Debates of Feb. 16th, 1995

Taxation

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, family trusts are also used by many small businesses in order to make sure the business can pass from one generation to the other. Where objections have been raised to family trusts is where it really does entail undue tax advantage for those who are using it. This was a position that many on this side of the House took when in opposition and it is a position that is certainly supportable in debate.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Many Indian people in my riding are expressing deep concern that the federal government is about to sign a self-government agreement with Gitksan Indian leaders. Their concerns relate mostly to the fact that elected band councils will disappear and will be replaced by an unelected and unaccountable hereditary chief system.

Can the minister confirm that the federal government will not now or in the future allow such a system of government to gain power in Canada?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, no, I cannot.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister cannot answer my question perhaps the Prime Minister can.

Will the Prime Minister of Canada as the leader of the government guarantee that his government will never sanction undemocratic Indian governments of any kind in Canada?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that the Government of Canada will never sanction undemocratic governments of any nature.

Atlantic Groundfish Strategy

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

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

The good news is that 27,000 Newfoundlanders are benefiting from the TAGS program. The bad news is that many hundreds of fishermen and plant workers, all of whom have had a long work attachment to the fishery, are being deprived of benefits. I say to the minister that the culprit is the appeal process. There are rumours, for example, that more than 95 per cent of second level appeals are being rejected by HRD officials.

What is the minister doing to ensure that the appeal process is fair?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member and other members of the Atlantic provinces and Quebec who have been working very closely with us to ensure that those who are eligible will be able to receive their benefits under the TAGS program.

We understand there are some difficulties being faced by the appeal process. The latest records are that about 75 per cent of the appeals are being recommended, but there are some difficulties which the hon. member and others have brought to my attention.

I have been working closely with the minister of fisheries. I can make a commitment to the hon. member that we will have a correction of the appeal process within the next two weeks.

Immigration

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Since 1986, Portuguese nationals need visas to visit Canada. Portugal is the only EEC country to which such a restriction applies.

Does the minister, who stated in 1986 that, by imposing visa restrictions on Portuguese citizens, we were doing a disservice to a European country and an ally, agree that this is a discriminatory and unjustifiable measure which must be lifted as soon as possible?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for raising a question on an important policy issue. Members should be very well aware that the federal government has already seen fit to lift visas in a number of countries throughout the world.

Some months back we lifted the visa restriction on Hungary. During his trip to South America the Prime Minister made an announcement that no longer will Chile, a country the member knows well, have a visa restriction.

We are making progressive moves but it is a two way street. When we lift visa restrictions we also want to make sure that our system is protected with respect to documentation as well as visits from individuals from that part of the world. Where they meet our conditions we can make such moves, as we have in the past.

Justice

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. This morning I had the pleasure of introducing a private member's bill to the House which would have the effect of amending the Criminal Code to make dangerous intoxication a criminal offence. This would prevent people from hiding behind the charter of rights and freedoms to get away from their own responsibility for offences committed while drunk.

Will the minister take this bill, make it a government bill and try to get all-party support for this very important consideration that all Canadians hold together? Most people in Canada cannot understand why this loophole exists.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the hon. member's initiative and I share his objective. I too have been at work on this very subject.

The Department of Justice has its own approach to this very problem. I expect before too many days are out to be introducing government legislation to achieve the same objective.

[The Speaker]

We will have the usual question on the Business of the House. Then I will hear a question of privilege, a point of order and then I want to give a ruling a little later on another question of privilege.

Business Of The House

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as customary, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs to let us know what the legislative menu for the coming week will be.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the consideration of Bill C-68 on firearms. Tomorrow, we will start the debate in third reading on Bill C-59 to amend the Income Tax Act.

On Monday we will debate third reading of Bill C-37, the young offenders legislation, and if there is any time left when this is finished we will resume consideration of report stage of Bill C-52.

Tuesday will be an allotted day. On Wednesday we will deal with second reading of the electoral boundaries readjustment bill and we will then resume consideration of Bill C-68.

There will be no ordinary sitting on Thursday but at three o'clock p.m. on that day there will be a joint meeting of both Houses in this Chamber to hear an address by the President of the United States.

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege and I appreciate the opportunity to be recognized today.

I take the point of privilege very seriously. After six years and some months in this Chamber I have never risen on a point of privilege, recognizing that to do so would mean that my rights as a member of Parliament were abused or the ability to do my job was somehow impeded by rules of this House or by actions that may have taken place elsewhere.

I rise today on a point of privilege to express my concern that my ability to do my job as a member of Parliament has been impeded by rules and regulations that exist in this place.

A bill before the House at the present time, Bill C-68, the firearms legislation, is a bill that in my constituency and elsewhere across Canada is of great interest. The bill has elicited a tremendous amount of letters and telephone calls over the last few months. The proposals that were brought forward by the government have been out in front of Canadians for several months.

As a result of those proposals being put forward to Canadians I have had a great many telephone calls and letters from my constituents asking to be kept informed of the progress of this bill and when the bill was printed and available in the House to supply those constituents with copies of that bill.

I have compiled a list of names in my constituency and tried to assess the number of letters that I received with regard to this bill.

I have calculated that maybe 200 or 300 copies of the bill would be required for me to distribute to the people who have expressed an interest in responding to this issue in front of all of us to provide me with their comments and backgrounds so that I can properly represent them and to communicate an intelligent review of the bill to the minister and the government.

On doing so I have contacted the Department of Justice for extra copies of the bill to provide to my constituents. I am told by the Department of Justice that I am limited to a handful of copies of the bill.

I contacted distribution of the House of Commons and I am told that there is a limited supply of the bill, that very few can be available to me. Only after all members are done getting their limited supply will I be able to have access to the few copies that would be left over.

Finally I took the bill along with a letter and some newspaper clippings to printing this morning to ask if it could produce some copies so that I could keep my constituents informed as they requested about the contents of this important bill.

I am told by printing that it cannot do it because the rules of the House of Commons specify that if the bill is available elsewhere, it cannot print it.

We have exhausted all the possibilities of the bill being available elsewhere. I do not want to be embarrassed in front of my constituents by being unable to provide them with copies of bills that I am debating in this Chamber.

I ask that my question of privilege be examined by the House and at the very least that I and members of Parliament who require copies of this bill to keep our constituents informed be allowed to have printed enough copies to satisfy our demands.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although I doubt that this is a question of privilege the issue brought to the attention of the House by the member is an important one.

A number of my own colleagues have approached me in my position as whip on the same issue. Perhaps more appropriately it would be a matter for the Board of Internal Economy to consider. If either that member or another member can make a formal request that we do that you, Mr. Speaker, and I and others who sit on that board could look at this issue and how to accommodate it.

For this to be a question of privilege, I suppose a member would have to be denied access to the information which of course he is not. There is a fee, quite a hefty one, for obtaining copies of the bill. I am informed that it is in the area of $10 a copy.

It is more appropriately a matter to be discussed by our board as an expenditure of the House. Perhaps in so doing we could see what we could do to accommodate at least some of the members or accommodate all members with a quantity of some sort to satisfy the demand that is expressed by this member and others who have brought it to my attention as well.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of my hon. friend but recognizing that, it might be some time before the Board of Internal Economy would have an opportunity to address this. The matter is rather urgent. The legislation is before the House now.

Our constituents want to find out immediately what this bill involves. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you can assure members that this is not some item that might be put off indefinitely or for a few days even.

[The Speaker]

To the extent that I can give that assurance to all hon. members, I will surely give it. This would be a point that would be put on the agenda. I do not know whether I can talk to the Board of Internal Economy. I will defer to that and go back to the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for an answer to that question.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I am really responding as the spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy. I can assure my hon. colleague that he has my undertaking to bring it to the attention of the board as early as the meeting on Tuesday.

[The Speaker]

With agreement from hon. members we will proceed this way. If there is not agreement at the end of it all I will take this up again and I will get back to the House.

Points Of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, during question period the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke rose and put a question.

I am informed, although I did not see it as I could not see it from my seat, that on the television cameras it was quite obvious that he was holding a prop. The prop was in the nature of a sign posted on the back of the document or portfolio that he was holding. The document was clearly visible on television and contained a slogan that related to recent meetings on taxes in Canada.

The person who told me this saw it on television in the lobby. I was not in the lobby, I was in the House and could not see it from where I was sitting.

I refer to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 501:

Speakers have consistently ruled that it is improper to produce exhibits of any sort in the Chamber. Thus during the flag debate of 1964, the display of competing designs was prohibited. At other times boxes of cereal, detergent and milk powder have been ruled out of order.

Citation 502 states:

When a member produced samples of grain in the House, the Speaker deprecated the practice, saying, `If we allowed hon. members to produce such exhibits, we would get ourselves involved in a position where perhaps all too often hon. members would want to table dead fish, herrings, or red herrings, damp grain or wild oats'.

This quotation from previous Speakers indicates the grave nature of this offence against the rules of the House and I ask the Chair to apply the proper discipline to the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke.

[The Speaker]

Perhaps there is a simple explanation. The hon. member is here now and perhaps he can explain it in a few words.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that a prop is something that relates to the subject at hand. I held up my speech and I used a piece of stiff cardboard in order to keep the pages from falling over, as they will.

I will not display it now and further incur the wrath of the hon. member, but as it happens there was a label on the back, which we have on briefcases and everything else, which said "No more taxes. No more debt".

I can understand the hon. member's sensitivity to that. It was not my intention-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

I am glad we do not have the lash in our arsenal.

I would encourage all hon. members not to use props. The hon. member has explained that it was done inadvertently. I accept the hon. member's word.