John Barlow

[Journalistic Sources Protection Act, May 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill S-231 and speak in support of my colleague, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. Like the member, I was a journalist prior to this career. I was a print journalist for close to 25 years. In fact, I think I still have some ink in my veins. Once people have that, they never lose it.

There are two things I want to focus on as part of the discussion tonight. I know it has been touched on a bit before, but there are two elements of the bill that are vitally important as we move forward. I like to think that my career as a journalist really helped get me where I am right now, which is representing my constituents of Foothills here in the House of Commons. I talked to a lot to the community members. I knew the issues. I knew who the councillors were, and those types of things, but the fundamental reason why the residents of Foothills elected me in 2014, and again in 2015, was that over the years as a journalist I had earned their respect. I had earned their trust, and I believe I earned their faith. Those are so fundamentally important for a journalist, and they transfer well into being an elected official as well.

That is something we are losing in the journalism industry, that respect factor and trust. Part of that is because in this day and age of social media, alternate facts, fake news, and whatever we want to call these things that are happening right now, people are having a difficult time trusting the media that is out there now.

One of the aspects of the bill that is a great step forward is to define journalism and who a journalist is. We are seeing that the focus of journalism has certainly changed over the 20-plus years I was in the industry. Now it is who can get the information out there first, not necessarily who gets it right. That is really the core issue when it comes to Canadians losing faith in journalism.

That is why we have to take those steps to define what journalism is and who a journalist is. That can be discussed further at committee. Certainly, there are many more media to get that information out there, but Canadians have to have faith in who the journalist is and whether they trust the facts he or she is bringing forward.

The other aspect I wanted to touch on especially was the fact about protecting our sources. Carl Bernstein said:

The lowest form of popular culture—lack of information, misinformation, disinformation, and a contempt for the truth or the reality of most people's lives—has overrun real journalism.

That touches on what I was saying about the lack of trust we have in journalism today. That is something the bill will help to address a great deal.

On protecting sources, in my years as a journalist, one of the big issues I dealt with was a magnesium plant that is in my constituency. It was in the circulation area of our newspaper. I was making phone calls from High River to New Orleans, to Dallas, Texas, and to Los Angeles, California. A lot of this had to do with a company many of us remember from the movie Erin Brockovich, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. I was able to track down a lot of corruption that had happened in the building and construction of that operation, which never really became operational. It became a huge white elephant for the Province of Alberta.

I would never have been able to track those things down if my sources did not have faith in me: they knew they would be kept secret. That is such a fundamental part of journalism and the media, but also a fundamental part of our democracy. As journalists, we have to ensure that our sources know they have the faith, trust, and security to come forward with information, whether it is about public spending, about government, about their community, or about misappropriation and misdeeds with businesses and corporations. We have to ensure that sources have that protection.

Many of us in the journalism industry, or even as members of Parliament, were shocked to learn that the Montreal city police and the Quebec provincial police were tapping the phones of journalists to try to track not only their sources but also their movements. Those of us in Canada just did not think something like this would ever happen. However, it has happened, and we have to take steps to ensure it does not happen again.

Take a look at our history. I was inspired to become a journalist because of some of the amazing stories that happened over the years. Take a look at Woodward and Bernstein in Watergate. Look at the Spotlight team at The Boston Globe. It shed a light on the Catholic church in Boston. What about the Liberal ad scam? Some of these things may never have been brought to light if we did not have sources who felt safe coming forward.

[Framework on Palliative Care in Canada Act, May 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it truly is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to an issue about which I am very passionate. I wanted to have the opportunity to speak to this important legislation, brought forward by my colleague the member for Sarnia—Lambton, who is seeking to develop a framework for palliative care in Canada. This is an extremely important issue.

I enjoyed listening to the speeches from my colleagues, but I would like to start my speech off on a different tangent. I would like to look back to a very crisp winter day in 2012. In my previous career, I was the editor of a local community newspaper. I distinctly remember getting a phone call one afternoon asking if I would be willing to come down to the Foothills Country Hospice to cover an interesting story that was unfolding. It was a story about a man, Greg Garvan. He was in the Foothills Country Hospice, unfortunately, with a rare form of cancer. Knowing he was in his final days, he was really hoping to have one thing before his life ended. He was hoping to have one last visit with two of his favourite companions. Mr. Garvan was a horseman. He enjoyed the country living in rural southern Alberta, and certainly as any rancher and cowboy would know, he wanted to spend some time with his friends. His two friends were his two horses, Kiwi and Russell. The Foothills Country Hospice staff on that very cold winter's day wrapped Greg up in a blanket, rolled his bed out into the parking lot of the hospice, and there were his two horses, Russell and Kiwi.

It was very difficult, I must admit, to take photos that day and talk to the staff without having a tear in my eye. There are certainly not too many other staff or institutions that would have taken that kind of effort and passion and shown how much their patients and patients' families meant to them, to ensure they were able to make the dying wish of one of their friends come true. We have photos of Russell and Kiwi snuggling right up to Greg, wrapped in his blanket in his bed, in the parking lot of the Foothills Country Hospice.

To cap off the day, Greg's mother, who is from New Zealand, was staying in Okotoks. This was in early December. The staff at the hospice held an early Christmas dinner for Greg and his family, at the hospice. I am sure that was a memorable day in what was a difficult time for his family. It certainly was not one they will soon forget.

Those of us who do not have the fortune of having a hospice in our communities certainly would not have the opportunity to understand the wonderful things that hospice staff can do. I am very honoured that we have the Foothills Country Hospice in our community.

That really highlights the debate today. When we have an opportunity to have a facility like a hospice, with the ability and the things it is able to do for its community and its patients, I find it unfortunate that not everyone in Canada has the opportunity to experience that as an end-of-life option. The stats I have seen show less than 30% actually have access to a hospice facility. That is truly unfortunate.

Some of my colleagues have talked about how this really came to a head, and it is how I became more interested in the hospice facility and its lack of access for other Canadians. This was a very prominent issue during the debates on doctor-assisted dying. It was a very difficult issue for my constituents. I held four town hall meetings throughout my riding in Foothills and southwest Alberta. I had hundreds of people attend the town halls. I also sent out a survey to my constituents asking them how they felt about the doctor-assisted dying legislation. I had 4,000 responses to that survey, which was a very high response rate, along with the carbon tax.

My constituents were very torn on how they felt about doctor-assisted dying. It was a very difficult issue. Some were adamantly opposed. Some were adamantly in favour. The one theme that went through all my town halls and through those surveys was the importance of offering palliative care as part of that legislation.

If the government was to provide doctor-assisted dying, my constituents wanted to ensure there were resources in place and that a framework for palliative care would also be a part of that legislation.

It was very clear that my constituents wanted some options. One of those options, if we were truly going to have doctor-assisted dying, was that Canadians had to understand that they had another option, and that option was end-of-life care through hospice.

What has made this so profound and so loud and clear in my constituency is that we have the Foothills Country Hospice. Many other constituents and many other Canadians do not have that.

We are certainly blessed in my constituency to have the hospice, but also to have the people who work so hard to make it a reality. It has been about 10 years since the hospice was opened, but it has been almost 20 years since my constituents worked hard to make this project come to fruition.

I really want to take the opportunity to thank a few people who were instrumental in ensuring this hospice became a reality in rural Alberta, people like Dr. Eric Wasylenko and his wife Louise, David and Leslie Bissett, Jean Quigley, Dr. Jim Hansen, Doug and Susan Ramsay, Beth Kish and Dawn Elliott, Mark Cox, and the Council of the Municipal District (MD) of Foothills in the town of Okotoks. These people worked extremely hard to make this project a reality.

The annual budget for the Foothills Country Hospice is about $2.8 million. The province has picked up a significant part of that budget, but the community is also being asked to raise close to $1 million or more each and every year to ensure the hospice is able to operate. One of the wonderful stories about the hospice is to see the community buy into it and each year come forward to raise that type of money. It also shows that this is not an easy task, when it comes to having a hospice in a community.

We cannot have these types of facilities and the wonderful people who work in them without support from all three levels of government. That is why this private member's bill is so important. We need to develop a framework to ensure we can have the resources there to offer hospice care to Canadians, but also to ensure we have the resources there to make it a reality. That is what we are missing.

I know on both sides of the floor, during the doctor-assisted dying debate, many of us wanted an amendment as part of that legislation to ensure there was funding available for hospice. I am encouraged to see support among all parties in the House to ensure this becomes a reality. It is one thing to talk about it, but we have to ensure we provide the resources and the commitment as a federal government. As we proceed with doctor-assisted dying, one of the most important parts of that is also to ensure we have a framework for hospice care and a commitment that it is funded.

I spent a lot of time talking about the Foothills Country Hospice in my riding. I thought it was important to put a personal face on this service. I know many of us talk about hospice care and that it is an important option for that end of life. I have been through it many times, I have toured, and talked to the nurses, the doctors, and the many wonderful volunteers and staff that take their time to work there. It is hard to explain a hospice unless people have had an opportunity to experience it. Unfortunately, that is not something many of us want to experience, but it is a life-changing option.

As parliamentarians, we have to get across the fact that this truly brings a new definition to end-of-life care, that there are ways to make those difficult times as comfortable as possible for people and their families. If we are truly to have doctor-assisted dying, we must also have that other option, palliative care.

I want to again thank my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for all the work she has done, which has been yeoman's work, to make this a reality. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the floor to ensure this becomes a reality.

[Interprovincial Trade, May 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Innovation if he would stand up for the Canadian economy and help free the beer. He claimed that alcohol was part of the Canadian free trade agreement. He misled the House. Beer, wine, and spirits are not part of the Canadian free trade agreement.

The Liberals have a chance to be the architect of unleashing Canada's economy. They just need to act as an intervenor in the Supreme Court case into Canadian free trade.

I will ask again. Will the Liberals stand up and help free the beer?

[Interprovincial Trade, May 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend at the Alberta beer fest, literally hundreds of craft brewers, distillers, and Canadians were asking me why beer, wine, and spirits are not part of the Canadian free trade agreement. They were asking why, rather than supporting a policy that will ensure that Canadian entrepreneurs can be successful, the Liberals saddled them with a tax hike that will increase each and every year.

The Liberals have a chance to do the right thing. They have a second chance to stand up for the Canadian economy. Will the Liberals act as an intervenor in the Supreme Court case on Canadian free trade? Will they help free the beer?

[Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, May 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of a brave and strong young girl from my riding.

This young woman's name is Haley Chisholm, an aspiring nurse. She is a high school student from High River whose extremely rare kidney condition requires the treatment of a costly drug, Soliris.

This young woman is fighting for her life. The drug she needs is currently unavailable to her because of its high cost and its off-label status.

Her physician has been clear. Soliris is the treatment that she has recommended for patients like Haley who are suffering from this painful, debilitating disease.

In collaboration with her caregivers and my counterpart, the MLA for Highwood, we have been working hard to obtain support from the federal and provincial governments to access funding through Alberta's specialized high-cost drug program. Unfortunately, thus far we have been unable to gather that support.

This girl and her family are suffering. Each day she does not receive that treatment, her condition worsens.

I am calling on the Minister of Health to please work with her provincial counterpart and secure access for funding for this drug, and to do the right thing for a young girl who is suffering so Haley's family can see their daughter grow up with a normal life.

[Privilege, May 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, to the member's first point on Fridays, we are expected to be here on Fridays. Many of us are here on Fridays. Again, as I said, a lot of it is perception.

We understand in this House that not everybody is doing a 40-hour workweek. When we go home to our constituency, we know that a lot of us are working. However, I cannot speak for everybody. I do not intend to speak for everybody.

On the second part of the question, we want this to go to the procedure and House affairs committee. Our issue is that we want it to be a priority at the committee. The Liberal government is saying that it will not be a priority. It wants to continue to ram through these changes to the Standing Orders. That is what this is about.

We want to make sure that the privileges of individual members of Parliament are a top priority.

[Privilege, May 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. I cannot speak for everyone, but I think most of us understand there is no such thing as a five-day workweek in this job.

A lot of it is perception. I think she would agree with me that if we tell Canadians that we are going to be working a four-day workweek here, the vast majority of them are not going to believe us when we say we are working in our constituencies. I work seven days a week a lot of the time. I know many of us in the House do, and I completely understand that. However, I am not going home to Alberta and telling my constituents that I am going to work a four-day workweek and that when I am in my constituency, I am also working every single day. Some get it; some do not.

Members made a commitment when they came here. When I ran in the election, I understood that I was going to be in Ottawa 145 days of the year and that when members are here, they are expected to work. That I knew coming into it. We still have 220 days in the rest of the year to be working with our constituents.

My colleague brought up a great point about looking at the calendar. Maybe that is an option, but that is something we should do together, as a whole, in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We should not have it imposed upon us by the Liberal government. If there are opportunities for us to rework the calendar, to be here for two weeks and home a week or to have other options, that is something we could discuss together, but it should not be imposed by one party on the other 300-and-some members.

[Privilege, May 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is exactly right. When this family-friendly, four-day workweek was suggested, Liberals were expecting to be applauded, but what they got was a significant pushback from Canadians. I have constituents who would love to work a four-day workweek or a five-day workweek. They just want to work. That is what we are facing. How do we go back to our constituents, wherever they are in Canada, and say we are working pretty hard, but four days seems to be good enough? We are here working on behalf of taxpayers, and taxpayers expect some very good bang for their buck. They want us to be here, working hard.

I just cannot go home to Alberta, with 125,000 people out of work, and look at them with a straight face and say we are going to start four-day workweeks. I would not be able to look my constituents in the face, or myself in the mirror.

We are here 140 days of the year. I compare myself to those working in the oil sands. They go up north for a couple of weeks at a time and then they come home. They do not go up for four days and come home for a three-day weekend. They go for several weeks at a time and then come home. Why should we be treated any differently from typical Canadian workers who work five-day workweeks?

[Privilege, May 1st, 2017]

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

My colleague has asked why we are taking time to discuss this issue. It is because it is a critical issue. The opportunity for me to represent my constituents is such an important part of what is done in the House. Two of our colleagues were blocked from exercising their right to vote on an important issue. They were blocked not only from their right to vote but from their right to represent their own constituents. The Liberal government thinks that is of so little consequence that it does not want to make it a priority at PROC.

What we are seeing right now is a Liberal government that has disrespect for the traditions and the culture of the House but also for our ability as members of Parliament to represent our constituents. That is why we are fighting as hard as we possibly can to make sure that Canadians understand what is happening here.

[Privilege, May 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, that is why we are doing this. The government is denying us the opportunity to fight for our privilege. You did not allow us to have that vote.