Debates of Oct. 4th, 2002

National Parks

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the member's direct question, we would like to advise him that the situation is presently being carefully monitored.

Copyright

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the report on copyright issues was recently released and committee consideration is expected to begin in a few weeks.

There are persistent rumours to the effect that this report will be considered by the standing committee on industry, rather than the heritage committee, which could not fail to send a very poor message for upcoming trade negotiations.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage assure us that the report on copyright will not be considered by any committee other than the heritage committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

The report has indeed been tabled in the House, but the government has not yet decided to which parliamentary committee it will be referred. I thank the member for his comments to the House in this regard.

Grain Transportation

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport stated his intention to dispose of the federal hopper car fleet used for three decades that moved grains and oilseeds to port while keeping the costs to farmers down.

The Farmer Rail Car Coalition is working to develop an efficient and affordable grain handling system and wants those 13,000 cars turned over to the coalition.

What assurance could we have from the minister that no decision would be made before a thorough review of the coalition's business plan and an opportunity for the coalition's executive to meet directly with the Minister of Transport?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I have met with representatives of the coalition over the last year or so. I spoke with one of their key people this summer.

I can assure the hon. member that those cars will not be disposed of unless we have full consultation with all interested stakeholders, including the coalition of which he speaks.

Diamond Industry

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Under the Kimberley Process, Canadian diamonds must be certified before January 1, 2003, or they will not be allowed to be exported. This certification will involve six government departments and must be implemented by December 31, 2002.

Will the government be ready for implementation by December 31, 2002?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the hon. member that the government will be ready shortly to introduce the bill in the House of Commons.

I thank him for his interest and I hope all members of the House give that bill a quick passage in the House of Commons and later in the Senate so it can become law.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker]

Today we are honoured to have with us a group of distinguished Canadian craft artists: the winner and finalists for the 2002 Saidye Bronfman Award for Excellence in the Fine Arts, which was presented last evening at the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

I would ask you to join me in saluting these distinguished artists: Kai Chan of Toronto, winner of the 2002 Saidye Bronfman Award, and the award finalists: Suzanne Edgerley of Val Morin, Gregg Payce of Calgary and Barbara Todd of Montreal.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice that, with respect to the consideration of government orders, Government Business No. 2, at the next sitting I shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.

Points of Order

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask for a ruling regarding the announcement of the entire legislative agenda by the government House leader outside the House at the National Press Club yesterday morning.

I raise this matter in the following context. The report of the modernization committee recommended on page 4:

First, it is important that more ministerial statements and announcements be made in the House of Commons. In particular, topical developments or foreseeable policy decisions, should be made first--or, at least, concurrently--in the chamber. Ministers, and their departments, need to be encouraged to make use of the forum provided by the House of Commons. Not only will this enhance the pre-eminence of Parliament, but it will also reiterate the legislative underpinning for governmental decisions.

This report was adopted by the House. One of its authors is the government House leader who signed off on the report and moved the motion to have it adopted.

My first question to the Chair is, would this not be considered a matter of misleading the House, to say in an official report and to Parliament that something will be done and then turn around and do something else?

I also want the House to consider this in the context of the leak of Bill C-15 and Bill C-36 in the previous session. When the context of the bill was leaked, the Speaker ruled the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege. Obviously leaking information about government legislation that is intended for the House is a serious matter. The Speaker ruled on this matter and said:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before Parliament, the House must take precedence.... To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.

This is what the government House leader had to say during the debate on the question of privilege:

I cannot say much more other than to apologize on behalf of whoever is guilty of this. I use the word guilty because that is what comes to mind, given the respect that I have for this institution.

I will repeat that line, “given the respect that I have for this institution”. He continued:

Anyone who breaches that respect is guilty of an offence in my book.

I believe the House leader for the Conservatives referred to this as privileged information. Actually it is more than that. It is secret, secret in the very sense of government secrecy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you, if leaking information on one bill is an offence to the House, surely leaking the entire agenda to the press club is offensive to the House.

To give an idea of the impact that this had on me personally, I refer to yesterday's CBC Newsworld interview by Don Newman. He was interviewing all the House leaders and in his lead-in comments mentioned that he was going to talk to us about the legislative agenda and then mentioned that this agenda was announced at the press club yesterday morning.

I had no idea of the contents of that announcement. Don Newman knew more than I did and probably more than any other House leader on the panel, except maybe the government House leader. I did not expect to hunt down this information because such an announcement, at a minimum, should have been given to the House leaders at the House leaders' weekly meeting, or perhaps in the House during the Thursday question or by a statement by minister.

The government House leader put members, and particularly the House leaders, at a disadvantage and gave a huge advantage to the media.

How can this be defined as respect for this institution as the minister said in the House?

I also want to mention that the Minister of Canadian Heritage made a major announcement yesterday outside the House regarding parks. Also, today before question period our solicitor general made a statement to the media regarding questions put to him yesterday in the House. Therefore, they knew before we did.

Is it some sort of a government strategy to fan out all over the country and misrepresent the role of Parliament? The government's dismissive view of the House and its members is contemptuous.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can only hope that somebody else wrote those remarks for the hon. member. I do not believe that they could possibly reflect anything she thinks. I would give her more credit than that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I know that the right hon. member over there is getting excited, but perhaps he could be patient and listen to this along with his House leader.

The legislative program in the broad sense was announced yesterday morning, after being in the throne speech as we all know, at the national newsmaker breakfast which has been held about four times a year for the last five years. That has been done all this time, the same organization, the same place. The National Press Club invites all of us to attend the event. It occurs all the time. One was held at Christmas.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The hon. member across the way is getting agitated again. I urge him not to suffer from too much premature excitation. I will get to those points.

That is in fact what was done yesterday. If it pleases the House what I did provide to the national press yesterday I would gladly table for the House to have a further look at in order to determine, as it no doubt will, that nothing in what I said was out of order or contrary to the rules, nor even to the respect of the House.

The hon. member across referred to the modernization report and used that as a basis for the allegation that she just made, which is wrong. It is unusual she did not say that at this time last week her own party was releasing what it called a second modernization report outside the House two days before we started to sit. That of course was circulated to the media in a press conference downstairs just before we started.

Therefore this effort on the part of the members across the way is not very serious. If it was a modernization report, it was not even provided to the House leaders of other parties as their contribution thereof.

I announced yesterday to the national media at the newsmaker breakfast that I would be willing to have another modernization effort in consultation with other House leaders. However I sure did not give the content of that to the media before the other House leaders. That would have been inappropriate.

I am glad the hon. member has raised it because it probably offended everyone else that she did that, as much as it offended me and gives me the opportunity to raise it now. I would not have used the time of the House to raise that but given that she has done so, I wish to inform the House of what in fact either her or some of her colleagues, or perhaps someone acting on their behalf has done.

In reference to the leaks of the past and my condemnation of leaks of contents of bills, I have done so and I will continue to do so. I believe, and I always have believed, that it is a very special privilege to be in this place. I have spent enough time out of every day of my life and have done so for long enough to know and to appreciate how special this place is.

In terms of bills that I will be introducing in this session, there likely will be one as illustrated in the throne speech, in regard to the issue of interest of parliamentarians, ministers and so on. Yes, I do intend to make a statement in the House upon introduction because I believe that is the place where it should be made and I will do that. We are not yet there though. We have not arrived at that stage, but that will be done.

In terms of the consultation with the House leaders of other parties, I met with them about four hours before the House started, and gave them the agenda of the House for the next several days. Also, as something I initiated after I became House leader in 1997, I actually provided a draft agenda of the House for as many as four weeks ahead to the opposition House leaders so that their critics could be prepared to give the appropriate speeches when those things were considered. That had never been done before.

There was a weekly business statement. That is the way it is done in the U.K. house and the way it had been done here from time immemorial. We have innovated. We have done these things out of respect and in consultation with everyone else and it has worked.

I thank even members across, but that is not the same as saying that I have breached the rules of the House nor the modernization report, nor that I have misled the House as has been alleged. I take umbrage to that.

On Monday the Governor General made a speech in the presence of all of us, or at least all of us had the opportunity to be there and listen to it, either directly or otherwise. A copy of the speech was deemed to have been read in the House by yourself, Mr. Speaker, and was printed in the record of the House. Everything I said yesterday was an elaboration of what Her Excellency said in her speech with a view to informing Canadians of what our role is and the agenda of Parliament.

Those are the facts. I would hope that the hon. member, wherever she gets her information, would verify it.

Finally, I am willing to table for the House the speech that I gave yesterday in both official languages.

[An hon. member]

Did you write it yourself?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

An hon. member is asking if I wrote it myself; a good part of it, yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I respect the hon. government House leader in that he takes umbrage at this, but we take a little umbrage at some of his comments as well and I want to correct the record.

Comparing the public release of this latest leak of government business to our publicly releasing our parliamentary and democratic reform package which we have entitled “Building Trust II” is a big stretch. That particular package of reforms was never designed for release in the House. It is a communication piece with Canadians. We are not government yet.

[The Speaker]

The Chair certainly has heard the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar and by the government House leader on the principal point of order which was raised concerning the government House leader's address to the National Press Club yesterday.

In the old days before I was elected to this position and was able to hold views on various matters, I used to go to the breakfasts at the National Press Club. I can tell all hon. members, they are very jolly affairs. It is a real opportunity to learn about either what has happened or what is about to happen because there seemed to be one at the end of the session and one at the beginning. They seemed to happen in the spring and the fall to the best of my recollection. When I was Deputy Speaker it was always useful to get information about what was going to happen and I sometimes went. Unfortunately that is not permitted any more.

However I will happily, in this circumstance, review the remarks that the government House leader has brought to the table which he made yesterday, in light of the comments made by the hon. member for Saskatoon--Rosetown-Biggar. If I find that there has been some breach of the privileges of the House in something the hon. government House leader said, I will get back to the House.

I must say that in my experience being there, unless something unusual happened yesterday morning, I had not detected breach of privileges of the House in any of the ones I had attended previously, but mind you, I do not think I would have come running back in those days either and said so. I will examine the matter and get back to the House if necessary. We will leave it at that.

Committees of the House

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 109 I would like to present the government's response to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food report entitled “Registration of Pesticides and the Competitiveness of Canadian Farmers”.

Lower Churchill Development Corporation

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the 2001 annual report of the Lower Churchill Development Corporation.

Government Response to Petitions

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association to the third part of the 2002 ordinary session of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe, held in Strasbourg, France, from June 24 to 28, 2002.

Income Tax Act

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill 207, an act to amend the Income tax Act (volunteers).

Mr. Speaker, the essence of what this private member's bill would do is it would allow anyone who volunteers for a registered organization, such as the Lions Clubs, the Kiwanis Club or any other organization, and who has volunteered for a minimum of 250 hours a year, the eligibility of a $1,000 tax reduction on their income tax.

Volunteers make this country what it is today and we, as the government and parliamentarians, need to recognize their effort. A lot of people suffer from burnout and from financial consequences.

The bill would allow a little bit of money to go back into their pockets to continue on the great work that they do for all communities throughout this entire country.

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