Peter MacKay

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question and I welcome the remarks by my colleague in the NDP who has been in this Chamber a lot longer than I and has a very eloquent way of making his point. I agree very much so with what he has said.

The same comment was made this morning by my colleague from Fundy—Royal that this is indeed a strictly financial argument, removing all the rhetoric and removing all the emotion that has surrounded this debate. I do not know if it is $1 million or $500,000 but to think that we are spending that kind of money to discuss this issue certainly raises the hackles on the back of my neck. I am sure it offends Canadians greatly.

As for his comment about the disgraceful display of throwing the flag on the floor of the House of Commons and his comment with of whether it was the separatists who did it, let me raise this point. Maybe it was. Maybe there is something more insidious here that we are not quite aware of.

Reformers have brought a different agenda to this House of Commons, a different agenda from that which they held themselves out to be when they were elected in western Canada. I am hoping and praying that those who supported them in western Canada will look at the display and look at the way they have behaved and performed in the House of Commons when they make their decision the next time.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is probably the saddest day I have spent in the Chamber since being elected. As a young member I hope there will not be many more like it.

This evening in the House of Commons we will be asked to approve billions of dollars in public expenditures. Today is the last day in this supply period on which we would have been able to debate issues that affect the lives of Canadians who are unemployed and looking for work, Canadians who are waiting in medical line-ups and in waiting rooms in hospitals across the country. It was an opportunity to debate the real issues Canadians want to hear about most.

There are substantial issues that are life altering, yet here we are at the bequest of the Reform Party debating whether we can have a little flag on the corner of our desks in the Chamber. I suggest we have entered the theatre of the absurd, not the chamber of the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, as I look at you sitting in the chair, you are a symbol of Canadian patriotism. The flags that adorn the chair next to you equally symbolize that. There are flags outside the door of the Chamber, flags that fly from the Peace Tower. Many of the members in the Chamber are sporting lapel pins to express their patriotism.

I ask a rhetorical question. By putting another little flag on your desk are you somehow elevating your level of patriotism? Are you somehow improving yourself, your country and all the constituents you represent when you sit at this desk in the House of Commons? I would have to say no. The level of debate we are reaching today is again a new low brought about by the Reform Party.

There are lessons to be learned in all this. Let us look carefully at how the Reform Party members have behaved over the last number of days. In all candour I feel that our priorities have been derailed, soiled by the mendacity of the motion. Perhaps it is a good example of what drives the member for Calgary Southwest, the policies of division. Perhaps that is what is driving the Reform Party.

Members of the Reform Party have used the flag in the Chamber as a weapon to assault another member of the House. Members of the Reform Party have used it as a weapon in an attempt to intimidate the Speaker of the House. Members of the Reform Party stood in the Chamber and threw the flag on the floor of the House of Commons, which has been referred to a number of times.

I refer to a letter sent to the Speaker by a gentleman named Thomas Sigurdson from Surrey, British Columbia. He was here in the gallery the day the Reform Party erupted. I quote from his letter sent on March 14, 1998: “I must comment on the shameful behaviour of the official opposition the day that followed your ruling. I have never, ever witnessed this kind of tantrum that exploded from the benches of the Reform Party. From the public gallery I had the sad misfortune to watch some members yell not only verbal abuse at you but also hurl paper, books and flags off their desks in an act of infantile defiance”.

He goes on to say that this was the most shameful thing he had ever seen. Most shameful of all was the throwing of the small Canadian flag on to the floor of the House of Commons. His letter ends up with the final comment that flags that surround the dais indicate to all members and visitors of our nation that the identity as well as the national pride is here in the House of Commons signified by those flags.

This is not about pride. I borrow the words of my colleague, the hon. member for Chicoutimi. It is not about pride, it is about provocation, it is about intolerance, it is about partisanship. Pointing to the flag and grunting and making these comments is a way to avoid meaningful debate.

Members of the Reform Party have returned to the in your face style of politics that we have seen in this country. By surrounding or wrapping themselves in the flag they get themselves off the hook.

Up until this week there has never been a suggestion that we should have these flags on our desks. They are prepared to stop free speech by anyone who disagrees with them and then wrap themselves in the package of the flag.

If I were to search for words to somehow describe what is going on and to describe the conduct that we have seen in the Chamber, they would be found in Beauchesne's but I could not use them because they are all unparliamentary.

Canadians have seen that those new defenders of patriotism, those who threw the flag on the floor of the House of Commons, are the same patriots who ran advertisements during the federal election campaign that called a leader from Quebec a person not fit to be the prime minister. I share my leader's description of those ads and I also share his description of those who designed and perpetrated those ads.

This past weekend I was in the province of Nova Scotia in my constituency and I spoke with many people about this issue. When it came down to the final analysis as to what was going on I was asked why we are discussing this when there are so many important issues. With the expiration of the TAGS program, with the sorry state of national health care, the high unemployment and the many substantial issues that we do discuss in the House of Commons, why are we wasting our time discussing a tiny flag on the corner of our desks?

My hope is that Canadians will see this attempt by the Reform Party to divide the House for what it is. It is a shameful attempt to derail the national agenda. What people do not want is this debate to go on and on. What they want is trust and respect for members in the House of Commons, but it has to be earned. What they want is a sense of honour and respect for national institutions, which the House surely is. Let us work to bring some decorum back to the House.

The flag is above all to be treated with dignity and respect. It is not a desk decoration or to be hung as a drapery in a window as proof of one's patriotism. We will oppose this motion and we will do so not because we do not love the flag, for we do. The Progressive Conservative Party has been around this country since its inception. We have been around this country carrying the flag for all Canadians since that time.

A ruling was made from by Chair and that ruling has now been brought into question by the Reform motion. Again we are talking about decorum, we are talking about respect, we are talking about order in the House of Commons. It would be improper for anyone to stand up between the second and third period of a hockey game and sing the national anthem. It would be improper to break out into enthusiastic flag waving in the middle of a church sermon or in the middle of a child's recital at school.

I would suggest those are apt examples of what the Reform Party is trying to do here and it is doing so for all the wrong reasons.

I want to emphasize that this is not simply about a flag. It may be the simple common denominator that the Reform Party would have us believe, but this is about decorum, dignity and order. I would say that from the Reform perspective, this is about trying to get its way against the will of everyone else.

What I find most ironic of all is the Bloc, the big bad separatists, as perhaps one of the most respectful parties in this House when it comes to the dignity and decorum that we are supposed to surround ourselves in. There is a great irony in that when my colleagues to the left in the Reform Party engage in this infantile behaviour.

As much as I value the flag, as much as I hold it dear, democracy must hold a higher place. Indeed the flag stands for that principle among many others. When a member of the House, a member who has been democratically elected here, is shouted down and drowned out in the name of patriotism I say that is wrong. Democracy has to be given a higher priority.

As much as I take no great offence to a flag being on a desk, what I take offence to is the manner in which this has been presented and the manner in which this has been brought about by the Reform Party for, again, all the wrong reasons.

Let us put our shoulders to the wheel and do what Canadians expect us to do. Let us come to this House and discuss substantial issues. Let us get on with the nation's business. Let us put this matter to rest and do the right thing. Let us dismiss this motion and get down to the job that our constituents sent us here to do.

[Dna Identification Act, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-3, the DNA Identification Act was tabled in the House last September.

I believe we must ensure that any piece of legislation that creates a DNA data bank should be balanced to protect the privacy rights of all Canadians. Although this issue is fundamentally important, DNA analysis is not just about the potential threat to the right to privacy. DNA analysis is an opportunity to make our justice system more efficient, effective and fair. Not only does DNA evidence help police solve crimes, it also helps to ensure that innocent people will not be unduly prosecuted.

It is my opinion that Bill C-3 in its present form does not go far enough. The preconditions to collect DNA evidence samples are so strict that they limit the opportunities for police to take full advantage of such an important crime fighting tool. They also extend the period for which innocent people remain cloaked in a veil of suspicion.

I respectfully request the Solicitor General of Canada to re-examine Bill C-3 and amend it to allow police officers to collect DNA samples at the time of arrest.

This would enable our justice system to build a case against those—

[Petitions, March 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour that I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to table a petition from the right-minded constituents of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

The petitioners urge the federal government and, in particular, the Minister of Justice to bring about necessary changes to the Young Offenders Act that would include lowering the age of identifying perpetrators and seeing that perpetrators who are deserving of transfer to adult court are transferred.

This petition contains hundreds of names and I table it on behalf of those people in Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

[Points Of Order, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of reference to this incident.

There has been reference to you and your role as the Chair. Perhaps the most important word that has been used here is respect. I would also suggest an important word is impartiality. When you don the cloak of the Speaker, of the Chair, you also don the impartial role of presiding over this House for all members, regardless of partisan politics.

Mr. Speaker, the language that was used in the question that you ruled in my opinion rightly out of order had in its preamble reference to you particularized as a prominent Liberal MP. I would suggest that you rightly ruled this out of order.

As a point of reference in your deliberations over this government point of privilege, I refer you to section 404 of Beauchesne, sixth edition, where it states at page 119:

No questions of any sort may be addressed to the Speaker. If information relating to matters under the jurisdiction of the Speaker is required, it must be obtained privately.

There were options available. Had the Reform Party wished to address this matter, it could have raised it on a point of privilege or a point of order. However they chose not to do so. They did so in an improper way which you ruled out of order.

It is also with some regret that I make reference to the fact that we are here again in this situation, mired down in a debate that could have been avoided.

Yesterday, you will recall, there was a point of privilege brought forward by the Conservative Party. At that time the government remained silent on this point.

There has been a very frightening and disturbing trend in that there is a disintegration in the rules of Parliament, something I am sure you are aware of and something I am sure that you have to be concerned about. We are seeing this happen quite readily over the last two weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure, and I join with the voices of support in this House for you, that you will make a proper, deliberate, judicious ruling, to use your words, over these points of privilege and points of order.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The motion moved too quickly and we did not get up in support of the motion and it then reverted to the no. We wanted to register our vote in favour of the motion and it moved to the opposite side on the no vote before we had an opportunity to rise.

[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?