House of Commons Hansard #117 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.

Topics

Committees of the House
Privilege
Oral Questions

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Harvey Louis-Hébert, QC

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, because I was unable to do so yesterday.

At the meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, I had indicated to the clerk and the chair that I intended to speak on the debate, on the motion and on the various amendments that had been proposed. I was on the list of members who wanted to speak, but I was never given the opportunity to say even “Mr. Chair”. My rights as a parliamentarian were ignored. I did not have the chance to utter a single word.

I do not yet have much experience as a member of Parliament, as I have been here for only two and a half years. But I do know one thing: a chair cannot limit members' speaking time as long as the committee has not agreed on a time limitation.

The second thing I have to say concerns repetition. Given that there was no vote on a time limitation and that I did not have time to utter a single word, how can anyone say I was repeating something that had already been said?

I recently visited some African countries where individuals' right to speak had been taken away.

Committees of the House
Privilege
Oral Questions

12:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Committees of the House
Privilege
Oral Questions

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Harvey Louis-Hébert, QC

You see how they react when we talk about democracy, when we talk about respect for others. They have zero respect, just as they have zero achievements. They have no respect. All they do is make personal attacks on other people.

I just wanted to say that denying me the right to speak—I was not allowed to say one word, which violated my rights as a parliamentarian—showed a total lack of respect for my constituents, the people I represent here in Ottawa. That is completely unacceptable.

Committees of the House
Privilege
Oral Questions

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I think that the chair has heard enough. However, before ruling, I must hear from one more member—the committee chair, who is not here today. This is obviously a question of privilege that concerns his actions in committee.

However, I would draw hon. members' attention to a ruling I made on June 12, 2003, concerning privilege in committee. While I am not citing this as the final authority at the moment on this issue, I would point out that I said at that time:

Our parliamentary system is predicated on freedom of thought and expression and indeed encourages active debate. I would remind hon. members that conflict and differences of opinion are inherent in the work we do as members of Parliament. On the other hand, members are expected to conduct themselves with decorum and to show respect for their colleagues in committee just as they are in this place. Establishing and maintaining a working environment in committee that respects both these principles is entirely within the responsibility of the committee and its members.

While it is regrettable that there continues to be tension between members of the standing committee, I would point out once again that there has been no report from the committee. Therefore, the matter remains one which, in the first instance, the committee itself must deal with.

I am not saying those words apply fully to the case before us because I have not heard everything about it, but I point those out to hon. members, and it may help later.

The hon. member for Burnaby--New Westminster is rising on a point of order.

House of Commons
Points of Order
Oral Questions

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that this morning, now many hours ago, it seems, I rose on points of order at the same time as the House leader for the Conservative Party. You chose to hear the House leader first. He raised his point of order and subsequent to that we have had a discussion.

I want to raise a very brief point of order and go beyond the thanking of the pages that was held yesterday. A number of representatives from a number of different parties expressed their support and their thanks for the good work that the pages do in the House.

On behalf of the NDP, I would like to broaden that thanks to all parliamentary personnel: the bus drivers who drive the green buses that take us around Parliament Hill; the individuals who do the cleaning and cooking on Parliament Hill; and the custodians. All of these individuals do a tremendous job in our community. When we are away from home, as we are in virtually all cases except for representatives from the national capital region, they ensure that we feel very much at home, and we do so because of all of their efforts and all of their work.

On behalf of the NDP caucus, I will say that I am sure members from all four corners of the House will join us in thanking all the personnel on Parliament Hill.

Conflict of Interest Code
Routine Proceedings

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Pursuant to section 90(1)(a) of the Parliament of Canada Act, it is my duty to present to the House the Annual Report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner on activities in relation to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008.

Government Response to Petitions
Routine Proceedings

12:50 p.m.

Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry
Ontario

Conservative

Guy Lauzon Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario

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

Special Import Measures Act
Routine Proceedings

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Mississauga—Brampton South, ON

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-574, An Act to amend the Special Import Measures Act (environmental costs).

Mr. Speaker, this bill would help to make it easier for Canadian companies to compete globally by complying with our environmental legislation and regulations. It would ensure that foreign companies that export to Canada are penalized when their home governments refuse to enforce their own environmental laws in order to subsidize their products when cases of dumping are considered.

Conversely, the bill would ensure that Canadian companies that comply with Canada's environmental laws and regulations would have those costs considered as part of their costs of production in dumping cases. My bill would provide clarity to the government and would protect Canadian companies from outsourcing carbon emissions, which do not respect national borders.

This bill would help to build a strong green economy for the 21st century.

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

Criminal Code
Routine Proceedings

June 20th, 2008 / 12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

moved that Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal code (protection of children), be read the first time.

It is quite an honour for me to sponsor Bill S-209 in the House. The bill would repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. Section 43 of the Criminal Code provides the justification available to school teachers, parents and persons standing in the place of parents to use force as a means of correction toward a pupil or a child under their care.

Growing numbers of countries have removed the availability of corporal punishment to children. As well, Canada signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of Children in 1991, which calls on all state parties, which includes Canada, to take all appropriate legislative measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury, abuse and so on.

A longitudinal study in Canada on children shows that children who are subjected to corporate punishment show behavioural problems, including aggression toward other children and bullying toward other children.

I call on the members in the House to support the repeal of section 43 of the Criminal Code and protect our children.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

James Rajotte Edmonton—Leduc, AB

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations with all parties and I believe if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, at any time the House stands adjourned during June or July, the Standing Committee on Health or the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has ready a report, when that report is deposited with the Clerk, it shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House.

Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Does the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

12:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

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

Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

12:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

(Motion agreed to)