House of Commons Hansard #128 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I am not a deputy minister and I do not expect ever to be one, although it is a distinguished position.
I want to say to my hon. friend that he is speaking with such certainty on assertions in the newspapers that I really want to know what, beyond that, is the basis for those assertions. If they turn out to be factual, will he submit himself immediately to not just investigation but conviction the way his colleagues have called for, for the Minister for International Trade?
Ghislain Fournier Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Mr. Speaker, the people of Sept-Îles have had enough; the beaches sector has no drinking water because the federal government has polluted the water table. Corrective measures would cost $2.5 million.
Will the Prime Minister require his Minister of Transport to do justice to the people of Sept-Îles and pay the $2.5 million required to clean up the mess of which we are the victims? He is the polluter and he is the one who must pay.
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, we have offered the people of Sept-Îles some options. This is a regrettable situation, but I have given an answer, two or three years ago, and that same answer still stands. Transport Canada is assuming its responsibilities.
Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Mr. Speaker, customers and insurance agents are reporting that everyone over 70 years old will now be prevented from seeking competitive automotive insurance rates and will be required to remain with their present insurer.
This unwritten policy by some companies means that everyone over 70 will effectively be forced to pay whatever premium their insurer demands.
Will the Minister of Industry intervene now to stop this discriminatory policy toward seniors and ensure that there is no price fixing against any group, especially seniors?
Automobile InsuranceOral Question Period
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, apparently one of the members opposite, in anticipation of being able to access competitive insurance rates, is enthusiastic about the answer I am about to give.
I thank the hon. member for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. I promise to look into the matter and report back to both him and to the House.
Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The 23 million people of the independent sovereign state of Taiwan were just admitted to the World Trade Organization and participated recently in a vigorous national election campaign which led to a historic victory by President Chen's democratic progressive party.
Will the Canadian government now recognize reality and support Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization and other international bodies? When will the government lift the visa requirement for visitors from Taiwan?
John Manley LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right, it was a very vigorous election campaign with a very interesting result, I think, for everybody observing it.
However Canada's policy has been consistent for many years. We recognize one China and we recognize the need for the government elected in Taiwan to work within the context of a policy, which is held in common by most countries, of recognizing a single China. That was accommodated in order to see its entry into the World Trade Organization.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has just entered into negotiations for a free trade agreement with four Central American countries: El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Canada did over $600 million in trade with these four countries last year. It is therefore a lucrative market for our exporters.
In the interests of transparency, will the Minister for International Trade promise to involve parliamentarians and civil society in the negotiating process, or will he present us with a done deal, as happened with Costa Rica?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the member for Joliette is interested in these negotiations with four Central American countries. I am glad to note that he sees them as a positive and constructive development in our government's international policy.
We will certainly work closely with the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, with which I have excellent relations, throughout the trade negotiations, whether they are bilateral or regional, and whether they involve the free trade area of the Americas or the World Trade Organization. I would certainly appreciate the opposition's co-operation in these very important negotiations.
Ken Epp Canadian Alliance Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, since 1993 the Liberal government has added $75 billion to our national debt. It has now reduced it by a cumulative $36 billion, which is good news, but that happens to be exactly the amount by which the EI surplus has been overcharged. The parliamentary secretary says that this is a fictional amount.
Over that period of time, when the government had so much more additional income from income tax revenue, other revenue and the $30 billion it took from the employees' pension fund, I would like to know where the money went.
John McCallum LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the revenue went to the consolidated revenue fund. If the member wishes to hear more, he has approximately 60 minutes and 30 seconds to wait.
Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister said that in the case of the CIDA minister's improper voting in an improper ward in her area, we just have to wait for due process.
The facts seem to be on the table. The minister herself has admitted that she voted incorrectly. She has tried to blame her staff for it. It does beg the question: “Are you going to write a letter, Maria, and send it to the right judge?”
What is required? What facts are necessary before this minister resigns?
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, it would be very nice if the hon. member based his question on facts. Only one fact in his question is correct: she did vote in this municipal ward byelection.
However it is not a fact to say that she voted incorrectly or that she admitted to voting incorrectly. Her position is that what she did was correct and so far nobody at the judicial level has concluded otherwise. The hon. member ought to withdraw his unwarranted remarks.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is awfully busy doing damage control for the Minister for International Cooperation. I wonder if he has had an opportunity to investigate the conduct of the health minister in Winnipeg two weekends ago.
Could he inform the House about the results of any review into allegations that some Health Canada staff have been working on government time to advance the health minister's leadership campaign rather than the health care needs of the country?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to tell the member that there was a very successful convention in Winnipeg two weeks ago on the part of the Liberal Party of Manitoba, which is more than I can say for the convention held by the NDP in Manitoba a few weeks ago.
James Moore Canadian Alliance Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, in order to vote in a municipal election in the province of Ontario, a person must either own property or live in the district in which he or she is voting. The minister for CIDA neither lives nor owns property there. She has a stake in defending the values of this institution and the honour that members of parliament are supposed to have.
Will the CIDA minister for once today please get on her feet and answer the question: Did you or did you not break the law? Will she restore dignity to the House by answering the question?
Minister for International CooperationOral Question Period
The Speaker
I know the hon. member for Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam will want to address his question to the Chair. He is quite out of order to do so to the minister.
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
It is the hon. minister's position that she was a tenant in the ward where there was a byelection and as such she was entitled to vote in that byelection.
My hon. friend's wrongful assertion that in doing so she broke the law is contrary to the principles of Canadian and British justice. He is the guy who ought to go back to the drawing board and get the facts both on the minister's proper conduct and what the law actually says in this regard.
Paul Forseth Canadian Alliance New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege resulting from remarks made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on Wednesday, December 5. I was away with a delegation representing Canada at the United Nations and this is therefore my first opportunity to raise the matter in the House.
As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the other day the minister crossed the line procedurally in the House. You dealt with it by directly reminding the minister of what is parliamentary. However the minister continued her attack against me which was recorded in the Ottawa Citizen on Thursday, December 6 and picked up in papers across the country. The article quotes the minister as saying:
I think it would be treasonous to suggest that we would let out known terrorist suspects simply because there was not space...That's wrong, it's false and I was a little angry about it.
The minister was apparently trying to justify why she angrily accused me of spreading lies during question period on Monday. The minister later did not deny uttering the quote.
I will support my case with citations but I will first say this. The comments made by the minister of immigration are not only incorrect. Her statement was politically motivated in a mean-spirited way and was a deliberate attempt to tarnish my reputation as a member of the House.
A quick look at past statements by the minister will confirm my point that the minister purposely uses outrageous charges against members opposed to her policies in an attempt to deflect attention from her own performance. In that vein the House will never forget the shame brought to our national electoral process by the minister during the last election.
Mr. Speaker, there is a pattern here of which you are well aware and which must not pass without correction. I have taken offence as a member, but parliament has also been offended and it must be defended. I remind the House of the rule wherein if a minister of the crown misleads the House or lies to the Chamber the minister is duty bound to resign forthwith.
The boundary line on that matter has been slipping somewhat of late. I have frequently pointed out in the Chamber the big disconnect between what the minister says in the House about the state of affairs in her department and what its workers say. In my estimation, the judgment of the public and especially that of line workers in her department, her assertions to the House appear to be false. However these matters are sidestepped as mere political rhetoric, debate and honest difference of opinion.
In support of my question of privilege I cite that on March 16, 1983, Mr. Bryce Mackasey raised a question of privilege to denounce accusations appearing in a series of articles in the Montreal Gazette to the effect that he was a paid lobbyist.
On March 22, 1983, on page 24027 of Hansard , the Speaker ruled that he had a prime facie question of privilege. The reasons given by the Speaker appear on page 29 of
Selected Decisions of Speaker Jeanne Sauvé:
Not only do defamatory allegations about Members place the entire institution of Parliament under a cloud, they also prevent Members from performing their duties as long as the matter remains unresolved, since, as one authority states, such allegations bring Members into “hatred, contempt or ridicule.” Moreover, authorities and precedents agree that even though a Member can “seek a remedy in the courts, he cannot function effectively as a Member while this slur upon his reputation remains.” Since there is no way of knowing how long litigation would take, the Member must be allowed to re-establish his reputation as speedily as possible by referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Need I remind the House that treason is a high crime? How can I carry out my duties as a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition when a minister of the crown can attribute to me treasonous words or activities which, in effect, accuse a member of disloyalty to Her Majesty?
We must remember that treason under section 46 of the criminal code was formerly punishable by hanging. Sadly, the minister confuses my duty to criticize the government and require it to justify to the electorate how it is administering with what the code says about using “force or violence to overthrow the government”. The minister's epithets are so beyond acceptable political discourse that they must be denounced by parliament.
On page 214 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada there is a reference to reflections on members. It states:
The House of Commons is prepared to find contempt in respect of utterances within the category of libel and slander and also in respect of utterance which do not meet that standard. As put by Bourinot, “any scandalous and libellous reflection on the proceedings of the House is a breach of the privileges of Parliament”...and “libels upon members individually”--
The problem is that when the rules of parliament are not sufficiently defended the public disconnects and the relevance and authority of parliament are undermined. As confidence in this place is eroded, the public disengages from democracy and the downward spiral continues. The House has been brought down even lower now as the minister plays the victim card in the media to absolve some of her culpability rather than comprehend that the general public reaction is likely related to bad management.
In conclusion, I am asking that the role, rights and privileges of members be defended. I am asking that you defend parliament by hearing my plea. If you find a particular point in my case to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
PrivilegeOral Question Period
December 10th, 2001 / 3:05 p.m.
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario
Liberal
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, there are a few omissions from what the hon. member across has said. First, the quotation is not as I heard him describe it. It is a variation thereof. Second, there is a matter about what was and was not said in the House that was not taken into consideration.
Generally of course we all stand to gain when we are respectful of one another both in this place and outside this place. That is the first proposition. That being said, I will quote from the Ottawa Citizen article to which the hon. member is referring:
I think it would be treasonous to suggest that we would let out known terrorist suspects simply because there was not space (in detention facilities)--
The minister, and I will not use her name, said:
That's wrong, it's false and I was a little angry about it.
In other words, in a comment made outside the House the minister suggested that if someone were to suggest terrorists were let out of detention centres because there was not enough room, in her opinion that would be a treasonous proposition.
First, this does not suggest she or any member of the House said that a member of the House was a traitor. Second, it was not said in the House at all.
I think these variations have to be brought to the attention of the Speaker, not to get to the point that we all have to gain by being more respectful. The hon. member across may counsel his colleagues to entertain lawsuits, which I just heard him say on the floor of the House of Commons. I am sure the record will demonstrate that. I do want to draw attention, however, to the context in which those comments were made outside the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, you will no doubt be aware of the Hansard of December 3, and the comments of the member for New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby who said:
The minister day after day shows contempt for parliament and today dishonours our American guests.
I end my presentation.
PrivilegeOral Question Period
The Speaker
The Chair thanks hon. members for their interventions on this point. I will take the matter under advisement and I will get back to the House in due course.
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I rise on a point of order concerning oral question period of last Wednesday, December 5. I am doing so at the earliest opportunity.
Last week in a conversation with the Minister of Human Resources Development I gave her notice that I would be asking an oral question concerning the pre-Christmas problem with EI cheques that had to do with the timing and delivery of claimants' cheques during the holiday period. I did this to give the minister time to solve the problem and hopefully come back with a positive answer.
As I said, I did this following question period on Tuesday, December 4. That evening following the vote I followed it up with a letter I hand delivered to the minister in her seat. I wanted the minister to be perfectly informed of the problem with the delivery of these cheques over the holiday season. The minister admitted that it would be a problem and that she would do everything in her power to fix it.
In giving notice I was heeding the advice given to all of us at page 424 of Marleau and Montpetit. In discussing the principles for oral question period the following is stated:
The guidelines which govern the form and content of oral questions are based on convention, usage and tradition.
It continues:
There is no formal notice requirement for the posing of oral questions, although some Members, as a courtesy, inform the Minister of the question they intend to ask.
Courtesy is the key word, and that is exactly what I did. As a courtesy I gave the minister advance warning of the question on December 4.
You will therefore understand, Mr. Speaker, the frustration I experienced when on Wednesday, December 5, the hon. member for Bras D'Or--Cape Breton put my question to the minister. In his preamble to the question that was never put, the member for Bras D'Or--Cape Breton apologized to the House.
I am not blaming the member. I know he is new to this place and was under some pressure from the government to ask that question, to which he has admitted. In other words it was a planted question.
However there has been a serious breach of the conventions of the House. If opposition members are not able to give notice of questions to ministers without the risk of having our questions transmitted to the Liberal backbench for political opportunity, the practice of giving notice will fall into complete disuse. Notice to ministers will become the private preserve of government supporters for their soft questions. I often refer to them as marshmallow questions. We see this day in and day out.
I happen to think that our constituents and the public interest generally are well served when question period is used to resolve difficulties and to convey information. That is why we have it. The practice of giving notice allows ministers to play their part in the process. When that is violated it violates the trust between individual members of parliament and, believe it or not, members of the opposition and members of cabinet. That trust has to be there for the system to work. That was violated.
Unfortunately the actions of the Minister of Human Resources Development militate against the practice of giving notice. It works against the practice of giving notice. This is a shabby practice. It is a serious breach of the conventions of this place.
What has been done is finished. My only purpose in raising the matter today is to invite the Speaker to refresh the memory of the House on the usefulness of the convention of giving notice of questions.
If we are to get into a situation where members cannot give notice, then we are all diminished and the conduct of public business will be more difficult, because in all generosity that was a question I gave the minister notice on, knowing that her department is a big department and the minister does not have a good track record in understanding what is going on within that department; note the transitional jobs fund debacle and the missing billion dollars.
Recognizing that, I gave the minister notice. She violated that trust between an individual member of parliament and herself. I think the House should be reminded of that trust and of the value of letting ministers know the question in advance, especially when it is a detailed question. When they diminish that and violate that trust for political gain, the whole House suffers.
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, first, this is clearly not a point of order. It is a point of debate. Nevertheless, I think it is important to note that the hon. member is not the only member from Atlantic Canada who has had an interest in the matter that was raised in the House by the member from Bras d'Or last Wednesday. In fact, for him to suggest that the member from Bras d'Or was apologizing for what he is claiming was an abuse of some sort by the minister is totally unfounded and he should withdraw it.
I would not be at all surprised if the member from Bras d'Or were to raise a question of privilege because in fact this member has suggested that he admitted to some wrongdoing.
I was here last Wednesday and I am very much aware that members from this side of the House were very concerned about this issue that was raised that the member had an interest in. He is not the only member in the House who was concerned about that, at all. In fact, the member from Bras d'Or raised the question and at the end of it he said “I am sorry” and I think the reason we would find is that he was dissatisfied with the way in which he delivered the question, not the question itself and not the fact, as this member alleges, that he had supposedly stolen it from the member.
That is an outrageous allegation and he ought to withdraw the allegation. It is an unfounded allegation and he knows full well that he is vastly distorting the facts. He ought not to do it. He ought to withdraw it.
Deborah Grey Canadian Alliance Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, this is in fact on the same point of order. I thought it was rather amusing and amazing at the same time that the member just actually admitted that the member for Bras d'Or--Cape Breton had actually said “I am sorry” for it.
The debacle that went on that day was ridiculous. It was an embarrassment to this place. The minister thought she would one-up my colleague and get the question over to her colleague so he could ask it ahead of time, and the poor soul never even had a chance to look at it, let alone read the thing, so when he stood up and made quite a kerfuffle, I am sure, according to his own admission, he said “I am sorry” on that. Now the parliamentary secretary just said the “I am sorry” was for his delivery probably, not for EI.
Maybe there is a more serious issue here: that the blues have been tampered with. Let me read the actual blues as they came out, not as they were said in the House. The member from Bras d'Or said:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. We have been asked by constituents as to the status of EI rebate cheques.
That went on for 35 seconds with an apology in there and just an absolute brouhaha ensued. Now the blues have been tampered with and there are the actual words of it, Mr. Speaker, so you have a serious problem on your hands here; thanks to the parliamentary secretary for actually admitting that the member from Bras d'Or did say “I am sorry”.
There are serious problems over there, not the least of which is that the cabinet minister herself, miss management, is going at this whole thing again, getting plants in place when she should not have.
Points of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
My recollection of the events on Wednesday was a little different from what is alleged. I of course have no idea of what transpired in terms of the correspondence between the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest and the minister except what I have heard here today. I was totally unaware of any exchange and of course I am totally unaware of what document, if any, the member for Bras d'Or--Cape Breton had in his possession when he asked his question last Wednesday.
I do remember the look of shock on his face when I called on the hon. member to ask a question. He was on the list that I had. I was following the list and he seemed genuinely surprised that he was to ask a question on that occasion. I do recall there was a lot of heckling and the question ended in disorder, so the blues that the hon. member for Edmonton North has so ably quoted are exactly as printed in Hansard .
It was apparently what was said because there was so much yelling and heckling from particularly, if I may say so, the members seated immediately beside the hon. member for Bras d'Or--Cape Breton, that it was very difficult to hear what he was saying and he sat down in a somewhat embarrassed state because he obviously was not prepared to ask a question on that occasion.
We all recall the next day that he got a large applause from the House when he stood up to ask a question because he was obviously prepared on that occasion.
I have to say that having heard the arguments today I do not see how I can find there has been a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, or a point of order. I would hope that if he has given notice of his question to a minister, naturally that notice would be kept confidential.
Given the nature of the problem that he raised, I have no doubt that many members would do best to have an answer to such a question. It is no surprise to the Chair that someone else may have raised the same question in the House during oral question period.
For now, I cannot find grounds for a point of order. Perhaps we could continue with the business of the House for today.