House of Commons Hansard #12 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.

Topics

Ethics CounsellorOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Windsor West Ontario

Liberal

Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, no one can get as low as the hon. member on these unwarranted assertions. When it comes to limboing low, he set the world record and nobody can beat it.

Reproductive TechnologiesOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Mr. Speaker, scientists announced yesterday that the sequencing of the human genome is almost complete.

However, one problem arises, among many. We know that 99% of all genes are common to humanity, but private enterprise would like to hold the rights to the sequencing.

Does the government intend to legislate to ensure that discoveries pertaining to the human genome are available universally and at no cost?

Reproductive TechnologiesOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet Québec

Liberal

Gilbert Normand LiberalSecretary of State (Science

Mr. Speaker, Canada's position in this sector is the same as that taken by Mr. Blair and Mr. Clinton a few months ago.

We are currently establishing our genomics research institutes. We have invested $160 million in Genome Canada and we will continue this research as a country providing at the moment the greatest support for genetics research and placing third in the world as a country. Regulations will meet international requirements.

Reproductive TechnologiesOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Mr. Speaker, does the government intend to support in the international community the proposal made by many scientists that the human genome and its sequencing be declared a heritage of humanity?

Reproductive TechnologiesOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet Québec

Liberal

Gilbert Normand LiberalSecretary of State (Science

Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I have just said: Canada's position on the ownership of genes is the same as that of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Blair.

We will not allow it to become private property, and the future international regulations will be drafted jointly with all of the G-8 countries.

Ethics CounsellorOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Randy White Canadian Alliance Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to provide the House with a quote from the ethics counsellor: “We are not looking to catch people. What we are looking to do is give people advice in the first 120 days after they are appointed, so we can take together the steps that will ensure that there is not going to be a conflict”.

I would like to ask one of the sparks of brilliance over there just what happens when ethical breaches and conflicts of interest arise after 120 days as they have with the Prime Minister.

Ethics CounsellorOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Ethics CounsellorOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

The Speaker

Order, please. If we are going to have sparks of brilliance, we are going to hear it.

Ethics CounsellorOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Windsor West Ontario

Liberal

Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, thank you for confirming that from time to time I can give off sparks instead of the dead cinders and ashes that come out of the mouth of the hon. member.

Ethics CounsellorOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Randy White Canadian Alliance Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, in Canada we hear a spark of brilliance. The ethics counsellor is quoted as saying that he helped persuade the Prime Minister to drop the Liberal campaign promise that he as the ethics counsellor would report to parliament. He also said that he feared an independent ethics counsellor would usurp the accountability of the Prime Minister.

If the Prime Minister violates the codes of ethics, who is he accountable to? Is it the ethics counsellor? Is it cabinet? Is it somebody else over there? Just who is he accountable to anyway?

Ethics CounsellorOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Windsor West Ontario

Liberal

Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is accountable to this parliament and through this parliament to the Canadian people who gave him three majority victories back to back, with an even bigger majority in the last election. That speaks for a lot.

TradeOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON

Mr. Speaker, in Seattle last year the world witnessed riots and protests. At the time the government committed to more openness and transparency in negotiating trade agreements.

With the upcoming summit of the Americas in April in Quebec City, could the government tell us in practical terms what it is doing to ensure that it is more open and transparent?

TradeOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

London—Fanshawe Ontario

Liberal

Pat O'Brien LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, the government is firmly committed to an open and transparent process leading to an FTAA.

The government is actively seeking input from NGOs, stakeholders and all interested Canadians. We continue to receive written submissions and daily comments on our website. The government is taking great pains to ensure that our negotiating position will reflect the views of Canadians.

InfrastructureOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Ted White Canadian Alliance North Vancouver, BC

Mr. Speaker, there is a transportation infrastructure crisis on the lower mainland of Vancouver, but the government continues to suck $360 million a year in gas taxes out of British Columbia. That is more than five times the annual highway budget for B.C.

How could the Minister of Transport justify this $360 million tax grab when he does not return a single cent of that money to B.C. for highways?

InfrastructureOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the government does not operate and no government can operate on the basis of dedicated taxes.

If we look back over the course of the last seven years, the fact is that the government has invested very heavily, whether it be in the Canada Foundation for Innovation or the national child tax benefit. A multitude of moneys is going to universities in British Columbia. Right across the board, we have reinvested enormous sums and ought to do so in British Columbia.

InfrastructureOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Ted White Canadian Alliance North Vancouver, BC

Mr. Speaker, the chart for spending on highways across the country shows a different picture. The minister's national highways program consistently goes off the pavement before it reaches B.C.

For the year 2001, out of a budget of $110 million not a single cent, zero dollars, nothing, has gone to B.C. From now on B.C. wants its fair share of the money.

When will the minister live up to his obligations and restore full funding, B.C.'s fair share of that funding, for the highways of B.C.?

InfrastructureOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Don Valley East Ontario

Liberal

David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend obviously forgot that the Minister of Finance last year in his budget allocated $2.65 billion over six years for infrastructure, including $600 million for national highways in particular, to be applied at the border crossings, which includes the border crossings south of the Vancouver area.

The government is doing a lot to alleviate the transportation crisis in the country and will do more.

Correctional Service CanadaOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, in his 1998 report, the Correctional Investigator of Canada described the incarceration of women in men's prisons as discriminatory.

Yet, in his report tabled yesterday, the same investigator noted that this practice is on the increase and that corrective action is slow in coming.

Knowing that the Correctional Service of Canada is in no way required to take the investigator's recommendations into account, what action does the solicitor general plan to take to ensure that these recommendations are followed up?

Correctional Service CanadaOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Cardigan P.E.I.

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the government has taken a number of steps to address the situation with women offenders, such as closing the Kingston penitentiary which I am sure was a very important move.

Also we have minimum and medium institutions across the country to house women. We are now in the process of building maximum institutions in these minimum and medium institutions to deal with maximum women offenders.

Human RightsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism. Statistics show that 43% of victims of hate crimes attribute race and ethnicity to their victimization.

Statistics further show that the risk of victimization is higher for those born outside Canada and is highest for members of visible minorities and for young people. What is the secretary of state doing to fight racism, discrimination and hate in Canada?

Human RightsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Vancouver Centre B.C.

Liberal

Hedy Fry LiberalSecretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)

Mr. Speaker, we view with a great deal of concern the rise of hate and racism in the country, especially since the Internet is being used to target young people.

I have met with thousands of Canadians across the country to develop a federal plan to deal with race, hate and discrimination.

A United Nations conference will be held in August. We will use that conference to place Canada's world vision to deal with these issues on the table, because this is a major source of war in the world today.

Parliamentary ReformOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Vic Toews Canadian Alliance Provencher, MB

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in China the Prime Minister stated that some terra cotta warriors at the museum would “be great in the House of Commons. You could just get them up to vote”.

It is clear that he does not need terra cotta warriors because he has already secured the same level of co-operation from his caucus.

Why does the Prime Minister refuse to allow his caucus to vote for democratic reforms needed in the House of Commons?

Parliamentary ReformOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of very significant improvements to our standing orders over recent years. The government committed itself to further improvements in the Speech from the Throne. We also had the excellent speech from the Prime Minister advancing this.

I will be consulting with the House leaders of all other parties. I am looking forward to real improvements in House of Commons procedure, which I hope will come very soon.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

The Chair will now deal with the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton on February 6, 2001. The question of privilege concerned the departure from the House of Commons of two legislative counsel who had appeared last spring as witnesses before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The hon. member argued that the witnesses had sought, and had received, the assurance of the committee that their testimony would be privileged and that there would be no reprisals for their testifying. He alleged that the departure of the two counsel was a direct result of their testimony and so constituted a prima facie case of privilege.

Before proceeding further, I would like to thank the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton and all members who contributed to the discussion. In particular, I would like to draw attention to the comments of the opposition House leader (the hon. member for Fraser Valley), the whip of the Bloc Quebecois (the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes), the House leader for the Progressive Conservative Party (the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough), and the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.

In his presentation, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton provided a chronology of events that occurred subsequent to the committee appearance of these two individuals and suggested that this chronology represented evidence that what he termed their “shotgun firing” from the House of Commons was a direct consequence of their appearance before the committee. Thus, the hon. member argued that this action constituted a prima facie case of privilege.

First, let me say that this is a matter that I take very seriously. The allegation, if it is founded, carries serious repercussions not only for the two individuals directly concerned but for the integrity of the committee system of the House as well as for the House's reputation as a fair and just employer.

Furthermore, for my part as I render this decision, I am aware that I play two different roles in this situation. As the Speaker presiding over this Chamber, I must determine whether or not the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton has made a persuasive argument for this matter being judged a prima facie case of privilege. As the Speaker chairing the Board of Internal Economy, which is the employer, I am duty bound to preserve the confidentiality of board discussions, particularly as they concern matters of staff relations which are, by their very nature, completely confidential.

The case before us is especially complex for it intertwines the issue of privilege with a complicated staff relations situation that predates any invitation to appear before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Added to this already difficult situation is the whole matter of resourcing of the legislative drafting function, an issue on which many hon. members have strong opinions. Let me try to settle the differences of view in this situation.

As presiding officer in the House, it is my duty to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of members and of the House as an institution. Insofar as parliamentary privilege extends to witnesses, I have also to protect their rights and privileges.

So first I would like to deal with the issue of the intimidation of witnesses before parliamentary committees. It is clearly stated at pages 862 and 863 of Marleau-Montpetit's House of Commons Procedure and Practice that the principles of parliamentary privilege are extended to witnesses when they appear before a parliamentary committee. I quote:

Witnesses appearing before committees enjoy the same freedom of speech and protection from arrest and molestation as do Members of Parliament...Tampering with a witness or in any way attempting to deter a witness from giving evidence at a committee meeting may constitute a breach of privilege. Similarly, any interference with or threats against witnesses who have already testified may be treated as a breach of privilege by the House.

In the present case, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton has recounted a chronology of events and, based on this chronology, alleges a cause and effect connection between the appearance of two counsel before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and their subsequent departure from the House. The hon. member points out that the witnesses had asked for and had received assurances from the committee that they would be protected by parliamentary privilege in the event of reprisals arising out of their testimony. He contends that this protection appears to have been ignored and argues that a prima facie case of privilege exists.

I am not going to review the chronology of the events presented except to say, with respect, that it is incomplete. As a review of the testimony of counsel before the committee will reveal, the relationship between the employer and these employees was already in an advanced state of deterioration by the time these individuals testified. Were the appearance before the committee the only circumstance to be considered in examining this case, there might indeed be a persuasive argument for concluding that this is in fact a case of reprisal.

However, things are not so simple. By the time of the testimony last spring, the employer-employee relationship was already characterized by acrimony and recrimination. The dispute between these legislative counsel and management was longstanding and continuing. Indeed, there were several issues that were the subject of complaint at the time counsel appeared before the committee. Given these circumstances, the Chair must conclude that there is not a prima facie case of privilege.

The Chair would commend to all hon. members the intervention of the hon. House leader of the official opposition who cautioned against judging the situation having heard only one side of the dispute. At page 309 of Debates he said:

However, I have a problem with raising personnel issues on the floor of the House of Commons...When these two employees of the House appeared before the standing committee and asked for protection of the House, we did not understand that there were outstanding grievances between management and the employees...We ended up hearing a kind of rehash of the ongoing problems...we did not have the background knowledge to deal with...We should not handle a grievance process, in a public forum, on the floor of a committee or on the floor of the House of Commons.

The opposition House leader like any other member of the board, and I remind members that I was also a board member in the last parliament when this issue was raised there, is bound by the statutory requirement for confidentiality of board discussions on this or any other matter, but we all feel a particular responsibility with regard to staff relations issues which, by their nature, must be kept completely private and confidential.

In addressing this most unfortunate situation the board has been guided by the usual principles of human resource management and in seeking a solution we have made every effort to reach a fair and equitable settlement with the parties. In one case happily such a settlement has been possible. In the other case it has not been possible to reach agreement and the individual is now seeking redress through a third party tribunal, the Public Service Staff Relations Board. While the matter that is before the PSSRB is not, strictly speaking, sub judice, I would suggest that we should not interfere in that process but rather allow it to reach its own conclusions in due course.

Many hon. members have been employers in their professional lives before being elected to this House. All hon. members are now employers in their own right of staff here in their Hill offices or at home in their constituency offices.

I know that hon. members will appreciate from their own experience that the most difficult and often the most delicate situation an employer can face is dealing with employees with whom there are irreconcilable differences.

Parliament has set out the terms of the employer-employee relationship here at the House of Commons. Labour relations are governed by statute, that is, the Parliament of Canada Act and the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act; by collective agreements with bargaining agents; and in this instance, by practice that is parallel to the professional norms governing counsel employed in the Public Service of Canada. Under the terms of this framework employees have the right to raise complaints and follow grievance procedures up to and including bringing matters before the Public Service Staff Relations Board. Individuals also have the right to seek redress through the courts.

As the employer of record at the House, the Board of Internal Economy is always mindful of its responsibilities in dealing with employee issues generally or, in certain circumstances, with the cases of individual employees. As the chair of the board, I have a particular responsibility to uphold the integrity of the staff relations system and to allow the procedures that have been set in motion to reach their conclusions unhampered.

Therefore, on a close examination of all the facts, I have concluded that to interpose into the system of existing safeguards, whether they be provided by the PSSRB or the courts, ad hoc hearings by members of parliament in the Chamber or in committee is in my view to compromise the integrity of the labour relations framework that was created by decision of parliament.

Finally, a word about the need for increasing resources in the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. As previous speakers have indicated, these matters are basic administrative issues and, as such, must be dealt with by the Board of Internal Economy.

I specifically draw to your attention the ruling given on October 23, 1997, with regard to a similar question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton. My predecessor, Mr. Speaker Parent, stated at page 1,003 of Debates the following:

When dealing with similar questions, my predecessors have repeatedly indicated that these should be brought to the attention of the Board of Internal Economy and should not be raised on the floor of the House as a point of order nor as a question of privilege.

I take very seriously the ongoing concerns many hon. members have regarding legislative counsel and I must reiterate that these concerns have been brought to the attention of the Board of Internal Economy and are being dealt with.

In summary, then, the Chair finds that there is no prima facie case of privilege in this instance. I hope that I have been able to throw some light on this complex series of unfortunate circumstances while respecting the confidentiality of information entrusted to me as a member of the Board of Internal Economy.

In closing, I would entreat all hon. members to proceed with caution when dealing with staff relations matters. If we find that the procedures for remedy and redress are inadequate, then by all means let us address what is lacking in the existing safeguards and take corrective measures, but let us be wary of situations where we are asked to step into the role of ad hoc arbiters on individual cases.

I thank all hon. members for their contributions and assistance on this important question.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.