Peter MacKay

[Human Resources Development, February 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, daily the minister of HRDC subjects Canadians to the sad spectacle of self-destruction with the documented mishandling and mismanagement of taxpayers money uncovered by the internal audit, the subsequent fallout, the spin-doctoring, the withholding of information, the manipulation of statistics and the sliding scale of eligibility. Could the minister explain why Canadians should trust her at all?

[Lighthouses, February 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of many individuals in Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who are concerned by the proposals being considered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to solarize lighthouses in the area.

Not only is solarization expensive, unnecessary and ineffective, it begs the question, why convert cabled lighthouses to solar? We have already witnessed the removal of horns, buoys and backup diesel motor systems as cost cutting measures, to the detriment of ocean safety. Blankets of fog in places like the Strait of Canso often render solar lighthouses ineffective. A rush to alter equipment and automation is dangerous and haste could cost lives.

Fishermen are deeply concerned with the prospect of losing these lighthouses by converting them to a solar operation. The most immediate threat is to lighthouses in Cranberry; however, Whitehead and Eddie Point could soon be targeted upon the completion of the Cranberry transformation.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to seriously weigh the safety concerns of the fishermen most directly affected by these proposed changes. I urge the minister to reconsider all plans to further downgrade and denigrate these historical and practical lighthouses in the province.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to clarity. In reality, when one looks at the bill there is very little that is clear. It is very confusing for Canadians. It is so confusing that last night in committee his minister did not know that the territories, in terms of their having a say, were included in this. The political actors are not clear. The input from aboriginal peoples is not clear. The boundary disputes that could erupt are not clear.

I ask the hon. member to comment on that and give us a direct comment, not the vitriol and the bombast about that party over there siding with the separatists. We are a federalist party. We have always been a plan A party. We have worked very hard, much to the dismay of the hon. member, Mr. McKenna and others, including the Prime Minister who torpedoed attempts to bring Quebec into the federation and try to improve the way the federation worked.

The bill is not about clarity, it is about political advantage. It is about bolstering the Bloc and the Reform Party. What does the hon. member have to say about the real intention of the bill?

[Human Resources Development, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in recent conversations with an official from StatsCan we were told “I am very suspicious. I don't know how HRDC comes up with these numbers”.

Given this direct contradiction, can the minister tell us why she is using bogus numbers to circumvent the rules for her own department?

[Human Resources Development, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Minister for HRDC stated that she was using Statistics Canada figures to justify TJF money that was flowing into her riding. We have been informed by Statistics Canada that they do not produce unemployment numbers on a riding by riding basis.

My question to the minister is very simple. Where did the minister get her numbers?

[Points Of Order, February 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but echo the same sentiments of the House leader of the New Democratic Party. There is a disproportionate price that is paid by the smaller parties as a result of the system and the process that has evolved. When question period is cut short due to the racket, it is the two last questioners in the House who inevitably lose their questions.

As has already been pointed out—and I think the government House leader would support this position—there should be an intervention on the part of the Chair because the acquiescence, in essence, hurts parties that are not causing the problem and we are paying a disproportionate price. To lose one question out of a possible five or six is a huge portion of the amount of floor time that we have in the House of Commons.

I would echo that sentiment and ask that the Chair be more diligent in interventions if questions are not posed properly. If time is being wasted we should move to the next party or the next questioner.

[Human Resources Development, February 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why she would be proud to take jobs from her colleague's riding.

The minister has quoted unemployment statistics for her riding in 1995. Surely similar information should be available to all MPs, not just Liberal MPs. When several of our MPs called their local HRDC offices, they found that this information is only available by economic region. In 1995 the unemployment rate in the minister's riding was 8%. How then did she qualify for TJF funding? Why did the minister get preferential treatment?

[Human Resources Development, February 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, two companies, RMH Teleservices and Duchess Foods, moved to the HRDC minister's riding and between them received $2 million of taxpayers' money. Duchess Foods was lured into the minister's riding from the riding of her colleague from Hamilton Mountain at a cost of $370,000.

How can the minister justify this flagrant misuse of public money?

[Naming Of Member, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, from my vantage point, the minister read directly from a letter or a memo.

[Naming Of Member, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises from question period and from what has just transpired.

We would ask once again, as we have made similar requests, that the minister table the document that she referred to today.

Mr. Speaker, as you will know, there were previous occasions where this has happened. The Prime Minister referred to a number of documents last week. The Speaker referred to the citation in Beauchesne's, section 495, which states:

A minister is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the House without being prepared to lay it on the Table.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I believe you had reserved judgment and were intending to review Hansard to see the specific references that were made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister. We would again request that those documents be laid before the House.