Debates of June 4th, 2003

International Aid

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Minister for International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has delivered on its commitments. The $500 million Canada fund for Africa is focusing on African priorities like health and education, trade and investment, and peace and security. Canada has also committed an additional $6 billion over the next five years to deal specifically with Africa.

We have committed to double our international assistance by the year 2010, at least half of which will go to Africa. Our relationship with Africa is strong because we are committed. We delivered and we will continue to do so.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, in February 2000, 16 year old Richard Jung was swarmed and beaten to death. A young offender plea-bargained from second degree murder down to manslaughter and got two and a half years, and that is bad enough, but four adults involved were just convicted of manslaughter. The sentence? Members guessed it, two years less a day at home.

The Minister of Justice, who gave us conditional sentencing, said it was not intended for violent crimes. Would the current minister please explain why he is allowing conditional sentences to become the rule for virtually anything other than murder?

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

Mr. Speaker, the opposition knows very well that conditional sentencing was put in place some years ago. It has been used by the courts as well. The opposition also knows that the justice committee went through a review as well.

We are waiting to see the outcome of that review, but having said that, conditional sentencing is not used when an offender could represent a risk to the public. It is one of the tools at the disposal of the court. Judges are not forced to use it. They use it based on each and every case, depending upon the circumstances.

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

Mr. Speaker, following Richard Jung's death, I sat with his dad for hours as he tried to come to terms with the senseless killing of his son, and he expected justice. Prosecutors wanted three to six years. Even the defence expected jail time. The Crown quoted the judge's own words from an earlier case when she said the court will not tolerate “senseless, gratuitous, recreational violence” before imposing an eight year sentence for aggravated assault, and now, four house arrests for manslaughter. When will the minister say enough is enough?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member is referring to what we call the Young Offenders Act. There is a designated offence and that may end up as being what we call a sentence for adults.

With regard to conditional sentencing, I will repeat essentially what I said over and over. We went through a review process. We will wait to see what will be the outcome. It is a tool at the disposal of the court, and judges are not forced to use it. They use it when the offender does not represent a risk to our society.

Société Radio-Canada

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage claimed last year that Radio-Canada, which was preparing to stop broadcasting Hockey Night in Canada in French, had to respect the rights of francophone minorities.

This year, Radio-Canada will pull the plug on its nightly sports report, depriving francophones without cable of the only daily amateur sports forum currently on public television. While the English network runs six hours of sports per week, the French network runs only two.

Can the minister tell us if she approves of Radio-Canada's decision. Is it normal, in her opinion, that francophones are not entitled to the same service as anglophones?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question. Many people in this House are concerned about this. Guy Lafleur is here today; I know that he is particularly interested in sports issues.

The Secretary of State for Amateur Sport and I have already agreed to meet with representatives of Radio-Canada's union, and we will certainly work with Sport Québec and others that, currently, are appealing directly to the CRTC.

Different possibilities are being explored and, with the hon. member's help, perhaps the House can adopt a unanimous stance on this issue.

Multiculturalism

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women.

Could the minister please inform the House how her department plans to promote, encourage and engage Canadians on the issue of multiculturalism and diversity?

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to tell the House that I have just announced a three year strategic partnership with Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council which will leverage $3 million over the next three years.

This is to help us to find the kind of research that is indispensable for developing informed and relative policies and programs due to the diversity of Canada.

Member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis

[The Speaker]

I would like to draw to hon. members' attention the return to the House of our colleague, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Presence in the gallery

[The Speaker]

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Guy Lafleur, one of our hockey greats.

Mr, Lafleur is very much involved in National Environment Week, as a supporter of the not-for-profit Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Privilege

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in respect to the answer of the Solicitor General to the question of the member for Crowfoot. The Solicitor General specifically referenced a current trial and made certain comments in respect to that trial. As a former provincial attorney general and a member of the House, I am very concerned that the comments of the Solicitor General may have prejudiced the fair trial of an accused.

I refer the House to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice , by Marleau and Montpetit, at page 534, which states:

The sub judice convention is first and foremost a voluntary restraint on the part of the House to protect an accused person, or other party to a court action or judicial inquiry, from suffering any prejudicial effect from public discussion of the issue.

I refer members also to page 535 where that is discussed further.

Because I do not want to repeat the comments, I would ask the Speaker to review the videotape and Hansard , review those comments and consider whether there is a prima facie matter of privilege vital to the public interest.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is hardly a question of privilege. Yes, ministers during question period have invoked the issue of sub judice in order not to affect someone's trial when a member raises and asks for the opinion of the Crown on a matter that is before the court. The issue that a member on the other side of the House may be dissatisfied with an answer that a minister has given during question period has nothing to do with this.

If the hon. member is dissatisfied, and that is very legitimate, people feel that way from time to time, even though the answers are usually excellent, he can put in a late show and get further amplification on the issue being raised.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite accurate in his recollection of what was said by the Solicitor General. It was the Solicitor General himself who volunteered the reference of which my colleague from Provencher has rightly expressed concern.

I would certainly add my voice to others in the House urging the Speaker to look at the actual tapes to see if in fact there has been a breach of the conventions of the House.

[The Speaker]

The Speaker always enjoys reviewing tapes and transcripts of the proceedings in the House and will do so in this case and get back to the House in due course.

The hon. member for Yorkton--Melville gave notice of a question of privilege to the Chair. I will hear him now.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the justice minister's direct contravention of the Firearms Act and contravention of one of your rulings.

On November 21, 2001, at Commons debates pages 7380 and 7381, Mr. Speaker, you ruled on a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Surrey Central concerning the failure of the minister of justice to table a statement of reasons for making certain regulations as required by subsection 119(4) of the Firearms Act.

I would like to now cite three separate quotes taken directly from the Speaker's ruling. I quote:

I should point out to hon. members the Firearms Act provides that where the minister is of the opinion that the ordinary regulatory process in section 118 should not be followed she may in cases specified by the law proceed directly to the making of new regulations or to the modification of existing regulations. However in such cases the minister is required by subsection 119(4) of the act to table in both houses a statement of her reasons for so doing.

The hon. member for Surrey Central drew to the attention of the House 16 cases between September 16, 1998, and December 13, 2000, where the minister made use of this exceptional power but failed to table the required documents in the House. He argued that although no deadline is specified in the Firearms Act it is surely unreasonable for the House to be kept waiting for up to three years for the tabling of the minister's reasons.

The ruling went on:

In the case before us, the legislation drafted by the justice department contained from the outset the provisions obliging the minister to table in parliament reasons why section 118 should not apply for certain regulations. Furthermore, in the orders in council relating to each case, a standard paragraph is included which reads as follows:

And whereas the Minister of Justice will, in accordance with subsection 119(4) of the Firearms Act, have a statement of the reasons why she formed that opinion laid before each House of Parliament;

Therefore, Her Excellency, the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, pursuant to paragraph X of the Firearms Act, hereby makes the annexed regulations--

The Chair must conclude from this evidence that far from being an arcane technicality cloaked in some dusty statute or other, the requirement for tabling of reasons is not only perfectly clear in the legislation but is invoked as an integral part of each such order in council. All the more reason, it seems to me, for the department to comply readily with the requirement given a modicum of efficiency in advising the minister.

The ruling went on:

Strictly speaking, these defects do not negate the minister's fulfillment of her statutory obligation, but they do point to a carelessness that appears to be characteristic of the way in which these matters are being handled by the officials in her department.

Were there to be a deadline for tabling included in the legislation, I would not hesitate to find that a prima facie case of contempt does exist and I would invite the hon. member to move the usual motion. However, given that no such deadline is specified, I can only find that a legitimate grievance has been identified.

I would encourage the hon. Minister of Justice to exhort her officials henceforth to demonstrate due diligence in complying with these and any other statutory requirements adopted by parliament. I look forward in future to the House being provided with documents required by law in a timely manner.

That was your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The parliamentary research branch has informed me that despite your stern warning and contrary to your explicit instructions, the justice minister has on four more occasions failed to table his statement of reasons for avoiding the laying of his regulations before Houses of Parliament, as required by subsection 119(4) of the Firearms Act.

The four orders in council identified by the Library of Parliament are: SOR/2002-440, 5 December 2002, regulations amending the importation and exportation of firearms regulations; SOR/2002-441, 5 December 2002, regulations amending the authority to export or import firearms regulations (businesses); SOR/2002-444, 5 December 2002, regulations amending gun show regulations; and, 5 December 2002, regulations amending the public agents firearms regulations.

While you ruled that the member for Surrey Central did not have a prima facie case of privilege, mainly because there is no deadline in the Firearms Act for the minister to table the statement of reasons, the situation we have today is different.

The minister is now in a clear contempt of Parliament, because not only has he shown complete disregard for the legislative requirements of this House, just as his predecessor did, but he has ignored your very clear instructions in your previous ruling.

I ask the Speaker: At what point does the minister's disregard for the legislative requirement of an act passed by this House become contempt? How many times does the minister have to be caught before it becomes contempt? Sixteen times last time. Four times this time. If not this time, will the minister be in contempt the next time we catch him?

Finally, how can we expect ordinary Canadians to obey the Firearms Act if the justice minister himself does not, cannot, or will not, regardless of what you say or rule?

If the Speaker rules that these four new violations of section 119(4) of the Firearms Act by the Minister of Justice constitute a prima facie case of breach of privileges of this House, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard what has just been raised by the member. I consider it to be very serious. I will raise it with my colleagues. I will endeavour to report either to the House myself, or himself; it is mid-week now but hopefully by the end of the week or at the least sometime next week about the--

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

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

No, I did not say that. This is serious, Mr. Speaker. I intend to report. If there are documents that should have been tabled and there is a reasonable period of time elapsed, I will do my best to ensure that they are tabled, and if not, that someone at least inform the House why they will not be tabled in the time that is judged to be appropriate if such is the case in the accusation that is being made.

[The Speaker]

I want to thank the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for his diligence in pursuing this matter. It is always appreciated when hon. members support the rulings of the Chair and I notice his proper diligence in that respect.

I know that the government House leader is now going to do the same sort of thing and exercise proper diligence to see if the ruling has been fully complied with in every respect.

I thank the hon. members for that and I look forward to hearing further submissions on the matter in due course. In the meantime, of course, I will reserve my decision.

We have a notice of a point of order from the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

Points of Order

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is in regard to Order Paper Questions Nos. 162 and 163 dated February 19, 2003. I indicated that I wanted these questions answered within 45 days pursuant to Standing Order 39. On March 27, the department advised me that these questions could not be answered on time.

In checking with the Journals Branch vis-à-vis referring these questions to committee, my office was informed that as far as they are concerned the questions have been answered. I am aware that the Speaker does not judge the quality of the answer, but the government clearly indicated to me that the questions could not be answered on time and gave an explanation why. While I appreciate the heads-up from the department, I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the standing orders require the government to explain its reasons to a committee and not to me.

First, I will read the questions and answers into the record. The questions are as follows. Question No. 162 reads:

Since the inception of the Canadian Forces Service Income Security Insurance Plan, SISIP, how many soldiers have requested and how many actually qualified for Accidental Dismemberment Benefit from SISIP for injuries sustained while in a Theatre of Operations or a Special Duty Area for which members would be in receipt of both the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, CFSA, Pension, or a return of pensionable contributions, and the Pension Act pension?

The response was as follows:

Three key public and private sector institutions hold the requested information: the Department of National Defence, Veterans Affairs Canada and Maritime Life. Compiling the data requires extensive interdepartmental and public-private sector coordination, and a manual search of existing and archival files. As a result, the information requested cannot be gathered during the time period allotted to respond to Order Paper Questions.

Question No. 163 reads:

Since the inception of the Canadian Forces Service Income Security Insurance Plan, SISIP, of those soldiers that qualified for Accidental Dismemberment Benefit from SISIP for injuries sustained while in a Theatre of Operations or a Special Duty Area for which members would be in receipt of both the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, CFSA, Pension, or a return of pensionable contributions, and the Pension Act pension, what is the range of financial compensation provided by SISIP in terms of amount and duration of the benefit?

The response was:

Three public key public and private sector institutions hold the requested information: the Department of National Defence, Veterans Affairs Canada and Maritime Life. Compiling the data requires extensive interdepartmental and public-private sector coordination, and a manual search of existing and archival files. As a result, the information requested cannot be gathered during the time period allotted to respond to Order Paper Questions.

Standing Order 39(5) reads as follows:

(a) A member may request that the Ministry respond to a specific question within forty-five days by so indicating when filing his or her question.

(b) If such a question remains unanswered at the expiration of the said period of forty-five days, the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond shall be deemed referred to the appropriate Standing Committee. Within five sitting days of such a referral the Chair of the committee shall convene a meeting of the committee to consider the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond.

The matter of the failure of the ministry to respond was referred to me personally. Standing Order 39(5)(b) provides for the matter to be referred to the committee. It is the committee that has the authority to subpoena officials. It is the committee that has the authority to send for documents. And it is the committee that has the authority to either make recommendations or absolve the department for its tardiness. What good is it to advise me? And how does that satisfy Standing Order 39?

I believe the Journals Branch has erred in concluding that the notice from the government advising me that the questions cannot be answered on time is an answer. If that is considered an answer, then the process is useless. The government must explain its reasons to a committee of the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point of order the member has raised. I know you are familiar with this process, Mr. Speaker, and with the rules that apply, and I know there are others who have gone before me in my role as parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, outstanding members who have held this role in the past, and who are familiar with the fact that the branch of the Privy Council Office that handles these matters is often overwhelmed with the number of requests for documents and the amount of paper they have to go through. In fact, I have gone there to sign written answers to written questions when the stack of paper involved is so high and sometimes requires several boxes to contain the answer, and of course numerous copies of the answer are required.

It is in fact true that sometimes there are great difficulties posed by these questions and by answering them. In fact, sometimes it is entirely impossible to answer these questions within the 45 days given and requested by the members.

I want to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to page 443 of Marleau and Montpetit, which states:

The guidelines that apply to the form and content of written questions are also applicable to the answers provided by the government. As such, no argument or opinion is to be given, and only the information needed to respond to the question is to be provided in an effort to maintain the process of written questions as an exchange of information rather than an opportunity for debate. It is acceptable for the government, in responding to a written question, to indicate to the House that it cannot supply an answer. On occasion, the government has supplied supplementary replies to questions already answered. The Speaker, however, has ruled that it is not in order to indicate in a response to a written question the total time and cost incurred by the government in the preparation of that response.

Even though, Mr. Speaker, of course that cost and time is very, very significant.

[The Speaker]

I am not clear on what is being requested of the Chair in the circumstances of this case. I think the hon. member for Calgary Northeast in his original submission suggested that he knew it was not normal for the Chair to comment on the adequacy or otherwise of an answer.

Is he asking that his questions be referred to a committee? If so, perhaps he could propose that to the House and see if there would be agreement on the part of the House to refer the questions to the committee.

Alternatively, and I am guessing out of the blue here, he could put the questions back on the Order Paper without the 45 day time limit, without starring the question, in effect, or indicate instead of starring making it oral. He could put it on without the 45 day request and then wait for the answer, which would then have to be prepared and sent to him. Maybe it is in the course of preparation now. I could not tell that from the answer the hon. member read into the record, and I do not think he could either because the answer was not clear on the point, of course.

Perhaps the hon. member might try asking the House, if that is his desire, if the House is willing to refer the question to the committee. I have no idea what the parliamentary secretary wants. I could not tell from his submission.

I know that these answers are sometimes quite expensive, but the hon. member for Calgary Northeast is well known for his enthusiasm for saving money, so I do not think he would want to press a question that was going to cost millions to answer. Maybe we can work something out here with discussions between the parties and come back to the House with a proposal on this. I am in the House's hands.