Grant McNally

[Prebudget Consultations, November 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will ask my colleague a question about jobs seeing as we have been talking about prebudget consultations and the impact of government policy on the economy. I will ask him a question about a particular industry. If an industry in his own province of Ontario was under threat of losing 30,000 jobs would he take action on it?

I am referring to the softwood lumber dispute that is ongoing across the country but particularly affecting British Columbia. There is a possibility of that many jobs being lost because of the tariffs being put on lumber by the United States and an announcement of another increased tariff. This would have a potentially devastating effect on the industry.

Might the hon. member be willing to consider talking to his colleague the Minister for International Trade to spur him on to find a solution to the issue and not wait any longer? The government acted in the same way on the Bombardier file to come to a quick resolution when there were ongoing trade disputes in that sector.

Might we see the same urgency on this file so that we save jobs not only in British Columbia but across the country? Would the hon. member be willing to undertake to do that on behalf of all members of the House?

[Privilege, November 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Obviously there is a conflict among government members on this particular issue. You have ruled, Mr. Speaker. We acknowledge and accept that ruling. I am wondering if there might be a way to compromise in good faith among members of all parties.

I was a member of the ad hoc committee. We did good work together. The member for Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot did a good job.

I am wondering if we might be able to receive this report in a formal way and have it tabled here. I would ask for consent that we be allowed to do that because there are many good recommendations that we came up with as a committee.

[Trade, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, certainly keeping the borders open is a serious question. We would hope the minister would treat it as such.

The U.S. is spending $100 million for new security technology at their northern border. Meanwhile Canada's industry minister is trumpeting his ability to get a billion dollars out of his leadership rival's pocket for his pet Internet project, while downloading the border issue as an infrastructure problem that the provinces should solve.

Why does the industry minister insist on pursuing his pet project at the expense of securing freer trade for Canadians?

[Royal Prerogative of Mercy, October 26th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to join in the debate today. I want to, as did my colleague from Calgary, commend my colleague from Dartmouth for bringing forward this very important motion. She brings a very unique perspective to it, one that she is willing to stand up for strongly. I applaud her for that.

I, too, want to focus on the motion as it relates to the Latimer case, which is of course what much of the debate is focused on so far today.

I want to begin by reading a bit from the decision of the supreme court. I would point out that Mr. Latimer's actions were purposeful, with intent and with consequences. In part the supreme court said:

--Tracy could have been fed with a feeding tube into her stomach, an option that would have improved her nutrition and health, and that might also have allowed for more effective pain medication to be administered...The Latimers rejected the feeding-tube option as being intrusive and as representing the first step on a path to preserving Tracy's life artificially.

Tracy had a serious disability, but she was not terminally ill. Her doctors anticipated that she would have to undergo repeated surgeries, her breathing difficulties had increased, but her life was not in its final stages.

Tracy enjoyed music, bonfires, being with her family and the circus. She liked to play music on a radio, which she could use with a special button. Tracy could apparently recognize family members and she would express joy at seeing them. Tracy also loved being rocked gently by her parents.

Further on in the decision, the court stated:

The Latimers were told that this procedure would cause pain, and the doctors involved suggested that further surgery would be required in the future to relieve the pain emanating from various joints in Tracy's body. According to the appellant's wife, Laura Latimer, further surgery was perceived as mutilation. As a result, Robert Latimer formed the view that his daughter's life was not worth living.

In the weeks leading up to Tracy's death, the Latimers looked into the option of placing Tracy in a group home in North Battleford. She had lived there between July and October of 1993, just prior to her death, while her mother was pregnant. The Latimers applied to place Tracy in the home in October, but later concluded they were not interested in permanently placing her in that home at that time.

There are some things that get lost in the debate and one is Tracy's story. Much of the focus has been on Mr. Latimer and the discussion around whether or not it is fair for him to serve out his 10 year sentence and that this is an unreasonable sentence placed on him.

I would argue that we need to focus on Tracy, and those who would be in a similar situation if others made the same choice with their children. If an individual acts with wilful intent, premeditated, planned event, our laws state that that is clearly against and in violation of the laws of this land.

As others have said, we can understand the difficulties that the Latimers went through, and many other Canadians go through similar circumstances, but in the end, the act that was committed was an act of the will. It was wilfully done, with full knowledge of consequences that would be received after that action was taken.

I believe we would be setting a very dangerous precedent if the cabinet were to go ahead with the prerogative of mercy in this case, or others, in making a statement about the value of life. Either we believe that all life is equal and there is an inalienable right to life by all or we do not. There simply is no middle ground. We can argue that there is a middle ground, but really what we are talking about is a moral divide, a philosophy that would say that we must take into account all considerations, basically, a relativistic point of view that truth is relative and that there are no moral absolutes.

The other perspective is one of moral absolutes, that there is such a thing as right and wrong. That is the foundation of this debate and it will be played out in many different ways and many different examples given. However, at the end of the debate, that is the question we must answer. Was this action right or wrong? The courts determined the action was wrong and the law was applied.

Are we then to say that the message sent by the courts, as determined by the laws of the land, will be revoked later on? That sends a very disturbing message, particularly to families who are dealing with a similar circumstance, who have disabled children. It sends a very disturbing message to all disabled people.

It is my belief, and I am speaking for myself in this debate, that what Mr. Latimer did was wrong and that he needs to accept those consequences. We need to send that message, through the decision, that those who would take similar actions would receive the same kind of consequences. When a society devalues the life of one, the doors open to the devaluation of other people as well. When we open that door, it is a very hard door to close. We must send a message that all life is valuable and of the same value.

When we look at the debates around the quality of life, this must be in my opinion the focal point, that all life is equal and valuable regardless of the circumstances, some of which may be very painful and difficult circumstances for families or individuals to go through.

However what happens is the perspective can change. If we focus on what could be if the person were not disabled and lament about the mark that will never be reached because of the disability, we lose focus of the joy and the great things that can happen together as a family and as individuals. If we refocus on what we have rather than on what we do not have, our perspective changes.

I read some stories about parents and disabled children in a book that was given to me by my colleague from Dartmouth. It was very clear with the parents of disabled children, who came through that battle of expectations and realizations that a certain quality of life would not be achieved because of a particular disability, that the quality of life which was there was one that would be embraced and accepted. When that notion is embraced, the joy, the pain and the sorrow we all experience, and which is common to parents of disabled children and disabled people in general, is a human condition to all families.

In the debate today I would hope that we focus on that key issue, the value of human life and that we send a message to our constituents, the people of this land, that we do value life. Because we do value life, we would encourage the government not to send a conflicting message by allowing an individual who has committed this act to then receive the royal prerogative of mercy.

We have an opportunity, as leaders in the nation, to speak on the issue and I am sure we will have different opinions. In the end we must look at that fundamental question of the inalienable rights of each individual and the rights of all people in our country. Let us send the right message.

I close by congratulating my colleague from Dartmouth once again. I hope that we can send a strong message united together in this place on this motion.

[Health, October 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we appear to have the first casualty of the Liberal leadership race. The Minister of Health has been trying to throw out Hail Mary's to get back into the game with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Industry. He is throwing incomplete passes and may be replaced by the coach very soon.

First, the Minister of Health broke cabinet solidarity by voting against the government on GMOs. Then he completely mishandled the Cipro deal causing great embarrassment to the government. The--

[National Rivers Day, October 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate on the motion regarding a national rivers day. I commend my colleague from Ontario for bringing the motion forward. She began her speech by talking about the things that are happening in British Columbia with rivers day. That of course is the province I represent and it is a pleasure to add my voice on behalf of the Coalition.

Within my own riding of Dewdney--Alouette, which encompasses Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, Mission, Agassiz and Harrison Hot Springs, there are a lot of rivers. Actually the Alouette River is one of the reasons the riding is called Dewdney--Alouette. Many people ask me what the name means. They are uncertain as to where the riding is because it could be almost anywhere in Canada. Some people think I am from Quebec because of the name, Alouette River. It is mainly based on the name of the Alouette River and Alouette Lake that are in the west end of the riding.

With respect to the Alouette River, a number of activities happen on rivers day every year, a number of which I have had the opportunity to participate in. I want to commend the folks who are involved in rivers day in British Columbia, particularly in Maple Ridge in my riding. A lot of fine events happen every year on rivers day.

I would like to spend a few minutes bragging about the Alouette River Management Society. It is referred to as ARMS and was formed in 1993. The primary focus of ARMS at that time was the attempt to increase the base flows from the Alouette dam. This goal was achieved in 1996 when the base flow was increased fivefold. It was quite an accomplishment.

Since then ARMS has become involved in almost all aspects of watershed stewardship, including inventory and monitoring, habitat restoration and lobbying for the protection of aquatic habitat. Its members are extremely active in the community and often attend private properties in order to assist landowners with the implementation of sound stewardship practices on their land. They should be commended for that because they not only believe in stewardship, they practise it. They help others take care of an important resource and part of the community, the rivers in our riding. Of course these things happen throughout B.C. and I believe it would be a good thing if this model were used in other provinces. I am sure there are other societies similar to ARMS.

ARMS has also been able to have a very good relationship with the local media. Quite often we see articles in the local paper about its activities and the good work it is doing. I commend its members for that and because of that they have also been able to educate and inform a considerable number of people very quickly.

ARMS is based at the Rivers Heritage Centre in East Maple Ridge. Its goal and stated purpose is to be a source for community stewardship information and direct advice. Some of the activities at the centre have included training in stream keeping, workshops dealing with sustainable development practices, school field trips and hosting public events.

There is a board of directors and over 300 members in the society. They have done a lot of good work in the riding, in the Maple Ridge area in particular. I commend them for that. That is very fitting given the topic of the motion before the House today.

The Fraser River is a major river within my riding. It is one of the boundaries of many ridings in the lower mainland area. That is very important not only in my riding but in the surrounding ridings of my colleagues in the lower mainland area and upper Fraser valley in British Columbia.

My colleague who brought this motion forward mentioned some of the other activities that happen in British Columbia on rivers day. It is a way to connect average, everyday citizens with the importance of rivers, and that is a good thing.

We may be debating to have a special day set aside for rivers as a heritage motion one day but it is more than that. It crosses into the environmental side of things as well. Rivers are a very important resource for communities throughout the country. It is incumbent upon us to demonstrate this notion of stewardship whenever we are dealing with our environment, and in particular when we are talking about rivers.

If we do not have organizations like ARMS or individuals involved in the process of taking care of the smaller creeks which feed into larger rivers, or the larger rivers themselves, we will not have sustainable creeks and rivers. The environment could be damaged and all kinds of other unintended consequences could result.

I support my colleague's motion that was brought forward today. There was a lot of talk about the Niagara River a few months ago. Members in the House may recall the particular debate about the north-south flow of that river. It is in my colleague's province of Ontario and she may want to expand on that in her closing comments. In all seriousness it is a good idea to have a day in recognition of our rivers.

My colleague from the Alliance mentioned that we would have all kinds of days that would acknowledge different things and went through a very long list. Should that discourage us from taking the action that would have a positive effect on our communities?

We want to see the kinds of things that I mentioned happen within communities across Canada. Those are the kinds of activities that will enhance and sustain Canada's river system. To have a day to acknowledge rivers is a positive thing because it would draw attention to that area and would hopefully spark other groups getting involved in the same kinds of activities within their local communities.

I commend my colleague on her good motion and I commend the group in my riding, ARMS, on its good work in Maple Ridge.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague in the coalition from Cumberland--Colchester. He is not a man who often sings his own praises, but I will briefly mention that he is very hard-working and is in fact working on bringing together a conference of individuals from the Middle East, Palestine and Israel, to talk about a resolution to the ongoing conflict taking place there. I congratulate him for his hard work on that particular issue.

I will ask him one question about Bill C-37, that being the part that was brought up earlier by the member for Crowfoot about the RCMP and its role in providing security in these kinds of situations. Could my colleague comment on whether he thinks that is addressed adequately within this bill or is there more that could be done in that particular area?

[Broadcasting Act, October 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate this afternoon on behalf of members of the opposition coalition. I will pick up where my colleague left off in congratulating Senator Finestone, one of our former colleagues in this House, for her good work on the bill. I would like to also congratulate our colleague from Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia for his hard work on this initiative as well.

I would also agree somewhat with my colleague from Crowfoot on the point that perhaps, given the fact that there is an upcoming review of the Broadcasting Act that will be undertaken by the heritage committee, this may be the framework that this amendment is placed into, seeing as there will be a review of the entire legislation. Nevertheless, members of the coalition are generally supportive of the amendment.

I would like to focus my comments on some of the points that were made earlier by some of my colleagues.

Sections 56 and 57 of the Telecommunications Act give the CRTC the power to order intervener costs that compensate individuals and organizations for their participation, research and testimony during telecommunications procedures that appear in front of the commission. There are rules that guide the CRTC on this.

This is not the same case for the Broadcasting Act. The CRTC has no power to award intervener costs. I would agree with the points made by my colleagues that we have a discrepancy between the two bills. The amendment would seek to fix that point by harmonizing these two pieces of legislation.

I would like to focus my comments at this point on the purpose and the meaning of intervener funding.

The purpose of intervener costs is to ensure that individuals or groups of individuals who are or may be directly affected by a project under review by the CRTC have a reasonable opportunity to review information submitted by the applicant and other parties, that they have a reasonable opportunity to provide evidence relevant to the application and when appropriate an opportunity to cross-examine persons submitting information relevant to the application and that they have an opportunity to make arguments before the CRTC regarding the project.

It is important that the CRTC hear different points of view on an important decision it will make. Often the voice of individuals without the access to funds or the ability to be involved in the hearing is not heard. The amendment seeks to remedy that.

Why might we put this amendment in place? As I said earlier, it would harmonize the language between the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act, and that is an important thing to do. It would give the CRTC the power to award costs and to establish the rules to award these costs in the broadcasting field as they are presently in existence under the Telecommunications Act.

The details of these rules already exists in the rules of procedure for the Telecommunications Act and will remain the same should they be applied to this act as well. The procedure for cost award is already in existence in the Telecommunications Act and this would also be contained in this act if we went ahead with this amendment.

It is important to note also that this would result in asymmetry of legislation of both rules and procedures and would be fair to consumers. It would allow the full participation of consumers or consumer organizations in CRTC hearings. These people would be able to provide informed opinions which could be beneficial to both the consumer and the CRTC.

The amendment would be extremely beneficial to the Canadian public. Cost awards would allow consumers and public interest groups, as well as individuals, to develop thorough research and substantial evidence to represent effectively the interests of citizens in broadcasting and cable television policy and regulatory proceedings.

There are many other reasons why we should be supportive of this amendment. Many of those points have been brought up by my colleagues throughout this debate. Perhaps the most important one, which has been echoed in this place, is that it opens up a fairness opportunity for Canadians. Canada is a big country in which it is often hard to get from one place to another, but it is important that voices be heard in important decisions and that people have the access to those opportunities to have their voices heard so that good decisions can be made that are reflective of both sides of an issue or of many sides of an issue.

The amendment would allow a greater opportunity for that to happen. Of course individuals would still have to take the initiative to be involved in the process and we would encourage individuals and groups to do that. The amendment would encourage more individuals to get involved in that process and would bring together the two bills, the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act, in terms of harmonizing the procedures for both. It seems a bit unfair that there is one procedure that allows for intervener costs in the Telecommunications Act but not in the Broadcasting Act. We have heard in debate today that most members would agree with that.

Again, we commend our former colleague from this place, now Senator Finestone, and our colleague from Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia for his good work on this issue and for bringing it forward for us to consider.

[Privilege, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hamilton West for his speech. I think he will find that most members of the opposition are supportive of the bill that the government has brought forward to the House.

I have one question for him regarding the costs that would be associated with implementing the bill and the fact that more resources would be required for hiring and training security personnel, immigration officers and other individuals that would need to be brought on stream.

The hon. member is a good colleague of the Minister of Finance. Could he ask the Minister of Finance on the government side whether he would be willing to present an early budget? It would actually be late because we have not had one for quite a period of time, almost two years, but the minister could present it earlier than February. Could the member talk to the Minister of Finance to scope out exactly how we would pay for these new costs and what the government's plan would be for paying for these important, necessary and needed changes?

[Supply, October 15th, 2001]

I agree, Mr. Speaker, with my hon. colleague's comment that we can encourage committees to do good work. When we bring people together in a less partisan way, we exchange ideas and make recommendations and reports that actually can be implemented by the government.

So often we spend a lot of time on parliamentary committees and come to an agreement in a good working relationship with members from all parties. Then, as the report is being written, many times a group comes in from the government side and votes against all the things that the committee agreed on, thereby making a farce of the process.

Look at other models of government around the world and how their committees work, such as the United States. Their committee system works. Their committees have real power and the ability to make change. We have the same ability to do that here if there were a change in attitude and direction. I believe there is a willingness of all members of the House to engage in that kind of process within committees so that we can make concrete positive change.