Peter MacKay

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in the rush to draft anti-terrorism legislation, the government is terrorizing some Canadians.

The majority of witnesses before the justice committee, particularly those of Islamic faith, have stated that they fear repressive and legitimate loss of rights. The privacy and information commissioners have stated the same thing. The justice minister has stated that she is open to advice yet the Prime Minister has continually and arrogantly dismissed these concerns.

I want to give the justice minister the opportunity to provide her assurances that she will be open to honestly consider amendments from the opposition to improve Bill C-36.

[Criminal Code, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I would hope that the Chair would indulge me and the House, just in keeping with personal and professional accountability, and allow me to advise the House and the Chair that I sent a letter to the Prime Minister's office after hearing the Speaker's ruling today. I wish to just read that letter:

I wish to unreservedly withdraw the allegation of improper conduct that I made in the House of Commons earlier this week.

Turning to Bill C-284, I commend the hon. member for Churchill for bringing the issue forward. I will begin by stating that the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Coalition will give its initial support to the bill. We certainly believe this continues to be a timely and important issue, one which should be placed before the justice committee. I believe there is a willingness on the part of the department and the minister herself to permit that to happen.

I can say with a great deal of sincerity and emotion that this hits very close to home. In fact the place where I grew up is a neighbouring community to Plymouth, where the Westray mine rests and where the bodies of those 26 men continue to rest underground.

May 9, 1992, the day that the Westray mine in Plymouth, Nova Scotia blew up killing 26 men, is a day that the people of Pictou county, in fact the people of Canada, will not forget.

Although we have concerns about the way in which the bill has been drafted in terms of its scope, we certainly support seeing the bill, this issue, continue through the process and to the justice committee for proper review. It will take far more than criminal code amendments to deal with this issue in a proper fashion. As the parliamentary secretary quite properly stated, this is a complex issue. It is an issue involving provincial jurisdictions; it is an issue involving provincial legislation.

Bill C-284 speaks of the need to bring about greater accountability on the part of corporations. It includes acts or omissions, and rightly so, because of what happened in the case of Westray, which was encapsulated in a report tabled by Mr. Justice Peter Richards after hearing numerous testimony.

His report “The Westray Story: A Predictable Path to Disaster” highlighted the acts of omission on the part of provincial safety inspectors and mine managers in making legitimate and real attempts to prevent a situation that was known all too well to those miners, many of whom escaped by the simple fortune of not being in the mine that day. I knew some of those men whose names were read into the record by the hon. member for Dartmouth. In fact, as a summer student with Satellite Construction, I had worked on the site of the Westray mine during its construction phase.

Criminal negligence and in particular manslaughter by criminal negligence is perhaps arguably one of the most difficult sections of the criminal code to prove. It involves proving the intention. It involves proving the mens rea. Particularly when the mens rea is an act of omission, this is a very difficult criminal matter to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The bill is very similar to a private member's motion which I presented. It was the first private member's motion that I was permitted to submit upon being elected to the House in 1997. That motion, Motion No. 455, and later Motion No. 79, was passed and received overwhelming all party support to proceed to the justice committee.

That motion dealt specifically with the amendment of the criminal code and all appropriate federal statutes in accordance with recommendation 73 of the Nova Scotia public inquiry into the Westray disaster and was specifically focused at holding corporate executives and directors accountable for workplace safety.

Mr. Justice Richards' report was a direct message to this and all federal governments that there is a responsibility that rests on the Parliament of Canada to take steps to ensure workplace safety.

The issue is seen, understandably, as being predominantly under provincial jurisdiction, but human safety is something that all legislatures have to take responsibility for.

I have some concerns regarding the reverse onus of the legislation, yet the need for workplace safety overrides that concern. There is a pressing if not urgent need to delve into this issue.

Those who are in the corporate world, who sit on boards of directors, who sometimes take very little hands-on control of the day to day running and operations of businesses would be encouraged, I would suggest compelled, to show greater concern and insight into what is happening in those businesses to ensure that elements of safety exist, to ensure it is a priority for those corporations lest they be found to be criminally responsible when horrible disasters occur such as what occurred at the Westray mine.

That tragedy in Plymouth, Nova Scotia reminds us that all corporations in that world should hold concern for their employees as among their top priorities. They have to see them as people and not only look at the bottom line in terms of financial gain.

As was previously mentioned, other jurisdictions have dealt with this issue and legislated in this area, Australia and Great Britain to mention a couple. I want to take a moment to express again, as I have before in the context of this legislation, my sincere thanks and the thanks of the people of Pictou county to the draegermen and the emergency response teams who arrived on the scene in the aftermath of that explosion. They put their own safety at risk and entered the mine shaft in the vain hope of rescuing survivors of that explosion.

The attempt to locate the 26 men who died in that mine underground remains a testament to the bravery and selflessness of those workers. Many of those draegermen came from Cape Breton, an area which has endured more than its own share of mining tragedy. The people of Pictou county will never forget the assistance that was offered.

I might add that many of those emergency response workers from the local area and the province of Nova Scotia again rallied to the cause in the Swissair disaster off the coast of Peggy's Cove. Once again those individuals deserve our bottomless thanks for what they did and the quality of mercy they showed during that troubled time.

Pictou county has a long and rich tradition of coal mining. The Pictou coalfield has been mined for nearly 200 years, yet there has always been danger in the mining and in the thick and gassy coal seams that are found there. The Foord and Wimpey seams in particular are notorious for their volatility.

As the need for coal diminished, Westray was the only operational underground coal mine in Pictou county at the time of the explosion in 1992. Management's disregard for worker safety combined with the workers' need to keep their jobs seemed to cause a sense of urgency in keeping the mine going. There were financial pressures that were brought to bear as well. What a heartbreaking tragedy it was in terms of the loss of lives. If that mine were operating today, the economic advantage would flow to an area that is very economically depressed. That remains part of that tragedy. If that mine had been properly managed, I would suggest it would still be operating.

Turning back to this bill, and my previous motion, this is an attempt by the opposition, by all members of parliament, to remind the government and ourselves that we must do everything in our power to ensure there is workplace safety. We have to be engaged actively with those in the labour community to ensure we are doing our utmost to protect workers on the job.

There is a need for safety in mining but also in farming, manufacturing, fish plants, in all areas where danger lurks in any occupation. Too often death and injury in the workplace, in the fullness of time, is discovered to have been avoidable.

It is a daunting task to try to enact legislation and to put into law provisions that would protect and encourage those in the industry to abide by legislative initiatives to ensure safety. Yet a criminal code provision, a law that would help ensure accountability, is one such way to do so, leading to higher levels of accountability among executives, CEOs and management in companies. It certainly is a worthwhile exercise for us.

Those who make decisions in the workplace that affect workplace safety need to be held accountable. The bill speaks of fines. It speaks of greater corporate activity in terms of knowledge. It speaks of executives being actively engaged in the workplace over which they preside. It would create offences and penalties for the corporate sector.

After eight years in office the Liberal government has a mandate to address the issue. It has the mandate by virtue not only of private members' bills and motions but of this report and the fact that the problems continue to exist day to day. The tragedy of September 11 increased the need for security in all sectors but the situation in the workplace is omnipresent.

During the public inquiry into the Westray matter the criminal prosecution proceeded through the courts all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The prosecutors in the case had a very difficult time presenting evidence due to procedural interference. This highlights the need for amendments to the criminal code.

We look forward to having the opportunity to revisit this debate in the House but more so in committee where we will hear from stakeholders and individuals who can advise us how to improve workplace safety nationally.

[Contraventions Act, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from British Columbia who brought this matter forward. I commend all members who have taken part in this debate. It is a very timely and very helpful process we are engaging in at this moment.

Looking at the substance of Bill C-344 which calls for the decriminalization of marijuana, there is an important distinction that cannot be repeated often enough. There is a huge difference between decriminalizing marijuana and legalizing marijuana. I think there is often a great deal of confusion over this particular issue.

The private member's bill calls for enactments within the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Contraventions Act which would essentially put the possession, trafficking and use of marijuana into the category of a summary offence ticket, that is, a speeding ticket or a motor vehicle type offence, that would result in potential fines and potential incarceration.

The penalties are really not the question. It becomes a much broader debate when we engage in discussing the effects of such a change. Essentially it would lead potentially to expanded use of marijuana for very casual social purposes which is occurring now in this country. There is a realization behind the bill that a disproportionate amount of criminal justice machinery is trying to deal with this problem right now, while at the same time dealing with what I would fairly call proportionately larger problems in the country.

The issue is one which deserves debate. It is one that is currently being debated in the House of Commons committee that it has been referred to. It has also been taken up by the Senate and the hon. Pierre Claude Nolin, a Conservative senator in the other place. They are delving into the very pith and substance of what we are discussing here today in this private member's bill.

The hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca has displayed a great deal of courage and diligence in ensuring that this matter comes forward. I am quick to acknowledge that other members of the House have a great deal of experience because of the predominance of this problem in their ridings.

It is a problem on a number of levels. There is a reliance by many in society on drugs far more damaging and with much higher addictive qualities than marijuana. My colleague from Quebec raised an important issue, the distinction between whether it includes marijuana or hash and hash oil. That to me is not clear in the bill.

Neither legalization nor increased criminal sanctions will fully address some of these complexities. There has to be a full and public debate. There has to be a great deal of attention placed on the health aspects.

My colleague from the New Democratic Party has quite correctly pointed out that the evidence is not clear. There is a fair bit of conflicting medical research that speaks of the addictive qualities of marijuana and hashish, that speaks of the harm that can result from direct inhalation of marijuana.

There is also the real effect that it has on a person's mental capacity, decision making, and physical dexterity in the operation of machinery or a motor vehicle. These are considerations that have to be brought into the debate.

The problems require a variety of measures to seek out a solution. They include education, treatment and rehabilitation and government regulation in areas that may not result in criminal sanctions.

All of this is to say that in the context of the debate, it is not a simple one. It is not just a matter of saying we are going to remove the penalties from the criminal code and put them into the context of something that is deemed less serious with less detrimental effect on a person's future. By that I mean obviously there are those in the past who have been unfairly punished or felt disproportionate results coming from the fact that they may have been arrested for possession of marijuana or have engaged in the use of marijuana.

We have seen a greater openness to acknowledge the medicinal benefits of marijuana in the control of pain, glaucoma and other medical afflictions in recent years. We have come a long way. I acknowledge that the legislation in this area has not changed for many years. There have been previous studies, but there is an intense and removed attitude to re-examine the issue.

The leader of the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative coalition, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, has openly supported the spirit and intent behind the legislation. In May of this year he called upon the government to decriminalize marijuana. He stated that it was not fair for a young person to face a lifelong criminal record for possession of the drug. He made the distinction between criminalization and legalization. He also noted, as I will note, that it was a personal opinion.

I am obliged to say that within the coalition we will be having a free vote on this issue. There is a difference of opinion in our coalition and in other parties. That is healthy. Canadians openly embrace the reality that people have very different backgrounds, experiences and strongly held beliefs about the issue.

The hon. member for Saint John who was referred to in the debate holds very personal strong beliefs about this. I understand and respect the position of my leader. Yet, even the Minister of Justice signalled that she would be open to a debate on the decriminalization of marijuana. Many Canadians are still uncomfortable with the amount of evidence that is before them, particularly on the health aspects.

A survey last May suggested Canadians were almost evenly split on the issue of legalization: 47% in support compared to 26% in 1975. There is an apparent shift in public attitudes.

I certainly support further study. I support and commend the effort being put forward by members of parliament and the Senate. I must be honest, however. I am not there yet. I do not feel comfortable with going down the road of decriminalization at this point.

We are engaged in a healthy debate. The issue has been before the country. There was reference to the Le Dain commission. The medical community is more engaged in bringing forward hard facts about the effects of marijuana use. The mover of this bill is a medical practitioner and that further legitimizes and crystallizes his commitment to this issue. Changing attitudes toward the medical use of marijuana, combined with increasing demands on the law enforcement community, have also necessitated this closer examination.

There was reference earlier that the law enforcement community is stretched to the extreme in trying to enforce all sorts of laws that proportionately require greater attention. I do not want to draw too close an analogy, but having law enforcement officers engaged in the enforcement of a gun registry, for example, highlights the ludicrous nature of giving officers too much to do without enough financial resources or enough person power to commit the task that is before them.

This bill calls for changing the way in which we set up the fine structure. There is a great deal of concern on my part for people who suffer the inability to travel or to gain full employment in an area for which they are qualified for the reason they may have a criminal record for simple possession. That can change by having a criminal record expunged.

The bill does not go as far as to legalize the use of marijuana. I commend the hon. member for bringing this matter to the House for debate.

I referred to the debate within the policing community. The chiefs of police seem to support the hon. member's initiative and yet frontline police officers feel that this is not the road to go at this time.

I believe there is a danger that those who are under the influence of marijuana suffer from a decreased drive and initiative.

It is still a mind-altering substance, something that can affect in a criminal way the operation of a motor vehicle or at times the intent that may be involved in a criminal act.

Again this issue is something that will be with us, I hope not for the same amount of time since the last time it came before the House. I look forward to the outcome of the Senate report and the House of Commons committee report and the further debate that will take place on the floor of the House of Commons.

[Points of Order, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the records of the House. I regret having to call to the attention of the Chair a very clear difference between the electronic videotapes of yesterday's question period and the version of Hansard now published on the Internet.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the accuracy and independence of Hansard is critical to the credibility of the Parliament of Canada. We all know that there can be minor corrections and interpretations to the printed record that is found in Hansard in order to reflect the intent of the person speaking. However, the case that I wish to point out to the Chair goes far beyond that purpose and in fact seeks to materially alter the substance of what was stated in the House.

Yesterday the hon. member for Halifax was asking a question on softwood lumber, a matter that is creating massive unemployment and economic havoc throughout Canada. The Prime Minister chose to treat this as an occasion to avoid the issue and made a joke.

In his response to the second question by the hon. member for Halifax, Hansard now states that the Prime Minister said:

Mr. Speaker, some do not have long hair and shake it a lot, as is the case with the leader of the Conservative Party, who will be up soon.

I have listened to the electronic tapes of what the Prime Minister clearly said, which was as follows:

Mr. Speaker, you know some don't have long hair and shake a lot, as is the case of the leader of the Conservative Party.

I will leave it to Canadians to judge the appropriateness of the comment. I would like to focus on what obviously took place in the aftermath as a whitewash of what appears in Hansard .

The words attributed to the Prime Minister in Hansard are inaccurate. The Prime Minister chose to make a personal, unfounded and unprovoked attack on the right hon. member for Calgary Centre. That is not reflected in Hansard . It was deliberate and intentional action unworthy of the high office held by the right hon. member for Saint-Maurice.

The Prime Minister, rather than standing and admitting that he committed a tactical error in making a personal attack, has tried to wiggle out of it by altering the printed record of the House. The Prime Minister had the floor, the cameras were on him and the record is clear; the video record is clear for everyone to see. The Prime Minister cannot fudge this. I need not remind the Speaker of the damage that results not only to personal reputations but to the collective reputation by personal attacks. This is exacerbated by denials and deliberate cover-ups.

The arrogance toward the sanctity of the House records sullies this place and heightens cynicism toward parliament. The veracity and reliability of the official records of debate are at stake. The editor of Debates should not be put in that position by the Prime Minister. It is an abuse of officials by either the Prime Minister or those who act on his behalf.

The House was collectively embarrassed yesterday and the Prime Minister or his office compounded this error by instructing Hansard to alter his own words. When the Prime Minister drops a clanger he should be man enough to admit it, not try to fudge Hansard . Once again, public servants should not be asked to cover up what were lapses of judgment on the part of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to review both the written record and the electronic tapes that are available to determine if the accuracy reflected in the words of the Prime Minister appears in Hansard . In the meantime I hope the Prime Minister would put an end to this matter by simply standing up in the House himself and giving an apology. He should not send a delegation to offer his apology, as he has done in the past. The Prime Minister owes an apology to a former prime minister, to the House of Commons, to the editor of Hansard and to the Canadian people.

I thank the hon. Speaker for his indulgence in consideration of this matter.

[Public Works and Government Services, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the public works minister has connections to an Italian adviser and an agent with a shady past. His Pisan on the payroll is the latest in a long list of unaccountable Liberal lapses in ethical judgment. Mr. Maurizio Creuso, a longtime friend and travel companion of the minister, was awarded two government contracts with CMHC and Canada Post, despite having a conviction for fraud and allegations of corruption in Italy.

Will the Prime Minister immediately refer this highly questionable ministerial action to the ethics counsellor, or is that report already written?

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the verdict is in from the other place. Along with the majority of witnesses appearing before the two parliamentary committees, along with some ministers and MPs, the Senate also is extremely apprehensive about Bill C-36 going too far. This is evident in the major changes they have recommended.

Is the Prime Minister going to allow the necessary amendments as well as a free vote on this bill?

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, October 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, recent public comments from certain cabinet ministers showed a real concern for possible civil liberty infringements found in Bill C-36. There is reason to fear that excessive party discipline may stifle contrary opinions from within the Liberal ranks.

In these uncertain and challenging times, Liberal members of parliament should be free to speak up without reprisals from the Prime Minister.

Will the Prime Minister commit today to allowing for free votes both in the House and in committee on this extremely important legislation?

[Divorce Act, October 29th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-406, an act to amend the Divorce Act (custody of grandchildren)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to table a private member's bill that deals with an amendment to the Divorce Act particularly pertaining to the custody of grandchildren.

The enactment would amend the Divorce Act to allow a grandparent to apply for custody of his or her grandchildren without the leave of the court. This is an important move to allow grandparents greater ability to nurture, protect and care for children in the stead of the parents. I am pleased the member for St. John has agreed to second the motion.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Privilege, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will add briefly to that point. I have great concerns about the issue, as do members of the House. I have concerns about the way it has evolved and the practice of ministers making statements outside this place.

The minister has acknowledged the circumstances around the issue. He has pointed out the timeliness and importance of getting the issue forward and bringing it to the House.

The minister would also be aware that there is nothing stopping a minister of the crown, after having made the announcement due to pressing concerns about the stock market and the security of the industry, from coming back to the House of Commons the next day, availing himself of the opportunity to inform the House, and subjecting himself at that time to a few questions about such an important issue.

[Access to Information, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is not a private lawsuit. The taxpayers are footing the bill.

Time and time again the government has turned its back on concepts of openness and accountability. In Bill C-36 the justice minister's sweeping new powers will indefinitely, if not permanently, hide information from Canadians while sidestepping government watchdogs. Powers of arrest and intercept are expanded, rights are suspended and safeguards against excessive use are minimal.

Given the sense of alarm, will the minister accept sunset clause amendments for intrusive sections of the bill to protect Canadian rights from a cabinet information clampdown?