Peter MacKay

[Questions Passed As Orders For Return, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is in relation to a question that still remains outstanding. It is No. 12. I have requested several times that we receive the answer and it is still in abeyance.

[House Of Commons, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in light of your ruling that a prima facie case exists, I move:

That certain statements attributed to members of the House of Commons which may bring into question the integrity of the House of Commons and its servant the Speaker, appearing at page 7 of the March 8, 1998 Ottawa Sun , be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I rise to speak on this issue. It is unfortunate we have found ourselves in this position. It is obvious that what occurred here in the House of Commons invoked a visceral and emotional response from many of its members. That is not the issue or the point I wish to bring to the floor.

The main issue here is the integrity of this place and of you as our Speaker. What we have seen happen here is tantamount to an effort, deliberate or otherwise, to undermine your integrity. To make an analogy, I would suggest it would be totally inappropriate for litigators in a court case to step outside the court room to comment on a decision of a judge in the wake of that decision. What has happened in this case before the House is very similar to that. We have members of this House choosing to comment. I choose my words cautiously when I suggest that it may be for the purpose of threatening you, to make you decide in one way or another.

What has happened is very unfortunate. It is with regret that we have to go through this. If those members choose in their wisdom to withdraw or to clarify what they intended by making these statements in such a way, that may cause the issue to settle down. All members of this House must be very cautious not only in what they say on the floor of the House of Commons but also in what they say outside these doors.

Mr. Speaker, this matter must be dealt with by the entire House because you have found yourself in a compromised position as a result of what I would suggest is a personal slight to you as the Speaker. Again, it is with some regret that I move this motion but it is a very important matter which we must deal with. We should deal with it as quickly as possible so we can move on to deal with the very important business of the nation.

[Privilege, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege that arises from a circumstance surrounding a newspaper article which appeared in the March 8 edition of the Ottawa Sun . Within that article there were quotations attributed to members of this House which, in my view, constitute an overt and outrageous attempt to intimidate you, the Speaker of this House, and collectively the House itself.

It is my hope that the members involved will rise in their place and tell the House that they have been misquoted and that the remarks that were attributed to them are in fact untrue. Perhaps we should all recall what Samuel Johnson said when he said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Mr. Speaker, I have sent you the article and have tabled it with the Table. This article, which appeared on page 7 of the March 8 edition, was headlined “Standing on guard for flag—MPs threaten Speaker's job in flap over Maple Leaf, anthem”. I am not going to go through all of the quotations from within that article, but I would suggest that they were inappropriate and intended to intimidate or, at the very least, affect you in your ruling on this matter.

What we do in this House certainly is watched by the nation. I would suggest that this article, which appears in public, affects the integrity of this entire House. Members of this House are certainly entitled to agree or disagree with the wisdom of your rulings, Mr. Speaker. If they do not like the way the Speaker rules or they do not like the way you are acting in your office, they have every right to voice objections. However, they should do so by way of a substantive motion in this House.

What members do not have the right to do, I suggest, is to make statements on these matters which are before the Chair for adjudication and, through these statements, attempt to influence the judgment before it has been rendered.

Mr. Speaker, influencing your rulings through the media is totally wrong. It really will not matter, I suggest, what your judgment is for these statements have now prejudiced whatever you do.

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary authorities are clear and unqualified on this point. Erskine May states on page 150 of the 19th Edition:

To attempt to influence Members in their conduct by threats is also a breach of privilege.

You, Mr. Speaker, are a member of this House. It also states on page 230:

Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as breaches of privilege. His action cannot be criticized incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except a substantive motion.

I also quote from citation 168 at page 49 of Beauchesne's:

Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object, not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also, to ensure that there is a general recognition of the Speaker's impartiality.

The material that is before you in this article touches upon your high office. It is not fair for you yourself to resolve this matter. I would suggest it is a matter that is best left for the judgment of the House itself.

While it might be argued that these statements were made outside the House and therefore should not fall under the purview or rubric of the question of privilege, I would suggest that it is clear from the precedents that this House has addressed such matters of contempt in the past.

Citation 78, page 21 of Beauchesne's again clearly speaks to this issue and it states the Speaker should be protected against reflections on his or her actions. Citations 71.2, 71.3 and 71.4 also provide direction on this point, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest it is therefore evident that this House has in the past considered media reports to be within the ambit of its jurisdiction. The statements attributed to the members of this House serve to undermine your authority by their very utterance.

They give the impression that the Speaker will give a judgment based on partisan consideration or that he will act out of fear or censorship from some members of this House.

The partisanship should not affect your rulings whatsoever. The speakership of the House is not to be brought into these partisan battles. In Beauchesne's again, as a point of reference, the essential ingredient of the speakership is to be found in the status of the speaker as a servant of the House. The presiding officer, while but a servant of the House, is entitled on all occasions to be treated with the greatest attention and respect by the individual members because the office embodies the power, dignity and honour of the House itself.

I repeat that duty upon this matter should be placed before the House. The reference for that, the Speaker should be protected against reflections on his or her actions at all times.

Your integrity has been brought into question and compromised by these statements. In matters such as this, I suggest it is up to the House to act. It would be inappropriate for you, Mr. Speaker, now to be put in the position of having to try to explain this situation or scold its members. This is not a matter for the Speaker. It is a matter for the House and it is incumbent upon us to defend you.

Until there is a denial of these statements or until there is an apology tendered to this House, to the Speaker, there is a cloud over your chair in this House. Therefore, I would ask that you find that there is a prima facie case of privilege before this House requiring immediate consideration and in that event, I am prepared to move the following motion:

That certain statements attributed to members of the House of Commons may bring into question the integrity of the House of Commons and its servant, the Speaker, those comments appearing at page 7 on the March 8, 1998 Ottawa Sun be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Health Care, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I take it that is a no.

Nova Scotia will continue to see federal health care funding go down over the next five years. That is the reality. Nova Scotia Conservative Leader John Hamm has called on Russell MacLellan to support a first ministers meeting on health care funding.

Last week the Prime Minister's solution to doctors who were asking for increased health care funding was to throw a $10 bill in the bucket. Is that the Prime Minister's answer to health care funding, throwing $10 at the doctors?

[Health Care, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last August provincial premiers asked the government to make health care funding its top priority. Instead the recent budget reflects that it has no priority. As a result, Premier Binns wrote to Premier MacLellan asking him to speak with all the premiers and territorial ministers about an immediate meeting with the Prime Minister on health care funding.

Will the Prime Minister meet with those ministers?

[Point Of Order, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I am afraid the impression that has been left with the House by the intervention of the House leader of the Reform Party is that we as a party are not willing or do not wish to sit tomorrow.

I would ask that you put the motion to the House for unanimous consent for us to sit tomorrow. We are ready, willing and able to be here tomorrow to sit in this Parliament. I would ask that the motion be put to the House.

[Point Of Order, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the passion and emotion that was in the last point of order, I do not want to dwell on this point.

We have been discussing, in the context of this last point of order, the House leaders and the integrity of the House leaders. On behalf of my party I take great exception to the reference that has been made to my personally misleading other House leaders at this meeting with respect to the national council meeting that will be taking place in Ottawa this weekend. This is a national council meeting that will involve over 500 people coming from all parts of the country to participate.

The point I would like to make is that this item was put on the agenda by the government House leader, not by the House leader of the Conservative Party. I would appreciate the support of the government House leader in this matter. I am surprised that he did not respond appropriately when he rose in response to the Leader of the Opposition.

The point to be made here is that this weekend we agreed unanimously at the House leaders' meeting that this Friday would not be deemed a sitting day of the House. However, in light of the allegation that has been made, I am ready on behalf of my party to suggest that we move a motion and sit tomorrow.

I would expect when the House leaders for the other parties, including the House leader of the official opposition, want to have their national council meetings that once again they would be prepared to put up or shut up.

This brings into question my integrity and the integrity of my party. This was a malicious, politically motivated point of order, and it is a new low.

[Points Of Order, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, over the course of this Parliament we are using a 35 second time limit for questions and answers. But as a result of prolonged applause or heckling at times, I am experiencing that members of our party and I suggest other members of the House are often cut off because they do not have time to get their questions out.

I am sure the Speaker is cognizant of this but I would ask your indulgence at times when a person does not have the ability to put the question forward.

[Points Of Order, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order concerns the arrangements for the debate this afternoon which will begin later on.

The standing orders of the House were drafted to accommodate three parties in this House. The electorate has of course sent five.

I am seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion to alter the arrangements for the putting of amendments and subamendments to the budget debate. This would have the effect of keeping the Reform amendment before the House until the final day of the budget debate.

It would also permit the Bloc Quebecois, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party to put subamendments to the House for a vote as well.

[Property Rights, February 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Motion No. 269 put forward by my colleague for Saskatoon—Humboldt. I indicate at the outset that we are in support of this motion for reasons I will outline.

Right away I state uncategorically that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has always supported the principles of individuals' unencumbered rights to own property. The best guarantors of prosperity and well-being of the people of Canada are found in the freedom of individuals to pursue their enlightened and legitimate self-interest within a competitive economy. That goes further to say that the freedom of individual Canadians to enjoy the fruits of their labour and to the greatest extent possible to have property lies within that right.

There is currently no provision in the charter of rights and freedoms that prevents the government from taking away a person's property, something that is owned rightfully by them. There is nothing there to restrict the government in any way from passing laws which prohibit the ownership, use and enjoyment or further the reduction of the value of property owned by an individual. That is very frightening thing to think that those violations could occur without the protection of our charter of rights and freedoms.

I want to highlight the fact that the provisions of the charter of rights and freedoms require that the government provide fair and timely compensation. That again is drawn into question without the entrenchment of property rights within our Constitution. Surely we do not want any restriction on the use and enjoyment of property or the government's ability to interfere with the value of a person's property.

It is trite and perhaps goes without saying that it is a fundamental human right to own and use property in the way which a person deems appropriate, with the stipulation that as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another.

Property rights are natural and fundamental and are based on hundreds of years of common law. One might suggest that common law in itself is sufficient protection. I disagree. For that reason among others it is necessary that we have these rights entrenched in our Constitution.

I suggest the government may have intentionally left property rights out of the Constitution in 1982 for fear that there would be some detriment to Canadians' democratic rights and economic freedoms. This motion is a step in the right direction. It is a step toward bringing about a change, a much needed and necessary change to our charter of rights and freedoms.

Presently the only legal protection that does exist in federal law rests in the Canadian Bill of Rights which was introduced by Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker. Section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights states specifically: “The right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and the enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law”.

Since the Canadian Bill of Rights is a federal statue which can be overridden by any other federal statue, mainly the charter, this protection is not enough. Why does this omission exist? Why is there an omission of property rights within our charter of rights and freedoms? It is a significant omission. Aside from the poor guarantee of the bill of rights, there is no requirement in Canadian constitutional law that compulsory taking of property can be effected by a fair procedure or that it can be accompanied by a fair compensation for the owner.

On that point I quote a well known professor of constitutional law, Professor Peter Hogg: “The omission of property rights from section 7 of the charter greatly reduces its scope. It means that section 7 affords no guarantee of compensation or even a fair procedure for the taking of property by government”.

This again is a frightening situation when it happens to any Canadian who rightfully owns property. As has been suggested throughout some of the remarks, an individual who may have inherited property that was passed down through generations, that a family has saved for and done without, is suddenly faced with this type of confiscation of property. There is a real need to ensure this does not happen.

If we did not have a Constitution the protection of property rights would then revert to what I spoke of earlier, the common law. But since we have a Constitution with entrenched rights within our country it only makes sense to broaden the net to include specifically the property rights of all Canadians.

Property rights are recognized from time immemorial in common law but with our Constitution in this country this omission is something that has to be remedied.

To not make sure the law protects property rights would leave it upon the courts to address this situation when it arises. Again, I suggest that it is incumbent upon this House and members of Parliament and this procedure to address this inequity.

Many other Canadians and I have waited long enough for this to happen. All members of the House appear for the most part to be in support of this. But what are the exact property rights that we are talking about? Property rights mean freedom from arbitrary interference by one's government. They mean a guarantee that one's rights will not be deprived, that one's property will not be taken away or restricted in any way by undue government interference.

It also sets out three very limited conditions where a government might infringe on that right in this piece of legislation. The taking of property must be for public use. There are instances that we are all familiar with where there may be an expropriation of property for a throughway, a pipeline, a power line or some legitimate use. In those cases there are easements available and the law can address it in that way.

Another instance where government might deprive an individual of a property right would be the taking of the property through due process of law, that is, a confiscation based on a bill that is owing, an outstanding debt that has to be addressed.

Third, the taking of property must be done with just and timely compensation. That is, an arbitrary seizure of property without compensation or done so in an unfair and arbitrary way would be outside the rule of law.

With respect to this issue 81% of Canadians consider either very or fairly important the right to include property rights in our charter of rights and freedoms, and 81% of Canadians are not wrong in this. The Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canada Real Estate Association as well as many other organizations support the inclusion of property rights within our Constitution.

Including property rights also follows the fine example of many other countries around the world. Some of those countries, the United States, Germany, Italy, Finland, have seen the need and have done so within their charters.

Property rights are an issue that transcend any partisan politics. They have widespread application and appeal and are something that all members of this House should consider very seriously before casting their vote against.

The following prominent Canadians have voted in favour in the past on property rights being included in our Constitution: John Diefenbaker, Lester B. Pearson, Paul Martin Sr., Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Brian Mulroney and many others.

Again I would suggest there is a tradition to be followed. There is an opportunity now for this House to put these rights in place to ensure that inequities as they arise from ownership of property are going to be addressed and addressed in the proper forum, which is this House. For these reasons and many others, I support this motion as do the members of my party. I encourage all members of this House to do the same.