Debates of March 13th, 1996

Justice

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week we heard an incredible admission from the justice minister. He said there could be instances in which some first degree murderers deserve an opportunity of parole after serving just 15 years of a life term.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice please give us an example of a murderer who deserves an opportunity of parole after serving just 15 years of a life sentence? Should Constable Todd Baylis' murderer get a hearing? Should Laurie Boyd's killer get a hearing? Should the killers of Brenda Fitzgerald, Darren Rosenfeldt, Leslie Mahaffy and Christine French get a hearing? Would any of these murderers qualify in the opinion of those in the justice department?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my hon. friend's concerns but I remind him and the House that the parole board is an independent semi-judicial body that operates at arm's length from ministers and MPs. I do not see how my hon. friend could reasonably expect us in the House to give that type of information.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the solicitor general should talk to the justice minister and suggest that he not make these kinds of comments in the House if he is not prepared to explain them. What is the purpose of making them if he is not prepared to explain them to the House, to the people of Canada and to the families of victims of these first degree murderers?

The member for York South-Weston reintroduced a private member's bill yesterday which would eliminate section 745 from the Criminal Code. His former bill, Bill C-226, was buried for over a year in committee.

Will the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister assure the House there will be no interference with the agenda of the justice committee and allow this bill to become law before August 12 of this year when child serial killer Clifford Olson becomes eligible for parole?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that it has been an important innovation in parliamentary reform by the government that all private members' business is treated on a free vote basis. Also, the committees are masters of their own agendas.

I am glad the hon. member asked his question because it gives me the opportunity to remind the House that the bill of the hon. member for York South-Weston has been restored to the Order Paper and sent back to the committee where it was before prorogation. This is because of the initiative taken by this government, again for the first time in Parliamentary history, to restore private members' business after prorogation in exactly the same way as has been done in the past only for government business.

I also remind the House that the Reform Party totally opposed the government's motion to allow the restoration of private members' bills like that of the hon. member for York South-Weston. If it had its way the bill of the hon. member for York South-Weston would have been dead and buried forever but we, the Liberals, prevented that.

Health

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

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

Science and technology is making giant strides in the area of human reproductive technologies, leaving the public interest and legislators well behind. Will the minister tell the House if and when

he intends to reply to the recommendations announced in November 1993 by the Royal Commission on Reproductive Technologies?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks a very substantive and important question.

The royal commission filed its report with the Government of Canada. Over the last number of weeks we have been doing a fair number of bilateral consultations with various groups.

It would be my intent, based upon the suggestions which have been made by hon. members opposite as well as my colleague to the right, that we would want to proceed with legislation. We would like to table that legislation hopefully before the House recesses in June.

The legislation we intend to table will be comprehensive. I will be looking for guidance and advice from members of Parliament from all political parties in terms of how we can effectuate the best piece of legislation for the country as a whole.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Health.

Today the Canadian Health Coalition released a legal opinion prepared by Dr. Bryan Schwartz concerning the impact of NAFTA on Canada's medicare system.

In view of the serious differences between the U.S. and Canada over this issue and in view of the March 31 deadline which is quickly approaching, will the minister agree to meet urgently with his provincial counterparts and health policy activists? Most important, will he issue a clear interpretation that no part of Canada's health care system will be opened up to U.S. for-profit health corporations?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is well aware there is a lot of legal interpretation circulating with regard to this issue.

I want to assure him and the House there are no provisions of the NAFTA agreement which will impact in terms of Canada's medicare system. I want to assure the House that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister for International Trade and I are working co-operatively with one another to assure every Canadian there will not be an attack by Americans or Mexicans as it relates to the Canada health care system.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I would like to draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of the Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Irish Language, Mr. Dinny McGinley, and the accompanying delegation.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Point Of Order

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. During question period, the Minister of Human Resources used the expression "baveux" to describe the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. We know one of them at least, one of them is the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot.

Mr. Speaker, I contend that the expression is not parliamentary. The word "arrogant" is considered unparliamentary. The use of such words threatens the atmosphere in this House. With all due respect, I contend that, in future, you should intervene immediately and ask the member in question to withdraw the words to avoid poisoning the situation.

If the expression were considered parliamentary, we would have to conclude that it should be used in this House and that each side of the House could use terms that are an affront to the intelligence of remarks made here and tarnish people's image of parliamentarians, even those who behave properly, unlike the Minister of Human Resources Development, who has not, unfortunately, behaved properly for far too long.

[The Speaker]

My dear colleagues, it is true the word "baveux" was used in question period. In my opinion, as the Speaker, it was not applied to a specific member.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

This is why I intervened. The word, I believe, is unacceptable in circumstances such as these.

I would ask the hon. members on both sides of the House to stop using such words, because, in my opinion, they are too strong for the House of Commons. This is why I intervened. I hope a word like this will not again be used in the House.

This is not a question of privilege, but perhaps a point of order. However, since the minister was named, and he is here, perhaps he could clarify the situation.

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is true these words were spoken in the House and I willingly admit that I used the expression. However, I would also point out that I heard others use it today, this afternoon, even. I agree entirely with the description of the situation made by the House leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to agree with you that these words are not appropriate in this House, particularly when they might be claimed to have been applied to more than one person. That would be disastrous.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

I think the word "baveux" will never again be used in the House, and I will leave the situation as it stands. It is over. Please do not use this word again.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like things to be clear. Did the minister withdraw his words? Let him say so clearly, and the whole matter will be clarified. Could he say so while you are here?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat, I agree totally with the whip of the official opposition in the House and with the Speaker of the House that the word "baveux" is unacceptable and must not be used in this House.

[The Speaker]

So, he withdrew it. That is the end of it.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

Government Response To Petitions

[Paul Zed, 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 seven petitions presented during the first session.

Private Members' Bills

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in conformity with arrangements already made in the House and referred to earlier by the solicitor general, I would like to reintroduce a private members' bill on the subject of the Endangered and Threatened Species Act, File No. 352119.

[The Speaker]

My colleague, I am informed that your request should be on notice and it is not receivable today. I would invite the hon. member to put it on the Notice Paper.

Business Of The House

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, with reference to Beauchesne's, as I understand it a question of privilege takes precedence in the House over other matters on the Order Paper. We did allow question period to proceed because there was an understanding that it would proceed. However, in terms of proceeding with the other orders such as the ones we are dealing with now, it would be out of order in that the question of privilege does have precedence. I would appreciate your ruling on that, Mr. Speaker.