Peter MacKay

[The Late Hon. Arthur Ronald Huntington, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness and a sense of pride that I rise to pay tribute to the Hon. Ron Huntington who died in Vancouver on December 28, 1998.

Mr. Huntington served in this House from 1974 until his retirement in 1984. He was the minister of state for small business and industry during the administration of the Progressive Conservative government under the Right Hon. Joe Clark. My father was also a member of that administration and expressed that he was extremely proud to have served with a man such as Mr. Huntington.

Ron Huntington's parliamentary passion was to improve the public accountability of government to the House of Commons. He wanted members of this House to play a more effective role in holding to account ministers and public officials. He wanted better scrutiny of the expenditures of public funds and he worked diligently on the public accounts committee and on the Lefebvre committee to further those goals.

Ron Huntington came from a generation that believed that public service and duty to his country was of extreme importance. He served in the Royal Canadian Navy during the second world war and obtained the rank of lieutenant commander in a very distinguished military career.

He was also very active in community clubs and committed to improving his community. This followed his parliamentary career where he then headed to the Canada Ports Authority and made even further contributions to Canadian coastal communities.

Simply put, Mr. Huntington was a model of a man and will be greatly missed.

To his wife Miriam, to his children and to other members of his family we offer our sympathies on their loss and also our thanks for making it possible for him to serve the people of Canada in such a superior way.

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to respond briefly to the some of the comments from members of the NDP.

It find it quite ironic they would point out that we were in government when in fact they had a provincial government for many years and impacted very negligibly on the situation of the poor in the province of Ontario. Similarly there was a very scathing and unwarranted attack on Mr. Clark and his decision to attend the rally on Parliament Hill yesterday. It is ironic particularly in light of the fact that he is in Montreal this morning at another such event aimed at helping poor and homeless people.

Similarly I point out that this day of debate that was initiated by the Progressive Conservative Party comes on the heels of the NDP decision to debate an issue concerning Canada's water, a national resource. I am not diminishing that initiative. It is important, but it was the Progressive Conservative Party that brought this debate forward today in a very non-partisan way.

To bring this kind of politics into it at this level is very destructive. Let us keep the focus on what this is about. It is an issue of trying to help the poor, trying to do something positive about the issues that exist for the homeless. We will not even raise the fact that the Prime Minister chose not to meet with them and would rather be snowboarding in Alberta.

[Apec Inquiry, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, delay, deny and distract. Cameron Ward, a lawyer representing six of the complainants at the APEC inquiry said yesterday “The value of this hearing will rest in part on whether the Prime Minister actually testifies”.

In light of the fact that security at the APEC summit cost $13 million and the inquiry itself is costing additional millions to the taxpayers, does the Prime Minister not want Canadians to know the truth about this matter? In the interests of fairness, will he speak from the heart? Will he testify at the APEC hearing?

[Apec Inquiry, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on February 3 the chair of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, Justice Ted Hughes, wrote to the solicitor general urging the federal government to pay the legal fees for the students. He has called on the government to approve the funding in order to ensure a fair hearing in the hope of finally levelling the playing field and improving the quality of the proceedings. This request follows a similar one from the original panel.

In the interests of justice, will the solicitor general approve this reasonable request immediately and bring some integrity and credibility to the APEC hearings?

[The Late King Hussein, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, I would like to express our sympathy at the death of Jordan's King Hussein.

People the world over are mourning the loss of this great man. Not only was he recognized as one of the world's most respected leaders both in the Middle East and around the world, but it was just a few short months ago despite his illness that the king was called upon to help forge the Wye peace accord between Israel and the PLO. His reputation and stature throughout the world is obvious given the fact that all of the world's important leaders travelled to Amman today to pay their respects at the state funeral.

During his tenure as foreign affairs minister, our leader the Right Hon. Joe Clark had many occasions to meet the late King Hussein in Canada and in Jordan. He noted that he had always admired King Hussein's wisdom, foresight and calm strength during very tumultuous times.

King Hussein ruled Jordan through some very turbulent years but no matter what the obstacle, he always demonstrated a sense of fairness and compassion. His years of leadership guided his country toward democracy with human rights always at the forefront.

To his son and successor, King Abdullah, we wish him well as he works to continue the estimable legacy of his father. A king of peace seeking reconciliation will be that legacy.

With the flag over our Peace Tower flying appropriately at half-staff, the world has lost a great man. On behalf of our leader the Right Hon. Joe Clark and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, we would like to extend to Her Majesty Queen Noor and the entire family and the people of Jordan our deepest sympathies.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government's solution to the problems in our national police force has been to commission a $1 million study to review the RCMP's mandate.

The problem is not the mandate but the lack of funding provided by the government to the RCMP for national policing. While the U.S. state department has deemed Canada a haven for organized crime, the government has slashed the RCMP budget by $174 million since 1994.

When will the solicitor general use his power at the cabinet table and immediately restore funding to the RCMP to ensure adequate protection for Canadians?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the proud tradition of the RCMP, an internationally respected institution, is being destroyed by the Liberal government.

Spending this year for our national police force has been cut by $89 million. As a result the RCMP training academy in Regina has closed and detachments all over the country are running by skeleton crews.

The government has consistently pursued wasteful spending policies to the detriment of all Canadians.

Will the solicitor general sit idly by and watch our national police force deteriorate beyond repair? What is he going to do?

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to pose a question to the member opposite.

I listened carefully to the comments of several members today including the member opposite from Scarborough Southwest. He commented specifically about the fact that he was present in the House when this legislative change was first inserted in the Criminal Code. That was done by a Conservative government.

The motion yesterday was brought forward by the Conservatives and similarly received unanimous support of the House. I believe there is room for some common ground and some compromise on this issue. I am referring to a middle ground with respect to positions that have been outlined throughout the day by various members.

The Reform Party has proposed what I think is fair to characterize as a fairly extreme response. Given the emotion that is wrapped up in this issue, its seriousness and the implications thereof, that is not outlandish. However, the previous speaker indicated quite clearly that there is a need for rational response. There is a need for due process, a word the minister has used throughout the day.

In all sincerity, I ask the member, is there not a compromise in a referral to the Supreme Court of Canada? That is a response that would leave it in the hands of the judiciary, which is not always embraced by the Reform Party. There is a cynicism that exists in that regard, but it would expedite matters.

We all know the old maxim about delay being the deadliest form of denial. We have seen denial by the government. We saw denial in the late intervention with respect to the referendum. We saw delay with respect to the introduction of changes to the Young Offenders Act.

Would this not be an infinitely reasonable solution for the Minister of Justice to act now with legislative authority from the supreme court act and the Criminal Code to refer this matter of extreme importance to the Supreme Court of Canada where nine judges of the highest court in the land could pass judgment on the issue and we would have a definitive answer?

Then we would also have the fallback position that is being proposed by the Reform Party that if need be at that time this measure, which could be described as perhaps too extreme' could then be invoked.

Let us leave the word pedophelia and all the emotion out of it. There is a need for timeliness here and that has not been the government's trademark. Would the solution not be to go to the Supreme Court of Canada?

[Points Of Order, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking for clarification from the Chair on an apparent ruling that took place during question period. It was with respect to a question posed by the hon. member for West Nova to the minister.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague the member for Shefford not only for her remarks but also for her earlier intervention. Yesterday she put before the House of Commons a motion which received unanimous consent and which basically affirmed and reassured Canadians that section 163 of the Criminal Code is something this House of Commons respects.

She put very bluntly before the House the question that needs to be asked and that is, when is the government going to take a proactive approach to this? This is not something we should be waiting for. We should not be sitting on our heels waiting for the B.C. Court of Appeal to rule again, perhaps incorrectly. That matter will be decided.

This is something where the Minister of Justice and the government must intervene quickly. Pornography, particularly child pornography, has to been seen as a rot or a rust on the morals of this country.

Does the hon. member not feel that the quickness and the need for intervention for the protection of our most vulnerable citizens, children, is not something that would warrant the government to move on quickly, either through a supreme court reference or through the motion that is presently before the House?