Debates of May 14th, 2003

Canada-U.S. Relations

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Could the government tell the House why Canada is participating in the U.S. led counterterrorism exercise called “TopOff2” that is taking place both in Canada and in the U.S.A. this week?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, under the smart border declaration between Canada and the U.S., Canada and the U.S. have both made a commitment to joint counterterrorism training. That happened today under the title of TopOff2 with key ministers in Canada and the United States as well.

TopOff2 is one of the most complex Canada-U.S. exercises to be held in recent years and is proof of our close cooperation. It shows how both countries are taking the issue of terrorism very seriously in the interests of their people.

Drugs and Pharmaceuticals

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister about the $40,000 that is flowing from big pharma to his finance minister.

We have seen first nations and star wars policies coming from the provisional government. Now we see drug prices possibly going up because of a conflict of interest from a member of the Prime Minister's puppet regime. I ask the government, when will the Prime Minister regain control of his government and will he tell his finance minister to give the drug money back or get out of the drug prices review?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly resent the unwarranted attack on the integrity of the Minister of Finance, a very distinguished minister in the government. I would like to assure hon. members that the Minister of Finance, in the conduct of his leadership campaign, as with the other leadership aspirants, is behaving in an entirely appropriate way.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker]

I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the hon. Abdygany Erkebaev, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of the Kyrgyz Republic.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

I would also like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Dr. Mustafa Osman Ismail, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of The Sudan.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Points of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I try always to follow the instructions of the Chair, and since you have determined that the language that I used was unparliamentary, I will withdraw it. However I would appreciate the opportunity to explore with you and the House, on a point of order, what appears to me to be a certain inconsistency with respect to the word in question.

[The Speaker]

I would be pleased to hear from the right hon. member on another point about my inconsistencies. I certainly appreciate the right hon. member's withdrawal.

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

Mr. Speaker, on April 29, in answer to a question that I placed in the House, the Minister of Health said, “what the right hon. member just outlined is a fabrication”. She went on to say, “It is a web of halftruths and misrepresentation”. I refrain myself from quoting that part of her remarks.

The admissibility of that language was raised on a point of order by my colleague, the member for St. John's West. The Speaker's immediate reaction was to say, “I did not think anything she said transgressed the rules”.

On April 30 I asked the Speaker if he had come to a ruling on the question. Let me quote part of Mr. Speaker's ruling:

The following expressions are a partial listing of expressions which have caused intervention on the part of the Chair as listed in the Index of the Debates between 1976 and 1987, and “fabrication” is one of them. It caused interventions, but it was not ruled out of order. The word also occurs in another list, where it has been ruled unparliamentary....

The Speaker went on to state:

--because of the inconsistency in the use of these expressions... I did not think it necessary to intervene.

The Speaker went on to state:

--the hon. member may take some offence at the language, and we all do sometimes at things that are said in the House, there is not clear authority for the Chair to say that this word or that word is unparliamentary....

The Speaker concluded by saying:

--I am not inclined at this stage to rule the expression unparliamentary and demand that there be a withdrawal.

Mr. Speaker, that was your ruling on the word “fabrication”. I assume the same logic would apply to the words “fabricating the facts”. If the Speaker would prefer, I could rephrase what I said to say that what the minister just outlined is a fabrication.

[The Speaker]

The Chair will accept some additional assistance from the hon. government House leader in the circumstances.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear in citation 486 of Beauchesne's Sixth Edition, page 143, which states:

An expression which is deemed to be unparliamentary today does not necessarily have to be deemed unparliamentary next week.

Mr. Speaker will no doubt recall that this relates to a decision of the Speaker in 1955, which we all remember fondly.

In addition to that, there is another point that should be brought to the attention of the House. Once someone has said something unparliamentary, withdrawing from saying something unparliamentary cannot be substituted by saying something else unparliamentary. Withdrawing from making an unparliamentary statement has to be unequivocal. This is something that Speakers, yourself and your predecessors, have been saying for time immemorial.

With those two points, and with respect, the right hon. member is mistaken.

[The Speaker]

I think I have heard enough on the point to deal with any inconsistencies that the House might think have arisen in my rulings.

First, there are two statements in citation 489 of Beauchesne's to which the right hon. member for Calgary Centre referred, and one was “fabricated a statement” which was ruled unparliamentary, and his expression was “fabricated the facts”. I equate the two. Then there was the word “fabrication”, which has been ruled unparliamentary but has also not been ruled unparliamentary on various occasions depending on the context in which it is used.

The right hon. member was quite correct in pointing out that I had ruled that it was not unparliamentary when the word “fabrication” was used on its own by the Minister of Health in her answer some weeks ago.

However, in this particular case, the right hon. member had just finished telling the House that someone was not telling the truth and withdrew the words and promptly said that it was a fabrication of the facts. In the circumstances, I could not help but feel the expressions were the same in their intent and in their meaning.

When I looked at the words “fabricated a statement” and ruled it unparliamentary and then heard “fabricated the facts”, I concluded that the two had the same meaning and decided that they had traversed the line, as it were, and in the circumstances were unparliamentary.

I hope that has satisfied the right hon. member as to any possible inconsistency in the rulings on these occasions. I do appreciate his good humour in bringing the matter to my attention because I would not want to be glaringly inconsistent in rulings that I make in the House. I know the right hon. member appreciates that fact.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during question period today the government House leader suggested that I do not spend very much time around here. I just want to put it on the record that, apart from one and a half days, I have been here in Ottawa continuously since April 28. Therefore the chances are that I have probably spent more time around here than he has since April 28.

[The Speaker]

I am sure the House appreciates the hon. member's clarification. The Chair is well aware that all hon. members work very diligently and spend all due time attending to their parliamentary duties.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order stemming from yesterday's question period. At that time I asked a question of the Minister of Canadian Heritage concerning the Canadian television drama production fund. In her response she indicated, and I quote the minister's response from Hansard :

First, Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to table a document that lays out the road map for success in Canadian film and television. I would also like to table the list of all those productions that have received an additional $130 million. At the same time, I would like to agree absolutely with the question of the hon. member.

My point stems from the fact that these documents were not tabled and therefore did not appear in the Journals of yesterday. My understanding is that the documents were given to the pages in only one language and under Standing Order 32(4) that is not allowed. I submit that does not forgive the minister for transgressions against the traditions of this place.

On page 372 and 518 of Marleau and Montpetit, it states:

Any document quoted by a Minister in debate or in response to a question during Question Period must be tabled.

I therefore ask to have the minister table the documents referred to in her response to my question.

[The Speaker]

I am advised that the document in fact was tabled earlier this day in both official languages, so the hon. member's point has been disposed of.

Indian Specific Claims Commission

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification) (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 2001-02 annual report of the Indian Specific Claims Commission.

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 nine petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[David Price, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.

They are the report of the official delegation that represented Canada at the meeting of the standing committee held in Paris, France, on April 5, 2003, and the report of the joint meeting of the defence and security committee, the political committee and the science and technology committee, held in St. Petersburg, Russia, on April 10 and 11, 2003.

Committees of the House

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on chapter 1 of the report of the Auditor General of Canada of April 2002, entitled “Placing the Public's Money Beyond Parliament's Reach”.

I am also tabling the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on chapter 2 of the Auditor General of Canada's report, published in December 2002, on Fisheries and Oceans Canada, entitled “Contributing to Safe and Efficient Marine Navigation”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to these two reports.

Also, if I may, I think it is appropriate, this being the 125th anniversary of the passing of the legislation for the Auditor General, that we are tabling two reports based on the work that she has done.

Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first petition states that marriage is the best foundation for families and the raising of children; that the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is being challenged; and that this honourable House passed a motion in June 1999 that called for marriage to continue to be defined as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the other petition, the proposed Bill C-250, which is being introduced in Parliament, will add sexual orientation to the list of identifiable groups in the hate propaganda.

Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to refrain from including sexual orientation as an amendment to the hate propaganda section of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the pleasure to present a petition from the people of Haliburton calling upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.