Debates of Sept. 21st, 1994

Port Of Quebec City

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for her interest in the historic district of Quebec. Of course Canada played an important role in the development of the world heritage convention.

As minister responsible for heritage sites in Canada, I am always encouraging the very careful management of the lands in the old, historic district of Quebec and in adjacent areas.

To reassure her further, I am pleased to report that I was informed that the City of Quebec announced on June 23 that it was pulling out of a project to build parking spaces and, a few days later, the promoters of a Imax cinema project also abandoned their plans for that area.

This means that the district is indeed protected and I have no doubt that we will remain vigilant in the future.

Canada Labour Code

[Bernard St-Laurent, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources. The 128 workers of Ogilvie Mills, in Montreal, have been on strike for three and a half months now. And there is no hope of settlement in sight, as the company can hire scabs to remain in operation.

Considering that about 70 per cent of the Canadian workforce is already protected by provincial anti-strikebreaking legislation, does the minister intend to table in this House proposals to amend the Canada Labour Code by adding anti-strikebreaking provisions at the federal level?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the hon. member that the minister met on Monday with several CNTU officers representing Ogilvie Mills workers. He assured them that he was taking a close look at this whole issue of Canadian anti-strikebreaking legislation, an issue which will be considered as part of the in-depth reform of the Canada Labour Code, and that he will give this problem the urgent and serious attention it deserves.

Health

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on February 18 in the House my colleague from Surrey North warned the Minister of Health about the differences between the Canadian blood supply and the U.S. blood supply. The minister's answer was do not worry. We are inspecting the blood supply and by March this will all be taken care of.

If those inspections had been done, we would not be in the pickle we are in today. Were those inspections done, or was this simply to cover the minister's gluteus maximus?

[The Speaker]

The question is out of order.

Privilege

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege, of which I had given notice, related to certain comments made during the course of debate yesterday by the member for Central Nova.

However, following consultation with the Clerk, I understand that this matter may be more appropriately addressed as a point of order. I will certainly pursue the matter at the earliest possible opportunity, after having given notice to the member for Central Nova.

Points Of Order

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to rise on a point of order regarding question period yesterday afternoon. I asked the Prime Minister a question about an appointment of a lawyer.

I would like to draw your attention to Beauchesne's 6th edition, citation 489 which states that the phrase "has not got the guts" is unparliamentary. That comes from Debates of May 27, 1959, page 4078.

I would like to draw your attention to Hansard of yesterday, page 5898 where the Prime Minister responded to me with the exact words ``if the member had any guts she would try to prove that the person is not competent''.

I think it is fairly clear that statement is out of order and I would like to ask that the Prime Minister either withdraw those comments or apologize.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in my capacity as government House leader.

With respect to the point of order just raised, I respectfully submit there are two problems with it. First, I am not aware whether the hon. member gave notice to the Prime Minister that she intended to raise it so that he could be present. More important, I understand that such matters are to be raised at the

first opportunity which should have been yesterday immediately after the end of the question period.

The time has passed for raising this point. However in saying that I am not in any way accepting the premise of the hon. member's point of order.

[The Speaker]

Many times in the course of debate when we take words out of context they do not always have the same connotation that they ordinarily would have.

Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member has rightly pointed out that the statement which she quotes as being used is out of order I would refer the hon. member to page 149 of Beauchesne's 6th edition, "unparliamentary language", where it says:

The Speaker has consistently ruled that language used in the House should be temperate and worthy of the place in which it is spoken. No language is, by virtue of any list, acceptable or unacceptable. A word which is parliamentary in one context may cause disorder in another context, and therefore be unparliamentary.

I would say the point has been made. I would rule that it should have been brought up probably at the instant when it occurred rather than a day later. I am hopeful the hon. member will accept it is on the record that these words are indeed unparliamentary. My ruling for now would simply be that I hope the use of these words would not occur again in the near future.

Is this on the same point of order?

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Yes.

[The Speaker]

Unless it adds something new I would prefer just to lay this aside. Thank you very much.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question was ruled out of order and I would like to request a ruling on that please.

[The Speaker]

The ruling is simply that it is out of order in the context in which it was made. I think that this kind of language in certain circumstances could be very inflammatory and I would ask the hon. member that in future when he is putting questions that they not in any way stoop to even a hint of vulgarity.

That is not by way of explanation so much as it is by way of asking the hon. member to please refrain from language which could be judged to be inflammatory.

Government Response To Petitions

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

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

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Francis Leblanc, Liberal, Cape Breton Highlands—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association to the Third Annual Parliamentary Assembly of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe held in Vienna, Austria, from July 4 to July 8, 1994.

[Bill Rompkey, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House the third report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association concerning the North Atlantic Assembly's spring session which was held in Oslo, Norway, May 26 to May 30, 1994.

Canada Elections Act

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-267, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (election expenses).

Madam Speaker, with the permission of the House, may I make a short statement on each bill.

The purpose of the bill covering election expenses is to eliminate any reimbursement by taxpayers of election expenses incurred by candidates and political parties.

The Canada Elections Act presently obliges taxpayers to reimburse 50 per cent of election expenses of candidates and political parties if they achieve set percentages of the vote.

Such reimbursement is actually a taxpayer funded grant to a special interest group which should be raising the money from the people it purports to represent. Passage of the bill would ensure that they would have to do exactly that.

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

Plain Language Act

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-268, an act to promote the use of plain language in federal statutes and regulations.

Madam Speaker, the purpose of the bill regarding plain language is to ensure that plain language is used in federal legislation so that legislation may be clearly and readily understood by non-lawyers. Some of the bills the House has passed and no doubt will pass in the future are so legally complex that it takes a gaggle of lawyers to interpret and explain the legislation. Even then it is not unusual for the original intent of the bill to end up being lost in legal challenges.

This bill if passed would ensure that the final language of a bill is straightforward enough and in simple enough language that its intent could not be misunderstood or misinterpreted.

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

Canada Pension Plan

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-269, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (income transferred to spouse).

Madam Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to amend the Canada pension plan to permit income transferred to a spouse to qualify as pensionable and thereby extend CPP benefits to stay at home parents.

The bill is a follow-up to my, Bill C-256, introduced on June 7, 1994 which proposed to amend the Income Tax Act to allow one spouse to pay or split income up to $25,000 to the other spouse who is managing the family home and caring for at least one dependent child who has not commenced full time attendance at school.

This new bill would give further recognition to the principle that caring for children is an important job to be fairly compensated including the extension of pension benefits to a parent working in the home.

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

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-270, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (money purchase pension).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce a private member's bill entitled an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (money purchase pension).

The bill if passed will significantly change the MPs pension plan. It is designed to reduce the burden significantly taken on by taxpayers under the current member of Parliament pension plan.

Currently members of Parliament contribute $1 for $7 of taxpayers' money to the existing plan. This new plan is $1 for $1, taxpayer by member. It will reduce the cost to taxpayers of the pension plan for members of Parliament by approximately $11.7 million per year.

This is a plan that is endorsed by the Saskatchewan Taxpayers Association, the Canadian Taxpayers Association and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It is a plan that is modelled after the Saskatchewan MLAs plan which has been in place for over 15 years and works very well for both taxpayers and members.

It will end unfunded future liabilities of MPs pensions. It will also reduce overall pension payout and set a higher age limit for qualifying for a pension.

I hope to gain support from all sides of the House on this very important bill.

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

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-271, an act to amend the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act (Interpretation).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to introduce an act to amend the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act.

One of the more serious flaws in Bill C-33 allows the agreements of the Yukon First Nations to take precedence over Canadian laws. The bill would amend Bill C-33, the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, so that federal or territorial law will prevail where there is an inconsistency or conflict with any final agreement or transboundary agreement.

We are all Canadians and the laws of the land should apply equally to all.

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

Membership Of Committee

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

Madam Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion. I move:

That the order of the House of Wednesday, February 23, 1994 respecting the Special Joint Committee on Canada's Defence Policy be amended by adding thereto the following:

That, not withstanding the usual practices of this House substitution in the membership of the Committee shall be in accordance with Standing Order 114(2),

and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours thereof.

Foreign Policy

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

moved:

That the Order of the House of March 16, 1994, respecting the Special Joint Committee on Canada's Foreign Policy be amended by adding thereto the following:

That, notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, substitution in the membership of the Committee shall be in accordance with Standing Order 114(2), and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours thereof.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Madam Speaker, these petitioners are concerned as are all Canadians that abuse and violence are real concerns throughout the whole nation.

The petitioners want all forms of abuse and violence controlled and preferably to cease; that is, those forms of abuse and violence that we hear on radio and see on television. They request that the government ask the CRTC to regulate forms of abuse and violence that are contrary to what they are trying to do to raise their families.

These parents point out that their efforts to raise and educate their children are often counteracted by what happens on radio and television.

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I rise today to present three petitions signed by my constituents in Capilano-Howe Sound.

The first petition calls on Parliament not to amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.