House of Commons Hansard #8 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.

Topics

Vacancy
Oral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Reform

Preston Manning Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the House to provide a brief explanation of the resignation today of the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam and pay tribute to her dedication to the House, to her constituents and her family.

Members will know that the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam was a tireless advocate for and defender of the Canadian family both within our caucus and without.

In the House and in committee, Sharon Hayes was a tireless advocate for tax relief for families, protection for the unborn and the elderly, protection of the family from violence and state interference.

In all her work she was supported by her own family, her two daughters and her devoted husband Doug. However, in April of this year just before the federal election was called, tragedy struck her family. Her husband Doug, an insurance industry executive, suffered a heart attack followed by a number of serious complications which affected his eyesight and other faculties. These complications have not gone away. They have in fact increased Doug's dependence on his family's care and support.

For five months through the election campaign, through the summer and the opening of Parliament, Sharon valiantly struggled to perform two duties, to her constituents and to the House, and her duty to her husband who needs her more than he has ever needed her before.

Like many of us when we are confronted with two hard choices or options, she attempted for a while to pursue both. Just this week she decided that a real choice had to be made and, consistent with her attachment to the supreme value of the family, she has chosen to devote all her time to Doug's support and recovery.

I want to thank the people of Port Moody—Coquitlam for their understanding of Sharon's dilemma over these past five to six months. We assure them that other members of Parliament are more than willing to help represent them until a successor for Sharon is chosen.

Today I want to pay tribute to Sharon Hayes, who is now demonstrating her commitment to family in the most profound way possible. Our prayers and best wishes are with both Sharon and Doug.

Vacancy
Oral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Saint-Maurice
Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, Sharon Hayes has been a very good member of Parliament, very dedicated, and an extremely nice person, respected in the House of Commons.

We all know how close she is to her family and her husband. Her husband was so proud of her. Every time she made an intervention in the House he made sure that she received flowers, even if she was giving me hell.

I want to wish Sharon a lot of strength and good luck. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we have her and her husband in our prayers.

Vacancy
Oral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc quebecois, I would also like to extend our best wishes to Mrs. Hayes, who, I think, has done an outstanding job in representing the citizens of her riding.

I think it takes a great deal of courage to make the kind of decision she has made today. It is not an easy decision, but it certainly shows her nobility of soul. I want to express our wholehearted support to Mrs. Hayes and her husband.

Vacancy
Oral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the NDP caucus, I share in the regret that we all feel about this vacancy being created in this way.

Sharon Hayes and her husband will be in our thoughts and prayers. She has been a friendly and devoted member of this House.

I was speaking with her the other day and I am shocked to hear that she will not be with us for the remainder of this Parliament. Our prayers are with her and her family at this difficult time.

Vacancy
Oral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Elsie Wayne Saint John, NB

Mr. Speaker, Sharon Hayes was a good friend to me. As I sat alone in the House of Commons many times, she always reached out to me. She is a very special person.

I saw Sharon the other day because I was looking for Daphne, another lady who was very kind to me. I knew at that time something was wrong because there were tears in her eyes. One of her colleagues told me after about the illness of her husband and the difficult times for Sharon.

The prayers of my friends and colleagues here are with Sharon, her family and her husband. They did not know her like I did but she was very special. We will reach out to her. She had respect for every person who sat in this House. We will miss her, for she did fight for the family and we know that is most important these days.

Points Of Order
Oral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In light of the developments of this afternoon I would like to point out to the Chair that in sitting here along with some of my colleagues I could not help but notice there was a motion which, from my vantage point, I perceived to be one of disrespect and even to be threatening toward the Chair. I am not sure if Your Honour noticed this but I did want to point that out to the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with your efforts to maintain decorum in the House I felt it was inappropriate that this occurred.

Points Of Order
Oral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

The nice part about being in the Chair is that you do not always see everything.

Privilege
Oral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis Winnipeg North Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 48, I would like to raise a question of privilege regarding the premature disclosure of a committee report. I am presenting this question at the first possible opportunity since committees of the House were only struck yesterday.

Access to information documents reveal that on April 18, 1997 the industry minister and industry department officials were in possession of draft copies of the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Industry. The final report of the committee, entitled “Review of section 14 of the Patent Act amendment, 1992” was reported to the House of Commons only on April 23, 1997, five days later.

I have a copy of that draft report with me. In accordance with Beauchesne's reference No. 116 on page 29 I would like to table that document with the House.

Beauchesne's reference No. 877 on page 241 states that “no act done at any committee should be divulged before it has been presented to the House”. Beauchesne's citation No. 877(2) goes further to state that “the publication of proceedings of committees conducted with closed doors or of reports of committees before they are available to members will constitute a breach of privilege”.

With respect to the privileges of the House, divulging an in camera draft report is a breach since it runs against the tradition that members of the House have the right to first view reports of committees.

Beauchesne's reference No. 57 on page 18 states “the House has in the past regarded the publication of the proceedings or reports of committees sitting in camera to be a breach of privilege”.

Therefore, I move:

That this House refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Privilege
Oral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell
Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if I understand it correctly, the issue brought to our attention by the hon. member is that the Minister of Industry of the last Parliament saw a document before it was tabled in the House. Mr. Speaker will know that the Minister of Industry is a member of Parliament and all members of Parliament can avail themselves of the privilege of seeing a document that is before a committee. It is the revealing of it generally that is prohibited under the rules.

Notwithstanding that, I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, claimed the privileges of the House for this Parliament on Tuesday of last week. Prior to Tuesday of last week no privileges were claimed. You had not previously claimed them on behalf of this Parliament because this Parliament did not exist.

I believe that one who says that there has been a breach of this Parliament for an act that occurred in a previous Parliament is not a question of privilege. There is perhaps a point of order that could be made were it to be in the same Parliament, but it is not even that. It was in a different Parliament.

Privilege
Oral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would urge you not to be persuaded by the rather feeble argument offered by the government House leader that whatever happened in the last Parliament is somehow immune to your judgment or to the judgment of members of its appropriateness.

Is the government House leader actually saying you can do anything you like in the dying days of a Parliament because once the election is called there is no more privilege, there are no more rules and it is perfectly okay for a committee to vet its report with the government minister?

The argument that the minister is also a member of Parliament completely evades the point of this point of privilege. What should concern us all, if we are concerned at all about the independence of committees, is that government members on this committee vetted the report with the Minister of Industry and it was subsequently changed. This is an affront to our notion of how committees should work and how Parliament should work. It is something that the Chair should take very seriously.

Privilege
Oral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

The Speaker

First, with regard to the tabling of the document, I will accept as a submission to myself so I can look at the document, the draft I believe the hon. member called it. I would like her to put that in my hands following these procedures today.

I will of course take into consideration the point made by the hon. government House leader as soon as I get all of the information that I need to proceed on this.

I would like to hear, if at all possible, comment from the minister, but I would reserve even that judgment until I settle in my own mind the point that the hon. House leader has brought as well as that of the member for Winnipeg—Transcona.

I will take the information under advisement and I will study it. I will get back to the House after I have satisfied myself that I have enough information to proceed to make a judgment.

Points Of Order
Oral Question Period

October 1st, 1997 / 3:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Charlotte, NB

Mr. Speaker, again it goes back to question period and the purpose of question period.

Mr. Speaker, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that question period is there so the opposition to take the government to task for deeds it has either done or not done and answer to the people of Canada.

What confuses me in this whole process is in the last number of days we have had questions thrown at the ministers in advance. In other words, backbench members of the government are putting on average two questions a day and the ministers are absolutely prepared in advance and actually reading from statements—

Points Of Order
Oral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member and all hon. members will agree that all members in the House, except of course the parliamentary secretaries and the ministers, have the right to put questions.

The hon. member for Charlotte can believe or not that the minister is well prepared. Some people would look at that as a compliment and other people would look at it in another way.

As for myself, I intend to recognize members on all sides of the House when they stand in their places to ask questions. I know all hon. members will accept this in the spirit with which I say it. It is not my decision to judge either the quality of a question or the quality of an answer. I leave that to the House. It is my responsibility to see to it that hon. members' rights are respected in the House. Until the House decides to give me a new set of guidelines to work by, I will try to recognize all members of the House who feel when they have a legitimate question, that they will get, I hope, what they feel is a legitimate answer.

Points Of Order
Oral Question Period

3:25 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell
Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move three motions that have been previously discussed and agreed to among House leaders. They are as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Industry be the committee designated for the purposes of section 33 of an act to amend the Business Corporations Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts (Chapter 24, Statutes of Canada, 1994).

This is a reference of a report to a committee.

Points Of Order
Oral Question Period

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

May I ask the government House leader if he is going to include the other two immediately?