Pat Martin

[Royal Oak Giant Mines, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the history of the Royal Oak Giant mines in Yellowknife has been nothing short of tragic in every sense of the word. It has been an unfortunate legacy of bad management and a poisonous and hostile labour relations environment that resulted in nine people being killed. A whole community was torn apart.

Royal Oak went bankrupt in 1999. The new owner has paid no severance pay and now to add insult to injury the pensioners who worked at Giant mines are having their pensions slashed.

To draw attention to the plight of these workers at Giant mines, Mary Kosta is on her 16th day of a hunger strike. She is putting her own health at risk to fight for justice for these workers, workers that the government has turned its back on.

The Government of Canada played a role in both the bankruptcy and the subsequent purchase of Giant mines. The Government of Canada failed to defend the interests of the workers and pensioners. The Government of Canada now has it within its power to end the long and tragic history that is Giant mines.

Will it act and act now to make these workers whole and to represent their interests before the interests of—

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-20, in Clause 3, be amended

(a) by replacing line 25 on page 5 with the following:

“to the borders of the province and, subject to subsection (3), the rights,”

(b) by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following:

“(3) The Government of Canada shall not negotiate terms of secession that will alter, erode or jeopardize the rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada unless those peoples have explicitly consented to the negotiation of such terms.”

[Westray Mine, March 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to carry on with my speech regarding the private member's motion put forward by the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

The motion, as stated, calls for the government to undertake a study for the implementation of the recommendations of the Richard inquiry on the Westray mine. It is a very worthwhile and timely motion. We were very pleased when it was brought before the House because all Canadians were horrified when 26 miners were killed in the Westray mine through what I believe to be criminal negligence and through what the chief justice found to be criminal negligence.

Canadians were even more horrified when they realized that the crown prosecutors of Nova Scotia would have to drop or stay the charges against the Westray mine because under the current Criminal Code of Canada there was no way to make those charges stick. That certainly is what caught in the craw of most Canadians. There was no way to deal with the grief of the actual deaths of the 26 miners.

It was incredibly frustrating to see that the crown prosecutors of Nova Scotia did not have the tools to do the job to bring to justice the people who caused the deaths of the 26 miners through what I call criminal negligence, through what Justice Richard called criminal negligence, and I would go further, to what I call murder. I am not afraid to call death caused by criminal negligence murder. I am pleased to do so. It goes beyond manslaughter. In circumstances where those in control of an enterprise have been made aware over and over again that what is being done is dangerous, that workers' lives are being put at risk and yet they continue to do so until somebody dies is murder.

I am very pleased to join in the debate on the motion. I would hope that the government members would see fit to support the motion because it is worded and crafted in a way that is very easy to agree with even for those who do not feel as strongly about the subject as I do.

All the motion calls for is the government to begin to study how we could implement the recommendations of Judge Richard, specifically recommendation No. 73 which calls for amendments to Canadian legislation to contemplate the concept of corporate murder. That is essentially what it is calling for, the concept of corporate manslaughter and corporate murder and to make changes and amendments to any legislation, such as the Workplace Safety and Health Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Criminal Code of Canada, to ensure that people, from the CEO right down to the boards of directors, the foremen, the managers and the frontline workers, can all be held criminally accountable when they cause death due to criminal negligence. I think it is a very worthwhile motion. In fact, the leader of our party, the member for Halifax, has introduced a private member's bill that actually goes further than the private member's motion from the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. It states exactly what changes to those pieces of legislation are necessary to make corporate accountability a reality in matters of workplace safety and health.

I come from the building trade, the construction industry. I am no stranger to seeing people injured and killed on job sites. It was my job, as the job steward, to pick up the tools of my fallen comrades and take them back to their families and wives and tell them the unhappy news that there had been an injury on the job. I picked up their tools so they would not lay in the mud.

I am all too familiar with it. I am familiar with it to the point where I can say right now that there is no production schedule in the world that justifies injuring, butchering, maiming, poisoning or killing Canadian workers. I feel very strongly about that. I think we have made that point clearly.

I would ask members on the other side that if they will not consider the obvious moral and ethical issues around clean, safe and healthy workplaces, to please consider the economics of clean, safe and healthy workplaces.

In the province that I come from, we lose approximately 50,000 person days a year due to strikes and lockouts and labour and work stoppages. In that same period of time, we lose 550,000 person days per year due to injuries and accidents.

The economics are clear. If we are concerned about Canadian productivity, the onus should be on all of us to clean up the workplaces and minimize lost time due to injuries and accidents. The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough certainly raises that issue for us when he asks us to debate the very important issue he raises with his motion on the Westray mines.

When I said earlier that some people call it murder when a death is caused due to criminal negligence, I asked the House to consider what happens when someone drinks a bottle of whiskey, hops in a car, runs someone over and kills them. That is criminal. That is murder. That is not just a traffic violation. The person is guilty of murder if he or she is convicted under the Criminal Code of Canada. It is not just a workplace safety and health issue when someone is killed due to criminal negligence on the job, it is murder.

In my own riding, I am sad to say, a couple of months ago the owner of a scrapyard hired a 17 year old kid. He gave him a cutting torch and told him to cut an oil drum in half. The kid blew himself to kingdom come. That guy murdered the 17 year old kid and we will fight for legislation which will contemplate the concept of corporate murder and corporate accountability.

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal members on the other side are doing a very good job cheerleading and boosting their budget, but I can guarantee that not everybody in the country is doing cartwheels in quite the same way.

We have received a series of critical faxes from organizations like the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Health Care Alliance, the Canadian Federation of Teachers and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce that point out the irony of this.

In a budget, in which the primary focus and concern was to fix health care, we have seen a meagre and paltry $2.5 billion. I remind the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra that in the province of Manitoba that amounts to about $20 million per year over four years. This is an amount of money that is almost insignificant. It does not register in the total overall health care spending.

Of all the initiatives and the lofty ideas the member had in terms of spending and reinvesting in the knowledge sector and post-secondary education, what does he suggest Manitoba should do with its $20 million for health care, post-secondary education and social allowance?

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and further Liberal speakers have been trying to tell the House that this budget is a product of a broad consultation process, that they went around the country and listened to Canadians.

If that is true, they might have done a lot of consultation but they sure did not listen to Canadians because the overwhelming majority of Canadians said over and over and over again at every opportunity that they wanted the health care system fixed.

This should have been and could have been the health care budget that put the wheels back on our health care system, which everybody knows is ailing. We heard instead a paltry $2.5 billion over four years for health care, education and social assistance. In my home province of Manitoba this represents $20 million per year for health care, social assistance and post-secondary education.

How can Liberal members try to say that they have put money back into health care and they have done what is necessary to breathe new life into our ailing health care system with a paltry contribution like that? That is my comment.

Would the hon. member like to comment on the source of the surplus the Liberals are now spending in various ways? Would he not admit that much of the surplus is actually the EI surplus? We have a perverse form of Robin Hood where unemployed workers, who used to be able to enjoy the benefits of EI, are having their pockets picked so the Liberals can flip it back into tax cuts for corporations and capital gains tax cuts for the wealthy. Will the hon. member please try to defend that position?

[Division No. 752, February 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly hope that all the parties in the House can see the common sense in making sure that Canadians' interests are safeguarded in this respect.

Motion No. 50 that the member for Winnipeg North Centre moved says that within three months after this act coming into force, the governing council shall make a bylaw to establish and put in place a code of ethics for the members of the advisory boards. In the newly struck advisory boards and the newly established institutes of medical research, we want a certain code of ethics put in place. These are reasonable, basic measures we would expect all public figures to uphold.

We do not expect any objections to any of these motions because they are obviously put in place in good faith, in good will, to look after and safeguard the interests of ordinary Canadians.

In closing I will repeat what the member for Winnipeg North Centre said in her remarks on February 24. We support this bill. We support the idea of the Canadian institutes for medical research. We had some reservations concerning the structure of the advisory boards. We are satisfied that those will be remedied with the adoption of the amendments put forward by the member for Winnipeg North Centre.

We want Canada to be a centre of excellence for medical research. The academics, universities and scientists in this country are poised, willing and ready to take their place at the forefront of this burgeoning new industry and the commercial possibilities of medical research. We welcome the opportunity.

[Division No. 752, February 28th, 2000]

When the Liberals failed to deliver on Bill C-91, when they collapsed and succumbed to the powerful pharmaceutical lobby, it was the largest single cost to our health care system. The costs of pharmaceutical drugs exploded and the generic drug companies were unable to make a substitute at maybe one-tenth of the cost. Giving 20 years of patent protection to the pharmaceutical companies was hardly in the best interests of Canadians. It is certainly coming back to haunt us now.

I am very proud that the member for Winnipeg North Centre saw fit to add this safeguard for all Canadians. We will not see that kind of conflict of interest on the boards of directors of any newly established medical research centres.

In Motion No. 49 the member for Winnipeg North Centre also points out that the conflict of interest and post-employment code for public office holders should apply, with such modifications as circumstances require, to all the members of the advisory boards. It is a conflict of interest reference to make sure that the current post-employment code that exists for all public office holders shall also apply to these boards. In other words, not only should they not have a financial interest in the pharmaceutical company or some such thing, but there has to be a reasonable length of time to put them at arm's length distance from their former occupation.

The member for Winnipeg North Centre is standing up for the interests of ordinary Canadians by ensuring that this kind of conflict will not take place in the newly established institutes of medical research.

[Division No. 752, February 28th, 2000]

I would certainly hope that the government would see fit to at least put in a basic safeguard so that none of the advisory boards shall have appointed to them anyone who has a financial interest in a pharmaceutical company or a medical devices company. It is common sense.

One of my colleagues mentioned Bill C-91. That nightmare surfaces again. We all know how powerful the pharmaceutical lobby is already. We certainly do not need it infiltrating the boards of our medical research institutes.

[Division No. 752, February 28th, 2000]

Certainly it would be a disaster. The publicly funded organization could be doing research that the pharmaceutical company wanted to have done. Let us face it. That is a glaring oversight.

[Division No. 752, February 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member next to me, it is too bad. We consider it a lost opportunity if the government were really soliciting input from the general public on this issue.

Other groups have welcomed the idea of dismantling the Medical Research Council of Canada and replacing it with the Canadian institutes of health research, the CIHR. The Canadians for Health Research wrote a letter recently to inform us, and I will repeat this publicly for the House, of a meeting that they will be holding here on March 22 to celebrate the creation of the new Canadian institutes of health research and the dismantling of the Medical Research Council of Canada. The letter from this organization reminds us that much of the country has been eagerly anticipating this development. It also reminds us that this will further Canada's ability to be seen as a world leader in terms of medical research.

It is not any secret that Canada's health system is the envy of the world and arguably the best not for profit and publicly funded health system in all of the world. The rest of the world watches Canada for examples of how to expand or improve their health care systems. This is another reason that what we are doing today with this bill is very timely.

This initiative expands the role of the public health care system. It is not just the delivery of medical services to people in need but the whole concept of medical research as a holistic approach to the well-being of all Canadians. Obviously this is the direction in which we should be going in the Canadian medical system.

I should repeat here some of the amendments to the bill that the member for Winnipeg North Centre thought it necessary to introduce. The government should welcome these amendments. They were made in good faith. We believe they help bring clarity to the bill and to improve some of its shortcomings.

The first amendment was Motion No. 48 in which the member for Winnipeg North Centre recommended that Bill C-13 be amended to add the words “the members of the advisory boards shall not, directly or indirectly, as owner, shareholder, director, officer”—et cetera—“have any pecuniary or proprietary interest in any business which operates in the pharmaceutical or medical devices industries”.

That is a point which really needed to be made. I am very glad the member for Winnipeg North Centre made that point. Clearly it is a conflict of interest situation. She saw that the bill was seriously flawed. It did not say anything to preclude the idea that a lobbyist for a pharmaceutical firm could end up sitting on the advisory board of one of the research organizations funded by the government. We can see how this could be a disaster.