Peter MacKay

[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—

[Prisons, March 4th, 1999]

They are nice platitudes, Mr. Speaker, but Canadians need to know who is running the show. The CSC is bullying the National Parole Board and individual wardens into meeting this quota and implementing a 12-step reintegration program.

The government has a duty to protect Canadians first and foremost. By releasing more prisoners and ignoring the legislative safeguards and early warning mechanisms, Canadians are being put at risk.

The solicitor general must demonstrate accountability and responsibility for this dangerous cost cutting measure. How will the minister explain this outrageous quota system to Canadians who are falling victim to crimes of repeat offenders?

[Prisons, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are shocked to learn that federal prison wardens have been instructed to boost inmate release by 69% by the end of this year.

CSC commissioner Ole Ingstrup has urged officials to ignore technical parole breaches such as alcohol use and association with criminals and reduce refusals for detention. In a June 1998 memo, Ingstrup calls for a 50:50 quota split for convicts in prison and those on parole by the year 2000. This has become a virus in the justice system.

Will the solicitor general confirm that the Liberal government is promoting a get out of jail free quota system for the release of Canadian prisoners?

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I question the hon. member with respect to this budget and his government's priorities when it comes to law and order in this country.

We know they have a record of late of being very soft on crime. We are still waiting for the tabling of the Young Offenders Act. We know there have been massive cuts to the organized crime budget. We know the RCMP computer system is rusting out, yet millions and millions have been pumped into a useless gun registry system.

Why has this government set such a low priority for law enforcement in this country?

[Airbus, March 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, he should tell that to a former solicitor general.

For years now Canadians have witnessed this farcical saga that resulted in a forced half-hearted apology to Mr. Mulroney, followed by RCMP investigators then continuing and expanding the investigation.

With law enforcement cuts resulting in the impending collapse of CPIC, depleted organized crime budgets and the closure of a cadet college, I question the government's priorities.

When will the government cut its losses, put an end to this ill-founded investigation and focus on the replenishment of scarce police resources for the better protection of Canadians?

[Airbus, March 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP investigation into the Airbus affair has cost Canadian taxpayers nearly $4 million and counting. Despite the fact that investigators have absolutely no evidence to justify chasing these false allegations, they have stepped up their efforts. This amounts to a vindictive and politically motivated pursuit of a former Prime Minister.

In light of this ongoing embarrassment for this Liberal government, when will the solicitor general stop wasting taxpayers' money and call off his Liberal posse?