Debates of April 7th, 2003

Health

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of friends here. I believe this question is on SARS.

I can assure members that the Government of Canada recognizes the seriousness of the issue. Employment insurance is there to help eligible workers who may be directly affected by SARS. We have amended the employment insurance regulations to remove the usual two week waiting period for SARS related cases. It would be my recommendation and suggestion to any who want information that they contact our offices, either through the Internet or through our 1-800 telephone number.

Foreign Affairs

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the SARS outbreak has created a great deal of suffering in my riding, in the GTA and in Canada. The management of the disease could have been much better handled if the Government of China had co-operated with WHO officials.

The contrast between the Government of Taiwan and the Government of China could not be more stark. Taiwan aspires to be a member of the WTO and co-operates. China, meanwhile, is a member and does not co-operate. In fact, in perennially blocks Taiwan's aspirations to join.

I would ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs, when will Canada stand up to China and actively campaign for Taiwan's admission to the WHO instead of hiding behind the skirts of its one China policy?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, better than many of us in the House because he works very closely with his Taiwanese colleagues, the government and the Canadian people have great, good close links with the Government of Taiwan and with the people of Taiwan.

As the member also knows, the rules of the WTO are such that only nation states recognized by the United Nations can join the WTO, and therefore we work with Taiwan through collaborative centres such as the CDC and others, the United States, to provide Taiwan with up to date information. We are confident we are doing everything we can to work with the Taiwanese people to contain such epidemics.

Justice

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my constituent, Lisa Dillman, just received horrifying news. Her ex-husband and convicted child molester, John Schneeberger, has just reapplied to force his young children to visit him in prison.

Nearly two years ago, I saw the sheer terror of those little girls as they were forced into that prison. He sexually assaulted those little girls' 13 year old stepsister.

Will the government now support my bill, Bill C-231, Lisa's law, to prevent this injustice from ever occurring again?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, essentially the hon. member should have a look at the amendments to the Divorce Act, which have been tabled before the House. The bill has not received second reading. It is before the committee and in that bill there are provisions to that effect.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in that bill it covers the physical part of things. It does not cover the psychological. Those young girls have undergone a psychological crisis because of what the government forced them to do. That is what he needs to deal with and the bill does not do it. Will the minister commit to dealing with the issue of psychological and physical abuse by parents?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should read Bill C-22, the amendments to the Divorce Act. Essentially the starting point of that bill is the question of the best interests of the children. Taking into consideration the best interests of the child, we list for the very first time some criteria that a judge will have to use in order to come to that conclusion. With regard to the Lisa's law case he just referred to, he should look at the bill as well. In the amended bill, we deal with that situation.

Fisheries

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council's recommendations on the cod fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence should not serve as a pretext for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the federal government to abdicate their responsibilities. Whether there is a total moratorium or not, this industry and the communities affected by the minister's decision will suffer a major blow.

Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans commit to a real assistance plan, whether there is a total moratorium or not?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, whether or not there is a moratorium, I will do what must be done as the situation unfolds.

In the meantime, we are working directly with the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland to assess the future impact. The Minister of State for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the minister responsible for Canada Economic Development will work to develop Canada's response. It is hoped that the Quebec government will meet its responsibilities in terms of economic development, part B on human resources and all the other provisions.

Canada Gazette

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that the Canada Gazette has undergone some major changes. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works please advise the House on those changes?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As parliamentary secretary, I am pleased to answer the question. We all know that the Hill Times calls itself Canada's political and government newspaper and does an excellent job, but the real Canada newspaper for the government is the Canada Gazette and it has celebrated more 150 years of delivering information to the general public on the regulation laws.

As of last Saturday, the Canada Gazette is now online and will be able to offer the Canadian public information on the laws and access to the privileges.

National Defence

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Thursday in committee the assistant deputy minister for defence stated that the move of the Emergency Preparedness College to the riding of Ottawa South was permanent. The minister has said that it is interim, so which is it? Permanent or interim?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it occasionally happens that interim things have a habit of once in a while becoming permanent, but I should point out to the hon. member that while her first interest naturally is in her riding, my first responsibility in this area in the post-September 11, post-Iraq period, is to provide training to the first defenders in the event of a terrorist attack and the facility at Arnprior was simply not up to the task.

Canada Labour Code

[Sébastien Gagnon, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour said that during the review of part I of the Canada Labour Code, workers and employers did not want to include antiscab provisions. However, in a letter dated February 20, the President of the FTQ, Henri Massé, said that that comment bore no resemblance to reality and he asked her to rectify here mistaken comments.

Will the Minister of Labour have the decency to acknowledge that she distorted the facts and apologize?

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, what I said, was that when we were working on part I of the code, there was a compromise between workers and employers.

You can verify and you will see that I said quite clearly that it was a compromise between both parties.

Transport

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of objections from the Newfoundland provincial government and the community of Stephenville, the transport minister approved the divestiture of Port Harmon to a private company. Without public consultation, the minister turned over a public asset for $1 as well as a commitment of millions of dollars for port improvements.

Will the minister tell us why he ignored the province and the not for profit community interests in favour of a for profit company that has as one member the harbourmaster, who just happens to be the spouse of a senator?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the port divestiture fund process was applied here. There was notice in the community. The individual company that was to receive the port made adjustments to reflect Transport Canada's wishes in making 50% of the shares in that company open to the local community and four out of seven members of the board of directors. This is a matter of local controversy and we recognize it. All the normal procedures were followed. It is really a matter of local politics and local personalities.

Points of Order

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point order regarding the accuracy of Hansard .

On April 1 the House was considering the following motion during private members' business:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should call upon the United Kingdom to return the Parthenon Marbles to Greece in order to be restored in their authentic context, as the Marbles represent a unique and integral part of world heritage and should be returned to their country of origin, before the 28th Olympiad in Athens, Greece, in 2004.

At the conclusion of the debate on the motion there was a significant exchange that was not recorded in Hansard . The absence of this exchange altered how the outcome of the motion was recorded.

This is what Hansard recorded. The Acting Speaker, which was the Assistant Deputy Chairman of the Committees of the Whole, is recorded as saying:

Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Acting Speaker then said:

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker is then recorded as saying:

I declare the motion carried.

The member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, stood and said:

Madam Speaker, I seek clarification of just what is required in order to pass this motion. Would you enlighten the House?

The point of order does not make much sense because there is information that is missing. While in Hansard everything the Speaker said seemed clear, the videotape in fact tells a different story. This is what the tape recorded.

The Acting Speaker said, “Is the House ready for the question?”

Some hon. members, “Question”.

The Acting Speaker then said, “The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?”

Some hon. members said “yes”.

In Hansard no member is recorded as saying nay, yet on the tape you clearly hear the parliamentary secretary for the foreign affairs minister saying nay.

The tape continues to record information that is missing in Hansard . This is a transcript from the videotape.

The Acting Speaker said, “Carried, the motion is carried.”

The Acting Speaker again says, “I apologize, I did not hear a nay but I will start again”.

The Acting Speaker then again says, “All those in favour of the motion will please say yea”.

Some hon. members said “yea”.

The Acting Speaker then said, “All those opposed will please say nay”. The Acting Speaker says, “Okay. I did hear the nay this time”.

The Acting Speaker then says, “I declare the motion negated”.

Then she corrects herself and says, “The motion does carry”.

It now makes sense when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs rose on her point of order and sought clarification. She was clearly surprised that the motion was first negated, then carried.

The most troubling aspect of this deletion of information was that the motion carried on division yet it was recorded as carrying unanimously. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are three ways a motion can be adopted by the House; by unanimous consent, by majority vote and on division. There are significant differences between these three.

On page 968 of Marleau and Montpetit it says:

A Member verifies his or her own intervention and may suggest corrections to errors and minor alterations to the transcription; a Member may not make material changes in the meaning of what was said in the House.

Correcting minor errors is one thing. Removing significant text is another, particularly when the result alters the outcome of how a vote is recorded.

On page 969 of Marleau and Montpetit, it explains:

When a question arises in the House as to the accuracy of the record, it is the responsibility of the Speaker to look into the matter.

I ask that you look into this and determine who authorized the editing of Hansard and also determine the reasons for the edit. As members we are responsible to our constituents and we must take responsibility for our actions.

It has been brought to my attention that the Greek community was quite upset that a government member said no to the motion, yet the official record records no division. If it were determined that the record was altered to save political face, then we would have a much more serious situation on our hands, one involving privilege.

I have no problem publicly stating my support for the motion but it appears that some hon. members do have a problem with the record recording their lack of support. Like all Canadians, Canadians of Greek origin deserve honesty and respect.

[The Speaker]

The Chair thanks the hon. member for Kootenay--Columbia for his vigilance in ensuring that the records of the House are up to date. I am of course surprised to hear the variation between what he says was recorded in the video of the House and what is in Hansard . I know sometimes there are variations and the Chair of course will look into the matter and get back to the House with any information I am able to glean from the facts. I note this occurred on April Fool's Day. I hope it is not some kind of mistake that happened because of that.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among all parties in the House and I believe that you would find consent for the following. I move:

That, at the conclusion of oral questions on April 8, 2003, immediately before proceeding with any deferred divisions, the House shall hear a brief statement by a representative of each party, followed by a reply by the Prime Minister.

I understand there are some deferred divisions that day.

[The Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Points of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, regard to question period today. I think the acting minister of finance, in response to the member for Brandon--Souris, may inadvertently have provided false information, incorrect information, to the House on a material matter. I would ask that he review with his officials the capacity of Canada to end unilaterally the relevant provisions of the Barbados tax treaty by giving six months notice.

[The Speaker]

The right hon. member for Calgary Centre really is asking another question. If he has concerns about the answer that was given, I know he would want to send a note to the minister and advise him that perhaps there was a problem so the minister could correct the difficulty if indeed some retraction was necessary. Alternatively, he could apply I suppose, as the House leader is suggesting, for an opportunity to debate the matter on the adjournment of the House on one of our late shows, as they are commonly called.

I do not think it is really a point of order but I am sure that the minister is thankful for the right hon. member's intervention.