Debates of Oct. 5th, 2006

Labour

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that in Canada only two provinces out of 10 have introduced anti-scab legislation: Quebec, in 1977, and British Colombia, in 1993.

Given that this is a shared responsibility, why do the Bloc Québécois opposition members want to force the other provinces to adopt legislation they do not want?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, who is from Quebec, should know that since there are no anti-scab provisions in the Canada Labour Code, conflicts governed by that code last almost twice as long as those governed by the Quebec labour code.

Will the Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec listen to reason, abandon his ideological approach and remember that he is from Quebec and that he already voted for a similar bill as a member? Will he look after the workers rather than his limousine?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, we have statistics that contradict the member's claims. In provinces where there is anti-scab legislation, conflicts even last longer.

I want to point out that we had a vote in this House on the law. It was reviewed in 1999 and, by consensus, the members decided that the best balance could be achieved by establishing a law whereby the use of replacement workers would not serve to undermine the representation of unions, which is reflected in the law.

Ports and Harbours

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, again I rise about the Saint John harbour cleanup. Yesterday I was pleased to join Premier Shawn Graham when he signed an agreement for this project in Saint John for $26.6 million.

The Liberal premier was able to do in one day what the Prime Minister has been unwilling to do in nine months. If the Liberal Premier of New Brunswick can commit to Saint John harbour cleanup on his first day as premier, how long will it take the Prime Minister to live up to his commitment and to fund this crucial project for our community?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy that my hon. colleague has stood up for this issue. It is the first time he has done that.

This government made a joint $8.5 million commitment as the first step to clean up the Saint John harbour, and that was done under a Conservative provincial government.

Payday Loan Industry

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for years many provinces called upon the federal government to suspend the application of the Criminal Code section on interest rates for payday loans. This would allow them to regulate the industry and better protect consumers throughout Canada.

Could the justice minister please let us know when he plans to address this very important issue?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government, in contrast to the previous Liberal government, is working cooperatively with our provincial partners. That is why tomorrow we will introduce a bill on payday loans, which will address the concerns from provinces that wish to regulate the industry to better protect consumers.

I look forward to support from all parties in the House on this important bill, so we can work together with the provinces.

Canadian Wheat Board

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has clearly stated its intention to cut out the Wheat Board's legs from under it. It has appointed a minister who opposes the mandate of the Wheat Board and has done everything in his power to systematically destroy this Canadian institution, with sham round tables, closed door meetings and whisper campaigns.

I have a simple question for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board. Will he allow, as the law states, the 85,000 farmers who use the Wheat Board a vote on its future, yes or no?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, what we have done is taken steps to follow through on our campaign promise. Campaign promises are something the Liberals are not used to. We said we were moving to marketing choice. We said we would appoint a task force to give us some of the details on the marketing choice.

However, I always find it a little passing strange when my critic from the NDP or my critic from the Liberals, who do not have to live under the Wheat Board, tell the rest of Canada how they have to market their products.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that reminds us of the shameful softwood lumber agreement. I asked a very simple question. Does he intend to allow the 85,000 farmers who use the Wheat Board a democratic vote?

There should be no more talk about choice. The only choice is whether the government will follow the law or break the law, extend the rights of farmers or deny them, support democracy or suffocate it. Which is it? Will farmers get a say, yes or no?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, so far we have appointed a task force. That task force is to report to me in about three or four weeks. It is going to give some of the details about what a corporate structure of a voluntary wheat board might look like.

We are determined to have a strong, voluntary wheat board and a marketing choice. That is all we have done. There have been no other proposals on the table. There has been discussion. Right now there is nothing to even have a plebiscite about.

Canadian Heritage

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed Canadian museum for human rights will be a national landmark for the city of Winnipeg, a global meeting place for learning, reflection, dialogue and debate on the issue of human rights.

The government has had the file for months now, yet the supporters of the museum have heard nothing on whether they will receive sustainable funding.

Will the Prime Minister guarantee that the Canadian museum for human rights will receive its requested operating funds or, once again, is human rights not a priority for the government?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, this government understands the difference between a building and human rights.

We have been working very diligently with the Asper family. We understand that the plans are in place. We are reviewing those plans. We have discussed viable options for consideration by the Asper family. In fact, I will be meeting with representatives of that group later this week.

Foreign Affairs

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this past Tuesday North Korea announced its intention to conduct a nuclear test in the future. This announcement has provoked a strong reaction by the international community as it is a threat to regional peace and stability.

What is Canada doing to respond to this threat?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, North Korea, as we know, has made recent statements and engaged in an attempt to conduct a nuclear test in the future. It is seen as very provocative. It undermines regional peace and stability. It is unacceptable to Canada, as it is to the entire international community.

Canada has repeatedly urged North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program and refrain from proliferation, or risk further international isolation and condemnation.

The government remains in close contact with our allies on this issue. We will raise our objections with North Korea every opportunity we get and we will, again, strongly urge North Korea to return to the six party talks.

Literacy

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Treasury Board president was deafening by his silence.

We have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt, both on the written record and on tape, that this minister has dismissed funding to address adult literacy as wasteful and not something the Government of Canada should help with after the fact.

The Treasury Board president denied those remarks, but the hard evidence clearly proves otherwise.

Will he simply confess that he misspoke himself and reinstate $18 million for those Canadians who need that help with their literacy skills?

[John Baird, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first point of the comment made by the member for Wascana, I think it is a gross distortion of my comment. What the member opposite alleges that I said that appears in today's Globe and Mail and appeared in Hansard on Friday, in fact I never did say and Hansard will back that up.

If he has a tape, I would certainly welcome him tabling it in this House. If the member has a copy of the tape, he should table it. I have the quotes from the Globe and Mail that he just described. He should table that and we look forward to seeing it.

Access to information

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in committee, to our astonishment, witnesses from the Treasury Board Secretariat stated that a minister who wants to can obtain the identity of a person who submits an access to information request. Last week's budget cuts showed us that this government is ruthless toward those who oppose its authority. In addition to a list of reporters, now the government wants to have a list of everyone who makes an access to information request.

We are wondering how far this will go and when it will stop.

[John Baird, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. When recent allegations surfaced in the media, I immediately contacted the Privacy Commissioner. I also sent, and my deputy sent, to the public service the following note:

--it is important that all employees, including Ministers and their exempt staff, are reminded of the rules and regulations surrounding the Access to Information and Privacy Acts.

The President of the Treasury has asked...that the name of an individual who has made a request under the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act is considered personal information and can only be disclosed in conformity with the Privacy Act.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Ferguson Jenkins, Ambassador of the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame and a pioneering legend of Canadian sport.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the break for Thanksgiving, I wonder if the House leader for the government could indicate the agenda he will be pursuing for the balance of today and tomorrow, as well as the first week after we are back from the Thanksgiving break.

I also wonder, because obviously the high interest in the House and the very high degree of interest in the country, if the House leader could give us some indication of when the government will bring forward its various proposals with respect to same sex marriage.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue to debate an opposition motion.

Tomorrow, we will complete debate on the amendment to Bill C-24, the softwood lumber agreement. Under a special order adopted Tuesday, there is an opportunity to sit into the weekend if needed to give members, particularly members of the New Democratic Party, the debating time they requested on such an important bill.

Next week, the House will be adjourned to allow members to return to their ridings.

When the House resumes on October 16, we will debate Bill C-23, the Criminal Code; Bill S-2, hazardous materials; and Bill C-6, aeronautics.

On Tuesday I will call Bill C-24 again. Thursday will be an allotted day.

We will introduce the motion that the hon. member requested in due course.

At the same time, I would like to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving weekend.

Comments Made by Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition concerning comments made by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister during question period on Thursday, September 28, 2006.

I would like to thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for raising this matter as well as the hon. parliamentary secretary for his intervention.

During question period on September 28, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine posed a question concerning the government's response to the O'Connor report on the imprisonment and torture of Mr. Arar.

In the preamble to the question, the hon. member noted that the previous Liberal government had initiated the O'Connor inquiry. She went on to ask the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister why the government did not extend an apology to Mr. Arar.

In his response to the question, the hon. parliamentary secretary claimed:

Mr. Speaker, how ironic that a representative of the Liberal Party should say they took the first step with respect to Mr. Arar. They did by taking actions which ended up putting him in a Syrian jail.

Following question period, the hon. Leader of the Opposition rose on a question of privilege to take issue with these comments. He expressed concern that the remarks suggested that the Liberal government had been involved in the events surrounding the imprisonment of Mr. Arar and he requested that the hon. member withdraw the remarks.

The hon. parliamentary secretary defended his response to the question by quoting from Mr. Justice O'Connor's report. In conclusion, he asserted that this matter was not a question of privilege but rather a point of debate.

I undertook to look at both members' statements and return to the House with a ruling on the matter.

As I have stated before in previous rulings, it is rare for the Chair to find a prima facie case of privilege when there appears to be a dispute as to facts. In order for there to be a prima facie case of privilege, I must find that the hon. parliamentary secretary's comments impeded the hon. Leader of the Opposition in the performance of his parliamentary duties.

I have examined the arguments offered by both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, as well as questions put by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and answers provided by the hon. parliamentary secretary in question period.

Given the differing views of both hon. members, it is difficult for the Chair to regard the matter as anything other than debate. I am, therefore, unable to find a basis for the charge of prima facie breach of privilege.

Despite this conclusion, the raising of this matter in circumstances of high emotion on both sides affords the Chair an opportunity to address broader issues of decorum.

As I noted in a ruling given on October 1, 2003 and which can be found on pages 8040 and 8041 of the House of Commons Debates:

As members of Parliament, we all deal regularly with differing interpretations of various events or situations and differing views of documents laid before the House. Members can--and often do--disagree about the actual facts of the same situation. Disagreements of this kind form the basis of our debates. Our rules are designed to permit—indeed to encourage—members to present differing views on a given issue. This tolerance of different points of view is an essential feature of the freedom of speech and the decision-making process that lie at the heart of our parliamentary system.

But the exercise of that freedom of speech ought to be based on the underlying principle of respect to the House and to other members. Conduct should not cause a disruption to proceedings.

It would be an understatement to say that we have been plagued in recent weeks by what any observer would have to admit is an unusually noisy chamber, particularly during question period. Some of the disorder is being triggered by questionable language or provocative statements.

But much of it also appears to be generated by interruptions, interjections or other demonstrations, including applause and standing ovations, actions that seem to be designed to drown out or plainly disrupt those asking questions or those answering them. But when the noise reaches levels where no one, not even the Speaker, can hear what is being said, the House as a whole loses some credibility.

So I appeal to all hon. members for cooperation. I will continue to try to give members wide latitude in expressing their points of view, but I ask for all members' assistance in ensuring that we can all hear the member who has been recognized and who has the floor.

I was tempted to give this ruling at 2:15, but I thank hon. members for being patient and listening to it now.

Decorum

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Marleau and Montpetit, chapter 13, defines what order and decorum means. I am quoting from page 503, which states:

One of the basic principles of parliamentary procedure is that proceedings in the House of Commons are conducted in terms of a free and civil discourse. In order that debate on matters of public policy be held in a civil manner, the House has adopted rules of order and decorum for the conduct of Members towards each other and towards the institution as a whole. Members are to show respect for one another and for different viewpoints; offensive or rude behaviour or language is not tolerated. Emotions are to be expressed in words rather than acted out; opinions are to be expressed with civility and freely, without fear of punishment or reprisal.

While the leader of the official opposition was putting his first question, we on this side clearly saw the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Immigration display inappropriate behaviour, literally putting their fingers in their mouths and pretending to be throwing up. I am weighing my words carefully.

Mr. Speaker, that kind of gesture cannot be tolerated in this place and we think that it is up to you to ensure that decorum is maintained in the House.

In closing, I would ask that the two ministers involved offer explanations and apologies, if they are indeed worthy of their ministerial duties. One might also wonder if the people of Medicine Hat and Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon are proud of such totally unacceptable behaviour on the part of their respective representatives.

I ask that both ministers apologize for making these inappropriate gestures.