Rey D. Pagtakhan

[1911 Census Records, March 2nd, 2000]

Would the member just be quiet please out of respect for democracy? The Reform Party speaks about democracy, but at the same time when I try to speak in a way that somehow pierces his heart and pierces his conscience, the member is trying to disturb me. He cannot disturb me in the ultimate analysis.

The real test of confidentiality is when one is tempted to breach it and one resists that. That is the real test of living up to confidentiality, even when only one person is opposed during that census time who may be living now and says “No, that may not be released”.

I did not know this motion would be debated. What is really at stake here is that sense of public trust. The member from the Reform Party is laughing at public trust. I am really saddened, but he will not distract me. Only the persons who did not give consent to revealing confidential information may withdraw it and have it released. That is the essence of confidentiality. He who cannot live with confidentiality I challenge. How can we trust that particular person?

The real test of confidentiality is when we are tempted to breach it for some other wishes and if we do not then we have lived up to the principle of confidentiality. That is why, if I may add, at one time there was a study of medical confidentiality in Ontario by the Grange commission. You know, Mr. Speaker, because you belong to the legal profession, you would fully appreciate that it would impose the most severe penalty for breach of confidentiality.

In conclusion I say I hope we do not support this motion. It would be a breach of public trust. It would be a breach of our promise. Though now they may be deceased the more we should respect them.

[1911 Census Records, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently to the debate and I will say at the outset that I am opposed to the motion because what is at stake is the very essence of confidentiality.

I recall from my experience as a medical doctor, and the member who just participated in the debate belongs to the same profession, that confidentiality is the very essence of personal integrity. Even if we invoke the argument that we would like to study the history of our people, the history of our country, that we will sustain freedom of information because we are in a democracy, confidentiality is a supreme principle that not one of these points can supersede.

I heard during debate that we are in a dilemma. I agree that we are in a dilemma because there are competing interests, but the question to me is very clear. All other interests are subservient to the principle of privacy, in particular when the information was given to the Canadian census by a Canadian at the time, though now maybe deceased, in the honest belief that never would it be released.

Imagine a dead person in his or her grave, unable to speak today, and we, the living, say “I am sorry but in the best interest of history, in the best interest of democracy, now we will forget our promise to you”.

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the debates of my colleagues, both in the House and in the medical profession.

I would first like to say that patients come first as far as our health care system is concerned, but profit, never. When the member made the comment that not a penny was coming from the public purse for private health care, I must remind him that when a profit institution exists through our tax system, some money does come from the public purse.

Second, he said that doctors have gone to the United States. I must say that it has been my privilege to have trained in the United States and decided to be a Canadian. Just because we have an excellent medicare system it does mean that we have to settle for the status quo? Of course not.

The Minister of Health has made it clear that we have to go forward and institute meaningful reform. What he said earlier this afternoon was that money alone, important as it is, was not the only means for a solution. He said that we must have leadership and that leadership means we must have ideas, vision, planning and good management.

I was surprised that the member debating did not consider the option in his debate that we can reform the health care system and make it even better without creating a parallel private system. For example, we can have a national health information system. We can re-orient our practice guidelines.

I ask the member opposite if his party is opposed to the CHST transfer. Is he committed to a full privatization if he believes that this is so good?

[Agriculture, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Admittedly, the Government of Canada has already provided an additional $1 billion in funding nationwide and a further $240 million for Manitoba and Saskatchewan farmers to help them through these trying times.

Can the government give its assurance that service fees to be levied by the Canadian Grain Commission would not pose a new financial burden to our farmers?

[Health, February 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

The most recent issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal shows Canada, by its own standards, is about half a year late in approving new drugs, which could be the only hope for a cure or the only drug able to ease the pain of a patient.

What steps are being taken to cut the delay in drug approval and assure Canadians that timely access to needed medicine is there?

[Budget 2000, February 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will soon bring down budget 2000, the first of this newborn century. The Government of Canada has assured us that it will be a balanced budget with a balanced approach, a budget that will set out a multi-year tax reduction plan and one that invests in children, knowledge, creativity, innovation, environment and health.

This balanced approach reflects the Prime Minister's vision of the Canada of the 21st century: “Where prosperity is not limited to the few, but shared by the many; where every child gets the right start in life—young people have the chance to be the best—and citizens have access to the skills and knowledge they need to excel. Where citizens—regardless of income—receive quality health services”.

The Prime Minister has spoken and we share his vision. Budget 2000 will make Canada the place to be in this new century. Indeed the Minister of Finance will deliver.

[Points Of Order, February 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let me add my thoughts to the debate on this point of order. I agree that decorum is a bulwark of democracy. Civilized behaviour during question period enhances our image in parliament.

Mr. Speaker, when you make a ruling and advise any member, whether the member occupies a position of title or not, that ruling truly must be upheld immediately. With that kind of decision, Mr. Speaker, the Speaker's chair will earn the greater respect of parliament and Canadians.

[Agriculture, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

We learned today, in the midst of a desperate situation for farmers, that the Saskatchewan government terminated its 40% share of funding in the joint federal-provincial agricultural assistance program.

Will the 60% federal share continue to be given to our farmers? What is the minister doing to secure a new nation-wide program on farm income to help our farmers?

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 reminds us of our diversity in origin, culture, language and faith. It reminds us of the journey of Confederation we have travelled together, of the pain and suffering we overcame jointly as a people during that journey and of the societal values we have come to cherish and nurture as a nation of diverse people.

It is within our gift that we affirm our faith in ourselves as one people and in our country as one Canada.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we will have completed writing in the days ahead yet another chapter in our nation's history, a chapter that would make the fathers of Canadian Confederation proud of us, knowing that their legacy cannot be undone under a cloud of confusion and uncertainty of the people's will and outside our shared societal values.

I refer to Bill C-20 before us, also popularly known as the clarity act. It is a bill that sets clear parameters under which Canada would negotiate the secession of a province from our federation. The bill clarifies the binding relationship among the provinces and between them and Canada as a whole.

Fate would have it that we are here on this premiere sitting of the House in the new century debating a bill that our forefathers surely would not have anticipated in 1867 when they began to build a country called Canada. Nor could their wildest imaginations have foreseen that a nation so young would twice face the possibility of the breakup of our country, but prouder still are we that we should twice withstand the challenge.

Thus I submit that past referenda on the secession of Quebec speak not of a weakened country, although it is my fervent hope that such activity will not continue indefinitely from time to time. Rather, they speak to the will of the Canadian people to stay together when presented anew with a question.

Yes, they speak to the strength of our nation's democracy. Yes, they speak to the societal value of respect that we as Canadians hold for our shared values. In addition to democracy, these values include federalism, constitutionalism and the rule of law and respect for minorities.

We need only look at the make-up of the representation in this House to appreciate how that respect for values is manifest. In what other country in the world will we find a political party sitting in the country's highest law-making body and yet unashamedly bent on separating the province from the country? Ironic as it sounds, it speaks to our respect for democracy in this country. It speaks to our respect for democracy in the House of Commons.

And so it is that the clarity act before us reflects this very shared value, including respect for minorities. Yes, respect and not merely tolerance. Unlike tolerance, respect is a more profound societal value, for it brings with it a sense of justice and human dignity.

Democracy is abundantly evident in Bill C-20 for it safeguards the rights of the governed against the totalitarian rule of their government.

Even as it protects the rights of citizens to have their citizenship and their province within Canada against the misguided wish of their provincial government, the bill respects at the same time their rights to secede from the rest of the country should they clearly express that will by a clear majority vote on a clear question.

However, these two expressions of democracy alone, a clear majority on a clear question, are not sufficient basis for a unilateral declaration of independence on the part of any province.

The Supreme Court of Canada says “Democracy means more than simple majority rule”. It further says “Democracy exists in the larger context of other constitutional values”, to which I alluded to earlier. Negotiations, therefore, have to take place following a clear vote on a clear question of secession from Canada.

In clear words, the Supreme Court of Canada holds that:

...the democratic vote, by however strong a majority, would have no legal effect on its own and could not push aside the principles of federalism and the rule of law, the rights of individuals and minorities, or the operation of democracy in other provinces or in Canada as a whole.

These democratic tenets link rights with obligations. While these tenets recognize the constitutional right of the members of our federation to initiate constitutional change, there is the reciprocal duty on the part of other participants to engage in discussions to address any legitimate initiative to a change in constitutional order.

However, exercise only of rights without discharging one's reciprocal obligation puts at risk the very legitimacy of that exercise.

On the issue of a clear majority, members of the opposition have argued that 50% plus one is sufficient. If it were so, it would make it absurd to consider what then would constitute an unclear majority.

It is obvious that clear majority should mean more than 50% plus one. In addition to requiring that the vote be a clear majority, it is also crucial that the question be clear. That is, the words should mean the same thing for everyone.

Does the bill provide a mechanism for the measurement of clarity? Yes. The more the question makes clear the will to no longer remain in Canada and become an independent country, the more clear the question is. The further it strays from this requirement of the Supreme Court of Canada, the less is the question's clarity.

Bill C-20 is a reasonable bill. This is not merely a statement by the Government of Canada. A cross-section of the national media has acknowledged this affirmation: from Quebec's La Presse, , Le Nouvelliste , the Montreal Gazette and La Tribune to the Halifax Daily News , Fredericton's Daily Gleaner , the Toronto Star , the Globe and Mail , the Ottawa Citizen to the Winnipeg Free Press , the Regina Leader Post , the Saskatoon Star Phoenix , the Calgary Herald , the Vancouver Sun and the Victoria Times Colonist .

Truly we can take pride that the federal government has deemed it proper to bring forward the legislation before us, a bill that champions the respect for democracy and the rule of law and the operation of our shared values as Canadian citizens when any province contemplates permanent departure from the Canadian family.

This move on the part of the Government of Canada attests to its decisive and bold leadership on this issue. This was the same leadership that was evident when the government referred this issue to the highest judicial tribunal of the land, the Supreme Court of Canada, and that judgment was applauded even by the incumbent premier of Quebec.

In conclusion, Bill C-20 exudes the fullest expression of responsible democracy and reasonableness. It is all these and more. It embodies the advisory judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada respecting the reciprocal rights and obligations of the federal and provincial governments and to govern within their respective jurisdictions. It embodies in clarity the binding relationship and shared values among them and among us; a relationship and set of values that must be considered when a province contemplates secession from Canada.

A Canadian I am not by birth. A Canadian I am by choice. Truly, our country was created on mutual consent out of the diversity of our people, a diversity that has made our nation rich and from which we continue to draw strength. Bill C-20 reminds us of our diversity in origin, culture, language and faith.