Debates of May 17th, 2000

Human Resources Development

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that the issue of privacy is important to all Canadians. We take it seriously.

I would note that we have taken action. I would also note the comments of my colleague, the Minister of Justice, to review the law. We take this issue seriously and we will continue to ensure that the privacy of Canadians is maintained.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has been in her department for almost one year and yet has to take action to protect the personal and private information of Canadians.

Could the minister please tell us what she has been doing to protect the privacy of Canadians since last August?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I have itemized already the undertakings that we have made to date, not the least of which includes recognizing that we should only keep information for a predictable period of time.

I also want to say, very specifically, that the deputy has written to the privacy commissioner and asked him to join us in a working group to continue to ensure that the safety the information now has can be confirmed into the future.

Status Of Women

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in a recent report Canada was accused of not having a comprehensive strategy to respond to the global trafficking of women and children.

My question is for the Secretary of State for the Status of Women. Could she tell us what we are doing to stop this horrific practice of the trafficking of women and children?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government considers this form of trafficking to be the most despicable form of exploitation in the world. We have taken steps. There is a nine department committee, of which the Status of Women is co-chair, that is looking at setting up legal and other social solutions. We are working with experts and with community groups to devise solutions.

I want to point out one solution which was recently made in the immigration and refugee legislation. There is a new offence against trafficking that will increase the penalty to $1 million or life imprisonment for people who resort to this kind of exploitation.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Janusz Steinhoff, the Minister of Economy of the Republic of Poland.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

Yesterday the hon. member for Wild Rose raised a point of privilege about information which he claims was deliberately withheld from his staff. At that time he mentioned specifically the Department of the Solicitor General.

I had hoped that the solicitor general would be here. When the solicitor general comes to the House we will take up this point of privilege. The only reason we are not going directly to it is because the minister is not here at the moment.

While we are waiting for the minister to come to the House I will hear a point of order from the hon. House leader for the Bloc Quebecois.

Points Of Order

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I rise in this House to raise a point of order. I am deeply distressed by the events in this House yesterday.

At the start of this parliament, an agreement was reached among the parliamentary leaders, which we passed on to you, to the effect that the order of oral questions is always prepared in advance to ensure the House functions better.

There was also an underlying principle, which was that a political party wasting the time of the House, using up time in question period for other purposes, would be penalized in the number of questions available to it.

There have been quite a few Oral Question Periods in which the Bloc Quebecois—each time it is the Bloc—has lost its seventh question. Today we lost our sixth question because, on the other side of the House—and they have frankly admitted it—they were happy to take fewer questions because the minister, who was in an awkward situation, had fewer answers to give.

The Liberals have two questions in Oral Question Period. I do not understand why, under a principle of fairness, under the agreements reached among the parliamentary leader, which must still be in effect—if they are no longer in effect, I would like to be informed, and we will get that straightened out quickly—under what principle did the Bloc Quebecois today lose not only its seventh question but its sixth as well, whereas the Liberals had all theirs, but they wasted the time of the House by standing up, heckling, applauding and fooling around, while we were discussing a matter of great importance?

Mr. Speaker, I call on you and ask the following: What sort of rules will it take for us to also be entitled to the number of questions set out in the original agreement? It always comes just before the Bloc Quebecois' question and it is beginning to get under our skin in a big way, to put it frankly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am the first to admit that today there may have been less discipline than usual in the House. I readily recognize that fact.

If some of my colleagues have slowed down the proceedings, I apologize for that. However, let me say that this is certainly not happening only on one side of the House. We know that some questions are provocative and can sometimes trigger answers that are also provocative.

I recognize that those who engage in provocation are not necessarily those who suffer the consequences. Sometimes, there are third parties involved, particularly in a House with five political formations. I also recognize that, because it is true.

I would add that, based on our usual way of doing things, three questions are asked every day by government members. Today, the hon. member for Guelph—Wellington was not recognized. In other words, the same thing also happened on our side of the House.

[An hon. member]

We lost two.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am in the process of providing an explanation and apologizing. I was polite to the hon. member and I hope his colleagues will show the same courtesy.

As I just indicated, the hon. member for Guelph—Wellington wanted to ask a question on the university in her riding, one of the most important institutions in the country, particularly in the agricultural sector. She was not able to put her question because—and I also recognize that—of the disturbance in the House today.

I undertake to raise with my colleagues the fact that we must do our part to ensure that the allotted number of questions can be asked, or better yet supplementaries. I think that questions and answers in the House are a fundamental principle of democracies—they make the government accountable to the public. I will raise this issue.

Naturally, I urge the others to do the same, obviously so that we can work together toward a co-operative atmosphere, notwithstanding our disagreements as to substance, because there will be such disagreements, we admit. That is only fair and it is good for democracy. I undertake to do my part as well.

Once again, I wish to point out that, notwithstanding the enthusiasm of some people sometimes, a number of parliamentarians on this side also felt hard done by today. Considering that there are in fact more so-called eligible members on our side of the House than in any party on the other side, we too have parliamentarians who are disappointed at not being able to ask their questions.

I admit that the questions are different in nature. I admit that, by the very nature of things, they are perhaps less pointy, less partisan. But this does not mean that members on this side with questions to ask feel that their concerns are not important. They are important regionally, in terms of their riding, or when it comes to whether or not to support the government. Questions are just as important on this side of the House.

I too have spent many years on the other side. I know about the frustration of getting ready to make the government accountable and being unable to speak at the appointed time after having done all the groundwork for this exercise which is so fundamental to democracy.

That is why I have raised this point today and it is one in which I believe deeply. I think that the Bloc Quebecois House leader will agree that I am being sincere because I too believe in this fundamental principle of democracy.

I will close by repeating the undertaking being given by our side of the House—I am sure the whip will agree with me—to do our best. We must all work on this, both sides of the House, all five sides—if the House can be said to have five sides—all five parties, with all the challenges that involves.

[The Speaker]

I address myself directly to the hon. member to let him know that I too feel frustrated in this House.

Today I have stood up at least a dozen times to call for order, so that we could hear ourselves in this House, and hear the questions as well as the answers.

Every five or six weeks we have a day like today. I wish that all days could be like Monday, when we had 47 questions and 47 answers in this House. That was a good day for Parliament. Tuesday, there were 42 of each.

I would like to be able to say that it is all on one side or the other, all one party or the other. However, the hon. members were here for Oral Question Period. The last time, I called upon you all to take a look at yourselves. Can one or the other side say that they are not to blame? If so, good for you, and thank you.

If not, we keep coming back every six weeks or so because we cannot get our questions in at the end of question period. Then we stand up, stalk out and some yell “partisan” and “taking up time”.

I suggest to you that unless you want me, as your Speaker, and I will happy to do it, every time someone raises his or her voice, that I stop them and tell them to leave, which I will do, but I do not want a question period like that. Do you?

The House leaders from the different parties are all ready to get in. Every six or seven weeks we have a day like this. It has not been a good day. Again, I come back and appeal to you that if you want a House that is just going to have me here, kicking people out on both sides, that can be done.

I appeal to you, as parliamentarians of Canada, to take your responsibilities too. If it is such a joke and so funny, go laugh in the lobbies. Do not take up our time here, we who want to do the work of our country, and surely do not attack your Speaker every six weeks because we, collectively, have a bad day. I do not think that is fair.

I have had my say.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a number of things.

I know very well that today was frightful and trying for everyone, probably more so for the Speaker than for the others. I have done my part to try to stay calm as much as possible. But I, like others, have been known to heckle a bit in this House.

In the worst case scenario, let us be frank, we will understand each other—I do not want to attack you, Mr. Speaker—let us say that today half of the trouble came from this side and half from the other. This was not the case, but let us say we all caused about as much trouble. I just want to humbly submit to you that, each time we cause trouble about equally, the Liberal Party never loses questions, while we lose them regularly.

[The Speaker]

We will conclude on that. I hope we will have a better day tomorrow.

Privilege

[The Speaker]

I want to return to the point of privilege that was raised yesterday which I consider to be very important for the House. It dealt with a member of a department—and I think I am quoting the member—deliberately misleading a member of parliament's staff about information. I said at that time that I wanted to hear what the minister of that department had to say. He is here now and I will call on the solicitor general.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, due to the seriousness of the question of privilege, I would ask that you give me another 24 hours to get all the accurate information from all the people involved.

I also consider it a very serious situation, and I want to ensure that I have all the appropriate information before I respond to you, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker]

It seems fair to me that we will have an answer by tomorrow. I will take the hon. minister's word that he will be here and he will give us a response, one way or the other, tomorrow. Does the hon. member wish to add something to this?

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate that there will be a response. However, I would like to point out that it is one staff member in my office versus the entire group of people who were working in the commissioner's office. My staff member and I are prepared to sign an affidavit under oath, if so required.

[The Speaker]

In this House your word is your oath, your affidavit. You have brought a problem to the House and we are going to look at it. The solicitor general is going to give us some information. We will let this sit at this point.

Government Response To Petitions

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Orders, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.

Committees Of The House

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 31st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding proposed changes to the standing orders dealing with applied votes and time allocation motions.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan—King—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Finance regarding its order of reference of Monday, May 8, 2000 in relation to Bill C-32, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget.

The committee has considered Bill C-32 and reports the bill without amendments.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations.

In accordance with its order of reference of Friday, March 24, 2000, the committee has considered Bill C-12, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part II) in respect of occupational health and safety, to make technical amendments to the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and to make consequential amendments to other acts, and has agreed to report it with amendments.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts relating to votes 20 and 25, under the heading Finance, in the Main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001.

Mr. Speaker, I also have the pleasure to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts related to chapters 14 and 15 of the September 1999 report of the Auditor General of Canada: National Health Surveillance: Diseases and injuries; and, Management of a Food-Borne Disease Outbreak.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests the government to table a comprehensive response to the ninth report.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts relating to chapter 18, Public Works and Government Services Canada—Alternative Forms of Delivery: Contracting for Property Management Services; and chapter 27, National Defence—Alternative Service Delivery, of the September and November 1999 reports of the Auditor General of Canada.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests the government to table a comprehensive response to the 10th report.