Ron MacDonald

[Bosnia, May 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House the plight facing children in war torn regions across the world, specifically in Bosnia.

Last week I attended an international conference on genocide in Bosnia-Hercegovina. One of the impressions from this meeting is how much some European nations are doing for the children and some women at risk, and how comparatively little Canada is doing. The most recent numbers I have been able to obtain indicate that Canada is only taking a mere few dozen children for temporary safe haven. For a society as generous and caring as ours I find it hard to believe that we have not done more.

As well, I want to invite all concerned members of this House to speak up on this issue and to consider forming a coalition to find ways of bringing together federal and provincial governments, private corporations and community groups in a joint effort to do what is right.

History will judge us harshly if we stand aside and allow an entire generation to be sacrificed.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.

Two weeks ago it came to light that the RCMP were not only spying on black civil rights leaders in Nova Scotia in the 1960s and 1970s, including one Wayne Adams who today is a minister of the provincial crown, but that internal reports of the RCMP were laced with racially insensitive and overtly racist comments about blacks.

Last Thursday before a House of Commons standing committee, RCMP commissioner Norm Inkster was given an opportunity to apologize for these statements but refused. Given the seriousness of these incidents, what actions is he contemplating to address these very disturbing incidents?

[Transport Canada, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

Transport Canada has just issued a notice to airmen and the marine industry advising of the possibility of space debris re-entering the atmosphere and crashing off the east coast of Canada, specifically the east coast of Nova Scotia.

What information could the parliamentary secretary give the House concerning this matter, more particularly whether it is the view of the government that this re-entry poses any threat to the safety of Canadians on the east coast of Canada?

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am glad I am still here because the hon. member raised a number of issues and I am pleased that he clarified his own position and I suspect of his party. I am not sure if he speaks for himself or his party on this issue.

This bill was before the previous Parliament and Liberals had some difficulty with it. We believe there were some things that were flawed. The context in which the previous government pursued legislation was a closed shop. Conservative government members went in to the committee like lambs with rings in their noses and were led by the parliamentary secretaries at the time. Even the worst bill, even the most obviously flawed bill would not be changed once the minister rose in his or her place and tabled it in the House.

We have given a commitment that we will not do that. We have seen this on a number of issues that committees have already started to examine. It was a different place and a different time and the government was committed when Bill C-85 was put in the last Parliament not to listen to any substantive suggestions for change in the bill. That was clear from the outset.

I believe the member is sincere in what he said here today. This is second reading debate. This is where parties and individuals agree or disagree to approve the bill in its principle, in its direction. Then it goes on to committee where we then have report stage. I would urge the member opposite if he is trying to make this place work better that if he agrees in principle with the bill to vote in favour of the bill, refer it to the committee with the concerns he has, which are legitimate, about whether there are flaws that can be fixed, and work at the committee level.

I can give a commitment from this side that our government is quite prepared to listen to any reasonable suggestions as to how legislation such as this can be made better. We are committed to making this Parliament and its committee system work.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is the first time I have had an opportunity to respond to a question which is so specific that it deals with not just one region of Canada but actually with a very special people in Canada, the native community.

The member does his side and his cause a great disservice, constantly focusing on problems that the native community or a native community or any minority community in Canada may have. If the member wishes to ask some questions dealing with the impact of this legislation across Canada, I would be pleased to answer. I am not prepared in any way, shape or form to allow the member opposite to put questions forward like we heard over and over again in question periods over the last two months in this place that deal specifically with the native community or any other community.

This bill is not meant to just strike out at people who violate the law, the norms of society, when it comes to trafficking controlled substances. I do not really care if they are Gaelic, if they are Cape Bretoners, if they are from the province of Quebec, from the Gaspé or if they happen to be natives. The way this government operates is that it legislates for all Canadians without noting which region they live in or which ethnic group they come from.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do know about it. I want to say that the member is very fortunate, as are you, Mr. Speaker, to have lived through the last Parliament.

In the last Parliament things did work differently here. I think one of the reasons that the Reform Party has been so successful across this country is that it was a negative response to the way things were done here. One of the reasons the Liberals so successful in the last campaign is that we recognized that the Canadian public no longer would allow Parliament to work basically by fiat, by a small number of individuals and mandarins to make all the decisions, that consultation was not real, that it was phoney, and that bad legislation and special interest legislation got passed.

I think the member opposite and even you and I, Mr. Speaker, have benefited by the past government's excessive partisanship and lack of consultation when it came to legislative process. Some of us did try to make this a better place. I can say that in the last Parliament one of the few committees that did work effectively was the government ops committee led by Mr. Holtmann, who is no longer a member here, and John Rodriguez, a New Democrat who was the NDP critic. We worked together with the groups there to try to come up with better legislation. I think we were a bit of a model in the way we were trying to do things.

The hon. member is right, there may have been some members in the past. We participated in the venue that was drawn for us by the government. We have drawn a different venue. We have put different rules forward. We allow members of this place to have their say.

I would urge the member not to live in the past, to look at the future, to look at reality. He will see that there is plenty of opportunity without falling into old patterns to allow members of all sides to have their say when it comes to formulating legislation.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for reminding me. I slipped. What I meant was "they".

Let me put it this way, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps what those individuals on the other side should do is go back and read their campaign literature. They have slipped a few times. They have come to this place having raised themselves on a high holy pedestal. They have found it is a long fall when knocked off.

Indeed their leader found that out a few days ago. I hope they recover. I hope they do find a way to contribute, and I mean this sincerely, to the debates in this House.

They may laugh. I happen to have a great deal of respect for every member of this House no matter what their political affiliation, even if they are separatists. They have a right to have a say in this place. I am trying my best in this new Parliament to show we can work differently. I have dulled my tongue of its partisanship. However on an issue like this I am not prepared to because the public has to know what goes on here.

I have a problem in my community up on Hester Street in the north end of Dartmouth. The prostitution problem is driving this neighbourhood into decline. It is an old residential neighbourhood. It is not downtown in an industrial or commercial area.

The reality is the problem for the residents up in the north end on Hester Street and Albro Lake Road is not just prostitution but is drug related. In and around that area there were a number of known crack houses. These prostitutes are victims of the most despicable types of individuals when dealing with the pimps. Many or most of these young girls in the situation of prostitution have a drug problem. The pimps get them addicted to drugs.

Drugs are far too easily available in every community, every junior and senior high school, even elementary schools, in this country. The reason we have the problem on Hester Street in the north end is because there were two crack houses nearby. The prostitutes who were addicted to crack were plying their trade primarily because they could make some money and get a hit of crack. The police have found the laws would not allow them to take the type of action necessary to clean up the streets. That is a problem.

I will support any initiative this government or the opposition puts forward that would move in that direction. I know Bill C-7, which should not be a controversial bill, does all of those things. It moves in the right direction.

It will not be the last time this government comes forward with amendments to the Criminal Code, to health and welfare legislation, the Food and Drug Act, or other acts. We will respond as necessary. We will take the steps we believe will lead to safer communities and will allow law enforcement officials and the judicial system to deal effectively with those seeking to

destroy our communities and rob many of our youth of their lives and if not their lives, their usefulness in life.

This bill should be soundly debated in the House on the facts. The time to raise the concerns the Bloc Quebecois have had, and they are legitimate concerns I might say, about too much regulation without notification of this Parliament is when it gets to committee. We did that in opposition.

Pharmacists and people who legitimately have to use controlled substances in their legal work should be heard from, but the place to do that is at committee.

I ask members on all sides to see this piece of legislation for what it is. It is not a big piece of legislation. I think there should be unanimous consent on the intent of the legislation. Let us work if there is a problem through the committee structure to make it a better piece of legislation so that our streets are a little safer after it is passed.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think we may have had a problem with translation. I apologize for my lack of proficiency in the other official language but when the Bloc Quebecois member of the Official Opposition was speaking, the translation I believe was coming across that she was concerned about consultation and that pharmacists and other people in the industry should have more time for consultation.

I was reading it through translation as pharmaceuticals and I could not quite figure it out. That is why I asked the question I did. If the hon. member is listening, we probably had a little problem either with translation or my understanding of what the translator said.

I have listened with some interest to what has gone on this morning. We have had the two official parties in opposition, the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party, both speak on this legislation.

I thought that seven or eight months into the mandate members opposite would have remembered what they said in the first few days of this House. I know that the Bloc Quebecois has a mandate, or so it sees it, in the people who elected them. I think the Bloc members will find out that the mandate is not quite what they thought it was, if ever there is a referendum in Quebec. However, they believe that they have a mandate, first and foremost, to see the separation of the province of Quebec. I may disagree with that but they were democratically elected and I am sure that when they debate issues such as this, they are trying their best to represent the interests of the people of Quebec.

When we first came into this place there was a lot of talk that people were not going to become wildly partisan just for the sake of being wildly partisan, and that when good legislation came forward, members opposite, particularly in the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party, would do their best to support it.

This place works on confrontation. It works on opposition. When legislation comes forward the role of the Official Opposition and other opposition parties is to oppose. But I thought that we had gone beyond that and that no longer was it opposition for the sake of opposition.

This is one of the bills where the members opposite in the Reform Party and the Bloc could have shown that they really did want to make this a different Parliament, and that they really did want to co-operate to bring forward non-contentious legislation.

I do not know where some of the members from the Bloc are coming from, but the people in my community spoke loud and clear prior to the last election. They said they wanted a government whose number one concern was the health and safety of the communities.

The people in my community said it very loudly two years ago when I had to go to Portland Estates because we had a gang problem and people no longer felt safe in their communities. They did not want their politicians to get up here and dance on the head of a pin. They wanted real debate about reforming laws and striking the proper balances so that our criminal justice system reflected the reality and the needs of our communities.

There was a lot of talk about the Young Offenders Act. We heard how it had to be strengthened but at the same time we could not just punish; we had to try to reform. The emphasis had to be on rehabilitation not strictly punishment.

There is no question a level of consultation is needed. But I would say to my colleagues opposite when dealing with this that this is an uncontentious bill. There may be a few items here and there they may wish to change or I may wish to change but surely we can get some agreement that this type of legislation is progressive.

The legislation codifies some of the regulatory regimes dealing with the two acts in question. It makes it a little easier for our law enforcement officials and other people in the judicial system to actually enforce what it is we want. That is safer streets and harsher penalties for those who deal in death with narcotics. They do deal in death and narcotics destroy our communities.

I thought we would have gotten a little agreement but perhaps they slide too easily into old patterns. This was quite interesting.

The Reform Party more than the Bloc has indicated that only the Reform Party can talk about family values. I can say that I would get somewhat nauseous listening to some Reform members leading up to the election.

Members of the Reform Party would condemn past and present members of this place as simply not being able to understand what the people in their communities wanted. They literally contributed a great deal to the feeling that this place and the people who practised the profession of politics somehow lived on the underbelly of life and that we simply looked after self interests and not the interests of the community.

Reformers would always say that they were the law and order party: "We are the only ones who can bring law and order back". I remember debating with my Reform opponent in the election campaign. I can say that party would have locked everybody up and thrown away the key. That is what the Reform Party thought would save communities.

I would have thought that when they got into this place they would have also listened to the other little piece of rhetoric they spiel out occasionally. That is that they are truly different and as Reformers they are the only ones who can reform the way Parliament works.

Over the last few weeks we have seen their types of reforms. They give back cars but take 75 cents on the dollar from taxpayers to pay for their leader's car, haircuts, shoe shines, all the things they condemned us for. However I want to put that aside.

The Reform Party has fallen into the old patterns they so easily condemned. I have not seen them come in and support a government motion, except for maybe on one or two occasions, but not many.

This is a major piece of legislation. Surely to goodness there is some consensus that the government must move forward. It must simplify for law enforcement agencies and for the public the laws dealing with health and safety in our community. In this case it is Bill C-7 dealing with controlled substances.

This bill was before the last Parliament but did not get through for whatever reasons. Our government is holding true to our promises in the red book of coming in with progressive legislation and the changes necessary to respond to what Canadians want. They want healthier, safer communities.

Therefore we have come forward in the first few months of our mandate with a bill that was worked on in the previous Parliament. We did not think the bill was all bad so we have changed some of the things. We have modernized it again. We have tried to put some order into how we deal with some sections that without this bill are currently under the Food and Drug Act and the Narcotic Control Act.

I cannot think of anything that should bring more easy support from the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois. If anybody out there is watching, the Reform Party is the one that said everybody had to vote their conscience in this place.

I am not prone to attacking the opposition. I am getting a little fed up with their positions on things like this though. Every day they come into this place and they vote like robots when the government says it is coming in with a piece of legislation. They automatically all have. I cannot believe the Reform Party whip tells them how to vote because they told us during the campaign that was corrupt and bad. They must all be struck by some stardust in that each and every one of them every time a bill comes in finds it bad and they all vote the same way.

I wonder how their constituents who are really concerned about law and order feel about the hoist motion. For those out there watching we debate legislation in this place. We try to make the regulatory and statutory environment society works in a little better. We constantly have to try to modernize our legislation because our own morality as a society changes with time. It is interesting.

The hoist motion just proposed by the Reform Party in the amendment by the hon. member for Surrey North effectively says it does not want the House of Commons to deal with this issue. That is what a hoist motion does. The Reform Party came in with an amendment which, if passed, would hoist the whole issue of drugs, safe streets, crime as it relates to illegal and illicit drugs in our communities. We would not deal with it. That is what the effect of her amendment would be.

If there are any Reform supporters left after the last few weeks of revelations about internal party conduct of that party, I think the hair on the back of their necks should be bristling. They sent their members here to show this place could work differently and that members should support good legislation when it came before the House. More important, they did not want us to get into these games that they used to criticize. Members of the Reform Party criticized the games of Parliament well, such as hoist motions.

Now let us get real here with the Bloc Quebecois and also the Reform Party. Their mandate is to try to get some ink. They do not want the government portrayed in a favourable light because it is probably going to have some impact on their sagging popularity. I understand that. Opposition parties have to take that into account. I am a realist. We were in opposition and I know how the game is played. However, when we deal with these fundamental issues of safety and modernizing our legislation there should be some degree of consensus that we work together.

There is a red herring out there. There might be a cod with it because we cannot seem to find any of them on the east coast. A red herring has been thrown out a couple of times and I am not about to let it go by.

They are saying we cannot let this debate go on about the merits of the legislation, we have to talk about procedure. The real problem is that this stuff comes under the Criminal Code and should have been introduced by the Minister of Justice.

When it comes to cleaning up the streets in Dartmouth, I do not care if it is the janitor who introduces the legislation as long as it gets thoroughly debated and the impact on my community is that it is safer. If the people in Backwater Gulch somewhere are having a problem with drugs in their community, I do not think they particularly care who puts the legislation forward. So let us clear that one off the agenda.

If that is the biggest complaint they have maybe everybody in here will jump up and say they support the legislation. By the way, the Minister of Justice supports the legislation. Just because he did not move it does not mean he is opposed to it. Maybe that is what it was with Reform members and why they

could not support it. Maybe I have clarified it. Maybe they will support the legislation this afternoon.

On committee referral, I know most members of the Reform Party with the exception of their House leader are new here. Most members of the Bloc Quebecois are new here. However, the reality is that committees basically are masters of their own destiny in this place. We do not have the legislative committees the Tories did. We want to make sure we are building up expertise in certain areas on committees by all members of the House.

There is some agreement in this place that we have tried to do what we said we would during the campaign about making Parliament work better. We said we wanted the role of individual members to be heightened. We wanted to make sure they could provide input into the system.

I am the committee chair on fisheries and oceans. The way I run my committee is with the co-operation of members opposite and my own side. That is different from what the Tories did. We actually try to drop our partisanship at the door and come up with better legislation, if that is what we are dealing with. When we did the cod adjustment package, the Atlantic groundfish adjustment, everybody on my side was happy with the report. We showed that this government is putting its money where its mouth is in allowing committees to have as broad a latitude as they think they need from maximum input by members.

The second Reform Party red herring is that we have to get this over to the justice and legal affairs committee. Nonsense. If the Reform Party members in that committee are interested in trying to bring forward better legislation then they can ask the chair. When this legislation goes before that committee it can be put to a vote to have officials from the Department of Justice if that is who they want, or the janitor, appear before the committee. They can do whatever they want.

I want to strip away some of the nonsense that is being put here and to appeal particularly to the Reform Party. Start reading your own campaign material. You ran on law and order. You ran on trying to make sure this place ran better. You ran on trying to strip partisanship and gamesmanship from the House.

On an issue that deals with law and order which cleaned up the streets in my area, you are doing everything that you criticized past members and parties of this place of doing. Wake up. Read the polling numbers. I want to tell you, some of the problems you guys have over there, Mr. Speaker, those individuals-

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to some of the speech of the hon. member opposite. Perhaps my reading of the bill is different than hers but my understanding of the bill is that it is basically a codification of regulations that currently exist under two other acts.

I know that in the last Parliament when the Liberal Party was in opposition we fought very hard against government by regulation on many bills that were put before this place. We believe that when measures impact on the people of the country by way of regulation, wherever possible they should be codified. If flexibility is needed that is fine, but the place to debate major changes is certainly on the floor of the House of Commons. It is my understanding that we are not going in the direction of further regulation but we are going in the direction of codification of existing regulations under some acts.

She spoke for a bit about the pharmaceutical industry. I can certainly tell her that when Bill C-91 hit the floor there was great debate on all sides about the impact of that bill on both sides of industry plus consumers in the health care sector of Canada. One of the major things that this side fought for, and we had a particular point of view on it, was that the regulations inherent in that piece of legislation had to at least go before a parliamentary committee to be debated.

I do not know what the position of the members on her side was. I think they did support the bill but we did not. That was one of the reasons. We believe strongly that when we are dealing with things such as C-91 and indeed when we are dealing with enforcement under the Narcotics Control Act or the Food and Drug Act the place these regulatory changes should be debated is here on the floor of the House.

I would like to get her comments because she did mention the pharmaceutical industry. I would like for her to sort of broaden that out because I did not quite buy her argument insofar as it related to the pharmaceutical industry in Canada.

[Committees Of The House, April 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the first report in this Parliament of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in relation to the Atlantic fisheries adjustment programs.

I want to thank all the individuals who have co-operated with us, most particularly members of the committee on the Liberal side, the official critic and the member from the Bloc Quebecois as well as members from the Reform Party.

I also want to thank the over 92 witnesses who participated, allowing us to come to some consensus on a number of issues relating to the tragic situation of the collapse of the Atlantic groundfishery.

Some of the technology that we used such as teleconferencing, which at first perhaps some, including myself, were a little leery of, has proven to be very beneficial in allowing Canadians access to their parliamentarians and to committees.

I hope that at least some of the recommendations in this committee report find their way into government policy.

This was broadcast live from coast to coast. The process we went through does show Canadians that Parliament can work better and that it can work without animosity and that partisanship can be put aside when we do the job. Our job obviously as members of this place is to represent to the best of our abilities the interests of the citizens of this country, no matter where they live and no matter the political stripe of the individuals who sit on a committee.

I also understand that we have some minority reports which will be appended to the document and there may be one of the members opposite who may wish to add a few words to the record.