House of Commons Hansard #149 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-46.

Topics

Foreign Affairs
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Malpeque
P.E.I.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Solicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that this is an operational matter of the RCMP. The investigation is in fact ongoing. The RCMP is continuing to work with the Department of Justice and with Department of Foreign Affairs on the matter to see what can be done.

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Chuck Cadman Surrey North, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Greater Vancouver Regional District and other municipalities have expressed concerns about the government's proposed management plans for dissolved ammonia, among other substances, for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. One primary concern is the potential for duplication.

Will the environment minister commit to harmonizing his proposals with provincial regulations, to ensure that municipalities have a so-called one window approach to waste water management?

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Victoria
B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly assure the member that our objective is always to harmonize our environmental regulations with the provincial regulations and also, where applicable, municipal. We will be looking at every opportunity to doing that.

That said, there is clearly an issue here that is being addressed on a nation-wide basis. There will be times when the nation-wide interests will supercede the municipal or provincial.

Cinar
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Richard Marceau Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Speaker, in the CINAR affair, we know that the RCMP conducted an investigation and that a report may have been submitted to federal prosecutors or to the attorney general for Quebec, so that they could lay charges.

Since the RCMP report did not result in any legal action against CINAR, will the Solicitor General tell us if it was the federal prosecutors who received the RCMP report and decided not to prosecute CINAR?

Cinar
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Malpeque
P.E.I.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Solicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on this matter. I will take it under advisement and get back to the member.

Child Pornography
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Myron Thompson Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, last week the House totally agreed that all defences for child pornography that exploit children must be eliminated. The pride of the justice minister will not allow him to amend Bill C-20 to incorporate this change.

Why will the minister not swallow his pride, do the democratic thing and ban all defences for child pornography?

Child Pornography
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Outremont
Québec

Liberal

Martin Cauchon Minister of Justice

Mr. Speaker, I really do not understand from where the member is coming. Last week during the debate, for example, they said that, of course, police forces should have access to child pornography in the course of an investigation. They said as well that, of course, police forces should have access for training purposes and, of course, scientists should have access for valid reasons as well.

I would like to say to the House that the defence of “of course” does not exist within the criminal law. This is why we have to put in a defence that will be charter compliant, while protecting our children.

Ethics
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Did the minister submit to the ethics counsellor the records of payments for his trip with Sandy Morrison? Did he recuse himself from cabinet discussions about budget provisions which helped Canada's major breweries to the detriment of micro-breweries?

Ethics
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Ottawa South
Ontario

Liberal

John Manley Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance

No, Mr. Speaker.

Presence in Gallery
Oral Question Period

November 3rd, 2003 / 3 p.m.

The Speaker

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the right hon. Paul Murphy, MP, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Presence in Gallery
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Presence in Gallery
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I would also draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Ms. R. Eleanor Milne, who was the Dominion Sculptor from 1962 to 1993 and was responsible for the stone carvings in the foyer of the House of Commons entitled, the “History of Canada Series”.

Presence in Gallery
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Point of Order
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier, you made a ruling relating to a question that had been asked. I would like to request some further information from you. There are two separate aspects to my point of order.

The first is the following. Last March, the Minister of Finance made a decision in his budget. That ministerial decision was unfavourable to the microbrewers' association and favourable to the major breweries. Not long after, he went on a sailing vacation with family members and members of the Brewers Association. So, last week, we asked the minister, given the potential for conflict of interest, whether this trip had been provided free of charge within the framework of his duties, as was common practice at the time, or whether he had paid. You allowed the minister to respond and his response was that he had paid the cost of his trip in full.

It is our impression, however, that what the minister paid for was his plane fare. As for the sailing vacation itself, today we merely asked the Minister of Finance, as a supplementary question, how much he had paid the person who provided this trip to reimburse him for its value. The Minister of Industry was asked the same question several weeks ago, and it was allowed.

It seems to us that it is important to know and that we have the right to ask a minister who went on a trip that could place him in an apparent conflict of interest situation whether or not he paid for that trip and how much. I would say that is a minimum. What is good for the industry minister should be good for the finance minister, even if we are talking about larger amounts.

Second, and this is of some concern to me, when questioned about this, instead of answering through the official channel, since you had risen, we very clearly saw the minister tell us in this House, “Fuck off”.

It seems to me that it is somewhat unparliamentary for a finance minister to answer this kind of question in such a despicable way. Is the question so terrible? Is that how dismayed the minister is to have to reveal how much he spent for this cruise with his family on the Caribbean, along with people from the Brewers Association, whom he had just favoured in his budget?

We do not know. But we are perfectly justified by political morals to ask this kind of question. I would therefore appreciate it if you could explain how the question about details on costs was in order when asked of the industry minister but not when asked of the finance minister. This is tied closely to decisions he made in his last budget and to a possible breach of ethics and conflict of interest. It seems to me that we can inquire.

Point of Order
Oral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Does the hon. member for Wild Rose wish to speak on the same topic?