This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #134 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was nato.

Topics

Employment InsuranceOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

The Speaker

I hope Robin Hood is not here today. I would ask the hon. member to please put his question.

Employment InsuranceOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Ours was a fairy tale Robin Hood. He is not here today.

My question to the Prime Minister is this: Will he establish a separate employment insurance fund, so that the rich do not get richer at the expense of the poor?

Employment InsuranceOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, there is a debate on this. The hon. member is welcome to participate in this debate and tell us what he thinks we should be doing in this regard.

It is interesting to note that other members are holding public consultations. According to Le Soleil , a poll conducted by the member for Rimouski—Mitis in her riding showed that it is not a major concern and that people would like us to invest in all sorts of programs. I could table the press clipping in the House.

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

Mr. Speaker, in a few weeks environment ministers will be meeting in Buenos Aires to follow up on the Kyoto climate change conference. The provincial and federal energy ministers will be meeting in Halifax next week to discuss the Canadian position.

I hope this government has learned from its make it up as you go approach in Kyoto on climate change. It had no meaningful dialogue with Canadians, no meaningful dialogue with the provinces and at the eleventh hour meeting in Regina the agreed to position was abandoned the very next day.

Given the mistrust created by the Regina debacle, would the energy minister commit today that any position agreed to in Buenos Aires will have the full support of the provinces?

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Wascana Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, the first ministers of this country met within 48 hours after Kyoto to put in place an inclusive process involving provinces, industry, environmental organizations and many others.

Energy and environment ministers met in April to launch that process. That process is now underway. Fifteen issue tables are examining all the dimensions of this issue. Four hundred and fifty Canadian experts are involved. This is an open, inclusive, transparent effort and Canada is going to do a job on climate change.

Nav CanadaOral Question Period

October 7th, 1998 / 2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Assad Liberal Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, Nav Canada recommended to the Department of Transport that the Gatineau flight information centre be transferred to Quebec City.

In the interest of transportation safety, could the Minister of Transport tell the House whether Nav Canada can effect such changes without his department's approval?

Nav CanadaOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Don Valley East Ontario

Liberal

David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. We have analyzed the study by NAV Canada on the proposed transfer of flight information services from Gatineau to Quebec City. We have found it deficient in some safety areas. Today we have informed NAV Canada that it must revisit its aeronautical study and address all our safety concerns and the concerns of users who are not well informed as to the reasons for this decision. Nothing will happen until we are absolutely assured on the safety of this transfer.

Apec SummitOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Reform

Dale Johnston Reform Wetaskiwin, AB

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general says he did not discuss the Airbus affair on the airplane the other day. Yet he did not deny bringing up the names of Frank Moores and Karlheinz Schreiber.

If he was not talking about Airbus, what was he talking about?

Apec SummitOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Fredericton New Brunswick

Liberal

Andy Scott LiberalSolicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, it has been established that we did not talk about Airbus. The conversation on the aircraft was private and nobody should have been eavesdropping.

Apec SummitOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, in his letter, Mr. Toole confirms that he and the Solicitor General discussed the matter of APEC on the plane.

The Solicitor General said yesterday that he had nothing further to say about the discussion, since it was a private conversation.

I would ask the Solicitor General if he considers it usual to discuss, allegedly privately, but in a public place, a highly confidential matter involving his duties. Does he consider that usual and responsible?

Apec SummitOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Fredericton New Brunswick

Liberal

Andy Scott LiberalSolicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I discussed in detail the public complaints commission's work, my faith in it, my respect for it and my desire that it get to the truth in this matter. That is what I discussed.

Arms ExportsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Customarily, the Minister of Foreign Affairs tables a report in this House on Canada's arms exports.

When will the minister be tabling this report so we may have an idea whether the government sold weapons to Suharto's Indonesia, in 1996, for example?

Arms ExportsOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Winnipeg South Centre Manitoba

Liberal

Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems already to know what is in the report although it has not been presented yet. That is the way the opposition seems to work these days.

I will be tabling the report very soon. I think the hon. member will find it very interesting.

Apec SummitOral Question Period

3 p.m.

NDP

Peter Mancini NDP Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, there is a well known maxim in the law. I know it. The Minister of Justice knows it. The solicitor general knows it. The Prime Minister knows it. Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done.

The public complaints commission investigating APEC is now mired in controversy as a result of the revelations and the inaction of the government on this issue. In the name of justice will the Prime Minister not now do what I asked him to do three weeks ago and set up an independent judicial inquiry to get to the bottom of this issue?

Apec SummitOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the inquiry started on Monday and the testimony started this afternoon.

The students will be witnesses. The RCMP will be witnesses. The people will know exactly what the facts are. They will be in a position to judge whether the RCMP acted according to what was normal under the circumstances.

Three competent people were appointed to that body. They will report to the government, as is their job according to the law which was set in parliament, not by this government but by the previous government.

Presence In GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery today of a delegation from Kuwait.

Presence In GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Presence In GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

Is the hon. member's question of privilege arising from question period?

Presence In GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Liberal

Stan Keyes Liberal Hamilton West, ON

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Stan Keyes Liberal Hamilton West, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from question period. I beg the indulgence of the Speaker to bring forward my point because quite certainly it is unrehearsed and unprepared. However I am going to try to make my point as succinctly as I can.

It has much to do with my privilege being breached in that there have been many times over the course of the last several weeks, and maybe even months, that during question period there are very important questions being put by the opposition. Just as weighty and just as important are the answers being put forward by members from the government side.

Unfortunately during the point at which one is trying to hear a question or hear the answer, we are cut off by the 30 second clock. Quite frankly, in a day when we are speeding through time—we have the one minute egg and the 30 second breakfast and everything else—I think this place deserves more than to have the Speaker moved by a time limitation. It stops me from hearing the question—

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

As a question of privilege I would judge that is not a question of privilege. However I think the hon. member has a point. The House of Commons, in its wisdom, has had discussions. The hon. member has another avenue by which he can pursue this matter. I am sure we can give him this advice a bit later.

This was a recommendation that was made by the House leaders as far as time is concerned, and I have taken the recommendation to heart. There are times when because of one reason or another I would give a little more time for a question and a little more time for an answer. By and large, hon. members have been getting their questions in and their answers in under the 35 seconds.

However, the hon. member does have the procedures committee. I am sure it would want to hear what he has to say about that. As a question of privilege I would judge it is not a question of privilege.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House on a point of order to protest the Chair's acceptance of the words fabricated and fabrication as used by the solicitor general in response to a question from the New Democratic Party and the use of the word fabrication directed in response to a member from the Bloc Quebecois.

I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to citation 494 at page 151 of Beauchesne's. Both these words are, I would suggest and in my submission, clearly unparliamentary and I would ask that the Chair ask for those words to be withdrawn.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Generally speaking there is no word which in and of itself is unparliamentary. It depends on the usage of the word and it depends on the context in which it is used.

With all respect to my colleagues, we do not use the word liar in the Chamber. We would not permit one member to call another member a liar. However, in the use of the word itself, if a member were to say “it has been said that I am a liar”, I would be hard pressed to stop the member from using the word about himself. I do not say this facetiously.

The words fabricated, hardly believable, unbelievable or incredible are all bordering on words that are unparliamentary. I would hope that words such as fabricated, fabrication and deliberately fabricated would not be used. That is why I caution members and I ask them not to use them in the course of our debates.

When we come that close I dislike intervening when a member is putting a question or giving an answer. Perhaps I will take the hon. member's admonition, if I can call it that, as a gentle admonition to the Chair. I will seriously consider these types of words when we even get close to an unparliamentary word and I will consider intervening more readily in the future.

I take the admonition in the spirit in which it is given.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I hope you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, on October 7, 1998, the House shall not adjourn at 6.30 p.m., but, at that time, a minister of the crown shall propose a motion:

That this House take note of the dire humanitarian situation confronting the people of Kosovo and the government's intention to take measures in co-operation with the international community to resolve the conflict, promote a political settlement for Kosovo and facilitate the provision of humanitarian assistance to refugees.

That during debate thereon, the first speaker for each party may speak for no more than twenty minutes, with a ten minute period for questions and comments, and no speaker thereafter may speak for more than ten minutes, with a five minute period for question and comments, provided that the Chair may receive no dilatory motions, demands for quorum or requests for unanimous consent to propose motions or waive rules and, when no members rise to speak, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Does the Government House Leader have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?