Debates of Nov. 2nd, 1994

Ethics Counsellor

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, for the first time we have an ethics counsellor who will report to the House of Commons once a year. He is there to advise everybody, including myself.

He gave me advice and he gave advice to other people. It is up to the person who received the advice to keep it or not, but at the end of the day the decision is made by the minister or by the Prime Minister. In this case it is me and I am not afraid to take my responsibility.

The Environment

[Jim Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

The minister is aware of the situation in the harbour adjacent to Massena, New York. Many seaway residents are worried about the environmental damage which could be caused if the safety measures taken do not control the PCB laden silt which will be stirred up as a result of the proposed dredging.

I realize that the minister has stopped the dredging for now. What guarantee can the minister give that she will not allow resumption of any more dredging in the St. Lawrence near Massena until it is proven absolutely safe for the people and the environment in that area?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we did announce jointly yesterday with the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States that there will be no dredging at Massena this year. I can further assure the House that there will be no dredging unless and until the Department of the Environment and myself as minister are satisfied that there is absolutely no risk to the health of Canadians.

There is no dredging this year. If there is any operation next spring, and I want to thank the EPA and General Motors for their co-operation and their assurances, no dredging will take place where there is any risk of any PCB contamination.

Rail Workers

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. Early last October as speaker at a dinner sponsored by the western transportation advisory committee, the Minister of Transport made the following comment: "Railway labour with grade eight or nine education cannot be blamed for negotiating excessive collective agreements".

Does the minister realize that his remarks were an insult to the 62,000 rail workers in Canada and is he prepared to make a public apology for his unacceptable and scornful comments?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question because it provides me with an opportunity to explain to him and to the House exactly what was said.

I am from northern New Brunswick. From the time I was a kid I have dealt with railroad workers. I know who negotiated the contracts. I have listened to the stories of the people who returned from the war and had to negotiate contracts with the railway barons in the country.

What I said that night in Winnipeg was that never, no matter how much pressure is exerted on the Minister of Transport, will I ever point a finger at those men who worked very hard with very limited educations to find a way to negotiate collective agreements to protect their rights and to protect the rights of others who worked on railroads in the country.

I said that government had to take its responsibilities and management had to take its responsibilities. I did say, Mr. Speaker, because it was the truth-I remember Bill Dunn telling me exactly this in Tracadie in 1950-that it was very difficult for people with grade eight and grade nine educations to sit with people who were educated and who were in the pay of the railroads of the country and try to negotiate collective agreements to protect their rights.

I said then I would never attack the men who achieved that and I will not now because they did what they had to do to protect their rights.

Guidelines

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, day after day we receive more copies of ethical guidelines for cabinet ministers. None of them appear to be unclear. None of them are contradictory. In fact, the current guidelines from the PCO insist there be no intervening by ministers with quasi-judicial bodies under their jurisdiction. The letter tabled said intervention on it.

Now that the truth about guidelines has become obvious will the Prime Minister admit that he has offended Canadians by stripping his government of its integrity?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I made a speech on Monday and I explained the guidelines, the distinction between the two. I have asked everybody to table the letters and so on.

I think the people of Canada think the members of the Reform Party are just trying to score some political points because they cannot attack the government on its economic policy. They cannot attack the government on the performance of the economy. They cannot attack the government because unemployment is down. They cannot attack the government because the mood of the country is much better than it was a year ago.

Rail Line Abandonment

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On October 20, 1993, five days before the last federal election, the Prime Minister, then leader of the official opposition, wrote a letter to one of his caucus members.

In this letter the Prime Minister stated that Canada requires a first rate transportation system that is able to serve every region. He also stated that the PC government's continued tolerance to rail line abandonment had done nothing to improve the situation. He stated that the Liberal Party, if elected, would clean up this mess.

The Minister of Transport has stated that he cannot answer my call because he has 175 Liberal calls to answer first. In view of that fact, could the Prime Minister intercede and make sure that after December 15 the people in Saint John have a dayliner to Moncton instead of a bus as promised by the Minister of Transport?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the hon. member for Saint John, I have been into her beautiful city on at least four or five occasions to meet with people who have concerns about the transportation system there.

I want to say to the hon. member that we are going to do everything we can to continue to provide services to Saint John and all other parts of the country. However, what we need to hear are some solutions and proposals that make a lot more sense than what was done over the last nine years by the party that she represents.

Presence In The Gallery

[The Speaker]

I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Jorma Huuhtanen, Minister of Social Affairs and Health from Helsinki, Finland.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Privilege

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.

Yesterday in this Chamber the Deputy Prime Minister quoted from a letter I wrote to the Minister of Canadian Heritage regarding the concern of one of my constituents without my prior knowledge or permission or the prior knowledge or permission of my constituent.

Mr. Speaker, in your deliberations as to whether what I raise today constitutes a prima facie question of privilege, I ask that you consider the following. Beauchesne's 6th edition, citation 115 reads:

A question of privilege must be brought to the attention of the House at the first possible opportunity.

Because breaching the right of a member of Parliament is a serious matter, before taking it any further I undertook to obtain the transcript record of what transpired yesterday. I also undertook to consult the legal counsel of the House regarding what had occurred.

The Deputy Prime Minister and by making the aforesaid letter available to her the Minister of Canadian Heritage breached confidentiality and in so doing interfered with my ability to function as a member of Parliament.

By breaching confidentiality the minister has called into question whether or not issues on which my constituents ask my assistance will be made public.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to find this to be a prima facie question of privilege. If you do so find, as is the usual practice of this House as described in Beauchesne's 6th edition, citation 118, I will move that this question of privilege be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, all the letters were part of the public record of the CRTC.

[The Speaker]

I also will avail myself of the transcript of what was said yesterday and I will seek advice. I will do research on it and if necessary I will come back to the House with my decision at the earliest time.

Points Of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been rising in my place for the last two days trying to get the floor.

[An hon. member]

It is good exercise.

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

I have been getting the kind of exercise somebody else was referring to earlier only I have been getting more of it than I want.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall an argument I made to you earlier in this session. I argued that the NDP caucus should be entitled according to the mathematics of the opposition to at least a question and a supplementary and a statement each day. We have not come anywhere near that.

This week we have only had two statements. I have to say that I think the treatment of the NDP caucus in this Parliament by you is abominable.

[The Speaker]

Every day in Question Period I attempt to see that according to the approximate proportion each party has that they get a chance to put questions. It is not always possible in

every Question Period to recognize everyone who stands in this House, although I must say in fairness that I have no difficulty seeing the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.

I would respectfully request that if the hon. member wishes to pursue this case I invite him of course to see me at any time at his convenience in my chambers. I would hope that the hon. member would be a little judicious in his comments toward the Chair.

I will do the best I can to see to it that all members get fair treatment in this House as has been my want since I took this Chair. I will see if I can make improvements on my performance. I would surely urge all hon. members to seek to do the same thing in theirs.

A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting to the House of Commons supplementary estimates (b) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Deputy Speaker to the House.

Government Response To Petitions

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

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

Supplementary Estimates (B), 1994-95

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 81(6) I move:

That supplementary estimates (b) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995, laid upon the table on this day, November 2, 1994, be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows:

This list being rather long and there being a detailed allocation of the supplementary estimates (b) to the committees, if it is agreeable to the House, I ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read. I will file a copy at this time.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Petitions

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present five petitions I have recently received from my constituents in the Ontario riding of Victoria-Haliburton.

The first petition was sent to me by Dr. Jules Sobrien. It calls upon Parliament among other things to refrain from any further gun control legislation in the name of controlling crime which would be of no value and would constitute unjust harassment of lawful gun owners.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

The second petition asks that Parliament amend the laws of Canada to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of

killer cards in law and to advise producers of killer cards that their product if destined for Canada will be seized and destroyed.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

The third petition asks that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships.