Peter MacKay

[Criminal Code, May 28th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-79, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 14 with the following:

“offence, where a victim exists, whether the victim or victims have”

[Points Of Order, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate your ruling. If I might, given the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has not availed himself of Standing Order 81(4), and as a result, all opposition members, and I would suggest even members of the government, cannot avail themselves of this extended period of time for examination of the main estimates, I seek unanimous consent, as House leader of the fifth party in the House, to avail ourselves of that motion.

[Points Of Order, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. My colleagues and I consider this to be an important matter regarding adjudication by the Chair.

This morning's notice paper contains a notice which I gave yesterday pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) to extend consideration of the estimates of the Department of Human Resources Development beyond the normal date of expiration.

Normally the Leader of the Opposition would give such a notice and tomorrow it would be deemed adopted by the House. However, the Leader of the Opposition has neglected his obligation to use all means to hold the government to account by giving to all members of the House an opportunity to pose questions of the government with respect to billions of dollars of expenditures for authorization.

In the instance of the employment insurance program there are significant issues which I know all members of my party, and I suspect all members of the House, would like to be given the opportunity to address. I know there is no direct precedence in this matter to guide you, Mr. Speaker.

I readily acknowledge that the standing order specifically names the Leader of the Opposition as the member who is entitled to give this notice. However, the closest analogous situation may be found in the the citation 924 at page 257 of Beauchesne's sixth edition. In the case of a conflict among the opposition leaders over the use of an allotted day the Speaker has intervened where there is a breakdown of the informal House leadership machinery.

I believe some analogous precedent can be drawn here. In this instance the failure of the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition places every member of the House at a disadvantage. All of us on both sides of the House have operated under the assumption that this debate of the estimates would continue, at least for this one department, past the May 31 deadline because of the expectation that the Leader of the Opposition would move his motion under Standing Order 81(4).

There are urgent questions which all members want answered with respect to the granting of supply in the Department of Human Resources Development. I humbly submit we should not be denied this opportunity, simply because the Leader of the Opposition has failed in his duty to have the entire House given this opportunity.

The Leader of the Opposition was not prepared to let the House of Commons do its work in this important area. This party is prepared and we are asking, Mr. Speaker, that you grant this discretion. Given the abrogation of the responsibility to the whole House by the Leader of the Opposition, I ask that you permit this party and myself as House leader of this party to give this notice which would be considered under Standing Order 84(4) of the standing orders.

I submit that it is within your discretion, Mr. Speaker, to transfer that power which is normally reserved solely for the Leader of the Opposition to another opposition party which has gone through the normal procedures that would be followed in this matter. We have made the effort to do that and to follow the precedent and procedure that are set. I would ask that the Chair to adjudicate on this matter and I thank the Chair for its indulgence.

[Points Of Order, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I saw on television two ministers of the crown who referred to each other throughout the announcement as Sheila and Sergio. They indicated that the government had decided to significantly change the content and the operation of Bill C-55.

They said that the Senate would be sending the bill back to the House of Commons next week for alteration. It appears that the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister for International Trade are part of the Senate public relations team.

May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, as to whether you have received notification of the intention of the government to make ministerial statements either today or tomorrow concerning Bill C-55? I know the Chair will agree that any—

[National Defence, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I take from that response that when negotiations fail we bring in the big guns.

Canadians expect the government to obey its own laws but we have seen the government breach contracts, ignore constitutional conventions and now commence an unprecedented expropriation. Pearson airport, helicopter contracts and APEC come to mind.

My question is for the Prime Minister. When did native rights and provincial jurisdiction become so insignificant that the government is willing to ignore them in pursuit of its own negotiation? What options did it consider before it brought in these harsh measures?

[National Defence, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government's approach to expropriating provincial land in Nanoose, B.C. resembles that of a dictatorship. It is giving the appearance of negotiating in good faith only to use a sledgehammer to enforce its will when negotiations fail. This approach can only be viewed as threatening to all provinces that dare oppose the government.

The minister of fisheries said two weeks ago that he wanted to give B.C. every opportunity to reach an agreement yet two days later the government moved to expropriate.

My question to the Prime Minister is what took place in those two days after the negotiations that caused the breakdown? Why is the government exercising extreme measures in the imposition of its will on this matter?

[Legalization Of Marijuana For Health And Medical Reasons, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nova Scotia for the brevity of his remarks so that I might participate. I say at the outset that the Progressive Conservative Party agrees with comments which have been made with respect to Motion No. 381 put forward by the member for Rosemont. This is an issue of compassion.

A very important comment was made by a previous speaker regarding the government's tendency to borrow opposition motions and previous governments' initiatives. Although no one has a patent on good ideas, Canadians have witnessed a government that has established a record of policy plagiarism.

The hon. member for Rosemont brought forward a motion which calls upon the government to bring about change in our health care system, our medical practice, that would allow for the medical prescription of marijuana in pain control. The most important point to keep in mind about the issue is that the motion is aimed at those who are affected and are currently suffering from very serious illnesses such as AIDS, cancer, MS and glaucoma. These individuals are suffering every day and it appears very little can be done with current medical procedures to ease the pain and ease the mind, particularly knowing that many of these diseases are fatal.

Forcing people to acquire a painkiller like the currently illegal marijuana certainly adds to the mental anguish. We are on the horns of a classic dilemma. We have a legally restricted activity, a social wrong that was created by law, yet a humane need to ease suffering.

I want to be clear. My position or that of the Conservative Party should not be mistaken as advocating drug use for any non-medical purpose. In fact it is quite the contrary. We are advocating a shift in the approach taken to the enforcement of drug use, particularly marijuana that is used for a very limited purpose, that being the medical tranquillity of suffering.

The key words here are health and medical purposes. We are talking about the compassionate use of a substance which is presently illegal in all circumstances. A number of substances are currently being used in the practice of medicine which are prescribed by doctors quite often to control pain, substances such as codeine, morphine and heroin which are perfect examples of drugs that in other circumstances would certainly be deemed illegal. Heroin, for example, has been used with a doctor's prescription since 1985 to ease the pain and suffering of Canadians fighting side effects of illnesses.

We can separate crime from medicine with very definitive, decisive laws. Further research may lead to a chemical production of a byproduct of marijuana which might be taken in a different form, that is taken orally through a pill. The use of a drug to relieve pain in those suffering from terminal illnesses, not for recreational use, is the aim of this motion. Delay in bringing this about will cause further pain and suffering for those afflicted.

On May 6 Jim Wakeford, a Toronto man suffering from advanced AIDS, applied for and finally received permission from Health Canada to use marijuana after fighting in the courts for years. Courts have recognized the humane need. Legislators like the Parliament of Canada should lead, not follow, on an issue such as this one. We cannot make criminals out of those needing our compassion or those who are trying to ease suffering.

The Compassion Club of Vancouver, also mentioned in the debate, supplies marijuana at no cost, free, solely to ease the pain of sick people on the lower mainland. This club is illegal but receives referrals from agencies of individuals suffering from AIDS or multiple sclerosis. It is a secure environment with a very good quality of marijuana, unlike that often found on the streets which might be laced with another substance.

The health minister promised in March that he would take steps toward helping seriously ill Canadians who require medical access to marijuana. The guidance document makes no reference to the severity of illness. It does not distinguish between terminal and non-terminal cases. There is a number of ambiguities.

The health minister is simply taking too long. Hilary Black, the Compassion Club founder, has stated that the slow speed of the minister's initiative means that more people will have to come into her clinic. Those individuals will continue to suffer until legislation is passed.

A fast response and a strict guide or criteria are needed, as is a clear definition that doctors' prescriptions will be granted therefore avoiding litigation, confusion and further delay.

A number of facts about marijuana have been touched upon already. One matter to keep in mind is that when it comes to glaucoma it reduces eye pressure, which reduces pain. It reduces spasms in victims who are suffering from multiple sclerosis. It reduces nausea in the treatment of cancer patients. It helps alleviate depression and regain appetite in those suffering from AIDS. There are no real side effects, aside from some dulling of the senses. As we know, some of the side effects from the horrific treatments which are undergone, in particular I am thinking of radiation, are sometimes worse than the actual symptoms of the illness the patient is suffering.

The Canadian Medical Association since 1981 has advocated the decriminalization of the possession of marijuana. It is encouraging to see that we in this place and in other parts of the country are finally catching up. The Canadian Police Association has taken a very positive view of this step. There are certainly noble reasons to permit the medical use of marijuana.

The Canadian Medical Association however recommends that the federal government, with respect to the jurisdictional aspect, move toward changes in our Narcotics Control Act and our Food and Drugs Act to keep up with this current trend. This position raises concerns about the herbal medicine aspect and the fact that it cannot be patented. The association states that there is a possibility that there will be exploitation of research if guidelines are not put in place. The government can address these problems and make changes to other legislation which will have to be amended.

There is also concern, I might add, on a number of levels, one being the chemical content that may come into play. These plants vary from plant to plant with respect to dosage. There is also concern about the standardization and the reproductability of clinical trials which will be problematic when it comes to putting the medical use forward. It would be almost impossible to conduct blind trials without having some consistency in the approach. There is also concern about the delivery of the drug and it not being reliable from patient to patient as the dose depends on the delivery technique.

These are obviously scientific matters that will have to be addressed in order for there to be consistency and in order for there to be safety, one of the underlying elements which always has to be kept in mind.

There is concern as well about research in this area. Quality research, random control trials and a guide to decision making are very appropriate when it comes to the needed standardized approach. There is no consistency in terms of the product available at this time. The dosage, the length of use and the possibility of addiction are areas that will have to be further researched.

Different drugs will have a different effect on individuals. There is also the aspect of the synergistic effect that marijuana might have when taken in conjunction with other chemicals and in consideration of a person's bodily make-up.

The patient's perspective is something that has to be emphasized. A person who requires marijuana and feels the physical need to use it to reduce suffering even with the mental effect it has certainly legitimizes the efforts to move toward the decriminalization of marijuana for this very limited purpose.

We cannot ignore that drugs are a consistent problem in today's society, but this is not a step toward legalizing marijuana in its entirety. I do not advocate that position at all. With the checks and balances that are needed there seems to be an opportunity before us. If the government is diligent and forward looking in its approach I am sure we can move this matter forward.

We support this initiative cautiously and encourage the government to move swiftly and decisively. I congratulate the member for Rosemont for taking this initiative and we look forward to further debate on the issue before the House.

[Criminal Records Act, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before the question period break, what is needed in all cases involving justice where there is a balance to be reached between the individual and the right of society to be protected, a very delicate balance must be reached.

When it comes to the protection of children, who are least able to protect themselves, I would suggest that in most, if not all cases, we must tip that balance in favour of doing all that is possible to protect children.

I mentioned earlier the case that arose in Toronto at Maple Leaf Gardens. We are also aware from news reports of the case of Graham James who was the former head coach of the Swift Current Broncos. It was a much publicized case involving the position of trust that a coach would hold and his ability to act in a predatory way toward vulnerable young men, in this instance hockey players. We know as well that there are numerous instances when this occurs and a position of trust is abused.

This reinforces the importance of Bill C-69 and the ability of agencies, coaches, teachers, volunteers, counsellors and individuals involved in the delivery of services to children to access information that would disclose this type of background. One would be quick to acknowledge that it is a very sick and twisted background.

Does Bill C-69 go far enough? The names of convicted sex offenders in this case belong to the solicitor general and his records. The solicitor general would have the discretion as to whether that name and the record itself would be disclosed. The RCMP, due to recent amendments to this bill, do not have that discretion and I believe that is a good thing because there is an opportunity in some instances for individual police officers to be placed in a very uncomfortable position about whether they should in fact release this information. They need the support of their department, and in this case we are talking about the solicitor general's department.

Victims of crime, individuals who have been directly affected, including their families, are those who would be most in favour of this bill.

The police of course were very supportive of the efforts that were made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre. They spoke very favourably of his efforts and were very receptive to the government's position that it took in incorporating those suggestions into the bill which is before the House.

With respect to citizens in communities, I have seen instances where citizens have taken steps of their own. They have posted notices around the neighbourhood when they were aware of an individual who had been engaged in this despicable exploitation of children and yet the agencies were not able to make public that person's past.

We hope that this bill will, in some way, remedy that situation in terms of disclosure, public knowledge and, ultimately, protection. Knowledge will protect people affected by sex offenders living in their community.

One concern that a person might have is about the bureaucracy that often surrounds the implementation of an exercise such as this. The solicitor general could gain possession of records only through a written request to the prison commissioner if the subject of the records had already given written consent.

For police investigating a sex crime, the same type of rule would apply. They would have to rely on the commissioner to make a notation; in other words, to flag a certain record that would allow the police to then access the information. Yet a police force or other authorized body may also request the commissioner to provide the minister with any record of the conviction of that applicant and the commissioner may then transmit the record to the minister.

With more work now being placed in the hands of the already overworked and underfunded police forces around the country there is some concern as to how they will handle this additional workload.

We have seen similar government bills, such as the youth criminal justice act, where greater responsibility and emphasis will be placed on the police in the exercise of their front line authority, but there will be no additional resources. This is something about which we have to be sensitive. Hopefully the government will also be sensitive to it when it is looking at next year's budgets and the money that will be allotted to the police.

It is not enough to give them the tools, legislative initiatives, changes to the Criminal Code and changes to the Criminal Records Act without giving them the accompanying funding that will allow them to use effectively these law enforcement tools.

Others who might request the information that is covered by Bill C-69 would be members of organizations, possibly for the well-being of children. Examples might include a parent who would like to find out about a child's hockey coach, a teacher or a kindergarten supervisor. Associations like the Pictou County Minor Hockey Association, the Antigonish Minor Hockey Association, Big Brothers or Big Sisters would be able to access information about employees or volunteers who were in or were attempting to enter those organizations. This is relevant, prevalent information that should be in their hands.

There has been discussion about the rights of the sex offenders themselves. I will be the first to acknowledge that there has to be some degree of respect for any person who has very damaging information such as this on their record, particularly when it is extremely dated.

Once again we are into the argument of balance. I would suggest that any indication this information would be withheld or kept completely private would certainly be outweighed by the need to protect the public and the need to protect children in this instance.

I support the bill fully. I know the bill hinges upon passage quickly through this place. This is a process with which you are intimately familiar, Mr. Speaker. It often takes a long time. Bills coming through the justice department and the solicitor general's departments are coming in some instances in a very slow and grinding fashion. We saw that particularly with the youth criminal justice act. However, with the unanimous support we have seen for the bill and the importance that has been place upon it, there is hope of its speedy passage through the House.

The protection of the community has to be given the highest order when it comes to bills of this nature. There is ample support not only in this place but around the country for having the bill firmly ensconced in our Criminal Code and in our criminal justice act.

It is with pride that I lend support to the government's initiative. Again much of the impetus and credit for the bill is to be bestowed upon the member for Calgary Centre. He worked very diligently in bringing the matter forward to this point. He was very active in the justice committee in having it brought to fruition and is to be commended for it.

Bill C-69 will certainly lead to a more stringent offender registry. I have serious concerns, and the Progressive Conservative Party repeatedly expresses its concerns, about the already overburdened Canadian Police Information Centre and the computer system that houses the information such as the DNA databank, the criminal registry, the DNA registry and the ill-founded gun registry that is set up to fail. All these current computer information systems are embodied in one system that is extremely strapped at this time.

The minister has announced a $150 million addition in funding for the computer system, but conservative estimates from the police indicate that it is simply insufficient. It is not half of what is actually needed to make the system operate efficiently.

Bill C-69 will receive the support of the Progressive Conservative Party. It is the hope of our party that those who prey upon children and have been caught and those whose names have been recorded in our criminal justice system will not now be able to point to a pardon as a means to protect themselves from having that information disclosed to those who need it most. Sadly, we will never be in a position to ensure that children are not vulnerable in certain instances, but the bill goes some distance to achieving that very laudable goal.

I commend all those involved in the production of the bill, those involved in the drafting, and particularly those who testified and had great input into the bill reaching this point. The PC Party will be supporting the bill. We look forward to its passage and seeing it become a legislative initiative.

[Airbus, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked the RCMP was under the ministry of the solicitor general. Canadians are tired of excuses and want action. It is a fact that the RCMP is suffering from a severe lack of funding due to Liberal budget cuts, yet as Bre-X gets swept under the rug the partisan obsession against Brian Mulroney continues to cost millions.

The National Post described it perfectly. It said that the government was intent on finding something to do with someone about a crime yet to be established in order to prove that it was not entirely wrong headed in its pursuit of Airbus rumours in the first place.

Letting this case fester and bumble on is not an option. The solicitor general should tell Canadians when he will put an end to this futile investigation.

[Airbus, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, now that the RCMP has abandoned the criminal investigation into Bre-X Minerals Ltd., perhaps it will reconsider the wisdom of its politically motivated airbus fiasco.

Bre-X is the biggest alleged market fraud in Canadian history, yet the RCMP gives up because Bre-X board members refuse to talk and it is costing millions.

With the encouragement of the Liberal government, the RCMP continues to waste taxpayers' dollars on the airbus investigation that today has found no evidence, not a shred.

When will the solicitor general take responsibility for the RCMP, put an end to this continuous embarrassment and focus on solving real crime, not settling Liberal vendettas?