Peter MacKay

[Business Of The House, October 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as was indicated by the House leader for the official opposition, there are certainly some problems with the method by which the government is attempting to move this legislation forward.

That said, the lesser of the evils here is that many seasonal workers, many Atlantic Canadians and Canadians right across the country who would be the beneficiaries of this legislation, will not be able to avail themselves of the support that would be put in place.

All Canadians know and all members of the House realize that this legislation, were it really a government priority, could have been brought forward in a much more timely fashion.

What was alluded to by my friend is quite true. The government is in the death throes before an election. It is attempting to get this legislation through in a very cynical fashion. It is attempting to hold this in front of the faces of Canadians and tell them that this is fixed, that this is a done deal, just as it has with medicare. That of course is not the case, as we all realize.

What we do not want to do is hold up this legislation. If there is any way procedurally that we can proceed with this legislation to the benefit and greater good of Canadians who would therefore be eligible and able to avail themselves of this support system through the EI changes, we in the Progressive Conservative Party would be prepared to co-operate with the government to see that it happens.

The indication that the other place would also be open to receipt of this legislation to see that it would pass through before the end of the day is welcome news. I do not think any member of the House should throw up roadblocks to try to prevent that from happening.

It is with a very jaded view that the government is doing this. It is obviously doing so as more pre-election goodies, but we do not want to see this legislation held up any further if at all possible. It does circumvent rules. It does not allow us to have sufficient time to look at the content and the true inner mechanisms that would be brought about by this legislation, but it is done with the best of intentions, we hope, and therefore the Progressive Conservative Party would support passage of that legislation.

[Employment Insurance Act, October 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech to the House.

I know she is very passionate and understands this issue very well. Unfortunately there are many who do not.

The reform alliance speak very often about those who make a great deal of money, more than a healthy income, who then access employment insurance. If those members read the rules and understood the dynamics they would understand that there was a clawback that did not create this anomaly.

My question for the hon. member is on two fronts. With respect to what the government has done, this cynical attempt to change the system that it broke, to somehow try to fix the harm that it created when these changes were made and these arbitrary rules came into effect that affected seasonal workers in such a terrible way, it created a black hole. Seasonal workers do not have a choice. They do not put themselves in the position of being in an industry that does not give them employment 12 months of the year. Given the opportunity, any seasonal worker that I have come across would like to work for a full year.

What has happened is that the system has changed. It has created a black hole. When workers run out of work and run out of EI they are left with no way to feed their families.

We heard comments from the reform alliance saying that any motivated, inspired person from the maritimes will move to Toronto. That lacks a great deal of understanding and insight.

On this issue alone, the reform alliance and members of the party have flip-flopped several times like a fish out of water. We know they are fish out of water when it comes to understanding issues in the maritimes.

The government is now in the cynical position where it is trying to rush this bill through. This is the last minute piece of legislation that it wants to get through. It is dangling it in front of seasonal workers who have been affected by the EI changes. It is holding it in from of them like an ice cream cone, pulling it away and saying that somehow the opposition is to blame for this. The government had ample time to get this bill through if it was a priority.

Why does the hon. member think the government would do such a thing? Why is it that this is such a low priority for the government? Does it have anything to do with the pending election? Is that the only reason the government would try to do this, to buy back voters with their own money?

[Robert Marleau, October 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is also a great pleasure for me, a young member of parliament, to join my colleagues in paying tribute to Mr. Marleau.

He was perhaps one of the first people I met when I arrived here, completely confused and overwhelmed by the tasks that lay before me. Parliament and parliamentary procedure can sometimes be described as navigating an incredible labyrinth and untying a Gordian knot at the same time. Mr. Marleau was very quick to come forward and offer advice and calm support. He was always very deliberate and supportive any time I had the pleasure to meet with him or request assistance.

Mr. Marleau offered that help on a very non-partisan level, as has been alluded to. There was never a nod or a wink or any indication that any member of any party of the House, regardless of title or personal connection, received anything other than an impartial and straightforward word of advice.

Mr. Marleau has also distinguished himself as an author. He has made a very lasting contribution to this place through his writings. He and his co-author, Mr. Montpetit, have left with us a legacy that will serve this parliament and perhaps all parliaments in the land for many years to come. The House of Commons will no doubt miss his wisdom and his steady hand, but through his writings he will be with us for many years to come.

I would describe Mr. Marleau as the consummate impeccable, professional clerk. His approach as viewed from a distance was always very steadying in its influence on this place. Most would be quick to agree that sometimes this place borders on the raucous and out of control atmosphere we have come to accept. Through it all Mr. Marleau was there, very much at the wheel, very much guiding us through the important work done in this Chamber. The old adage that quiet, calm deliberation disentangles any knot comes to mind when I think of Mr. Marleau and his stewardship in the House of Commons.

For his years of public service to the House of Commons we are very thankful. As well, we must pay tribute to those who were with him at the table.

I do not want to mix the tributes, but it has been my distinct pleasure to have been in a parliament over which you have presided, Mr. Speaker. I have had the honour to work with Mr. Marleau. I hope it will serve me regardless of what happens in the days to come.

On a personal level, it has been my great honour to say that I know the man. I admire the diligence and patience he has shown with new House members, including me, and with the many others who have expressed an interest in our parliamentary procedure. I believe he went above and beyond his service and the strict professional definition of clerk when it came to inquiries from outside this parliamentary precinct. He was always there, and for that we can be very thankful.

I know his family is present. His family was always near, always close to him. I remember being in his office and hearing him speak with beaming pride of his sons. He also has great love for and admiration of his wife and her support. I wish Bob, his wife Ann, their two sons and their whole family many years of happy retirement. I certainly hope we will cross paths again.

[Rcmp, October 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court has ruled that the provincial court has the jurisdiction to hear six labour charges arising out of the tragic drowning of RCMP Constable François Carrière in December 1997.

These charges state that the RCMP failed to train, equip and supervise Carrière during his underwater drug search. Now the RCMP are once again seeking a court order to stop the trial on a jurisdictional and technical basis to avoid answering the merits of the case.

My question is for the solicitor general. This will be his final question in the House. Will he, rather than hiding behind procedural delays to dull the sword of justice, let this matter proceed to trial?

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

Talk about the GST.

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

Because of free trade. Don't forget that.

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I must say that natural gas emission rivals the massive Sable gas offshore project in my province of Nova Scotia.

Unfortunately, when I speak of gas, this mini-budget with its mini vision is really not going to offer the people very much other than more postdated promises until after the election. What we see happening is this approach by the government to come trick or treating to the Canadian public, just on the eve of an election, dangling these goodies out in front of the public only to pull them back unless it gets the vote.

My question for the hon. member is, with this so-called mini-budget, where is the vision? Where is the long term plan to tackle the deficit and the debt? Where is the long term agenda to try to pay down this national debt that we have?

What does this do for students? What about students who are wrestling with huge debts coming out of university and with no hope of getting on their feet or even a kick-start into the economy? Right now their choices are either to go bankrupt or to go to the United States. That is unfortunate and that is the environment they are facing right now based on what the government has set up. What are we going to do for students? What is the long term plan to deal with the debt situation?

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

What about the helicopters? That cheque bounced.

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the right hon. member for Kings—Hants for a very compelling speech. He has proven time and time again, since his return to the House of Commons, that he is a great Canadian who understands the difficulties and hardships faced by many in this country today.

We have heard a great deal from the government in the past days and, of course, we have come to expect that most of the information that comes out in a budget has been leaked to the press prior to hearing from the Minister of Finance or any government official here in the House of Commons. That lack of respect is something, sadly, that has come to be expected by members of the opposition and further marginalizes parliament.

What this budget is not about has become quite obvious. What the budget is not about is helping farmers. What the budget is not about is focusing in on the issue of student debt and the crisis that many students face when they emerge at a time in their lives when they should be filled with optimism, with hope and with some sense of purpose. The first thing they have to face is the government knocking at their door, coming to collect on a student debt. This is the type of situation that leads our best, our brightest and our most ambitious young people to leave the country or to leave regions of the country where opportunities are not as great, as we see in Atlantic Canada.

Another issue that this budget does not deal with, in fact it is a shell game, a facade, is the issue of a rebate on the cost of heating oil. What it does is it raises expectations. It is so pathetic it is like holding a little chocolate bar out to a child and then pulling it back. The indication is that people will be given a small rebate on the cost of heating oil. Yet that cheque, if it ever does arrive, will not get to these needy people until January. There are a lot of cold months between now and January. I do not know what people in Ecum Secum or Canso will do if they need to fill their oil tanks or if they need gasoline to get into town so they can get such luxuries as food. What this government has chosen to do is to give money back. Of course there is this insidious little promise that perhaps they should vote for the government if they really want that cheque to arrive on time. This is the crass type of electioneering we have seen engineered by the government in the lead-up to this campaign.

With some of those inadequacies which members of the Progressive Conservative Party and other members in the opposition have pointed out, my question to the right hon. member for Kings—Hants is, what should we be doing?

What is the government in waiting, the Progressive Conservative Party, going to do for the poorest of the poor with respect to those who are still making as little as $10,000 annually? What should we be doing in terms of changing our tax laws to address that situation?

[Economic Policy, October 18th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek unanimous consent of the House to extend the debate.

We would respectfully submit that it is in everyone's interest that we hear from all parties on this debate, in particular a former Prime Minister. I would hope that all members of the House would afford every party the opportunity to speak to this important motion.