Debates of Nov. 22nd, 2002

Public Works and Government Services

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that neither the funding nor the operations of the depository services program are at any risk as a result of the coming changes.

All services previously offered will continue to be offered, including a full suite of services with the library community. The advantages of the close relationship between the two programs are significant. We are confident that the public and the depository libraries will be better served as a result of these changes.

Public Safety

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately my home city now leads North America in auto theft. Auto theft results in tragic deaths or injuries to innocent people and major property damage, not to mention the tying up of fire, police and ambulance resources.

Cars are stolen to commit crimes. Home invasions are perpetrated to get the keys. The government could mandate federal driving prohibitions, minimal sentencing for repeat offenders, consecutive sentencing and the use of auto theft devices. However it does nothing to address this crime that affects virtually every community in Canada. Why?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I reject entirely the preamble of the member's question that the government does nothing. It has been improving and putting more resources into the public safety of the country.

In the last budget the government put in place in moneys for anti-terrorism and other policing measures. We have improved, because of that bill, our communication between all police forces across the country. It is with that communication that we can do a better job of policing, and we are doing it.

[The Speaker]

The Chair has notice of a question of privilege from the right hon. member for Calgary Centre.

Privilege

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I gave notice that I would be rising on a question of privilege. Monday of this week, the government presented its response to written Question No. 10 concerning the cost of security at the two sites of the G-8 Summit, in Calgary and at Kananaskis, as well as the total cost of the Summit.

A number of departments provided figures: Health, Foreign Affairs, Industry, Justice, National Defence and Public Works, as did Correctional Services and Customs and Revenue Canada. Yet the Solicitor General and the RCMP maintain they do not yet have a total for their costs.

The response from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is a matter of huge concern to me, and should be to the rest of the hon. members as well. CSIS stated:

[It is the policy]...the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, does not comment on operational activities nor release specific details of its budget and expenditures for reasons of national security.

I find this response, that it is a blanket policy not to disclose information to Parliament, to be troublesome. I understand fully that some of the information in which CSIS deals must by its nature be treated as confidential. There are specific cases, perhaps several of them, where national security can be involved. CSIS is stating a quite different principle here. It claims to be beyond the reach of Parliament on every single issue. It claims a right to live in a black hole and to operate without any responsibility to the House of Commons.

The Department of National Defence does not claim that blanket exemption from responsible government although that department, too, deals in matters which must sometimes be held confidential. The same is true of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

CSIS is not more important than these two departments. Its attempt to put itself in a special, secret status above the rules, is a fundamental affront to this Parliament.

I want to know if this policy was established by the minister or have the director and the agency decided to thumb their noses at Parliament. Are we supposed to blindly vote the funds for CSIS and never again think about those expenditures?

I have today written the chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee to request answers to a number of questions, including how this policy was established. At this time, I want to give notice to the House that I am reserving my right to raise this matter later as a possible contempt of Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. member is really referring to a point of order. He is alleging that a Standing Order of this House was not respected by an organization. It is stretching it to say that there is a question of privilege here.

[An hon. member]

That is the Speaker's job.

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

If the right hon. member can invoke that it is one point, I am equally entitled to invoke that it is something else, particularly when I believe that the position I have is the correct one, just as he presumably thinks the same about his.

On the issue in question, the right hon. member knows perfectly well, and even alluded to it during his answer, that because of the threshold of security for visits and anything else of high security involving CSIS, there is a mechanism established by Parliament with a review to have the threshold of security respected and the civilian overview that goes on top of that to protect Canadians.

Second, the estimates of that organization are tabled before the House. The right hon. member knows that. That process carries through the House. The votes are then proceeded with in Parliament and those are all occurring.

The right hon. member says that he can understand why specific security issues involving CSIS should not be revealed. In fact that is exactly what this is. It involves probably the highest level of security that one could ever achieve; receiving heads of state of other countries. I will not refer to how that is in the language of the security community, but I think all of us recognize that visits of this nature must represent the highest threshold.

Obviously, the amount of resources that are utilized regarding a very high level security incident like this forms part of the information which must be kept by that security community. That is why we have the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Not only that, we have a committee of Parliament that reviews its report in addition to that threshold. We all know that those points are not valid.

The right hon. member, having been a former prime minister and having been the minister of foreign affairs, will know of the level of security involved in foreign visits, particularly heads of state and heads of government. He is well aware of all this, as we all are. He was a member of cabinet that appointed members to the Security Intelligence Review Committee in the years presumably when he was prime minister, even though he was only there a short while, and when he was minister later on in another cabinet.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not take much time on this issue because I know how anxious we are to get back to a very busy government program.

After having listened to both sides of this issue, I would certainly strongly support the position of the right hon. member for Calgary Centre on this issue. The government has been secretive in setting up new programs where members of Parliament are not given the information they require. As always, Mr. Speaker, we will accept your ruling fully.

[The Speaker]

I note that the right hon. member for Calgary Centre did not ask the Speaker for a ruling. He indicated at this time that he was giving notice of his intention to raise this question should he not get satisfactory answers from the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

This is, therefore, a decision that is not before the House at this time. The right hon. member for Calgary Centre no doubt greatly appreciates the comments by the hon. government House leader. He will take them into consideration on his return to the House at a later point if necessary.

If he has now advance warning of what the arguments against his position will be, then I presume that he will load his arguments accordingly. Of course, the government House leader also has notice of what is coming and he can prepare his argument in greater detail should it be necessary to do this at a later date.

In the meantime, I note the Chair is absolved from any responsibility at the moment and will remain out of the fray. We will wait to see if the right hon. member is satisfied elsewhere or has to come back to the House. Accordingly, we will leave the matter there.

Parliamentary Delegation to Iceland

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of a Parliament of Canada delegation's visit to Iceland from August 11 to 13, 2002.

Government Response to Petitions

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 20 petitions.

Committees of the House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning the lists of associate members of standing committees.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 11th report later this day.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-315, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (parole hearings).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce my private member's bill that would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act with respect to parole hearings.This amendment would permit a victim of an offence to read a victim impact statement at a parole hearing, a statement describing the harm done or the loss suffered arising from the commission of an offence.

Bill C-79, the victims rights act adopted by the House in the 36th Parliament contained a provision that granted victims the right to provide an oral statement in court at the time of sentencing. Corrections department policy currently allows victims of crime to present oral statements at parole hearings. However, there is nothing expressly provided in the statute governing the practice and policy can be changed at any time.

My private member's bill would guarantee victims the right to make an oral statement if they so choose.

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

National Wave of Silence on Remembrance Day Act

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-316, an act to promote a national wave of silence on Remembrance Day.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure once again to introduce this bill, modelled on a similar bill which was passed by both the Westminster Parliament and the Ontario provincial legislature.

It calls on Canadians, more seriously and broadly, to observe a moment of silence on Remembrance Day, and to ask the government to ensure that in every way possible that two minutes of silence is observed from coast to coast in every workplace and school, and by every broadcaster.

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

Income Tax Act

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-317, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (allowances paid to elected provincial or municipal officials).

Madam Speaker, once again this is the reintroduction of a bill that I had in the earlier session which seeks to eliminate the double standard which Parliament has created in the Income Tax Act which allows elected officials alone among Canadians to exempt a third of their income from federal taxes.

This was changed in the Parliament of Canada Act for MPs and Senators, but still there are hundreds of elected officials in Canada who do not have to pay the full tax burden that their constituents do. This bill would correct that matter.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A few weeks ago I rose in the House about a bill that did something similar for people in another industry. The result of the legislation that is proposed today is to increase a tax against a group of Canadians, as a matter of fact thousands of them.

I wish to bring to the attention of the House that this bill is out of order. It raises a tax that needs to be preceded by a ways and means motion which must be concurred in and then the bill introduced. It can only be proposed by a minister of the Crown.

I know the Speaker might want to take this under advisement because there was a decision of the Chair, only a few weeks ago, where the Chair ruled that a bill, I would allege, similar to this was declared out of order.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, the bill was vetted by legislative counsel. I understand it is perfectly in order. Furthermore the bill has been introduced in three other sessions of Parliament and in no instance has a point of order been raised against it. Finally, the bill does not require a ways and means motion insofar as it does not raise a tax but rather eliminates a specific exemption.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The Chair has heard the arguments from both sides of the House. It will be taken under advisement and one of the Chair occupants will be back with a decision.

Committees of the House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the House were to give its consent Iwould move that the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there agreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

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

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Health that they have power to divide Bill C-13, An Act respecting assisted human reproduction, into two bills in order to deal with all matters related to the criminalization of practices such as cloning in another bill.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the notice of motion on the Order Paper, I want to speak to the motion that I have brought forward asking that Bill C-13 regarding new reproductive technologies be divided into two bills.

There is not one member of the Bloc Quebecois who does not see the importance of this bill—

Business of the House

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I have here a proposal that has the approval of all parties.

I would like to dispose of that first before we get into this debate which may continue for some time.

Discussions have taken place between all parties and there is an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 45(7) to re-defer the recorded division scheduled for Monday, November 25 on Bill S-2 until Tuesday, November 26 at 3 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Does the House agree with the proposal?