Peter MacKay

[Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect, or FAS and FAE, are lifelong mental and physical defects that can occur in individuals whose mothers consume large amounts of alcohol during pregnancy.

FAS victims are physically and mentally challenged, as their brains fail to develop. They often suffer from facial distortions, a short attention span and hyperactivity as well as spinal and internal organ abnormalities.

The effects of alcohol damage are not as apparent in the physical appearance and mental capacity of FAE victims, but the damage is apparent in their substantially lower capacity to engage in life skills.

No one can predict the frequency or severity of FAS and FAE in babies born to pregnant mothers who drink, yet one thing is certain. If expectant mothers can refrain from drinking alcohol and their partners are supportive by also choosing to abstain, society can prevent the needless and permanent victimization of children due to the tragic indiscretions of their parents.

Education, treatment and research are the answer. We urge the government to engage and act now.

[March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask the Chair to seek unanimous consent, given the grave and extremely urgent implications of information that is now in the public sphere, that the Prime Minister be asked to appear before the House of Commons to make a public statement answering to the allegations that are before the public.

[Privilege, March 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, much of what has been said clearly indicates that there are now more facts to be examined because of what has taken place here.

The government House leader has characterized the apology that was given as clear and unequivocal. I was in the House and I would characterize it quite differently. I would characterize it as quite qualified and carefully crafted.

Subsequent to that the minister then literally sprinted out of the House while there was an attempt made by the opposition House leader to have her table documents to which she had referred. The minister herself has opened a whole new facet of the particular issue.

I took her qualified apology to in fact bring in new evidence that suggested she was relying on a letter that came from the mayor of Prince George. That now appears to be totally and utterly false. She did not address that issue in her apology.

I suggest there is a need in an unemotional and straightforward way to examine all of the facts that have transpired. It is very simple and easy to do that. We can check Hansard to see what was said.

The minister should in fairness be given an opportunity to speak to the issue and have an opportunity perhaps to set the record straight again, if necessary. There are a number of very specious, false and very damaging statements when it comes to the people of Prince George that are now out there for them to try to contend with. The minister herself has to be part of this equation.

I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to take the matter seriously, review the record and give the minister an opportunity to reply.

[Ethics Counsellor, March 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister could obviously waive that. Here is another pebble for the Prime Minister's princely feet.

In the much celebrated Paquette letter, the mother of all letters, the Prime Minister's pardon contains false information. It refers to a date on the calendar that does not even exist.

The devil is in the detail. If there is to be any credibility or closure on this issue, will the Prime Minister tell the House if any of his associates, his lawyer Debbie Weinstein or a member of her firm, ever owned or controlled the shares in the Grand-Mère prior to 1999?

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on his remarks. He brings a usual calm, deliberate approach to the debate. He has made a number of graphic illustrations on how things have gone on a dysfunctional track in many instances.

My question to the hon. member is about debate in the House in terms of how we might improve the way we interact with one another. We have had a number of occasions where we have looked to the Speaker to be more interventionist and to act a bit more like a referee if rules are being flouted, if closure is being invoked too soon, or if omnibus legislation is deemed to be improper. We have seen the theatre of the absurd in question period with members of the government not answering questions.

When somebody is asked a direct question, particularly in debate where members tend to interact on a more one to one basis, sometimes the question is asked for partisan reasons but there is a point behind it. The question is asked to illustrate something that is perhaps difficult to reconcile, given the circumstances. Does the hon. member favour having the Speaker try to keep members more on topic and force them to be more relevant in the way in which we interact in the Chamber?

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on his remarks. I know he has been very active in the debate and follows it with a great deal of interest and sincerity.

My question to him is with respect to private members' business. He spoke of a system where members might be free to remove certain bills. Would he also like to see a system where members might be free to exchange bills between one another if the occasion arose?

Something that has been broadly discussed throughout the evening is having all private member's bills deemed votable so that there would be an expression of the entire House when the bills came before us. This would attach some particular significance to bills. Would the hon. member comment on that?

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. I know he brings an extraordinary ability to identify important humanitarian non-partisan issues. I have great respect for the work he does in this place.

I have a question along the same lines as the member from Edmonton. I know this particular member has participated in recent hearings on the impartiality of commissioners and individuals who are to serve the House and serve the Canadian public with an arm's length relationship.

Should we be looking at how the financial strings which are attached to cabinet might influence its decisions? What I am referring to is protection for the officers like the auditor general, the privacy commissioner and the ethics counsellor. Should we be looking in some way to distance the resources that are made available to them through the treasury board and cabinet? Maybe we should be tying it more to parliament.

While we are on the subject, should we not have an independent, arm's length ethics counsellor to report directly to parliament? I know the member has followed this issue. Would it not increase public understanding and public—

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in the chair. I know that parliamentary reform is something that is very much on your mind and on the minds of many members here tonight. Throughout the coming days and weeks I am hoping that we can keep this spirit alive.

Many members have engaged in the debate throughout the past number of hours. I commend the hon. member from Edmonton who has a long career ahead of him as a parliamentarian and has shown a great many insights already that will serve us well.

I would like to put a question to the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth. As he has pointed out, he is a long serving member and he has expressed very eloquently a frustration that many members feel from all corners and all parties. He has focused in on one of the key problems that we are wrestling with and finding some difficulty in articulating, the bureaucratic influence that exists.

It appears that the levers of powers given to elected representatives have somehow been stripped away, watered down or diminished. A simple example the member used was of a member being able to access information on behalf of a constituent. It would normally take weeks or months to get a response. We would normally punch in a telephone number of one department only to be sent off to another department or to another province. We may have called our local office only to get another city in another province. He knows the problem. He has encountered it as have many of the members here.

How do we change this institutionalized attitude that appears to exist? It is a non-partisan issue because it has evolved, as have a lot of the problems, but how do we change the mindset or the attitude that seems to exist within the bureaucracy? Should we limit terms for members and senior civil servants? Is there a way we can police the bureaucracy more effectively?

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, by all means, information should be available. I will undertake to find out what happened in that instance since it was the Progressive Conservative government of the day that put the policy in place. I will do my best to get back to the hon. member as quickly as possible.

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will not be able to respond off the cuff. I will certainly look into the matter and try to find an answer for the hon. member. He deserves an answer.

Often policy decisions are made by incoming governments. I am not saying that is what happened here, but we all know the position that was taken on the issue, for example, of free trade by the current government with respect to the efforts of the Mulroney administration to bring that policy forward.