House of Commons Hansard #53 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was spending.

Topics

Privilege

10 a.m.

The Speaker

Colleagues, the day before yesterday the member for Prince George—Peace River raised a question of privilege. In that question of privilege the Minister of Natural Resources was named. I asked the House to give me time to gather more information and to hear—I hate to use the word rebuttal—but at least a response from the Minister of Natural Resources. He is here with us now and I would like to hear what he has to say.

Privilege

10:05 a.m.

Wascana Saskatchewan

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in relation to an alleged question of privilege raised last Tuesday by the member for Prince George—Peace River pertaining to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to you, Mr. Speaker, for ensuring that on this alleged point the government side is heard in this House in response to the five interventions that were heard from the Reform Party.

I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in relation to Bill C-4, there has been no contempt of this House nor any contempt for the office or the authority of the Speaker.

The ongoing discussion about how to change the Canadian Wheat Board has been under way both in this House and across the prairies for at least 25 years. It has been especially intense since the early 1990s when the former Mulroney government tried at that time to diminish the wheat board without reference to Parliament and without substantive consultations with farmers.

When I inherited those problems after the 1993 election, I was determined to follow proper procedures inside Parliament, especially in relation to that broad and often fractious western farm community within which there are deeply divided points of view.

The Reform Party of course has the opposition luxury of siding with only one side in the debate. As minister I have to try to build some consensus. One of my common practices in trying to do so is to consult extensively with interested stakeholders and to try very hard to keep them in the loop with ample information as events move along. Through Parliament and through countless public and private meetings, hearings, panels, letters, pamphlets, surveys, e-mails, faxes and the Internet, we have made an exhaustive effort to keep farmers up to date with what is going on with respect to wheat board changes, to answer their questions and most importantly to solicit their advice.

The straight forward meeting with farm leaders which I held on January 21 and which is the Reform Party's sole source of complaint in this alleged question of privilege was part of that open, inclusive and transparent effort to gain the benefit of producer input.

Surely it is ludicrous to suggest that a minister may not even meet with a broad cross-section of interested stakeholders to consult them on matters of vital importance to their livelihoods if a piece of legislation on the same subject happens at that moment to be before Parliament.

The rules do not say that ministers may only consult with the opposition or only with the groups of which the opposition approves. Similarly the rules do not constrain the opposition from meeting outside Parliament with any groups it may want to consult.

In his intervention last Tuesday, the member for Yorkton—Melville admitted that he had done just that the very next day after my meeting. The member for Portage—Lisgar has had meetings about the details of Bill C-4 and many other Reformers have done the same. Their extra-parliamentary meetings to discuss Bill C-4 while that bill is pending before this House are not a breach of privilege. They are not in contempt and neither am I.

Surely adequate consultation with stakeholders is completely consistent with and fundamental to the democratic process. It cannot be a legitimate source of complaint on either side of this House.

In what I have written or said about Bill C-4 in relation to my January 21 meeting or otherwise, I have tried to be crystal clear that the debate in this House is obviously ongoing and that the bill is not yet passed. I suspect that came as no surprise to farmers. If the details change, then there will have to be further consultations again. But in the meantime there is no gag order on any member of this House to prevent them or me from talking with farmers about what is being proposed.

The opposition has urged on a number of occasions that we implement the essence of the 1996 report of the Western Grain Marketing Panel. The essence of that report is a change in corporate governance to create a board of directors for the Canadian Wheat Board with the majority of those directors to be elected by farmers.

When I met with farm leaders on January 21, that is what we were talking about, how to do it right, how to respond to the essence of the panel report.

Last September I asked all the major western farm groups to give me their practical advice on this issue. Many responded with detailed written suggestions including the very right wing organization whose cause the Reform Party is now espousing in this alleged question of privilege.

Privilege

10:10 a.m.

An hon. member

This sounds like debate now.

Privilege

10:10 a.m.

An hon. member

That is debate.

Privilege

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK

I went further when I appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to discuss Bill C-4 last October. I told the committee that I had consulted with farm groups about election methodology and I asked that committee the exact same questions that I asked the farm groups. So Parliament was fully informed and engaged and there was no complaint from the opposition for over three months.

The farm groups responded seriously and substantively both in writing and on January 21. I cannot help it if the Reform Party did not respond, even though it was specifically invited to do so through a parliamentary committee.

I will refer briefly to two remarks made on Tuesday by Reform members. The member for Peace River said: “The minister publicly stated that he wants the board of directors in place before this legislation has been debated properly on the floor of the House of Commons and passed”. In fact I have repeatedly stated the exact opposite. The board of directors cannot be in place. Democracy and accountability cannot be achieved for the Canadian Wheat Board unless and until Bill C-4 is finally debated and passed.

The member for Prince George—Peace River said: “I think it is high time that this House demonstrate to the ministers and their departments a little democracy over bureaucracy”. I agree. That is what Bill C-4 is all about, empowerment and democracy for prairie farmers. Surely a minister consulting with those farmers about how to get there is no question of privilege.

Privilege

10:10 a.m.

The Speaker

Colleagues, while the minister was making his statement today, I heard cries from the other side that this was debate. I myself did not think this was any more debate than the interventions of the other members in this matter.

The points have now been put before me. Allegations have been made by one side. Now we have heard the other point of view from the other side. As to the specific allegation itself, I want to review specifically what the member for Prince George—Peace River said in his question of privilege concerning the specific allegation. Other opinions were presented to back it up and there may be some other facts that I want to take into consideration. I now have the minister's statement. I have heard both sides. I will have a look at all the material that is in front of me and I will come back to this House with a decision.

Privilege

10:10 a.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, in the minister's long and exhausting preamble he referred to hardworking farmers who are concerned about their livelihood as radical right wing factions. I would ask that the minister with—

Privilege

10:10 a.m.

The Speaker

I see we are getting a little into the debate and I am sure that all hon. members will want to give me time to review just exactly what has been said. For the time being we will let this sit. I will come back to the House with a decision.

Government Response To PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.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.

Canadian Parks Agency ActRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Parry Sound—Muskoka Ontario

Liberal

Andy Mitchell Liberalfor the Minister of Canadian Heritage

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-29, an act to establish the Canadian parks agency and to amend other acts as a consequence.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to table on behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage a bill entitled an act to establish the Canadian parks agency which will modernize the framework for preserving, protecting and expanding national parks, national historic sites and related protected areas.

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

Food And Drugs ActRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Reform

Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-307, an act to to amend the Food and Drugs Act.

Mr. Speaker, we have titled this bill the Reform health freedom amendment.

This bill is designed to change the regulatory framework for natural health products in Canada. Today these products can be regulated in a very heavy handed fashion.

We believe the government should only be regulating if there is proven harm, proven side effects or proven contamination. In other words, if the product is safe why would the government be involved in the regulation at all.

This bill has received a fair amount of public support. The health committee is currently studying this issue. It is quite timely that it should be placed on the docket at this time.

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

Beverage Containers ActRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-308, an act respecting beverage containers.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would encourage recycling by ensuring that all beverages sold in Canada are sold in containers upon which a refundable deposit would be charged. It would benefit the municipal sector in the area of landfills and in the blue box program.

I am pleased to introduce this bill.

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

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

February 5th, 1998 / 10:15 a.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present this petition on behalf of approximately 150 signatories from the city of Calgary and Airdrie in Alberta.

On July 22, 1997 CRTC refused to license four religious broadcasters, including one Roman Catholic service and three multi-denominational services. At the same time, on the same day, it did license the pornographic Playboy channel.

The petitioners therefore pray that parliament review the mandate of the CRTC and direct the CRTC to administer a new policy which will encourage the licensing of religious broadcasters. I know I am not supposed to, but I certainly concur with these people.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Lévis, I would like to table six petitions, which go with the three petitions I tabled before the holidays.

These six petitions represent 8,461 signatures. In all, 10,847 people request the following: “We would like VIA Rail to continue to use the Lévis intermodal train station and also the Montmagny subdivision trunk line between Harlaka and Saint-Romuald for the operation of the Chaleur and Océan trains”.

The people are from all over my riding: 3,386 from Lévis, 2,246 from the south shore, 3,954 from Quebec City and its environs and 1,219 from elsewhere, for a total of 10,847.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of residents of Peterborough riding in support of the Lubicon Cree of Northern Alberta who have been struggling for 50 years to secure a land base for their community.

They point out that the government has collected significant royalties and taxes on more than $9 billion in oil and gas revenues taken out of Lubicon territory.

These petitions call on Parliament to negotiate a quick and fair settlement with the Lubicon, including a 243 square kilometre reserve, funds and resources for infrastructure, and they ask that all developments in the boundaries of the proposed reserve be halted until a settlement is reached.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two petitions from my riding.

The first one containing a few hundred names is concerned about the continued intrusion by the government into the way parents are raising their children. The petitioners request that Parliament affirm the duty of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their own conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 in Canada's Criminal Code as it is currently worded. I support that position, although I know I cannot say that.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, my second petition containing several hundred names is concerned that the unborn have no legal rights in this country. The rights of the preborn child are not guaranteed in the charter of rights and freedoms.

Therefore these petitioners call on Parliament to enact legislation to protect the preborn by amending clause 28 of the charter of rights and freedoms to read “notwithstanding anything in this charter, the rights and freedoms set out in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons from conception to natural death”. I personally support this as well.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Reform

Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB

Mr. Speaker, according to section 36, I would like to present a petition from many people in northern Alberta. They believe that the provocation defence, as it is currently used in femicide and wife slaughter cases, inappropriately and unjustly changes the focus of the criminal trial from the behaviour of the accused and his intention to murder, to the behaviour of the victim, who from then on is identified as the one responsible for the accused's violence.

They are obviously asking and praying that Parliament review and change relevant provisions of the Criminal Code to ensure that men take responsibility for their violent behaviour toward women. That is only sensible.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from a number of Canadians, including my own riding of Mississauga South.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the police officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk in the performance of their duties on a daily basis, and that the employment benefits of police officers and firefighters often do not provide sufficient compensation to their families for those whose spouses are killed in the line of duty, and also that the public mourns the loss of a police officer or firefighter killed in the line of duty and wishes to support in a tangible way the surviving family members in their time of need.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to establish a fund known as the public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of families of public safety officers killed in the line of duty.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:25 a.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to introduce a petition in this House from over 2,000 people across the country. Persons convicted of indictable offences and serving prison terms have been able to change their names while in prison. Being able to change their names enables these persons upon their release to remain unknown to local police and to give the impression of not having a criminal record.

Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to enact legislation which would prohibit convicts serving terms of imprisonment for indictable offences from being able to change their names.

I submit that to the House and will follow up with a private member's bill.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:25 a.m.

Reform

Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased indeed to present a petition on behalf of the people of Lakeland constituency. This petition deals with sentencing guidelines for physical and sexual assault offences. They call for changes involving minimum sentence, that sentences when more than one crime has been committed to be served consecutively and for people who have been found guilty of this type of crime to be remanded to prison.

Again, I am very pleased to present this petition on their behalf.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:25 a.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that you recognize I am most in need of exercise, so you have me stand up and sit down most often. Thank you.

I am proud to represent directly the constituents of Elk Island in their petition. They are deeply concerned about the fact that the CRTC promotes violence, sexual exploitation, the degradation of women and children and also men through pornographic channels which are approved but refuses to allow Christian broadcasters to get a licence, even though apparently our constitutional rights give us freedom of religion, conscience and expression.

The petitioners plead that Parliament review the mandate of the CRTC and change its policy so that this type of religious broadcasting is permitted and the other one shut down.

I am proud to present this petition on their behalf.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:25 a.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a large number of residents of Kamloops who are concerned they are paying too high levels of taxation, and concerned that the tax load is acting as a problem when it comes to economic development and investment.

The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to undertake a complete overhaul of the tax system to ensure that all the tax exemptions presently in existence make sense economically.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:25 a.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

On another matter, I have a petition signed by a number of soon to be seniors from the city of Kamloops who, since the government has now set aside the seniors benefit package, hope that before any changes are made an adequate opportunity is provided to Canadians to react to the proposals once they are presented and not simply slipped through as they were worried was going to occur.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:25 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I presume that concludes petitions and might I remind hon. members of two rules in respect of the presentation of petitions. One is that hon. members are not to read the petition to the House but are to give a brief summary of the petition. Second, members are not to express their concurrence or otherwise with the contents of the petition.

I urge hon. members to comply with the rules in that regard. I think the Chair has been very lenient today.