Debates of Feb. 9th, 2001

Privilege

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. I would like some direction from the Chair.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair examines all these issues very seriously. I would not want to see this turn into a debate.

The question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve will be examined seriously, as it deserves to be. First, I must allow the hon. government House leader to reply, I hope at the earliest opportunity.

We will then be able to proceed with this question of privilege.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am greatly comforted to know that you will give this matter all the attention it requires. You have my full confidence and that of my colleagues as well.

However, I would like you to also consider the fact that when the deputy government whip rose, he asked us to make a distinction. When he rose in his place and said that the government was not under investigation, he was calling ministerial responsibility into question.

I hope you will take into account in your reflections that we cannot make a distinction—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Once again, I would point out to the House that we are engaging in a debate, which I am going to end.

The question of privilege is still before the Chair, and we shall continue with this matter after we hear the minister.

Points Of Order

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to information flowing from both the Prime Minister on Wednesday and from the Deputy Prime Minister during today's question period.

There appears to be a contradiction on a very important matter and the possibility that there may be misinformation before the House with respect to the matter.

The Prime Minister chose to leave the House with the impression on Wednesday that he had not received the ethics counsellor's recommendations concerning ministerial conduct with respect to the heads of crown corporations.

Today we learned from the Deputy Prime Minister that there has been a meeting between the Prime Minister and the ethics counsellor on this issue, a meeting which was also reported in various newspapers around the country today.

The meeting would have included briefing notes or notes that were in the Prime Minister's possession prior to Wednesday's question period.

I fully acknowledge that you are not in the chair to judge the truthfulness of answers, but there is an expectation that no member of the House, particularly the Prime Minister, will mislead the House on issues that go to the very heart of ethical standards.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have great difficulty when members use words such as mislead. I would ask the member to be very judicious in his remarks and see if we cannot wrap this up.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I expect I will keep within the parameters. What I said very clearly was that there is an expectation that members will not mislead the House.

I am asking you to examine the statements in Hansard made by the Prime Minister on Wednesday and by the Deputy Prime Minister today. I ask you to encourage the government to make full statements on the issue of ethics in order to give everyone an opportunity to remove the cloud that hangs over the Prime Minister on this matter.

I direct your attention, on this point of order to page 378 of Marleau and Montpetit which states:

During “Statements by Ministers”, Ministers are expected to make brief and factual statements on government policy or announcements of national interest.

I strongly urge the Chair to look at the matter in this context. These words are clear. They are a direction to the cabinet and to the Prime Minister. I ask and encourage you to look at this matter as it appears in Hansard and to have the Prime Minister make a full statement to the House if necessary.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member would know, and I imagine the entire House would know, how much respect I have for all colleagues, particularly those with whom I have worked closely over the years, one being the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I say respectfully that it puts the Chair in a very awkward and even difficult situation. I do not believe that the Chair, in all its wisdom, could possibly be expected to reconcile the differences that arise from answers to questions between members on either side of the House. I submit, therefore, that this is not a point of order.

Controlled Drugs And Substances Act

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-255, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (trafficking in a controlled drug or substance within five hundred metres of an elementary school or a high school).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a bill that would, if passed, set mandatory minimum sentences for those convicted of trafficking in drugs within 500 metres of an elementary school or high school.

Children and drugs are a problem in every corner of this country, urban and rural. This bill is only one of many measures that are required to deter and punish those who would profit from selling illegal drugs to our children. I call upon all members of the House to support this important initiative.

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

Young Offenders Act

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-256, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill introduced before this parliament that would pertain directly to the existing Young Offenders Act and would lower the age of criminal accountability, from the current status of 12 to 10.

This bill would in fact allow a provision similar to the current transfer provisions that can bring a youth into adult court and would apply to a child being brought into youth court. This is obviously consistent with the government's intention to have early intervention to allow there to be criminal accountability at the younger age of 10.

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

Criminal Code

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-257, an act to amend the Criminal Code (attempting to disarm a peace officer).

Mr. Speaker, this a criminal code amendment that would create a specific criminal offence for disarming a police officer. This is an issue that is certainly being closely watched and monitored by police and peace officers across the country. It would create a specific offence, with sanctions attached, for any attempts made by any individual to take away a weapon or an instrument that the police officers use for the protection of society.

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

Witness Protection Program Act

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-258, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a related and consequential amendment to another act (protection of spouses whose life is in danger).

Mr. Speaker, I reintroduce my private member's bill, which I call the new identities act. Prior to the premature election call, this bill had passed second reading and was before the justice committee.

We have seen a disturbing trend in Canada whereby stalking and domestic violence are on the rise. If passed, this bill will serve to formally protect those persons whose lives are in danger because of acts committed by a spouse, former spouse, common law spouse or former common law spouse by bringing them into the witness protection system.

We as parliamentarians have the obligation to do everything we can to help these people. I hope members from all sides of the House will give this bill the non-partisan support it deserves.

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

Committees Of The House

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

moved:

That the associate membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be as follows: Bill Blaikie, Barry Breitkreuz and Marcel Proulx.

(Motion agreed to)

Petitions

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present three petitions.

The first petition has a number of signatories from across Vancouver who are very concerned about the state of our health care system and are particularly interested in calling on parliament to stop for profit hospitals and restore full federal funding for health care.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has been signed by close to 2,000 petitioners from the Vancouver area who are very concerned about any proposals to create a third category status for herbs and vitamins. This has been a very major issue in terms of access by consumers.

The petitioners request parliament to reject the third category status for herbs and therefore reject the Codex proposal.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition that I am very pleased to present today has been signed by petitioners who are very concerned about Canada's trade policy and the fact that health care, education and culture are issues that are being debated within a trade liberalization agenda.

The petitioners call on parliament to ensure that health care, education and culture are completely carved out of WTO agreements. They say that we must build an alternative model of globalization that will protect the rights of workers and the environment, provide for cultural diversity and provide for governments to act in the public interest.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions that I would like to table this morning.

The first petition urges parliament to remove the GST from books, magazines and newspapers.

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has been signed by several people in the province of Alberta and in my riding.

The petitioners request parliament to affirm the duty of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their own conscience and beliefs, and to retain section 43 of Canada's criminal code.

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

Mr. Speaker, the third petition deals with the issue of the death penalty.

The petitioners call upon parliament to pass legislation within the next electoral period that would support an amendment to the criminal code that would allow for persons convicted of first degree premeditated murder to receive the death penalty.

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

Mr. Speaker, the last two petitions both deal with Bill C-23.

Fifty-seven petitioners request that parliament withdraw Bill C-23, affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and to ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session.

Speech From The Throne

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before question period my colleague was asking me to remind the House that an agreement on manpower training was reached between the national assembly and the House of Commons, and it is true.

Let me remind him also that it took 20 years of repeated requests by successive governments of Quebec to reach that agreement.

I hope all members will recognize that the national assembly, which has an integrated policy for those who are not on the labour market, was finally able to take over manpower training. Lucien Bouchard's government has an excellent track record in this area.

I hope the hon. member will not jump too quickly to a conclusion and start to believe that, since the government of Quebec and the House of Commons were able to reach an agreement, that Canadian federalism is a flexible and collaborative system, because we, on this side of the House, do not agree with that.