Debates of June 19th, 1996

Canada Customs

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

Mr. Speaker, I am gad the hon. gentleman made reference to due process of law.

He will know that in the case of the litigation underway in western Canada there have been two conflicting court decisions, one earlier this spring in a case called McMechan and Cairns that went in one direction, and another decision in the Sawatzky case that went in the other direction; both decisions by the same provincial court level. That obviously creates a conundrum in terms of future interpretation. Some of those matters are at this moment under appeal.

I remind the hon. gentleman the appeal process is a part of the due process of law.

The Environment

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

On page 70 of the red book there is a commitment to Canada's role in the global reduction of greenhouse gases which cause climate change. Our commitment is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 20 per cent by the year 2005.

Can the Minister of Natural Resources inform the House whether she is on target in delivering on this important promise?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is clarify the exact commitment made by the Government of Canada. We made a commitment at Rio to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.

The hon. member is right, but in the red book we talk about working with other stakeholders. We talk about working with the provinces, the municipal governments and other important stakeholders to attempt to go beyond stabilization and to reduce greenhouse gases further.

Let me assure the hon. member we are doing just that and NRCan takes its leadership role very seriously in this regard. We run-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, climate change is one of the world's most pressing environmental challenges and the hon. members of the Reform Party do not want to listen.

National Defence

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when everyone thought the government had finally given up the idea of buying four new submarines, and at a time when it cuts blindly in its budgets, yesterday the Liberal majority in the Standing Committee on National Defence adopted, following a proposal by the Reform Party, a motion urging the government to take the necessary steps to immediately buy the four British submarines.

Are we to understand that the government has not given up the idea of wasting hundreds of millions to buy these submarines, and what guarantee can it give that it will not take advantage of the summer recess to secretly earmark hundreds of millions, as it did last year with the armoured vehicles?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that has been discussed on and off for some time now.

The hon. member would know if he had paid attention to various press reports that I have stated that the government does not intend to proceed at this time.

Justice

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister continues to punish the victims of crime. He is forcing them to relive the horrific events surrounding the murder of their children and grandchildren. The pain and suffering these parents have endured and continue to endure as a result of the Liberal sympathetic handling of premeditated killers was evident yesterday in the faces of the emotional words of Debbie Mahaffy, Sharon Rosenfeldt, Steve Sullivan, Darlene Boyd and Joanne Kaplinsky.

Why does the minister not put an end to their nightmare? Why does the minister not stand up for the victims of crime instead of their killers and repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is precisely out of sensitivity for the plight of the victims and it is precisely to achieve the underlying objectives of the criminal justice system that the government has put before the House legislation to improve section 745 of the Criminal Code.

The changes will screen out applications to ensure that only those that are meritorious will get before a jury. There are changes to ensure that once the case is before the jury, the shortening of the period of parole ineligibility will occur only when the jury is unanimous. There are changes that will ensure that in the future those convicted of multiple and serial murders will not have the right to apply under any circumstances.

I am glad to know that the hon. member is clearing the way so we can deal with that legislation this week. I urge him and his colleagues to support that legislation so we can improve the criminal law of this country.

Health

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

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

Today a federal study was released showing that tobacco and alcohol use costs Canadians more than $17 billion every year. In light of these devastating costs and concerns about huge donations from the alcohol and tobacco lobby to the Liberal Party: $50,000 from Labatt's; $46,000 from Imasco, will the minister now commit to bringing in a long overdue bill on tobacco advertising? Will he finally take on the alcohol lobby and support the bill passed in principle earlier in this House on alcohol labelling directed at pregnant mothers?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be aware that a blueprint was issued many months ago and consultations have taken place across the country.

We are now in the process of putting pen to paper for the purposes of writing a document whereby we would take in comprehensive measures to address this very, very important subject matter.

I want to say to the hon. member that we have to deal with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which has many charter implications. We are attempting to resolve with the Minister of Justice and others some of the difficulties we have now recognized in order that our comprehensive package will be effective, and also that it will not be challenged in the courts either by tobacco manufacturing companies or by other individuals.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

We have distinguished guests in the gallery today. We have the honour of welcoming a group of fellow citizens who gained fame in several fields of human activities. These people made a great contribution to their community and they are a credit to our country.

It is fitting that we have them as guests this week because Friday marks Canada's first National Aboriginal Day, a day for us to celebrate aboriginal culture and native peoples' contributions to this country.

These are men and women of exceptional talent and dedication. They are leaders, pioneers, and symbols of excellence for Canada. I am going to name them and I would like them to stand. I would like members to hold their applause until I have named the recipients of our first National Aboriginal Achievement Awards: Albert Charles Rock; Ambassador Mary May Simon; Robert E. Johnson Jr.; Alwyn Morris; Grand Chief Phil Fontaine; Dr. Marlene Brant Castellano; Rose Auger; Dr. Frank Calder; John Kim Bell; and our colleague, Elijah Harper is also the recipient of this award.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I have a question of privilege, a notice of a question of privilege and a point of order that I would like to deal with. I will deal first with the notice of question of privilege.

Privilege

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege with respect to a decision of the justice and legal affairs committee yesterday.

As you know, Bill C-234 was passed at second reading in this House on December 13, 1994. At yesterday's meeting of the justice and legal affairs committee, the committee voted not to report that bill back to the House.

I wish to give notice to the House, to the government and to any other interested members that I intend to prepare submissions and raise that question of privilege presumably sometime in September when the House reconvenes.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley on a question of privilege.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that would be in order after the report is tabled.

Point Of Order

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding Questions Nos. 25 and 26 on the Order Paper which have again languished on the Order Paper for 45 days without a response.

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware I first introduced this question in the House on December 1, 1994. On June 21, 1995 I raised a first point of order in the House. The then parliamentary secretary to the House leader said: "We will get him the answer. It is nearing completion". The hon. member even added: "I hope he has a long holiday coming up from Parliament so he can sit down and read it when he gets it", but I did not get it.

On October 26, 1995 I again raised a point of order on the delayed response and the same member responded: "Eighty per cent of the questions that have been placed on the Order Paper during this session have been answered". He said the government had been "assiduous in attending to its duties", but I still had no response to my question.

When Parliament returned after prorogation I reintroduced the question, confident that a reply was imminent since the government had led me to believe it was days away from a reply at the end of the session. However, a spokesman for the government House leader's office was quoted in the newspaper as saying that the government would not divert personnel to answer my question since my request was outrageous.

This apparent obstruction of my parliamentary duty prompted me to raise a question of privilege on April 24 in this House. The response of the deputy leader of the government was to assure me, this House and the Chair that the government wanted to answer every question. The chief government whip echoed the sentiment and promised that when the information was available it would be responded to. You, Mr. Speaker, recommended that an attempt should be made by the government to answer these questions as quickly as possible.

Because of these promises, Mr. Speaker, your ruling on May 6, 1996 found that it is very difficult to accept the veracity of the remarks allegedly made by an unidentified person in the government House leader's office. However, after having reviewed all of the papers you did emphasize that the government must in all respects endeavour to respond to questions, adhering to the spirit of the rule. You also added that written questions posed by members are an important tool at the disposal of members of the House and are used to solicit information as well as to help hold the government accountable for its actions. It is precisely for this reason that members of the ministry are responsible to the House for the actions taken regarding the preparation of responses to these questions.

Despite this clear and forceful recognition of the importance of questions on the Order Paper and the responsibility of ministries, despite the assurances to myself, to the Chair and to the House from the deputy government House leader's office that an answer was forthcoming, despite waiting almost one year since I was told that the answer was nearing completion, I have again waited the requisite 45 days for a response and have yet to receive a reply to my question.

I see a pattern here, Mr. Speaker. On May 6 your ruling was based on assurances that an answer would be made available, and that has not happened. Not only have I been repeatedly misled by indications that my question was to be answered, so has the Chair. Promises, patience and due process have amounted to nothing.

Should I go directly to the Minister of National Revenue and ask that the Income Tax Act be applied to all order in council appointments? Short of this, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 39(5)(a), and in the spirit of your ruling of May 6, 1996, I ask you again to look into the matter to find out why, after a year and one-half, three points of order and a question of privilege I do not have a response from the government to Questions Nos. 25 and 26 on the Order Paper.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the concerns of the hon. member. As one who is a staunch defender of access to information, I regret this.

May I just say that the parliamentary secretary to the House leader is unavoidably absent from the House. I ask that we continue this point of order in tomorrow's Routine Proceedings so that there may be a proper response from the people who are informed on the issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have raised a similar question. I wonder, if the government is offering to do this, if it would do the same thing for-

[The Speaker]

I will deal with one point of order at a time.

What we have is a request that we postpone this until tomorrow, until the parliamentary secretary can give us a full answer. I believe the House would be willing to wait until tomorrow and would agree to that particular request.

Government Response To Petitions

[John Richardson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 30 petitions.

Review Of Financial Sector Legislation

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table a document entitled the "1997 Review of Financial Sector Legislation; Proposals for Change".

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can only deplore the delays surrounding the tabling of the white paper on the review of the Bank Act. This report was to be made public in April, and now, at the end of the session, the parliamentary secretary, almost on the sly, rushes in this important report.

You may rest assured that the official opposition will be very vigilant during examination of the provisions of this white paper and the bill that may result from it, because we feel like we are being taken for a ride every time the secretary of state tables something in the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

I am sorry to have to tell you that the minister was entitled to make a statement following the tabling of these reports. We got a bit ahead of ourselves. The minister has the floor.