Debates of Dec. 1st, 2004

Hiv-Aids

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

Globally there are as many as 42 million people infected with HIV-AIDS. Here in Canada the number of new infections has not decreased since 1996.

Can the Minister of Health tell the House what his department is doing to respond to the HIV-AIDS epidemic?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, over the next five years funding for HIV-AIDS in Canada will increase to $84.4 million. It is being increased by $5 million this year to get to that figure.

This is an issue that cuts across all sectors of Canadian life: gays and lesbians, women and children, the aboriginal people. We are seeing an increasing number of newly infected people among the aboriginal population, including in fact the prison population.

It is important that we recognize this as a serious issue globally. I want to make sure the Government of Canada as collectively as possible continues to work across departments to make sure--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Portage--Lisgar.

Canada Post

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post wants to jack up stamp prices. The Liberals say it is okay with them. It is not okay with the Conservative Party.

Canada Post has been manipulated by the government to be patronage heaven. Over the last number of months we have become aware of Liberal-friendly firms being given untendered contracts and dozens of Liberal supporters and donors being given jobs.

After millions of dollars wasted at Canada Post by the government, what possible justification could there be for a $55 million tax grab?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, what we have is a very clear, transparent and non-political system. The member wants to go back to the old days when politicians set stamp prices. We have a system by regulation. Each and every year the stamp price goes up by two-thirds of the rate of inflation. It is clear. It is transparent. It is non-political. It is a great deal for Canadians because we have one of the lowest prices of stamps in the western world.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration promised to table information about distribution of ministerial permits across the country. She said she would do that within a few hours. It has been 24 hours and nothing has been tabled. Will she keep her promise?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I said very clearly yesterday that I would table the report as soon as I put it together. I will be tabling that report following question period.

Chrysotile Asbestos

[Marc Boulianne, Bloc, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to pressure by the Bloc Québécois, Canada supported the decision in September to exclude chrysotile asbestos from the list of hazardous substances under the Rotterdam convention.

Now that the safe use of chrysotile is recognized internationally, does the government intend to begin the second phase of this initiative and promote the safe use of chrysotile right here in Canada?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to our esteemed former colleague, Gérard Binet, we have been able to protect public health and the economy. We will continue to pursue that goal as we again work with Mr. Binet.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker]

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of Dr. Sein Win, the elected Prime Minister of the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, the exiled government formed in December 1990.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Speaker]

I would also like to draw to the attention of all hon. members the presence in the gallery of Mr. David Goatley. Born and trained in London, England, but now residing in British Columbia, Mr. Goatley is the artist who painted the portrait of the Right Honourable Kim Campbell, 19th Prime Minister of Canada, as well as the portrait of this House's former Speaker, the Honourable Gilbert Parent.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Business of Supply

[The Speaker]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 81(14) to inform House that the motion to be considered tomorrow during consideration of business of supply is as follows:

In light of the inadequacy of current federal assistance, that this House call upon the government to implement specific measures as soon as possible to help the cattle and cull cattle producers who are suffering the impact of the mad cow crisis.

This motion, standing in the name of the hon. member for Montcalm, is votable. Copies of the motion are available at the Table.

Privilege

[The Speaker]

The Chair has received notice of questions of privilege. First, the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had a visitor whose presence did not go unnoticed. The visit by George W. Bush was an out of the ordinary event, in the same way as was the visit by Vicente Fox, President of Mexico, a short while ago.

Nevertheless, this visit caused considerable inconvenience to the staff and members of this House. As you certainly noticed, the parliamentary precinct took on the look of a fortress under siege.

Obviously, we agree that some exceptional measures had to be taken to prevent any untoward incidents that might have endangered the health and safety of certain people during President Bush's visit.

However, notwithstanding the importance of a dignitary or head of state who honours us with his or her presence, Parliament is, first and foremost, the central point of democracy where the people express themselves through their elected representatives. Because of this, whatever the event may be, nothing justifies any breach of the privileges of members of Parliament.

On this point, I would like to draw your attention to certain incidents that took place yesterday, which, in our opinion, constitute a breach of privilege. I have five examples for you.

I will begin by mentioning the hon. member for Hochelaga, who was not able to get onto Parliament Hill until 6 p.m., with the result that he was unable to exercise his right to take part in the vote held here in the House at 3 p.m. I will point out that the hon. member for Hochelaga had to negotiate or discuss with at least 50 security officers from all police forces, and that he tried to get to the Centre Block from at least 10 different points in order to exercise his right to vote. His privilege was denied.

I would also like to mention, in a non-partisan gesture, because this is a case where colleagues from all parties in this House saw their privilege abused, the case of five of our colleagues, the hon. member for Saint-Lambert, the hon. member for Durham, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park, the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, and the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, who were taking part in a round table discussion on the future of broadcasting in Canada at the Westin Hotel. At the end of that conference, at 10:15 a.m., they presented themselves properly, with their MP pins and identification cards, and no one recognized their privilege, so that they were allowed on the Hill only at 11:20 a.m. For an hour and a half, they were unable to enter the parliamentary precinct.

If my question of privilege is ruled in order, I will have an opportunity to elaborate. But for the time being, I will address the issue of respect for both official languages, particularly by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers who addressed our MPs in English only. I will come back to this, but this issue of RCMP officers being unilingual was literally disastrous, not only at the security perimeter, but also at various places on Parliament Hill.

Let me cite as well the example of the hon. member for Drummond, who, between 10 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., was in the ladies' room, when a male security officer came in without knocking and told her she was not permitted access to the hallways of Centre Block.

I would also cite the example of the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord, who, between 10 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., had a security officer enter her office without knocking and order her not to use the hallways.

I could also cite the example that, at 1:50 p.m. yesterday, 10 minutes before oral question period, the green shuttle buses used by members on the Hill were literally prevented from servicing the Confederation Building, where there was an RCMP emergency response team, and I am told that it was the same at the Justice Building.

If my question of privilege is ruled in order, I will have the opportunity to elaborate further. I also intend to call on those members whose privileges were breached to present testimony.

Consequently, with permission, I would like to draw attention to an excerpt from page 230 of Maingot's second edition, which states:

Members of entitled to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed.

In House of Commons Procedure and Practice , chapter 3, on privileges and immunities, at page 85, on the topic of obstruction, authors Marleau and Montpetit write the following:

In circumstances where Members claim to be directly obstructed, impeded, interfered with or intimidated in the performance of their parliamentary duties, the Speaker is apt to find that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred. This may be physical obstruction, assault or molestation.

On October 30, 1989, in a case similar to this one, Speaker Fraser found that a prima facie breach of privilege had occurred following a question of privilege raised by Herb Gray, the then member for Windsor West, regarding a roadblock that had been set up by the RCMP on Parliament Hill to contain a group of protesters. Because access to the House of Commons was blocked, the Speaker felt that a breach of privilege had occurred in the case of some members.

Also, on February 17, 1999, several questions of privilege were raised regarding picket lines set up by members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada who were obstructing access to Parliament Hill and to entrances to the buildings where parliamentarians work.

At the time, Jim Pankiw, the former member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, argued that some strikers had resorted to violence and intimidation to prevent him from getting to his office. As in this case, Speaker Parent had immediately ruled that a prima facie breach of privilege had occurred. Mr. Pankiw then moved a motion asking that the issue be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, for review.

Three other members had also raised the same question of privilege and reminded Speaker Parent that his role made him the guardian of the rights of members. He then came to the conclusion that this interference was a case of contempt of the House.

Before concluding, I would like to quote a statement made by Speaker Fraser. It is taken from the May 5, 1987, House of Commons Debates , on page 5766, and it reads as follows:

The privileges of a Member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfillment of his or her duties and functions.

Therefore, if the Chair rules that my question is in order, I will table the appropriate motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not personally a victim yesterday of what has been described. I must say, however, that I was outraged when I read of it in this morning's paper. I read, for instance, of a Toronto police officer saying “I don't know where you can get through, but you can't get through here”. I know that being a Toronto police officer is important, but more important than our rights and privileges as parliamentarians.

In support of what the hon. member has said, I cannot speak to the merit of the claim itself, having not been a victim, but I can speak to the merit as regards the principle behind it. I would therefore also like to quote Maingot, in chapter 9 of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , which addresses the privilege of freedom to attend Parliament without arrest or what was called molestation. It reads:

In connection with most early assemblies that were in any way identified with the King—

This refers to the assemblies of nobles of the day.

—is to be found some idea of a royally sanctioned safe-conduct; the King's peace was to abide in his assembly and was to extend to the Members in coming to it and returning from it. Naturally these royal sanctions applied to Parliament.

Continuing:

As it is an essential part of the constitution of every court of judicature, and absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers, that persons resorting to such courts, whether as judges or as parties, should be entitled to certain privileges to secure them from molestation during their attendance; it is more peculiarly essential to the Court of Parliament, the just and highest court in this Kingdom—

If we then read the 22nd edition of Erskine May on page 121, it refers to obstructing members of either House in the discharge of their duty. It states:

Any attempt to infringe the privilege of freedom from arrest in civil causes by Members of both Houses is itself a contempt and has been punished.

That would be in the case of where someone tries to arrest someone. This is a threshold that is far lower than that, which is to actually stop someone. Therefore, prima facie, it seems that the offence is even greater because there was not even an alleged breach of anything by any hon. member.

Erskine May also states:

The House will proceed against those who obstruct Members in the discharge of their responsibilities to the House or in their participation in its proceedings.

It is pretty clear that to stop someone from coming to Parliament is a very serious offence.

Finally, this right is very ancient. Erskine May refers to the fact that in 1751, officials of what was known at the time as the liberty of Westminster, which I gather is the equivalent of the council of the city, were committed for having apprehended, insulted and abused a member and for refusing to discharge him. In other words, when they refused to allow a member to leave from their arrest to attend to the sitting of the House, as early as 1751 this was a punishable offence.

It does sound like a very serious charge. As I say, I was not one of the members who was stopped but that perhaps was because my office is in the West Block and the demonstration was largely to the east of that area. For those who are familiar with the perimeter of the Hill, as all hon. members are but for the benefit of anyone else who is trying to identify what we are talking about, it was evident that it was more difficult to circulate a little east of here.

Surely it would have been normal for whatever police officers working outside, the RCMP, the Toronto police as it is alleged, and others to have been acquainted with the fact that the right of members of Parliament to come to Parliament is sacred and that no one should ever attempt to stop an MP from attending to his or her duties in Parliament.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to support my colleague from the Bloc. I will start out by saying that my length of service in the House did not stand in the way of not being able to get on the Hill yesterday because I was indeed one of the people who was prevented from accessing the Hill for a short period of time.

I just want to register my own objection. I do not understand why these police, who were not the usual RCMP that we find on the Hill, could not have been instructed, or if they were instructed, why they did not absorb it, that there would be people coming up to the Hill who were members of Parliament and who had ID showing that they were members of Parliament, or a pin, or a pin and ID.

In my case I had my identification card with my picture showing that I was a member of Parliament but the policeman said that was not good enough and that I had to have a security pass. I told him that my staff were on the Hill and asked him why I could not get up. I was with Senator Grafstein from the other place, who incidentally is co-chair of the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association. He also had to prove that he was a senator. Neither one of us could get passed this particular policeman and we invited him to discuss the matter with his superior officer and he went to do that.

In the meantime, we carried on the discussion with the policeman who was left and finally persuaded him that these passes were legitimate and that we should be allowed to proceed up Wellington toward the East Block. We were somewhere between the Chateau Laurier and the East Block. We got past him but then the other policeman came back and asked what we were doing. We told him that we were on our way up the Hill. He told us that we could not because we needed security passes. I told him that no one told us we needed a security pass and no one ever did tell members of Parliament and security passes were not provided for members.

It was only when we managed to talk our way close enough to the gate at the East Block that the RCMP, who normally police the Hill, were able to see myself and the senator and tell the police officer that it was okay to let us on the Hill.

When I got through the gate and up onto the lawn, there were protesters there. Did they have security clearance? Did they have the card that I did not have? They had huge signs saying that George Bush was a terrorist and everything else. They were on the lawn by the eternal flame having a fine old time but I, as a member of Parliament with picture ID, could not get on the Hill. Something is wrong with this movie.

Mr. Speaker, you need to talk to the people who were in charge of security for yesterday's events and make sure that this kind of thing does not happen again.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a brief anecdote from my experience yesterday in support of this question of privilege.

When I tried to access the Centre Block yesterday, I had to go behind the West Block in order to join with the buses that were going to the state dinner and an RCMP constable stopped me. I explained that I was a member of Parliament. He said that he did not care and asked for my security pass. I showed him my parliamentary pin but he told me that was not good enough, that he needed my security pass.

I was in a rush to make it to the state dinner and he almost physically detained me from walking into the parliamentary precincts as a member of Parliament with my identification. It is a similar experience to that of the member. This is really outrageous. It is especially bizarre when one sees the kind of laxness in security around here from time to time. As he said, we had the bizarre anomaly of protesters on the Hill and a policeman saying that he did not care that I was a member and would not permit me to access the parliamentary precincts without some unspecified security pass.

This really is a serious matter, sir, and I hope you will take it under advisement.

[The Speaker]

The Chair does not need to hear any more on this point.

I am satisfied that the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord has raised a very valid and distinct question of privilege. I know full well that other hon. members have had the same problem. I have heard the comments from all the hon. members who participated in this discussion, the hon. members for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Calgary Southeast, and Elmwood—Transcona.

I am satisfied that in my view this is a prima facie case and the matter ought to be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I am quite prepared to allow the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord to move his motion at this point.

The hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord can move his motion. I will then hear the point of order of the hon. opposition House leader.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the promptness with which you are addressing this issue you consider to be very serious.

Accordingly, I move:

That the question of privilege regarding the free movement of members of Parliament within the Parliamentary Precinct during the visit of George W. Bush be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[John Reynolds, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is one additional item I want to mention before we do this.

Yesterday the member for Wetaskiwin missed a vote in the House and stood and asked for unanimous consent to be included because he was delayed. I would like this to be one of the items looked at by the committee because I think the member should have the right to maybe have that vote reinstalled.

Mr. Speaker, I think there would be unanimous consent to do that if you were to ask.

[The Speaker]

Without going into that one at the moment, if this motion is adopted by the House, and I would not want to presume anything, I am sure the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would certainly hear from the hon. member for Wetaskiwin and any other hon. member who wishes to make submissions on this point.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion without debate?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Speaker]

The hon. House leader for the New Democratic Party has the floor on another question of privilege.