Debates of Nov. 27th, 2002

Transportation Security

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, this question was asked yesterday by the member for Churchill and I gave the answer.

Transport Canada is not reducing the number of inspectors with respect to air inspection. Safety of course is our number one priority, so the report in the newspapers was in error.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker]

Order. I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Raul de la Nuez Ramirez, Minister for External Trade of the Republic of Cuba.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on Tuesday, November 19 by the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst alleging that some remarks made by the hon. member for Saskatoon--Humboldt during Statements by Members were unparliamentary.

Having had the opportunity to review the Debates of November 19, I heard the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt who rose on November 20 to reply to the allegations of the hon. member for Acadie-Bathurst.

My predecessors have on many occasions commented on the always difficult issue of determining what language is unparliamentary. They have often characterized this issue as a question of balance and they have been clear in insisting that every hon. member shares a part of the responsibility for using respectful language and so helping to maintain order in the House.

I refer hon. members to page 526 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice where it states:

In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking; the person to whom the words were directed; the degree of provocation; and most importantly, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber. Thus, language deemed unparliamentary one day may not necessarily be deemed unparliamentary the following day.... Although an expression may be found to be acceptable, the Speaker has cautioned that any language which leads to disorder in the House should not be used. Expressions which are considered unparliamentary when applied to an individual Member have not always been considered so when applied “in a generic sense” or to a party.

It is only to be expected that we in this chamber will hear strong language and forceful expressions of opinion where there are strongly held views on contentious issues. The House of Commons is a place where competing ideas are tested and conflicting passions are given expression. Here in the chamber, members enjoy the privilege of freedom of speech that permits them to speak freely. This freedom however implies a great responsibility as well. We must bear in mind the potential impact of our comments.

It can have come as no surprise to the hon. member for Saskatoon--Humboldt that objection has been taken by members of this House to being characterized as “modern day Klansmen”. This is the phrase he used in his original statement and a phrase he made a point of repeating in replying to the original objections raised.

There can be little doubt that the hon. member meant to provoke his colleagues, not merely to make a strong statement of his views. Under the circumstances, I find that the language used is unparliamentary and I ask the hon. member to withdraw his comment immediately.

[Jim Pankiw, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in order for me to properly reply to this, I need clarification. You stated that the member for Acadie--Bathurst rose on a point of order. In fact it was a question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, are you ruling that there is a prima facie case of privilege, yes or no?

[The Speaker]

I have given a ruling in which I have indicated that whether it is a question of privilege or a point of order, the hon. member will withdraw his words. I ask him to do so at once.

[Jim Pankiw, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the sixth edition of Beauchesne's states in section 485(1) that unparliamentary language may be brought to the attention of the House by any member but when this is done, it must be done as a point of order and not a question of privilege.

In that regard, you will note from Hansard that the member for Acadie--Bathurst stood on a question of privilege, not a point of order as required--

[The Speaker]

I have heard argument on this point before. I heard the hon. member give his reply to the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst on a previous occasion. I am not disposed to hear further argument on the point at this time.

I am going to ask the hon. member to withdraw. If he chooses not to do so, I will deal with the matter in another way.

[Jim Pankiw, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, according to Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice 22nd edition, chapter 6, “Privilege of freedom of speech”, a member is entitled to explain the sense in which he used the words so as to remove the objection of their being disorderly. I would now like to exercise that entitlement.

[The Speaker]

I will leave the matter there and deal with the matter in my own way. I have asked the hon. member to withdraw and he has refused to do so. Accordingly, I am not going to name the member, but he will have trouble speaking.

Privilege

[The Speaker]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst on behalf of the hon. member for Windsor--St. Clair concerning events in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources on Thursday, November 21, 2002.

I would like to thank the hon. member for having drawn this matter to the Chair’s attention as well as the hon. Government House Leader and the hon. members for South Shore, Sherbrooke and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for their contributions on this question. I would also like to thank the member for Nickel Belt, Chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources and the hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair for their later interventions.

It is alleged that, while the hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair was in the process of speaking on a motion to summon a witness to appear before the committee, the Chair intervened to suggest that the question be now put on the motion. This was done notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair had not concluded his remarks.

As Speaker, I appreciate the responsibility that I have to defend the rights of all members and especially those of members who represent minority views in the House. At the same time, it is a long tradition in this place that committees are masters of their own proceedings. Ordinarily the House is only seized of a committee matter when the committee reports to the House outlining the situation that must be addressed.

However, this is not an absolute requirement. As Speaker Fraser said in a ruling given on March 26, 1990 ( Debates , p. 9756):

—in very serious and special circumstances, the Speaker may have to pronounce on a committee matter without the committee having reported to the House.

I listened carefully to the interventions that were made when this question was first raised and I have also examined the blues of the committee meeting which is at issue.

There are two points I would like to draw to the attention of all members. First of all, I would remind everyone that the liberty given to committees by the House to organize their business is not an absolute liberty. Standing Order 116 states:

In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

Committees are expected to follow the rules and practices of the House, unless specific exceptions are made, as in the rule just cited. Further, I think all members will agree that if a committee chooses to exercise its judgment in an area where it is not bound to follow the practices of the House, it must do so in a regular and orderly fashion. By this I mean it ought to proceed by adopting motions that set out the rules that the committee will follow in governing its work.

A second important point to make in this particular circumstance is that the use of the previous question, that is “that the question be now put”, is not permitted in committee.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice points out at page 786, the previous question is not permitted in any committee of the House, even a committee of the whole. This rule is found in all of our authorities dating as far back as the first edition of Erskine May in 1844. It is expected, not just by the Speaker, but also by the House itself that its committees will conduct business that is before them with consideration for these time-honoured practices.

That being said, it is true as well that committees are permitted a greater latitude in the conduct of their proceedings than might be allowed in the House. It may not always be clear in a particular set of circumstances how best to proceed and so the ultimate decision is left to the committee itself.

Even the rulings of the chair of a committee may be made the subject of an appeal to the whole committee. The committee may, if it thinks appropriate, overturn such a ruling. In the case before us, I note that no formal appeal of the chair's ruling was made.

Where irregularities occur, or if a committee feels that there has been some disrespect of its authority, the committee may draw the matter to the attention of the House and the Speaker to the problem, by means of a report to the House.

In the present case the Speaker has been asked to reach into the proceedings of the committee to overturn something that was done there. Such requests have occurred on many occasions in the past and previous Speakers have, without exception, resisted the temptation to intervene.

The issue raised originally by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst concerning the experience of the hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair is an issue that lies within the power of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources to resolve. That is where it properly belongs. Although this is a serious matter, it is not one in which the Speaker feels compelled to intervene.

Once again, I would like to thank all hon. members who intervened on this matter.

The Chair has notice of a point of order from the hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast.

Points of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two points of order but I will start with the first one, which is regarding a lock-up announcement for the Romanow report.

A letter was sent around from the Minister of Health indicating the commission's conditions for the lock-up tomorrow at 7:30 a.m. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have our own practices with respect to lock-ups and they are laid out in Marleau and Montpetit. The practice allows staff to attend and allows members to leave at any time they want. The commission's rules do not comply with our practice. As they say, when in Rome, or in this case, when in Parliament. On page 767 of Marleau and Montpetit it states in the footnotes:

Members' research staff are usually allowed to attend... Members may not be prevented from leaving a lock-up room.

While the commission's conditions do not comply with these two practices I would think that since the lock-up is taking place on our turf, for a report intended for our use in the House, then our rules should apply.

I would ask that you do whatever you need to do, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that members' staff are permitted to attend this lock-up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. opposition House leader for his comments and for having raised this issue today.

Yesterday this was raised at our House leaders' meeting and I undertook at the time to do my best to ensure that the lock-up would be in the way in which we are accustomed to having it. I understand that there was, later that day, resistance on the part of some. I am happy to report that whoever it was changed his or her mind earlier today and that we are now able to have the lock-up tomorrow in a way that respects the traditions of the House.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for having raised this point of order. Perhaps we could have more clarifications regarding the traditions of the House. According to the most recent news that we have received, each member will be allowed one employee. There is also a great deal of confusion regarding whether or not members will even be allowed to leave the lock up, and things to that effect.

We would really like to maintain the tradition used in Parliament. We are used to it and we need our employees to help us with our work. We would like to know from the government what the tradition really is and which rules will be used.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is not a government-sponsored lock-up. It is one that is organized by the commission. We have intervened everywhere that we could and I was given assurance today that a staff person could accompany a member to the lock-up, and pursuant to those traditions, staff people could use technical equipment such as recording devices, computers and so on. It is not a tradition to remove those from the room because it is the same as carrying documents out of the room. Those of course will have to remain behind.

If anyone were to suggest that an MP could not leave a lock-up inside a Parliament Building, I would suspect, although I have not heard that, that if anyone were to prevent an MP from leaving a lock-up within the building, it would probably result in another question being raised in the House. I believe the issue then would be similar to the one that was brought to the attention of the U.K. House of Commons in relation to one of the guards at Westminster. That incident has often been quoted in this place and I would not want that very badly.

I think everyone is aware of the rule that one cannot stop an MP from leaving a lock-up, particularly one who wants to attend to other parliamentary duties.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order and I seek your advice on a serious issue.

A constituent of mine and his wife applied for Canadian passports. Instead of receiving two passports they received three. One passport belongs to some unknown individual. National security is important. A Canadian passport is an important document, particularly after the Auditor General's report on fraud and abuse of social insurance cards.

My constituent had no faith in the passport system so he came to my office and dropped off this passport. I do not know what to do with it. I would like to seek your advice--

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I am sure the hon. member feels the matter is serious, but I fail to see how it possibly concerns the rules or procedures of the House. Therefore it cannot be a point of order.

I would suggest he go and have a chat with the Minister of Foreign Affairs whose office issues these things. I am sure the minister would be delighted to talk with him and perhaps even have him for a cup of tea in his office.

Government Response to Petitions

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 10 petitions.

Terrorism

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to advise the House that the government has listed six more entities, pursuant to the Criminal Code, bringing to 13 the total designated since last July under Canada's Anti-terrorism Act.

The newly listed entities are the following: Islamic Army of Aden, Harakat ul-Mudjahidin, Asbat Al-Ansar, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Hamas.

The decision to list an entity is a very serious one. The consequences are severe, not only for terrorists but for those who support them. The listing is a public confirmation that these entities are engaged in terrorist activity.

It is now a crime to knowingly participate in, contribute to, or facilitate the activities of these entities. Any person or group that is listed may have its assets seized and forfeited. People or groups who deal with the property or finances of these entities are subject to severe penalties, including up to 10 years imprisonment.

That is why the work to prepare for this listing is very thorough and deliberate. The listing of such entities is a work in progress. As we are listing these six entities today, steps are already underway for the next additions to the list.

I can assure the House and Canadians that there will be more. The government has always taken seriously its responsibilities to keep Canadians safe and secure. The tragic events of September 11, 2001, made this job even more important and its success even more critical.

Fighting terrorism is a top priority for the government and this list is one of the many steps we have taken in our fight against terror. After September 11 we moved quickly to implement our anti-terrorism plan which has four objectives: first, to stop terrorists from getting into Canada and protecting Canadians from terrorist acts; second, to enhance the tools we have to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists; third, to prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being held hostage by terrorists who would want to affect the Canadian economy; and, fourth, to work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and to address the root causes of this kind of hatred.

This is an important part of our effort to fight terrorism and keep Canadians safe and secure. It sends a strong message that Canada will not tolerate people who carry out terrorist acts and those who would support them.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to the Solicitor General's statement regarding the listing of a further six entities pursuant to the Criminal Code.

It is somewhat of an understatement to say that the Solicitor General's claim that the government “moved quickly to implement the anti-terrorist plan” is a misnomer.

Bill C-36 received royal assent on December 18, 2001, yet it took the Solicitor General seven months to bring forward the first group of entities to be listed as illegal terrorist organizations. It took seven months for the government to determine that al-Qaeda was in fact a terrorist organization. It has now taken an additional four months for the government to finally determine and list Hamas as a terrorist organization, a fact that has long been recognized by the United Nations as well as many other countries.

Hamas, the Tamil Tigers and Hezbollah are among the over 200 organizations identified by the United Nations as terrorists. In July when the first seven entities were listed we, as well as many others, publicly criticized the government for failing to list Hezbollah. There have been ample justification and evidence, such as the 1983 truck bombing of a United States marine barracks in Beirut and the 1994 bombing of the Israeli cultural centre in Buenos Aires, proving that not only is Hezbollah a terrorist organization but it is one of the most violent. Hezbollah is known for using terrorist tactics, such as suicide bombings and missile attacks, to promote its agenda of imposing an Iranian style Islamic rule in the Middle East.

It is a well-known fact that Canadian intelligence agencies say that Hezbollah has operatives in every major city in the country and that it has been using Canada as an offshore base for a decade. In its 2000 report on international terrorism CSIS reported that Canada was a primary venue of opportunity to support, plan or mount terrorist attacks.

Just recently Senator Bob Graham of the senate intelligence committee in the United States described the leader of a Canadian cell of Hezbollah as making bin Laden look like a schoolboy. According to the United States, Canada is proving to be a true haven for Hezbollah and not only will the government not ban this known terrorist organization, we will not extradite Hezbollah members to the United States to face justice as it is requesting.

If the government were in fact truly committed to the global war on terrorism, the Solicitor General would ensure that the list is complete and that it does not take such an inordinate amount of time to bring forward those names and entities. Clearly, our intelligence agencies, particularly CSIS, are overwhelmed by the tremendous workload thrust upon them since September 11. By the CSIS director's own admission, more resources are needed if we are to determine and list all terrorist activity.

I implore the Solicitor General to list Hezbollah, to recognize that it is a threat to world peace and to the safety of Canadians.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given the importance of this issue, it is disappointing to see the shortness of the statement of the Solicitor General on terrorists, terrorism and innocent civilian victims.

The opportunity given to ministers to make statements in the House is usually a solemn occasion marking a major change in government policy. However, the Solicitor General's statement, far from meeting these criteria, shows the government's flippancy when it comes to fulfilling its responsibilities in the fight against terrorism.

This is not serious. In the fall of 2001, Bill C-36 was rammed through Parliament as if terrorism were a new reality. Then, it took the government almost a whole year to realize that the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas are terrorist entities. Yet, for years now, they have been claiming responsibility for suicide attacks. Normally, it should not have taken close to a year to add these organizations to the list.

The addition at this point of these six entities to the very short list of organizations having direct or indirect ties with terrorist activities in Canada or abroad is stunning.

It seems to us that merely mentioning the name Hamas should be enough to trigger thoughts of terrorist activities in the Middle East and all over the world. The same is true of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

It would have been interesting to know why the government suddenly woke up today. This would have given some substance to the minister's statement.

Since the government singled out these organizations and put them on its list of terrorist entities, I am surprised that Hezbollah is not mentioned anywhere. We are fully aware that, as charities go, this entity is nothing like the Knights of Columbus.

Generally speaking, we feel that the government, particularly with Bill C-17, formerly known as Bill C-42 and Bill C-55, has not managed to strike a balance between public safety and individual rights and freedoms. The comments made by the Privacy Commissioner are evidence of that.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is pleased that these entities were added to the government's list, but it is disappointed to see the Solicitor General using a piecemeal approach on such an important issue. We would to know when the list will be made longer, to paraphrase the Solicitor General, and we would like to know why it is currently not as complete as it should be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I see the minister is returning and I am pleased he is. First, I want to congratulate the minister on the practice of making a statement to the House of Commons. It is a practice that should be followed much more regularly by the government and I regret that is not the case.

In the case of the Solicitor General's department, his statement proves that it is not fatal to give information to Parliament on questions of security. I raise that because this Government of Canada is probably the most secretive in the western world; secretive of all the democracies with respect to the information that it makes available to the elected Parliament of Canada with respect to matters of international security.

I raised the other day a position taken by the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service in which it claimed, as a matter of policy, that it did not reply to questions of members of the House of Commons.

The Speaker may recall that on an earlier occasion I asked the Prime Minister for information about al-Qaeda. He said that it would be a breach of national security to present that information. That very night, precisely the information that I had outlined of the al-Qaeda network was published on the website of the prime minister of the United Kingdom, indicating a far different standard for Parliament in that case.

There is a very real concern as to whether information on security matters is not only shared with Parliament, but is shared among departments of government. I am particularly concerned that the department, of which I once had the honour to be minister, the Department of Foreign Affairs, is not being kept advised on matters that should be within its purview because of turf wars over intelligence in the government.

I am bound to say that I think all of us in the House have heard enough from the Solicitor General saying that there is a process in place when we put questions to him. The only process in place that we have been able to identify is to keep this Parliament as much in the dark as possible.

I find it very curious in his statement today that the minister says that there will be more lists. Is that a guess or does he know of other organizations that will go on the list? If he knows, why is he delaying adding those organizations to the list? This is not a matter about which the Solicitor General should tease public opinion. There will be a stigma attached to organizations that are not on the list, knowing that there is another shoe to drop and knowing that the minister has a group in mind but he is not, for some reason or another, prepared to add them to the list yet.

One of the things we would like to know is the procedure that is followed by the government and what sources of information and intelligence it bases its decisions on when it adds to this list.

[The Speaker]

I regret to interrupt the right hon. member, but as he knows, the rules are quite explicit and the right hon. member does not get any more time than the minister did in making the statement. I am afraid his time has expired.

Committees of the House

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources regarding its order of reference of Tuesday, October 29 in relation to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

The committee has considered Bill C-4 and reports the bill without amendment.

[The Speaker]

Introduction of private members' bills.

The hon. member for Peterborough on a point of order.