Debates of March 16th, 1995

Board Of Internal Economy

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that Mr. Jim Silye, member for the electoral district of Calgary Centre, has been appointed a member of the Board of Internal Economy in place of Mr. Stephen Harper, member for the electoral district of Calgary West, for the purposes and under the provisions of chapter 42, first supplement of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, entitled "an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act".

Privilege

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, I would now like to rule on a question of privilege raised on Friday, March 3, 1995 by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, notice of which was given the previous day just after Question Period. I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this matter, as well as the chief government whip and the hon. members for Berthier-Montcalm, Kindersley-Lloydminster, and Kingston and the Islands for their contributions to the discussion. I would also like to thank the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington for her intervention on this matter on March 13, 1995.

In his question of privilege, the hon. member for Sherbrooke alleged that there had been a leak of the budget prior to its presentation by the Minister of Finance on February 27, 1995. To support his claim, the member drew the attention of the House to the March 2, 1995, edition of the Hill Times , and more specifically, to a comment made by the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington found therein. In response to the question Is there too much secrecy surrounding the budget?'' the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington is quoted as having said:I don't think so. There were some MPs who were told beforehand if major cuts were coming to programs in their ridings. They asked for that in caucus so they could prepare to answer questions''. The hon. member for Sherbrooke then argued that if certain members had ``privileged, secret information before budget day'' this would be to the detriment of other members and would hinder them in the performance of their duties. The hon. members for Berthier-Montcalm and Kindersley-Lloydminster echoed the member's sentiments and concerns about a certain group of members being privy to information not available to other members.

The procedural issue before us is not a question of budget secrecy per se. Several members cited citation 31(5) of Beauchesne's Sixth Edition to support the contention that budget secrecy was and is a political convention and not a matter to be dealt with under the guise of parliamentary privilege. Indeed, several members emphasized that what was really at issue was the implication of prior knowledge of the contents of the budget by certain members, and I emphasize the word members, and not others. The questions we must therefore ask are, at first glance, does there appear to be a breach of the rights of certain members, and has something occurred which has impaired the ability of members to carry out their duties as members?

As I have said on numerous occasions, we have a tradition in the House which dictates that we accept the word of an hon. member as truth. Taking the quote of the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington as represented by the Hill Times , one might be inclined to agree that there was the appearance that certain members had been given confidential information not available to others. However, in light of the comments made by the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington on March 13, 1995, and the text of her memorandum from which the hon. whip read and later tabled, I accept that the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington was referring to the announcement made outside the House by the President of the Treasury Board on February 21 regarding measures for the downsizing of the federal public service and not to a prebudget disclosure.

Consequently, I cannot conclude that members of the House have in any way been hindered in carrying out their parliamentary duties. Hence, I do not find a prima facie case of breach of privilege.

I thank all hon. members for their contributions.

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 18 petitions.

Committees Of The House

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third and fourth reports of the Standing Committee on Industry, pursuant to the order of reference on Wednesday, June 15, 1994.

Your committee has considered Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act and to make related amendments to other acts. Your committee has agreed also to report it with amendments and to provide as well a substantive report which explains the amendments being reported and why other possible changes were not adopted.

I would also like to point out that the third report, which provides explanations and supplementary recommendations, breaks new ground for committees reviewing bills. Your committee felt that such a report was necessary, given that Bill C-43 was referred before second reading, thus broadening considerably the scope of the review that was undertaken.

The 13 amendments that have been set out in the fourth report would, in the view of your committee, significantly strengthen an already good bill.

I would like to thank members of the committee for working together to meet the new responsibilities involved in considering a bill before second reading. The results I believe speak for themselves and deserve serious consideration by all sides of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the critic for the official opposition on the matter of lobbyists, I am pleased to rise very briefly today, following the tabling of the report of the majority, to inform Parliament that I have tabled, with the majority report, a dissenting opinion on this bill.

With all we have heard regarding the management of the affairs of government, I feel the profession of influence peddlar, as it is called in the business, must be regulated. Legislation was needed to re-establish a relationship of trust between the government and the people.

I thought that, with the campaign commitments the Liberals made in the last election, transparency would be the watchword within Parliament thanks to this bill. I also thought that the new parliamentary procedure, which was supposed to permit in-depth debates and improve the role of members of Parliament, would enable me to amend Bill C-43 in keeping with taxpayers' interests. I was fooled, like many others. The procedure failed to live up to promise as did the wording of Bill C-43, and this is why I submitted a dissenting opinion, which is appended to the report. I wanted to let people know of the two major failings of this bill.

Bill C-74

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 56(1), I move:

That, on Thursday, March 16, 1995, when proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 have been concluded, the motion to adjourn the House shall be deemed to have been withdrawn and the sitting shall be suspended until such time as the Chair may reconvene the sitting for the sole purpose of a Royal Assent;

That, immediately upon return from the Royal Assent, the House shall be adjourned until the next sitting day;

Provided that, if no Royal Assent has been held by 9 a.m. on Friday, March 17, 1995, the House shall be reconvened for the sole purpose of being adjourned until 10 a.m. on that day.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Would all those members who oppose such a motion please rise. The requirement being 25, and as only two members are standing, therefore, the motion is carried.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to present another petition in this course of action undertaken on behalf of constituents who wish to halt the early release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.

The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the full extent of their sentences.

The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of convicted murderers.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions.

The first two petitions are in regard to the Canadian Wheat Board. They request that Parliament continue to give the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly powers in marketing wheat and barley for export.

The other petition goes beyond that and requests that the Canadian Wheat Board marketing monopoly powers include all grains and oilseeds.

The petitioners are from my home riding of Yorkton-Melville.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

The next group contains 38 petitions again from my riding but also from other ridings in and around Saskatchewan.

The petitioners state that the Saskatchewan government is on the verge of balancing its budget, allowing Saskatchewan taxpayers to see the light at the end of the high tax tunnel. Therefore, they ask and request Parliament to reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

The last group contains 28 petitions. They come from Ottawa and Toronto and many other areas in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

The petitioners ask that Parliament support laws which will severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime. They support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions that recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms. They support legislation which will repeal and modify existing gun control laws which have not improved public safety and have proven not to be cost effective and have proven to be overly complex as to be ineffective and/or unenforceable.

[Rex Crawford, Liberal, Kent, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured once again to rise in the House pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of constituents of the riding of Kent. They pray that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide, or active or passive euthanasia.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this petition from the constituents of Willowdale asks Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include provisions similar to article 611 of the Quebec civil code. It states that 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 to be settled by the court. They request Parliament to further amend the Divorce Act to give a grandparent who is granted access to a child the right to make inquiries and to be given information as to the health, education and welfare of the child.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to introduce three different petitions today.

The first petition is regarding Bill C-41. People from my riding and around the province of B.C. have asked that Parliament not pass Bill C-41 and that section 718.2 as presently written not include the undefined phrase sexual orientation in that bill. I am happy to concur with that.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition was sent to me by firefighters in my riding. They ask and pray for Parliament to allow the tax exemption status to rise from $500 up to $1,000 for their equipment. I am happy to support that measure as well. It has been stuck at that same level for some years.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition I have the privilege to present was signed by over 1,000 people from my constituency who are outraged over the murder of Melanie Carpenter, an event that occurred I am sad to say within my own constituency.

This petition calls upon Parliament to permit the use of post-sentence detention orders and to pass Bill C-240 which would limit the freedoms of high risk offenders. If Parliament hears this petition, innocent people like Melanie Carpenter would still be alive and and dangerous ones like her murderer would remain behind bars.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member may not have been here yesterday when the Speaker invited members not to say whether or not they agree or disagree with the petitions.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to present a petition that is part of a larger petition of almost 64,000 signatories. This petition contains approximately 18,000 signatures of citizens in and around Edmonton Southwest who are asking that the Young Offenders Act be changed and strengthened so that it would have the effect of deterring criminal behaviour by young people.

There are many citizens across the country who feel that the Young Offenders Act does not do what it was intended to do. These 18,000 citizens of our country are requesting the Parliament of Canada to strengthen the Young Offenders Act.

It is my pleasure to introduce this in the House today.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition to the House of Commons. The petition contains 8,000 signatures collected by representatives of the Animal Defence League of Canada.

The petitioners note that individuals convicted of wilfully causing pain and injury to an animal presently face maximum penalties of six months in jail to two years prohibition from owning an animal and/or a maximum find of $2,000.

The petitioners note also that in practice they do not know of any maximum penalty ever having been issued no matter how atrocious the offence. The petitioners state that they find this abhorrent and unacceptable when animals are not appropriately dealt with by our laws.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to enact harsher penalties for offences against animals and establish an education program for judges to help them understand society's abhorrence and condemnation of acts of cruelty to animals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The first petition pertains to Bill C-91, the drug patent legislation. The petitioners who have signed this petition are from my district of Regina-Lumsden in Saskatchewan as well as the cities and towns of Saskatoon, Borden, Hafford, Speers, Nipawin.

These petitioners are unhappy with the 12 per cent annual increase in prescription drugs since this bill was passed. They are asking that Bill C-91, which has placed financial burdens on them and health care programs across this country, be repealed. They request the House of Commons to do same.

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

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is signed by petitioners from the Saskatchewan communities of Kelliher, Silton, Watrous, Raymore, Punnichy, Ituna, Simpson, Foam Lake and other locations.

Under section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada, convicted murderers sentenced to life imprisonment without chance of parole for 25 years are able to apply for a review after 15 years. They are calling for the House of Commons to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, my third and final petition this morning deals with the Senate.

The petitioners are from my constituency of Regina-Lumsden as well as from Pilot Butte, Saskatchewan. In view of the fact that the Senate costs approximately $60 million a year and in their view the purpose of the Senate is useless, they are asking the House of Commons to repeal sections 41 and 42 of the Constitution Act which would in effect abolish the Senate.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from my constituents containing 2,700 names, which is also part of a larger petition prompted by the murder of Barb Denelesko.

The petitioners state that Canadian citizens from coast to coast are calling for changes to the Young Offenders Act. They want an act serious enough to deter young people from committing crimes and tough enough to provide real justice. In its current format the Young Offenders Act is not meeting these objectives. The petitioners request that the Government of Canada review the Young Offenders Act of 1992 and amend it accordingly.

Questions On The Order Paper

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?