Peter MacKay

[Privilege, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, having listened to all of the participants in this particular question of privilege, there is much wisdom in what has been said on this side of the House, the opposition side of the House.

The greatest irony of all is that the government House leader made many if not all of the same submissions when he was a member of the opposition. I want to refer to a document that was made public on January 19, 1993. It reads as follows:

Canadians, including those who are elected to serve in Parliament, expect the House of Commons not merely to discuss openly the problems of the nation, but also to advance solutions. They expect the Commons to explore Canada's problems rationally and to establish policies for resolving them. These expectations are not being met.

The document further states:

As a result, debate on controversial legislation is usually characterized by negativism, unnecessary repetitiveness and even destructive oratorical pyrotechnics. This is the inevitable result of depriving Members of the meaningful role for which they were elected.

The final quote reads:

At present, reports to the House and debates are at the whim of the Government leading to a lack of coherence and public involvement in the discussion of these important issues.

This document, which bears on its cover, the distinguished name of the government House leader, was entitled “Reviving Parliamentary Democracy: The Liberal Plan for House of Commons and Electoral Reform”.

The words of the government House leader have completely reversed his position of not so many years ago. Obviously there was a time in his life when he had greater respect for democracy and for this institution, which Canadians are looking to at this critical time to become relevant, an institution that would allow all members of parliament to take part in meaningful debate.

To suggest that the bill that is now before the House is not important enough to extend by a few hours the debate that is to take place, is ludicrous. It is insulting to Canadians.

This legislation, which the government now diminishes by bringing in time allocation, was important enough to dangle in front of the electorate just prior to the election call. Let the record show that the bill, had it been so important then, could have passed through the House of Commons before the election. There was significant support for that legislation. There still is support for the legislation with some possible changes that might take place at committee.

The excessive use of time allocation, which members on the opposition side find tremendously offensive, is again something that the government House leader used to rail against while in opposition. He has gone to great lengths to point out what other members and, in particular, the Alliance leader did while he was a house leader in the provincial legislature. It struck me that he was almost jealous that the Alliance House leader had taken the use of time allocation to a new level that he has not yet achieved.

Using time allocation 69 times obviously indicates that the government House leader is a bit trigger happy. He has done this at the earliest possible opportunity on this important legislation. My colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona said that 100 wrongs do not make a right but certainly 69 wrongs do not make a right. We should look at each and every case on its merits and on its individual aspects when it comes to the legislation itself.

I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to take the following question into consideration in your learned deliberations of the issue. What is the rush in this particular instance? What is the presiding urgency of getting this issue through the House at breakneck speed?

[Employment Insurance Act, February 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the bill, formerly Bill C-44, which has generated a great deal of debate and discussion around the country. It is certainly a matter of great interest in my constituency in Nova Scotia, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

The changes that we are discussing result from callous changes that were made by the Liberal government to the insurance plan in 1997 which resulted in a public backlash that was attempted to be remedied by the government in the wake of the 2000 election.

Now in typical Liberal fashion, the call of the election resulted in the death of the bill. We saw that with a number of important pieces of legislation. While on the hustings though, the Liberals dangled former Bill C-44 in front of the faces of Atlantic Canadians in particular. Seasonal workers of course were those who were most vulnerable on this particular piece of legislation.

Hopefully, this early calling of the bill, the debate that has ensued and the opportunity again to revisit these issues at the committee is an indication that the Liberals are in fact quite serious about passing this legislation and bringing about improvements that will enhance the ability of seasonal workers to benefit from the bill.

In my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough the problems with employment insurance are major issues of concern. Whether I spoke to workers at Trenton steel plant, farmers in Lismore or fishermen in Canso, the same complaints were prevalent when addressing their EI concerns. The issue of undeclared earnings was by far the number one complaint throughout the riding and was given particular priority by those who engaged in shift work at the Trenton Works Ltd. steel plant in Trenton, Nova Scotia.

Just to elaborate, there is a loophole in the undeclared earnings section of the Employment Insurance Act which allows the government to claw back moneys from individuals as an overpayment even though the claimant never receives the benefit. That is the crux of the issue. In essence, the government is taking money back on earnings that were never actually realized by the employer.

I spoke to members of the HRDC local office who administer the EI claims in the maritimes and they too have expressed concerns over the manner in which this particular section is implemented.

For example, during the weeks where a shift worker is employed, the worker does not expect, nor does he receive any EI benefits. At the end of hard week's work, the worker then fills out an EI claim and sends it to be processed. However, the problem arises if the worker is then asked to work overtime. That is there is a change in the situation because of an overtime job that requires the worker to be called back in. The worker, in some instances, has already sent in the card. This is not an issue where the individual is trying to deliberately mislead anyone, it is simply a change in circumstance.

What then happens is the overtime hours will not be included in the declaration of hours worked. Often a worker does not bother to phone the HRDC office to report his or her additional hours because the person knows that he or she does not qualify for benefits for that particular week. The person knows that making a change in the original card submission will only cause delays in the processing. Sadly, those who are reliant on these government cheques are in a catch-22. They are afraid, in essence, that they will receive no benefits if they are forthcoming with this information. There is also a shortcoming in their ability to communicate this.

I know there have been attempts to deal with this anomaly by setting up a 1-800 number. Again, it is very difficult for the worker on shift work to provide that information to the local office. The delays often result in a longer wait for claims where individuals are not able to work or are not called in to work and are therefore in receipt of no income.

Still when an EI representative phones the employer to confirm how many hours the employee has worked, the discrepancy becomes evident quite quickly. The employee is then penalized for having submitted a fraudulent claim.

There is an issue that has to be addressed. There is an opportunity in this particular bill to address this anomaly. The penalties for fraudulent claims are enormous and unnecessary. The penalty covers the entire period of pay as opposed to the pay week where the infraction occurred. There is almost an issue of double jeopardy here. Thus the employee's penalty would claw back the much needed money even from weeks where the hours of work were properly reported and a blanket penalty would be imposed.

All of this may sound convoluted to any individual who has never availed themselves of seasonal employment and been on the EI system. For those who have, this is a real dilemma for seasonal workers.

I know my time is short. I look forward to the opportunity to continue participation in this debate when we resume the matter tomorrow. I know the time is here to conclude for the day, but I respect the Chair's indulgence and look forward to further participation.

[Correctional Service Canada, February 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is high time the Liberal government ceases its current practice of lowering security classifications to enhance parole eligibility for violent criminals. Law enforcement and victims groups have chastised the Liberals for defending CSC's ludicrous policy of frequently moving killers from maximum to medium or minimum security prisons only months into their life sentences.

As prisons like the Kingston pen were set to increase transfers by 29%, the solicitor general's order for a review is cold comfort to anyone. The proverbial horse is out of the barn.

The Liberals tried to deny former CSC Commissioner Ole Ingstrup's creation of the 50:50 quota system that established the practice of rushing violent criminals through the prison system at record pace. Then CSC incredibly allowed murderers like Antonio Lorenz and Michael Hector to receive minimum security placements months into their life sentences for violent murders. With problems and incidents in our prisons up 25% this year and dangerous practices of fast tracking and releasing of cold blooded killers, the solicitor general should remove his head from the sand and instead of simply mouthing the words public protection actually do something about it.

[Criminal Code, February 9th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-257, an act to amend the Criminal Code (attempting to disarm a peace officer).

Mr. Speaker, this a criminal code amendment that would create a specific criminal offence for disarming a police officer. This is an issue that is certainly being closely watched and monitored by police and peace officers across the country. It would create a specific offence, with sanctions attached, for any attempts made by any individual to take away a weapon or an instrument that the police officers use for the protection of society.

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

[Young Offenders Act, February 9th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-256, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill introduced before this parliament that would pertain directly to the existing Young Offenders Act and would lower the age of criminal accountability, from the current status of 12 to 10.

This bill would in fact allow a provision similar to the current transfer provisions that can bring a youth into adult court and would apply to a child being brought into youth court. This is obviously consistent with the government's intention to have early intervention to allow there to be criminal accountability at the younger age of 10.

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

[Points Of Order, February 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I expect I will keep within the parameters. What I said very clearly was that there is an expectation that members will not mislead the House.

I am asking you to examine the statements in Hansard made by the Prime Minister on Wednesday and by the Deputy Prime Minister today. I ask you to encourage the government to make full statements on the issue of ethics in order to give everyone an opportunity to remove the cloud that hangs over the Prime Minister on this matter.

I direct your attention, on this point of order to page 378 of Marleau and Montpetit which states:

During “Statements by Ministers”, Ministers are expected to make brief and factual statements on government policy or announcements of national interest.

I strongly urge the Chair to look at the matter in this context. These words are clear. They are a direction to the cabinet and to the Prime Minister. I ask and encourage you to look at this matter as it appears in Hansard and to have the Prime Minister make a full statement to the House if necessary.

[Points Of Order, February 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to information flowing from both the Prime Minister on Wednesday and from the Deputy Prime Minister during today's question period.

There appears to be a contradiction on a very important matter and the possibility that there may be misinformation before the House with respect to the matter.

The Prime Minister chose to leave the House with the impression on Wednesday that he had not received the ethics counsellor's recommendations concerning ministerial conduct with respect to the heads of crown corporations.

Today we learned from the Deputy Prime Minister that there has been a meeting between the Prime Minister and the ethics counsellor on this issue, a meeting which was also reported in various newspapers around the country today.

The meeting would have included briefing notes or notes that were in the Prime Minister's possession prior to Wednesday's question period.

I fully acknowledge that you are not in the chair to judge the truthfulness of answers, but there is an expectation that no member of the House, particularly the Prime Minister, will mislead the House on issues that go to the very heart of ethical standards.

[Hockey, February 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the many dedicated volunteers and sponsors in my riding who organized and hosted the hugely successful world under 17 hockey challenge in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia.

The tournament took place over the Christmas holidays and featured the best players in the world from Russia, Germany, the Czech Republic, the U.S. and Finland. Canada was represented by five regional teams. I make special mention of locals Gary Matheson and Glen Frazee of Pictou County, who played for Team Atlantic.

The success of this tournament was due to the enthusiasm of local volunteers and sponsors and the dedication of the local volunteer organizing committee. I congratulate committee chair Elaine Flynn and vice chairs John Lynn and Stu Rath, as well as the Pictou County Regional Development Commission and Sport Nova Scotia for their support.

The exceptional planning and event management of these individuals and organizations allowed us to host a super event that provided our region with great sporting events and economic spinoffs.

In the championship game, Team U.S.A. captured the gold in a thrilling 5:4 win over Team Pacific before 3,000 fans. I extend a hearty congratulations to those involved. It was a world class tournament hosted by a world class town.

[Supply, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I must agree with the hon. member who just spoke. There are a lot of semantics and careful, niggling little words being used in characterizing the office.

It is clear that the intent in the red book was to bring about accountability. The hon. member knows well about accountability. He very much makes it his passion in this place. He is the fiscal thistle who often brings out barbs of information against the government and its accountability to the House and to Canadians.

I want to put to the member the chronology of how things have unfolded. The Prime Minister owned a property. The Prime Minister sold the property. The property sale did not go through, therefore in some form it came back to him. It may have been in a blind trust, but it was a blind trust with a lot of peripheral vision. However, during the time that the property was not sold, when it was in an inbetween, purgatory stage, the Prime Minister was making representations to the Business Development Bank to assist an individual, well known by the Prime Minister, in the sale of a property adjoining his own that would therefore enhance the value of the property held by the Prime Minister.

Is this perception or reality? Is this not a conflict of interest that should be viewed by an individual with impartiality, not connected to the Prime Minister in any way, shape or form? That is what is at the crux of the issue that has led to this debate.

Does the hon. member have a comment with respect to the perception of the public in the chronology that I have just laid out?

[Supply, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the importance of the issue and given the presence of the justice minister, who is without a doubt the highest ranking lawyer in the country, I wonder if we could have unanimous consent of the House to continue the question and answer period with her for another 10 minutes.