Peter MacKay

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the question and the opportunity to respond. I fully agree that first and foremost it sends the wrong signal that it is again the House leaders who are meeting in private to perhaps have these deliberations and discussions.

As a precursor to that, we are getting an opportunity to hear from all members. I appreciate what he said about the importance of private members' business. I fully agree that private members' hour should also be subject to questions and comments. If we have to expand that time to two hours, we should make greater use of unanimous consent to do so on occasion. We should make greater use of the opportunity, when a member comes forward with an idea, to engage other members to find out, as he has said, if the idea should go further.

Surely if a person has the inner fortitude, and has taken the time to draft a bill or motion and put it forward for selection and deliberation, they should be able to stand on their hind legs and defend it. I have no difficulty with that suggestion whatsoever.

I hope the matter of private members' bills will be an area of deliberation in the committee that will get a very broad shrift and thorough examination as to how we can improve it, how we can engage more members and how we can bring more subject matter forward. I disagree that there should be any delineation of property over good ideas. If we can expand the ability of members to put ideas forward then we should do everything in our power to do so.

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

The hon. member says encouraged and I agree with that.

When we talk about free votes and, the suggestion many have put forward, of having all private members' business made votable, these could be achieved by releasing some of the whipping tactics that are brought to bear on members by party whips. The government could also abandon its practice of putting confidence votes behind issues that really do not have to be confidence votes. Members should be allowed freer expression on issues that carry particularly moral implications for not only those members but for their constituents.

If we are to empower members to have the ability to command this respect, we have to give them actual practical access to those levers. If we are to energize and invigorate parliament, we have to take practical steps in that direction. I would suggest that there will be a number of very positive and innovative suggestions that will come forward not only in this debate but in the committee as well.

I will talk very briefly about the committee itself. There is some scepticism because it is comprised strictly of House officers in this instance and it will soon become known as the Kilger committee. Mr. Speaker, you will be presiding over it. We are to encourage the ideas, the House leader has expressed that spirit, and the inclusion of members in this process. The committee, I would suggest, if it is to have legitimacy, should be a reflection of all members and all parties.

The idea of wiring this place would allow greater public access. House records that should be in the public forum would certainly be more available if they were on the Internet at all times. We should be wiring to the max.

Another clear example would be the ability to have Debates and committee proceedings made more readily available. The technology is there. It is a costly exercise but it is one that would bear fruit long into the future. We are slipping behind in the area of technology and the use that we make of it in parliament. We should be a shining example for other countries and other companies that are doing great things. We could learn from the technological advances that are being made in our country and in Silicon Valley not far from here. We have businesses that are competing in the highest leagues of the world and we should be engaging them to help us to make greater use of technology.

I have some specific recommendations I want to put on record. I know we will have a chance in committee to delve into them in more detail. One recommendation would be that we abolish the limit of four written questions per member. We should be allowed a greater number of questions on the order paper.

Another recommendation would be to put time limits back in place for the government to respond to those questions. It should be required to respond within a relatively short time, 15 or 30 days. It should not be the prolonged, dragged out affair that we have seen this exercise slide into.

The Speaker himself, as indicated earlier, should be given more powers on occasion to refuse closure motions or time allocation. The Speaker should also have the ability to ensure that the minority rights of members of parliament are being protected.

I agree with the comments made earlier that the Deputy Speaker should be elected by all members of the House of Commons, as should, on many occasions, chairmen of committees. Perhaps we should not elect all chairmen, but it is an exercise we could enter into gradually. Having chairmen elected would be a greater reflection of the neutrality and the non-partisanship of the committee, which is very much the spirit that should exist in the committee, away from the carnival atmosphere that we have seen question period become.

Another issue that I fully believe has to be explored is the issue of a code of conduct for members of parliament. It is a broad issue in and of itself, but if we are to expect a high standard, there are occasions where we will have to call to task bad behaviour and, in some instances, to have some teeth to punish. For example, if a member is suspended, and it is a rare occasion that it happens, their salary should be suspended to show that there is some discipline and some deterrent for bad behaviour.

There are many other examples that would enhance the credibility of parliamentarians. We should have an ethics committee. If we are to have an ethics counsellor, we should have a sitting committee with an elected chair that would examine breaches of a code of conduct.

With respect to officers of the House, who are there to serve all parliamentarians and to act on behalf of Canadians, such as the auditor general, the privacy commissioner, the information commissioner, the language commissioner, the ethics counsellor, they should all have a permanent status as witnesses on committees. They should be automatically commanded to appear before committees to give testimony on their important findings and deliberations.

With respect to witnesses on committees, we should consider having all witnesses give sworn testimony or affirm when they come before a committee. This would add greater relevancy and greater importance. It would stress the need for honesty, openness and integrity when witnesses come before a committee, not unlike what we see in the courts across the country.

Perhaps there are occasions when we should look at expanding the hours in which we sit. It was not uncommon in days gone by that the House of Commons would sit late into the night. We have done so in emergency situations. When we have crises in agriculture such as the ongoing potato wart epidemic in Prince Edward Island, as small as it is in terms of the actual epidemic but in terms of the ramifications which are causing such problems for those farmers, we should be able to sit late into the night if necessary to deliberate and talk about solutions.

There are many ways that we can improve upon the framework that parliament has embraced and come to practise in its important deliberations. We have to improve upon the framework that is there and build upon the foundation that has been laid down. We can do so in a non-partisan way.

The spirit exists and the time is right. I look forward to participating in the committee work. I will do my best on behalf of the members of my party and all members to bring original and honest ideas to this process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say it is an intimidating task to follow the right hon. member for Calgary Centre. The tone he has set, his wisdom and the wisdom of other members that have been brought forward is very encouraging, particularly the commentary with respect to the recognition that all previous parliaments must shoulder the blame and responsibility for where we are today. Both good and bad changes have come about as part of the evolution of parliament. That is natural. We are a parliament that was borne out of the Westminster model. We have much that we can learn from the evolution that has occurred there, as well as in other models.

We all know that cynicism exists in some sectors, particularly among Canadians generally but also among many members of parliament, about the legitimacy of this exercise. As a committee, of which I will be a member, we will have to be mindful of that cynicism and produce good results.

We are off to a good start in terms of this debate. I congratulate the hon. House leader for the governing party for initiating this, for giving us this opportunity and for indicating that there could be more. That may very well come to pass.

This is a very important time because Canadians have begun to question not only the effectiveness of parliament but its relevance as well. It is a very serious condemnation of what we are here to do, which is to represent Canadians.

At the outset I want to indicate and put a caveat on some of the ideas that I will be putting before the House. When we go into this committee, it is to be understood that we are to improve upon, to hear from one another and to modify ideas that may be brought to the forefront.

Canada is struggling with this process of modernization, or reform. We are looking for ways to engage Canadians. One way we can do that, and one part and parcel step in the right direction, is to modernize parliament in terms of our use of technology. The hon. member for Winnipeg South has a great interest in this issue.

The hon. member for Calgary Centre referred to the filing of petitions through e-mail as a way in which we could engage Canadians in a full and open fashion.

Electronic records of the House should contain hyperlinks to those documents cited that are electronically available. We should try to increase this access if we are to engage Canadians and inform them about the important work that is done by their parliament. This would also help improve accountability. Canadians would be informed and they could observe and critique, in an open fashion, the workings of parliament. Surely this would improve upon the relevancy, upon their perception and upon the real importance that is placed on the work that is done.

There are some who think that parliamentarians themselves are losing their ability to be instruments of change. I do not believe that. I still believe in my heart of hearts that the originality and innovation that individuals could bring to parliament in their efforts and attempts to represent their constituents in an effective way can be enhanced and rewarding.

We have seen occasions where individual members have done yeoman service, in terms of bringing forward a private member's bill, and speaking out on occasion on an issue that may put them offside with their government or within their own parties, and it becomes a huge issue of consternation. Other members have spoken to the issue of how bad behaviour is sometimes put under the spotlight and, therefore, there is perhaps too much emphasis put on dissent. Of all the things that happen in the House of Commons, dissent should not be something that is foreign or necessarily frowned upon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member, the House leader for the New Democratic Party. He always brings much logic and common sense to the debate. He is a long serving member of the House. That is not to infer he is long in the tooth. He is well respected by all who know him.

My question to the hon. member is with respect to the devolution, if you will, of some powers, even to the Speaker on occasion. I specifically refer to instances where omnibus bills are put before the House of Commons, where legislation is mixed and mashed together in an incoherent fashion, where members of the opposition most times—and this is equally applicable to members of the backbench—are forced to vote against a bill they are predominantly in favour of or, similarly, to vote for something they cannot reconcile.

Would it be fair to suggest that there are occasions when the Speaker might be empowered to intervene and to divide omnibus bills? Similarly, are there occasions when the Speaker might also be empowered to have greater discretion to turn down the use of closure or time allocation where it is not properly being exercised by the government, or to at least to call for a debate where the government should be called upon to justify the use of time allocation or the use of closure? I wonder if the hon. member would have comments on those suggestions.

[Privilege, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the point that has been raised by the hon. House leader for the official opposition. I have also listened to the input of other members.

I was present at the committee. As the chair of the committee has indicated, it was just before I was to commence my line of questioning that I noticed Mr. Wilson conferring with someone I presumed to be a staff person, and then pre-empting the committee by the statement. I can verify that it was along the lines, as the chair of the committee said, that he did not mean to be dramatic or overly dramatic, and then he proceeded to divulge the contents or the gist of the letter.

It is important to note that as indicated previously there were two distinct points in time in which members of the committee were permitted to ask questions on a certain subject matter, namely the Grand-Mère file. That was limited by the chair of the committee and it was directly related to the Shawinigan-Grand-Mère file to which this letter pertained.

Most of the main questioners on the particular subject matter had left by the time the letter was divulged. If they were present or if members of the committee generally wanted to question the witness at that time about the letter, I strongly suggest that we would not have been permitted to in any event, given the parameters that were placed on the committee by the chair. The timing is highly suspect.

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

Where did the GST problems go?

[Blood Samples Act, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I begin my remarks by commending the hon. member for Fraser Valley for bringing the issue forward and for pursuing it with great vigour and sincerity. By virtue of his remarks and the wisdom behind the particular legislative initiative, it is quite clear.

Bill C-217, referred to as the blood samples act, is for with a very practical purpose. It is for the taking of blood samples for the benefit of persons administering or enforcing the law and good Samaritans. There is a need to protect those individuals and it clearly encourages selfless acts of courage. It is clearly there to safeguard persons who quite often because of their profession or because of their own good will find themselves in harm's way.

Police, firefighters, ambulance attendants, nurses and many other professionals are clearly those who are most vulnerable and most affected by the ill that can come from being subjected to a potentially deadly or lifelong disease, if they find themselves in that circumstance. However, it also goes further than that.

It would also affect and encourage good Samaritans and individuals who find themselves in a situation where they may be called upon to aid someone who has a heart attack, for example, or is drowning. It encourages these selfless acts of courage that many in other professions, like police, routinely perform or routinely find themselves facing.

When an individual comes in contact with another individual's bodily fluids, whether it be by accident or by deliberate contamination, their professional duties, their emergency skills and first aid response is often required. It is demanded of them. It makes good sense to me, and I think to members present, that they should be afforded some protection. Where they are required to act, should we not do everything we can to enhance their safety? The bill goes a long way to achieve that.

There are many people in the constituency of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who routinely put themselves in harm's way. I take this opportunity to thank them and tell them that members in this Chamber fully appreciate what they do. We owe a debt of gratitude to all those who perform these acts daily and routinely around the country.

I have already mentioned the broad nature of the bill, where it refers to good Samaritans who might be performing CPR in circumstances where an individual is afflicted by a sudden illness in a public place. The legislation is there to enhance the protection of those who put their own safety second, when trying to administer help to another.

I know there are doctors present who probably have faced that situation on numerous occasions. Police officers, ambulance attendance and others very often have to get a blood sample from an individual who is receiving some kind of emergency service. In the performance of their professional duty, they can get stuck by a needle or they might, by virtue of having a wound themselves, receive a transfer of some deadly disease.

They are very much in a high risk category, just by virtue of their job description, and they may then face the serious prospect of not knowing whether they have in fact been infected by a communicable disease. Intravenous drug users quite frequently are carriers of HIV. They are carriers of hepatitis.

Anyone who might come into contact with this faces a lifelong illness or death. The consequences could not be more grave, which puts greater emphasis on the importance of the bill before us. A high risk person is well within their rights to refuse to give a sample of their blood. On many occasions, as we have seen in the example that the hon. member from Fraser Valley illustrated, individuals currently have the right to refuse to give a sample of their blood.

Blood can be analyzed for communicable diseases. HIV and hepatitis are two that have been referred to. The analysis is to establish a course of treatment for that individual who may have been exposed, that good Samaritan or police officer. This is a basic right that any person would want. Even if the news is horrible, they would want to know rather than be inflicted with this lengthy period of waiting before knowing whether the illness has in fact been transferred.

Without consent, the victim can undergo a series of chemical cocktails within the first six hours of the incident in an attempt to stop it. We know that sometimes the side affects of the treatment are horrific as well. Even with this treatment, this emergency effort to prevent the spread of disease, they may have to wait for years. There are powerful drugs that can produce these terrible side effects, but there are powerful drugs now, at the very least, that can give an individual a chance to fend off this transfer of illness. However, there is still very much an element of a gamble that is involved.

In January 2001, a Calgary police officer was bitten by an HIV positive suspect during an arrest for hit and run. The suspect proclaimed “Welcome to the world of AIDS”. This veteran police office is married and will now have to undergo a year of painful tests, taking the AZT cocktail, which makes a person violently ill and physically weak for months at a time, to ensure that he did not contract this virus. An incredible, debilitating experience, both physically and mentally, for the officer and his family.

There are hundreds of examples that also illustrate this point. An individual rightly has concerns, as do many good Samaritans across the country.

I will give another example. Colonel L.R. Johns, a commandant and CEO of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires in Nova Scotia, has expressed his concern on behalf of individuals in the private sector industry, who are often working in hospitals, in situations where they are called upon to act for the betterment of others and are in harm's way.

Many people have expressed support for this legislation, including many police officers from the Canadian Police Association, who have gathered here in Ottawa today to make their point on this and other important bills, and the following people from the province of Nova Scotia: Kevin Scott, Gary Thibadeau, Brian MacDougall and Bruce from Kentville.

Those officers and others are here to make the important point that there is a duty upon parliamentarians to listen, to be informed and to change legislation, where possible, for the betterment of all Canadians.

A person who has blood taken from them, their rights are already protected to a large extent. Police officers must obtain warrants and they must go before a justice before a blood sample can be taken. In most instances there are exceptions.

Blood is taken by qualified medical practitioners in most instances where it involves an accident. Blood cannot be analyzed for anything other than the purpose specified in the warrant, which is punishable on summary conviction. This is not just a guideline. There are sufficient safeguards there.

Technology is advancing in the methodology in which blood, DNA, hair and other types of samples can be extracted. This is very much a humanitarian idea. It goes beyond partisanship. It goes very much to the heart of helping individuals who, but for the grace of God, could very much find themselves in this situation: professionals, good Samaritans, or anyone.

The bill protects Samaritans and professionals. It is something that may very well be tested by the courts. This is why the suggestion that it be examined at a committee is certainly another way to safeguard the charter protections that currently exist to vet any problems that may exist from a legal basis.

It is important to note that there are some deterrent effects. Some enforcement provisions are already built into the bill that could be examined in further detail at committee. For example:

No qualified medical practitioner or qualified technician is guilty of an offence only by reason of a refusal to take a blood sample from a person for the purposes of this Act.

There is no criminal or civil liability for anything necessarily done with reasonable care and skill in the taking of such blood samples. That has been contemplated in the legislation. It is fair to say that judges would exercise discretion on the merit of the individual case as to whether or not it was appropriate. All of this is done with the reasonable test to be applied.

Bill C-217 is an important bill that has received the support of many groups which have been listed already, many groups who I know are most susceptible. I hope the government is listening because we are often left wondering.

Bill C-217 has been carefully drafted so as not to go too far afield into breaching a person's human rights. Current sections of the criminal code would also apply to compel those who would use the particular section not to go outside a person's human rights. There are current sections that apply to impaired driving, sexual assault and the new DNA databank that would come under similar scrutiny in the judicial chambers.

It is an important step toward protection and enhancement of safety for everyone. I again commend the hon. member for Fraser Valley for this initiative. It is a tremendous, common sense initiative, one that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada wholeheartedly endorses and I would encourage all members to do likewise.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I commend the right hon. member for his remarks. I also commend the member opposite, the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, who has a great personal interest in the issue and has taken initiatives that have furthered the cause of those in crisis in agriculture.

My question for the right hon. member focuses on remarks he made about priorities. I would also put to him that this is an issue of leadership. With respect to the department of agriculture, I have a quote from one of the Liberal members from Prince Edward Island. An article that was in the Guardian newspaper quotes the hon. member for Malpeque as saying:

The underlying problem from the start has been that the very department (Ag Canada) supposed to be working in the interest of the farmers has been the greatest obstacle.

He goes on to say:

—but to be honest, it's virtually useless talking to Ag Canada—

That was a quote from a Liberal member.

The situation in Prince Edward Island is outside the normal circumstances of federal-provincial problems. The P.E.I. industry has made large sacrifices to protect the rest of Canada and there is no certainty that the U.S. border will even be open for the remainder of the year.

I wonder if the right hon. member could focus a little bit on that situation, on the lack of leadership shown there, and on the fact that the federal government has come up with less than half of what P.E.I. potato farmers were looking for to address their problem.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, to speak very briefly in support of the submission put forward by my learned friend the House leader for the official opposition, this matter when viewed in the whole does not order the government to do something. It calls upon the government to exercise its discretion and increase spending with respect to farming.

The Speaker has always held, as set out in both Beauchesne's and Marleau and Montpetit, that broad discretion should be used when interpreting these types of motions. It would be unduly unfair for this motion to be ruled out of order.

I suggest that it is very much an attempt by the government House leader to eat into the debate time. This can be interpreted as not only an insult to the official opposition and members of the opposition who support this, but also a swipe at farmers who are very much in need and very much interested in seeing their issue aired in a public way in this House.

I suggest that the submissions of the government House leader do not rule this motion out of order, that we should get on with the debate so we can talk about the real issue today, and that is how the government is underfunding farmers in this country.

[Request For Emergency Debate, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I contacted your office this morning. I wanted to bring this matter forward in a timely fashion because there is a great urgency.

Farmers in Prince Edward Island are currently facing a very devastating decision. They must decide within the next few weeks whether to plant their potato crops given the situation that exists in terms of the market that would be there for them in the United States.

It is important, as you, Mr. Speaker, would be quick to agree, that members of parliament be given the opportunity to express their concern and also to urge the government to act in a significant way. We know that there has been a compensation package offered to Prince Edward Island potato farmers in the range of $14.1 million. This was less than half of the amount of money that the Prince Edward Island government has put into this issue already itself. It was much lower than the amount that they were requesting.

I will put this situation into perspective as to the seriousness of the issue itself. Canada and Prince Edward Island agree that approximately 6.3 million cwt. of potatoes in storage currently is surplus resulting from the closed U.S. border, restricted shipments to Canada and the price protection in the rest of Canada. What Prince Edward Island did in absorbing this loss was to protect the rest of the potato market for the entire country at a huge expense to those individual farmers.

To summarize, United States protectionism is devastating the Prince Edward Island potato industry. The hurt that was suffered by the island is testament to the fact that this problem is Canada-wide, but it is being absorbed by a single province in this instance. Both short term economic and long term financial market re-entry needs must be addressed in the package.

I would urge the Chair to accept this application given the urgency, particularly the urgency pertaining to the necessity for farmers to decide whether to reinvest in their farms and to put potatoes in the ground for the coming season. I stress again that the border is currently not open for farmers to assess whether they should make this reinvestment.