Peter MacKay

[Natural Resources, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, during the election, the Prime Minister promised that Newfoundland and Labrador as well as Nova Scotia would be primary beneficiaries of their offshore resources, 100% in fact. Based on recent revelations by the Prime Minister's cagey campaign manager, Mr. Herle, promises made were probably motivated by the fact that they were in decline and poll numbers were down.

Despite the motivations, the offshore deal is still about fairness for Atlantic Canada, for its people and for its future.

Again, why will the Prime Minister not respect the Atlantic accord and respect the deal he promised the Premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland?

[Contraventions Act, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member opposite. Although his overriding message is one of protecting young people, and certainly his efforts were to highlight the health aspect of the debate and the condemnation of the use of drugs, I find much of his argument contradictory, inconsistent, and he undercuts some of his own argument in discussion, because what we essentially will see at the end of the day with the passage of this legislation is the Government of Canada condoning further drug use. That is the interpretation that will be put forward.

I also want to debunk some of the myth that is constantly put forward on this argument. When a young person or anyone in this country today goes before a court of law as a first-time offender for possession of a small amount of marijuana, the idea that they will be barred forever from entering the United States, saddled with a criminal record, and limited in their future employment prospects is absolute unadulterated nonsense. There is available in the criminal justice system today very clearly the option for a sentencing judge to mete out a sentence that will allow for a conditional or absolute discharge. It happens each and every day in courts across this country. That is the reality. This suggestion that somehow people's lives are marred forever by simple possession is pure fearmongering and an attempt by the Liberal government to soft-peddle their position on this issue.

My friend is a medical doctor. Before he drank the Kool-Aid and swallowed himself whole by joining the Liberal government, he used to very strongly advocate the health aspect of this. Marijuana taken into a system is no different. In fact I would suggest it is worse, according to some of the material that I have seen. Ingesting marijuana is very damaging; it's carcinogenic, THC.

I do not profess to be a medical doctor, as is the member opposite, but by condoning this and saying it's okay, it's fine, we accept that marijuana use is widespread in this country and therefore we should not put greater deterrents in place to try to eliminate drug use and try to at least control it in such a way that young people are given the proper message, that the Government of Canada is not becoming a pusher, in effect, I find very troubling. Victims groups, police, advocates, and many others who work with drug addiction are extremely concerned by this message, this soft-on-drug-use approach that underlies this particular bill.

We know that the legislation is a reincarnation of a previous bill that came before the House. We know as well in the official opposition that attempts were made to amend the legislation, to bring forward what we thought were meaningful amendments that would accept some of the realities that exist around drug use in this country. We accept very clearly that there is a need to facilitate the elimination of criminal records in some cases for those who were charged and convicted of minor possession in the past.

I would suggest as well that the amount that is before the House through this legislation is 30 grams, which is a significant amount. Thirty grams is a significant amount of marijuana--30 to 60 joints, depending on how big you roll them. This type of amount indicates very clearly that a person can carry that around and sell it in schoolyards to children. This runs completely contradictory to a strategy.

Speaking of strategies, what is the overall drug strategy of the government? It certainly does not appear clear, and it certainly seems that we are rushing headlong by bringing the legislation forward without that drug strategy in place.

I also have to go on record as saying again that it is perverse and contradictory beyond belief to be introducing a strategy that is empowering police with the knowledge of how to detect drugs in an impaired driving situation--a drug driving bill, if you will--at the same time as legislation that will make it easier to access drugs. This type of approach again I find completely contradictory on the part of the government.

The bill itself I find still seriously flawed in the schedule of amounts and the fine system that has been set out. We have a lesser fine if it is a young person, again suggesting that a young person will be treated differently by virtue of this bill by doing the same offence: being in possession of drugs.

The suggestion that we are somehow making it tougher on those who cultivate marijuana is again contradicted by the reality that there is no minimum fine in place.

What we have here is a maximum, which we very seldom, if ever, see meted out by a sentencing judge. It is fine to peg the high amount as the potential fine that one could face and the potential period of incarceration, yet there is no minimum sentence to reflect society's condemnation and to be a deterrent element in the criminal justice system.

The legislation is riddled with inconsistencies. The legislation is such that we will be proposing amendments at the committee stage as well.

This bill is welcome in the sense that there is clearly a need to modernize drug legislation in the country. However, the way in which these mixed messages are being brought forward by the government does little to provide confidence. It does little to do away with some of the cynicism that exists in having seen this bill come before the Parliament of Canada time and time again and then be sloughed off, put on the side burner, put aside to let it languish there, giving the public the opinion that yes, the government cares, yes, this is a top priority among the other hundred top priorities we hear about from the Prime Minister almost on a daily basis, and yet it never makes it to fruition. It never actually passes through both houses and becomes the law of the land. This is part of the continued shell game that we see the government perpetrating on an unsuspecting public. Well, the public is cottoning on; they're getting used to that approach.

We are hopeful that in a minority Parliament we will see a more efficacious use of legislation, a greater attempt to actually bring forward bills that will bring about necessary change that we in the Conservative Party do support.

We hope to have significant input into this bill when it gets to the committee stage. It is a bill that, although seriously flawed, has potential to improve upon the current state of affairs. We do support the intent of the other bill, Bill C-16, which will be coming before the House. Certainly we support the intent to arm police officers with greater capacity, training, and ability to detect the use of drugs in impaired cases, because there is still far too high an incidence of impaired driving related accidents on the roads and highways of the country today. There are far too many deaths. We fervently support the work of groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other advocates who are pushing to educate Canadians on this problem.

With respect to Bill C-17, the critic for our party, the member for Abbotsford, has put forward our position. We will be looking to improve and amend the legislation. In particular, we will be looking to address some of the shortcomings around the amounts and the fine structure that has been set up.

The underlying theme, again for emphasis, is not that we in the country are relaxing our drug law to the point where it causes great consternation in the United States. There is real concern on the part of the American administration, be it Republican or Democrat. We are not going to tread into that quagmire, as we have seen the Liberal government do on far too many occasions, by offering our opinion on the outcome. Suffice it to say that the Americans are concerned. There are trade implications when we soften our drug laws. We see far too much drug trafficking at the border. Sadly for the Americans, it is in large part travelling their way, and they have concerns about it. This bill does nothing to ameliorate this or to cause the Americans to have any greater degree of confidence in the Canadian laws.

We hope the government will be open to accepting amendments on this bill. In a minority Parliament, by its very nature, we are going to see a greater degree of cooperation, whether the government likes it or not.

We will make our voice heard at the committee level. We hope to take greater action on the seizure of material as well, the material that is used in hydroponics for those illegal grow ops. That will allow us to have stronger drug legislation, not weaker drug legislation, which is the way I would characterize the current bill.

[Criminal Code, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues from all parties who have spoken in support of this important bill. The legislation is very forward looking in its intent. Overall the attempts that have been made by virtue of this newly amended bill, which has been reintroduced from the previous Parliament, are commendable. However I must say that I find some of the provisions a disappointment.

The Conservative Party hopes, with the cooperation of other members, including government members, to make an attempt at improving the legislation at committee level, which is why we support the motion to send the legislation to committee where we can hear from experts and from the stakeholders most affected, including victims, the police, representatives of the bar and the judiciary. We must try to get this right because one of the important elements of the legislation that is often overlooked is not only that the legislation can be used to convict, it can also be used to exonerate.

This is the type of technology that is extremely forward looking. It is the type of technology that would help to avoid some of the worst travesties we have seen in this country as far as wrongful convictions.

The taking of DNA is the type of forensic evidence that can prove categorically a person's presence at a crime scene. It can both convict and exonerate. The legislation falls short of the potential in allowing investigators to do their important work, to collect that type of crime scene evidence and use it, through forensic labs, to examine and present a case.

The changes that have been put forward in the bill, although they go far in a technical sense to expanding the primary and secondary list of offences that are included as far as the use of DNA, it is astounding to think that some offences have not found their way into the primary designation, including such things as robbery and child pornography. Those are changes that we accept and support, but what I fear is that some of the attempts to sing the praises and the marvels of the legislation were to distract the public away from the real issue, which is that we are not using DNA to its full potential.

Individuals, front line police officers most notably, are calling for the use and the collection of DNA at the time of charge. That level of reasonable and probable grounds has been achieved. It is much akin to the collection of a fingerprint for the purposes of analysis. DNA, let us be quite frank, is a genetic fingerprint. I have yet to hear a cogent argument that can differentiate. I understand those who are concerned about privacy and individuals who talk of the use of DNA for health related data. However, as I understand it, the information in the data bank is completely safe. It can only be accessed by those with the proper authority, those seeking a warrant.

To that end, even collecting the DNA and holding it until conviction would help avoid what I consider to be a very serious anomaly in the legislation. I will put it in very straightforward terms. Let us talk about an individual who has been connected to a serious crime on the west coast, for example, be it sexual assault, violence or murder, and the person is picked up in the province of Ontario or my own province of Nova Scotia for another unrelated offence. Knowing full well that under the parameters of the legislation the person would be compelled upon conviction to give the DNA, there is an additional incentive to run and a disincentive for the justice system to prevail.

The rationale is very straightforward and common sense. Taking that DNA at the time of charge, holding it in abeyance, not necessarily entering it immediately into the data bank for cross reference to the outstanding offence, would allow the authorities, the police, the justice system to hold on to that very critical evidence for use in a future trial.

With the number of unsolved murders and unsolved sexual assaults we know that many of those perpetrators are currently languishing in Canadian jails. This is the type of legislation that, if put in its proper application, would allow the police to solve some of those crimes, to help locate missing persons and to take preventive measures to ensure that miscarriages of justice do not occur.

The potential for the bill to enhance our justice system is good but not in its current form. The bill would not allow police to take DNA at the time of charge. The police can collect fingerprints. Other members have made reference to the fact that Great Britain, from which we have taken our lead on many important matters, such as how we govern this country, including the Parliament of Canada and the Westminster system, is currently allowing its law enforcement agents to take DNA at the time of charge.

By refusing to allow officers to do so, I would suggest strongly that we are removing a critical key for our law enforcement community in doing its job.

Former police chief Julian Fantino of Metro Toronto recently appeared at a conference of sex crime investigators. He stated:

We need to collect D.N.A. at the front end when we arrest suspects and run it through the data bank and we know how many people are serial offenders and how many offences are committed by a relatively small number of people who are aggressive and committed to committing crimes. We need to do better in using science and technologies to protect innocent victims.

I put a great deal of emphasis on Mr. Fantino and his experience. He is speaking for a lot of front line police officers when he encourages the Parliament of Canada to take this important step.

We have seen far too many vicious crimes perpetrated in this country. We know that a relatively small number, if they continue unchecked and if we continue not convicting them, continue to pose a serious threat to our communities. This is about protecting the public. The fundamental, underlying theme that we can never get away from is the deterrent. The important element of deterrence is implicit in everything we do.

Police currently can arrest an individual after matching DNA found on a victim or at a crime scene and make that link and present it to the court as the telling factor for conviction. Bill C-13 continues the listing of primary and secondary designated offences, which I would suggest we do away with entirely. We should simply merge those systems and have a single list that would require judges, upon conviction, to allow for the taking of DNA. We could still have a reverse onus provision that would allow a challenge from a defence lawyer to put forward a case as to why that DNA should not be taken.

The Conservative Party of Canada will be proposing a number of important amendments. I would suggest that these efforts, in particular, when it comes to the taking of DNA samples and the protection of our children, our children should be a huge motivating factor as to why we have to get it right in this current context. Police officers should be allowed to take DNA samples for all indictable offences at the time of the official laying of the charge and hold that in abeyance until a conviction.

As has been outlined, the bill would also require that a secondary process, a judicial hearing, take place. Having worked in the court system, both in a defence and a crown capacity, we have a massive backlog that prevents the use of proper investigative tools that will hold back our system to adequately process these cases through the courts. Lack of resources is a huge issue. By putting in place a convoluted process such as this I would suggest that we would be furthering some of the difficulties currently faced by crown prosecutors, our courts and the justice system generally.

We need resources dedicated to this data bank. We are underutilizing it now in terms of the number of entries. As many members have mentioned, thousands of entries are made on a weekly basis in Great Britain, whereas in Canada we are still languishing in that regard.

We currently have 1,700 DNA cases on a backlog in the DNA data bank. They have not been able to enter that data. It is the timeliness. If that data were entered and used in an investigation of an outstanding murder, I would suggest it would save lives. It is that dramatic.

We look forward to having this matter before the committee and to hearing from experts from all areas. At that point the Conservative Party will be putting forward what we consider to be substantive, common sense amendments to improve the bill.

[2004 Paralympic Summer Games, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the 152 Canadian Paralympians who competed at the Paralympic Games in Athens, Greece this summer. We take great pride in the accomplishments of all our athletes, but I want to pay special tribute to a dynamic young woman from Central Nova who met the Olympic credo of stronger, higher, faster and returned home with four medals.

Chelsey Gotell of Antigonish, Nova Scotia won gold in the 100 metre backstroke, topping off her amazing performance with another three bronze medals in the pool. A member of the Antigonish Aquanauts Swim Club, Chelsey has filled her family, friends and community with pride and admiration. To achieve this level of success requires sacrifice and commitment, and with a fabulous performance in Athens, Chelsey's many years of hard work have paid off.

The Paralympic Games are the most elite international sporting competition in the world for athletes with a disability and we recognize the challenges of competing at this level.

Once again, my congratulations to Chelsey. She is world class, and I wish her best of luck in all her future endeavours.

I remind all members that there will be a reception held in the Hall of Honour, Room C-223 today.

[Points of Order, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is the old case of we doth protest too much.

If the hon. member is looking for some kind of an inference, she is drawing a long bow and if some negative inference to the Liberal Party or in fact, if some negative inference from organized crime being compared to the Liberal Party was drawn, then I would withdraw.

[Natural Resources, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, despite a week of intense negotiations, the Prime Minister has failed again to bring about an offshore agreement that lives up to his campaign commitment to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Premier Williams and Premier Hamm went home earlier this week empty-handed. However, they are prepared to fly back to Ottawa on a moment's notice to meet with the Prime Minister to resolve this important issue.

Can the acting prime minister tell us today whether a meeting has been arranged with the premiers to discuss the issue of offshore royalties? Will that agreement include no cap, no clawbacks, and no limitations on time or money?

[Sponsorship Program, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, not everything Alfonso Gagliano says is necessarily to be believed, especially his harsh criticisms of the Liberal family. We can accept that the Prime Minister has made some major mistakes and suffers from amnesia, yes. That some current ministers supported the tactics of Chuck Guité, yes, but that Mr. Gagliano testified before the Gomery commission with any enthusiasm, not likely.

Will the Minister of the Environment be testifying before the Gomery commission with enthusiasm?

[Sponsorship Program, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, evidence mounts day by day that the Prime Minister knew more about the sponsorship program than he is prepared to tell Canadians.

Today's revelations have nothing to do with the Gomery commission. Former cabinet colleague Alfonso Gagliano stated in a letter that the sponsorship strategy was approved by cabinet. He said that cabinet, including current members of the cabinet, designed, approved and supported the sponsorship program and strategy.

Is the Prime Minister and cabinet suffering from collective amnesia as Mr. Gagliano has said? How can the Prime Minister continue to maintain he knew nothing of the operations of the sponsorship program?

[Natural Resources, October 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers do not think that.

Last month the Prime Minister promised to fix health care for a generation. That turned out to be 10 years. Now the Prime Minister says he is going to give a 100% fix to the offshore royalties. That turns out to be eight years.

For Nova Scotia that means only the current Sable project will be covered. Future projects such as Deep Panuke will be subject to the same clawback, inconsistent with the Atlantic accord and inconsistent with the Prime Minister's word.

When will the Prime Minister commit to give 100% resources to Nova Scotia? What part of 100% does he not understand?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, October 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in Montreal this morning, provincial and municipal police associations spoke out against the arbitrary decision of the federal government to reduce the RCMP's regional workforce. In the meantime, traffickers continue to terrorize farmers and recruit teenagers.

Will the minister finally reassure us and maintain the detachments whose absence is so cruelly felt?