Peter MacKay

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the failure of the government to respond to Question No. 21 which was tabled in the House on October 2, 1997, seven months ago. I have regularly asked the government when it would reply.

The parliamentary secretary has constantly been vague, verging on stonewalling when asked questions about a response to this inquiry. The question concerns visits of ministers to the Drummondville-Trois Rivieres vicinity during a time that we now know—it has been confirmed—a Liberal fundraiser was engaged in criminal activity.

We keep hearing the words “timely fashion” and “in due course”. There is every reason to believe that ministers of the crown were used as props in these nefarious activities. I invite the parliamentary secretary to outline for the House what actions he has taken during the time period when we have been repeatedly asking for this very basic straightforward information.

I want to know if the parliamentary secretary is refusing to come clean on this or if we will actually get some answers. There has been an admission of criminal involvement in this matter. We want a response and we want one soon.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last fall the Conservative Party revealed a potential case of influence peddling within a ministerial office of the Government of Canada.

At that time the President of the Treasury Board denied that his office had any connection to the illegal activities going on. At that time it was still under investigation.

Today in a Montreal courtroom it was confirmed that Liberal Party worker and fundraiser Pierre Corbeil pleaded guilty to charges of influence peddling.

Can the minister repeat to the House today that no one in his office had any connection with the illegal activities of Pierre Corbeil?

[Organized Crime, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, lots of consultation, lots of talk, no action. In its annual report on the international drug trade the United States state department singled out Canada as “an easy target for drug related crime and money laundering”. It lists Canada alongside Columbia as a great place to hide illegal cash.

Will the solicitor general introduce legislation to give police the tools they need to fight organized crime? Will he do so before the conclusion of the sitting in June?

[Organized Crime, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to organized crime, Canada's top cop is all talk and no action. Last November the solicitor general promised to introduce legislation to give police power to act on illegal financial activity. Recently he promised to bring bikers to their knees and eradicate organized crime once and for all. These are bold words. Six months later Canadians are still waiting. When will the tough talking minister live up to the rhetoric and introduce much needed anti-organized crime legislation?

[Police And Peace Officer National Memorial Day, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very encouraged by the remarks and words of support that have come from all present here today. I know as well, Mr. Speaker, that you have been very supportive of the police in your community. Again, I think this is a time and a place for us, as a House, to express our support for those in the law enforcement community.

The hon. member opposite, the Liberal secretary for the Minister of Health, spoke of crime and crime prevention as being a major priority for his government. I can certainly advise that it is a priority for all here in Parliament and in fact all Canadians.

The hon. member did take the opportunity today to talk about the government's moves toward combating this most serious problem of crime in Canada, the DNA data bank legislation still before the House which we are hopeful will include the ability of the police to taking samplings at the time of charge to ensure they have the opportunity to use this important technology in crime prevention.

The member also spoke of the anti-gang legislation and changes to the Young Offenders Act. Quite frankly, those are certainly legislative moves we support but we are yet to see and yet to have the opportunity to vote on the floor of the House to bring about the necessary changes.

We have also heard mention of ill conceived gun registry. Unfortunately I can state uncategorically we do not believe this is going to help the legal community or Canadians, nor is the continuation of section 745, as alluded to by the hon. member for Surrey North.

I reiterate the importance of an opportunity for us to rise above the fray and be unified in our support of day that would recognize those in the law enforcement community, the men and women who are daily out there on the streets willing to put their actions forward for the protection of all; not to talk about it in the way the government talks about what it will do, but these men and women are out there daily putting forward their actions, not their words, toward this cause.

I am disappointed and saddened by the position taken by the Liberal members opposite. Many of these individuals should go home to their communities and consult with police officers, look them in the eye and tell them why they were not prepared to do more than just talk about it in the House but allow this motion to be votable which would then bind them to make this happen.

This is not a vote of confidence. This is not something like they are going to face on Tuesday where the Prime Minister has decided to make this a vote of confidence. This is an opportunity for a non-partisan commitment, a commitment that everybody in the House should be quick to embrace.

In the name of conscience, good will and patience I ask members present to give unanimous consent for this motion to be made votable. I ask members to check their conscience and if they are not willing to do so they should go home to their constituents and to the police community and hang their heads in shame. This is an opportunity for us to do something right for all Canadians.

[Police And Peace Officer National Memorial Day, April 24th, 1998]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the last Sunday of September should be formally recognized from this year forth as “The Police and Peace Officer National Memorial Day” to honour the memory of those officers killed in the line of duty.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and pleased to rise in the House today in support of Motion No. 342, a motion I introduced some two months ago.

As a quick recap for members present, Motion No. 342 states that in the opinion of this House, the last Sunday of September should be formally recognized from this year forth as the police and peace officer national memorial day to honour the memory of those officers killed in the line of duty.

I would like to thank the Canadian Police Association for bringing the lack of formal recognition for the memorial to my attention. As always the CPA has been a strong voice on behalf of the police officers in the street. In particular Scott Newark has assisted me in my efforts in bringing this motion forward.

In September of last year one of my first public engagements as the Progressive Conservative justice and solicitor general critic was to attend the 20th annual memorial service for police and peace officers on Parliament Hill. It was a very moving event in which thousands of people, law enforcement officers from all parts of Canada, the United States, their families and friends, participated. They gathered not only to honour the memory of their comrades or loved ones, but also to remind all Canadians of the law enforcement community's dedication to public safety, a dedication for which men and women have been willing time and time again to pay the ultimate sacrifice.

From my own perspective, it allowed me to pay personal tribute to the many police officers I had worked with during my time as a crown attorney. Their commitment and contribution to public safety and community on the front lines helped me to do my job in a more satisfactory and professional way in the courtroom.

The national memorial service for police and peace officers is a story of how a single incident can provoke something of a much grander scale.

On this day 21 years ago there was not any memorial service for law enforcement officers in Canada who had lost their lives in the line of duty. That situation changed one tragic summer night in 1977. A 21-year old rookie officer with the Ottawa-Carleton police by the name of David Kirkwood paid a professional visit to 710 Gladstone Avenue, about a 20-minute walk from Parliament Hill.

The young constable with only four months service on the force went with two other officers to serve Frederick Koepke, himself only 22 years old but with severe emotional and psychiatric problems, with two warrants for assault causing bodily harm. The three officers were met at the door with gunfire and a stand-off ensued.

While awaiting reinforcements, David Kirkwood was assigned to cover the rear of the residence where, upon attending that position, he was shot at point blank range. He died instantly on July 11, 1977 leaving behind a pregnant widow and a police force fraught with grief and sorrow. A veteran constable who served with David Kirkwood described the loss of the young officer as a death in the family.

The members of the Ottawa Police Association wanted to do more than grieve, they wanted to send a clear message to the entire country. On September 24, 1978 David Kirkwood's comrades held a service on Parliament Hill to honour his memory and remind elected officials that peace officers continue to be killed in the streets daily in the name of public safety.

The 1978 ceremony began with a two-gun salute fired by members of the 30th Field Regiment of the Royal Canadian Artillery. After the salute, one brass shell case was saved and mounted on a commemorative plaque. This plaque contained a simple yet powerful inscription: To fallen comrades, Parliament Hill, September 24, 1978.

Although Ottawa police officers continued to hold the ceremony subsequent to that year, the number of participants increased in size and scope. This memorial began to take on a more national focus.

The ceremony's evolution through the past two decades was incremental. At the 1984 service a memorial book of remembrance for police officers and correctional officers killed while on duty was unveiled by the Office of the Solicitor General and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. In 1994 the Prime Minister joined with more than 700 police officers and relatives of slain officers at the site just behind these parliament buildings as the Canadian Police Association and the CACP dedicated the new Canadian police memorial pavilion.

That granite stone at the base of the pavilion contains the names of more than 200 officers killed in the line of duty since 1879. Two other stones were also erected, one for peace officers who died in the line of duty and the other explaining the pavilion's history. In 1995 the memorial honour roll was expanded to include the names of slain officers from other Canadian law enforcement agencies such as customs and excise, natural resources and fisheries and oceans.

I am proud to say that my father in his last ministerial portfolio of public works played a key role in realizing the site in the early 1990s. In fact there is a photo in my office showing my father speaking at the ground breaking ceremony.

Recently I have been advised that construction near the site has jeopardized the integrity of this pavilion. It is certainly hoped that great care will be taken.

In expanding the memorial to include peace officers the event's organizers cited the basic principle behind the annual ceremony: to pay tribute to those who have sworn an oath to protect the lives of others.

The Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police established three criteria to establish the names of those who should be listed in the memorial book and on the stone.

The deceased must have been a sworn police or peace officer and death must have occurred as a result of a traumatic event influenced by an external agent. The deceased must have been on duty at the time of death, or if off duty, acting in their capacity as a police or peace officer, or the death must have been brought about because of the victim's official status. Lastly, the deceased must have acted in good faith in doing all that was expected, while bearing in mind the incident, the rights of those involved and the safety of all concerned.

The names of the more than 200 Canadians displayed on this memorial, all of whom have met these extraordinary benchmarks, distinguishes the highest act of sacrifice and selflessness. So long as we add more names each year to this memorial, Canadians and their elected representatives will be challenged to do more, to strive to bring about better policy and legislation in the hope of ensuring that fewer names will be added to this gallant but tragic list.

It is most certainly time for parliamentarians to take the next step in the evolution of this memorial and to grant formal recognition to this very special occasion.

By passing Motion No. 342 parliament can send a strong message of respect and gratitude to our law enforcement officials who have made the alternate sacrifice for public safety. It would also express our collective solidarity with the families and friends who have lost loved ones, along with those men and women in the law enforcement profession who put their lives at risk each and every day.

Let us rise above the usual political fray that exists in this place and pay tribute to one of society's most demanding and important vocations. Let us accord the respect that many law enforcement officials presently feel that perhaps they do not receive from their elected officials.

Although the procedure and House affairs committee opted not to classify Motion No. 342 as votable, I would ask that all hon. members give unanimous consent to allow the motion to be voted upon in the House.

I would like to quote from a passage of the Bible which was read at last September's memorial service. It is taken from chapter 3, verses 1 to 6 of the Book of Wisdom:

But the soles of the righteous are in the hands of God, and no torment will even touch them.

In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died and their departure was thought to be an affliction and their going from us to be their destruction but they are at peace.

For though in the sight of men they were punished, their hope is full of immortality.

Having been disciplined a little, they will receive great good

Because God tested them and found them worthy of himself; like gold in the furnace he tried them, and like a sacrificial burnt offering he accepted them.

Sombre but telling words. I hope all members of the House will support this motion and as requested, make this motion a votable item.

[Court Challenges Program, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Reform Motion No. 327. The motion, as has been stated, already calls for the government to withdraw all funding for the federal Court Challenges Program, the program presently administered out of Winnipeg.

It was mentioned by the member proposing the motion that the money currently available is $2.5 million. As described by my colleague in the New Democratic Party, this is really a modest sum when one looks at the overall money spent in the present court system relative to what the government spends on a single case. For example, the Airbus case would probably double that total budget.

The federal Court Challenges Program was established in 1968, as indicated by the Department of the Secretary of State, to fund challenges to federal and provincial language rights protected under the Constitution of 1867. The overall objective clearly was to clarify rights and freedoms as protected by the charter.

In 1982 the program was expanded to include language rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 1985 the administration of the program was vested in the Canadian Council on Societal Development.

In 1990 it was moved to the human rights research and education centre at the University of Ottawa. In 1992 admittedly the Progressive Conservative government cancelled the Court Challenges Program based on the need at that time to cut spending and the deficit. It was subsequently reinstated, as has been indicated in the Chamber, by the Liberal government in 1994.

However there is an historical fact that needs to be on the record, and that is that the Campbell government was prepared and had a platform that called for a reinstatement of a program similar to one that was in place. I will speak to that later in my remarks. Were it not for a slight electoral shift that occurred in 1993, which some might call an earthquake or even the earth opening up and swallowing us whole, the program would have been in place in a somewhat revised form.

Since then and what we have now is a fiscal situation where the deficit has been harnessed much through the work of previous administrations and those policies that were carried on by the current government. This brings into question the basis of the motion questioning the funding and the motivation behind the particular program.

Parliamentarians have to stop and question the legitimacy and the necessity of a program such as this one. The federal Court Challenges Program has been of real benefit in several important legal decisions in the country. The program allows Canadians to clarify the Canadian charter rights that exist. However it was not intended to give a perpetual fund for lobby groups, particularly lobby groups that may have some spurious intent. The suggestion that we should cancel the program outright is the usual solution we sometimes hear in the Chamber where we throw the baby out with the bath water.

The suggestion I will be putting forward is that the program is necessary, but there are perhaps some improvements that could be made. There has been mention of the fact that the program is susceptible to manipulation and perhaps abuse if that money is made too readily available. This can be addressed by having assurances in place that a strict criterion must be met, a criterion with respect to the cause and the need. That currently exists. As in all situations involving boards and administrators, what we have to see is a more diligent approach and perhaps a more proactive effort made to ensure that the criterion is met.

Obviously what the country does not need and what our legal system does not need is more spurious challenges to the court. We have seen in recent years Canada becoming an overlitigious society. We see the courts called upon daily to rule upon issues that seem to me, and I am sure to some Canadians, to be issues of common sense that could be applied and settled far from the chambers of the courts.

That being said, the Progressive Conservative Party and I believe there is legitimate need for a program such as this one. The government should remain committed to equality rights for all Canadians and should therefore continue to support a program that will flesh out or allow a forum for individuals who feel oppressed to access resources they might need to pursue those rights in the courts. I think there can be no other or no more important purpose for a fund such as this one.

Thousands of charter rulings in the courts have been handed down in recent years. These decisions are critical to the operation of our justice system and to the operation of Canadian society generally. Morals are sometimes shaped there. Ideological ideas are given a forum for discussion. Legal issues are explored in a more detailed fashion.

We have become a more rights oriented society as a result of the charter. However the charter of rights and freedoms has also become an agent of change in this country. Pursuing cases through the courts is a critical and crucial part of this avenue for change.

The court process of course can be very long and arduous. It is a process that at times is beyond the reach and beyond the economic capacity of some individuals who wish to challenge rights or infringements of their rights.

Calling for a blanket removal of this fund I suggest is not the answer. It was for these very reasons that the original program was put in place, to establish test cases which deal with certain provisions of the charter. It does not mean that this program should be abused or that charter rights should be brought forward at every turn of the road.

A further suggestion one might make with respect to the improvement of the federal Court Challenges Program would be that one could perhaps look at reducing or in some ways adding to the funding by the invitation of other groups in the community being permitted to contribute to the fund itself.

I would suggest that provincial bar societies might be canvassed. Other civil rights groups that feel strongly that this fund should remain in place should be invited to contribute. I suggest that this would in fact enhance the present program. It would also recognize the importance of ensuring that this mechanism which is available for bringing forward significant test cases to clarify the charter law would continue.

The Conservative Party of Canada has always embraced this concept. We would put forward the suggestion that we could improve and build upon the present program. That is not to say there should be more money necessarily poured into it by government, but it should be open perhaps to other sources for funding. Adapting the present program is a suggestion we put forward.

The new charter law program might also differ from the actual federal Court Challenges Program in that it would be used to test federal laws not only under equality of language provisions of the charter, but also under fundamental freedoms provisions such as those of freedom of speech, conscience, religion and others.

There does not have to be a trend toward either a left wing or a right wing movement or challenges in the court. It should certainly be open. Again I refer back to the necessity of criteria.

Tightening the requirements and the criteria would be the way to combat some of the suggestions put forward by the mover of the motion that have led to the abuses.

Another way or a new way of administering the program would also have the double advantage of reducing federal funds without killing this existing program. The purpose here is not to encourage lengthy and costly court cases, but to build upon the charter law and the usefulness this program provides.

Before approving any funding for a court case, the program would have to satisfy the issue of it being a new and significant issue and one of national significance.

This brings me to the closing point I would like to make. Unfortunately there is an emergence in Canada where courts are being called upon ever more to delve into the area of policy. It is extremely important that the parliamentary process and the sanctity of parliament in making and passing laws be enhanced and always be buttressed by those who arrive in this chamber.

In closing I would just say that the courts should be satisfied that they are not the exclusive defenders of the charter. For the reasons I have set out, we cannot support this motion.

[Guysborough County, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, fishing in Guysborough County can be traced back to the Basque as early as 1504. Yet as we enter the next millennium this important industry has fallen upon tough times.

Today a delegation from my Nova Scotia riding became the second group from Guysborough County this month to come to Ottawa to discuss their concerns with the deputy minister of fisheries.

Two weeks ago representatives from the Canso Trawlerman's co-op and Seafreez in Canso, and today ACS Trading in the town of Mulgrave, arrived to request shrimp quota. Both groups have realistic, community based proposals to modernize the fisheries and create jobs in two of the poorest areas of Canada. Both proposals are supported by the private sector, the public, municipal leaders and the local Liberal MLA.

These proposals are consistent with the will to Canadianize the industry and to give Nova Scotia a fair share of the quotas.

On behalf of the men and women of these constituencies whose livelihoods depend on the federal government's commitment to work with them and for them, I urge the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to give both proposals his full support and approval.

[Standing Orders And Procedure, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as a new member of the House I am extremely proud to take part in this important debate which focuses on the rules and practices of the House. This is one of the few occasions when the House is required to consider its practices. Parliamentary procedure is as much a part of the Constitution as are the written constitutional statutes.

The standing orders which govern the House, like all laws, should be pliable and flexible to adapt to changing times and circumstances.

As a member of the Progressive Conservative Party there is a proud history of our party to improve the House of Commons. In 1979 the Clark government put forward a white paper on the reform of parliament. Tabled by the late Walter Baker, this position paper offered as a thesis that “the House of Commons should not govern but should poke and pry without hindrance into the activities of those who do”.

It was also the government of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney which struck the McGrath committee to which the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona referred in his remarks. It was the same government which accepted most of the recommendations of that committee. Indeed I note that some of the reforms which were brought to this House have now been proposed by the modernization committee of the British House of Commons.

It was also the Mulroney government which agreed to the secret ballot for the election of the Speaker, a measure that Prime Minister Trudeau would not accept. Lest we forget, he was the man who characterized members of parliament as nobodies when they get 50 feet from the front door. Quite typical of his attitude.

It is obvious that some members may be feeling that they are being marginalized as demonstrated by yesterday's antics when one hon. member chose to retreat with his seat. There is a level of frustration that exists on the part of members of the House.

The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona also referred specifically to Standing Order 56.1. There is a legacy again of the Conservative government that has to be referred to here and one that we would acknowledge as perhaps being somewhat incorrect in this standing order. Recognizing one is wrong is certainly an important part of democracy. I note that the hon. member across, the Minister for International Trade, recently demonstrated that when he publicly agreed the Liberal government was wrong in opposing free trade some years ago.

I want to indicate that with Standing Order 56.1 there is the concept of unanimous consent as it should be restored to exactly that, unanimous consent. Under normal circumstances the request for unanimous consent to move a motion would be a prelude to a question being put to the House for division. The standing order now allows a minister to put forward a motion and if 25 members do not object then the motion is put and carried. The House does not get a chance to decide the matter. In this parliament the government has used the standing order to suspend the requirement for quorum despite the fact that quorum is prescribed by the Constitution.

Essentially this standing order allows the government to run roughshod over the opposition and the right to question and hold the government accountable is therefore curtailed. This can be an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the government. It is something that the committee should look at very closely.

I want to turn my remarks next to Friday sittings. During this debate, particularly in the remarks of the government House leader, there was some suggestion that there may be a movement afoot to eliminate Friday sittings. I want to be very clear and unequivocal about my party's position on this point. We are completely opposed to any elimination of Friday sittings. We feel that the present arrangement of Fridays is an important and integral part of the process. Fridays can be as effective as any other day of the week. I would suggest that Canadians would take a very dim view if the committee were to do away with Friday sittings in the House.

The government House leader did speak in reference to the spirit of co-operation and the desire of those present to make this parliament work. I think that is an apt observation. However, as has been suggested by previous speakers, there is a great deal of room for improvement.

One area where I might suggest there is room for improvement is Private Members' Business. There are certainly historic reasons the private members' process is set up as it is, but I would suggest that some of the rules are unnecessarily complicated and, more important, costly to the general public.

There needs to be an avenue for members to raise an issue they wish to bring to the House on the part of their constituents, but they may not wish to pursue it further. They may wish to simply bring it forward at that time.

The government House leader spoke of the esoteric notions and traditions that evolved from Great Britain. These traditions are fine but as I said in my opening remarks we must strive to be effective. The public opinion demands this and we certainly owe this to Canadians.

One suggestion would be that there be an avenue for members to put forward items they do not wish necessarily to be brought to the House for decision but instead brought forward for simply airing of opinion. Instead of a lottery based on business items before the House, a lottery of members' names would then entitle a member to put forward an item of business for complete consideration. This would therefore save a considerable amount of time and money wrapped up in the current system.

A possible suggestion would be that upon a member's name being drawn he could then decide whether it was for discussion purposes in the form of debate or simply to be brought forward as a motion. This would be a useful area the standing committee might take a look at.

Time allocation and closure have been touched upon as well by previous speakers. There is certainly a recognized need for the government to be able to move a motion for time allocation. That is acknowledged. However the Speaker, as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, should be empowered to disallow the government from invoking this quite draconian motion at times, in the event that the Chair is of the opinion that the closure motion being invoked is premature.

My next point concerns written questions and answers. The House has agreed to limit the number of written questions but the government is being extremely tardy in its answers.

Most questions can be answered within two weeks and three weeks at the most. That is a reasonable period of time. However, there is a major problem, I would suggest. Public accountability in the House should insist on prompt and complete answers from the government, particularly in light of the circumstances and the criticisms of the commissioner of freedom of information.

There needs to be some form of sanctions available to the Speaker when the government is not being responsive. I would suggest a form of a yellow card or a penalty box that can be imposed on the government when it is not responsive to these questions.

I will now turn my remarks to the estimates. There are few Westminster styles of parliament that have an adequate system for scrutiny of the estimates.

Yesterday I was at the justice committee where we were examining the estimates of the Minister of Justice. The meeting lasted for two hours and about 35 questions were posed to the minister and her staff. That is likely to be the only examination of her stewardship over this ministry which comprises several billion dollars in the present fiscal year. I suggest that is simply not enough. Two hours is not enough time to delve into very complicated and very crucial issues not only in justice but in all of the ministries in this parliament.

I would like to see some experimentation with bringing some departmental estimates to the floor of the House of Commons for supply, similar to the committee of the whole process that takes place at present.

This might mean that the House would have to meet during some evenings but a longer debate and examination of beneficial issues to the Canadian public, I would suggest, should be of primary concern and first on the agenda.

I would also suggest that ministers, above all members of the House, must be willing to subject themselves to the intense scrutiny that is required. It would also lead to a more rigorous debate in the House. The government has talked repeatedly of openness and transparency. These are the buzzwords of the nineties. However, it seems very reluctant to put that accountability into practice. It shies away from it.

There was mention of the Chair and of the selection of the Speaker of this House. I will add a few remarks to that. The present process allows for the selection of the Speaker through an election in which all members of the House have input. But subsequent to that, as Mr. Speaker is aware, the deputy Speakers are then selected at the whim or by the will of the prime minister. That is not to cast aspersions on the present occupant of the chair. There is certainly ample evidence of the brave, courageous and true nature of the present Deputy Speaker. As with the election of the Speaker, there should be a similar process of input from other members for the deputy Speakers who also occupy the Chair.

If a Speaker comes to the conclusion before the end of a Parliament that he or she may not reoffer, a common practice or courtesy might evolve, not necessarily a hard and fast rule, where that Speaker may choose to step down so that one of the deputy Speakers might receive the training necessary to assist Parliament in the subsequent convening of the House. The position of the Chair is very important to the ongoing success and spirit of co-operation mentioned by the government House leader.

I will discuss special or emergency debates. I began with a reference to the position paper which the Clark government placed before the House in 1979. I make reference to another document, a paper that was placed before the Canadian electorate in January 1993. It was endorsed by the now Prime Minister and was presented by David Dingwall, then opposition House leader, the then chief opposition whip who now sits in the House as minister of public works, and the two assistant opposition House leaders who are now respectively the Deputy Speaker of the House and the leader of the government in the House of Commons. That paper was entitled “Reviving Parliamentary Democracy”.

Those four Liberals endorsed by their leader had this to say about special, urgent or emergency debates in the House of Commons:

The granting of leave for special urgent or emergency debates under the present Standing Order 52 should become more generous, thus permitting the House to consider a greater variety of important issues that do not command the top of the national political agenda. If the House is to claim relevance to the interest of Canadians, it must make the most of its opportunities to debate issues of current significance. It is time for the rule to be restored to its original purpose of enabling the House to add important issues to the agenda at short notice. There is no change to any rule required for this step. The House only need make its general will on the question known to the Chair.

This is the suggestion in the paper that was tabled by the government House leader and endorsed by the opposition leader at that time, the current Prime Minister. In 1993 the Liberals were telling the electorate an idea that would be embraced by my party colleagues and by many members of the opposition, that we should have more time for special debates and more open discourse with the government. It was on the timeliness issue. When something arises that needs to be addressed on short notice, this House should be amenable and prepared to allow for that debate to occur.

In the past we have made requests. The Progressive Conservative Party has requested special debates on the disastrous conditions that exist in the fisheries on the east and west coasts. We also requested a special debate on the situation that was brewing in Iraq. Yesterday other members made application in this House for debates on the megabank mergers. All these applications were refused. I have had to assure my colleagues that the government does not instruct the Speaker on these matters. It is clear that the general will of the House should be conveyed to the Chair.

It is time the Deputy Speaker and others including the government House leader review the commitment they made while in opposition in 1993. Once again I suggest the present government be very wary of what it has said in the past and be prepared to live up to its words.

Previous speakers have had a great deal of experience and a wealth of knowledge they have put forward in this debate and the House has heard some extremely insightful and constructive suggestions. I am honoured to be able to partake in putting forward these suggestions.

Partisanship aside, the rules that govern all of us will continue to govern those who participate in this chamber in the future. We must always be aware of the shifting political signs and fortunes and the realignment of power that may some day occur because something that is said in this House is very important. It may come back again to be used either for or against you.

I want to conclude my remarks by referring once again to a policy paper. The Prime Minister had this to say: “Canadians feel alienated from their political institutions and they want to restore integrity to them. That is why we are proposing reforms to make individual MPs more relevant, the House of Commons more open and responsive, and elections more fair”.

Those are noble ambitions and they call for action from the Liberal backbenchers. They hold the key. They must do their part. The solution to the hepatitis C problem does not lie with the Minister of Health, it now lies with the Liberal backbenches.

In the closing pages of his book 1867: How the Fathers Made a Deal , Christopher Moore had this to say:

If parliamentary democracy functioned in Canada, the future of Prime Minister Chretien would depend on the Liberal Party caucus. If the 301 men and women who Canadians elected in June 1997 recovered authority over their leaders, they would also recover power over the making and changing of party policy.

No constitutional amendment, not even a legislative act, would be required to return a prime minister's tenure in office to the control of the parliamentary majority, or to make all the party leaders answerable to their caucuses. It would simply require an act of moral courage and a little organizing on the part of the backbenchers.

How we collectively write the internal constitution of this House does much to decide how courageous we are in the discharge of our responsibilities.

Members on both sides of this House must shoulder that responsibility, proudly and diligently. I suggest this is the forum and the place to make the necessary changes. Self-discipline and restraint when it comes to the use of our time are extremely important.

With that in mind, I will conclude my remarks with the hope and optimism that this will be a fruitful and useful debate and the necessary changes that can be brought about will be embraced by the government.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would similarly inquire as to where the answer is to Question No. 21.

Some information was received although it was not the information we were looking for. I again ask the representative of the government when we might expect to receive an accurate answer to our question.