House of Commons Hansard #196 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was dollar.
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.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 61st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of reference from the House of Commons of Monday, March 1, 1999 in relation to the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000 with regard to Vote No. 5 under Parliament, House of Commons. The committee reports the same.
I also have the honour to present the 62nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate membership of the Standing Committee on Industry.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 62nd report later this day.
Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-69, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to amend another act in consequence.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Gordon Earle NDP Halifax West, NS
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-488, parliamentarians' code of conduct.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table my private member's bill, the parliamentarians' code of conduct.
The purpose of this bill is to establish a code of conduct for all parliamentarians, that is members of the Senate and the House of Commons, and to provide for an officer of parliament to be known as an ethics counsellor, to advise members, to administer disclosures of interest and to carry out investigations of complaints under the direction of a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons.
I believe the passage of this bill would provide a framework to assist parliamentarians to carry out their responsibilities with honesty, integrity, transparency and in a manner that dignifies the trust placed in them by the electorate.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I move that the 62nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians, including from my own riding of Mississauga South, on the subject of human rights.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that human rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world in countries such as Indonesia. They also acknowledge that Canada continues to be recognized internationally as the champion of human rights.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to continue to speak out against human rights abuses around the world and also to seek to bring to justice those responsible for such abuses.
Bob Speller Liberal Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a group of petitions from constituents in my riding calling on the government to prohibit assisted suicide and that parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow that.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present another petition on behalf of people concerned that the people of Iraq have suffered untold hardship and trauma in the wake of the gulf war.
They say that sanctions, far from helping to destroy the repressive government there, have actually strengthened it and destroyed any useful opposition since instead of struggling for its rights the civilian population has to struggle for survival.
These petitioners call on parliament to strongly appeal to the United Nations, the United States and Britain for a rejection of any further military action against Iraq and call for a serious attempt at peace negotiations with Iraq and its neighbours.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present three petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36. The first one has to do with international trade agreements and water. The petitioners are concerned about the recent developments of the government, which seems to be getting into bed with the United States administration in terms of future exports.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners are concerned about the lack of reasonable sentencing for people who do harm to animals. They point out a whole variety of ways the courts seem to take this in a rather cavalier fashion and they say people who mistreat animals in whatever way and who are found guilty of this conduct should be fined and dealt with more harshly.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, in the third petition the petitioners are concerned about the long term viability of our pension system and are worried that the existing pension system does not ensure an adequate pension for all Canadians and they are asking for a complete review.
Ted McWhinney Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present a petition on behalf of the Oakridge Lutheran Church of Vancouver, calling on parliament to review the mandate of the CRTC and asking for a new policy encouraging the licensing of single faith broadcasters.
Rose-Marie Ur Liberal Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present a petition signed by residents of Sarnia and St. Thomas who urge parliament to ban the gas additive MMT, noting that studies underway at the University of Quebec are showing adverse health effects, especially on children and seniors.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, I rise on two points of order. The first point is that on November 23, 1998, I placed Question No. 169 on the order paper asking how many gun smugglers and illegal gun traffickers have been identified, prosecuted and convicted in Canada using the gun registration system.
In accordance with Standing Order 39, I asked for a written answer within 45 days. My constituents have been waiting 112 days.
The disconcerting fact here is that this happens every time I ask a question.
Every time I put a question on the order paper I have to wait beyond the 45 days. Why can the government not answer our questions in 45 days as promised? When can my constituents expect an answer to Question No. 169?
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I know the member is concerned about this question. As members are aware, sometimes when these questions are submitted they go to one department and we get a response. In other cases they may be required to go to every department and in some cases they will go to one department, get part of an answer and then go to another. Then and only then can they go back to the first department to get the rest.
I assure the member that I will look very seriously at the whereabouts of the response to Question No. 169.
Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, my second point is that on December 9, 1998, I placed Question No. 185 on the order paper asking for a list of contracts between the government and the consulting firm KPMG Peat Marwick Thorne. In accordance with Standing Order 39, I asked for a written answer within 45 days and my constituents have now been waiting 99 days.
I have been waiting twice as long as the standing orders require. Why do I have to raise multiple points of order to get answers to my questions? The government is interfering with my ability to do my job. If the government answered one question every 45 days, I would get eight answers in a year. If I used all four of the order paper questions to full advantage, I would get 32 questions answered a year. As it is, I am getting fewer than two answers per year.
At what point does this become a question of privilege? When can my constituents expect an answer to Question No. 185?
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the previous question, sometimes the responses are more complicated than in other cases. For example, in tabling responses to petitions, we have well over 2,000 petitions and we are running at well over a 90% response rate.
I assure the member that in this case I will look into the whereabouts of Question No. 185.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
I am reluctant to get into any discussions with the hon. member about when his privileges have been interfered with.
I know the parliamentary secretary is aware that at one time I was chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That committee deals with, among other things, changes to the rules of the House. If the hon. member feels he has a grievance in respect of the answers he is not getting to his questions, I suggest he raise the matter with that committee which has the power to change the rules and allow him to put more questions on the order paper. At least he could get his questions asked even if he did not get answers. He would not have his four places tied up in the way he is complaining about today. That is something the committee could consider and report to the House on. I know the hon. member might want to be vigorous in his pursuit of such an aim with the committee. I know he would find a very receptive ear in that of the parliamentary secretary.
I suggest we leave the matter there. The parliamentary secretary is the chair of the committee and so in appealing to him, the member would be appealing to two people at once. That is always a helpful thing and will save time.
Shall the remaining questions stand?
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, before Oral Question Period, I carefully listened to the debate on our motion and the speech by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. He carefully explained why a special committee should be struck to consider the creation of a pan-American monetary union. There is a possibility we might participate in the creation of a pan-American monetary union.
In his speech, my colleague argued the response of members on the government side was quite weak. Their arguments are half baked. They are putting them forward saying “No, we do not want such a committee, we do not want to debate the possible creation of a pan-American monetary union”.
Moreover my colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot reported the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions had argued that Canada's monetary policy was very important for Canada's sovereignty.
My question is this: could my colleague tell me how independent Canada's monetary policy is from the United States? Is this not merely an illusion?
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Drummond for her excellent question.
In fact, when we look at the evolution of monetary policy since 1950, the independence of the Bank of Canada's policy is highly suspect. Since 1950, almost 100 basis points, or 1% in terms of Canadian interest rates, have been added to American interest rates.
In other words, each time the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank makes interest rate decisions, the Bank of Canada follows suit. That is entirely natural because we are in lockstep with the American economy. There is capital circulating at the speed of lightning, and increasingly freely. Given Canada's weaker performance compared to the United States, more money may leave the country if there is a difference between Canadian and American interest rates.
There was 1996-97, when the Bank of Canada boasted that it operated independently from American monetary policy, when Canadian interest rates were over 1% lower than American rates. What was the result? The Canadian dollar took a nosedive, made even worse by the Asian crisis.
Apart from 1973, when the Bank of Canada made a decision completely unconnected with the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, this was the only such occasion.
In the circumstances, therefore, any talk about the independence of the Bank of Canada is complete nonsense. The Bank of Canada is not independent.
We had another example of this as recently as August and September. The president of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank lowered American interest rates by 100 basis points. Fifteen minutes later—not one or two days, not one week, but 15 minutes later—Mr. Thiessen, the governor of the Bank of Canada, lowered Canadian rates by exactly the same amount. We are continually following the evolution of American monetary policy. A common currency for the three Americas, or even an international currency, would not be such a great loss of autonomy.
John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member across the way knows that the United States is one of the most powerful countries in the world. Is it true that the only currency the Americans would accept would be their own currency, the American dollar? Is that true?
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is not the point. The members opposite should try to show a glimmer of intelligence for once.
The issue is whether we are going to take a back seat to global progress. Will Liberals refuse to have a real debate, as they are asked, and in particular to hold a forum at the finance committee? I have asked for a two to three-day forum bringing together experts from Quebec and Canada.
We could examine the pros and cons of a monetary union, see what the conclusions could be drawn and prepare members of parliament to hold debates which would be more enlightened than those we have heard today from the Liberals and the New Democrats in particular. That is what we are asking for.