Peter MacKay

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there is the voice of reason and objectivity.

Every time we hear the opposite side say that this is a smear campaign, that this is a deliberate attack on the integrity of the Prime Minister, those individuals would know. They honed their skills when they were in opposition as members of the rat pack. They took personal attacks to a new level.

My question is for the hon. government House leader has to do with realistic transactions. The government House leader has suggested that there is no link whatsoever between this struggling hotel and the golf course. Does the hon. member actually expect Canadians to believe this? Does he actually expect Canadians to accept that this hotel, which was the recipient of over $600,000 of taxpayer money, would have no bearing on the financial success of the golf course owned by the Prime Minister? Does he actually expect Canadians to believe that if the hotel had gone bankrupt, the golf course would not have been affected? Is that what he is asking Canadians to swallow?

[Softwood Lumber, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the United States has formally filed a countervailing duties application to seek tariffs of up to 40% on Canadian softwood lumber. This would cost Canadian producers $4 billion per year.

Having had years to prepare, the Liberal government has again been caught flatfooted with 45 days to go, only now realizing that a common, uniform trade policy for softwood lumber is not possible as regional circumstances are too different.

Most Atlantic Canadian woodlots are privately owned. The owners have enjoyed free trade in softwood lumber for well over a century, with exports totalling almost $1 billion last year. Export taxes and countervailing or anti-dumping duties would prove disastrous for the Atlantic industry. I call on the international trade minister to ensure that free trade in softwood lumber continues in our region.

I object to Liberal statements that the government will force Atlantic sawmills to comply with Canada's export monitoring system, possibly resulting in an export tax on maritime lumber. Coupled with a harsh winter, this would devastate the region. It is absolutely unacceptable to Atlantic Canada.

When will the Liberal government get its act together on this and other important trade issues?

[Privilege, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have to sit here with some amusement watching the feigned indignation of the government House leader over these personal comments.

However, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that because of the proximity in time, given your ruling, there is an opportunity here to bring this matter also before the procedure and house affairs committee to look at it.

The government House leader is right. The Minister of Justice is not personally responsible, but this goes to the principles of governmental and ministerial responsibility.

[Prime Minister, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the mystery over the Auberge Grand-Mère continues to grow with more documents and more questions. It is beginning to resemble a cheap episode of the X Files , and the truth is still out there.

There is a six year gap between the original dodgy deal in 1993 and the final sale in 1999. This is an after the fact attempt to corroborate the Prime Minister's denial of conflict of interest. Will the Prime Minister voluntarily agree to table all the documents and account for the relevant six year gap?

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for her remarks and her very clear enthusiasm for this upcoming summit. It is interesting to note that that same enthusiasm for trade issues and the vigour with which Liberals are promoting this particular summit is the type of vigour that we saw in opposition to free trade not that many years ago.

However more to the point, my question, with particular emphasis on trade, with this upcoming summit looming in the near future is this. Would it not have put Canada in a better position to have addressed some of the very serious trade issues that are looming as we approach this summit in Quebec City? For example, we have the expiration of the softwood lumber accord which will happen this weekend. The way Canada handled the Brazilian beef issue caused severe harm to our trade relations with that country. Of equal importance is the ongoing challenge for Prince Edward Island potato farmers because of the government's lack of leadership on that issue and its paltry attempts to compensate them for their losses.

These issues are all still outstanding. The borders for Prince Edward Island potato farmers are still closed. With the upcoming expiration of the softwood lumber accord, this is going to throw softwood lumber producers around the country into complete disarray. We have not even resolved a common position between provinces, let alone how we are going to approach this with our American trading partners.

Is it not true that we are somewhat lacking in moral credibility when we go into this summit and start to approach some of these larger equally important issues? Would it not have been in Canadians' interest for her government to try to resolve some of these issues before we went to this summit?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the remarks of the hon. member. When he speaks of the issue of deterrence. I agree that general and specific deterrents are an important part of the messaging in the criminal justice system. It applies to youth as well.

Having looked at the bill he would know that it attempts to draw a line in the sand between violent and non-violent offences. It sets up the impression in the public sphere that somehow the bill would enable more to be done in terms of early intervention. There would be more programming available by virtue of the bill. There would be more attempts made to be proactive in our criminal justice system. All those things are certainly laudable goals. They are areas, he will agree, that we should be looking at.

The difficulty that exists in the bill is that the federal government through the Department of Justice has given no undertaking whatsoever to increase its share of the costs of the administration of justice, particularly pertaining to the young offenders system. As it currently exists in most provinces, the federal government is picking up less than half the cost.

My question for the hon. member is quite simple. If the new bill is raising expectations and putting in place mechanisms that put greater emphasis on early intervention and rehabilitation, goals that we should be trying to attain, yet at the same time is giving no commitment whatsoever to funding such programs, are we really not in some instances making things worse by dashing the hopes of dedicated people in probation and other dedicated workers who are trying to do more to help youth at risk?

[Points Of Order, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order with respect to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

It has come to my attention that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, which is scheduled to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, the 27th, will be held in room 308 of the West Block.

Given the great general and public interest in having the meeting broadcast, I would ask that the chair of the committee use his office to facilitate the meeting in a room that will accommodate the large number of individuals and media who want to attend.

[Prime Minister, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there are numerous inconsistencies and contradictions on the public record by the Prime Minister over the Auberge Grand-Mère affair. One thing the Prime Minister has said consistently is that he wanted to get paid for his shares.

Will the Prime Minister simply inform the House what was the original asking price for the shares in the Grand-Mère Hotel, agreed to by Jonas Prince in 1993, and what was the final price paid to him by Mr. Michaud in 1999?

[Request For Emergency Debate, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I have given notice to your office of our intention. I speak of our intention collectively because, as you have noted, this letter to you is signed by myself as a representative of the Progressive Conservative Party and by the chief opposition whip, the deputy leader in the House for the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP House leader.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that there is a very real and pressing need to have an emergency debate based on information that now is in the public realm. This emergency debate would concern the apparent failure of the Prime Minister to inform the House of Commons fully concerning his relationship to loans given to the Auberge Grand-Mère hotel. This information and this issue have paralyzed the House and shaken the confidence of Canadians in their government.

I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to give the opportunity for all members of the House, including the Prime Minister himself, to come forward to take part in a full and open debate so that there would be commentary and confidence restored to government in this country.

I would urge you to accept this application for an emergency debate. There is tremendous support for this application from members on the opposition side, and I suspect that there may be members on the government side who would support this application. I respectfully submit to the Chair that it is very timely in its nature and, if necessary, we would be prepared to debate this matter immediately.

[Auberge Grand-Mère, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is deluding himself or he is being wilfully blind. We know the Prime Minister maintained ownership and active control of the golf shares between 1996 and 1999, while actively lobbying the BDC to give a loan to the adjoining hotel: help the hotel, help the golf course, help himself.

The Prime Minister has misled the House. He has sullied his reputation. He has breached the public trust. I call upon the Deputy Prime Minister to set up an independent inquiry under the Inquiries Act of Canada. Will he prepare to do that today?