Debates of Nov. 16th, 1998

Canadian Environmental Protection Act

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is a bit out of line. The clause by clause process has only just started and in fact we have not got to the very clauses he is referring to.

This bill is an important bill that puts the health of Canadians and the environment first as we head into the next millennium. It is an important piece of legislation. I hope the member will work with all committee members to see it is enacted.

Foreign Aid

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, hurricane Mitch has destroyed hundreds of bridges and roads in Nicaragua and Honduras, cutting off the most severely affected communities. The response to this natural disaster by Canadians has been incredible but my constituents and I are concerned about those most in need.

Could the Minister for International Cooperation tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that international assistance reaches those most in need?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by highlighting the tremendous work of Canadian NGOs, the private sector and national defence. Perhaps the Reform Party could learn a few things about compassion and charity.

People are working night and day to ensure that aid is getting to those parts of Honduras and Nicaragua which have been cut off from clean water, food and housing for some time. That is why I am pleased—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast.

Apec Inquiry

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, talking about compassion and charity, I have a question for the solicitor general.

The solicitor general and the APEC inquiry have come under a cloud. The chairman of the commission has come under a cloud. This weekend we had a former investigator and a former general counsel for the commission say that reports have been changed and altered in the past.

Today the RCMP themselves, the people who work for the minister, have asked for the commission to be cancelled. Is it not time for a full judicial inquiry so we can get to the bottom of this issue?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the public complaints commission has all the powers of a judicial inquiry. In fact parliament established this process to deal with issues just like this.

To respond to the question of the member, the public complaints commission is responsible to parliament. It is not part of the RCMP at all. It is accountable to this House, as was determined in 1988 by this House.

Icebreaking Policy

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Under the latest icebreaker fee schedule proposed by the Canadian Coast Guard, public vessels operated by the federal and Newfoundland governments will have absolutely no fees to pay, while those operated by the Société des traversiers du Québec will have to pay fees whether or not there is ice to break.

How can the fisheries minister justify an icebreaking policy that exempts federal and Newfoundland public vessels but not Quebec public vessels?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the fee schedule we are proposing was developed by an industry-led committee, most of whose members represented the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes region. At the time, the committee thought it had achieved the most satisfactory compromise for all regions and all users.

Apec Summit

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the APEC summit this week Canada has an opportunity to support the Malaysian people in their struggle for democracy as was shown by U.S. Vice-President Al Gore.

It is clear that rapid trade and investment liberalization at the expense of human rights, labour standards and democracy are treacherous.

Will the Minister of Finance commit to controls to curb the volatility and damage of international capital and focus Canada's support on sustainable development and democracy?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may know, about two months ago Canada put forth a six point plan. One of the points dealt with the question of capital liberalization. We took the position that countries should not be forced into capital liberalization until they are ready and until their markets are sufficiently sophisticated that they ought to be able to put in place means of preventing hot money from coming into their countries.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Palliser has stated under oath that the Solicitor General not only prejudged the Public Complaints Commission inquiry, but also made light of the financial situation of the head of the inquiry, Gérald Morin.

Will the Solicitor General show the same courage by making his own statement under oath about this infamous conversation of October 1?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in this House, I never said anything that would prejudge the process or the outcome of the public complaints commission's hearing. I take this exercise extremely seriously. As for the member for Palliser's recent statements, I am reviewing them now and I will make a decision by Wednesday.

Status Of Women

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for the Status of Women.

Everyone in this House knows that the Canadian government has always been a great financial support for women's groups. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women is claiming this government is unwilling to fund it. I would like to hear from the secretary of state as to what the government's position is with respect to funding NAC.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, this government is well aware that NAC represents as an umbrella organization many women in this country. As a result of that, we are prepared to work with NAC and to fund NAC for programs that are fulfilling the criteria for our program funding.

The first NAC submission was a conflict of interest. We have asked for further details on the second submission. We have yet to receive those details. The hon. member should know that at this point out of 14 national groups 12 have already been funded and are carrying on with their good work.

Apec Inquiry

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the solicitor general.

He knows the public complaints commission reports to a minister of the government before it reports to parliament. A judge does not report to a minister of the House. A judge is totally independent, unlike the public complaints commission. The minister also knows that a judicial inquiry would be totally independent of this House. People who work for this government would not be phoning the CBC about a reporter if a judge were handling this case.

Will the minister finally tell the people of Canada that he will do what everybody in Canada wants, except for members of the Liberal Party over here, and have a judicial inquiry into the APEC affair?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is, I am sure, inadvertently misstating the role of a judge if he has been appointed to take part in an inquiry under the Inquiries Act. That judge would be appointed by the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister would set the terms of reference of the judge and the length of time the inquiry would take place. This is not the case with the public complaints commission. The report of the judge in an inquiry would go to the Prime Minister and the Privy Council Office.

Thanks for the vote of confidence by the Reform Party for the process that is under way or would be under way if there were an inquiry.

Central America

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Cooperation.

The disaster unleashed on Central America has destroyed the entire economy of Honduras and Nicaragua, and has had a heavy impact on the economy of other countries in that region, one of the poorest in the world.

Does the government support the proposal by President Chirac that the debt of the devastated countries be struck off the books completely and that an international conference be held on the economic reconstruction of these countries?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I was in Honduras and Nicaragua yesterday, and I can report that the damage is incredible. I have the honour to announce that the government will provide $100 million for reconstruction over the next four years.

I had a long conversation with the Minister of Finance, and he supports my request to at least stop payments on this debt. I hope more can be done as time goes on.

Privilege

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Very briefly it boils down to this.

On November 5 in the House the member for Athabasca made a statement to the effect that the member for Lac-Saint-Louis and I have accused Health Canada, quoting from Hansard , “of incompetence, negligence and using Canadians as guinea pigs regarding the use of the manganese gasoline additive MMT”.

I categorically deny having made such a statement. To the best of my knowledge also the member for Lac-Saint-Louis did not. Therefore I urge the member for Athabasca to rise in the House and retract that statement.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of privilege.

To quote from Hansard , the member for Athabasca mentioned that I accused Health Canada of “incompetence, negligence and using Canadians as guinea pigs regarding the use of the manganese gasoline additive MMT”.

I never did any such thing. I said that Ethyl Corporation used Canadians as guinea pigs. I never accused the Minister of Health in any way. I would like the member to retract his statement.

[The Speaker]

Many times we have in the House statements and counter statements. Let the record show that the two members who were named in a statement by another member have denied that. This is not a point of privilege. However, if the hon. member for Athabasca wants to join in I will permit him to.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I along with some of my colleagues attended the meeting in question. I listened to the entire debate. My member's statement reflected my understanding of what the two members were saying. I stick with that position.

[The Speaker]

Now the record is straight on both sides. It is an interpretation of the facts, not a question of privilege.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege pursuant to notice given earlier today. The background to my point of privilege flows from the following events in the House.

First, on November 4 the House unanimously adopted the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs. Second, on November 5 certain members of the House spoke to a point of order raised by the member for Surrey Central. In a ruling later that same day it was noted that recommendations Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 required substantive amendments to the standing orders and required various technical interpretations.

Subsequently the Clerk was asked to draft proposed amendments to implement recommendations Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of that report and submit that draft to the House leaders.

It is my submission that submitting the redrafted standing orders concerning Private Members' Business to the House leaders is a breach of my privileges as a member of this House.

The matter of Private Members' Business as noted in the report as adopted at page 7 reflects on the non-partisan and non-governmental nature of Private Members' Business.

Mr. Speaker has implemented this principle of non-partisanship by ordering the implementation of recommendation No. 5 dealing with the conducting of a vote on Private Members' Business.

As an extension of this principle, I must ask for the implementation of recommendations Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 by reference to members of this House and not by submitting a draft to the House leaders.

If the spirit and intent of the non-government and non-partisan nature of Private Members' Business is to be upheld, only the members of this House may pronounce on them. No intermediaries, such as House leaders, should be consulted since by reference to House leaders of the redrafted standing orders my privilege as a member of this House, certainly during private members' hour, is being directly affected.

My privileges exist by virtue of the office of member of this House and no individual or entity, corporate or political, may intervene save and except this House itself.

Since the House unanimously adopted the 13th report concerning Private Members' Business, the House must also pronounce on the redrafted standing orders.

I suggest that to refer these redrafted standing orders to the House leaders is a breach of my privileges as a member of the House in that it removes my right to examine, study, speak and perhaps vote on these important changes to the standing orders.

Standing orders, as we know, are the rules and regulations which the House has agreed on for the governance of its own proceedings. It is noted in Beauchesne's sixth edition at paragraph 9 on page 5:

All rules are passed by the House by a simple majority and are altered, added to, or removed in the same way.

That paragraph also refers to the role of the standing committee on procedure in being a permanent source of recommendations for changes to standing orders. What is of interest to me is that there is no mention of reference to government House leaders.

Briefly, these changes to the standing orders are for private members' hour. Therefore to refer these proposed changes to the House leaders is to put into the hands of five people the possible fate of the rule change recommendations which were adopted in a report by the House.

In short, the House leaders may never agree and hence they may never return to the House.

Beauchesne's also notes on page 5, paragraph 9:

There is no procedural reason why any Member cannot introduce a motion to alter the rules—

I therefore suggest that a prima facie case of privilege exists and with Mr. Speaker's permission I would like to move a motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on this question of privilege.

I assure the hon. member opposite that as far as the official opposition is concerned the spirit and principles contained in the 13th report of the Standing Committee of Procedure and House Affairs are not up for negotiations.

What the House leaders will attempt to do is find a swift and convenient means to get these draft standing orders changed before all members of the House for a decision.

I accept that there is a leadership in the House. While I hope that leadership can come to a unanimous decision, it is not a requirement to advance the progress on this very important matter. We make progress in this House with unanimity or without unanimity.

Speaking for the private members of the official opposition in the House, we are not going to back away just because there is no unanimity. The way I see it, if all the House leaders agree then a motion will be moved by unanimous consent. If there is no unanimity then we move the motion under the rubric motions during Routine Proceedings.

I have considered all other options with the following observations other than that process I just described. The first is Private Members' Business. The terms of consideration for a motion under Private Members' Business would be subject to the luck of the draw. A follow-up motion complying with an order of the House should not be subject to a draw. I would discount that.

A supply motion would do the same trick to some extent. It may not be appropriate to implement a measure affecting private members, a majority of whom sit on the government side the House, with an opposition motion. In addition, there are precious few votable opposition motions available to the opposition to be used to implement minor rule changes on which the House already pronounced itself last week.

Finally, I looked at the government orders and the government has the most opportunities and flexibility to introduce and move motions. However, I agree with the member's argument that the House, independent of the government, adopted the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

While I would welcome the government's initiative in this regard, the responsibility to implement the details of these rule changes is not at this stage of the game a matter of ministerial responsibility. The motion that was adopted by the House did not ask the government to bring forward these changes. This is clearly a matter for the House to consider and it is not the prerogative of the government.

I recognize that for the most part the only motion a private member can move during Routine Proceedings is a motion to concur in a committee report. However, there are extraordinary circumstances where a private member can move a motion under motions. This was done in the last parliament by the member for Crowfoot. The extraordinary circumstances in that case was that the Standing Committee on Justice refused to report a private member's bill back to the House.

While the government has many tools at its disposal to deal with a similar situation for a government bill, a private member does not. The Speaker recognized this extraordinary circumstance and quite correctly interpreted the rules to provide a mechanism for a private member.

The circumstances today are also extraordinary and when Mr. Speaker considers all options, as I just did, there is only one logical conclusion. A motion to comply with the order of the House from November 4, 1998 regarding standing order changes can be moved by unanimous consent or under motions during routine proceedings.

I believe the timing of these changes is crucial. One of the aspects of the changes would be to protect private members' motions or bills from prorogation. Prorogation is a bill killer. It is well known that cabinet does not like some of the initiatives of the backbench of late and may be tempted to use its bill killing powers to silence them and put them in their place. The government backbench and the opposition have effectively filled the policy void of this government. For this reason cabinet may be the biggest obstacle for the implementation of these new rule changes.

However, if it wants to kill this initiative it will have to do it democratically. And in case it has not noticed, there are more of us than there are of its members, unless the Prime Minister appoints 151 ministers to his cabinet. He is going to lose this one. The private member is going to win.