Peter MacKay

[Privilege, March 12th, 1999]

That's wrong.

[Privilege, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this is a question of privilege of which I gave notice prior to question period. It deals specifically with a communiqué released from the Minister of Public Works yesterday, a media advisory that again bypassed the House on a matter of concern to the membership and I would suggest a matter of real concern, namely the costly renovation of Parliament Hill.

The media communiqué announces that the minister has chosen to name the parliamentary building advisory council, a body that will report to the minister and is a creation of the minister and the government. Yet this body has really no mandate from the House.

In particular, the manner in which it has been presented is again very consistent with the government's approach, that is one in which ministerial announcements are made through the media prior to any notice or any meaningful debate on the floor of the House of Commons.

This has become far too regular an occurrence that we see here every day. There is literally no meaningful debate between government ministers and members of the House on these important matters.

The same occurs at the committee level where most ministers rarely appear and, if they do, they do so armed with an army of departmental officials.

I am sure members will agree that this furthers the marginalization of this House with respect to any sort of meaningful interaction between elected members in opposition and ministers of the crown. I am very concerned that this ongoing trend which is being perpetrated by this government continues.

With respect to this particular communique, the minister announced that “The Council will be composed of senior officials from the main stakeholder organizations, including the House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament” and the other organizations which are mentioned.

The Senate is represented quite ably by the hon. Sharon Carstairs. I have absolutely no objection to her participation. I am sure she will do an excellent job representing the interests of the senators. Yet there is no elected member on this council.

There is no member of the House on Commons on this body and I would respectfully suggest that that is a breach of the privileges of members of this House. There is not one elected official. This should be of concern to every member of this House. A retired table officer representing elected officers is an affront to this House.

I do not say this to belittle in any way the appointments that have been made. In fact these particular individuals are very able, very honourable and long serving members of this Chamber. However, I would again respectfully suggest to the hon. Chair that it is not acceptable to members of the House that we not be permitted to have an elected official on this council. It is simply not acceptable that there not be a member of this House to at least offset the presence of a member of the other place.

This is yet another botched attempt by the minister. It reflects again, quite accurately, the poor relations which exist between the public service and members of this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move a motion to refer the matter of the minister's actions to the committee, if you find that there is a prima facie case, and there is no mandate from this House and no one has the right to represent that they may act for members of this House without specific authority from this House. To do so, I suggest, would be contemptible.

It is not up to the minister to determine who represents this House. This may be an appropriate matter to take to the Board of Internal Economy. We have had difficulties with respect to this entire matter in the past. This ongoing trend of communiques to the press prior to announcements being made in this House, I suggest, is similarly very much an affront to the dignity and the privileges that members of this House should come to expect from the government.

[Big Brothers And Big Sisters, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to pay tribute to Big Brothers and Big Sisters organizations across the country, and in particular in my home riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

It was with great honour that I was chosen to be the honorary chairman of the annual bowl-a-thon in my riding that took place last weekend, which raised over $38,000. Similar events took place across the country.

I am very thankful for my experience as a big brother with Matthew Jardine. For many years volunteering my time to this organization was an important event in my life. In return, Big Brothers and Big Sisters organizations have given me a great sense of community and pride.

Being a big brother is probably one of the most positive experiences a person can enjoy. I feel tremendously rewarded by having been involved in this program.

Today I urge all hon. members of the House to donate time and, where appropriate, money for this worthwhile program. Big Brothers and Big Sisters enriches the lives of all those who choose to make the commitment to be a big brother or a big sister. In this day and age, with so many people facing challenging times, particularly young people, having a stable influence in their lives and a person who cares is what is so unique and fantastic about these organizations.

My main hope is that more people will become involved in Big Brothers and Big Sisters so that the number of organizations will grow throughout the country for the benefit of all those involved.

I wish Big Brothers and Big Sisters continued success as they enrich the lives of so many.

[Young Offenders Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, refusing to do so takes away a mechanism to do what the minister would accomplish.

The Liberals have tried to please everyone with this bill and as a result, will please no one. They have tabled a piecemeal bill that is costly and confusing to implement. There is no concern of the government of course because the current funding of only 30% for the cost of enforcement falls far short of the 50% intended for enforcement.

Where is the government's commitment to restore federal funding to properly implement a truly national and equitable youth criminal justice system?

[Young Offenders Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, after 18 months and numerous media leaks, today's long awaited youth criminal justice act will disappoint Canadians. As before, Bill C-68 conjures up images of false hope. The bill does nothing to lower the age of accountability to 10 years. It ignores provincial demands for mandatory minimum sentences for weapons offences. The size and complexities of its clauses and subclauses will invariably lead to confusion and further backlog in the courts.

Why is the minister ignoring the advice of the provinces and her own experts and refusing to lower the age of criminal responsibility?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to the arguments put forward by the learned government House leader and to respond most directly to his arguments. I suggest the words “recommit” in this instance and “referred back” can be construed much the same.

More important, I think the intent of the word here is to refer back or recommit to a stage of the proceedings as opposed to the inference that it is a reference back to the actual committee.

In any event, we are suggesting that the original ruling is in order, a ruling made by Mr. Speaker. You are essentially being asked by the government House leader to sit in judgment of yourself or to overrule yourself. We all know that you are very able and no one is questioning your ability. You are being asked to be a court of appeal for your own ruling.

The more important instance here is that this intent is to go back to a stage as opposed to sending it back to the finance committee. The intention here is that it is to go back to committee of the whole. The reference in Beauchesne's 737(1) is:

A bill may be recommitted to a committee of the whole or to a committee by a member moving an amendment to the third reading motion.

I suggest this is very much in order and that Mr. Speaker's original ruling was the correct one. Therefore I want to also indicate this is not a dilatory motion. It is not the intent of the mover of the motion or the party of the mover of the motion that this be dilatory or that this hold up the bill. That is not our intent. We want the provinces to get their money.

We want this equalization bill to pass through the House. I suggest further that, as a result, this will not add time to the mix. This would be voted on at the same time as the main motion.

Mr. Speaker, your original ruling I suggest was the correct one. In your wisdom, I think you ruled correctly on the original occasion when this was before the House. I encourage you to re-embrace that original ruling.

[Division No. 332, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I can see the air will be thick with party line today. On November 3, 1998, I brought to the attention of the House a citation from page 303 of the book Presumed Guilty by William Kaplan. In it the Prime Minister allegedly discussed Airbus and mused about a royal commission with an Ottawa businessman in the summer of 1995. This was several months before November 20, 1995 when the Prime Minister claimed that he had learned of the investigation in a Financial Post article dated November 18, 1995.

I asked the Prime Minister to confirm or deny that particular conversation took place and would the Prime Minister stand by his November 1995 statement that he did not discuss Airbus prior to November. As expected, the Prime Minister did not answer the question and simply stated that the person who gave him the information did not give his name and this amounted to an allegation based on nothing.

Trite, dismissive, nonsense answers are becoming the norm and Canadians are concerned that the government could be so reckless in the pursuit of a conviction of an innocent man. Despite the Liberal government's malicious attack and continued efforts to win a conviction of some sort against the former prime minister evidence has never been found to substantiate this cause. This is a misguided investigation and the facts are disturbingly clear.

Brian Mulroney is innocent of all wrongdoings and yet the Liberal government will not cease and desist the RCMP investigation. The Liberal government has a vendetta against the former prime minister which stems from the Liberals' days in opposition. There are growing concerns that the current Prime Minister's legacy might pale by comparison. The Liberals' plot for revenge is continuing to cost the taxpayers significant dollars, $4 million and counting.

It is obvious the Liberal Party has placed its own agenda for vengeance ahead of the fundamental freedoms of this man. It appears that while the Liberals are in government these rights do not have importance for Mr. Mulroney. Mr. Mulroney knows the Liberal agenda all too well, for he has been presumed guilty from the very beginning.

Furthermore, the Canadian public has found that its demands for responsible government in this case have fallen on deaf ears. The idea of wasting $4 million on the Airbus investigation is clearly not what the public would want and it is not responsible, especially when the repeated attempts to find any wrongdoing have continually come up completely empty.

The Airbus investigation has amounted to an expensive embarrassment for this government. Yet, like a stubborn mule, the government would rather continue to waste public money than admitting that its insatiable obsession with defaming the character of a former prime minister has led it to getting nothing more than egg on its face.

There may come a day in a civil action when we will hear from the important players in this matter, players like Kimberly Prost, her boss Mr. Corbett, Fraser Fiegenwald, the fictitious writer Stevie Cameron and possibly even a former justice minister and solicitor general. The sad results of this vendetta may truly be made public at that time; all of this done in the face of deep cuts to RCMP budgets that have resulted in overloading a computer system, the CPIC information system, cuts that have affected significantly the ability of police officers to do their work.

With all that said, the following question begs to be answered yet again. When will the government simply cut its losses, put an end to this ill founded investigation and focus on replenishing scarce police resources for the betterment of protecting Canadian citizens?

[Prisons, March 8th, 1999]

Of course, that does not come near to answering the question, Mr. Speaker, so I will try another 50% question.

Last week on the subject of 50:50 prison release quotas, the solicitor general stated there are no quotas, there never were any quotas and there never will be any quotas. If this is to be believed, how does the solicitor general explain CSC commissioner Ole Ingstrup's statement that by the year 2000 he would like to see a 50:50 ratio between convicted felons in prison and those on parole? Could he please explain exactly what a 50:50 ratio is if it is not a quota?

[Young Offenders Act, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice will table long awaited changes to the Young Offenders Act this week. From the usual leaks from her department we know much of the content of the bill is before the public and that it will allow some provinces to opt out.

These much overdue changes are but minor progress toward correcting the dangerous trend of youth violence in Canada. All of these changes will have little effect if the law enforcement community does not have the necessary resources to enforce the law.

Will the minister commit to assuming the intended 50% funding responsibility of the federal government for the existing and the new legislation?

[Shrimp Fishery, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to express concern regarding the future of the shrimp fishery in Nova Scotia. Seafreez Foods Inc. has requested, along with the Canso Trawlerman's Association, an immediate increase in shrimp stock quotas off the Strait of Canso, Nova Scotia. A similar request was made by the ACS plant in Mulgrave. Both have made straightforward requests for help.

After meeting with the minister and bringing this matter to his attention several times over the past few months, I am confident that he too understands the importance and significance of the much needed quota for the small fishing communities of Canso and Mulgrave, Nova Scotia. Given the dire situation that these communities find themselves in, such proposals make absolute sense.

I urge the minister to review these proposals with fairness and equity and answer favourably the plea for quota. These two communities are among the most economically stricken areas of the country.

The hardships experienced since the downturn of the fishery have been staggering. If the requests are denied, as was the case with the turbot quota, devastation to the people in these communities is guaranteed. The premier of Nova Scotia has proven to be an ineffective voice for these communities.

As the minister is well aware, the fishing—