Debates of May 12th, 1995

Indian Affairs

[The Deputy Speaker]

We will pass on. The hon. member for Verchères.

Auditor General's Report

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

In the report he tabled yesterday, the auditor general confirms that 274 Canadian diplomats cashed in their plane tickets for an average gain of more than $2,000. What is even worse is that 14 diplomats submitted claims for trips that never took place.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what disciplinary actions have been taken against these 14 Canadian diplomats, who defrauded Canadian taxpayers of tens of thousands of dollars?

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has complimented our department for taking such quick action in looking at all of these cases. Many of them were committed under the previous administration, but financial restitution has been made. The people involved have been punished, either by demotion or by other means.

I think the hon. member should compliment the government for taking the auditor general's recommendations and implementing them so quickly.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, can the Deputy Prime Minister or the parliamentary secretary explain to us why the Department of Justice decided not to take legal action against the 14 diplomats, despite the RCMP's recommendation that criminal charges be laid against those guilty of fraud in the Canadian diplomatic corps?

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, disciplinary actions have been taken against the people who committed these offences. Not all consequences necessarily have to go through the court system. Sometimes a demotion on the job is much more hurtful than proceeding through other channels.

Again, I must emphasize that all cases were looked into and financial restitution has been made and consequences followed in each case.

Citizenship

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

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

We all know the government has in place an award that recognizes the commitment and contributions of adults who promote good citizenship in the communities across this wonderful country of ours. What is this government doing to recognize the citizenship contribution of Canada's young people?

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I am absolutely delighted to have the opportunity to advise the House that on April 21 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced the Northern Star Citation to recognize public service and responsible citizenship among Canada's youth.

The new citizenship citation will pay tribute to youth who have contributed in their schools, neighbourhoods, and communities. I can tell the House that the Northern Star is an initiative that is very close to the minister's heart. It recognizes the exemplary citizenship contributions of Canada's young people, anglophone, francophone and allophone, the people who will build the multicultural Canada of tomorrow.

Fisheries

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Less than a month ago the government extended Canada's jurisdiction beyond the 200-mile limit in order to catch Spanish poachers who were abusing turbot stocks off the east coast. However in British Columbia six conspirators who pleaded guilty to poaching herring roe were let off with absolute discharges, the last one given the absolute discharge on May 5.

Will the minister show the same concern for the tiny herring and the tiny salmon clinging by their fingernails on the west coast as he did for the turbot stocks on the east coast and launch an appeal of those absolute discharges immediately?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to making his case, having ensured that he used a good source for the information he has just given to the House, the member has lost his fingernails. He is skidding on his chin.

I know the member has a genuine interest in the health of the salmon stocks. The individuals in the case in question, because I checked yesterday, pleaded guilty. They entered a guilty plea and it was accepted by the court. The amount of product in question, contrary to reports in British Columbia, which were erroneous, was not $1 million. It was $70 and it was confiscated by the court and returned to the crown.

On the question of whether or not there was confusion and whether these individuals had been advised, I am told by a lawyer that they had a right to engage in this fishery. The judge came to the conclusion that there was sufficient doubt and that no further penalty would be imposed.

With respect to future activity of this sort DFO will prosecute. There can be no doubt that charges would be laid and substantial fines for those who engage in this kind of activity.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Question period is over, colleagues. Four members were not able to ask questions today, perhaps because of long questions or long answers. I apologize to those four members.

Privilege

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

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

The Reform Party today made an allegation that the hon. member for Prince Alberta-Churchill River has a conflict of interest because he was honoured by his constituents. That is a fairly serious allegation.

We tend to let most things go in the House because there has to be a give and take in democracy. However, it is fundamental to the rights of any member that he or she can stand up with impunity and charge a member who is not in the House, who happens to be chair of the aboriginal committee, with a conflict of interest, which is illegal and immoral.

I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that you either rule on it or that the hon. member should withdraw the remark.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear all of the minister's comments, but what I am saying is that there is a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest. I said that it was done knowingly or unknowingly. I am asking for the minister's clarification. I would like to pursue this matter. If the minister would like to clarify it for me that would be a good follow up. I will follow up through the regular mechanism of question period.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the minister's point of privilege. I did not hear how the minister related this matter to a violation of his privileges.

I would also point out that in his point of privilege he made reference to the non-presence of a member of Parliament, which is out of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, as you know, privilege is defined as anything which affects the functioning of the House of Commons.

It is stated in Beauchesne's citation 24 that parliamentary privilege is "the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament and by Members of each House individually".

Therefore, it is both. It is not just as it affects a member who was referred to but all members of the House.

The minister was quite correct and quite able to do so. He does have a legitimate case in raising a question of privilege even if it does not necessarily apply to himself. The question was asked of the minister. That is the second reason why it is, I would suggest, quite appropriate and the duty of the minister to bring the matter up.

I want to remind the Chair very briefly of what was said. One member of the House was accused of being in conflict of interest by being co-opted by a constituent in exchange for getting some sort of a reward. Finally, a minister of the crown was said by another member of this House to be pig-headed. All of that was said in the space of two questions by the same member.

The Speaker has ruled on a number of occasions in the past that similar language was out of order. I will give a number of examples. Someone who has apparently reneged on a promise has been ruled out of order by the Speaker. Language far less offensive than that heard today has been ruled out of order. Members making statements that are untrue have been ruled out of order. It goes on and on. Even such words as ignoramus have been ruled out of order.

To make such accusations as have been made, not against one but against two hon. members, one being a minister of the crown, is a point of privilege. I suggest that the Speaker would probably want to take this matter under advisement and rule on it at some point in the future. It is a serious matter that affects all of us in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The whip to the government has raised a new point of order on the question of the use of the word "pig-headed", if I may quote. Does the member from Powell River wish to speak to that second point of order aside from the question of privilege?

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have no problem withdrawing that word and using the word stubborn if that would resolve the issue.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member then, in the interest of better cordiality in the House, is withdrawing that word unconditionally.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to do that.

To further clarify the situation for the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, I did not accuse the minister of conflict of interest. If he reads the question he will see that I did not do that. I did not say that anyone was co-opted by a constituent. I did not say that anyone had obtained a reward.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The blues will be reviewed carefully with respect to the question of privilege and if it is necessary the Chair will report back to the House on that question.

Points Of Order

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during members' statements this morning, the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt misrepresented my comments made during yesterday's opposition motion by using two quotes together out of context. The quotes-

[The Deputy Speaker]

With respect to the hon. whip, I believe he is questioning a matter of debate. We cannot each be correcting everything that is said with a point of order after statements are made. We would be doing very little else in the House. I would rule that as not a point of order.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the previous point of privilege. In the event that the Chair decides it is necessary to make a ruling on this matter, I trust the Chair will provide an opportunity for the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River to make whatever contribution to the debate that he might want to make.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the minister. The Chair has thought of that matter. The member is not here today and if it is necessary he will certainly be given a chance to speak to the matter.

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 20 petitions.

Agriculture

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, entitled: "New realities and tough choices from Agriculture to Agri-food", tabled in the House of Commons on December 13, 1994.