Debates of March 9th, 1998

Health Care

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should go back to Winnipeg and look at the budget of his provincial colleagues, the Tories, who reduced taxes but did not add one cent to medicare.

Agriculture

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.

Last Thursday, the Government of Quebec announced that it had reached an agreement with the Government of Canada on a program to compensate full time farmers. The Government of Quebec is ignoring part time farmers.

Does the Government of Canada not feel that part time farmers should receive fair treatment?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, we feel it should be a fair program for both part time and full time farmers. That is exactly why this government announced on February 17 that because of the ice storm we will treat part time farmers exactly the same as we treated part time farmers in the Saguenay and in the Red River region. I would encourage the Government of Quebec to come on side with a subsidiary agreement so it too will treat part time farmers the same as it treated part time farmers in the Saguenay.

Canadian Armed Forces

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, following the crash of a passenger plane in Manitoba on December 9, Canada's air force arrived at the scene four hours after a civilian helicopter. An inquiry into the mission found that unnecessary risks taken by the pilot, a lieutenant colonel, put the Hercules itself and the town in jeopardy, yet the only one to be punished for this was the junior officer.

Does the minister of defence feel it is good for morale to allow a junior officer to once again be a scapegoat for his superior?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the matter is still under investigation. We must bear in mind that lives needed to be saved here. The aircraft sent in by the military went in under some very bad weather conditions. The pilot had to make a judgment to disperse the fuel so he could get in and out with the passengers at a lower level than would normally be the case. He did it in as safe a way as possible in a remote area north of the airfield. He got in and was able to rescue people who were then able to get to hospital.

Status Of Women

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

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

Budgets for promoting the status of women have been severely cut in recent years. They now stand at a mere $8.2 million for all of Canada, for over 400 women's groups.

In a period of budget surpluses, how can the Secretary of State for the Status of Women justify that she has not managed to come up with any additional money for women, when this is what women's groups unanimously recommended to the Standing Committee on Finance?

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

Mr. Speaker, the budget cuts that came about for every department in the past is what has brought us to the point where we can now get rid of a $42 billion deficit. We are now talking about what we gave to women in this budget. We had a choice, we made a priority. We gave money to women so they can live every day of their lives with the reality of extra money and extra help. This budget did that. In future budgets we will look at other things, but this budget addressed the reality of women's lives.

Pay Equity

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

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

Pay equity is a basic human right that is denied to many Canadian women. In acknowledging International Women's Week, the secretary of state talks of pay equity and human rights. As we celebrate International Women's Week, does the secretary of state intend to have her government settle the pay equity dispute within the public service? Will she put words into action and prove to Canadians that women are truly equal and worthy in this government's eyes?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, once again on the question of pay equity the government has made a very generous offer. It is now only a matter of the unions to answer that offer. We have gone from about $300 million to $1.3 billion. During this time, the unions have not even moved from their position. If anything they have increased it.

In the circumstances we are in favour of pay equity. We will continue to fight for it for the women who deserve it.

Health

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, four years ago at the age of 43 Wanda Bradstreet died from hepatitis C. She was a victim of tainted blood transfusions she received 10 years earlier. Her husband had to leave work in order to care for her because she was too ill to work. Eventually they had to sell their business to pay the expenses associated with her liver transplant. Mr. Bradstreet still has outstanding bills. The Minister of Health has been stalling. Why does this government not use some compassion and leadership and act unilaterally—

[The Speaker]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in a moment of rationality will acknowledge that the minister's initiatives in this regard are the only things going. The minister has already acted unilaterally. He has shown leadership. He has invited his colleagues at the provincial level to participate with him in a joint program. He has given them very clear indications and parameters. He has invited them to sit at the table, to negotiate properly and to ensure that this issue is put to rest once and for all for the sake of all who suffered this regrettable tragedy.

Foreign Affairs

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

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

The present situation in Kosovo where over 100 ethnic Albanians have been killed is intolerable. We cannot allow a repeat of the slaughter and ethnic cleansing that accompanied the break-up of the former Yugoslavia.

Will the minister consider supporting the extension of the authority of the tribunal for war crimes to include Kosovo and help to bring about a speedy resolution of the present conflict?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we have already taken a number of independent measures to send the message to the regime in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

In London today the contact group for the Balkans did recommend that the international tribunal take under advisement applying its jurisdiction. That should be discussed with the chief prosecutor.

It is certainly a measure which the Prime Minister and I will have the opportunity to discuss tomorrow with Secretary of State Albright.

We will participate in international actions to try to bring peace and stability to Kosovo under the circumstances which we think are the most effective.

Taxation

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, imagine that Canadians have to leave the country to find work. That is not uncommon these days. Now the moment they leave the federal government is forcing them to pay taxes on their Canadian assets even though they have not yet been sold.

First it was the head tax on immigrants. Now it is an exit tax on all those economic refugees who are fleeing this country because of high taxes.

How can the minister expect Canadians to pay millions of dollars in taxes on capital gains they have not yet realized?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the measure to which the hon. member refers has in fact been in place for a considerable number of years. This is not a new procedure. What is happening is that it is being extended to other forms of property.

I would point out to the hon. member that one would not be obliged to pay taxes when leaving the country if in fact one was able or desirous of posting security.

Canadian Centre Against Sexual Abuse

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

In a letter signed on June 5, the former justice minister undertook to provide the Canadian centre against sexual abuse with annual funding of $1 million over the next five years. Since then, the centre has been given to understand that it will receive only part of this money.

Since we are still awaiting a reply from the minister, can she tell us whether or not she intends to honour the commitment made by the former justice minister and see that the centre receives the promised funding, or is this again—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I hope everyone in the House knows that this government is committed to fighting domestic violence wherever it happens.

My predecessor made a number of commitments in relation to funding for projects to address domestic violence across the country. We are negotiating with those groups right now to determine levels of funding.

Immigration

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The government has allowed only very limited public hearings on the immigration legislative review. Already there is resounding opposition to the discriminatory and biased recommendations particularly as they pertain to language, education and refugees.

Will the Prime Minister assure the House that these recommendations will be rejected by the government and that legislation will not be forced through?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, first of all this is the first time that a minister has gone out to consult on recommendations. This is not a government report nor is it government policy.

I have talked to the minister during the last 10 days. She is still holding consultations.

There are very good recommendations in the report, but there are sections which the minister herself has said publicly many times this past week that she has some very serious concerns with. She has expressed those views publicly and very clearly. There are sections in the report which also have some good recommendations. The report will be studied by the minister. She is consulting. It is a very good omen for this country.

[The Speaker]

That would bring to a close our question period for today.

Colleagues, I have notice of a question of privilege raised by the hon. House leader for the Progressive Conservative Party. I will hear that question of privilege now.

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege that arises from a circumstance surrounding a newspaper article which appeared in the March 8 edition of the Ottawa Sun . Within that article there were quotations attributed to members of this House which, in my view, constitute an overt and outrageous attempt to intimidate you, the Speaker of this House, and collectively the House itself.

It is my hope that the members involved will rise in their place and tell the House that they have been misquoted and that the remarks that were attributed to them are in fact untrue. Perhaps we should all recall what Samuel Johnson said when he said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Mr. Speaker, I have sent you the article and have tabled it with the Table. This article, which appeared on page 7 of the March 8 edition, was headlined “Standing on guard for flag—MPs threaten Speaker's job in flap over Maple Leaf, anthem”. I am not going to go through all of the quotations from within that article, but I would suggest that they were inappropriate and intended to intimidate or, at the very least, affect you in your ruling on this matter.

What we do in this House certainly is watched by the nation. I would suggest that this article, which appears in public, affects the integrity of this entire House. Members of this House are certainly entitled to agree or disagree with the wisdom of your rulings, Mr. Speaker. If they do not like the way the Speaker rules or they do not like the way you are acting in your office, they have every right to voice objections. However, they should do so by way of a substantive motion in this House.

What members do not have the right to do, I suggest, is to make statements on these matters which are before the Chair for adjudication and, through these statements, attempt to influence the judgment before it has been rendered.

Mr. Speaker, influencing your rulings through the media is totally wrong. It really will not matter, I suggest, what your judgment is for these statements have now prejudiced whatever you do.

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary authorities are clear and unqualified on this point. Erskine May states on page 150 of the 19th Edition:

To attempt to influence Members in their conduct by threats is also a breach of privilege.

You, Mr. Speaker, are a member of this House. It also states on page 230:

Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as breaches of privilege. His action cannot be criticized incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except a substantive motion.

I also quote from citation 168 at page 49 of Beauchesne's:

Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object, not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also, to ensure that there is a general recognition of the Speaker's impartiality.

The material that is before you in this article touches upon your high office. It is not fair for you yourself to resolve this matter. I would suggest it is a matter that is best left for the judgment of the House itself.

While it might be argued that these statements were made outside the House and therefore should not fall under the purview or rubric of the question of privilege, I would suggest that it is clear from the precedents that this House has addressed such matters of contempt in the past.

Citation 78, page 21 of Beauchesne's again clearly speaks to this issue and it states the Speaker should be protected against reflections on his or her actions. Citations 71.2, 71.3 and 71.4 also provide direction on this point, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest it is therefore evident that this House has in the past considered media reports to be within the ambit of its jurisdiction. The statements attributed to the members of this House serve to undermine your authority by their very utterance.

They give the impression that the Speaker will give a judgment based on partisan consideration or that he will act out of fear or censorship from some members of this House.

The partisanship should not affect your rulings whatsoever. The speakership of the House is not to be brought into these partisan battles. In Beauchesne's again, as a point of reference, the essential ingredient of the speakership is to be found in the status of the speaker as a servant of the House. The presiding officer, while but a servant of the House, is entitled on all occasions to be treated with the greatest attention and respect by the individual members because the office embodies the power, dignity and honour of the House itself.

I repeat that duty upon this matter should be placed before the House. The reference for that, the Speaker should be protected against reflections on his or her actions at all times.

Your integrity has been brought into question and compromised by these statements. In matters such as this, I suggest it is up to the House to act. It would be inappropriate for you, Mr. Speaker, now to be put in the position of having to try to explain this situation or scold its members. This is not a matter for the Speaker. It is a matter for the House and it is incumbent upon us to defend you.

Until there is a denial of these statements or until there is an apology tendered to this House, to the Speaker, there is a cloud over your chair in this House. Therefore, I would ask that you find that there is a prima facie case of privilege before this House requiring immediate consideration and in that event, I am prepared to move the following motion:

That certain statements attributed to members of the House of Commons may bring into question the integrity of the House of Commons and its servant, the Speaker, those comments appearing at page 7 on the March 8, 1998 Ottawa Sun be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first let me say that, at least as far as I am concerned, and I am convinced I am expressing the opinion of all the members of this House, we have, of course, full confidence in your work.

I would like to quote—and this may seem strange to you—what I said myself on February 26, 1998. At the time, I proposed the following to the House, and I quote:

In a spirit of calm, the House leaders of the parties will carry on their tradition, as the member for Roberval said himself, of finding some common ground on a number of thorny issues. Our behaviour this afternoon in this matter indicates just how thorny it is and perhaps for obvious reasons, without going into all the details.

For someone like myself who believes strongly in the unity of his country, flag waving is not provocation, but an act of pride. Someone of a different persuasion may see it differently, and I accept that. I find it regrettable, but I accept it.

A little further, you said yourself, and I quote:

We have had a suggestion from the hon. government House leader that the House leaders of the different parties come together to discuss how these things should be handled—

Mr. Speaker, you yourself offered to speak on behalf of the hon. member for York South—Weston since, as an independent member, he does not have a House leader.

What I want to say is that, at the time, we agreed to discuss the issue amongst ourselves and then make a recommendation to the Speaker, on behalf of the House leaders. The Speaker himself would have consulted the independent member.

That being said, I found the article rather unusual because in fact the article suggested that Mr. Speaker is going to rule on this today.

Of course this would be surprising to me because in fact the House leaders have not met. Therefore, we have not had the opportunity of making our recommendations to Mr. Speaker and presumably Mr. Speaker would not be ruling until having heard that recommendation, given what Your Honour said the last day we sat.

That being said, there will be a meeting of House leaders as early as tomorrow. While I cannot predict a conclusion of any discussions we will or might have tomorrow, I can surely say to Mr. Speaker that we will not be making a recommendation until at least late in the day tomorrow and possibly later.

Therefore, someone speculating on what the ruling of the Speaker might be today is very hypothetical, particularly given that the Speaker will not be making, I believe, a ruling on this issue today for the reasons I have just outlined.

Maybe we should all take another deep breath—as we did on Thursday, February 26—for a couple of days and let the events unfold as they should. In other words, the House leaders would meet, make a recommendation to Your Honour, then we can discuss it and a ruling can come down.

In the meantime perhaps we can all contribute by ensuring that our discussions are held through our various House leaders rather than by using other means.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on the question of privilege raised by the House leader of the Progressive Conservatives.

I have two or three comments. First of all, we of course are kind of half way through the due process to be followed on this. As the government House leader has already mentioned, this has already been referred to not only yourself but also to the House leaders for discussion and hopeful resolution before it comes to a prima facie case of privilege and a full-blown debate here in the House.

We are already in the midst of dealing with this in whatever fashion is deemed appropriate and the due process I would say would be improperly interrupted at this time, to start a debate when that process has not had a chance to come to fruition.

Second, I kind of agree with the hon. House leader of the government that this speculation that today you were going to make a ruling again is, was, is, was, still is speculation.

I see in the other reports today that you are going to make another ruling tomorrow on this and you may not have even known that yet. The facts of the matter are not as printed in the article in the Ottawa paper.

Third, I have faith that when the time comes you will make a judgment and a ruling. I am not supposing that a single article in a newspaper is going to be the one that sways the Speaker one way or the other.

You will make a ruling, I am convinced, on the proper legality of the arguments and the soundness of the arguments. I do not think a newspaper article by anyone is going to particularly sway you.

I think we should take a bit of a breather on this thing, discuss it as was agreed during the last week the House was in session and I think we can come back with an agreement that will settle this once and for all.