Paul Szabo

[Multiple Sclerosis, June 14th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, tonight we heard the minister start off by saying we are going to have lots of discussions with CIHR and we are going to have lots of funding for research. The real issue is not a CIHR issue. It is a government policy issue in terms of helping people who need help. They are being discriminated against because they are considered high risk. Private clinics cannot provide the services even if the patients are prepared to pay for them. This takes federal intervention. This House has voted on at least two occasions for a national strategy on MS and the minister has not even mentioned it.

Does the member believe that the evidence is already here that MS patients are at high risk of developing CCSVI, and that treatment as well as research can coexist? A government that simply stands here and delivers cases of platitudes, and says it is provincial jurisdiction, is a government that is really doing nothing.

[Multiple Sclerosis, June 14th, 2010]

Madam Chair, like most members, I have received hundreds of communications from people and one just this past week from Mr. Yuri Korfschinsk who repeated the argument of the member for Etobicoke North about MS patients being discriminated against in terms of getting this treatment simply because they have MS and are at risk.

It was interesting that in his letter he says that the decisions to deny this treatment have resulted primarily based on the advice of MS neurologists, which is very strange to me. Their position was that the relationship between MS and CCSVI must be fully researched and documented before CCSVI can be treated in people with MS.

I wonder if the member is aware of whether neurologists have the requisite expertise to make that assessment and whether in fact they should be the authors of health care policy regarding CCSVI.

[Points of Order, June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order in relation to the third report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates tabled this morning during routine proceedings on the basis that the matter reported to the House is beyond the mandate of the committee and this report, therefore, should not be admissible.

Standing Orders 108.(1) and 108.(2) lay out the powers of standing committees, the power to create subcommittees, and the additional powers of standing committees. In looking at this, it would appear that there are no general powers of standing committees that would relate to this.

This matter relates to, and I would read from the report:

--a study of the claim that the Member from Scarborough—Rouge River was actively lobbying the Government of Canada,...while sitting as a current Member of Parliament;--

This matter came before the government operations committee. The member for Scarborough—Rouge River and the member for Scarborough—Guildwood appeared at the committee as signed-in members of the committee to deal with this claim and this study that was being proposed. Their arguments why the study was beyond the mandate of the committee are laid out in that meeting.

I would also report that the clerk of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates also advised the committee that the matter was beyond the mandate of the committee, as laid out in Standing Order 108.(3)(c).

I have taken the opportunity to look down and also check, yet again, and can see absolutely no authority whatsoever for this committee to be reviewing the ethical conduct or conflict of interest of a member of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to Standing Order 108.(3)(a)(viii), regarding the specific or the extra authorities of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which reads:

--the review of and report on all matters relating to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.

This committee, it would appear, has the authority to look into any claims related to the Conflict of Interest Code or conduct of members of Parliament, which as you know has happened from time to time.

I understand and I was advised by the member for Scarborough—Rouge River that he had submitted a supplementary or dissenting report, as authorized by the committee, with regard to this third report. It was forwarded to the clerk of the committee in advance of the deadline time and that it was in the proper form authorized by the committee. I note that the particular supplementary or dissenting opinion, and I do not know what it was called because it is not here and it is a secret until tabled, has more information there, I am sure, with regard to what has been reported to the House.

I would also point out that matters dealing with the Lobbying Act and whether there are any breaches there of someone lobbying and not being registered, et cetera, are matters which actually could come under the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I would note in the Standing Orders that the Commissioner of Lobbying and the Lobbying Act have not been included in the committee's mandate although they were amended in the accountability act. The Standing Orders have yet to be updated.

As well, I would submit that not only is this report inadmissible and incomplete without the dissenting opinion, but the subject matter from which this matter flows, which is the study of the claim that the member for Scarborough—Rouge River was actively lobbying the Government of Canada while sitting as a current member of Parliament, is in fact out of order in that committee.

I submit that this particular study and any activities related to this claim and this matter should cease in that committee as soon as possible. If someone cares to make a claim, I submit that it should be referred either to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, or more appropriately, to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner for appropriate review.

I find it very disturbing and distressing that this has transpired, notwithstanding all the clear evidence that this matter, which is being handled by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, is not within its mandate and should never have been approved or undertaken by the committee.

[Committees of the House, June 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in relation to the certificate of nomination of Suzanne Legault, the nominee for the position of Information Commissioner of Canada.

Your committee has considered the proposed amendment of Ms. Legault as Information Commissioner of Canada and reports its unanimous support for her appointment.

Further, we recommend that the government proceed with the appointment as provided by Standing Order 111.1(2) and that the House do ratify this appointment.

[Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, earlier when I asked a question I think in the back of my mind it was prompted by something a member said about certain members speaking in the House and shifting the debate to getting tough on crime and to protecting victims versus criminals, et cetera. I do not think that is what the bill is all about.

There is an issue here and it is one of the reasons that I thought this bill would have gone to committee before second reading if the government is convinced that it is necessary to respond to the public interest so that we do not get off track and use it simply as another political tool. I wonder if the member would care to comment.

[Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate so far, I am not sure that this is really an issue of protecting victims as much as it is dealing with certain situations where the exemptions would receive broad support in the House.

The issue here is probably more of the public understanding and knowledge. We could all have an opportunity to spend time debating what we might think and parrot some of the hotlines, but I have a question for the member. This bill seems to be fairly straightforward, but the facts have to be nailed down and the public has to understand that it is getting the right attention. I am a little concerned that the debate is going to stray.

Why would the government not simply have referred this bill directly to committee before second reading so that we could get the facts, get the witnesses, and deal with legislation that is necessary?

[Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe for again providing a very insightful and informative speech at second reading on a bill that is important to Canadians. He has laid out some interesting points.

Without hearing from experts, members can only deal with information that is available in the public domain. However, we cannot get the information that the witnesses would bring to the table at committee, and it is extremely important that we have to get this right.

Since this appears to be publicly-driven legislation, does he think the public needs to have some sort of an opportunity or a venue to express their concerns so we can determine whether the word “pardon” is really one of the biggest sticking points? The member is quite right, in some cases in the United States, when there is a pardon of someone who has just been caught doing something, a president would pardon someone is fixated in the mind.

However, it is a public issue and the communications with the public in all aspects of this has to be strictly looked at, simply from the standpoint that the public has a right to know the facts and true, full and plain disclosure.

Could the comment on the need to inform the public?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I was actually here when the member for Kings—Hants proposed it to the government and I listened to it. I questioned it at the time, because I did not understand it.

I know that it has changed since, so I am glad that I questioned it at the time. I also spoke about it in my speech at second reading.

The question that has been raised, though, is whether the Colombian government can actually objectively assess the impact of trade on its human rights.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in fairness, I do not think that I could do a proper assessment of who we have heard and not heard and who we should hear. The committee members are the ones responsible for that.

Having said that, when it comes right down to it, I really have a problem when there are people who want to appear who are credible and whom we have relied on in the past for their expertise, and for some odd reason, we decide that it is not necessary to hear from them, possibly, again. It might have been that they appeared in previous discussions.

However, the member is asking a question that I cannot answer. The committee has to justify its actions. I only raise the question.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that there are good people in Colombia who are working very hard to address a very difficult situation. They have been in an awful situation politically and economically and from the standpoint of justice issues.

However, the member will know that each one of us has a responsibility to at least have some assurance that questions are asked and answers are given and that the members can look at the transcripts of committee meetings and follow the debates in the House, which I have.

When we receive hundreds and hundreds of e-mails from people who are passing on those questions, we want to at least bring them to the House and bring them to wherever we can find those answers. We are still working on it, as far as I am concerned.