Debates of May 19th, 1995

Government Contracts

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, the Deputy Prime Minister just sold us a bill of goods.

The Minister of National Defence said recently that he could not afford to be fair to Quebec in terms of the distribution of his department's spending. Are we to understand that the Deputy Prime Minister is in the same position and has neither the will nor the means to be fair to Quebec?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where some of these people get their quotes. I never said that at all. I would never say that.

I was pointing out a situation in which certain expenditures are made across the country. Certain installations are built across the country as a result of historic circumstances. To imply that there was something discriminatory in this is completely outrageous.

Gasoline Additives

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

The government has legislation ready to be tabled in this House that would ban the importation of MMT, a gasoline enhancer. The ban is based solely on evidence provided by only one of the two vested groups, namely the Motor Vehicles Manufacturers' Association.

The minister stated in the House on May 5 that "any cabinet decision to move on MMT is supported by all ministers of the government".

By making this ban, is the minister setting a precedent of bias for the process of decision making for all the industries within the purview of government, including natural resources?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

No, Mr. Speaker.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my supplemental question is for the same minister.

By banning MMT her government is supporting the claims and data brought forward by only the MVMA. This must mean that the contrary scientific data from Ethyl Corporation is false and incorrect.

What conclusive information does the minister have that discredits the data provided by Ethyl Corporation that would cause the government to side with the MVMA and thereby perhaps place the environment at greater risk?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member has thought of a different use for the product we all buy at the pumps. Perhaps he has. I am not sure what it is. The last time I checked, most of it goes into motor vehicles.

He will know that Canada has benefited very well from the fact that there is a very strong continental market in motor vehicles. We produce about 17 per cent of the North American production and we only consume about 8 per cent. That benefits us very directly in terms of jobs and economic growth.

The vehicles that are being produced use the product at the pumps. It should have come to his attention that the new cars require fuel without MMT. If he would like to have his constituents purchasing vehicles that either cost a lot more or have their diagnostic systems unplugged, then he ought to be in support of keeping the MMT in the fuel. But until we find some other use for it-and perhaps he breathes it, I do not know-we have to have continental standards in fuel.

Gun Control

[Elijah Harper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

Aboriginal groups have criticized Bill C-68, the minister's gun control legislation. As a treaty and First Nations member, these criticisms are of great concern to me and I take them very seriously.

Treaties form the fundamental relationship that exists between the First Nations and the Government of Canada. Treaty rights are recognized and protected under the Canadian Constitution. Will the minister tell the House and assure the aboriginal people of Canada that Bill C-68 will not take away, abrogate, or derogate these treaty rights?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of this government to treat all Canadians fairly in connection with this legislation. We also are very much aware that aboriginal people have both aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt, and we intend to respect them.

I learned for myself as I travelled the length and breadth of the country last year and visited aboriginal communities how firearms are often treated as a tool and how their use is very much a part of their way of life.

The way we responded to this need is through consultation. Just after the action plan was tabled in the House last November 30, some 690 letters went out with copies of the plan to the aboriginal leadership across Canada. We wrote again to those same 690 leaders of aboriginal communities early this year. We followed up, with the help of about 70 of them, in assembling one of the most comprehensive and unprecedented consultation processes known to the government. In nine regions of Canada we are meeting with representatives of rural, urban, on reserve and off reserve aboriginal persons. In the coming months we will conclude that very direct and personal discussion process to determine how this bill can be implemented in a manner that is sensitive to the reality of aboriginal lifestyles, culture, and treaty rights. We will then prepare regulations, which will be

sent in draft form for comment to those same people. We will then table them in the House for the 30-day review.

We intend to comply with our obligations and respect the rights to which the hon. member has referred.

Human Rights

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that almost two years after having been elected, the government has not yet amended the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation in the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

Will the Minister of Justice have the courage and the sense of responsibility to table amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act before the end of this session?

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

Mr. Speaker, what is not an issue is the commitment of the government to the changes in the human rights act to which the hon. member has referred.

I must tell the hon. member today, as I have in the past, that commitment remains unchanged. We have long recognized the need to amend the human rights act as he has suggested, not only to add sexual orientation as a ground upon which discrimination is prohibited but in a variety of other important ways. This is to bring that act up to date to reflect improvements that have been introduced in provincial legislation on the same subject, to meet the needs identified by the chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and to fulfil commitments the government has made. We will indeed proceed with those changes.

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, recently a program on Manitoba television, which included an interview with the department of Indian affairs supervisor in Manitoba, identified that the Jackhead Band had misspent money, cheques had been forged and the RCMP were investigating the disappearance of over $70,000 for house construction. This situation has placed individual band members in very tough financial circumstances. The department of Indian affairs has exhibited no interest in their welfare.

What has the minister done to ensure these abuses will be rectified and to obtain reimbursement of these moneys?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of what is going on in Jackhead. This is under review by the department. I am pleased the hon. member has risen today because he has not risen in a week. Usually I find all 10 of his toes do not touch the ground.

Last Friday, this hon. member made an allegation against the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River. I thought today this hon. member would stand up and withdraw. He said the hon. member was honoured by the chiefs and he was in a conflict position. Not only was he not honoured but it was not a conflict. I would have thought that if he wanted work to progress with aboriginal people, he would take Fridays and speak about the dignity and respect we are supposed to bring to aboriginal people, not bring unjust accusations which he usually does on Fridays.

The Environment

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

North American security is threatened more on the environment than on any other front. Now the U.S. clean water act and the clean air act are under attack. We learned that the U.S. House of Representatives has diluted the clean water act making it easier for industry to continue polluting the Great Lakes with airborne dioxins and furans.

What effect could these amendments have on Canada? What action is being taken to ensure the Great Lakes water quality agreement is upheld?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, indeed the member has underlined a very serious concern. If the proposed amendments that have passed the House of Representatives proceed through the Senate without amendment, they will gut the current provisions of an international agreement which affects the drinking water of 50 million people on both sides of the border.

The member will know the single largest international body of water is the Great Lakes. We do not intend to allow the Great Lakes water quality agreement to be watered down. We have been in touch with the office of the president.

Today I myself have contacted by letter the administrator responsible for the Environmental Protection Agency. We have also been in contact with Ambassador Blanchard by way of letter in advance of the decision of Congress.

We are going to do everything we can to ensure the amendments put forth by Congress do not see the light of day. We do not want to put Canadians' health and the environment at risk, which would be the effect of accepting these amendments.

[The Speaker]

That would bring to a conclusion the question period. I have notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Elk Island which I will hear now.

Privilege

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been over one and one-half years since I was elected as a new member to this most important Chamber in the country. I came here full of hope and anticipation of what the democratic process would be. The breach of privilege of which I speak today is such a severe aberration and breach of the most fundamental premises of democracy that I am really sorry I have to raise it.

I also recognize that what I am going to say is important. I realize your position, Mr. Speaker, is of tremendous importance here. In your office and in your person lies the ability to maintain the very basic premise of democracy and the rules under which it operates. I am asking today not only for your ruling, but also for your guidance because of my deep concerns.

I want to specifically give the reasons for my complaint. I was a substitute authorized member of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons on Tuesday and Wednesday. I know, Mr. Speaker, you heard one question of privilege already and you ruled on that, but my problem is a different one and much more serious. It has to do with the conducting of a vote in that committee.

Specifically, this is what happened. Our party moved an amendment. When the chairman of the committee called for the vote, we said yea. There was not a single nay heard. The chairman ruled that the motion had been defeated. Now that is so fundamental it is not even in the rule book. It is assumed in a democracy that when everybody who casts a vote says yea and the chairman says that it has been defeated that it is a flagrant and violent abuse of democracy such as we cannot tolerate if we want to maintain our system.

The chairman declared that motion defeated and of course I immediately challenged the chair. When I did that, the chairman of the committee said that his ruling would stand. I objected and the chairman then invoked the rules of order which ask for the majority of the people in the committee to decide if the ruling of the chair stands. The Liberal majority woke up and they faithfully fell into line and supported the ruling of the chair. I could not accept that.

This was such a serious aberration that I told the chairman he could not do that. He said he could. I suppose I should have apologized at that stage for becoming a little upset, but to me this was such a violent attack on the democratic process. I then moved to report this incident to the Speaker because it was my understanding that such an issue could not come to you unless it was reported by the committee. I may be wrong here and I have some reasons for considering that I may be wrong, but that was my understanding at the time.

I moved the motion that this be reported, but the chairman would not accept the motion and ruled it out of order. I told the chairman it could not be out of order. He then proceeded to ask if the ruling of the chair was sustained and the majority of the members present said yes. Now that is unbelievable. I cannot accept that.

I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, that this be corrected. There must be some things the committee does not have 100 per cent autonomy to do. It cannot by vote alter the truth. This is a democratic tradition that has been upheld for so long that an arbitrary rule of a motion defeated when in fact it has passed cannot be accepted.

If the majority of members were not paying attention and did not vote when they should have, just wishing that they would have been awake does not give them any justification for using their majority to override the previous vote. Only a person who voted on the side that won the vote can move a motion to reconsider. That was not done in this case. The chairman arbitrarily and incorrectly declared the vote lost and the members were not paying attention and chimed into his defence.

This is so serious, Mr. Speaker, that I appeal to you that some corrective action be taken. As I said in my preamble, I do require your assistance as well as your ruling because I want to know how to handle this. This cannot be accepted by this Parliament, the highest court of the land, as such a serious aberration of the democratic process.

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

Mr. Speaker, with great respect for the comments the hon. member has made, there is a procedure for dealing with this matter. With the greatest respect, I think the hon. member ought to follow that accepted procedure.

The same point was raised in the House yesterday. Your Honour very properly ruled that there was not a question of privilege before the House because no report had been received from the committee.

I think the hon. member is confused, again with great respect to him, because I know he is trying to raise a very serious concern. He misunderstood the import of Your Honour's ruling yesterday, which was that this cannot be brought before the House until there is a report from the committee. By that statement I think he is inferring that there must be a report on the incident from the committee or else he cannot raise the matter.

I suggest that is not what Your Honour ruled or intended and it is not in accordance with the practice of the House. I refer the hon. member and Your Honour to citation 894 of Beauchesne's 6th edition. I will read paragraphs (1) and (3) under the citation:

(1) Until the report and the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence have been laid upon the Table, it is irregular to refer to them in debate, or to put questions in reference to the proceedings of the committee.

Then I will skip to (3).

If alleged irregular proceedings take place in committee but are not referred to in the report that the committee presented to the House, then it is not competent for the House to go beyond that report to debate this matter.

The hon. member can clearly raise it in the House at the time the report comes. Whether it will be debated, he can raise it and ask Your Honour to rule. Certainly, there will be some indication in a report if there was a vote taken that something happened. There will be minutes of the proceedings of the committee indicating there was an appeal from the ruling of the chairman. That will be reported in the minutes of the committee and that will come to the House.

All those things will be reported in there. The hon. member will be able to debate those and comment on them in the House and raise his question of privilege, if indeed there is a question of privilege here, when that report has come to the House. Then Your Honour will be seized of the matter, we will have the report before the House and will be able to make some comment.

The difficulty and the reason that Speakers have taken the view that the proceedings in committees are not within the purview of the Chair is that until a committee has reported, the committee is master of its own proceedings. It may change what it has done and correct any errors. That is part of the reason for the rule. Committees can undo what they have done in certain circumstances and redo what they have done and thereby make them correct if there has been some error.

I suggest it is incumbent upon the hon. member and his colleagues on the committee in question to go back to the chairman of the committee, raise the issues before the chair and seek to have the matter rectified in the committee. I think the hon. member knows that there have been efforts made to see that this happens.

I suggest to him that the proper course to follow under the circumstances is to raise the matter with the chairman of the committee at another meeting of the committee instead of boycotting the meetings of the committee and make an effort to resolve the matter. I suggest if that is done it would be unnecessary for him to come to the House with a question of privilege. He would probably find that perhaps not all, but the majority of his concerns would be fully dealt with. He would realize the wisdom of the actions of the chair at one point or another in the proceedings and we could get the matter resolved there, which with all due respect, is where it should be resolved.

I do not want to suggest that this sort of thing has not happened before. I was in opposition before. I know how committees work. Sometimes things can happen in committees that hon. members feel strongly about and they wish had not happened. That happens on both sides of the House.

I assure the hon. member that I know in this case the chairman of the committee is eminently reasonable. If the hon. member will meet with the chairman in an effort to resolve the matter, I think there can be a satisfactory resolution so far as we can arrange it before the matter comes back to the House in the report. At that time if the member wishes to debate the proceedings of the committee, he is free to do so pursuant to the standing orders.

[The Speaker]

I will listen to the hon. member for Fraser Valley East.

At this point, it is my interpretation that with what was brought up yesterday in the House there seems to be a slight variation on the whole thing. May I ask, was the hon. member present at the committee?

There seems to be a slight variation on the whole thing. Was the hon. member for Fraser Valley East present at the committee?

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

No.

[The Speaker]

I will permit an intervention by the hon. member but it should deal precisely with this point and not refer to any other decision taken.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a separate incident from the one I brought forward at a previous date because of a series of events that continues to happen in the committee.

The Speaker has asked for us to wait for the report to the House. The problem is when incidents such as the one the hon. member for Elk Island has mentioned come up in committee and we ask it even to be reported to the House we are told it will not be reported to the House. We not only cannot debate but we cannot introduce amendments, we cannot ask questions of witnesses, we cannot in some cases even vote.

Then when the votes happen sometimes they are overturned by the hammer of the chairman. Then when we raise these issues and say could it not be reported to the House we are told no. Then they appeal to the committee and the committee says it will not report it.

We are at wits end. We cannot do any of the democratic roles of an opposition. We cannot do any of the things I have described, the legitimate role in opposition. When we want to

raise it for investigation or for future reference we are told we cannot even do that. We cannot do any of the roles given to us, privileges as members of Parliament. When we raise points of privilege we are told they will not even be reported to the Chair.

We are at wits end. We cannot fulfil our job, our duty and our responsibility to raise issues of great concern to Canadians. We really feel the Chair needs to intervene. This is the second case, I realize.

The transcripts are in. We could start to go over them. There is a serious breach of democratic rights. We must get it addressed before this committee continues.

To say we refuse now to attend is true. I cannot go to a committee in which the chairman says I have no rights and asks me to sit down.

[The Speaker]

I will hear from the hon. parliamentary secretary first.

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

Mr. Speaker, my only reason for intervening is this incident has affected the Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

A Reform member came to bring in a motion that the chairman abide by the standing orders because of an incident which happened in that committee. I hope the Chair will not start intervening in the affairs of individual standing committees.

Sometimes the opposition forgets it is in a minority position in committees, as it is in the House. There is a steering committee to decide the agenda. When something is put to a vote, as it was yesterday in our committee, the majority has to rule. Sometimes people are not satisfied with what the majority has voted on.

I hope the Chair will respect the independence of each committee and that what goes on in one committee should not be brought to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

[The Speaker]

I will permit an intervention from the hon. House leader of the Reform Party.

Before further intervention by members I would like them to stay within the confines of the point of privilege the hon. member for Elk Island has brought forth. Please do not go outside of these confines.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate now to comment in light of the comments you just made. Would you give me permission to very briefly answer the concerns made by the parliamentary secretary?