Carolyn Parrish

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I will be splitting my time with the member for Brossard—La Prairie.

The federal Minister of Health and the ministers responsible for health in every province and territory have been handed one of the most difficult decisions anyone in government has ever had to make. It is a task that members of the official opposition should be grateful they will never have to make. The ministers had to look into the eyes of people who contracted hepatitis C from the blood system before 1986 and say to them “You will not be receiving compensation for your suffering and the suffering of your families”.

The decision addresses a time when Canada's blood system could have reacted differently. But governments could not have protected the people who received blood tainted by hepatitis before 1986 any more than they could have protected the very small number of people, for example, who are unaware that they are allergic to anaesthetic and die on the operating room table.

The Reform Party has argued that the Minister of Health made this decision because he does not care about human suffering. The Reform Party has tried to suggest that the Minister of Health lacks sympathy for all the people who suffer from hepatitis C.

This is the same Reform Party that has championed two tier medicine. This is the same party that wants one health care system for the wealthy and another health care system for low and middle-income Canadians.

Let us also not forget that this is the same Reform Party whose leader has labelled groups representing battered women as “special interest groups” and refused to even meet with them.

These are the people who are questioning the integrity and the compassion of one of the most decent human beings sitting in this House of Commons, the Minister of Health. It is one more cruel irony in this tragic course of events.

I apologize for the partisan tone of these remarks, but one of the things that makes me most uncomfortable about this whole debate is the political opportunism of some members of the Reform Party on this issue. While we feel deep sympathy for those who were infected before 1986 we must recognize that governments cannot compensate for every harm suffered by all individuals.

Like other Canadians, I have confidence in Canada's health care system. I trust that doctors, nurses and other practitioners are well trained and will do the very best they can with the technology of the day. But when I go into the hospital I go in with the knowledge that nothing is 100% guaranteed.

In 1977 I had a Caesarean section and a beautiful baby was delivered. I went into shock, lost a lot of blood and was given a choice between taking blood or taking an iron infusion. I was articulate and coherent enough to take an iron infusion, but had I been unconscious the doctors would have given me a blood transfusion. I have lived until today to watch that daughter grow up. Medical technology at the time could not possibly tell me whether blood was dangerous or not, but I would have been more than pleased to take the extra 21 years. That is the risk we all take when we undergo severe and traumatic occurrences in the hospital.

The whole issue of compensation for harm caused through the health care system is complex. It requires a thorough and thoughtful debate. The decisions we make today regarding hepatitis C will have serious implications for the future of public health care in Canada. When is the government responsible when Canadians become sick? There should be a clear connection between the harm suffered and the inaction of governments.

Testing for hepatitis C was not done in Canada until seven years after a reliable test was available and used in the United States. The compensation package is an acknowledgement of responsibility for the government's inaction at that time.

Governments cannot protect Canadians from infections they are unable to detect. Therefore, governments cannot accept financial responsibility when people become sick from these unknown, insidious diseases.

What can government do for innocent victims? Government can provide the best possible health care to Canadians. It can put more money into medical research in order to help victims but also to prevent a tragedy like this one from occurring again.

That is why I applauded the finance minister when he increased funding for the Medical Research Council.

I want to take this opportunity to encourage the federal and provincial health ministers to move forward on pharmacare initiatives so that those who suffer from hepatitis C and other diseases will not have to worry about the cost of drugs that will help them manage their illnesses.

As I said earlier in my remarks, I hope that the Reform Party, which is sponsoring this motion, will follow through on what it has started. I hope it will now recognize that Canadians sometimes become ill through no fault of their own. When that happens they require the best possible health care regardless of their ability to pay. I hope the Reform Party will join me in encouraging the government to ensure all Canadians have access to affordable prescription drugs.

In closing, many members of the official opposition have referred to their experiences in talking directly with Canadians infected with hepatitis C and with their families. I have also spoken with the victims of this tragedy. Some of the people I have spoken with will not be compensated because they were infected before 1986 and after 1990. I feel deep sympathy for them as individuals. When I talk with the parents of those children who are sick I cannot help but think of my own children.

However, as a legislator and as a government member I know that we have to make a decision that is fair and that is in the best interest of all Canadians. The decision that was taken by health ministers of all governments, representing four different political parties, is right and it is appropriate. It acknowledges a time when something could have been done to reduce the number of infections and was not.

For those who will not be compensated, we owe to them what we owe to all Canadians: universal and accessible health care and a commitment to continually strive for more new and better ways to deliver health care more effectively and more efficiently.

Whether this be a free vote, a whipped vote or whatever it is, my conscience is clear. I look forward to the vote on Tuesday. I will have no difficulty supporting this health minister's decision and the decisions of the health ministers across the country.

This health minister has more integrity and soul in him than all the members of the opposition. I have no difficulty supporting his decision.

[Standing Orders And Procedure, April 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to talk briefly about the business of private members and the recently filed report from the procedure and House affairs committee.

The current system of selecting votable motions and bills is based on a draw. Often there are up to 300 bills sitting in the bin and they are drawn for order of precedence. As all members know, they are then sent to a committee that is comprised of a chair from the government and one representative from each of the House parties. They decide which bills will be votable. At any given moment there will be five votable bills and five votable motions working their way through the House.

In 1985 the McGrath committee reviewed this business. It is an ongoing review. We continued it in the last parliament and we revised it in this parliament. It was referred to the House leader as a report, which went through the procedure and House affairs committee. It makes a few recommendations that I think are along the line of fine tuning or making the business of private members more reflective of what members of the House want.

Currently we separate the listings of motions and bills. As I said, we can select five of each to be votable and working through the business of the House. There is time allocated for the debate of Private Members' Business and private members' debates often result in a vote.

It is not a static system. As I have mentioned, it has evolved over the years as a response to the demands and concerns of members and it is continuously being improved and redefined.

The study that was undertaken in the last parliament was endorsed by this parliament. The recommendations include four or five quite different suggestions.

One is the concept of a maximum of five votable bills and motions. The committee decided this was an artificial separation. Given that they get the same amount of time for debate in the House, we would like to see that artificial separation removed. In other words any combination of 10 could come forward and be on the House agenda.

The second recommendation was to alternate the precedence order. Right now the bill is put into a draw and is selected literally through the luck of the draw. Sometimes there are 300 bills. A private member's bill can stagnate for many years. Sometimes they are drawn on a regular basis. My colleague from Mississauga South is probably the champion having had more bills drawn. He probably has shamrocks hanging from both ears.

The system we recommend so that the bill could be pulled out of that lottery and brought before the private members committee much more quickly is that the bill could be jointly seconded by 100 members of the House represented by at least 10 members from each of the parties in the House. It is not an easy process but it is more orderly. A bill that is of great interest to a majority of the members of the House could then go through the seconding process with 100 signatures and go before the private members committee to decide on its votability. We consider this a rather strong departure from the lottery system that is currently in effect.

The third recommendation concerns when a draw is held before a deferred vote. Votes are deferred all the time and we defer private members' votes. The debate is finished in the House, the reading is finished, everybody has spoken on the bill and the vote is deferred to the following Tuesday for example. We would like it to be deemed off the list at that point, once it is deferred. When there is another draw we could then fill that space with a new private member's bill. This is a housekeeping rule which gives more bills the opportunity to be deemed votable.

Another recommendation concerns an issue on which a lot of concern was expressed by many private members who came before our committee. When a bill finishes its debate in the House it is referred to a committee for amendments and discussion. Sometimes because the committee is too busy or maybe because there is an ulterior motive that is implied, the bill dies there. We believe that once the bill has had second reading and it has been voted upon in the House it is no longer a private member's bill but is a bill of the House.

We recommend that after second reading when a bill is referred to a committee it becomes a bill of the House and the committee shall report within 60 sitting days. The committee can ask for one extension of 30 days if it is too busy to have considered the bill. If at the end of that period there are no amendments suggested, the bill should be deemed reported without amendments. That will cause all committees to make sure that a private member's bill is treated in the same fashion as a bill of the House.

The fifth recommendation appears on the surface to be a rather frivolous recommendation. Right now we like to separate private members' bills from government legislation. In the normal system of voting we start in the front rows and work our way back. We suggest for private members' bills on both sides of the House that the sponsor vote first and then the voting begin in the back rows and work its way forward. We think this would keep everyone honest. There would be no influence by the front rows on either side of the House. We thought this would be an interesting diversion and a way of keeping the thought processes involved with private members' bills totally independent.

Members may recall that the House was prorogued halfway through the 35th parliament. The House leader introduced a bill that said all bills, government legislation and private members' bills, would be reintroduced at exactly the same stage they were when the House prorogued. This is not from one parliament to another; it is when there is a prorogation in the middle of a parliament. We thought it worked well. It speeded up the process and it stopped private members' bills from dying and having to go back through the lottery. We recommend that be enshrined in the rules governing private members business.

Legal advice is very important to private members when drafting private members' bills. We want the bills to be as accurate as possible, as votable as possible and as realistic as possible. We suggest that the House appoint a law clerk and parliamentary counsel for the House of Commons who would be responsible for the provision of legislative drafting services specifically to members, who would give them unbiased advice and would be without any party affiliation.

The last recommendation of the report was to give priority to members who currently do not have a lot of bills being drafted. In other words a member who went to the clerk's office for a first effort in a session and did not have three or four other bills being drafted would be given priority. That encourages as many members as possible to get involved in the process.

When we held the review which came up with these recommendations a lot of people said that all private members' bills or motions should be made votable, that there should be no process to select votability. A lot of people gave us written submissions. A lot of people gave submissions in person.

It looks on the surface like a really great idea. Everybody's bill would be votable. It would cut down dramatically the number of bills that would have time to go through the House. It would make each of those bills less important. There would be no way of jockeying them into importance. Every bill would be voted on mechanically. The conclusion of the committee at that time was not to make every bill votable.

I just came out of a procedure and House affairs meeting where we are talking about it again. We are looking at the criteria. As I said initially in my remarks, it is an ongoing process. It is here to serve the backbenchers specifically. It is their opportunity to draft legislation and to have an impact on the country and the legislation of the country. We will again revisit this. It is one of those processes that never stops. We will be looking at the criteria. We will be looking again at the concept of making every bill votable.

[Immigration, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Two American athletes presently employed by Toronto sports teams have criminal convictions in the United States for a variety of offences, including weapons, illegal drugs and spousal abuse.

On what grounds have foreign professional athletes been issued minister's permits when they have extensive criminal records?

[Access To Information Act, March 13th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by stating I believe the government remains committed to the principles of openness and accountability inherent in the Access to Information Act. Bill C-216 provides us with a valuable opportunity to discuss these principles and to determine the most appropriate means of balancing them against other competing public interests.

Bill C-216 proposes that Parliament extend coverage of the Access to Information Act to federal crown corporations. According to recent lists there are 48 parent crown corporations, of which 27 are subject to the act. Current coverage is sporadic.

For example, the Bank of Canada and the Canadian Film Development Corporation are subject to both the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

Canada Post Corporation and the Export Development Corporation are covered only under privacy legislation. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as my colleague discussed at length, on the other hand, are not subject to either act.

Consequently, what this bill considers is including the remaining 21 crown corporations in schedule 1 of the Access to information Act.

The standing committee on justice and the solicitor general examined this issue in 1987 during its review of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. In the report entitled “Open and Shut: Enhancing the right to know and the right to privacy”, the committee made three recommendations.

The first was to extend coverage of both acts to all crown corporations and wholly owned subsidiaries. The second recommendation was to apply the legislation if the Government of Canada controls a public institution by means of a power of appointment over the majority of the members of the agency's governing body or committee. Finally, the committee proposed that the acts apply to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but provide an exemption in relation to its program material, again as my colleague went into in detail.

The government responded to the committee's report by promising to review the proposals from the perspectives of the need for openness and to promote government accountability, the role of the institution involved and the need to ensure that any extension of the act will be in the public interest. Therefore it is in the context of these elements that we must examine the merits of Bill C-216.

They may be summarized as the need to support openness in government, the absolute necessity to consult with organizations that potentially could be affected by this amendment, and the necessity to ensure that there are provisions within the Access to Information Act to protect the legitimate commercial and competitive interests of the crown corporations.

The bill does reinforce the message we receive routinely from the Canadian people. They want a more open and accountable government. They believe they have a right to obtain information controlled by federal institutions, whether the institution is a department, an agency or a crown corporation. It is important to note that this right is already afforded to them in other jurisdictions.

Recent provincial freedom of information acts have established a precedent for including crown corporations within the scope of their legislation. For instance, although my province of Ontario has laws which cover crown corporations that deliver services and programs, the legislation contains a clear exemption for commercially valuable or sensitive information. The same applies to Alberta and B.C.

I also recognize that Bill C-216 stands for access and privacy. It complements a private member's motion that the government make all crown corporations subject to the Privacy Act, which was also alluded to by the opposition. This motion was debated in the House in April of last year and was passed.

While the federal government is committed to openness and accountability of government, we also have a commitment to protecting privacy rights.

The enhancement of these rights was recently outlined in a public discussion paper entitled “The protection of personal information: Building Canada's information economy and society”.

This paper examines the privacy issues surrounding electronic commerce and associated consumer transactions. It addresses the need to develop legislation that will permit Canadians to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by advances in technology.

At the same time, it proposes the means by which the security of their personal information can be protected in the private sector.

Before supporting any amendments to the Access of Information Act to the category of crown corporations we must take into account the other two elements to which I referred earlier, the need to consult with crown corporations themselves and the need to ensure there are provisions within the legislation to adequately protect their legitimate interests.

We must recognize it would be absolutely necessary to consult with the affected crown corporations and identify any unique circumstances under which they operate. It would be essential that we consider adjustments to existing legislation to avoid causing damage to the commercial interests of one or more of the organizations.

From the perspective of encouraging openness in government, I appreciate the intent underlying Bill C-216. However, in its extremely brief form it does not strike an appropriate balance between promoting the accountability of public institutions on one hand and on the other the requirement to protect the public's interest in ensuring that the operations of its crown corporations are not unfairly compromised. Consequently, I cannot support Bill C-216 because it fails to achieve this balance.

I would like to compliment the mover of Bill C-216, however. Although I cannot support it in its current form I did support its thorough airing as a votable bill since it addresses a subject of great interest to the Canadian public.

[Post-Secondary Education, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this week I had a meeting with a group of senior officials from Ontario and Atlantic universities. It is not often we run into a lobby group like this one. They were here to thank the government.

They thanked the government for its outstanding focus on education and knowledge in the 1998 budget. They thanked the government for supporting students and for supporting research. They thanked the government for the millennium scholarship fund and the lasting legacy it will create.

The university and college presidents I have met and have corresponded with pledge their support for the government's focus on education. They are committed to realizing the full potential of these initiatives.

One thing they do ask the government to consider is the valuable contribution that researchers in the social sciences make to society. Compared to other fields such as science and technology, their contribution is more difficult to quantify in dollar figures. Let us not forget that we need a well functioning society if we are to fully benefit from the technological advances.

I urge members of the House to encourage the government—

[Education, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is a growing dismay with the high cost of post-secondary education. Some in this House seem to consider post-secondary education to be an entitlement, free and paid for completely by the taxpayer. Access to post-secondary education has always been a reward for hard work and achievement at the secondary level.

Funding for post-secondary education must remain a partnership which includes the federal and provincial governments, parents, businesses, alumni and students. Although current tuition may seem high, the payoff over a lifetime is more than adequate compensation. The call for full funding is unrealistic. It would place a real burden on existing taxpayers, three-quarters of whom have not had the privilege of attending university. Also, the success rate for students who contribute to their own education is higher than for those who do not.

I call on all Canadians including students to recognize the limitations of our resources. Federal assistance for students under the Canada student loans program has amounted to billions over the years. We have also pledged to further enhance our funding for university and college students across Canada, but within reasonable parameters, leaving students some responsibility for the process.

[Andrew Carlson, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate a young man from Mississauga. Eight-year old Andrew Carlson from Russell Langmaid public school in Streetsville was the youngest winner of the “postcard Picasso challenge” sponsored by Bell Canada and the Canadian Olympic Association.

Andrew designed and coloured a postcard for the Olympic website which features four owls and an Olympic torch. His postcard is being featured on the wired Olympic website where Internet subscribers from all over Canada can select his card to send their best wishes electronically to our athletes competing in Japan.

Andrew is visiting Ottawa today with his father George. They will be meeting with several very important persons including the Sergeant-at-Arms and you, Mr. Speaker.

I and all of Mississauga are very proud of our young Andrew Carlson. Winning his first art contest at eight years of age bodes very well for an art future ahead.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the first report of Canadian-NATO Parliamentary Association which represented Canada at the 1997 spring session of the North Atlantic Assembly of NATO Parliamentarians held in Luxembourg, May 28 to June 1, 1997.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask permission of the House to present a report from an interparliamentary delegation that I inadvertently did not present this morning.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the second report of the Canadian-NATO Parliamentary Association which represented Canada at the 43rd annual session of the North Atlantic Assembly of NATO Parliamentarians held in Bucharest, Romania October 9 to 13, 1997.