Debates of Dec. 5th, 1997

Taxation

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance who should have a simple response. No rhetoric, please.

We know that Canada has the highest rate of personal income tax in the G-7.

Today's polls show that Canadians want fewer taxes. Quebec Liberals want to retire the debt, but cabinet members want to spend, spend, spend. A simple answer, please. Who is the Minister of Finance, the Santa Claus of finance, listening to, Canadians, his cabinet colleagues or the Liberals in Quebec?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the prime minister, cabinet, caucus, the Liberal Party, we listen to Canadians?

Parliamentary Privilege In Canada

[The Deputy Chairman]

I have to honour to table in the House, in both official languages, the second edition of the book entitled Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , written by Joseph Maingot, the former Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel in the House of Commons.

I am sure hon. members will join me in congratulating Mr. Maingot, who is in the gallery today, for this work which will be of great value to parliamentarians and to all those interested in Parliament and our national institutions.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Points Of Order

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in order to help the government with the question I asked earlier during the oral question period, I would like to have the unanimous consent of the House to table in this House the ministerial directives and especially the letter signed in June 1997 by the former justice minister, who granted $1 million over five years to the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres.

I have here the letter signed by the minister. I ask the unanimous consent of this House to table it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm have the unanimous consent of the House to table that document?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is no unanimous consent.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Like my colleague for Berthier—Montcalm, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to table for all the other parties a part of the Bloc Quebecois' complete electoral platform where we deal with the francophone and Acadian communities, since we have been accused over the past several days in this House of not having mentioned them.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent—

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

I did not even get to finish.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member must sit down when the speaker rises. I am sorry, but there is obviously not unanimous consent in the House for the hon. member to table her document.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

They are obviously afraid of the truth.

[An hon. member]

No means no.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. whip for the Bloc Quebecois has a point of order.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues have just done, I would like to ask the unanimous consent of this House to table, and I imagine that this time the Liberal Party will agree, a passage from the Liberal Party's red book dealing with francophone communities in Canada, and which leaves very much to be desired—

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I think that it is obvious that today there is not much consent in the House to table many documents. Perhaps we can stop now making points of order.

I believe that the Chair has a notice on a matter of privilege.

Privilege

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I gave notice of a question of privilege as it pertains to the physical safety of members of this House.

We had an incident that occurred in this House yesterday.

[An hon. member]

It is closed.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

The issue is not closed.

Mr. Speaker, if you could perhaps have the Reform Party follow its law and order platform and respect the—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. If the hon. member has a question of privilege I wish he would state it and never mind the interjections that sometimes happen. I am willing to hear his question of privilege but I would ask him to state it promptly.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege can be found under Beauchesne's citation 99 which will be helpful to you pertaining to the safety of members of this House. Another place you can find it is in Maingot, page 196. Another reference is in the Criminal Code pertaining to the issue of assault and threatening. Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to have you and your brother Speakers review those sections.

The issue in question is can we have threats of physical assault take place in this Chamber which are contrary not only to the codes mentioned but contrary to the Constitution of this country.

The issue at stake is can a member rise in his place and not be subjected to physical threats and violence.

The incident yesterday was not videotaped like the incident that was videotaped on February 4. Before the ruling came down on that particular incident Mr. Speaker gave assurances to this House that all the facts were going to be reviewed and the videotape was going to be reviewed but the whole issue as it pertained to the threat of physical violence, to the threat of assault, was not addressed.

If we are going to go about doing our business in this Chamber, it is incumbent on the Chair to ensure the safety of the members of this House and in cases where we have repeat offenders, it is something that this House cannot and should not tolerate. This House is based on representation and every member of this House should have the right to stand up and speak without having to worry about the physical well-being of his or her person.

That is my point of privilege and I expect Mr. Speaker to come back with a ruling on it, looking particularly at the issue of threatening as it is defined by the Criminal Code and assault as it is defined by the Criminal Code.