Debates of Feb. 21st, 2001

Parental Leave

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that, if she agreed finally to negotiate with the government of Quebec to enable it to establish its own parental leave program, the program would be far less prejudicial to women?

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

Mr. Speaker, again, as we have always said, we have expanded the parental benefit by doubling it in a very significant way. If the province of Quebec wishes to add to that program, we would encourage it to do so.

Public Service

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today brings more troubling evidence of the lengths to which the government will go to sacrifice Canada's impartial public service if it does not willingly go along with the Liberal self-serving political agenda.

A Health Canada scientist has been punished and her paycheque taken away for two weeks. Her crime was being honest enough to confirm the Brazilian beef ban was not based on scientific evidence but was a pretext to escalate a trade war.

Why is there this blatant intimidation of a public servant who dares to step out of the official line?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I should remind the House that the individual in question was not working on this file. This was not within her area of responsibility in the health department. She was not an employee of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

This individual has available to her a full grievance procedure and eventually, if she wants, recourse through the courts. She is represented by her union. Under the circumstances I think it is appropriate to confirm that ordinarily ministers and members are not involved in these types of public service decisions.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this scientist has just fought a Health Canada gag order and won, but the government continues its efforts to shut her down from telling Canadians the truth.

Canadians are unable to feel secure when examples pile up of our public servants being prevented from telling the truth and being made political pawns of the government. Why does the government have to go to such extreme lengths to keep citizens from knowing what is really going on?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, senior officials who are directly connected with the file, veterinary scientists and officials of the health department linked with the file are giving full information.

She mentioned a court case. I understand the fact situation is different. I also remind her that these types of matters which involve employees are not matters where ministers of the government are directly involved. However, the official in question has recourse to a full grievance procedure. I am sure she is aware of her rights in that regard.

Trade

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. It has now been 119 days since the United States took unwarranted and illegal trade action by closing the border to P.E.I. potatoes. We have proven scientifically that this product is safe to export, yet the border remains closed and our warehouses are full.

It is time to be aggressive. What action is the minister prepared to pursue with the Americans to have them open the border so our products can get back in the marketplace?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank all my colleagues from P.E.I. who have been very active on this file on behalf of potato growing constituents.

The Prime Minister raised the issue with President Bush. When my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, was in Washington yesterday he raised it with his colleague from the United States. I will be raising the P.E.I. potato issue with Bob Zoellick, the United States trade representative, when I meet with him on Monday.

Our government is taking this issue to the highest level. Canada will not stand for protectionism by the back door.

National Defence

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister supported the reduced flying hours for Aurora aircraft pilots by claiming that simulators would make up for the lost time.

He was dead wrong on that assessment. A phone call this morning from Canadian Forces Base Greenwood to my office revealed that the simulators there are more than 30 years old and do not even reflect an Aurora cockpit. Moreover, simulation training is not as effective as flying. In what way does using an outdated simulator protect Canada's borders?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as usual the Canadian Alliance is out of date on its research. Yesterday it talked about a letter which is almost two years old. Today it is talking about old equipment. The government is investing in new equipment, new simulators, new sensors, new upgrading and technologically advanced equipment.

Within the last hour I talked with the chief of the air staff. He fully supports the recommendation that is being made. He assures me that we will not compromise the security of Canada's coastline.

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the chief of the air force would probably be fired if he did not agree with the minister.

The minister said that the reduced Aurora flying hours were justified because it was a case of quality versus quantity. Thanks to the Liberal government, when it comes to equipment we do not have either. Would the minister tell the House how sitting in a simulator is quality border patrol?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, there will not be any reduction in terms of the operations on the coastline. This comes from the chief of the air staff. It is bottom up, not top down. We in fact will maintain the kind of service that we have provided. The integrity of the service will be maintained. We are investing in new equipment. We are investing almost $1 billion in the upgrading of the Aurora equipment to act in a proper fashion in terms of our surveillance capability.

U.S. Missile Defence Shield

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the important issue of the U.S. missile defence shield, the Prime Minister recently said in China that “It could cause all sorts of disruptions, but that then again it could lead to a solution. We will see”.

My question is for the Prime Minister, and I hope he will elaborate further than he did earlier. If it turns out that the U.S. missile defence shield causes all sorts of disruptions, to use the Prime Minister's words, including a renewed international arms race, will the Prime Minister strongly oppose this project?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, this is a hypothetical question, because so far the United States has said that it would discuss the issue with its allies and also with the Russians and the Chinese. This is only normal. However, there is no specific plan at this point.

So, it may be that the hon. member is speculating on something that may never occur.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Dr. Khaled Toukan, Minister of Education, and His Excellency Dr. Fawaz Zu'bi, Minister of Post and Communications of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Privilege

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Minister for International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, during question period the member for Medicine Hat referred to both myself and the Minister of Finance and said that we had attended a terrorist dinner or function and that we support terrorists.

We attended a community event.

When he says things like that, he is painting members of the Tamil community as a whole as terrorists.

I attended a community event that was made up of respectable Canadian citizens. I did not attend or have dinner with a group of terrorists.

I take this as an offence and I ask for an apology. I do not support terrorism and neither does my colleague. That is absolutely unacceptable.

[The Speaker]

From time to time some hon. members of the House say things that may cause some offence to some other hon. members. I think the member has made a point here that has clarified the situation, insofar as she is concerned, under the guise of a question of privilege.

It is more in the nature of a grievance than a question of privilege. While the Chair is sympathetic and has allowed the hon. member to perhaps make her point, and she has made it, as I say, I do not believe that her privileges as a member have been infringed as a result of what the hon. member for Medicine Hat may have said. I do not think that what he has said is contrary to the rules of the House.

We have a disagreement here on an interpretation of what the nature of this meeting was. The hon. member has expressed his view. The hon. minister has disagreed with that point of view. I think we will leave it at that. I do not think there is anything the Chair can say that will change that situation. Accordingly, I am declining to deal with it.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to understand how there can be a valid difference of opinion as to the nature of the meeting given the fact that the minister and I were there and the hon. member was not.

That is not the issue. The other part of the issue is that it is alleged that we support terrorism and fundraising activities for terrorism. That is clearly not the fact. It not only besmirches us, it besmirches the entire Tamil community, but it is our own privileges that we are raising this.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I simply have to bring some clarity to this situation.

During question period I certainly did not suggest in any way that the Minister of Finance and the minister for CIDA knowingly supported this group.

What I am alleging is simply that the department of immigration, CSIS and other government organizations have pointed to the fact that FACT is a front for a terrorist organization. I argue that both ministers should have known that as they are cabinet members and that they should renounce that group that they in fact unknowingly supported.

[The Speaker]

It seems to me that we have cleared the air on what was alleged and what was understood. Again I have trouble relating this to a strict question in terms of privileges of members, which hon. members can read about in our wonderful book on procedure that is available at the table, Marleau and Montpetit. There is an excellent chapter in there on privilege.

In fact, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader himself has published a book dealing with issues relating to parliamentary privilege, which is of course a masterpiece. We could all benefit from looking at those.

However, I have not heard anything in the exchanges today that has assisted the Chair in finding that there is in fact a question of privilege. There is a grievance and the grievance has been aired. There has been some clarification. Perhaps we ought to leave it.

Points Of Order

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to please clarify the reasons why you would not allow my S. O. 31 statement.

I would respectfully submit that I did not in any way intend it to be a personal attack on any member in the House but rather to take the very words that the ethics counsellor himself used about the Prime Minister, saying that he was no ordinary MP. It was within that context that these particular words were put together.

I did provide you, Mr. Speaker, with the text of what I was about to submit to the House. I would ask if you would please clarify what it is about that statement that you considered to be a personal attack on a member of the House.

[The Speaker]

I will not read the hon. member's statement to the House. What I will read to him are the guidelines that are set out on page 363 of Marleau and Montpetit:

In presiding over the conduct of this daily activity,—

This is the daily activity of Standing Order 31 statements.

—Speakers have been guided by a number of well-defined prohibitions. In 1983, when the procedure for “Statements by Members” was first put in place, Speaker Sauvé stated that

Members may speak on any matter of concern and not necessarily on urgent matters only;

Personal attacks are not permitted;

Congratulatory messages, recitations of poetry and frivolous matters are out of order.

These guidelines are still in place today, although Speakers tend to turn a blind eye to the latter restriction.

I'll say.

In a ruling in 1996, Mr. Speaker Parent further cautioned that “once they”, the words, “have been uttered, it is very difficult to retract them and the impression they leave is not always easily erased”. Accordingly, the Chair errs on the side of caution in making rulings in respect of statements by members.

In this particular case, the hon. member for Kelowna has provided me with a copy of his statement that he was in the process of reading. I have to say that when I read the whole statement I have no doubt that my decision was correct.

It appears to me that it was in my view a personal attack. Statements by members are not ones that can be responded to. If members are going to attack one another in statements by members, there is no opportunity for anyone else to comment. Question period is a different kettle of fish. There is question and answer, there is give and take, but in a statement by members there is not.

The Chair is not prepared to countenance members rising on the guise of those statements and attacking one another in the House. There is enough opportunity to do that at other times. It is not going to happen under statements by members.

In my view the hon. member for Kelowna stepped over the line in his statement. Having read the entire statement, I have no doubt I was correct.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in question period today in answer to my question in regard to agriculture, the agriculture minister saw fit to cast aspersions on the Canadian Alliance and me with the idea of our not having asked any questions or participated in any activity in agriculture in the House. That is not true. We have had over eight questions and dozens of statements and speeches. I believe the agriculture minister should retract that.

[The Speaker]

Once again we are in a situation where members say things on which there is disagreement. I do not know how this could be a point of order.

The hon. member and the minister clearly have a disagreement. I know that the minister seemed, in his answer, to disagree with the member's statement that nothing had been done. These disagreements are commonplace on issues of policy in the House.

While the hon. member may not like the answer the minister gave, I sense the minister was not entirely happy with the question either. That is sometimes the way things are and we all have to live with it. I do not think there is a point of order here.