Peter MacKay

[Access to Information, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, since 1999 the Prime Minister has run up a hefty legal tab of over $150,000 fighting a request from his own information commissioner to review his agenda books. This dispute has its origins in the Prime Minister's well documented interference at the APEC summit.

Since forming a government, the Prime Minister no longer likes accountability or transparency. Neither the information commissioner nor the privacy commissioner can order material be released. Why is the Prime Minister using taxpayers' money to hide behind the powers of his office and subvert the law of access?

[Csis, October 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, somehow the Prime Minister thinks that all refugees who are terrorists are going to arrive by planes. There is a story about cargo boy, a suspected al-Qaeda terrorist bound for Canada, who was picked up in a routine inspection in Italy, which shows that people still do travel by boat.

Ships are requested to call customs 96 hours in advance. The coast guard, our first line of defence since the Liberals cut the ports police, had 250 positions eliminated. Its radar only provides 20% coverage.

How can the government possibly justify its actions, which have left our massive coastline so vulnerable to terrorists? What happens if the terrorists simply decide not to call?

[Health, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has referred defensively to politically motivated witch hunts, which is quite ironical and cynical coming from the architect of the ongoing Airbus investigation.

The Minister of Health felt compelled in 1997 to consult with the ethics counsellor about his potential conflict of interest due to a prior connection with Apotex.

However, if the Cipro kid wants to be consistent and credible, can he tell us if in 1994, when he was the attorney general and his department and Apotex were together before the Supreme Court of Canada, he consulted with the ethics counsellor about his then potential conflict of interest?

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, members of the opposition coalition vote no to the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Customs Act, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, all members of the opposition coalition present will vote yes to the motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's watchdogs have clearly indicated that the new anti-terrorism bill goes too far in denying disclosure of information to Canadians and that it is open to abuse. Both the privacy and information commissioners were clear and forceful in condemning the attempts at secrecy by the government.

Proposed amendments to Bill C-36, to the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act give the government overreaching powers to, without explanation or oversight, refuse to disclose. Without sunsetting, this bank of information will be permanently lost.

Why is the government now using the security threat to try to justify a clampdown on the free flow of information?

[International Co-operation, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is hardly an accounting. The minister has no excuse for such blatant and backdated patronage. She personally asked that her department, CIDA, award a contract to workers on her election campaign. Senior officials at CIDA said that they were pressured to award the contracts. They said “we were told to make this happen”.

The contracts were questionable. The patronage is obvious. Will the foreign affairs minister provide some explanation on behalf of his cabinet colleague for this atrocious abuse of taxpayer dollars in awarding loyal Liberals?

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of my valued friend and colleague. I will refrain from making any reference to this mantra of free speech or any reference at all to the ability to speak our minds because I think my friend, more than anyone in the House perhaps, has come to appreciate this a great deal.

He spoke about the possible interference within government agencies, particularly the RCMP. We see that time and time again, even on a bill as important as the new anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-36, where at the outset of the bill going to committee, both here in the House and in that other place, the Prime Minister made comments from outside the country as to the outcome of the deliberations with respect in this instance to the sunset clause.

My friend also alluded to government becoming too large and interfering,particularly in property rights. I am reminded of an expression I heard that any government that is large enough to give us everything we want is certainly large enough to take everything we have. I think that expression ran through his speech as well.

Would the member expand further on this concept of parliamentary ability to do its work? The government and the Prime Minister, in particular, through his office and through his reach, which we have seen at APEC where Jean Carle was doing his bidding and through the Shawinigan affair where the BDC was called upon to make certain interventions, all of that is very indicative of a government that does not respect parliamentary democracy. I would encourage my friend to comment further.

[Fugitives From Justice In Other Countries Act, October 22nd, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-403, an act respecting fugitives in Canada from justice in other countries.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important and time sensitive private member's bill. Its enactment would require annual reports to be submitted by the Minister of Justice to parliament on the extent, volume and progress of extradition requests received by Canada each year.

These reports would be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for consideration and a report. The committee would then recommend that a point of extradition law be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion.

There is provision in the bill for the Minister of Justice to respond to the committee's recommendation for debate in the House of Commons. This is very much in keeping with the need for transparency and greater examination of these issues in Canada.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Criminal Law Amendment Act (2001), October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I share his concerns about the delay involved in getting this bill before us. Even if the legislation had passed last June, it is virtually inexcusable we have not acted sooner to protect children from the activity of luring over the Internet, which is what the legislation is aimed at curbing.

This problem has been with us for a long time. I know the Catholic women's league and the Sisters of Saint Martha in my riding of Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough have been very proactive in their white ribbon campaign to remind the government and to constantly keep the issue on the front burner in terms of legislative initiatives such as this one.

One would hope that this step does not preclude future efforts on behalf of legislators and members of parliament as is the case with the hon. member's bill that he has taken over from the former member, Chris Axworthy.

We would hope that the use of technology for such a nefarious and extremely damaging cause would be curbed at every step. The hon. member is correct in pointing out that children are particularly vulnerable because of the prominence of computers in schools and in homes.

Children routinely communicate with unknown individuals over the Internet using chat sites. This new mode of communication can be extremely damaging because the luring provisions often lead to meetings or physical confrontations where the child is unbeknownst to the pedophile. Rendezvous may take place at a certain point with a known pedophile where an individual may embark on a terrible act of sexual aggression or physical violence. For that very reason we are optimistic that this type of legislation would help curb that type of activity.

Coupled with the bill is the important qualifier that without giving police the resources to do the follow up, without working with Internet service providers to ensure that there is policing of this network of communication, the bill would not accomplish its goals. Therefore we hope the government would be prepared to put money where the bill is and provide police with special funding, if necessary, to ensure that this type of communication which can have such grave implications for children is curbed.