Debates of Nov. 3rd, 1997

Points Of Order

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I bring this point of order to the House related to our need to ask ministers relative questions.

In a ruling from March 4, 1986 the Speaker of the House ruled:

Hon. members may not realize it but questions are actually put to the government. The government decides who will answer.

Mr. Speaker, we were merely making suggestions to the government as to who should answer in this House today and why. On two different occasions you ruled once in this party's favour, the second time against this party.

On May 8, 1986 the same Speaker stated:

Of course, the Chair will allow a question to be put to a certain minister; but it cannot insist that that minister rather than another should answer it.

Again, the decision lies with the government in the House, but we are not precluded from making suggestions. We should not be muzzled from making suggestions in this House.

The government may rise in opposition of this point of order and use citation 412 which supports perhaps the Speaker's position in your second decision today. However, it was a ruling from 1968. There have been a number of changes to the way question period is conducted, including many Speaker's rulings and committee reports on this subject since then. It is outdated, much like this government.

Political ministers are an excepted reality and they should be accountable to this House. This is at the basis of our Parliamentary system. The government seeks ways to avoid accountability and this is just another attempt by the government to hide those outdated, obscure issues and points it has on issues relative to today.

I note a little while ago in this House a member rose and asked a question of this government about the Kyoto conference. The minister of agriculture rose to answer that question. In fact, it was very similar to the issue that we had earlier in the House and yet you allowed it.

I refer to Beauchesne's citation 410:

In 1986 the Speaker put forth further views in light of more recent conditions and precedents. It was observed that: (6) The greatest possible freedom should be given to Members consistent with the other rules and practices.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you revisit the issue in this House today and allow us in future and even in the next question period to question the minister from Alberta on issues relevant to this House and to that issue.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, I had also sent notice to the Speaker that I wished to address a point of order, the same one of course.

The point I want to raise is twofold. First is the whole matter of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Edmonton North. Second and attached to that is the issue of what I believe to be language that the Speaker might want to look at in relation to something that was said by the hon. member for Edmonton North.

Getting back to the first point that I raise, the relevant citations of Beauchesne's, it has just been said by the House leader of the official opposition that a question can be answered by any minister.

That, of course, has been ruled on consistently in the past. In other words, the questions are asked of the government and the government, if it so chooses, can then delegate any minister to answer. That is quite properly cited in citation 410.

The proper citation is in fact citation 412. The proposition is the following one. Can a member ask any question of a minister whether or not it is in his or her area of ministerial responsibility? Quite clearly the answer to that is no.

Citation 412 of Beauchesne's says:

A question may not be asked of a Minister in another capacity, such as being responsible for a province, or part of a province, or as spokesman for a racial or religious group. Journals ,October 16, 1968.

I had someone research Journals for me and I want to read to members very briefly the applicable paragraph. I read selectively here in the text for the purpose of brevity. It says a ruling was then made to the effect that a question must be addressed to a minister in relation to his administrative responsibilities.

I read further, and the House might want to pay particular attention to this portion. It says the very limited ambit of the previous ruling was to the effect that a minister may be asked questions related to a department for which he has ministerial responsibility or acting ministerial responsibility, but a minister cannot be asked nor can he answer a question in another capacity such as being responsible for a province or part of a province or as spokesman for a racial or religious group.

The point I am making here is that an opposition member or any member's asking a question to a minister knowing the minister is unable to answer, according to our rules, and then making editorial remarks to let the record show that the minister refused to answer is not only against the standing orders of this House but there is a question of political ethics the Speaker might want to look at.

On the whole issue of the language used in this House by the hon. member for Edmonton North, I invite the Chair to look at this as well.

The hon. member for Edmonton North in the past has complained and the House has admonished members for referring to members inappropriately or for using language which was not deemed appropriate. The hon. member for Edmonton North will remember what I am referring to and I do not intend to repeat it on the floor of the House.

To attribute to someone certain characteristics of an animal on the floor of this House is wrong. It has been said to be wrong in the House by the hon. member for Edmonton North and by the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I invite you to examine that very closely because I believe that is similarly unparliamentary.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no recollection of saying anything. I do not know what this member is talking about. If for any reason I said something about animalistic, I will apologize—

[The Speaker]

I want to hear the point of order we are discussing. I will hear the hon. Reform whip and then I will hear the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, you have heard two sides of the story. I believe that when you check Beauchesne's you will find that both the House leader for the government and the House leader for the official opposition have quoted that portion of Beauchesne's accurately.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you in your ruling to consider two things. First, the ruling which was read from Beauchesne's referred to activity in 1968, times almost in another era. Nowadays when ministers are assigned responsibilities by the prime minister they are assigned extensive responsibilities, in some cases in provincial arenas.

For example, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider the case of the infrastructure program where no infrastructure money, billions of dollars, can be approved without the minister in charge of a province signing off for it. In other words, it is not fair in today's reality to say to the official opposition you cannot ask questions about that person's provincial responsibilities when billions of dollars of taxpayer moneys are signed off by the appropriate provincial minister.

I have dealt in my province with the minister of fisheries, who has dealt with transit bus funding in my riding. They may be totally unrelated but I have asked questions in written form and I would hope I could ask in the House of Commons if that minister is responsible for signing off or not signing off for this kind of money.

I believe it is the privilege of an opposition party to ask questions germane to that minister's provincial responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you take into account the different era we are working in today. I am not sure if the proceedings of the House were even televised in 1968. They probably were not. It is now a different era. We have a different political reality. I would ask you to consider today's reality as you read Beauchesne's.

My second point is that if the government has the right, and I think it does and should, to assign questions to different ministers, I would ask for a bit of tit for tat. I am not sure if that is in Beauchesne's. It seems to me that the government has the privilege of assigning to anyone in its cabinet the answering of any question under any jurisdiction on any issue of the day. We have seen it happen when we asked a question of the defence minister and the defence minister did not want to answer it so the government gave it to someone else on the other end of the row. When that happens that means the jurisdiction is totally different from the main jurisdiction of that minister.

If they are allowed to just pick and choose who they want to answer a question, often for political reasons, then I think we should have the privilege on this side of the House to direct our questions to whomever we wish on that side.

They may not choose to answer. That is their privilege, but we certainly should have the privilege to direct our questions to whomever we want on that side.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Reform member who has just spoken has totally misunderstood what happens when ministers answer questions. They answer questions with respect to their departmental responsibilities or as acting ministers, designated as such in the absence of the departmental minister. It is not just a matter of random choice by the prime minister or acting prime minister in the House.

If the hon. member is so interested in Beauchesne's, I direct the hon. member and, with respect, you, Sir, to citation 416 which states in part:

—insistence on an answer is out of order, with no debate being allowed. A refusal to answer cannot be raised as a question of privilege, nor is it regular to comment upon such a refusal.

Reform members may say that is a citation going back many years and they may want to rely, as the House leader of the Reform Party has just done, on citation 410 which states:

In 1986 the Speaker put forth further views in light of more recent conditions and precedents. It was observed that—

Then the hon. House leader read No. 6:

The greatest possible freedom should be given to Members consistent with the other rules and practices.

If he wants to live or die by citation 410 then he had better read its sections 16 and 17:

(16) Ministers may be questioned only in relation to current portfolios.

(17) Ministers may not be questioned with respect to party responsibilities.

I submit Reform members were totally out of order, pressing the Minister of Justice to answer because she is the senior Liberal from Alberta. This is totally contrary to the very citation on which the hon. Reform House leader bases his case. If he wants to live or die by No. 6, he has to live and in fact die by the words of sections 16 and 17.

Hon. Reform members are out of order. Hon. members know what the rules are. They should be questioned as to why in order to give a misleading impression, not necessarily deliberately, they are raising the idea the hon. Minister of Justice is unwilling to answer.

I am sure she would be delighted to answer, but unlike my hon. friends she has respect for parliament and wants to live by the rules and precendents of the House.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to step into the sandbox but I thought I might try. I will be careful not to use traditional metaphors like quiet as a mouse for fear that I might become the object of simulated indignation.

I would like to offer what I hope will be a helpful comment. I watched the exchanges carefully and watched you, Mr. Speaker. While on the one hand we want to maintain that there is an ability on the part of opposition members to ask regional ministers questions about their regions, there is a case to be made that the way in which the questions were being asked today in the House of Commons left open questions as to the appropriateness of the way the questions were being put, for instance, with respect to “senior Liberal ”, et cetera, and asking the Minister of Justice what was her position as opposed to the government's position. There were a number of ways in which the question was being asked that made the questions, technically speaking, inappropriate.

I just want to put on record that I think there are appropriate ways to ask regional ministers questions about their region. Perhaps in your ruling on this, Mr. Speaker, you could advise the House on the proper way to do this so that people who are trying to do this can do it properly the next time.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The issue we are getting at here is accountability of ministers. I think your initial instincts on how to handle the situation were correct.

The minister we are discussing is represented in Alberta as both the Minister of Justice and as the senior Alberta minister in cabinet. Albertans are invited to make representations to that minister on all kinds of issues and that minister is used to deliver all kinds of messages in Alberta on behalf of the government that are outside her portfolio.

We know that all kinds of Albertans have made representations to the government through that minister on the issue of global warming, gas taxes, energy taxes, emissions and greenhouse taxes. We believe it is therefore appropriate to hold the minister accountable in that role in the House as well as for her formal portfolio.

If the minister wanted to say in response to our questions that she has passed those representations on, that she has taken this position herself, that she has attempted to reconcile these positions in this way, or if she chose to say nothing, that is her prerogative. However, we feel we at least have the right to hold her accountable for that other administrative position which she is purported to have in the province of Alberta.

[The Speaker]

Is the hon. member rising on the same point of order?

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a point I would like you to consider when you are considering these other points.

The justice minister is also the Attorney General of Canada and as such is the chief legal counsel for the government. She is called upon by all ministers when it comes to enacting legislation, including any legislation on the greenhouse effect issue.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you consider that point as well when you take the other points under consideration.

[The Speaker]

Is the Deputy Prime Minister seeking the floor?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to comment briefly on what was just said by the Reform member in question.

There is a clear precedent that the Minister of Justice, even in her capacity as attorney general, cannot be asked to give what amounts to a legal opinion in the House.

The questions that were put to her were not with respect to the legalities of legislation or policy on the greenhouse gas effect. They were put to her as the senior minister in Alberta. With all due respect to the hon. member who just got up, the point he raised is not consistent with the rules and practices of the House.

Even though the precedent cited by the government House leader was stated in 1968, I must say it has been upheld many, many, many times since then, including by yourself, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to take a look at the way you have added precedential weight to the precedent of 1968.

[The Speaker]

This is new information, I take it.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not about tradition. This is about change.

With regard to your decision, Mr. Speaker, and the timeliness of it, we have full intentions of pursuing the minister on this accountability question. We would like to do that as soon as possible, probably even tomorrow.

We would like to ask that you deliver the decision on this as soon as possible, preferably before question period tomorrow.

[The Speaker]

I have listened very carefully to the three sides of the argument, with the member of New Democratic Party coming in.

At question period your Speaker has the rules as they are laid out in Beauchesne's. They are the rules that we have all agreed to here in the House of Commons. Sometimes the Speaker is asked to make rulings that take us down a different path.

During the course of question period, in the preamble, notwithstanding the fact that they are short preambles these days, I am willing to give as much leeway as I can. As as matter of fact, if I could criticize myself, it is because sometimes I give a little bit too much leeway both in the questions and the answers.

I did not know for sure where the first questions were going and it seemed to me that it might fit in. Perhaps in hindsight, as I review all of the words said in Hansard , I might want to reconsider.

I would like to quote another citation which I do not think has been cited today. It is in Beauchesne's at page 123 where it states at citation 420:

The Speaker has stated, “Of course, the Chair will allow a question to be put to a certain Minister; but it cannot insist that that Minister rather than another should answer it”.

When a question is put my general guideline is that a question is put of course to the government. The government usually assigns ministers who will be in charge of a certain administrative function. In the past other Speakers have ruled, and I have ruled myself, that the question must go to the administrative responsibility of the particular minister.

The question has been opened today. Outside the administrative responsibilities it seems now that we or some members of the House would like to open the question of regional political responsibilities. I am loathe to proceed down this particular path because again in my mind I conjure up perhaps questions where every minister would be asked, for example—and I use this only as a hypothetical case to explain myself—what is their feeling on capital punishment or what is their feeling on abortion. At what point in there do I intervene or do I and did indeed intervene.

I am deciding that I will follow the paths of previous Speakers and as much as possible—again I leave myself a little bit of leeway but not too much—if a question is posed directly to a minister, as my guideline, it should deal as much as possible with the administrative responsibility of the minister in question and not with a political responsibility.

If the House in its wisdom chooses to change the rules which you would like the Speaker to operate under then I of course am the servant of the House.

The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona has asked that the Speaker perhaps give an indication as to how a regional minister might be approached about certain information. It is not the responsibility of the Speaker of the House of Commons to indicate to members how they should or should not put their questions nor how they should or should not answer the questions. I would leave that to the genius of the members of Parliament, both in putting and answering their questions, so that they would be proper.

If in the decisions that I made today, perhaps in the first part, I was a little bit too lenient then I was; I accept responsibility for that. But my course action specifically will be that if a specific question is put to a specific minister it should deal with a specific administrative responsibility, and I would rule that there is no point of order.

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Adams, 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 five petitions.

Federal Public Service Pension Act

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-270, an act to provide defined contribution pensions for the public service, the Canadian forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to be managed and invested by a private sector manager, and to amend the Income Tax Act and certain other acts in consequence thereof.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce my private member's bill, the federal public service pension act. This bill will place the superannuation pension plans of the public service, the Canadian forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on sound financial footing by placing employee contributions in private sector pension funds at arm's length from government.

It will be funded by employees' contributions at the same rate as before, with the option of contributing additional money. A pension account will be held for each employee within the fund. The private sector fund manager will be selected by a committee representing the employees.

On retirement a lump sum may be taken with remaining funds placed in an annuity for the employee. Family benefits will be prescribed by regulation. Contributions are to be deducted from taxable income. Existing and accrued superannuation benefits will remain intact and protected. The new pension scheme will come into force on January 1, 1999.

Public servants, members of the Canadian forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police new pension fund will be funded with their contributions and real dollars will be invested reaping pension rewards.

Parliament may opt to appropriate funds for the new pension funds but seeks no new spending by Parliament.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Reform's Territorial Protection Act

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-271, an act respecting the territorial integrity of Canada.

Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege once again to rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to introduce my private member's bill entitled “Reform's territorial protection act”.

This bill seeks to protect the territorial integrity of our country. The purpose of this enactment is to affirm Canada's sovereign indivisibility. The Constitution of Canada forms a federal state that is one and indivisible. This serves the interests of all Canadians. My bill is based on the fact that there is no provision in our Constitution for the withdrawal from the federation of a province or a territory.

The good people of Surrey Central whom I represent with honour want to accomplish three things within this bill.

First of all, we want to ensure that the Canadian federation may not be deprived of any part of Canada's territory except with Canada's consent, by due process of constitutional amendment.

Second, we want to ensure that no province or territory may unilaterally withdraw from the federation.

Finally, we want to ensure that no province or territory either unilaterally or in conjunction with any other province or territory can attempt to or declare its intention to secede from the federation and form a separate state.

My constituents and I believe that Canada is constitutionally sovereign and indivisible. We feel strongly that no province or territory shall initiate, authorize, sponsor or permit a referendum to be held on any question purporting to seek a mandate for withdrawal or indeed the intent to withdraw from our federation without the federation's consent.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Conscientious Objection Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-272, an act respecting conscientious objection to the use of taxes for military purposes.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to introduce this private member's bill, known as the conscientious objection act.

The purpose of the bill is to permit individuals who object on conscientious grounds to paying taxes that might be used for military purposes to direct that an amount equivalent to a prescribed percentage of the income tax they pay in a year be diverted to a special account established by this bill. The bill would not constrain in any way the ability of government to spend tax dollars as it sees fit.

In introducing this bill I pay special tribute to Conscience Canada Inc., particularly Orion Smith and Kate Penner, to the Canadian Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers, the Mennonite Central Committee and the Conference of Mennonites, et aussi Nos impôts pour la paix.

Finally, I would note that a great deal of work and thought has been put into this bill. I hope that it will commend itself to members of the House and that it will be adopted in this Parliament.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by scores of public servants and others who live and work in the Peterborough riding. These people would like to expedite the payment in full of the moneys owing for pay equity since 1983.

This is a long petition and I know that according to the rules I can only summarize it. The petitioners say that the federal government has refused to abide by its own pay equity legislation and that there should be no negotiations as the federal Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the government legally must pay these moneys. The petitioners say that they have not had a pay increase since 1988 and that their income has declined due to inflation.

Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the President of the Treasury Board to expedite the payment in full of all moneys owing for pay equity since 1983.

Questions On The Order Paper

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

Madam Speaker, I suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, on behalf of the Solicitor General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-12, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak to the act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.

This bill will extend the protection provided for RCMP members in the event of disease or death connected with employment, so as to cover any death, disease or injury suffered by RCMP members assigned to a special duty area.

I would like to take a few minutes to explain how this amendment meets an urgent need.

Members of the RCMP, like other Canadian employees, are entitled, under a government program, to benefits in the event of disease, disability or death attributable to their employment. A distinction is made, depending on whether or not the disease, disability or death is connected with employment.

In Canada, it is usually very easy to determine whether or not this is the case: it is connected with employment if it takes place in the work place, for example in a workshop, on a construction site or in an office. Injuries attributable to employment are those suffered during a work shift.

When a shift is over, the worker leaves his or her place of work and returns to private life.

In the case of those taking part in peacekeeping missions in dangerous zones outside Canada, however, the distinction between the periods during which they are on duty and those when they are not becomes blurred.

The bill acknowledges this fact: Canadian peacekeeping forces never really stop serving and running risks, even when their shift is over.

Under the Special Duty Area Pension Order, certain geographic areas outside Canada may be designated by the governor in council as areas where the members of Canada's armed forces are exposed to risks not generally associated with peacetime military service. These areas are known as special duty areas.

Under the terms of the present act, the onus is on the employee to prove disability is attributable to his employment or service.

When Canada started taking part in international peacekeeping missions and sending members of the armed forces to areas of armed conflict, it was acknowledged that it would be unfair to oblige these individuals or their beneficiaries to prove that injury or death was attributable to their work and occurred while the individual was on duty.

Under the Special Duty Area Pension Order, members of the Canadian armed forces injured or taken ill in special duty areas on peacekeeping missions, or their beneficiaries if they are killed, can count on the presumption that any injury or disease incurred while serving on a peacekeeping mission in a special duty area is work related. This means that military personnel are considered to be on duty around the clock where benefits relating to employment or service are concerned, since they may be in danger at any time.

However, RCMP personnel taking part in peacekeeping missions in dangerous areas, termed special duty areas, even when serving side by side with Canadian forces personnel, are eligible for benefits only if their injury or disease occurs during a normally scheduled period of service.

Whereas a member of the Canadian forces benefits from the presumption that an injury, disease or loss of life incurred while serving in a special duty area occurred while he was on duty and is attributable to his service, the onus is on a member of the RCMP to prove that this is the case.

The proposed amendments will solve the problem of the differences in treatment between members of the Canadian forces and members of the RCMP. At the present time, for instance, members of both forces are on a mission to Haiti, which has been declared a special duty area.

In accordance with the Special Duty Area Pension Order, members of the Canadian armed forces are considered to be on duty 24 hours a day with respect to the risk of injury, disease or death.

Members of the RCMP, however, are considered to be on duty only during their shift, and are therefore treated differently than military personnel participating in the same mission, under the same conditions, and exposed to the same dangers.

In addition to disability benefits, Canadian forces members injured or taken ill while serving in special duty areas on peacekeeping missions are also entitled to the benefits provided under the veterans independence program. This program funds such services as are necessary to maintain a member in his or her home as an alternative to institutional care. For example, housekeeping services or modifications to a house to accommodate wheelchair access are paid for through this program.

These special pension benefits take into account the increased risk associated with peacekeeping duties. The amendment will extend the same kind of program to disabled RCMP peacekeepers. This amendment reflects the changing role of peacekeeping and how Canada, a country respected worldwide for its commitment to peacekeeping, has provided what many countries need most to sustain peace, a respect for the rule of law and a method of fairly enforcing that law.

With the RCMP's help, a troubled country may be able to build on the traditions and expertise of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to create a new respect for law enforcement and the law itself.

This bill is inspired by a desire for equity. It deserves to be passed. It deserves to be passed because it ensures equality of treatment for all those taking part in peacekeeping missions, whether they are military or RCMP personnel. It deserves to be passed because it clearly acknowledges that the RCMP's contribution to peacekeeping has the same value as that of the Canadian Forces.

Finally, it deserves to be passed because a member of the RCMP who serves his or her country in a peacekeeping mission ought never to have to worry about protection in the event of illness, disability or death.

Our fondest hope, of course, is that not one member of either the RCMP or the Canadian Forces taking part in a peacekeeping mission in a special duty area will be injured, disabled, or even killed. Should this happen, however, it would be no more than fair for the additional protection available under this bill to apply to RCMP personnel and their families.

I am sure that all hon. members acknowledge the importance and the fairness of the amendments proposed to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and that we can count on the support of all political parties to get this bill passed quickly. I thank them in advance.