Peter MacKay

[Petitions, February 4th, 1998]

Mr Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and the people of Nova Scotia pursuant to a call to parliament to initiate passenger rail service in Cape Breton and Eastern Nova Scotia.

It asks for a return of that service to the people of that part of Canada. I am very pleased to table it in the House today, pursuant to the standing orders.

[The Late Mr. Bruce Beer, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate the members of the Progressive Conservative caucus with other members who have spoken in offering our sympathy to Bruce Beer's wife, his children and grandchildren, his sister and brother.

Bruce Beer was a member of this House during the turbulent 1960s, a period of great instability in the House of Commons. He reflected this when he spoke to the House for the first time on December 18, 1962, saying that he was not certain if he was giving his maiden speech or his farewell sermon. He left that as a question to be resolved posthumously.

As well, history will show that this was indeed his maiden speech in a long and distinguished career in this House. Re-election after re-election and several appointments as parliamentary secretary to a number of ministers, including the minister of agriculture, demonstrated Mr. Beer's competence and popularity in his community.

An examination of Hansard reveals that Mr. Beer vigorously championed the cause of farmers and rural communities, as well as urban areas of his constituency.

He helped to build his community, his country, and his service in this House reflects that. For that we are certainly grateful, and for his family who shared him with the people of Canada.

[The Late Mark Macguigan, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the members of the Progressive Conservative caucus to offer our sympathy to Mrs. MacGuigan, her children and the children of the Hon. Mark MacGuigan.

I want to take a moment to give thanks for his life and for his public service to Canada. Dr. MacGuigan's parliamentary career brought him in contact with many issues that still resonate around this House. He tried to improve the way this House does its work. He was the co-chairman of the special joint committee on the Constitution of Canada in 1971. He took an avid interest in the statutory instruments committee and understood its importance to the freedoms of all Canadians.

His ministerial career came at a time when Canada was examining its place in this hemisphere. The justice system having to deal with family relationships and the devastation caused by drunk driving was one the many issues he touched upon in his distinguished legal career. He was certainly an accomplished jurist and legal scholar and professor, as touched upon by some of the other members.

Mark MacGuigan leaves behind a record of achievement and respect for others upon which he reflected at a 1971 convocation at the University of Prince Edward Island where he said “institutions and people change slowly and one must not allow impatience even in the cause of righteousness to cause a lack of respect for the freedom of others to believe and live differently from us”. Very prophetic words.

As a dedicated thinker and tribune, he has come to the end of his life. Canadians and this House are better for his participation in public affairs. We mourn his passing.

[Euthanasia, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on behalf of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party on this very decisive and emotional issue. It is one that is obviously of great importance to all Canadians and certainly, listening to the comments in the House, of great importance to all members.

I should note from the outset that the Progressive Conservative caucus has decided that each individual member should reflect on his or her own conscience. As well, each and every member should reflect on the views put forward by their constituents. As such, our party will be voting on this motion accordingly.

While in the parliamentary sense our caucus has opted for a free vote approach among members, there is nothing free about the consequences of the motion put forward. Although the motion merely deals with the convening of a special committee to examine the Criminal Code provisions dealing with euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, the long term consequences are something that all members of this place, regardless of political affiliation, will consider when reviewing such a motion.

Canadians from coast to coast, particularly those in the medical profession, are in need of direction. Indeed most Canadians sadly face at some time or another the devastating tragedy of death whether by terminal illness, accident, age or infirmity.

I commend the member for Burnaby—Douglas for his hard work and dedication to the issue. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the member's stand, one cannot help but respect the strength and passion the member brings to the House in this debate.

I also welcome the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas back to the House after his very serious accident over the holidays. One thing I have come to learn in the short time I have been in the Chamber is that this place is a more lively and open forum with the participation of the member for Burnaby—Douglas. Indeed it would have been a shame had this debate taken place without his presence. In any event, I wish the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas good health and best wishes for a speedy recovery.

As previously mentioned, recent court cases have highlighted the fact that euthanasia is on the minds of many Canadians. Unfortunately specific case references can be misleading because they are fact specific. As the hon. member opposite noted bad facts do make for bad law. Regardless of whether one supports or opposes the motion, in my view the very heart of euthanasia beats with the question of life itself.

When we look to the issue of abortion the question frequently posed is when does life begin. As we look at this issue the question we pose is simply when does life truly end. The questions may be simple; the answers certainly are not.

Canadian society among many societies in the world has not been able to reach a clear consensus. The continued advances made in medical technology pose new questions on issues of life and death. We need only to look at the developing controversy surrounding the issue of human cloning to know this to be true. It is very difficult to predict what the coming years may bring if technology continues to advance at this pace.

Creating life, as ending it, inevitably prompts an atmosphere of controversy. Those two inevitabilities provoke a moral and legal debate of mammoth proportions. As many in the House know and acknowledge, a Senate committee recently examined the question of euthanasia. While consensus was not reached on the core issue itself, two conclusions were reached that we should keep in mind during this debate.

First is an increased need for long term palliative care in Canada going unmet by the current health care system. Second, both medical practitioners and personal care givers need better guidance and protection so that they do not contravene sections of the Criminal Code.

While I read and consider what medical advice can achieve today compared to a hundred years ago I cannot help but be truly amazed that the advances made in technology have literally changed the rules of life and death. For example, medical practitioners are able to treat pneumonia for a person suffering from terminal cancer. Kidney failure or heart attack is no longer fatal at times when met with appropriate medical interventions. Should we now allow those same medical advances to alleviate the suffering of terminally ill through the acceleration of death?

Let us consider the arguments of euthanasia proponents. They point to a dramatically improving ability of providing palliative care to persons suffering from long term afflictions. With respect to the advances of medical and medicine technology, these advocates would say that we as a society must stop asking the question of what can be done medically and start asking instead with the query of what should be done.

Medical ethics make the distinction between active and passive euthanasia. I cite the basis upon which the North American Medical Association distinguishes the two. This statement is taken from the medical association:

The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another—is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands—The cessation of the employment of extraordinary means to prolong the life of a body when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent is the decision of the patient and

or his immediate family.

There are others who clearly reject the clear-cut distinction between active and passive euthanasia. These individuals would claim that whether treatment is withdrawn to cause death or treatment is applied to cause death the result is inevitable and the same.

Philosopher James Rachels wrote the following to support this view:

Fixing the cause of death may be very important from a legal point of view, for it may determine whether criminal charges are brought against a doctor. But I do not think that this motion can be used to show a moral difference between active and passive euthanasia.

The application of society's standards on individual questions of life and death will always be difficult ones, especially without clear answers to the questions of life and death. We are never left to forget the question of the rights of the individuals versus the rights of society.

Euthanasia proponents contend that individuals have the right to decide their destinies, including the right to end their lives in the event of terminal illness. Furthermore, they would have the Criminal Code make allowances for terminally ill patients who request euthanasia.

It is indeed difficult to ignore the pleas of those afflicted with debilitating diseases. Certainly persons in the House and Canadians throughout the land do not in any way want to see individuals suffer. That principle however is paramount.

For those who strongly oppose any form of euthanasia and the sanctity of life the questions of viability and of ensuring that consent is voluntary are extremely important. They believe that allowing for active euthanasia will lead to abuses. This is again a grave concern. To die with dignity, certainly the last wish we all have, will protect society and is nevertheless the cornerstone of the Criminal Code of Canada.

I am pleased to speak on this issue. I should note again that the Progressive Conservative caucus will be releasing its members from party lines to vote their conscience.

[Petitions, December 11th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to table a petition from my constituents and individuals from Nova Scotia pertaining to the removal of GST from books, magazines and newspapers.

The petition is intended to urge the federal government to follow that recommendation, and I table it forthwith.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, December 11th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House to table a very brief petition which I did not table this morning.

[Privilege, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will leave to your capable judgment whether it is. I do raise this as a question of privilege of which I have given you notice today.

On December 8, the Department of Revenue updated its website concerning payroll deductions and has published new tables reflecting those changes proposed in Bill C-2 as if those rates were now law.

These are found at website WWW.RC.GC.ca/menuemenuHSA.HTML. The House has passed and sent to the Senate Bill C-2, as members are well aware, which amends the law respecting the Canada pension plan.

To date, no message has been received from the Senate concerning the passage of this bill. The Senate is capable of protecting its own privilege in this case, however the House is also seized with the issue since the content of Bill C-2 is not settled until both Houses have agreed on the final content and royal assent has been granted.

It is still open to the Senate to remit this bill to the House for consideration of amendments, including the alteration of those matters that the government is publishing as though they are now law.

By publishing these tables before the enactment of Bill C-2, the government seeks to preclude this House from any consideration of amendments that the Senate might remit as a result of its deliberations. I submit that this constitutes a contempt of the Parliament of Canada.

I draw the Speaker's attention to page 226 of the second edition of Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada which states:

Contempt cannot be codified: Contempt has no limits.

This is why it is said that the “privileges” of the House cannot be exhaustively codified; there are many acts or omissions that might occur where the House would feel compelled to find that a contempt has taken place, even though such acts or omissions do not amount to an attack on or disregard for any of the enumerated rights and immunities.

Further on the same page, it states as follows:

As a Speaker said, “—the dimension of contempt of Parliament is such that the House will not be constrained in finding a breach of privilege of Members, or of the House. This is precisely the reason that, while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits.

When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred.

Mr. Speaker, you will also want to refer to the ruling of Speaker Fraser on October 10, 1989. At that time, the Speaker warned the government that he would not treat similar situations lightly.

Mr. Speaker, you yourself have made a similar ruling at least twice in this session.

Mr. Speaker, it is my submission to you that the time has come for the Chair to adopt the doctrine set out at page 227 of Maingot:

In the final analysis, in areas of doubt, the Speaker asks simply: Does the act complained of appear at first sight to be a breach of privilege—or, to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should leave it to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I will not abuse the time of this House. The precedents are before you and are known to you and indeed in this Parliament you have dealt with this issue, I would suggest. Your ruling cautioned the officials of the Department of Finance in that instance. Now I would suggest the disease has spread to the department of revenue. Obviously your admonition has carried little weight with the government and those public officials concerned with the electronic publication of this table at the web site which I have placed before you.

This matter should be put to the House through Mr. Speaker and considered as an abuse of Parliament by this government.

[Gun Control, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this week the standing committee on justice completed its report on the firearms regulations. Many witnesses testified that the regulations will not have the effect on crime prevention and safety that we were told, but would target law-abiding citizens and create a logistical nightmare.

The Conservative Party supports effective gun legislation like Bill C-17, but this cumbersome set of regulations is a sham.

Can the Minister of Justice confirm that the department estimates of $85 million are low and that the true cost of implementation is closer to $500 million? And unlike her predecessor, can she give us those numbers and stand by them today?

[Questions On The Order Paper, December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

On October 2, 1997, I placed Question No. 21 on the Notice Paper. This asked a fairly straightforward and simple question about visits by ministers to the Drummondville, Trois Rivieres vicinity during a 10 month period between August 1996 and June 1997.

Can the hon. parliamentary secretary indicate when we might expect an answer to this rather uncomplicated question?

[Westray, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Labour.

Recommendation 64 of the same report calls on the province of Nova Scotia to enter into an agreement with the federal Department of Labour and transfer responsibility for underground coal mining and inspection from Nova Scotia to the federal government. It also calls for the Nova Scotian government to update the federal government on drafting regulations.

Is the Minister of Labour prepared to enter into this slippery slope of downloading federal responsibilities to the provinces?