Debates of May 9th, 1995

Port Of Belledune

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very convenient when the federal government says to spend money on this or get nothing at all in what it decides.

The minority report produced by the Reform Party on federal port reform makes it very clear that subsidies are not the way to go in the port industry. They only end up causing excessive dependence on the public purse when the people of Atlantic Canada are really looking for economic self-sufficiency.

Will the minister explain to the House how Atlantic Canada will ever reach economic self-sufficiency if the government continues to fund unviable ports like Belledune so that it can compete for the revenues of the viable ports?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a very odd way of approaching this. He has mentioned the port of Chatham, the port of Dalhousie, the port of Bathurst, the port of Belledune. He probably knows there are a few other ports in New Brunswick.

What we have said as a policy is that in New Brunswick there will be two ports, the major port at Saint John which is a very important international port and a port at Belledune that was built in the late 1950s and early 1960s to handle Brunswick Mines which happen to be there. It is there because NB Power has a thermal generating plant that happened to be built at Belledune.

If the hon. member had thought about what he was saying, he would understand that rather than have a half a dozen ports that need subsidies of all kinds to continue to operate, we will wind up in New Brunswick with two viable ports, one at Saint John and one at Belledune.

Transport

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

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

Last week the Minister of Transport called some of his department's plans to automate and privatize air navigation systems a mess. I agree with the minister.

There are increasing concerns about the automated weather system, the number of layoffs in 26 airports, emergency fire response, and the Transport Canada project to install automated aircraft and control systems over budget. Surely in the interests of public safety the minister should respond to the airlines, the pilots, the consumers and call an independent public inquiry in his government's policy to privatize and automate air navigation systems.

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, again the Reform and the NDP must be drinking from the same cup of coffee.

The problem with CAATS which was raised by my hon. friend last week with respect to the overspending is as a result of the system that is in place now. The problem with AWOS is as a result of the system that is in now place.

If there ever was justification to go to the commercialization of the air navigation system where there are the deliverers of the service, the users of the service, and the people who pay for the service sitting at the table as the operators of ANS, the question that was just asked by the hon. member is the best rationale for all of that to be done.

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport.

The minister will agree there is grave concern about the AWOS. He will know there are two investigations now of crashes where the AWOS is implicated. His department is going ahead with the AWOS. I have been to briefings by Transport Canada on this system. It is unproven technology.

It is time for an independent, public inquiry into this automation system and its commercialization. Will he not do it?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that the AWOS has a number of flaws in it. We have recognized that and have taken steps to correct it. We are responding to the concerns she has expressed on behalf of the industry.

However, AWOs was designed in the current environment. CAATS was designed in the current environment. There are problems with both of those systems but she does not want us to change the system. She wants us to continue a system that has produced these kinds of problems. It does not make any sense.

National Defence

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the parliamentary secretary to the minister of defence.

It was recently reported that two members of the Maisonneuve Regiment in Montreal were associating with racist organizations. Can the parliamentary secretary tell the House what is being done about racism in the armed forces? What is the minister doing to prevent racists from joining?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a timely question.

I want to inform him and the House there are three things with respect to existing members. First, following the events in Somalia, procedures were implemented that strictly indicated a zero tolerance toward racism in the Canadian forces.

Second, the chief of the defence staff issued to all units in August 1993 a policy to that effect.

Third, the existing commanders have been directed by the chief of the defence staff to complement their present training systems with sensitized training in the area of anti-racism.

With respect to those joining, new procedures have been implemented in which all recruiting units are required to read the policy to new enrollees and make sure they understand them. If they do not agree they are not allowed to join the Canadian forces.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Doug Phillips, Minister of Justice, Yukon Territory.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Points Of Order

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that when I finished my question, there was a breach of decorum in this House when the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine shouted "traitor". This was heard at the Table and by several members.

I would ask you to refer to the Table to confirm whether that was indeed the case and to ask the hon. member immediately to make amends for this breach of decorum, because this use of the word "traitor" reflects on the legitimacy of my right to sit in this House.

[The Speaker]

My dear colleague, I myself did not hear the term used. The hon. member in question is here in the House, and I will give him the floor.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General]

Mr. Speaker, yes, the debate in Quebec is getting under way, and it is true we have been hearing all kinds of comments from the opposition these last few months about federalist forces, Liberals, and members lawfully elected in Quebec.

I admit I did use the term, but not in speaking to the hon. member. I agree that in the heat of debate, people say certain things. I certainly do apologize for using this term here in the House.

[The Speaker]

I accept your apologies on behalf of the House of Commons.

I believe there is another point of order. The government whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I call again to the Speaker's attention an issue that occurred today as well as one day last week in the House of Commons. It is the rule or the citation of Beauchesne's and the customs of this House with regard to anticipating orders of the day.

Mr. Speaker, you will know that under the heading "Oral Questions" in Beauchesne's 6th edition, citation 410 states:

In 1986 the Speaker put forth further views in light of more recent conditions and precedents.

This was with regard to what could and could not be asked in question period. I refer to paragraph (14) of citation 410 which states:

Questions should not anticipate an Order of the Day although this does not apply to the budget process.

When members refer to bills that are before the House, unless those bills are part of the budget process, they should not be raised at question period if they are the subject of the debate that day in the House.

Not only are we talking about an issue which is listed on today's Projected Order of Business as being before the House, we are in fact talking about a bill that was the subject of discussion in the House only 15 or 20 minutes before it was raised by the hon. leader of the Reform Party.

Therefore, it is my submission that not only would it be a breach if members raised something which is on today's Projected Order of Business, but it is even more true when the debate was the subject immediately prior to question period and the House is reasonably aware that it will be the debate before the House immediately after question period.

Therefore, I submit that this kind of question is out of order. I ask the Chair to rule it that way in the future.

I also want to ask the Speaker about the rule of anticipation generally. Citation 512 of Beauchesne's states:

(2) The rule against anticipation is that a matter must not be anticipated if it is contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it is sought to be anticipated, but it may be anticipated if it is contained in an equally or less effective form.

This is in reference to a 1936 application of that rule which basically states that if there is a more effective method of raising something it should not then be anticipated in this way.

I want to conclude by suggesting respectfully to the Chair that when a subject is discussed in debate immediately prior and immediately after question period, to raise it during question period under the pretence that it is not anticipating an Order of the Day is a flagrant abuse of the customs and traditions of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, this matter came up a couple of days ago and we responded to the allegation at that time. The question was very broadly based. It did not deal specifically with the legislation. Today it was obvious that the leader of the Reform Party was addressing his question to the minister responsible for the Treasury Board in relation to how he justified this on the one hand versus what he was doing with the civil service and general belt tightening on the other hand.

Therefore, it was a very broadly based question purposely crafted so it would not be in conflict with the standing orders. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to rule in that respect.

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

Mr. Speaker, the submissions made by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster only bolster the point made by the chief government whip. The three questions we are saying were out of order were directed to the minister responsible for the bill that is being debated in the House all day today.

Therefore, for the hon. member to suggest that by somehow asking the President of the Treasury Board about his own bill the question is in order is utter rubbish. Those questions were out of order. It was as plain as plain could be.

I invite Your Honour when future questions arise concerning matters that are before the House for discussion on Orders of the Day to apply the strictures contained in Beauchesne, citations 409 and 410, both of which I quoted to the House in my remarks last Thursday when the member for Beaver River did precisely the same thing.

The citations in Beauchesne are intended to be mandatory guidelines directed to the order of question period. If the guidelines contained in Beauchesne are not going to be enforced and accepted by members, then the only solution is to change the standing orders of the House to put mandatory guidelines in them that then will be enforced.

I do not prefer that option and I am sure you do not, Mr. Speaker. There are times when we do not need to have hard and fast rules, when it is better to have guidelines which these are. They are guidelines. Consistent breaching of guidelines by using question period to further the debate on government legislation is improper. It has been condemned by Beauchesne. It is against the guideline in Beauchesne. It has been condemned by previous committees that have helped establish these guidelines in consultation with the Speaker.

In my submission the hon. member for Calgary Southwest should be embarrassed that he asked those questions today. I invite Your Honour in future to rule such questions out of order.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is on the same point of order.

The matter that was raised in question period is about an issue that is very topical. The subject matter is of great interest to all Canadians. No reference was made to any specific issue that is being debated in the House. We cleared this matter with the people we are supposed to clear these matters with to get proper guidance and proper assurance that we are following the procedures.

This is nothing more than two bookworms whining and complaining about this issue.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say briefly that after I heard these interventions, it would seem to me that they are not being critical of my leader or

anyone who raised this question, but in fact they are calling your judgment into question. I think that is reprehensible.

[The Speaker]

The Chair takes no offence when points of order are raised in the House. I like to get advice from both sides so that we can see what is the lay of the land.

As to the remark from the hon. member for Beaver River, with all respect to her, I want her to know that I take no offence at these points of order being raised.

When this was raised last week I mentioned to hon. members that sometimes we are skirting the rules very closely. At that time I asked all hon. members give enough latitude to the Chair so we could have the normal give and take that occurs in question period.

It is true when we are debating a certain bill, I as your Speaker listen very closely both to the questions and to the answers. I have to wait until a question is asked to know whether I am going to make a ruling on it being in order or out of order.

I asked hon. members last week to please give your Speaker enough latitude to be able to conduct these question and answer periods for the benefit of the House. I thank both members of the government party for their interventions and all three interveners for the Reform Party. What sets questions up, and you know this and I know it, is the preamble. I have given all latitude to members asking questions and even in the responses I have allowed ministers and responders-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Please colleagues, I am trying to explain this for all of us. I give as much latitude as I can so that we can get at the facts, whatever they are.

If in my opinion a matter does not refer directly to the bill, if I feel it is in a general enough area, I will permit the question. I caution all hon. members that when we are crafting our questions it is incumbent that, if I might say with all respect, the Chair should be reasonably comfortable that the question is indeed in order. The more your Speaker is pushed to the line, the more likely he is to intervene on the questions.

I appeal to all hon. members in the crafting of the questions to please, if we have a bill being debated on that day, to consider that the questions be general enough in nature, which I judged them to be today, so that the questions can be asked. If you push your Speaker too close to the line, then of course I will intervene, as I have in the past.

All that to say that the points are well taken on this side. The points are well founded. The points made on the other side are equally good in the sense that they give a balance to the Chair as to where we are going. With your continued support I will see to it that the question period is conducted in a civilized manner with respect on both sides and all members are carrying out their responsibilities in the way they should.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this just arose while we were listening.

The whip hollered across: "You should be ashamed, but then again you probably do not know shame". I ask him to withdraw that. Perhaps that would help clean up the level of debate. He said it, he knows it. Perhaps you could ask him to withdraw it.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I did not hear that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will gladly admit to saying it and I will withdraw it, but it is not out of order.