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 #57 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was tribunal.

Topics

FisheriesOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Victoria B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, there are two accesses which the hon. member does not understand.

The first is access to these stocks. Canadian fishermen have access to these stocks. It is only when they choose not to fish them that the offer is made to foreign fleets.

On the second issue, the Access to Information Act, I have said as has been said by previous ministers of fisheries going back to 1977, that we will not release information that is contrary to the law. Simply because the Reform Party has a member who has been convicted under the law two weeks ago does not—

FisheriesOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Repentigny.

Multilateral Investment AgreementOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade.

In a report tabled last December on the MAI and adopted unanimously by the Liberal MPs, it was agreed that the wording of that agreement ought to come back to the committee before any negotiated agreement was signed. Now the Minister of International Trade has recently refused to commit to bringing the agreement back to Parliament.

Does the minister commit before the House to bringing the text of the MAI back to the committee before it is signed, as recommended—

Multilateral Investment AgreementOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

The Speaker

The Minister of International Trade.

Multilateral Investment AgreementOral Question Period

3 p.m.

York West Ontario

Liberal

Sergio Marchi LiberalMinister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, that was indeed one of the recommendations included in the report. As the hon. member knows, the government has about 150 days to respond to that report. It is certainly our intention, given the discussion and the debate on the MAI, that we will be responding to that report in full before then.

I do not think it would be appropriate to try to pick one recommendation at a time. We would rather do it once, do it comprehensively and do it right.

National DefenceOral Question Period

3 p.m.

NDP

Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. I would like to know when the minister will explain to Goose Bay Happy Valley defence employees and their families why defence assigned a $1 million performance bond with a British company which is busy slashing civilian workers' wages in half, a company which intends to cut more than 100 positions and fill a few good remaining jobs with retired military brass.

Was this the impact of a recent DND memo which stated “privatization will mean we don't have to be encumbered by national procurement policies”?

National DefenceOral Question Period

3 p.m.

York Centre Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence

I think the preamble and the question are rather disordered, Mr. Speaker, but let me say with respect to the Goose Bay base that we are trying to save that base. We have to cut the costs if we want to keep our customers, the air forces of foreign countries that use that base. We want to keep it open. We want to keep providing that service and the job opportunities for the people of Goose Bay Happy Valley.

I have met with them. I have heard their concerns. In fact, we are looking into them and trying to bring some further resolution to answer the concerns they have raised with the government.

National RevenueOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Liberal

Paddy Torsney Liberal Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of National Revenue please tell us what he has learned as he consulted Canadians on creating the Canada customs and revenue agency?

National RevenueOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Vancouver South—Burnaby B.C.

Liberal

Herb Dhaliwal LiberalMinister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, I recently released a progress report on the Canadian customs and revenue agency. I know Reformers do not like to consult, but we on this side of the House consult with Canadians, we consult with stakeholders and with the provinces.

The agency is about delivering better service to Canadians and also making sure we work in partnership and co-operation with the provinces. Together we are going to build an agency that can truly provide lower cost and better service for all Canadians.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I am now prepared to make a statement on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington on February 3, 1998 concerning comments made by Mr. Justice Louis Marcel Joyal.

Let me start by thanking the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington, the hon. member for Fraser Valley, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona and the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River for their interventions in this issue.

As your Speaker and as a member of this House of Commons I consider this to be a very serious matter. To say that respect for our institutions is rapidly eroding is an understatement. When it is being eroded by some who should set an example for all Canadians it is even more damaging.

There is a necessary constitutional divide between our legislative and judicial branches. That divide should be bridged only when one institution seeks to vigorously support the role of the other.

Citation 493 in the sixth edition of Beauchesne exists precisely for the purpose of respecting this convention of the separation of roles, and I quote:

493.(1) All references to judges and courts of justice of the nature of personal attack and censure have always been considered unparliamentary, and the speaker has always treated them as breaches of order.

The House of Commons deserves at least the same respect from the courts.

It is for that reason that I have taken some time to reflect on this matter.

In his presentation on February 3, 1998, the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River made what I think is a very useful and insightful suggestion. He proposed that I direct the Clerk of the House to refer this matter to the Canadian Judicial Council, the body responsible to review the conduct of our judges.

As it turns out, the executive director of the judicial council has written to the clerk to acquaint him with the fact that Chief Justice Allan MacEachern, chairman of the judicial conduct committee, has initiated formal proceedings under the bylaws of the council concerning the statements attributed to Judge Marcel Joyal.

While this turn of events in no way precludes a finding on my part of a prima facie case of contempt, I have decided that it would be wise to follow the advice of the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River and allow the judicial council to proceed with its initiative before I comment further.

I am tabling copies of the said correspondence so that all hon. members may be aware of its content. I will keep the House advised of all further developments in this matter.

Government Response To PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Peterborough Ontario

Liberal

Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary 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 four petitions.

Interparliamentary DelegationsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Parliament of Canada delegation to the parliamentary conference of the Americas held in Quebec City from September 18 to 21, 1997.

Interparliamentary DelegationsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Speller Liberal Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 54, I have the honour to present to the House a report from the Canadian branch, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, concerning a parliamentary visit to the United Kingdom which took place November 18 to 28, 1997.

Young Offenders ActRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-313, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to introduce an act that would amend the Young Offenders Act and other acts relating to that. The object of the act would be to lower the age of accountability from its present age of 12 to 10. This intention is going to go a long way to improving the perception of our justice system as well as improving accountability for young people within this country. There is a real problem with this and this bill goes a long way to address that.

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

Immigration ActRoutine Proceedings

February 11th, 1998 / 3:10 p.m.

Reform

John Reynolds Reform West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-314, an act to amend the Immigration Act (persons without identification not to be allowed into Canada as immigrants or refugees or under a minister's permit).

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that only those persons who produce sufficient identification to show that they should not be excluded will be allowed to enter Canada as immigrants under a minister's permit or as convention refugees.

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

Canada Shipping ActRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Don Valley East Ontario

Liberal

David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport

moved that Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime liability), be read the first time.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Reform

John Duncan Reform Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 147 residents of the village of Zeballos in my riding. They are asking Parliament to reinstate the northern residents deduction guide for the 1996 taxation year for the residents of Zeballos, as there is an unfair tax burden due to the remote location of the village.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Clifford Lincoln Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition signed by 50 residents of my riding and neighbouring areas.

It indicates that 38% of national highway system is substandard; that Mexico and the United States are upgrading their national highway systems; and that the national highway policy study identified job creation, economic development, saving lives and avoiding injuries, lower congestion, lower vehicle operation costs and better international competitiveness as benefits of the proposed national highway program.

The petitioners call upon parliament to urge the federal government to join with provincial governments to make the national system of grading possible.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Reform

Reed Elley Reform Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present to the House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition on behalf of 41 petitioners from my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan and Vancouver Island. It concerns the multilateral agreement on investment.

The petitioners indicate that they believe negotiations have been conducted behind closed doors and that most politicians, professionals and ordinary citizens in Canada know little or nothing about the MAI.

They ask that parliament impose a moratorium on ratification of the MAI until full public hearings on the proposed treaty are held across the country.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Gurbax Malhi Liberal Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present the following petition.

The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that some individuals are marrying Canadian citizens for the primary purpose of entering Canada as a member of the family class.

Therefore the petitioners pray and request that parliament encourage the government to consider introducing a three year conditional period for sponsored spouses.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians including some from my own riding of Mississauga South.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that police officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk on a daily basis as they discharge their duties and that employment benefits to police officers and firefighters are often insufficient to assist the families of those killed in the line of duty.

The petitioners also raise that the public mourns the loss of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty and wish to support in a tangible way those surviving families in their time of need.

The petitioners therefore ask parliament to establish a public safety officer compensation fund for the benefit of families of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Peterborough Ontario

Liberal

Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

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

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On September 25, 1997 I placed Question No. 18 on the order paper. It asks how much the government has spent implementing the provisions of Bill C-68 and for a revised estimate of the total cost of implementing that piece of legislation. In accordance with Standing Order 39(5)(a) I asked for a response within 45 days.

My constituents have been waiting 139 days. When can I tell them to expect an answer to this straightforward question?

Back in 1995 the Minister of Justice made bold statements that it would cost only $85 million over five years to implement Bill C-68. News reports are now speculating that the cost is already more than $200 million.

Could the government end the speculation and tell us how much it has spent so far and how much it will cost taxpayers in the future? When can I expect an answer to my question?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's impatience. I will be glad to look into the matter and I will discuss it with him shortly.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Reform

John Reynolds Reform West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to withdraw order paper Question No. 6 in my name as it appeared in the September 24, 1997 issue of the order paper.