Debates of Oct. 25th, 1999

Privilege

[The Speaker]

I thank the hon. member. Now I will deliberate on all the facts that have been put before me and I will come back to the House.

Food And Drugs Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-260, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning labels regarding the consumption of alcohol).

Mr. Speaker, this bill was first introduced to parliament and continues to be before parliament since June 20, 1995.

The bill seeks to establish a requirement to have health warning labels placed on the containers of alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption. Alcohol is the only consumer product in Canada which can hurt if misused and does not warn the consumer of that fact.

I am pleased to reintroduce the bill and I seek the support of all members for this important health initiative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Members Of Parliament Superannuation Act

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-261, an act to discontinue the retiring allowances payable to members of parliament under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to include members of parliament in the Public Service Superannuation Act and to discontinue members' tax free allowances for expenses and include the amount in members' sessional allowances.

Mr. Speaker, although the timing is accidental, it is probably a good time to reintroduce my private member's bill dealing with pensions. The bill has two simple parts.

The first part is to implement the Blais commission recommendation to discontinue the tax free allowance, grossing it and taxing it as regular salary. Members of parliament will be taxed like all other Canadians and will feel the impact of any tax changes.

The second part is to eliminate the MP pension plan in its entirety and to enrol all MPs into the superannuation program so they too will be affected by whatever changes in legislation affect that. Members of parliament would have the same pension as all civil servants including their own staff. I believe that is a fair and equitable way to end the controversy on this once and for all.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal Code

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-262, an act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving causing death or injury).

Mr. Speaker, this is a practical change that would affect the ability of police officers to gather samples of blood at an accident scene. It could be used in the prosecution of impaired driving cases before the courts. This is a very practical change. It would empower police officers to deal with the very serious and increasingly dangerous situation that exists on the roads and highways of this country.

I would encourage all members of parliament to consider supporting this private member's bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees Of The House

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House on Friday, October 22, 1999 be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed with the motion at this time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Points Of Order

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I tabled a private member's bill which I indicated had been in the last parliament. That bill went through second reading and was passed. It went to committee and had hearings but died as a result of the prorogation of the House. Therefore, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to have the bill reinstated to the same position it was in at the time of prorogation of the first session of parliament.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Chair's guidance on this. I thought this was allowed under the rules. If it is allowed under the latest version of the standing orders, why is the member asking for unanimous consent?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair was seeking clarification as well and it has not been forthcoming. In order for the bill to qualify under the rules to go back to where it was, it has to be in the same state it was in at the time of prorogation. I have been unable to ascertain if that is the case. In the absence of ascertaining that, the Chair is unable to reinstate it to where it might otherwise have been.

The hon. member for Mississauga South may be able to assist the Chair in that regard. Alternatively there could be consultations and if it is brought to the attention of the Chair that this is the case, it may be possible for such reinstatement to occur.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the answer to your question. At the time of submitting the bill to be reinstated or to be submitted to the House, another member had taken the bill as it had been as his own. As a result the private members' drafting office had to make some minor changes to make the bill somewhat different but effectively the same bill.

The original bill prescribed the actual language of a health warning label. In the bill that I could only table in the House I had to yield that it would be the minister who would designate the language in the bill. The essence or substance of the bill is that health warning labels be required on the containers of alcoholic beverages.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the hon. member suggesting that another bill in the same form as his old bill has been introduced in the House already this session?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

No, Mr. Speaker. The member submitted it to the private members' office and never has tabled it at first reading. Therefore, because of the date and the timing, I was unable, or they refused to allow me, to have that bill because another member had put it in the morning before I did.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Perhaps I could make a suggestion to the hon. member and to the House that would solve the problem, if there would be agreement. If the hon. member would seek unanimous consent to withdraw the bill he has just introduced now, he can always reintroduce it at a later date.

Possibly with some consultations with the clerk, the bills could be compared and perhaps we could come up with an answer for him. Is it agreed, if the member is willing, that he withdraw the bill by consent, without prejudice of course to his right to reintroduce the bill another day?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is only one bill and it is the bill that I have tabled. The other bill exists but it has never been tabled in this place. If I withdraw it, then this bill does not exist on the order paper and I would be left in limbo.

I am asking the House to reinstate a bill that was passed at second reading during the last parliament, had full public hearings and never had an opportunity to come back to the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The only alternative is to put the question to the House. Is there unanimous consent to reinstate the bill?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

Petitions

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with 70 pages of signatures from residents of Saskatchewan in most cases.

The petition states that the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has failed to protect the true needs of the western Canadian farmers, and that the federal minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has failed not only to meet with farmers but also with business people and concerned groups in his constituency.

Therefore the signatories would like the minister replaced with a minister who has a better understanding of the issues that are being dealt with right now by these people, western Canadian farmers and the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to present a petition signed by 25 concerned seniors.

The petitioners note that there is still no street letter box conveniently located to serve almost 80 seniors living in my riding in two senior buildings operated by Peel Living in Mississauga, Ontario. Therefore the petitioners pray and request that parliament encourage Canada Post to seriously consider installing a street letter box directly in front of the seniors' residences at 7340 and 7350 Goreway Drive in Mississauga.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, for many months now I have been presenting petitions from the people of Peterborough who are concerned about cruelty to pets. This concern reached great heights this summer when a dog was dragged for one or two kilometres and was very badly hurt.

I have had letters in which people have been asking for a great increase in the penalty for such crimes. In particular, they point out that there is mounting evidence between animal abuse and domestic violence. They also point out that our statutes in this regard have not changed since 1892 and that they regard animals as property.

Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to work toward swift and effective action that works to modernize Canada's law dealing with crimes against animals and that the penalties for such offences be made strict enough to act as a deterrent against such behaviour.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?