Debates of Feb. 1st, 1999

Points Of Order

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion seconded by the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, which reads as follows:

That this House, barring a decision in appeal quashing the decision at trial level, recommend the removal of Mr. Justice Robert Flahiff, judge of the Quebec Superior Court, because of his inability to properly perform his duties due to

(a) a lack of honour and dignity;

(b) failure to perform his duties as judge under the Judges Act; and

(c) a lack of integrity as set forth in the Ethical Principles for Judges of the Canadian Judicial Council;

And that this removal have as its immediate consequence the revocation of the current salary and the right of the said judge to the enjoyment of a pension under the Judges Act.

[The Speaker]

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to introduce this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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

I wish to inform the House that Tuesday and Thursday, February 2 and 4, respectively, shall be allotted days.

Privilege

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence.

I rise concerning last week's Devco announcement. I was informed by the minister's office on Wednesday that no announcement was forthcoming. Subsequent events led to the announcement the next day in my riding. As part of that announcement there was a lock-up for media and for personnel interested in the matter.

As I had no notice of the announcement I had to change my travel plans and arrived at my riding by 3.30, not in time for the lock-up. I had requested that one of my staff be allowed in that lock-up as I had been given no notice of this most important announcement to the people of my riding. My staff person was not permitted by, I assume, the minister's office. I find that a breach of my own representation and responsibility as a member of parliament.

I could not be there because the minister's office would not be forthcoming with the date of the announcement. My staff was not permitted in to hear the dramatic effects on my community that this announcement would have. I ask that the government make sure that members of parliament or their designated staff be permitted into those types of briefings.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked for the minister in question to be consulted and hopefully he can address this issue when he is back in the House.

Convention is that when something affects parties in the House usually these points are dealt with under votes. The minister momentarily has stepped out and I am sure he will want to address this issue immediately upon his return. Perhaps the Chair will entertain waiting to adjudicate on this matter at a time when the minister has been able to give his contribution toward the point in question.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish this were the only situation, but we have had a similar situation with regard to my colleague and our immigration critic which happened over the break.

Before you make a decision on this instance, I ask that you look at the abuse ministers are taking on members in this House of making announcements and not advising members when announcements are being made whether in their own ridings or elsewhere.

I think it behooves this House to give at least some form of credit and credibility to members on this side. This is not just a one sided House of Commons where speeches and announcements can be made throughout the country and not inform everybody else about it, not letting us participate. It is a bigger issue than this.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate the concern of my colleague from Cape Breton, myself and all NDP members of parliament about the behaviour of the government in this instance.

As members know, there have been previous points of order having to do with announcements not being made in the House. That is a separate point and I acknowledge it.

If announcements are not to be made in the House of Commons, where many of them should be made and are not, then at least when the government makes announcements elsewhere it should have the decency to involve at least the members of parliament who are directly affected through participation in the lock-up and through prior notice of when the meeting is to take place and when the announcement is to take place.

At the very least the government should not indicate the day before the announcement is made that there is not to be an announcement. What happened in this case is that the member from Cape Breton was told in a bare faced way that there would be no announcement. Then there was.

This is totally reprehensible and is something the minister should answer for if not in the context of a question of privilege then at least politically.

[The Speaker]

I will reserve judgment until the minister involved is in the House. With regard to the point raised by the hon. House leader of the Reform Party, perhaps there is a larger issue he wants to bring to the House. If he wants to bring this issue to the House, I invite him to do so.

What I have in front of me right now is a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria. I will reserve judgment on this point until I hear from the minister.

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 40 petitions.

Committees Of The House

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Industry. In accordance with Standing Order 109, the committee requests the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 52nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership and associate membership of some committees.

Madam Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 52nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Petitions

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The first petition bears the signatures of 228 residents of the Mankota, Riverhurst and Swift Current districts in my riding.

The petitioners point out that the MacKay task force on Canada's financial services sector has made recommendations that will enable banks to retail property and casualty insurance from their branches. This would have a drastically negative impact on Canada's independent insurance dealers and would result in the loss of thousands of jobs. The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to totally reject the recommendations of the MacKay task force report pertaining to the entry of banks into the casualty and property insurance markets and not to give in to the pressure of the banks on this matter.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the second petition is another in the never ending series of petitions I get from people who are opposed to the new Firearms Act. This petition is from citizens of the Annaheim district in Saskatchewan.

The petitioners point out that there is no evidence that the criminal use of firearms is impeded by restrictive firearms legislation. They state that the enforcement of regulations associated with Bill C-68 would place an unnecessary burden on law enforcement officers and that the search and seizure provisions of Bill C-68 would constitute a breach of traditional civil liberties and be an affront to law-abiding Canadians. Therefore they call upon parliament to repeal Bill C-68 and all associated regulations with respect to firearms or ammunition and to pass new legislation designed to severely penalize the criminal use of any weapon. This brings the total number of signatures I have received on petitions on this subject to 4,571.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have a great many petitions here, the first bunch having to do with the multilateral agreement on investment.

The multilateral agreement on investment has now died a well deserved death at the OECD. Nevertheless, petitions continue to flow in from Canadians who were concerned about the multilateral agreement and who were calling upon parliament to reject the MAI as fundamentally flawed and to recognize that Canadians reject the MAI approach to globalization.

The petitioners instruct the government to seek an entirely different kind of agreement by which the world might achieve a rules based global economy that protects workers, the environment and the ability of governments to act in the public interest. I imagine that they would certainly urge the government not to stubbornly persist in pursuing an MAI type agreement either at the FTAA or at the WTO.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, this petition calls upon parliament to enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the Interpretation Act.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by members of my constituency of Calgary—Nose Hill. They are asking that parliament ensure that marriage as it has always been known and understood in Canada be preserved and protected.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition today signed by thousands of residents of British Columbia, including my own constituency of Burnaby—Douglas, homeowners affected by the leaky condominium crisis.

The petitioners urge the Government of Canada to provide a significant contribution toward homeowners affected by the residential construction crisis to ensure that the cost of all qualified repairs are deductible from income retroactively and in the future; to repeal and refund all GST on qualified repairs; and finally, to permit RRSP funds to be used to undertake qualified repairs without penalty and to permit previously withdrawn RRSP funds used to pay repair special assessments to be income tax rebated.

In presenting this petition, I want to acknowledge the work of Carmen Maretic, housing advocate, and Nona Saunders, president of the Condominium Home Owners Association of British Columbia, who have done an outstanding job in drawing this very serious issue to the attention of the Government of Canada.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition today signed by well over 300 residents of Scarborough Centre and surrounding areas.

These concerned petitioners call upon parliament to oppose the potential sale of the Candu nuclear reactor to Turkey and to take all possible measures to prevent this potential sale. They are concerned that the area in which it will potentially be built is a seismic area, but more so the petitioners are concerned that whatever conditions are put on the potential sale Turkey might not comply with these conditions in the future.