John McKay

[Canadian Executive Services Organization, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize five members of my constituency of Scarborough East who have made significant contributions to the world community through Canadian Executive Services Organization: John Goldie, Jim and Leslie McDonald, and Roman and Sheila Russek.

John Goldie made available western construction methods to the people who live in Ukraine which will increase the safety of their construction. Jim and Leslie McDonald helped a hospital facility in the Philippines to design medical waste disposal systems. Roman and Sheila Russek helped to redesign a factory in Poland engaged in cable construction.

Roman, Sheila, Jim, Leslie and John are to be congratulated on their contribution to building our world community. Canada is proud.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, nothing focuses the mind like bankruptcy, particularly the bankruptcy of a nation.

If the hon. member were staring the budget deficit of $42 billion or $28 billion or $8.9 billion in the face, what would she have not done that we have done the past year? Would she have not paid down $16 billion on the debt? Would she have not cut EI premiums by $1.4 billion, 1% of the government's revenues? Would she have not given an $850 million tax credit, with a further tax credit to come, for children? Would she not have restored $12.5 billion to the cash component of the CHST?

Which parts of these programs would she not have done, because these parts of our program do show our values that one has to be fiscally responsible. One has to be focused. It is fine to talk rhetoric, but I would like to hear the hon. member tell us which one of those programs would she not have engaged in.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-28. It is an axiom in government that what you do right you do not sell to get credit for, yet when we are giving $1.5 billion back to the system the opposition still criticizes us.

We are receiving this fiscal dividend today because of good fiscal management.

In the years 1993-94 the choice was to raise taxes or cut programs and transfers. It was apparent then, as it is now, that Canadians wanted a mature and balanced approach to government finances. Balance addresses program spending, provincial transfers, tax cuts and debt reduction.

In the fiscal year 1997-98 the Government of Canada reduced market debt by approximately $16 billion. It also passed on a tax cut of $1.4 billion with the reduction of EI payments, approximately 1% of government revenues.

In addition, it added $850 million to a tax credit, which is about a half-point in government revenues. For the first time in 30 years it actually reduced the GDP to debt ratio.

There was a tax cut, a tax credit and a paydown on the debt all within one fiscal year. That is pretty good government which the people of this country saw fit to re-elect.

The bill addresses the issue of continuing devolution of authority under the CHST. It is clear that Canadians do not want their bureaucrats falling all over each other to administer programs. Surely we can agree that it is simply silly for a food processing plant to have a federal meat inspector, a federal health inspector and a federal fish inspector, not to mention the provincial health inspector, the provincial food inspector, et cetera, et cetera. Sometimes they even arrive on the same day.

What small business has not had the experience of the federal income tax auditor, followed by the federal sales tax auditor, followed by the retail sales tax auditor, et cetera, et cetera, all asking for the same material, only organized in a different way?

Canadians spoke about this sort of duplication and their message was loud and clear. By withdrawing from a number of these services in these overlapping jurisdictions the government put an end to this kind of waste. It was a clear message from Canadians to which this government responded.

In order to properly fund the devolution of authority and yet still see that government services are provided, the government entered into the CHST. Cash and tax points will approximate $25 billion this year. They are roughly equal. All the provinces budgeted this year on the basis of $11 billion in cash. However, with the passage of this legislation the provinces will anticipate an additional $1.5 billion in cash. For the province of Ontario, the impact of raising the cash floor will be approximately $2.5 billion over the course of the next five years.

In the fiscal year 1997-98 Ontario will receive about $9.1 billion, or 19% of its operating budget. For each man, woman and child the federal government will send to the province of Ontario $800.

However, the more sanguine question is can Canadians from Ontario truly trust that the Government of Ontario will apply this increased money to the needs of the vulnerable people in the province of Ontario? Will the CHST go to the 7,000 homeless people in the GTA? Will the money help those who need help and those who are being removed from their beds in mental institutions in the province?

Can refugees expect that the settlement moneys will arrive while they settle in our country? Or will we be surprised when the money goes to fund the $5 billion deficit primarily created by the ill advised tax cut of the province?

Ontario will have a greater fiscal deficit this year than the entire federal government. Does this make sense? A tax cut for someone earning $250,000 results in a $15,000 cheque coming back from the province of Ontario. A tax cut for the average or medium taxpayer in the province, that is $33,000, means $250 in his or her pocket. In some respects this is a tail about how to govern and how not to govern.

Ontario's government under Premier Mike Harris and its hand maiden, the Reform Party in this House, would urge us to do a tax cut in priority to all else. Mr. Harris has increased Ontario's debt each year and I, if I were a member of the Reform Party, would not be too enthusiastic about claiming credit while the debt of Ontario goes up from $88 billion to $108 billion and is expected to increase by $30 billion over the course of Mr. Harris' mandate. If this is common sense, I for one would prefer that we absent ourselves from a common sense revolution.

Two-thirds of the $30 billion debt increase will be attributed to this ill advised tax cut. Mr. Harris has turned homelessness into a growth industry in our province. Mayor Lastman has seen fit to create a task force on homelessness but the premier, feeling the political pressure no doubt, has also created his task force on homelessness, which will be funded by and created by parliamentary assistance. I will not be overly sanguine as to the report itself as those lapdogs report to the premier.

In my own riding of Scarborough East homelessness is such an exaggerated and exacerbated problem that we are now shipping people off to St. Catharines and Peterborough.

As I was saying, the tax cut for a person in the province of Ontario who earns $250,000 is $15,000. So Mr. Harris receives an A+ for that tax credit from that individual. Mr. Harris' perverse policies are putting Canada's largest province in the debt hole faster than the Canadian government can get the rest of the country out of it. Canada cuts debt and Ontario increases debt. Canada restores necessary program financing and Ontario turns program cutting into a fiscal mantra. Canada targets tax cuts and Ontario targets tax cuts for the wealthy. Ontario is trashing the best of times while this government struggles to include everyone in the rising prosperity of the country.

Canadians have given a very clear message: apply this money to health care and education. They are not asking for a tax cut. They want their health care systems and education systems restored to being the best in the world. They want to be confident that when they go to a doctor they will receive the service in a timely fashion, accessible, publicly administered and of the highest quality. They do not want to do a wallet biopsy every time they need a medical service. They want to know that their children will be the best educated children in the world.

Even when this government reduces transfers those reductions only represent 2% to 3% of provincial revenues. Even with these reductions a number of provinces have been able to balance their budgets. Sadly Ontario too would have had a balanced budget except for this ill advised and foolish tax cut.

Ontario does not have to be running a deficit. I am not at all confident that this $1.5 billion increase, of which Ontario will receive a substantial proportion, will be directed to the most vulnerable in our society. Regrettably I believe this extra money will go directly to fund this tax cut.

Mr. Harris, Canada just wrote you a cheque for—

[Euthanasia, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his efforts in bringing this important issue to the floor of the House.

The Parliament of Canada is in fact the proper place for a debate of this magnitude. I was pleased to see that the late Mr. Justice Sopinka recognized that judge-made laws in areas such as this are frequently flawed and do not necessarily represent the consensus values of Canadians. The late justice recognized that the proper role of Parliament and its members is one of debate and deliberation.

In matters such as euthanasia it is very difficult for justices, no matter how learned, to properly deal with such an issue as they are frequently confined to a narrow set of facts and are limited by the laws of evidence on materiality and relevance. As a consequence, by definition they are not able to look at the big picture and are frequently in danger of making charter law which is not consistent with Canadian values.

It is a sad day when legislators yield the legislative floor to jurists. The effect is that we give up our democratic rights in order to replace them with a jurocracy.

The issue that we are dealing with today is more than merely a set of facts on individuals or a subset of individuals as compelling as those facts may be.

Members, from their own personal experience, can relate to a set of circumstances in which an individual appeared to live a prolonged life in great pain and a life of no apparent merit, meaning or purpose within our understanding. I can relate to that as immediately before the death of my father he found himself in such circumstances.

The legislation appears to be merciful. Who can be against mercy? It is called mercy killing by some. In reality, being merciful is far more difficult than merely terminating another's life. Mercy can be just as easily an act to relieve pain which may in some manner prolong life.

For the purposes of debate I will define euthanasia as a act which intentionally hastens another's life for the purpose of relieving suffering with or without the person's consent. While this topic opens up large moral questions, I will limit myself to four main points.

First, consent is almost always problematic. Second, systemic flaws inevitably result in abuse. Third, the state can never sanction the taking of life. Fourth, the relief of pain and suffering is the only appropriate response for limited resources.

The issue of consent is a troublesome one. Consent in law is very complex and vexes the medical community on a daily basis. The giving of consent must be voluntary and free of coercion. It can be revoked at any time. All circumstances are examined at the time of the giving of the consent, including those present and those not present.

In the area of health care on matters of much lesser magnitude than life or death, consent continues to be a problem of great vexation for the medical community. It is a matter of daily litigation in our courts. In my view there is no system mature enough to recognize the granting of final, irrevocable consent to terminate life. Therefore I am of the view that it is beyond the wisdom of human beings to impute consent and that the ability of the patient is impaired in some manner.

Frequently those in pain will say almost anything to be relieved of pain, including an apparent consent to terminate their lives. At best consent is temporal; at worst it is meaningless. Any person purporting to act on such a consent is imputing an intention which may or may not exist. In my view there is no form of consent that can be given or drafted on which any other person can rely.

This brings me to my next point, the use and abuse to which consent could be put. I have operated in the justice system in Ontario for the past 22 years. It has its flaws and it certainly is underfunded. I would argue that it is among the best justice systems in the world.

In spite of their heroic efforts and equally heroic efforts of legislators to draft procedurally sound laws, it has been shown to have a number of obvious weaknesses. These weaknesses have manifested themselves in a number of ways. Victims have felt it necessary to organize themselves so that their story does not get lost. Caveat, MADD and such organizations exemplify flaws in the justice system. Evidence disappears with disturbing regularity. Witnesses contradict themselves and each other. This is as good as the system gets in the world. It is far from perfect in matters of criminality, let alone matters of life and death.

A few years ago parliament saw fit to abolish capital punishment. As a consequence Messrs. Marshall, Morin and Millgard are with us today. The state chose not to participate in the taking of life because it recognized its own limitations and flaws. It is my submission that no system can ever be devised that could possibly prevent the wrongful taking of life.

A simple example is our health care system which continues to be underfunded and under tremendous strain. We are under continuous pressure to free up resources. It is quite clear that one can talk oneself into a position that one is merciful by ending Mrs. Jones' life. My submission is that that will make the difficulties of 1997-98 look like child's play.

My final point is to address the root motivation that brings forth the legislation. It is very difficult for decent human beings to watch people suffer, especially the ones we love.

I am told by competent health care professionals that a great deal of pain related suffering can be alleviated by proper pain therapies. In my view it would be the proper direction of this legislature to encourage the medical profession to explore areas of pain alleviation.

In summary, Mr. Justice Sopinka was right. This is a matter for the House, not a matter for supreme court justices. We should not be driven by a particularly egregious set of facts because bad facts make bad law.

Consent in matters of life and death is almost impossible to give and notoriously unreliable. No system, no matter how carefully devised, will be free of abuse and misuse. The state should not be involved in the sanctioning of the taking of life. Relief of pain and suffering needs to be better researched and better practised.

[Human Rights, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This milestone gives us cause to recognize that human rights are the foundation of women's equality in Canada and around the world.

Internationally Canada continues to play a leadership role in support of human rights at the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the Organization of American States.

Here at home the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees Canadians equal access and equal benefit under the law. Women have used the charter to challenge legislation which discriminates against them.

The government will continue to support women who face discrimination based not only on their gender but also on their race, their age and their disabilities. We will continue to support them in their efforts.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

It is a privilege to speak to this very important subject. It is more in sadness than enthusiasm that I rise to speak to it. To me it represents the death knell of faith based education.

Many parents believe that faith based education is fundamental to who they are as people and who they are as parents. In reality, we are now replacing faith based education with the religion of secularism. At its core the religion of secularism is no more and no less a religion than Christianity, Judaism or Islam. It has its set of priests, an orthodoxy which is political correctness, and its rituals.

If Newfoundlanders expect that by replacing their current orthodoxy with a secular orthodoxy they will in some manner improve their educational system, I am afraid the good people of Newfoundland will be sadly disappointed.

To argue that parents will be able to influence the direction of their children's education is not a hope based on reality. It is an illusion. Parents of Newfoundland should consult with their fellow citizens in Ontario about how much influence they have in the direction of their children's education.

The government argues four main points: overwhelming democratic endorsement, reasonable support among affected minorities, religious observances in the schools protected and no effect on other provinces.

Points one and two are really one point. Notwithstanding the imperfection of the referendum process, the affected minorities have given a form of consent upon which the Parliament of Canada can act. There was a unanimous resolution in the house of assembly. There were two referendums. There has been extensive debate and there was a sincere effort to establish a consensus among the affected minorities.

The efforts of the Newfoundland and Labrador government to obtain consensus and demonstrate consensus to the Parliament of Canada are in distinct contrast to the efforts of the Government of Quebec. A request for an amendment a few weeks ago was based on a form of obtaining consensus that reflected more of a political demand than any efforts to address the concerns of the affected minority.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has met the test which can reasonably be expected of a government when requesting amendment to the constitution which affects minority rights.

The government's third argument is that religious observance is protected. This assertion misses the point and is specious. It is cold comfort to those who fundamentally believe that faith should be at the core of their child's learning.

Religion, properly understood, is not a tag on at the end of a school day. Rather it permeates the learning process. It is part of the math course, the physics course and English language courses. Late Professor Emeritus Northrop Frye of the University of Toronto used to say, at the beginning of his very famous course on the Bible and the English language, that you do not really understand English language culture unless you understand the Bible.

Similarly Jews, Muslims, Hindus, et cetera, see their beliefs in a deity as essential to their learning. Those parents will be in some manner doubly taxed. First they will have to support the secularist based faith and then additionally fund educational systems which teach their faith.

To offer religious observances as a tag on at the end of the day is more of an insult than anything else and will be subject to charter challenges. Parents of faith will once again wonder whether Canada has freedom of religion or freedom from religion.

The government's final point is that it will have no precedential value or effect on other provinces. This is a dubious argument. We do not have seat of your pants federalism is this country. Each bilateral amendment is necessarily looked at by other provinces for precedents. It is fundamental English common law that law is created by precedent.

The government has set very low standards for democratic consensus in Quebec which has been greatly exceeded by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Constitutional lawyers will scrutinize the process and the standards when giving advice to their government clients. Even the manner and wording of referendums will be examined for their precedential value. It may lend new meaning to a real and clear question. It also lends meaning to what constitutes consensus.

Notwithstanding my reservations I will support the amendment. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have spoken. While I may be skeptical of the path which they have chosen, the Parliament of Canada should respect their choice.

[Petitions, December 4th, 1997]

Madam, Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of in excess of 400 people, pursuant to Standing Order 36, calling on the government to amend sections 173 and 174 of the Criminal Code with respect to indecent acts and public nudity.

I have the honour to present that.

[The Late John Sopinka, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay honour to the life of Mr. Justice John Sopinka.

I was a great admirer of his judicial reasoning. In particular Judge Sopinka resisted activist tendencies on the part of some jurists to make decisions which are properly within the purview of Parliament. He gave real meaning to the doctrine of deference to the will of Parliament in both Egan and Rodriguez decisions. In other words, he challenged Parliament to do its job and to create law in areas of moral controversy because he realized unlike many others that judge-made law in those areas was really a reflection of parliamentary failure.

He leaves a legacy of sound judicial reasoning and practical guidance to litigants and legislators alike. He will be greatly missed.

[Anti-Sealing Lobby Groups, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as all members are aware, there has been an intense campaign by anti-sealing lobby groups using a 1-800 number and television ads. Members of the public are provided with scripts and told to phone their local MP.

My colleague the member for Mississauga West took objection to this practice and returned all phone calls directed to him. In addition he wrote a letter to the Toronto Star correcting certain factual errors in the presentation.

The response he received from the animal rights group was a letter from their lawyer instructing him to engage counsel. In other words, do not speak out on this issue, do not correct factual errors and do not ask pointed questions or we will sue you.

This is an outrageous abuse of a member's freedom of speech and duties and cannot be tolerated in a civil society. It is a disgraceful attempt to silence a member's right to speak on a subject of interest to Canadians. Simply put, it is wrong.

[Employment, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the economy grew at an annualized rate of 4.9% in the second quarter of this year. Interests rates are at 30 year lows. The economy is creating jobs at twice its normal rate. Yet not all Canadians are participating in this economic recovery. The unemployment rate remains stubbornly high at 9.1%

Would the finance minister tell Canadians why this rate is so high while other parts of the economy are prospering.