Pat Martin

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)Mr. Speaker, when students were pepper sprayed at UBC there was a full public inquiry, but when an unarmed aboriginal man was shot dead by the OPP at a peaceful protest we had nothing but six years of shameful silence.

Dudley George was more than just one dead Indian. We believe that he is the only aboriginal man in the country in this century, the 20th century, killed in a land claims dispute. That makes it a federal matter.

Will the federal government call for a full public inquiry into the tragic events at Ipperwash and the tragic death of Dudley George?

[Airline Industry, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on November 9, 4,800 Canada 3000 employees came to work to find they had no jobs. As we speak hundreds of these employees are outside the House of Commons demanding positive, concrete steps to bring some sense of order to Canada's airline industry.

In the absence of any ideas coming from the government benches, will the Minister of Transport at least assure these workers that the government will implement the workforce stabilization proposal put forward by the airline unions and the Canadian Labour Congress?

[Airline Industry, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canada was built on the strength of an effective transportation strategy. That was our national dream: to defy the massive geography of this country and to link the regions together into one great nation.

John A. Macdonald's national dream has turned into a national nightmare for the 4,800 hard-working employees of Canada 3000. Those airline workers woke up to find they were the victims of the government's ambivalence and neglect toward this essential air transportation industry.

This afternoon union members from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Canadian Autoworkers Union and the IAMAW machinists are in front of this building demanding that the Government of Canada take action to restore health to the airline industry. More than that, these members want the government to take the kind of action necessary for them to get working again.

The government may be devoid of ideas but the workers in this industry are not. These workers and their unions have put together a concrete action plan that will put the airline industry back--

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do. I apologize if my speech wandered from the actual substance of Group No. 2, which I understand is a motion by the Alliance member for an amendment to limit the secrecy provisions for individuals working for a security agency to a maximum of 15 years. I was planning on getting around to that issue, but in framing the context of those criticisms or pointing out the shortcomings of the bill, I found it necessary to also point out some of the other shortcomings on behalf of the Canadian people.

We in our party feel that this is perhaps the most significant issue that we have dealt with since I became a member of parliament in 1997. No other bill has had the potential to have such a dramatic effect on the way we live as Canadians as Bill C-36 does. I think it is easy to understand the level and degree of interest. The number of letters, cards and phone calls that we are getting at our constituency offices is overwhelming.

The bill has captured the imagination of Canadians, partly because of the sheer horror of September 11, partly because of our very real desire to feel more secure in our own homes and our own country and partly because of the expectation Canadians have that our government will introduce meaningful legislation that will make us feel more secure about the fact that it is doing its job. As the Minister of Justice has pointed out, the primary obligation of the government is to deal with the security of Canadians. We are being challenged with that right now.

Therefore, we are finding ourselves faced with Bill C-36, this broad, sweeping piece of legislation, which will in fact change the way we live and the way that Canadians view themselves as a nation and as a people. We are finding ourselves limited in the amount of debate we can have. Even though those of us on the opposition benches have co-operated extensively to put forward meaningful amendments, we are finding that the ruling party, which did imply that it would listen to and entertain amendments, is in fact using closure to shut this down and move this bill forward even though, I believe, the bill has not matured or has not been thought through to the point that it should be.

I know that early on in the debate on Bill C-36 a recommendation was made because we know the bill will be challenged in the Supreme Court. The recommendation was that we should submit the substance of the bill to the court and ask for a ruling ahead of time or that we should do it in conjunction and have two parallel paths so that we would be debating the bill in the House of Commons and at the same time the courts could be ruling on whether or not there would be an acceptable challenge to the bill. Frankly, that would have served Canadians well. It would have been an expedited form of introducing the type of protection Canadians expect.

However, the government chose not to listen to that good advice. It was sound counsel. It was the member for Winnipeg--Transcona who asked directly why we could not have a dual, parallel path on the bill because it is of such importance. It is too important to play politics with. That is the opinion of the NDP caucus at least. We have discussed this in our caucus meetings. We do not seek to play politics with Bill C-36 because we are all concerned. Canadians are concerned. It is a disservice to Canadians to actually grind this thing down into one of those exchanges we have seen so many times.

I am glad to be able to speak to Group No. 2 of these motions. I understand that the amendment being sought by the member from the Canadian Alliance would limit the secrecy provisions on individuals working for security agencies to a maximum of 15 years. This seems like a worthy provision. It is obviously a thoughtful, heartfelt position taken by the member from the Alliance. I would hope that there would be flexibility on the part of government, if it is serious in moving forward with Bill C-36, to at least entertain the legitimate concerns brought forward, not just by the members of the opposition benches but by the many people who have made presentations at committee.

I know that the committee sat until three o'clock in the morning recently dealing with this. There is no question about the sincerity and the level of interest expressed on the government side and on the opposition benches. We realize how necessary the bill is. Canadians do as well and are coming to us asking for some satisfaction.

We found it necessary to speak against Bill C-36. I believe we are the only caucus in the House of Commons and the only political party that has actually voted against Bill C-36 at all the stages up to this point, although I understand the Bloc Quebecois has reservations about the bill as well.

We are not comfortable at this point. We would like to be able to say that we support the intent of the government to ensure the security of Canadians by tightening up bills and legislation in the aftermath of September 11. The NDP caucus would like nothing more than to be able to say we are acting in response to the legitimate concerns of Canadians, but we cannot support the bill at this time nor can we support the heavy handed actions of the government to limit debate at this time. Canadians are still following the debate with great interest and great concern. I am sure most Canadians are disappointed to see the House leader for the Liberal Party stand up and once again move closure on an issue of great national interest and concern.

We have heard questions and debate on the bill from virtually all the opposition parties, which are challenging the government with the legitimate questions that do arise when we infringe on civil liberties. To what extent should we infringe on them? For how long should we infringe on them?

Even though we are speaking today to Group No. 2 and the motion dealing with the secrecy provisions, we have to focus on the bigger picture. The bill in itself is so flawed that I do not believe any of the opposition parties can in all good conscience vote for it.

With regret, we are finding ourselves debating with a gun to our heads again because time allocation has been invoked. I do not believe that quality decision making can come from that process. I do not believe in the Stockholm syndrome, for instance, where people are thrown into a room and not allowed out until they come to a resolution. I do not believe that process would result in a quality piece of legislation. However, that is the position we find ourselves in again today.

It is with regret that we are critical of the government on this issue. It should be a non-partisan issue. Canadians would like to think we can all agree on this particular issue. The motions put forward by the opposition parties are worthy. They have merit and they deserve to be introduced into the bill so that we could adopt the bill unanimously. We do not sense that will be possible.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take this opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-36 and Group No. 2 of the amendments that were put forward.

I would like to preface my remarks by voicing my concern as well. Since I have been a member of parliament in the House of Commons, closure has become the norm rather than the exception. Every single time we get a contentious piece of legislation the fact that the government moves so quickly to stifle and limit debate has become, since I have been in this political life, the norm rather than the exception. I condemn that in the most forceful way possible.

We are happy to be able to support the amendments in this group of motions. We believe that the opposition parties were unanimous in their condemnation of Bill C-36 and unanimous in the thoughtful presentation of meaningful amendments. There was a sincere spirit of co-operation in our efforts to make Bill C-36 a more enforceable and more meaningful piece of legislation, to make it something that would in fact have the desired results and still not compromise those things that Canadians feel very strongly about.

We are comfortable that the motions in this group of amendments would have improved the bill, but we are critical of the Minister of Justice, who gave every indication that she would in fact entertain meaningful amendments. In virtually every press conference or public comment she gave she was trying to give the impression to the Canadian public that she would entertain meaningful amendments if they were presented in the proper spirit of improving the bill. Yet what we saw ultimately was absolutely no flexibility on the real substance of the bill. I can point to the most obvious and glaring issue, which is the idea of the sunset clause.

Virtually every presenter that came before the committee demanded that there be a sunset clause provision in the bill in order to assure Canadians that the move to trivialize or minimize their civil rights would not be a permanent thing in the country, that the bill was meant to deal with an emergency that was a real and present danger, and that Canadians wanted to feel secure in their own country but not at the cost of giving up civil liberties. The sunset clause is the most glaring example of the intransigence on the part of the Liberal Party, the ruling party, in listening to the concerns brought before the committee.

There is not a sunset clause in any meaningful definition, as we understand it. The member for Winnipeg--Transcona said it is a sunset clause like June in the Yukon. That is about as sunsetting as it gets. It might reach dusk, but it certainly is not what we understand to be a sunset clause.

[Criminal Code, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed listening to the views of members from all parties in the House. On behalf of the hon. member for Churchill I thank all members for the thoughtfulness that has gone into their remarks. It is plain to see that everyone in the House from all parties takes the issue seriously. I appreciate the thoughtful research that has gone into all the speeches I have heard so far.

There is one thing we must keep in mind as we enter a debate of this nature that can be so emotional. Canadians get up in the morning and go to work to earn a living, not to die. Canadians must adopt the fundamental attitude shift that it is possible to run clean, safe and healthy workplaces and still be profitable.

We must realize that safety is not a cost factor. Unfortunately there are sectors within the business community where that is the mentality. There are those who believe safety is a cost factor and that it would cost money to run a safe workplace as opposed to a dangerous one.

I challenge that logic. Until people adopt the view that it is more fiscally responsible to run a clean, safe and healthy workplace, we will need legislation that motivates employers to adopt that view.

All Canadians were horrified when 26 miners were killed on May 9, 1992. Canadians were even more horrified when they learned the crown prosecutors of the province of Nova Scotia had to stay all charges against the operators of the mine because under the existing criminal code they could not make the charges stick. This was in spite of overwhelming evidence of gross negligence and wilful blindness toward workplace safety and health.

At the Westray inquiry Justice Peter Richard used some of the strongest language any of us have seen in a document of that nature. He pulled no punches. He said it was a case of gross negligence and wilful blindness.

One would think it would be quite simple and straightforward to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths. We know after hearing witnesses at the Westray inquiry that the company did not just commit acts of omission. It did not just ignore workplace health and safety. It actively encouraged workers to do unsafe things. This was the most glaring evidence we have ever seen in an investigation into workplace accident or death.

We have heard people like the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada point out that in cases like this the burden of proof is onerous. In this case it was not. It was blatantly obvious. It should have resulted in someone being charged, fined or punished.

Bill C-284 seeks to give federal prosecutors the tools they need to make such charges stick so we would not have to face similar situations where after their best efforts prosecutors must drop or stay charges that should otherwise be straightforward and simple.

Bill C-284 is about accountability, a word we often hear in the House of Commons. It is about corporate accountability or responsibility. Someone must take responsibility. Accountability goes right up the corporate ladder. It extends from frontline supervisors, managers and directors of the board all the way to the CEO.

It is not a justifiable excuse for CEOs to say their work is in the office, that they have never set foot in the plant or that it is only one of many enterprises they have under their direction and control. That is no excuse. The buck should not stop at the frontline manager who works in the plant where the offence might have taken place. The buck stops at the CEO's desk. If CEOs do not know what is happening in their plants they have an obligation to know.

If Bill C-284 went through they would make a point of knowing. People would not accept directorships on boards without first asking solid questions about the enterprises that would be under their control. They would ask if reasonable steps were being taken to ensure the workplace was safe so that there would be no problem.

Three people a day are killed on the job in Canada. That is over 1,000 a year. I am not saying they would all result in prosecutions if Bill C-284 became law. That would be rare because such cases would need to meet all the tests and burden of proof as in any criminal charge. There would be an investigation and if the evidence were there someone would be charged. That would be a deterrent. It would clean up workplaces.

If Bill C-284 were in effect executives would take an instant interest in the workplaces under their control. They would ensure that basic, reasonable steps in workplace safety and health were taken. Smart managers and CEOs know that a clean, healthy and safe workplace is more profitable and that safety is not a cost factor. I will give the House an example.

Two years ago the province of Manitoba lost 50,000 person days to strikes and lockouts. In the same period the province lost 550,000 person days to injuries on the job. Managers, directors and corporations interested in productivity and profitability should know that eliminating 550,000 person days lost to injuries on the job would surely affect their bottom line.

The member for Dartmouth mentioned brother Dick Martin, a close friend of mine and the former head of local 6166 of the steelworkers union. Dick Martin dedicated his life to trying to elevate conditions for working people. He founded the occupational health centre in the province of Manitoba when he was president of the Manitoba Federation of Labour.

Dick and I met a number of times as Bill C-284 was being developed. Dick took a strong personal interest in the bill. Unfortunately he passed away last week and will not be with us to see the bill come to fruition. His funeral was last Sunday.

In recognizing the important work Dick has done I also want to take note of the important work the United Steelworkers of America has done in advocating on behalf of Westray families.

In the nearly 10 years since May 9, 1992, the only group that has consistently hung in with the Westray families and promoted and pushed this kind of legislation has been the United Steelworkers of America. It is to its great credit that Bill C-284 has come as far along as it has.

Twelve lobbyists with the steelworkers came to the Hill last year and worked out of my office. Many of them had worked at the Westray mine. Two were dragger men who had pulled bodies out of the mine. They visited virtually every member of parliament to encourage parliamentarians to implement a bill much like the one we have here which would require some form of corporate accountability and responsibility for workplace safety and health.

Their visit prompted the justice committee to call a special meeting to hear representations from the steelworkers. That is what prompted the committee to unanimously endorse a motion which appealed to the Minister of Justice to introduce legislation that would implement article 73 of the Westray inquiry recommendations. This would amend the criminal code to include corporate murder and corporate manslaughter and thereby give prosecutors the tools they need to make criminal charges stick in the event of wilful blindness and gross negligence to worker safety and health.

We are looking forward to a third hour of debate and a vote on the bill. We strongly hope members of parliament on all sides will find it in their hearts to adopt this important amendment to the criminal code on behalf of all Canadian workers.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member from the Liberal Party agree or associate himself with the comments a former Liberal prime minister, Mr. John Turner, who now sits on the board of the World Wildlife Fund, made in the Globe and Mail criticizing and commenting on the shortcomings of Bill C-10?

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding that in the House of Commons it is unparliamentary to point out a person's attendance, or lack thereof, either in the House, at committee or anywhere else. I would ask the Speaker to intervene.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is true. I did not comment on the jurisdictional issue but I do respect the arguments put forward by the members of the Bloc Quebecois. They have a legitimate concern.

We too are suspect of secondary objectives the ruling party may be trying to achieve when it puts forward legislation of this nature. I do not blame the Bloc for being suspect, that there may be secondary objectives floating beneath the surface of the bill.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. The amendments the NDP put forward were voted against at report stage by the Liberal government. It chose not to support our amendments. If I was unclear on that, I apologize. The very thoughtful and important amendments that were put forward would have strengthened any marine conservation act.

Issues such as bottom trawling should have been dealt with. It is negligent to have not referred to that or to have specifically itemized such a harmful practice in our marine environment. If we are dealing with marine conservation and trying to balance development versus conservation, how could we fail to comment on that?

Blasting and drilling; talk about invasive practices. I have worked on oil rigs. I know what it takes to drill a hole in the ground and the type of impact it has on the environment.

Building pipelines and sonar devices is another example. Underwater pipelines are going to be a reality as more and more we are seeking fossil fuel resources offshore. Underwater pipelines are a reality, yet we have chosen to be silent on that issue. We feel that is an omission. It borders on negligence on our part to not have that specifically referred to. If in fact we are dealing with trying to balance development versus conservation, where more appropriately should this issue belong than in Bill C-10? Where else would we speak to it?

As to the hon. member's position that this is not a piece of environmental legislation, it is all environmental legislation. How do we separate development, conservation or environmentalism if it is not a common thread? If we do not view economic development through a green screen, then we are guilty of criminal negligence. It is overstating it to say it is criminal negligence but it is a serious omission on our part in the House of Commons.