Peter MacKay

[Parliament Of Canada Act, October 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to lend the voice of the Progressive Conservative Party to supporting Bill C-13 as well. I will be brief.

I want to thank the government House leader as well as all the House leaders present for their participation and co-operation with respect to this agreement. I think it does show an important sign to this House and to the Canadian people that there is a spirit of solidarity and co-operation that can help to facilitate bills such as this.

I think it is important particularly when there is a breakdown in the House as we experience here where there are five parties for the first time in Canadian history.

It is also extremely important democratically to have representation on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party as well as my friend in the New Democratic Party to participate in the important decisions that are made at the board.

This bill continues with a floor level of 12 members of a party that gains access to the board. I believe that the House, at some point in the future, should take a look at this number after an election because it may help to avoid some unpleasantness that arose in the last Parliament.

There is nothing particularly significant about 12 other than the fact that this happened to accommodate the political situation decades ago.

The bill will also make amendments to provide for the operation of the board in the event of the demise or the disability of the Speaker and to ensure that a minister of the crown is included in the quorum of the board if it should have to select a new chairperson. Obviously we hope and pray this will never occur.

I will also acknowledge, as did my friend in the NDP, the spirit of co-operation and the concession that was made by the Bloc. We appreciate that. With respect to the proportionality, there was a concession made and we do acknowledge that.

I want to congratulate all the members who participated in this decision. It is our hope that once we gain actual participation within the board of economy this spirit will continue.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, by doing nothing on the issue of drunk driving the Liberal government bears responsibility for the deaths and injuries caused by drunk drivers.

Yesterday the minister said that she was waiting for the transport department to do something. The minister knows well that neither the Department of Transport nor provincial ministers can do anything to amend the Criminal Code.

Is the justice minister hiding behind another public servant's report to cover the lack of action by her government on this issue? I urge her to take the responsibility to prevent another 1,700 deaths in the coming year and commit to concrete steps to review the Criminal Code roadside procedures and enact a victims bill of rights.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Mothers Against Drunk Driving held a press conference and released very important results of a national survey which indicated that more than 80% of Canadians support toughening the Criminal Code with respect to drunk driving.

Twelve months ago MADD came to Ottawa looking for action and attempted to meet with the former justice minister. Apparently he was too busy dealing with politically motivated matters to meet with them and was oblivious to the 1,700 Canadians who were killed by drunk drivers.

My question is for the current Minister of Justice. Will the minister commit today to stopping the carnage on Canadian highways by tabling amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with drunk driving?

[Supply, October 23rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I commend my friend for bringing this to the floor of the House. This is new information. He has made a specific reference to Beauchesne. I would encourage the Chair to take this under consideration. It is not a revisitation of the same point of order. I would encourage the Chair to render the decision according to the new information which has been provided by the hon. House leader.

[Supply, October 23rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to hear both hon. members from the west coast speaking on this issue. Certainly it is an issue that spans the entire country and touches on the Arctic Ocean as well.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has clearly stated that, based on recent program reviews, conservation is a key and core role of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and a responsibility.

With respect to that responsibility, I would suggest that the government has not lived up to that. I am asking this member, specifically to the conservation of salmon in the rivers in British Columbia, whether she can inform us what her government intends to do with respect to continued support for the preservation for both Atlantic and Pacific salmon hatcheries.

[Points Of Order, October 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to comments by the minister of fisheries.

In response to a question posed by the leader of the Conservative Party, he referenced the fact that the member may not be aware of a motion that was brought forward. He also referenced the fact that the member was not present in the House.

[Supply, October 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of representing Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough which is almost three-quarters surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean. I have a great number of fisher persons in that riding who are having tremendous difficulty in getting consultation with the government, members of DFO, and in particular members of the ministry of fisheries office.

With respect to consultation and the idea of fisher persons having direct input into the policy process and procedure by which they are governed, what is the government doing in a substantial way to foster this ability for actual input and consultation?

The Canso Trawlerman's Association and Pat Fougere have been repeatedly trying to have a meeting with the minister of fisheries as have the zone 18 fishermen and crab fishermen. The idea of information flowing back and forth is a substantial problem that needs to be addressed.

I am very interested to hear what the hon. member proposes in terms of increased consultation and input from those in the industry who have the most working knowledge of the problems that face fishermen on both coasts of this great country.

[Mothers Against Drunk Driving, October 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, a young west coast student. An east coast athlete. A mother and her son in Ottawa. Each belongs to a club for which membership was not an option. Each was killed on a Canadian highway by a drunk driver.

This association's membership was sadly increased again today by four, and does so every day. More than 400 people will also be injured today as a result of alcohol related crashes. And this will happen again tomorrow and the next day.

It is a fact that alcohol significantly increases the risk of motor vehicle crashes. It is also a fact that alcohol increases the severity of traffic collisions.

Canadians witness far too many tragedies that could be prevented.

Tomorrow the organization MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, will be in Ottawa to reveal the results of an important survey. Following their press conference, I will host an informal reception where all members of Parliament are invited to meet with the board and members of MADD and discuss the proposed initiatives.

I encourage all my colleagues to participate in what will be a very informative session. Finally, I congratulate MADD for its tremendous efforts in combating the daily carnage on our highways caused by drunk drivers.

[Division No. 16, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a very serious issue that concerns all Canadians. I attended in September a memorial service honouring the law enforcement officers who gave their lives in the line of duty. One way of ensuring protection for peace officers and indeed all Canadians is to ensure that individuals who are convicted of first degree murder do not receive early release.

On September 29, the following day, I asked the Minister of Justice if she would stop worrying about the protection of criminals and do the right thing by repealing this offensive section of the Criminal Code.

Her answer certainly demonstrated little if any compassion for the families of victims. She basically told us at that time that in no way does she intend to repeal this section and that we will have to content ourselves with the amendments that were made by her government last year; that is, she intends to simply lock the issue up and throw away the key, something she refuses to do for first degree murderers.

If the Minister of Justice does not know it, Canadians do. Modifications made in January 1997, of which the Liberals are so proud, do not prevent dangerous criminals such as Paul Bernardo from applying for this early release. The answer should be, and the minister knows this, that people like Mr. Bernardo should not have the right to go through a judicial screening process in any way, shape or form. Going through this judicial screening process is in itself an extreme insult to the victims, their families and all victims and Canadians in general.

People like Mr. Olson and Mr. Bernardo have forfeited each and every right that every Canadian has and they should not have the possibility to rehash their crimes and offensive acts. This is not a right convicted murderers should have.

The minister needs to know and needs to be reminded of what occurred at the Olson hearing in British Columbia this summer. Let us remind the minister of this horrific hearing that took place in August 1997. It was a very sad and frustrating day for the families of Mr. Olson's victims who had to sit through this ordeal of the appeal hearing and relive the horror this man put their families through 15 years ago.

There is no justification in the world for a hearing like this to take place. It only underscores the need for the immediate abolition of section 745. Furthermore, it provided the media, in particular television, with the opportunity to sensationalize the coverage of this hearing. It shamelessly appealed to a number of people in the public who lust for vicarious enjoyment of the agony these individuals had to live through.

I understand that when this change to the Criminal Code was brought in and amended, this faint hope was permitted to continue. Although it was lessened, this was the intent of the changes that were made. This faint hope clause still exists in its present form. The argument that it is a useful tool for rehabilitative purposes is certainly lost on the families of those individuals who have to relive this process and have to undergo the further agony of having this person who committed these horrific acts be given media attention all over again.

Life sentences were initially a substitute for the taking of a life as retribution on occasions where first degree premeditated murders occurred. Let us live up to the intent of the life sentence. Let us put truth in sentencing. Those criminals who have gone through the process, been tried, convicted and put behind bars should be kept there. I remind the Minister of Justice that the opportunity is there and I put it to the minister that now is the time to live up to Canadians' expectations.

[Rcmp Investigations, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of questions remain unanswered about this matter. The government may have hoped that the RCMP investigation and its completion would put this matter to rest. I would suggest that today is an opportunity for the government to explain itself by answering a few straightforward questions.

I would direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. Can he tell the House how did someone who was organizing riding associations, building up membership lists and helping fundraising know which companies applied for government grants, the stage of the applications and on which ministers' desks these applications were sitting?