Peter MacKay

[Donkin Mine, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the motion put forward by my colleague from Bras D'Or. A fellow bluenoser, I might add, she certainly brings a unique and special perspective to the House. She faces many challenges from the many communities which comprise her new federal riding of Bras D'Or.

The motion speaks to the economic future of many of these same communities. The timing of the debate on the motion is quite appropriate in light of the recent troubles in the Phalen colliery.

I would also like to speak to the overall question of the future of the Cape Breton Development Corporation better known as Devco. While not a Cape Bretoner, my home in Pictou county shares the industrial Cape Breton tradition of coal mining.

For many years coal was a staple in the local economy in my constituency. Our most recent venture into the Westray mine, which ended in disaster, is certainly a sad reminder of the dangers associated with this industry in Nova Scotia in particular.

Coal mining is a tradition that must adjust to the realities of the 21st century. In my view the development of the Donkin mine under the auspices of Devco is the best way to ensure successful adjustment that has long term benefits for Devco, employees, taxpayers and those who supported Devco operations throughout the years.

Devco management announced that the corporation's five year plan last year completely ruled out the development of Donkin, emphasizing instead the Phalen colliery. Phalen has a history of instability and yet Devco management in its wisdom placed all of its mining eggs in one basket.

The Devco corporate plan also ruled out the identification of export markets despite significant evidence of the economic prospects of the exports of coal. As my colleague quite eloquently stated, it is apparent that coal still has a place in the industrial world. Tying the coal from Donkin to the coal markets locally in Nova Scotia is a huge mistake in my honest opinion.

Like all natural resources we have to try to capitalize on the ever increasing access to world markets that exist. We should keep in mind that the development of Sable gas in Nova Scotia could certainly have a significant impact on the local markets as it pertains to coal.

Last year during the hearings of the Senate committee on the future of Devco, Devco officials were warned frequently and consistently about the dangers of focusing solely on the Phalen mine to the exclusion of Donkin. Many industry analysts urged Devco to target foreign markets which would in fact require coal from the Donkin mine. Devco management, again in its wisdom, refused to do so opting to sell the Phalen coal to a strictly domestic market.

Devco management then turned around and announced plans to sell the Donkin mine to a private operator by the name of Donkin Resources Limited, DRL, for a single dollar. One dollar would be paid for this mine against a backdrop of millions of dollars that were put into the development of this site.

It is shocking to think that this could happen. The expense to taxpayers is something that should certainly make us all sit up and take notice. It brings to mind the situation that is happening presently in Hibernia where there have been rumblings that the federal government may contemplate selling this resource. It is an industry with perhaps huge potential that might allow the Atlantic provinces, Newfoundland or Nova Scotia in particular, in some way, shape or form, to make giant steps forward toward becoming have provinces. The government is being very short-sighted if it is contemplating such a move.

The situation appears to be moving rather rapidly. The same Devco officials reported that the latest series of rock blasts at the Phalen mine could limit the potential of the mine for future ventures.

Without the future of Phalen and with the apparent position taken on the Donkin mine, what does Devco have left? What remains for Devco? If both of these mines will not be operating Devco is a dead duck. The answer is nothing.

It slams the door on the livelihood—I believe the number was given by my colleague in the New Democratic Party—of close to 700 workers. The impact of the loss of 700 jobs in an area like Cape Breton is difficult to imagine for anybody who does not come from the maritimes. The economic impact of that has expanded perhaps tenfold in comparison to the province of Ontario.

In an ideal world private industry would be able to assume responsibility and risk for developing Donkin, but in the real world and in private industry we know that private industry is often very reluctant and unwilling to make commitments to the future of the workers who would be negatively affected by the closure of Donkin. This is economic business reality but the government has a responsibility. The government must see that the Donkin situation is handled with great care.

Devco management clearly made a mistake in 1996 when it adopted this corporate plan. Not one of the three official parties in the House raised an objection at that time; not the Liberals, not the Reform and not the Bloc. They all gave Devco a free ride and made short-sighted decisions that were having a drastic effect on Atlantic Canada, particularly in Cape Breton.

Is it any wonder the Liberals were then wiped off the electoral map in Nova Scotia on June 2, 1997? Is it any wonder the Reform Party could not even find candidates to run in Cape Breton?

It was left to the Senate to raise objections, the Senate that is often so much under attack. It was the Senate that then brought the matter forward to deal with the issue of Devco's limited corporate plan.

Thankfully the last election restored some balance to parliament and Canadians now have voices from all regions, not just from the west and Quebec.

In conclusion I condone the member for bringing this matter forward in such a timely manner. The historic significance of coal mining not only in Cape Breton but throughout the maritimes is such that we must ensure that we will look at the long term viability of this industry and that we proceed with caution. That responsibility must be assumed by the Government of Canada.

[Justice, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this is restorative justice week. True justice makes things right rather than lamenting what is wrong. True justice cultivates strength rather than perpetuating failure. I believe restorative justice could be a great part of the solution for our justice system in Canada.

Restorative justice views crime as a violation of the victim in the community, not solely a violation of the state. As a result, the offender becomes accountable to the victim and the community.

Under our existing justice system, offenders seldom are required to realize the harm they have caused. Restorative justice confronts the perpetrators with the personal harm they have caused and requires them to pay reparation and make real amends to victims and the community.

Restorative justice offers victims the opportunity to regain personal powers and allows them the time to become more involved with the justice system. It also gives them the power that was taken away when the crime was committed.

In one word, restorative justice puts victims at the centre of the justice system where they should always have been.

Restorative justice should be studied by this House as an alternative to the current way of thinking about crime and criminal justice in Canada.

[Airbus, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have repeatedly quoted from a document signed by Brian Mulroney as a means to protest their innocence.

How does the Prime Minister reconcile this fact with the fact that we have another letter charging that an innocent man has done something in a foreign land? This letter is still existing out there. When will the letter be withdrawn and when will we have a public inquiry into the matter?

[Airbus, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Ottawa RCMP Association president stated that the Liberal government singled out the police as scapegoats in the Airbus affair.

Earlier the government tried to cover its tracks on this Airbus matter by placing a gag order on a golden handshake for former Staff Sergeant Fraser Feigenwald. The rank and file of the RCMP are not accepting responsibility for political interference in the matter.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he live up to his shallow rhetoric on government accountability and tell the House once and for all who is responsible for this mess?

[Child Benefit, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to see you in the chair this evening.

I rise today on a very serious issue dealing with impaired driving in Canada. Last October 24, I asked the Minister of Justice if she would table rapidly amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with this serious issue. I also asked her if she would commit to concrete steps on behalf of the government to review the Criminal Code, roadside procedures, and enact a victims bill of rights in unison with an effort to combat drunk driving in Canada.

The minister to date has not committed to either of those requests. One thing that we have seen in the past is that her predecessor and, I would submit, the current Minister of Justice have given lip service to amendments in this area. They have often talked of it and they have appeased, I would suggest, to some degree victims rights groups and those concerned with this issue by giving the appearance of wanting to do something about it, seeming very sincere and genuine in their efforts.

However, to date we have not seen anything concrete either by way of a legislative initiative or even the time spent in talking to these groups.

If there is anything that has become clear over the past number of months in this House on the issue of impaired driving it is that the statistics and the effect on the ground that impaired drivers have on the roads and highways throughout the country and on the lives of Canadians are significant. The statistics are absolutely shocking when one delves into them.

The minister in her answers to the questions indicated that she was waiting for a report to be tabled by the transportation department. As well, she was waiting to meet further with her provincial counterparts. I again suggest that this is a delay because it is very clear that none of these individuals in the Department of Transport or her provincial counterparts can effect an immediate change to the Criminal Code of Canada. That responsibility lies with the minister herself.

I reiterate today what I have said previously. In my mind, the Minister of Justice has an opportunity to do something and to do something quickly.

I want to suggest a few things in the time I have. The statistics I have indicated have been stated time and time again: 4.5 persons killed in Canada every 24 hours, every day of the week, 365 days of the year. Impaired drivers injure or kill over 300 people in Canada every day. In 1995 alone, 519 people were killed across the country by impaired drivers. These are shocking statistics.

It is very clear that alcohol significantly increases the risk every time a person gets behind the wheel, regardless of the level of intoxication.

It is time to do something and quickly. The most effective way to do that is to bring in amendments to the Criminal Code that would strengthen police ability to deal with impaired driving. Nothing has been done to date.

I suggest there are concrete things the government can do today. As a start it would be to lower the blood alcohol concentration that is criminal in this country, to review the Criminal Code with respect to reasonable and probable grounds required by police officers so that they might investigate crash sites involving death and serious bodily harm. That evidence of an accident would, in and of itself, be grounds for police officers to make a demand.

The government could change the language in the Criminal Code to reflect the seriousness of impaired driving accidents involving death and the suggestion would be to characterize it as vehicular homicide. If nothing else, this would emphasize the seriousness of the offence.

The creation of these new standards would also go hand in hand with the enactment of a victims bill of rights which would include and enhance greater participation of victims in the criminal trial process.

If the Minister of Justice is committed to this issue and is prepared to do more than just lip service then these issues will be brought up further in the justice committee and will be acted on rather than simply given fair comment and ongoing debate.

This is something the government must take a leadership role in. The Canadian public has spoken very clearly. Eighty per cent of people in this country want the government to act on these issues.

[Fisheries, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have obviously forgotten about the people in Atlantic Canada who want to improve the economy of their local fishing communities.

For the past six months, the Canso Trawlerman's Co-op Limited has been actively pursuing an Enterprise Allocation to put 60 people in Nova Scotia back to work.

Since May of this year, these hard-working individuals in the co-op have made every effort to get the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to meet with them in Canso, one of Atlantic Canada's oldest and most historic fishing communities. Unfortunately, the minister has refused these repeated requests. Co-op members have nevertheless met with the minister's former caucus colleague, who is now the current Premier of Nova Scotia, in efforts to gain support for the co-op's cause.

On behalf of the Canso Trawlerman's Co-op, I urge the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to meet with the co-op members from Canso to listen to their concerns and address these proposals in a direct and positive manner. Time is of the essence. I bring this to the House and I will hand deliver it to the minister today.

[Points Of Order, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you as Speaker are aware that at the close of question period there seems to be a rush to the exits. I would just put to the Chair that it is my feeling points of order and questions of privilege do affect and have a significant impact on the governing of the House which you have to oversee.

I am just wondering if there is some way to effect a more prompt interjection on your part, Mr. Speaker, in having these points of order heard before the entire body of the House.

[Privilege, November 18th, 1997]

No, Mr. Speaker.

[Privilege, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise. I just want to put on record that we in the Conservative Party support the contention of the government member who spoke previously on his point of order. Similarly I just want to speak very briefly with respect to the hon. member for York South—Weston.

My reading of his question of privilege is that in fact as an independent member he is more vulnerable perhaps to the process that we have undertaken. I fully appreciate your position in the chair, Mr. Speaker, as having to try to equitably distribute the questions both between government and opposition members. An extensive negotiation process went into that.

I want to support the hon. member in his contention that he must be given an equitable portion of that and that having his question earlier in the question period may involve some significant rotation point, so I do rise in support of that issue.

[Customs Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged to hear again the reiteration that the training is going to be there specifically because again, calling on my own experience, impaired driving cases essentially thrown out of court or where problems arise are often at the early detention stage.

Therefore for these customs officers who are encountering impaired drivers at the border, I am very encouraged to hear that they are going to be given a great deal of training in this area. The indicia required to be identified by the customs officer in this case who is detaining the person for impaired driving is a very subjective test that has changed over the years.

Case law has been voluminous in this regard. I am sure that all peace officers who receive this training are going to have to study this in a very comprehensive way.