Debates of Dec. 8th, 1994

Privilege

[The Speaker]

I have a notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I am going to allow the question of privilege because yesterday, in reviewing the blues and what was said, I found that perhaps I acted a little hastily in cutting off the member. I am going to allow some additional information to be put on the record.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was seeking to make the point that a publication of the House, admittedly in conjunction with the National Archives of Canada, contained a substantial error in that it failed to mention in the list of constituencies for Canada's first Prime Minister the fact that he was the member for Kingston.

I raise this point in some seriousness. I know it was treated with a bit of merriment yesterday afternoon. This particular Prime Minister was identified closely with the Kingston community. He represented Kingston in either the legislature or in this House from 1844 until 1891, with the exception of a nine-year break between 1878 and 1887 when he represented other constituencies in this House.

He was substantially raised in Kingston. He practised law in Kingston from the age of 19 in the 1830s until 1873. For over 40 years he practised law in Kingston. As I have indicated, he represented that community for a very long time and made a very substantial contribution there. He was buried in Kingston and there are countless statues and monuments to him in Kingston.

To have Kingston omitted from the list of his constituencies is really a shocking omission. With the greatest respect, of all the Prime Ministers in the book he probably had a closer connection with his community and is known to have had that connection with his community of Kingston than all the other prime ministers had with their communities.

My point is that this book ought to be repaired and replaced. It is frankly misleading, particularly to students who I am sure are going to be the principal users of this book. I see that it has a foreword with Your Honour's name on it, it does not have a signature, and another by the national archivist.

From the point of view of accuracy, I think it would be very wise to have the book reprinted. It is an excellent book and a fine publication. It is wrong in this particular. It is a serious enough error that it ought to be corrected.

[The Speaker]

I do take the hon. member's intervention seriously.

My name is associated and therefore the House's name is associated with this publication. That is the reason I permitted the extra information to come on to the record. I will review everything that has been said and, if necessary, I will get back to the House with a decision on this matter.

Also I would like to take a few minutes of the time of the House. In reviewing the blues yesterday and in fairness to all members I want to make a couple of points clear with regard to unparliamentary language.

Something may be unparliamentary in our language today and it may be parliamentary tomorrow. All that to say that no one word in and of itself is always unparliamentary. It is rather the context in which the word is used, the tone in which the word or words are delivered and if there is disorder in the House.

If any one of these things occurs, it is incumbent upon the Chair to interpret what is going on in the House. To say that your Speaker is going to at all times make decisions that are acceptable to all members of Parliament would be hoping for the impossible.

The Chair should have the latitude and will take the latitude to ensure that if a word is used in its tone, in its meaning, in perhaps the disorder it causes in the House then the Chair will intervene at that point. He or she may rule a word unparliamentary.

I want it clear to all members of the House that even the word liar is not always unparliamentary. It will depend in the context in which it is used. However, if one member calls another

member a liar, that is clearly unparliamentary, and I wanted that to be understood.

To the interveners yesterday, the hon. member from Winnipeg who rose to make the point, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands who made an intervention and the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister who all contributed to the discussion on a point of order, I have taken all your suggestions into account. I want you to have a general feeling of what the Chair and the person in the chair will be looking for when it comes to unparliamentary language.

I hope that this is acceptable to the House and that it will give general directions with regard to the words we are to use in our debates and also in question period. I thank you for your indulgence.

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Milliken, 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 certain petitions.

Committees Of The House

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, June 21, 1994, your committee has considered Bill C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code. Your committee has agreed to report it with amendments.

The committee considered the bill for three months, heard 42 witnesses and made 28 amendments. I want to thank members of the committee and witnesses for their contributions and co-operation.

The phase two examination of the Young Offenders Act will take place in the new year.

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Customs Act, with amendments.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to place before the House today, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Finance entitled "Confronting Canada's Deficit Crisis: Building Our Next Budget Through Consultation".

Briefly the report is the result of an unprecedented seven weeks of intensive consultations and study involving members from all three parties. I take this occasion to thank members of the committee from all three parties who brought such diligence to this undertaking.

I also thank all those who have worked with us. Far too often they have not been recognized for what they have done. I talk not only of the many witnesses who appeared before us, often on very short notice, but particularly members of the Library of Parliament who worked with us, especially the clerks to our committee, Christine Trauttmansdorff and our chief clerk, Martine Bresson, and all the people of their staff who have been working 24 hours a day over the last week in order that we could meet this deadline.

We have been extremely well served as parliamentarians by these very devoted public servants.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the chair of the finance committee, I wish to thank the staff, and especially the office of the clerk, for the excellent job they did when the committee was preparing its report and during the committee's public hearings.

Remember that the Official Opposition tabled a dissenting opinion as an appendix to the report of the Liberal majority. Why a dissenting opinion? First of all, because the Bloc Quebecois, the Official Opposition, is convinced that the measures supported in the Liberal majority's report do not reflect the vision and the views of Canadians expressed at the public hearings.

Second, there is the prospect of an increase in taxes across the board for all Canadian taxpayers. We cannot support this proposal and we are particularly wary of the statement that the increase will be only temporary.

Third, the Liberal majority's report announces a series of tax increases or at least the prospect of tax increases which will again affect a middle class already taxed to the hilt since 1984.

Fourth, the report, and this is our main grievance, launches another attack on social programs by proposing cuts in addition to those already announced in the last budget.

Fifth, the report ignores the fact that more jobs can also mean more tax revenue and, in the end, an improvement in the state of Canada's public finances. For all the reasons I just mentioned, readers will see the Official Opposition's dissenting opinion appended to the report.

Petitions

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege to present a petition from 649 members of social organizations called AFEAS-Associations féminines d'éducation et d'action sociale-and of golden age groups.

Whereas the elderly are usually less familiar with the technology of voice mail but still have a right to proper service, especially for their enquiries about income security, the petitioners pray and call upon Parliament and the government to give up the plan to implement voice mail for seniors.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege today of presenting, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition signed by many residents of my constituency, specifically from the communities of Marcelin, Rabbit Lake, Hafford, Blaine Lake, Krydor and Leask.

The petitioners state that a very vocal minority of citizens are requesting Parliament to institute a dual marketing system of wheat and barley for export.

The petitioners therefore request that Parliament continue to give the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly powers to export wheat and barley. They also request that Parliament expand further Canadian Wheat Board marketing powers to include all grains and oilseeds.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise to present a petition on behalf of 458 citizens who ask that the Parliament of Canada protect and take care of human life and human dignity; that physicians should not be working to end lives but to save them.

The petitioners do not want the Criminal Code of Canada changed in any way to suggest that assisted suicide be made legal or countenanced by the state in any way.

I concur with my petitioners.

[Roseanne Skoke, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I present a petition containing 100 signatures from residents of Nova Scotia petitioning this honourable House to keep mining in Canada.

Canada's mining industry is the mainstay of employment in over 150 communities across Canada, an important contributor to Canada's gross domestic product and total exports and a cornerstone of our economic future.

Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to take action that will grow employment in this sector, promote exploration, rebuild Canada's mineral reserves, sustain mining communities and keep mining in Canada.

I concur with this petition.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition signed by residents of the community of Westlock in my constituency of Athabasca.

The petitioners request that Parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a provision similar to article 611 of the Quebec Civil Code which states: "In no case may a father or mother without serious cause place obstacles between the child and grandparents. Failing agreement between the parties, the modalities of the relations are settled by the court".

They further ask for an amendment to the Divorce Act that would give a grandparent who is granted access to a child the right to make inquiries and to be given information on the health, education and welfare of the child.

I present this petition and support the petitioners.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition to the House on behalf of 199 signatories. It is sponsored by the Responsible Firearms Coalition of B.C. which prays and requests that Parliament refuse to accept the anti-firearms proposals of the Minister of Justice and insists that he bring forward legislation to convict and punish criminals rather than persecute the innocent.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present five petitions to the House. I have petitions with 976 signatures opposing further gun control.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are 906 names opposing amendments to the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that include consideration of same sex relationships.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are 163 signatures opposing assisted suicide.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have 128 signatures opposing abortion.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are 127 names requesting that the port of Churchill be recognized as a permanent, major port facility.

I respectfully submit these petitions with my support.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by 210 residents of the city of Toronto protesting discrimination against persons living in same sex relationships.

The petitioners call on Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to adopt all necessary measures to recognize the full equality of same sex relationships in federal law.

Questions On The Order Paper

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

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

[The Speaker]

Shall all questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

Honourable members, today being the last alloted day for the supply period ending December 10, 1994, the House will now proceed as usual to consider and adopt a supply bill. Considering recent practice, does the House agree that this bill be now distributed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.