Peter MacKay

[Privilege, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the systemic intimidation of an officer of the House of Commons. This is a very serious allegation, I admit, but in the past 24 hours our attention has been drawn to the government's use of its levers of power to intimidate the office of the access to information commissioner.

As you would know as an officer of this House, the decision on the definition of what constitutes contempt is reserved for the collective House of Commons, that is, the issue now before the Chair is whether there is sufficient evidence to give this matter to the House for examination and decision.

Yesterday the Speaker laid on the table the report of the access to information commissioner, who is similarly an officer of parliament, both of the House of Commons and of the other place. The commissioner has made very disturbing and troubling allegations. I refer to his report at pages 9 and 10. I quote:

For its part, the Privy Council Office (PCO) decided to resist and challenge almost all of the Commissioner's investigative powers. To this end, officials of PCO have ignored orders for the production of records; failed to fully comply with such orders (in one case non-compliance persisted until after two Federal Court judges had ordered PCO to comply);

It goes on in the next paragraph to say:

In this latter regard, PCO lawyers advised a senior PCO official, of Deputy Minister rank, to refuse to answer questions under oath put to him by the Commissioner, because there could be no punitive consequences. When the Information Commissioner cited the official for contempt and began the enforcement process, PCO also agreed to pay the legal costs associated with the constitutional challenge....

This is blatant contempt for the commissioner.

It goes on in the final paragraph on page 9 to say:

...with no prior notice or consultation, to rescind a protocol with the Commissioner's office which was adopted and followed since 1984. The protocol governed the process by which the Information Commissioner could obtain a certificate from the Clerk of the Privy Council officially attesting that records claimed to be Cabinet confidences are, indeed, confidences. PCO claims now that it may exclude confidences from access without any obligation to certify through the Commissioner (as it must for a court) that such records are, indeed, confidences.

Finally, on page 10 of the information commissioner's annual report for 1999-2000, it says:

As for Justice Canada, the “home” department of the access law, it decided not to defend the Access to Information Act against the above-mentioned constitutional challenge brought against it by the senior official of PCO and funded by the Crown. Indeed, in proceedings before the Information Commissioner, an agent for the Attorney General took the unprecedented position of impugning the constitutionality of the very legislation which the Attorney General has the duty to defend.

There is a blatant conflict of interest at work based on the words and in this report.

As part of my submission I refer to page 11 of the report which says:

The government's palpable animosity towards the “right” of access (it would prefer to dole out information by grace and favour in well-digested mouthfuls) is no more apparent than in the disconnect between talk and action in the matter of reform of the Access to Information Act. Every study of the Act (from Parliament's own review in 1986, to the Justice department's internal reviews, to the Information Commissioner's reviews, to independent, academic reviews and careful reviews conducted by private members) has concluded that the law needs to be modernized, strengthened and expanded.

These are very heady and very heavy words. I submit that this report to parliament, written by an officer of parliament, raises sufficient questions and alarms to constitute a prima facie case that should be put before the House for examination and disposition.

The commissioner states that the privy council office, at public expense, has systematically challenged its powers and that the treasury board has systematically denied the commissioner resources to go about his duties. These are grave allegations and grave findings which are deeply troubling and should be deeply troubling to every member of the House.

The House has a duty to give this report a priority over other business which the government seeks to place before the House in its rush to a premature election call. We cannot allow this damning report to be swept aside in a rush to the Prime Minister's vanity election.

It is the Prime Minister himself, the man responsible for the privy council office, who stands accused of impeding an officer of parliament in his duties. The Prime Minister is going to dismiss the House before we can take action using the normal processes of examination of this report.

I call upon the Chair to put the House of Commons first, to rule that the findings in this report raise sufficient questions that they merit action and that the debate in the House should take place immediately.

I am of course prepared to move the necessary motion to let the House proceed with this issue. I expect that other House leaders will have similar comments. Mr. Speaker, I urge you to take action on this matter.

[Government Response To Petitions, October 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to statements by ministers. I am wondering if, given the volatility of the situation in the Middle East, we are going to hear a government statement in response to that situation.

[Gun Registry, October 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as costs skyrocket, the gun registry continues to be a cumbersome failure on the part of the government.

Can the Minister of Justice provide absolute assurances that there has been no breach in the security of the gun registry databank? Such a breach would provide a government sponsored road map for criminals who choose to steal guns. Could she provide that assurance today?

[Criminal Code, October 6th, 2000]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-505, an act to amend the Criminal Code (recruitment of children and swarming).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce this bill to amend the criminal code with respect to recruitment of children and swarming.

This bill would bring about amendments to the criminal code that would specifically enact a section of the code for prohibiting the recruitment of children as well as a specific section that would denunciate a code section barring swarming and attacking en masse, in a group. These are two phenomena that have received a great deal of attention recently. There are enactments to the criminal code that I think would greatly enhance the law enforcement community and the justice system's ability to deal with these two matters.

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

[Employment Insurance Act, October 5th, 2000]

Lazy maritimers, they called them.

[Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act, October 5th, 2000]

That new influx of cash will last between six and nine days. That is an indication of what is really happening. This is very much money that is promised at some point in the future.

With the deathbed reprieve that has been offered by this accord, is it stability of funding? Is it a commitment that the money is to be there not only in the short term but in the long term? Is there also an agreement, a willingness and an openness on the part of the government to work with provincial health ministers to look at the big scheme? Is it a mechanism which will allow for fundamental approaches that will keep doctors, nurses and hospitals open and working together on a non-partisan level to ensure that health care will be there for Canadians in the future?

[Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for her passionate and informed remarks on this very timely and important matter.

We in this party very much embrace the same concept that much of what is wrong with health care now is more than just money. The money that has been proposed here is inadequate. The premier of her province, the premier of my province and others gathered with the Prime Minister with the genuine intent that they were looking for some indication the government was sincere in its approach and sincere in its intent to try to repair what is happening, to try to repair the undermining and the tearing of the fabric of health care.

What the Progressive Party of Canada and our leader have been proposing as one part of the remedy, not the be-all and end-all but one part, is to inject some stability and some long term commitment to the funding for health care.

We all know that the system is in need of nurses, doctors, equipment and beds, the fundamentals, but they also need to know there will be a plan that will allow them to plan for the future, that will allow them to address the ever increasing complexities and changing atmosphere in health care.

Does the hon. member also agree that this addition of a sixth principle to health care is what is needed as a starting point and that this is what should also have been included in this accord?

The hon. member referred to the current government as the forces of darkness. I would go one step further. The Prime Minister has become the Darth Vader of what has happened to health care. He is aided by the storm trooper Minister of Health and the faceless ewoks on the backbench who are ready to just let this happen. This is the quick fix: throwing a little money at it.

My colleague from New Brunswick Southwest has indicated that in the province of New Brunswick this influx of cash will result in nine days of funding. That is how quickly the money will be used up.

[Committees Of The House, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member has made an important point that deserves clarification. The criminal code as indicated is but one aspect. It is about liability. It is about the use of the civil code to pierce the corporate veil.

If the chain of evidence is unbroken and if there is clear indication that safety provisions have been ignored and a person has been placed in a situation where there is real danger that was avoidable, directors and those in managerial positions should face a degree of accountability. If a stream of evidence pointed directly to knowledge that was ignored, if a dangerous situation could have been remedied and a decision very often for financial reasons led the person to inaction, there should definitely be a degree of accountability. All these evidentiary matters would be examined by a court with the benefit of the presumption of innocence and all the protections that exist.

What other types of legislative initiatives can we look at? We could look at coal mine regulations which are within federal purview. Occupational health and safety is another area that we could look at. Other federal labour codes that exist in the country could be looked at. The difficulty with much of this is provincial standards and the provincial approach to safety in the workplace. It is very much in the hands of the provinces to regulate.

We need federal statutes and legislation that encourage accountability, that encourage liability, and that will bring about a sense that there will be an accounting and deterrence and denunciation of irresponsible behaviour by those who not only in the practical sense may have created a dangerous situation but those who knew of it.

That is what I mean when I talk about attitudes changing. For years it has been assumed that those in the upper echelon in the business world, those who in many instances drive businesses to move ahead at breakneck pace, will not be held accountable, that they will somehow be able to step back and say “I just make business decisions”. Business decisions affect lives, and business decisions, if they are driven only by profit, certainly create danger. That is what we learned at Westray, just as political decisions can very much create danger.

If this is truly to be about accountability and justice, that means many things to many people. Justice very much talks about fairness. It talks about accountability. It talks about openness. That is what we should all be striving for. That is what we can do by changing things in the legislative scheme in parliament.

[Committees Of The House, October 5th, 2000]

In my enthusiasm I may have misspoken. When we say Joe who, we all know who now. The right hon. member for Kings—Hants has a long record of public service and a long record of honesty and integrity which I think is recognized and acknowledged by all members in this place.

This issue is one that will not go away. Whether it dies in this legislative attempt by members of the opposition, or whether it is embraced and rallied forward by the government, it is not an issue that will go away any time soon, nor will the problems in health or the problems in our economy.

Canadians expect that members of parliament, and in particular the Prime Minister, are here to lead. We heard a great deal about leaders and leadership in the past number of days. To be a leader one needs vision. That seems to be what is lacking in this place and in this current government.

There is no vision. The government bumps along and reacts to crisis. When the wheels are off it offers some support, some comfort. To prevent future problems, to somehow lay out a plan that will address problems before they happen, is the particular issue we are focused on in this debate. In terms of workplace safety, how do we put in place legislation that will save lives and prevent injury?

Let us look at the full equation. When these types of things happen there is a huge economic impact as well. Not to be callous or take away from the human impact, but when companies are forced to shut down, when persons are out of the workplace and compensation is due and deserved, when lives are lost and families are then faced with the horrible hardships that result from that type of situation, there is economic impact, that is something that is borne by all Canadians. We are lucky to have a social system that reacts, sometimes inadequately, but it is there to help.

If we can prevent these tragedies, if we can prevent this type of lasting harm to humans, the human impact and the economic impact that results, why would we not do that? We have lots of time. We do not need to go headlong rushing into an election. We have plenty of time to react. We have unfinished work, unfinished business before the House. Let us take the time. Let us sit on the weekend if we have to. Let us get legislation done. Let us get the work done that people have entrusted us to do.

The motion brought forward by the Progressive Conservative Party did get to the justice committee. It did bring about a raised awareness and a consciousness on the part of people in this place and people across the country toward the issue. There was a willingness to act at that point.

The only thing that is preventing that now, the only impediment, is the government's timetable and, I would add to that, its priorities which seem to be very much out of sync with the priorities of others in the opposition and most Canadians.

The Westray mine sits silent. The assets are being liquidated. Yet that memory is still very poignant in Pictou county, in the province of Nova Scotia and around the country. The Westray mine has become a symbol of the tragedy and the horror that can take place when unsafe work conditions exist. It has become a symbol for every type of work. Let us not let that tragedy repeat itself. Let us not let those lives that were lost be in vain. Let us not let the heroic efforts that were made in the wake of the Westray mine disaster go unnoticed and unsubstantiated by efforts to prevent. We do have a chance to do that now.

My friend spoke of the legal implications, the malice aforethought, the callous approach and the grindings of the justice system that resulted in the aftermath of Westray. Civil implications were pursued. What was particularly striking, which doubled and exacerbated and made worse the Westray disaster, was the disaster which occurred in the legal system and the wranglings that took place. We have to try to cut through that.

Why would we not try to streamline efforts in our justice system to address issues quickly and in a timely fashion so that justice is done, seen to be done and truly done? That was one of the many lessons that came from Westray.

We have a chance now to act as my friend indicated. We urge the government and the Minister of Justice and her department to respond quickly. Let us not rush headlong into an election. Let us do the important work we are elected to do. Westray will always be a reminder. Let us learn from those mistakes and move forward.

[Committees Of The House, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I very much support and attach myself to the comments made by the member for Sydney—Victoria. I know that he has a very innate personal interest in this, as was apparent by his remarks.

This is a matter which unfortunately could be put on the slate as more unfinished business on the part of the government. We have seen many indications that the coming days and weeks may result in an election call. This is an election call that I think a growing number of Canadians are looking at with a great deal of cynicism. They are viewing this as merely opportunistic, something that is being driven by polls rather than by public commitment and a commitment to complete very important pieces of legislation.

This is but one among many. We know that there is a health accord which was ratified by the provinces and is supposed to in some small measure address the crisis in our health care system. That legislation is a postdated cheque which will never be cashed if the House is dissolved for a general election.

There is important legislation pertaining to the criminal code, the youth criminal justice act, which is badly in need of fixing or replacing. We know the government gave a commitment over seven years ago to do something about that legislation. However, we are on the possible eve of an election and it has not been done. That promise has not been kept or fulfilled.

There are numerous pieces of important legislation regarding the environment, health care, justice and taxation. There are important legislative initiatives which do receive support from the opposition. They will simply die on the order paper. Canadians need to understand that. The initiatives will go to the Senate, if they pass through the House, and will be gassed. They will not see the light of day. These are hollow promises. If the government is to point to this legislation as something which has been fulfilled, it is dead wrong.

This particular debate that was brought about by the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria deals with Motion No. 79, which was moved by the Progressive Conservative Party. It called upon the government to respond to the recommendations of the Westray report by Mr. Justice Peter Richard on the tragic event in Plymouth, Nova Scotia when the Westray mine exploded killing 26 men.

That poignant moment resulted in the renewed discussion about workplace safety, the renewed focus on how we could try to prevent such disasters and how, through legislation, we could bring about greater accountability and responsibility.

Not all disasters are preventable. Arguably and quite rightly, this is one that most agree could have been avoided by taking proper steps to ensure the safety of those workers who went down into the mine was protected and that all the necessary steps had been taken by the management and the province, which oversaw the safety of the workplace environment. It could have been avoided if those parties had taken real cautions to ensure that a dangerous workplace environment did not exist. Sadly, that did not happen.

There has already been much discussion on Motion No. 79 in this place which was a carry-over from a previous parliament before prorogation. It gave members of the House the opportunity to put forward their positions and their party's position. Initially, members of the government were very reluctant to embrace even the idea of bringing this matter to the public debate. They were very reluctant to discuss it. They did not want this matter to go to the justice committee, where it eventually did aspire. When it got there, as was alluded to by the member for Sydney—Victoria, there was an incredible catharsis. There was suddenly a change on the part of the government in its willingness to discuss this issue. It was very heartening and encouraging to see that happen because it washed away some of the partisanship and politics involved in workplace safety and in this type of issue.

Let us make no mistake about this. This is a human issue. This is an issue that touches lives and potentially takes lives if we do not act. The indication that we heard from many of the witnesses was that shocking numbers of people are killed and injured in the workplace every day. Not all of that is preventable and we would be naive to suggest otherwise. However, the reality is that much of it is preventable. Much of what has to change and evolve as a result of initiatives from this place is the attitude and the thinking on the part of corporations and people who have the final say over the setting of rules and regulations within the workplace.

How do we do that? Part of the solution lies in changes to the criminal code which will bring about a sense of accountability and will in instances where there is neglect and obvious situations being ignored, bring about some form of accountability, deterrence and denunciation. All of this is in the name of public protection and in the name of prevention.

This is a mother's milk type of issue and one that everyone can agree on. Yet we do not seem to have the inner fortitude or the ability to mobilize to get this matter moving in terms of legislation. We had that unique opportunity at the justice committee as was referred to. There was a very real significant move in the room. I was in that justice committee and felt it as well. There was a genuine intent that we would move forward. Sadly, that seems to be lost. Like many of the other initiatives we have seen, it stands there on the precipice ready to take that leap yet, cynically, all of that is cast aside.

We have an opportunity to salvage that. We can ask for and rightly so expect that the government will now take the initiative and bring about legislation. The justice department should have been clearly instructed. The intent was there. The intent of parliament was what led this motion to get to the justice committee. Then it continued, it snowballed and we did hear testimony from the United Steelworkers.

We heard the testimony of Howard Sim and Vernon Theriault. Mr. Theriault was part of the heroic effort by draggermen from Cape Breton, Pictou county and surrounding areas who went down into the mine with the hope that some life had survived the tragic and massive explosion in Plymouth. That is the sort of human spirit that should inspire us to keep the dream alive of somehow bringing about improved laws and legislation. It is not the total answer by any means but it certainly moves the yardsticks and takes us forward in a futuristic way.

We hear the rhetoric. We hear constant references that we have to do this and that this is the underpinning of parliamentary democracy. We hear some party members, the Liberal Party members in particular, very cynically indicating that they are the only ones who speak out for Canadians. That is not the case. It is completely cynical to suggest that this party, this natural governing party as it likes to refer to itself, is the only one speaking out for the interests of Canadians.

We are faced with an issue of complete moral duty when we talk about protecting lives and workplace safety. It is something so fundamental. When people get up in the morning and go out the door to their workplace, whether it is into a factory or on a trawler or in the woods or into a mine or an office building, it is not too much for them to expect or hope that they will be able to return to their homes safely that evening to be with their loved ones. Surely that is not something which should be too much for any Canadian to expect. Yet we are tasked in this place with trying to ensure that is just what happens.

Obviously there are workplaces that are more dangerous than others, but there are natural consequences that can flow from putting oneself in harm's way. I think particularly of firemen and police officers for whom it is implicit in their job descriptions that they may find themselves in danger. We should be looking constantly for ways to improve safety and protection of human life. We can do that through legislation to a large extent.

That is all. That is the simple, fundamental goal we are seeking, all members of parliament across party lines, across the floor, and we hope not too many more will cross the floor. This is something that is most serious and most timely. The easy thing to do would be to do nothing. The easy thing to do would be to simply bump along.

It is an aberration when we see bold moves from the Liberal government. It has inherited a healthy economy, or at least an economy that has stabilized, much as a result of a prior government's economic planning, plans and legislative initiatives, bold and unpopular as they were. When I say unpopular, members of the same Liberal government while in opposition chastised and absolutely railed against those initiatives. However, through the glass ceiling of hypocrisy we have seen that attitude change. They have embraced and called their own the same legislative initiatives they railed against.

Not to digress on that record, to look at this issue with anything other than a humanistic, impartial eye is a derogation of our responsibility. We must encourage the Minister of Justice and her department. I would suggest it is broader than just looking at criminal code amendments. The issue goes beyond simply suggesting that changing one provision or one section of the criminal code will provide the answers. We have to look at labour laws. We have to look at occupational health and safety. We have to include the provinces to ensure that there is the same standard.

When I talk of standards I talk of the health care issue we will be debating at some point in the very near future. Again, it is spurred very much in its timing because of a looming election. Health care is not fixed. Let us be clear about that. The government is putting back a portion of the money removed since it took office. It is putting back a small portion that in many ways pales by comparison to what was removed. It reminds me of Freddy Krueger offering a band-aid to one of his victims after he slashed them.

Canadians are tired of that type of cynicism. They want to see action. They want to see real action, not just the perception of action and talk of action. The government has not lived up to its commitment in that regard.

It has talked a great talk. It has given very much the perception and feeling to Canadians that health care is fixed, that the criminal code has been fixed and that taxation is under control. That is not the case. One only has to visit a local hospital, to talk to individuals who are struggling to get by, to talk to a student who is saddled with a huge student loan and debt and has to leave the country to find work, or to talk to individuals who are doing their very best as single parents to get by on seasonal employment and face horrendous cuts to seasonal unemployment insurance.

With all this coming to fruition and with people struggling out there, the government says that it will help. By the way, since Canadians will be going to the polls very soon, the government wants to remind them that it is helping them. It asks them to forget about the fact that it is the one who put them in the situation. It is now ready to throw a rope and pull them ashore. It sees that they are drowning and it will now throw a rope. They are only being pulled halfway ashore.

What Canadians want to ask themselves is whom do they trust to be on the other end of the rope. Which national leader do they want to be pulling them in as they are drowning? Do they trust the person on the other end of that rope? I would suggest there is only one leader in this place that should earn and has deservedly earned the trust of Canadians, and that is the Right Hon. Joe Clark. He has always done what he said he would do. When we talk about trust in government—