope that throughout this entire exercise there is some contrition, some humility that might creep into the government. As I have said, the levels of arrogance mixed with ignorance on this issue appear to have done severe harm, not only to the government itself but to parliament. Heaven knows, this is not a time when we can afford to tarnish the reputation of this place. The number of voters who stayed home in the last election is evidence enough that Canadians' confidence has been severely impinged upon. I look forward to seeing this issue go to committee and I know that all hon. members will participate in that process fully.

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in what I think is a very important and historic debate from which some consequences may flow. Those could be significant consequences.

In the overall context of the debate the point has been made a number of times, in particular by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, that we are living in a very unusual time, a time heightened of awareness about a ongoing conflict in another part of the world, in Afghanistan, in which Canadian troops have entered the theatre of war.

With that backdrop and with that reality we have the minister of defence who is responsible for the administration of decisions that very much affect those soldiers in the theatre of war. We know that the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry embarked yesterday on its mission. We know that for weeks, if not months, members of joint task force 2, an elite Canadian commando unit, have been on the ground in that country participating in the American war effort against terrorism.

That very minister who holds the responsible position of administering those decisions and those actions has found himself embroiled in a very serious issue over the veracity of statements he has made pertaining to that exercise in the theatre of war.

I would submit that we are homing in on the issue. By virtue of your decision today, Mr. Speaker, you have placed a great deal of emphasis on the conduct of the minister. We are talking about the integrity of our parliamentary system. We are talking about the accountability of ministers when they rise in their places and put information before the country.

The decision that has been taken will involve a tribunal, in essence, a committee coming together to examine the actions and the statements of the minister. Within that context we know that contradictory statements were placed before the House of Commons.

On Tuesday the minister made reference to the fact that on the previous Friday he had been given certain information about the taking of prisoners. The very next day, within 24 hours, he contradicted himself in saying that it was in fact just on the Monday he was made aware of those actions by Canadian soldiers. This is a clear contradiction within 24 hours.

We also know that added into this mixture is the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada who one would hope is at the very top of government, the highest office in the land, made statements on the Monday that referred to a question from a reporter about the taking of prisoners in Afghanistan by Canadian troops. He said that it was purely hypothetical. Now we know that was not the case. In fact there had been some significant breakdown in the communication between the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister of Canada.

I would suggest this is not only an affront to Canadians. It is certainly an affront to those in the House of Commons who bore witness to these statements, but most of all and perhaps more telling is that it is confidence shattering for the Canadian military to see this kind of clownish behaviour, this breakdown at the highest levels in communication on an important issue like the taking of prisoners.

A number of members, including my friend from Windsor--St. Clair, talked about the fact that the taking of prisoners was certainly something that did not come out of the blue. This debate has been going on prior to the incident of Canadians actually taking prisoners. It was anticipated that it might in fact happen.

Further to that I have to reference the Deputy Prime Minister's flippant remark about what difference would it make or what possible change would have been effected if this breakdown in communication had not occurred.

Let us look at it from a different standpoint. What if it were Canadian soldiers who were taken into custody? What if it were a Canadian casualty and that type of information was not communicated? What we are talking about is a pipeline. There appears to be some blockage in the pipeline that did not allow the Prime Minister, who is in the highest office and who ultimately is at the highest level of accountability, to get important information in his office so that he could make decisions.

The versions of the facts that are now out there still appear to be somewhat muddied. By virtue of sending this to the committee, at the very least we will have an opportunity to find out what exactly happened, who had that information at the appropriate time and who did or did not follow their instructions and pass on that information. It is about integrity and it is about competence.

Given the reaction of the Deputy Prime Minister in particular and, in fact, the reaction of the minister, there appears to be this almost toxic mixture of arrogance and ignorance over this issue, as in “how dare the members of the opposition try to make issue of this and how dare they try to play politics?” We certainly cannot hold a candle to this government when it comes to the ability to play politics nor do we have the massive army of spin doctors that exists.

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his input into this debate on what I think is a very important issue. A very historic event has occurred here today by which we might be able to bring back some accountability to this place and bring back some semblance of responsibility on the part of ministers.

The hon. member will recall through his previous experience, and I am sure his following of Canadian politics, that there was a time when indiscretions by ministers, when such things as misinforming the House and putting mistruths in the way of the opposition, were met with accountability, were met with a degree of seriousness not only by the Chamber, which we have seen today reflected in the Speaker's ruling, but also on the part of the government. There was an internal sense of accountability and responsibility to this place and to the Canadian people.

We have spoken a great deal about the chain of command in the military sense. What about the chain of command in the parliamentary and governmental sense? What about the chain of command and the responsibility on the part of the Prime Minister to look a minister in the eye and say “You have made a mistake”?

Ironically this involves the Prime Minister, who was denied the same information, and if not denied information then perhaps, if we can believe that this is in fact the case, which there is a great deal of doubt surrounding at this point, informed Canadians on Monday that any question surrounding the taking of prisoners was hypothetical. We know now in retrospect that it was anything but hypothetical. In fact it was factual. Canadian soldiers had taken possession of Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan and had transported them to Kandahar airport. This was revealed last week in the Globe and Mail .

I have a question for the hon. member. When we speak of the chain of command in the military I think of equal importance in the question before us and in the context of this debate is the responsibility on the part of the Prime Minister to take the hard decision and call upon the Minister of National Defence to tender his resignation, as the hon. member suggested, at least in the interim and at least until the air has been cleared.

I strongly submit that the minister has been damaged. His integrity and his reputation have suffered greatly over the past number of days. His confidence and the confidence that Canadians have in him have been equally damaged.

Would the hon. member care to comment on the issue of the government and the Prime Minister intervening and making a decision? I will not be the one to praise them, but there must be enough talent in that cabinet that they could find a suitable replacement for the Minister of National Defence, at least in the interim, until the issue has been settled to some resolution.

[Fisheries, February 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today I plead with members of the House and Canadians to turn their eyes to Atlantic Canada. The small town of Canso, an historic close-knit community in my riding of Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, is in dire need of assistance.

The town's main employer, Seafreeze, a fish plant, is in peril, putting hundreds of people out of work. Canso needs the government's help. Without quota, Seafreeze has been forced to scale down its operations.

I commend the owner, Bill Berry, Mayor Frank Fraser, the Canso Trawlerman's Association and the fishermen's union, along with MLA Ron Chisholm, for their tireless efforts to keep this vital industry operating.

Now is the time for the government to step forward. I know that the new federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who comes from a community like Canso, will intervene in this crisis. I am hopeful that this first Nova Scotia Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in 40 years will not turn his back on a community in his home province. The red fish quota is needed and necessary for this plant to survive in the short term but access to more resources and fisheries must be secured for the long term.

The people of Canso deserve stability and the ability to work and live in their hometown. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has agreed to meet with the stakeholders in the future and I hope that he will work with them to find a long term and creative solution for Canso.