Derek Lee

[Government Response To Petitions, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the standing orders, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.

[Proportional Representation, May 18th, 2000]

India. Within the last couple of months I was over at Westminster in the United Kingdom. The last time I looked, they do not use proportional representation. Some British members of parliament and I discussed the issue when I was over there. Notwithstanding that the party in power had held out the possibility of increased proportional representation, I did detect a drawing back from that in the British House of Commons. They were looking at it carefully, and it is not everything that its advocates make it out to be. There are some pluses, to be sure, and there are minuses.

While all of these systems are called proportional representation, they often vary enormously and use different approaches, such as the following.

Some have preferential ballots where voters rank candidates in order of preference, with votes for low-polling candidates being transferred to the remaining candidates, according to voter preference.

There are pure proportional representation systems where the entire country is treated as one constituency, with members being selected from party lists based on the percentage of the popular vote received by the parties.

There are mixed systems where some members are chosen on the basis of first past the post, while others are chosen from party lists.

While proponents of the system claim it leads to better representation, particularly of minorities, minority interests and regions, with a higher voter turnout, the experience of those countries currently using proportional representation suggests that there may be some potential negative impacts as well.

For example, it could lead to a splintering of political interests in parties and therefore lead to more minority governments. It could make governing more difficult. It could increase political instability. It could force parties to engage in lengthy political deal-making in order to cobble together coalitions involving very different interests.

Some will say that process is actually quite democratic and representative but there are two sides to the coin and there is more than one view of this. As well, small one issue parties can sometimes find themselves in the position of being kingmaker which may allow them to force their own narrow agendas onto the nation as a whole.

Proportional representation sometimes can give a voice to extremist groups who would have been shut out in a first past the post system. Examples of such situations can easily come to mind.

Some countries have also found that proportional representation can exacerbate regional differences and cleavages within a society and can make it more difficult to reach a national consensus on some important issues. That is an important issue for a country as vast and as regionally segmented as Canada is.

Other countries have found that the use of party lists in selecting members of legislatures can strengthen the power of those party insiders responsible for deciding who will be on the list and in what order of precedence. I also as a member of parliament representing a constituency am curious as to what the balance would be, for example if I would continue to represent a constituency but those selected from a party list would not have that responsibility at all. They would not have the constituency responsibility, something to which all members of the House pay considerable attention and devote considerable resources.

These are just a few of the issues, some say problems, that we would encounter in moving toward a system of proportional representation. There are some other problems that might be specific to Canada. We have benefited in the past from an electoral system that allows for the diversity of our peoples to be drawn together in a parliament where there is a reasonable likelihood of a majority government. Minority governments might not so easily maintain our focus and our unity.

In addition it could under certain models involve a change. These changes could involve changes to our constitution, and this is a particular policy envelope that I am not convinced Canadians would want to open at this particular time. A referendum on the issue could also prove divisive judging from recent past experience.

Finally, one of the strengths of our electoral system is that Canadians are represented at the constituency level by members of parliament. All of us here do represent constituencies and that is a real strength for the House, something that might be—I am not saying would be lost—but could be lost if we are selecting MPs simply from party lists without reference to particular constituencies.

For these reasons, I am not inclined to support the motion in its whole. However, if there is a broad interest among members to pursue the issue of proportional representation, and I know there are members on both sides of the House who do have a real interest in this, the House could ask a committee of the House to look at this. I suggest the Standing Committee for Procedure and House Affairs as one possibility.

Members of that committee discussed the issue in the course of their 1998 review of electoral issues. There may be merit in further study. Such a review would provide us with information on the strengths and weaknesses of proportional representation, in international experience and the implications it could have in the Canadian context.

I want to sincerely commend the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for his commitment to improving Canada's electoral system and for bringing this important issue to the House. I do not know what members will do with the issue in terms of the actual motion. I am certain that somewhere in the future there is a further study envelope of proportional representation to see how it might be adapted or used in Canada, and if there is a substantial consensus that would develop to do that in the House.

[Proportional Representation, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are very proud of the fact that they have one of the most stable and democratic political systems in the world. It has made Canada a model for many other countries.

This is not something that just happened by accident. We are the beneficiaries today of what our ancestors have provided and what political leaders over the last century and a half have handed down to us. However, even the best system in the world will have its critics.

It is natural that from time to time members of parliament and others interested in the political process will come forward with suggestions for improving our system, which in this case is our system of election.

Today's private member's motion is an example of this, with its call for the introduction of a new electoral system, incorporating a measure of proportional representation. If I may, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss some of the aspects of the motion, how it might impact Canadians and why in the view of some it may represent a risky gamble for Canadians, which I maintain might not be warranted under present circumstances.

To begin with, it is important to note that proportional representation is not a new idea. It has been tried in a number of forms in a number of countries all around the world, with varying degrees of success. Currently it is used in one form or another in many countries, notably Germany, Israel, Ireland and New Zealand. I understand that it was used in France, but it has now been substantially abandoned.

The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle indicated that we are one of only three countries in the world which does not use proportional representation. I did not quite understand that. If we include the U.S.A.—and I do not recall what the other country was—

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, May 18th, 2000]

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. Q-28 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 18th, 2000]

I am informed by the departments of Health and National Defence as follows:

(a) The Canadian Forces did not indicate on the order forms for the mefloquine to be used on the Somalia deployment that it was for use under the Food and Drugs Act Lariam Safety Monitoring Study or on the Somalia deployment. This type of statement is also not on the initial order form that was addressed to the Ottawa Civic Hospital for the procurement of mefloquine earlier in the safety monitoring study. The order dates were September 9, 11, 14, 15 and 28, 1992 and the drugs were delivered within three working days of the order being placed.

(b) At the time of the transaction, the manufacturer was not required, nor did they inform Health Canada that the mefloquine was being ordered under the authority of the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study, and that this mefloquine was apparently purchased for the Somalia deployment.

Health Canada was informed only after the allegations arose in the media in October 1994, and after investigation and consultation with the manufacturer subsequently.

(c) Health Canada

Health Canada records reveal that the manufacturer did indeed request fast tracking of the new drug submission for Lariam.

Health Canada issued a notice of compliance for Lariam on January 22, 1993. Health Canada is not privy to significant dates related to Canadian Forces activity in Somalia and is therefore unable to comment on the date of approval of Lariam—January 22, 1993, in relation to the end of the Canadian Forces deployment in Somalia.

National Defence

Health Canada's response indicates January 22, 1993, as the date of approval for Lariam. Licensing approval for Lariam was therefore granted prior to the end of the Canadian Forces deployment in Somalia.

(d) The last submission of the safety monitoring study results received by Health Canada prior to marketing approval was on July 17, 1992. The final results of the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study were received from the manufacturer on July 30, 1993 and in August/September 1993, subsequent to marketing approval.

(e) An advisory note was prepared for and passed to the Minister of National Defence in October 1997 which states, with regard to the approval of mefloquine, “there was no intention to mislead the Commission”. However, this document goes on to explain, “Until very recently, it was believed that the Surgeon General Branch had informed Health Canada that mefloquine was being dispensed without the consent of individuals—even the directorate which authorized the use of mefloquine in Somalia was under this misconception”. Consequently, any information the department may have passed to the Somalia commission of inquiry related to the approval of mefloquine would have been based on the assumption that Health Canada and the drug manufacturer had been informed that the Department of National Defence was administering mefloquine outside the boundaries of the manufacturer's study.

Since the advisory note was prepared some four months after the publication of the Somalia commission of inquiry report in June 1997, no action was taken to advise the commission. However, as a result of the misunderstanding experienced with the administration of mefloquine in Somalia, the department implemented several corrective actions to improve monitoring and recording procedures relating to the use of unlicensed products. A regulatory affairs position has been established to serve as a single contact point with Health Canada regarding unlicensed products; procedures for acquisition, distribution, use and recording of unlicensed medical products have been promulgated; detailed drug and vaccine information sheets for health care providers and Canadian Forces members are being prepared; and an adverse effects monitoring and reporting database is being developed.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. Q-29. .[Text]

Question No. 29—

[Government Response To Petitions, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.

[Motions For Papers, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[Motions For Papers, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has no knowledge of any existing application by the Blood tribe to annex the town of Cardston. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.