Debates of March 27th, 2000

Economic Development Agency

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. We will hear the response from the minister.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, basically we are dealing with small and medium size enterprises across the province of Quebec.

I would like to add again that we are working with an internal audit on a yearly basis. We proceed with improvements on a yearly basis. I am proud of the work which is done by the agency. We are going to keep working with the regions. Let me repeat that for some years, the main program of the department has been ISO 9002.

I suspect my English is not up to the task, so I shall say it again in French: ISO 9002.

Shipbuilding

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in January, after months of representations by employers and workers at Canada's main ship yards, the Minister of Industry admitted that new measures were needed and that he intended to set up a consultative committee to look into ways of helping the shipbuilding industry. Two months later, there is still no action.

Given the importance of this issue, will the Minister of Industry finally get going and deliver on his promises, before other ship yards close down and workers are laid off?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we are meeting with the interested parties, including union representatives. We are continuing to consider the information they are providing.

It is important to understand that the problem facing this sector is an international one, as overcapacity in this industry throughout the world stands at 40%.

Hepatitis C

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, very few Canadians have any faith in the health minister's promise to protect universal health care. Is it any wonder? Two years ago the same minister made another promise. Two years ago today was the anniversary of the health minister's promise to compensate some of the victims of the hepatitis C tainted blood scandal. Two years have past and the victims are still waiting; not a penny for victims but big bucks for lawyers. Is this the action of a caring government?

When will the health minister get the money to the dying people who desperately need it?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was two years ago that the government persuaded the provincial governments for the first time to take part with us in the compensation scheme for hepatitis C victims in the blood tragedy.

Every NDP government in the country supported us in that and continue to support us. Every government went before the courts and had the agreement approved. The court has now approved the administrator and I understand cheques will be sent shortly.

If this government had not acted the case would be before the courts for many years to come.

The Environment

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, over the last seven years the Liberal government has not passed one piece of environmental legislation of its own despite the fact that Canadians are still working toward improving environmental legislation.

The Species at Risk Working Group, a consortium of mining, pulp and paper, woodlot owners, farmers and environmental groups, have laid out a specific recommendation on what we should see in species at risk legislation. However, the government has chosen to ignore it. This is another circumstance where a borrowed par record on the green is not acceptable.

Why will the Minister of the Environment not accept the recommendations of SARWG?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. member has been but perhaps he has been dreaming in technicolour in the interim.

We passed environmental assessment legislation and environmental protection legislation. We are doing a lot of things in this government, whether it be the budget or it be legislation, to ensure that we are meeting the challenges of the new millennium.

The reality is that the minister will introduce species at risk legislation. He has been working very hard on it and it will be a good bill.

Points Of Order

[The Speaker]

This morning the hon. member for Hamilton—Wentworth raised a point of order and I would like to make a ruling on it.

First, I thank the hon. member for bringing this matter dealing with the recognition of political parties in the House to the attention of the Chair. I wish to inform all members that the procedures followed in recognizing the new Canadian Alliance are entirely in keeping with our traditions and practices. No further requirement exists either for action by the House or by the members directly involved.

I would take this opportunity to point out that our practices here are entirely separate from and independent of any stipulation set out in the Canada Elections Act. Hon. members interested in this topic may consult a very helpful ruling by Speaker Fraser and this can be found in the Debates for December 13, 1990, at pages 16705 and 16706.

Privilege

[The Speaker]

Last Friday the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River raised a question of privilege concerning Bill C-206 which is under the name of the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington. As I recall, it had to do with the amount of time given to the member for Wentworth—Burlington to get 100 signatures for his bill. On Friday the hon. member simply could not be here and therefore his motion was dropped to the bottom of the list.

The hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington is in his seat. Is he aware of the question of privilege which was brought up? He signals to me that he is. Would the hon. member like to make an intervention? The hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised by the attack made by the Canadian Alliance Party. You will forgive me if I reply at some length.

Basically what the whip for the former party said was that I was absent from the House on Friday because he felt that I was unable to get the 100 signatures that I was expected to get in order for Bill C-206 to remain on the order paper. He was making the assumption that I had to get those signatures by that Friday in order for my bill to remain on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take you through exactly what the whip for the Reform Party did say. I would like you to compare it with the evidential record. The member was referring to the procedure and House affairs committee discussions of March 2 in which the status of my signatures and Bill C-206 were discussed in the context of a point of privilege that you ruled on, Mr. Speaker.

He said on Friday that during the discussions at committee it was suggested that the member for Wentworth—Burlington be apprised of the intentions of the committee before the committee actually finalized its report in order to allow him time to seek the recommended support for his bill. The reason for this urgency was because the committee intended the deadline to be the first opportunity for the bill to be considered for its first hour of debate.

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hands—not as a prop—the committee record of that discussion of March 2. In it you will find no such reference. There was no such discussion by anyone in that committee about whether I should be apprised to get my signatures in advance of the final report.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I received no official communication from the committee before the finalized 19th report. No one said anything to me about the decision to require me to get the signatures again for my Bill C-206.

It might interest you to know, Mr. Speaker, that the timing was interesting as well because the deputy whip tabled the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on March 17, the Friday before March 20, which was the first day that the committee record became available. The records were not even available before the report was finalized and I received no communication whatsoever. I suggest to you that what was said by the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River is completely at odds with the facts.

Mr. Speaker, while I was aware of the recommendation that was contemplated by the committee, even before the report was finalized, I, quite honestly, never expected you to rule the way you did. I did not expect you to uphold the recommendation that came from that committee much less the recommendation as contained in the finalized report that was only available to me on the Friday before the Tuesday on which you ruled.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I took your ruling in good spirits because I respect the Chair. I might find it uncomfortable sometimes when you rule in ways that take me by surprise but nevertheless I respect that any time you do approach a ruling you approach it with the kind of dispassionate impartiality that we expect of you.

Last Friday the whip for the Reform Party went on to say:

The member for Wentworth—Burlington rose after the Speaker's ruling and sought further clarification. He clarified with the Chair that if he could secure 100 signatures by Friday, March 24, 200, today, his bill could remain on the order paper.

What is it that I actually said following your ruling on March 21? Mr. Speaker, for your benefit, I will quote what I actually said. I said:

What I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, is, if I can get the signatures in the next day or so that perhaps Bill C-206 could remain where it is on the order of precedence rather than being dropped to the very bottom and perhaps not being debated for some months to come.

Just to be doubly sure, I repeated it and said:

What I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, is, if I can get the hundred signatures in the next day or two—and I would hope to have the co-operation of the opposition parties in this—can my bill remain on the order of precedence and come up on Friday—

Mr. Speaker, as you can see from what I just said, the assumption was that I would have the opportunity to collect those signatures so long as the bill remained on the order of precedence, whether it was on the order of precedence for Friday or dropped in the order of precedence at the time, it did not matter. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in your own words, you said:

I believe the question the hon. member is asking is whether this bill will come up in the normal course of events. The answer is, yes. Is that what the question is?

I said “Yes”. So, Mr. Speaker, that is clear. You can see, if you go back to what the whip for the Reform Party said, he has distorted the record. He was suggesting that for some reason there was a ruling on your part that prevented my bill from dropping to the bottom of the order of precedence and not being valid as a result of having done so.

The most wounding and injurious thing of all that the member for Prince George—I can never remember where it is.

[An hon. member]

Prince George—Peace River.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Prince George—Peace River. Well, yes, some peace.

[The Speaker]

I am sure that we do want to make fun of any member's riding. It is Prince George—Peace River, I would remind the hon. member.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I am suffering. I have been ill all weekend and you can tell by my voice. I am coming to that as well.

Mr. Speaker, the last wounding charge was the suggestion that I was deliberately absent from the House on that Friday because I could not get my 100 signatures.

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the hon. member opposite something. I was sick. I was very ill. On Wednesday I had a sore throat and was afraid I had strep throat. On Thursday I carefully backed off going around trying to collect my 100 signatures because I was afraid I was contagious. I have to admit that I would have been delighted to sit behind the member for Athabasca and maybe make him a little sicker, but I did not.

Mr. Speaker, I will point out to you that the member for New Brunswick Southwest will recall that I came over and sat in those chairs where the pages are right now. He called me over because he wanted to talk to me about Bill C-206. I sat there in those chairs and I said “I am sorry, I cannot come any closer to you because I am afraid I have something. I do not want you to become ill”. If I did not pursue my signatures on Wednesday and Thursday it was for the very good reason that I did not want to risk the members of the House getting the illness that I had.

If there is any doubt whatsoever from that party opposite that I was sick on that particular day, I have here—and I can give it to a page—the actual doctor's prescription that I received at the very moment that the member was making those charges against me. I deliberately did not fill this prescription so that I could present it in the House as evidence that I was indeed sick at the time that we are speaking of. If I can get a page to come up, this will show you, Mr. Speaker, that it is an actual document. It is a prescription.

[The Speaker]

In the House a member's word is enough when it comes to matters such as these. I invite the hon. member to bring it to a close.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

I do bring it to a close. If a doctor's letter is required or even the lab tests are required, these will be made available to you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to conclude by saying one thing, that the Reform Party ended its life last Friday. I have to say that for me it ended its life suitably as showing an example of the kind of mean-spiritedness, the lack of respect for—

[The Speaker]

I think we are getting the picture. I do not want to get into more debate. Of course I hope the hon. member will recover soon. I think the sooner he gets out of the House the better it will be for all of us who are here.

I see the hon. whip of the Canadian Alliance is on his feet now. I do not want to get into debate, but I will hear him for just a short while.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say in defence that I stand by what I said on Friday. I believe this is a very serious issue, despite what the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington has said. If there is ever an example of mean-spiritedness, we have certainly witnessed some of it just now.

[The Speaker]

I intervened on the term mean-spiritedness on this side and I am sure that in the spirit of good-spiritedness the hon. member will make his point.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just conclude by saying that I stand by my statement on Friday and I do ask that you rule, as you always do, in a spirit of impartiality.

[The Speaker]

That is one thing that all members can be sure of. In that spirit of impartiality I will take a day or so to think about what was said now that I have heard both sides of the story.

Government Response To Petitions

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary 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.

Criminal Code

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-462, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (exemption of long guns from registration).

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed with pleasure that I have the opportunity to introduce my bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, to ensure that there is an exemption from the need to register long guns.

The purpose of this enactment is to exempt ordinary long guns, meaning firearms that are neither prohibited nor restricted from registration. The criminal code is amended to remove the provision that makes it an offence to possess a long gun that is not registered. The Firearms Act is amended to remove the requirement to register long guns.

In addition, there are a number of consequential amendments to both acts removing references to registration with respect to long guns. This enactment does not affect the law respecting prohibited weapons or restricted weapons. Essentially, to paraphrase the bill, it is to remove the need to register long guns which are commonly used by deer hunters, duck hunters and farmers. It is a very important piece of legislation that we believe wastes taxpayer money, so it is my pleasure to table the bill at this time.

To conclude, a number of individuals share the same sentiments and I am looking forward to having signatures from all parties that would participate in that way.

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