This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #84 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was wildlife.

Topics

Social SpendingOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Chris Axworthy NDP Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Last week in Paris the minister stated that the government would not cut old age security payments. He said: "This helps to protect the purchasing power of Canada's seniors and adds a measure of stability to their income". I am glad to hear that.

With the cuts in the last budget and the proposed cuts that the Minister of Finance has indicated, can the minister explain why the rationale for protecting seniors' pensions is not applicable to younger Canadians who cannot find a job and who are trying to feed and clothe their children? Why is not protecting their purchasing power and adding a measure of security to their incomes reason to protect them from cuts?

Social SpendingOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Winnipeg South Centre Manitoba

Liberal

Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member, let me give him one example. Because of the changes we brought about in unemployment insurance, a substantial reduction is taking place in the premium rate.

As a result, beginning in July of this year the net addition into the pockets of all workers covered by unemployment insurance will be $230 each. That is a lot of purchasing power. It can buy a lot of kids' clothes, a lot of furniture and a lot of extras.

That is the reason we need to reduce the premiums. Not only will it bring about more employment but it will put more money back in pockets so they can take it out and put it on the counter to buy Canadian goods or services.

Gun ControlOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Liberal

Harold Culbert Liberal Carleton—Charlotte, NB

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks there have been several concerns raised in the media and by many responsible sports persons regarding gun control.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. Will the minister reaffirm in the House today that he and his department have no intention of further limiting the ownership and the use of

qualified rifles and shotguns by responsible sports enthusiasts? Will the minister tell the House if the required training courses introduced by the previous administration will be maintained and implemented in a cost efficient manner?

Gun ControlOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Etobicoke Centre Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the primary focus of our effort is safety in the community and attacking crimes of violence. We will focus on illegal weapons being smuggled into the country. We will focus on enforcing those laws already on the books whereby people are punished for using guns in the commission of criminal offences.

We will also look at other steps that can be developed with the support of caucus for making this a safer society. We will, as the hon. member has suggested, bear in mind the use which is made for sporting and other purposes of rifles and shotguns in the course of that work.

Gun ControlOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I have a request for a question of privilege by the hon. member for Vancouver South.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Vancouver South B.C.

Liberal

Herb Dhaliwal LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

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

On June 2 and June 3 when I was not present in the House, the member for Simcoe Centre made some serious allegations, allegations which I think damage my credibility and thus impede my ability to function as a member of the House. The member opposite has brought into question my compliance with the conflict of interest code.

I would like to set the record straight. I am disappointed that the member for Simcoe Centre made no effort to contact me or the assistant deputy registrar general in advance to ask for clarification. If he had taken the time to do some research he would have found that he was incorrect in his allegations.

Within 30 days of my election as a member of Parliament, I spoke to and clarified with the assistant deputy registrar general what my requirements were to comply fully with the federal conflict of interest code. I then proceeded to meet these requirements by formally resigning as director and officer from the management of Dynamic on December 1, 1993.

I would like to point out for the record that I was not technically required to resign from Dynamic until April 5, 1994, 120 days after my appointment as parliamentary secretary. I did so because of my desire to act responsibly as a member of the House.

I received a letter from Mr. Howard Wilson dated March 31 of this year in which he stated that he was satisfied that I had met all the requirements of the federal conflict of interest code. From this letter I quote: "I am pleased to approve the arrangements you have made to comply with the requirements of the conflict of interest code". With the unanimous consent of the House I would like to table this letter.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleagues, the Chair of course never wants to cut off debate, especially on something so important as a point of privilege. I wonder if the hon. member for Vancouver South could please indicate to the Chair precisely which point of privilege he is raising and how this has impacted on his ability to serve in the House.

Could the hon. member please be a little more precise.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Herb Dhaliwal Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Mr. Speaker, my integrity is in question and I will be getting to that in just two more statements.

The member for Simcoe Centre stated that on May 24 I was still an officer of Dynamic. This statement is incorrect. The member stated that I currently reside at the same address as my father. This too is incorrect.

Let me state categorically for the record that my father does not live with me and, for that matter, I would be very honoured in my culture if my father did live with me. I would be happy to have him stay there.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Ed Harper Reform Simcoe Centre, ON

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Is this on the same point that the member is bringing up now?

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Ed Harper Reform Simcoe Centre, ON

Yes it is.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

With all respect to my colleagues, I am not inclined at this point to see a point of privilege but perhaps if we heard from the other member who is involved in this there might be clarification.

At this point, always keeping in mind that I reserve the right to come back to hear the wrapping up of the point of privilege, I would like to hear from the member for Simcoe Centre.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Windsor West Ontario

Liberal

Herb Gray LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I make these comments as government House leader with the utmost respect to you and your position. I think if we search the precedents of the House you will find many occasions when members have risen to make a personal statement under the guise of a statement of personal privilege to put on the record their understanding of a situation involving themselves person-

ally where things have been said about them that they do not consider to be accurate.

I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, to follow these precedents and allow the hon. member for Vancouver South to finish his statement before calling on anybody else.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

With your permission, my colleagues, the Chair will finish hearing a wrap-up from the member for Vancouver South and then I will go to the member for Simcoe Centre.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Herb Dhaliwal Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Mr. Speaker, this member has questioned my integrity. He has not offered a shred of hard evidence. I ask the member for Simcoe Centre to apologize for misleading the House and for spreading misinformation.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

I will hear from the hon. member for Simcoe Centre.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Ed Harper Reform Simcoe Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, on June 2 and again on June 3 I raised the issue of a possible conflict of interest with regard to an arm's length blind trust set up by the member for Vancouver South for his company Dynamic Maintenance Limited of which he is a 50 per cent owner. The company was doing business with the government.

The issue was brought to the attention of the government because of public information on file with the B.C. Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations regarding the officers and directors of this company.

The public record from the last annual statement with an accuracy date of May 24 showed the member as an officer of the company and listed both his father and father-in-law as directors.

The home address-

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Order. I believe the hon. member for Simcoe Centre has put that information on the record prior to this. I wonder if the House would give the Speaker a chance to review the statements made prior to today and to come back to the House tomorrow with a ruling on this particular issue.

The hon. member, would you please finish.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Reform

Ed Harper Reform Simcoe Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, it appears that someone agrees with the point we raised since on Monday, June 6, just three days after I raised the issue, the B.C. ministry received a notice removing both the father and father-in-law as directors of the company.

Rather than demanding a retraction, the member should be offering answers to questions raised about arm's length relationships.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleagues, any time we get into this type of views in the House of Commons, by their very nature we are going to have different opinions. The Chair will review everything that has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver South and the Chair will review what has been said by the hon. member for Simcoe Centre.

I would prefer not to make a decision now but I will come back to the House with a decision at the earliest possible time.

Order In Council AppointmentsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.

Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these appointments are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.

Government Response To PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

June 13th, 1994 / 3:10 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.

Criminal CodeRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Etobicoke Centre Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts in consequence thereof.

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

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Ronald J. Duhamel Liberal St. Boniface, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition wherein the citizens ask the government to request the CRTC to monitor different forms of abuse whether it be inappropriate language, physical or other forms of violence.

They point out that it is not necessary to have abusive kinds of relationships or language or behaviour portrayed on television in order to entertain or inform.

These petitioners believe that many of the efforts they make to raise their families are counteracted by the abusive forms of behaviour we see on television and other media.