Debates of Sept. 28th, 2001

Porcupine Caribou

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, Senator Murkowski's reaction to my remarks on the 1002 lands indicate very clearly why it is important not to allow recent events to be used to stampede governments into ill-considered decisions in other unrelated areas.

Canada will continue to urge the United States to honour the 1987 agreement on the conservation of the Porcupine caribou herd and its habitat. Canada will continue to emphasize that protection of the Porcupine caribou calving grounds is critical to the health of the herd and to the culture and way of life of the Gwich'in first nation people, both in Yukon and in Alaska.

Firearms Registry

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as of March 31, 2001 the government admits it had a staff of 1,800 people and spent half a billion dollars implementing the problem plagued gun registry, $200 million last year alone. In 1995 the Minister of Justice promised it would only cost $85 million to implement.

Since August the auditor general has been trying to make sense of this colossal cost overrun. Will the Prime Minister please explain why tracking duck hunters is still a bigger priority for the government than tracking potential terrorists?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware that about 85% of Canadians support the gun registry program. In fact it is a public safety issue. The government confirmed that it will provide public safety for Canadians and will continue to do so.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

I am all for public safety, Mr. Speaker,

Yesterday, officials in the office of the Minister of National Revenue advised that firearms licences with photo IDs are not suitable identification for Canadian citizens crossing the border, but provincial drivers licences are okay.

Law-abiding firearms owners have to go through criminal record checks, background checks, reference checks, pass a test and have their privacy invaded to get a firearms licence.

If Canada customs will not trust a firearms licence as an acceptable piece of identification, just why do we spend half a billion dollars issuing them?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, when people cross the border, they have to go through the standard screening.

We have talked many times about the question of risk management. We are using different tools that we have at our disposal at the border, especially at the American border.

We are managing as well the question of the registration of firearms. However, we on this side of the House have made a choice as a society to make sure that having firearms in Canada is seen as an exception. It is not a right in Canada.

We on this side of the House want to make sure that we have a good and safe society. Canadians support that.

Employment Insurance

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, the auditor general tabled a report with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. It reveals that the surpluses of over $36 billion in the employment insurance fund as at May 31 are far in excess of the $15 billion considered necessary. Once again, we have proof that the minister is incapable of managing employment insurance. Worse yet, the auditor general indicates that the spirit of the law has not been followed.

Will the minister finally implement the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources tabled in this House on May 31?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, this government favours a balanced approach to employment insurance. We are trying to balance our obligation to Canadians to help them if they are in need with that of protecting the integrity of our social programs.

As the report on the performance of our department indicated, we realized savings of $553 million in the employment insurance account in the last fiscal year.

As to the second question—

[An hon. member]

That is not the question.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

—I have already told the House we are working on the report and will release it very soon.

National Defence

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

The minister will know that yesterday the Conference of Defence Associations released a report on the state of the Canadian military. Could the minister provide the House with his comments and observations on the report?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, some of the comments of the Conference of Defence Associations are valid and some of them are not valid. When we add to that the distortions and exaggerations of the media and opposition, we get some statements that do not fit at all.

First, the Canadian forces are fit to carry out their job as a multipurpose combat capable force. Second, they can meet the provisions of the 1994 defence policy white paper. Third, the government is modernizing the Canadian forces. It has put $3 billion into the forces over the last three budgets. It has clearly stated that it will provide what is necessary for them to do their job.

National Security

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone is aware, the first line of defence in our fight against terrorism is a strong border.

This week we learned that student employees are manning many of our border crossings. This is a dangerous proposition for our country and the students as well. Customs expects these students to make independent decisions on who crosses the border and who does not. They are forced to work in an unsupervised manner.

Will the minister reconsider his directive of using students as our first line of defence?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that Canada Customs hires students during the summer and all year long. They are receiving good training. It is part of the government's youth strategy.

As I said, they receive good training, they work under supervision and they are doing a very good job.

Canadian Banks

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

Mr. Speaker, in reaction to the measures taken by the United States to trace funds linked to the terrorists, the superintendent of financial institutions asked Canadian banks to trace funds deposited in their accounts and to co-operate with the U.S. authorities.

Will the Minister of Finance tell us whether or not funds identified as belonging to individuals or to terrorist groups include funds they hold in foreign branches of Canadian banks, including the 50 branches of Canadian banks located in the Caribbean, a region considered to be an absolute hotbed of tax havens and money laundering?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can confirm that the legislation applies to Canadian banks everywhere, both within and outside our borders. I can also tell the member that, this week, the Canadian Bankers' Association issued a press release in which it said very clearly that it would co-operate 100% with the request from the government and from the United Nations.

National Defence

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

The Globe and Mail website this morning at 11.23 a.m. said that U.S. and British special forces are in Afghanistan. Why was the minister kept in the dark? Why is he being kept out of the loop?

Why do members of parliament have to rely on the Globe and Mail for important news like this instead of hearing from the Government of Canada?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I made it quite clear the last time that when it comes to covert operations that special operations groups from any country, including our own, may carry out for reasons of national security we do not talk about them.

Housing

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

Seventy-five hundred people in British Columbia have had to declare personal bankruptcy due to the leaky condo crisis. The personal stress and hardship cannot be measured.

When will the government show some leadership, step in and help the quarter of a million British Columbians who are affected by this crisis?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, on October 20, 2000, the Governments of Canada and B.C. announced an agreement that will help owners of moisture damaged residential units. We gave the British Columbia government a commitment of $27.7 million, of which $11 million has already been advanced.

Privilege

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to report a situation that, in my opinion, infringes members' rights.

On May 30, I put a question in the House to the member for Ottawa West—Nepean in her capacity as the spokesperson for the House's Board of Internal Economy on the subject of a Library of Parliament service that was being developed for parliamentarians, including the members of this House.

Standing Order 37(3) affords all members the opportunity to debate a matter further if they are not satisfied with the answer. This is what I am doing right now. I gave notice here, to the table, that I intended to raise the matter in the House during adjournment proceedings.

We recognize that there is a bit of a gap between the time the member gives notice of intent to raise a matter and the time the announcement of matters to be raised during adjournment proceedings is given, since only three matters may be debated at that time.

I let some time go by, thinking that, by parliament's resumption on September 17, I would have been told when I might raise the matter.

I noted the first week that subjects were lacking for adjournment proceedings. So, I made inquiry with the table, which referred me to the Private Members Business Office.

On the 26th, a letter arrived at my office. The next day I notified the Speaker of my desire to raise this matter of privilege. Here we are.

In the letter, which I will table, if necessary, I am told that, according to the Standing Orders, I cannot request debate on the matter during adjournment proceedings, because the member for Ottawa West--Nepean is neither minister nor parliamentary secretary. Standing Order 38(5) provides, and I quote:

A Minister of the Crown, or a Parliamentary Secretary speaking on behalf of a Minister, if he or she wishes to do so, may speak for not more than two minutes. When debate has lasted for a total of thirty minutes, or when the debate on the matter or matters raised has ended, whichever comes first, the Speaker shall deem the motion to adjourn to have been carried and shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.

This paragraph sets out how the privilege may be used during adjournment proceedings.

Because the member, the spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy, is neither minister nor parliamentary secretary, my privilege is infringed.

It clearly says “if he or she wishes to do so”. This means that if the government wants to, someone may reply to the comments of the hon. member who has the privilege of speaking for longer on the issue of concern to him or her, that is four minutes instead of the 30 seconds that are available to put a question.

So, because there seems to be an internal conflict in the rules of the House, there is a breach of my privileges.

This may not seem like a very important issue to some, but it seems to me that a parliamentary institution, the Library of Parliament, seems immune from questioning.

I cannot, as a member of parliament, ask questions to the Speaker of the House—this is what I am told—even though the Library of Parliament is accountable to both Chairs, in the House of Commons and in the other place. Since I cannot address the Chair in the House before the Canadian public about issues that are of importance, who can I turn to?

I asked this question in the House. I was allowed to do so. But I am not being permitted to elaborate and I think this is a breach of my privileges.

Secondly, I would like to know why we waited until I raised the question? I had to go back to the Office to find out when adjournment proceedings were scheduled, only to then receive a letter saying that they would not.

In my opinion, my request could have been replied to when I submitted it, or soon thereafter, instead of waiting until the month of September. This seems to become a pattern with parliamentary institutions. I will probably have the opportunity to raise another question of privilege on another case dealing with a similar situation.

I do not understand why I would be deprived of my privilege to address the House on what is a current issue, this under the pretence that no one can answer my question.

I do hope that the Chair will determine whether there is indeed an internal conflict in the rules, as seems to think the clerk at the Private Members' Business Office and, if so, that it will be corrected. But in the meantime, I hope I will not be deprived of my privilege to address the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. member and the question he is raising.

I was informed of the situation about a week ago. I myself approached our clerks, who do such a great job for us, to indicate that I saw a problem developing.

It seems that when we changed the Standing Orders a few years ago, allowing questions to be asked concerning the Board of Internal Economy—prior to that, no questions whatsoever relating to parliamentary spending were allowed—and when we changed to rule about questioning the whip or leader of the opposition in the House, these generally being the spokespersons for the board, that made it possible for a question to be asked in the House. But for other questions, the rule is that an adjournment debate is allowed, what is often called “the late show” in the vernacular.

But when the Standing Orders were changed in the case of the Board of Internal Economy, we did not change the other one. This is most unfortunate, and creates an injustice. I agree with the hon. member on that.

If, in the near future, the clerks could prepare for us the necessary amendment to the Standing Orders, I would be agreeable to discussing it with the other House leaders, with a view to amending the Standing Orders and making things equitable. It seems to me that is the solution.

We frequently find rules in parliamentary law that need to be adjusted. You have just presided over a review of the entire modernization process in which a number of us were involved.

I have met twice with my colleagues in the House. No one on my side of the House raised this, no one had even imagined it.

Under these circumstances, perhaps the hon. member's request could be left pending, rather than doing away with it completely, and we could all focus on changing the rule promptly so that the question could then be allowed. If the Chair could take that into consideration, it seems to me that this would be the way to remedy the situation.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, noting the potential procedural gap there may be in this context, we would be prepared to give our consent to proceed with the member's application to have what the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons calls the “late show” in the vernacular.

We would give our approval so that, until the standing orders are amended, we may proceed accordingly in the present case.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to the question raised by the hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier, it strikes me at first glance that this is not a question of privilege. It is certainly a grievance, but given the seriousness of the matter, the Chair will examine it, take it under advisement and return to the House if necessary.

I appreciate the co-operation apparent from members on both sides of the House in this.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member for Ottawa--Vanier wishes to speak again, but I believe I have made a ruling on the question he raised. If it is on another matter, I will allow him to speak. If it is on the same point of order, I have expressed my decision on it.