House of Commons Hansard #144 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was apology.
Stockwell Day ConservativeMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, I indicated that we want programs that work, programs that are proven. That is why we have a review process.
A few months ago, I was pleased to announce a number of programs in Quebec. These programs have a proven track record when it comes to lowering the crime rate, especially among youth. We announced such programs in Quebec, and we will continue to do so.
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, the industry committee was warned that deregulation would result in higher phone rates for rural and small-town Canadians. The minister disagreed. He said that “deregulation will...benefit...consumers” and “will result in better prices”.
The minister was wrong. Yesterday the CRTC confirmed that deregulation will drive rural phone rates higher. Why should rural and small-town Canadians pay more for their phone services? Why should they pay for the minister's mistake?
Maxime Bernier ConservativeMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I will be very clear at this time in the House. It is very simple. What we did was put customers first. That is our priority. We have deregulation in urban centres. For the rural centres, it still will be under the regulations of the CRTC. It is very important to be precise.
As the hon. member must know, because of the decision made by the CRTC and because it can be appealed before me, I will not comment for 90 days.
Merv Tweed Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, after listening to Canadians, our government brought forward numerous bills aimed at cracking down on crime.
Yesterday in the House we were debating Bill C-10, the bill to establish mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes.
Will the Minister of Justice update the House on the status of Bill C-10.
Rob Nicholson ConservativeMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, as part of the government's crime fighting initiative, we brought forward Bill C-10 for debate yesterday, a bill that would give a five year mandatory minimum sentence for people who commit a serious crime with a gun.
At the first opportunity, the Liberals interrupted with a three hour motion that made it impossible to discuss that important piece of legislation.
When will the Liberal Party figure out that it will take more than a press release or a press conference to get tough on crime in this country? I want to know that and I think the people of Canada deserve the answer to that.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, day after day, ordinary Canadians are waking up to find that their lives are getting more expensive all the time.
Most recently, across the country gas prices have skyrocketed. In British Columbia, prices are reaching the absurd level of $1.25 per litre. This is the result of gouging by American refineries.
It is important to note that the minister is supporting big oil and speculators in New York and Chicago at the expense of ordinary Canadians.
When will the minister actually regulate energy prices and stand up for fairness so that ordinary Canadians have regulations that protect them, as opposed to the big oil industry?
Gary Lunn ConservativeMinister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, first, it is important to note that the price of gas is based on market conditions.
However, our government has taken some action. We committed $2 billion in the recent budget for a biofuels initiative and we brought in incentives for Canadians to purchase fuel efficient cars.
It is very important to note what two economists, Don Drummond and Mark Jaccard, have said. I am not sure whether it is the sixth, the seventh or the eighth Liberal plan, we have lost track, but in one of the recent Liberal plans it said that the price of gasoline would rise by over 60%.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, what is not a market condition is the government's promises. It promised to stop the GST on gasoline after 85¢, another broken promise while standing down for Canadians.
It is not just the gas issue that is affecting Canadians. Now the CRTC is piling on. It has announced that it will increase the price of pay phones by 100% when using cash and by 300% when using cards.
Why is it that every time the minister says that he is pro-consumer, Canadians must open up their wallets? Why does he not actually do something to lower prices for consumers for a change?
Maxime Bernier ConservativeMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, we are listening to Canadian consumers and we are listening to Canadians. Seven out of ten Canadians support the telecommunications reform we proposed. We are acting in Canadians' best interests.
With respect to the CRTC's decision, it may be appealed before the government. We will comment in due time.
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, the minister has cut the community access program, which connected rural and small-town Canada to the world, and now the government's deregulation scheme is raising phone rates in Canada.
Will the minister restore CAP funding? Will he take action to ensure that rural and small-town Canadians do not pay more for their phone services? Will he implement a national broadband strategy or fully explain to the House what exactly he has against Canadians living in rural and small-town Canada?
Maxime Bernier ConservativeMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I want to state in the House that we did not cut the CAP funding. We are funding it for another year. It is a very good program and it is very important for rural Canadians. We listen to rural Canadians.
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Mr. Speaker, it has been 15 months since Canadians decided to choose a Conservative government to provide the leadership they desired and deserved.
One very crucial area where the government has demonstrated the importance of innovation and leadership is health research.
Could the Minister of Health inform the House what our government is doing to support health related research in Canada?
Tony Clement ConservativeMinister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario
Mr. Speaker, health research is absolutely fundamental to this country.
The following are some examples of additional funding in the budget: the Canadian Institutes of Health Research received an extra $37 million; Genome Canada received an extra $100 million; and the Canadian Institute for Health Information received an extra $22 million.
Heather Munroe-Blum, a very esteemed researcher, principal and vice-chancellor at McGill University, said, “Your government has consistently expressed its conviction that Canada's future health and prosperity will require significant and sustained investment. You have acted on that conviction”.
She said that the government was getting it done for Canadians.
Louise Thibault Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, for a few months now, the regional Service Canada office for Bas-Saint-Laurent in Rimouski, has been under interim management out of Gaspé.
There is no indication that the minister responsible for Service Canada plans on changing this situation. Does the minister intend to leave the Rimouski regional office without management, or does he have other plans, such as the elimination of jobs, the reduction of services or who knows what?
Monte Solberg ConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Social Development
Mr. Speaker, the Service Canada network is actually expanding across Canada.
However, with respect to her particular question, I am happy to receive any information that she has and I will get back to her.
Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesPrivilegeOral Questions
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit a question of privilege concerning the intimidation by the director general of Civil Aviation, Merlin Preuss, a senior government official, towards witnesses that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities would like to hear in the context of its study of Bill C-6.
Greg Holbrook, the chair of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association, appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on February 21, 2007. A few days before Mr. Holbrook's testimony, Merlin Preuss called Mr. Holbrook's office and had a telephone conversation with Kathy Marquis, Mr. Holbrook's assistant, regarding the testimony that he was about to give before the committee. In an affidavit, a sworn statement, Ms. Marquis said that, during the telephone conversation, Mr. Preuss said to her:
Tell him that if he plans to have any Transport Canada employees with him, I will have an issue with it.
Additionally, regarding the telephone conversation, she also said:
My clear impression from the words and tone of Mr. Preuss' communication was that he wished to discourage Transport Canada Inspectors from testifying before the Standing Committee.
This is extremely disturbing, because under the circumstances, I believe that it constitutes a breach of parliamentary privilege. I would like to bring to your attention citation 865 in the 6th edition of Beauchesne, which reads as follows:
To tamper with a witness in regard to the evidence to be given before the House or any committee or to endeavour, directly or indirectly to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence is a breach of privilege. Corruption or intimidation is not an essential ingredient in this offence. It is equally a breach to attempt, by persuasion or solicitations of any kind, to induce a witness not to attend, or to withhold evidence or to give false evidence.
The situation is especially disturbing since this is not the first time Merlin Preuss, a senior official, has behaved in this way. As proof, I have attached two documents: an e-mail dated March 7, 2007 addressed to “DL OTT civil aviation group” regarding a study by the Auditor General—in this case, the Auditor General was asking officials for information—and a letter dated July 10, 2006 to Pamela Sachs of the Canadian Union of Public Employees concerning an appearance by officials before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
Chapter 3 of Marleau and Montpetit, which pertains to privileges and immunities, states on page 88:
—the intimidation of a committee witness was also found to be prima facie contempt by Speaker Fraser on December 4, 1992. The matter was referred by the House to the Standing Committee on House Management for consideration...In its report, the Committee reaffirmed the principles of parliamentary privilege and the extension of privilege to witnesses...“The protection of witnesses is a fundamental aspect of the privilege that extends to parliamentary proceedings and those persons who participate in them. It is well established in the Parliament of Canada, as in the British Parliament, that witnesses before committees share the same privileges of freedom of speech as do Members—”.
A few lines further on, the committee's report states:
“The protection of witnesses extends to threats made against them or intimidation with respect to their presentations before any parliamentary committee”.
This is essentially what Mr. Preuss has tried to do to various potential witnesses before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and people whom the Auditor General has asked for information.
On page 863 of Marleau and Montpetit, chapter 20, “Committees”, it says:
Tampering with a witness or in any way attempting to deter a witness from giving evidence at a committee meeting may constitute a breach of privilege. Similarly, any interference with or threats against witnesses who have already testified may be treated as a breach of privilege by the House.
Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to this breach of my parliamentary privilege. I would also draw your attention to the fact that I am raising this matter at the earliest opportunity. I am aware that the facts I am alleging go back two months. Please allow me to explain myself.
Following the aforementioned events, the committee discussed the matter and passed a motion to call Merlin Preuss before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Mr. Preuss appeared before the committee twice. The first time was March 28, 2007, and the second was April 23. The record of the evidence heard at the April 23 meeting was provided to the members of the committee this morning. I felt it was necessary to have a record of all of the evidence given by Merlin Preuss, a senior official, before raising my question of privilege. As such, I did so without delay as soon as the evidence became available.
If you should find a prima facie case of a breach of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesPrivilegeOral Questions
York—Simcoe Ontario
Conservative
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the question of privilege raised by my friend. I am unfamiliar with the particular circumstances in question, which were new to me, or the individuals in question. We would certainly appreciate an opportunity to investigate the matter a bit further before we comment and would like to reserve that opportunity to do so.
Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesPrivilegeOral Questions
The Speaker Peter Milliken
That is fine. I am quite prepared to defer consideration of the matter to a later date.
I thank the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for raising the issue. We can continue our discussion of this matter at a later date.
Bill C-415—Canada Labour CodePoints of orderOral Questions
York—Simcoe Ontario
Conservative
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, this is a point of order regarding Bill C-415, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).
I would first like to point out that bills to ban the use of replacement workers have been introduced six previous times since 2004, and defeated twice. In this Parliament alone, it is the third attempt at similar legislation, and the House has already voted against this idea.
Given that this bill is virtually identical to Bill C-257, with only one new clause and one new subsection, I would ask that you, Mr. Speaker, clarify two points.
First, I would ask for you to clarify whether it is in order for Bill C-415 to have been introduced. Standing Order 86(4) provides that the Speaker is responsible for determining whether two or more items that are similar can be placed on notice.
Mr. Speaker Fraser stated, on November 2, 1989, that a bill would not be placed on notice if it had the same purpose as another private member's bill before the House and if it met this purpose by the same means as that other bill.
Bill C-257 and Bill C-415 clearly have the same purpose, namely to ban the use of replacement workers. They also seek to meet this purpose by virtually the same means. They both amend the Canada Labour Code and are identical apart from one clause and one subsection. They contain the identical paragraph in their summaries, stating that their purpose:
—is to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out.
Since Standing Order 86(4) does not specify that bills must be identical but they must “so similar as to be substantially the same”, I submit that Bill C-415 is so similar as to be substantially the same as Bill C-257, and I would ask that you, Mr. Speaker, clarify this issue for the House.
The second issue on which I request your ruling is whether this bill can be called for debate and vote. Marleau and Montpetit indicate at page 495:
A decision once made cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgement of the House. Thus, for example, if a bill or motion is rejected, it cannot be revived in the same session.
Allowing Bill C-415 to proceed to a vote would be inconsistent with this rule and with the rule of anticipation. As Marleau and Montpetit note, at page 476:
—two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If the first bill is withdrawn, the second may be proceeded with. If a decision is taken on the first bill, the other may not be proceeded with.
On November 7, 2006, respecting Bill C-257 and Bill C-295, you ruled that the second bill could not proceed because:
—a careful examination of both bills reveals that they have exactly the same objective, that is, to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out.
There we were dealing with a question of similar legislation. Bill C-295, Bill C-257 and Bill C-415 are aimed at the same objective on replacement workers.
I would argue to you, Mr. Speaker, and suggest to you with respect, that your ruling on November 7, 2006, applies equally in this case to Bill C-415. You indicated that you were at the time ruling on the issue bearing in mind Mr. Speaker Fraser's ruling of November 2, 1989.
I reiterate that Bill C-415 has exactly the same objective as Bill C-257, which the House rejected at report stage on March 21. As a result, allowing Bill C-415 to proceed would mean that the House would reconsider its decision with respect to Bill C-257.
The purpose of Bill C-415 is exactly the same as that of Bill C-257, namely to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees during a strike or lockout.
Bill C-415 seeks to do so by the same means as Bill C-257, namely by amending subsection 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code.
Members opposite may suggest that the bills are not similar and that Bill C-415 differs because it refers to the preservation of essential services during a strike. However, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that is not the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to ban replacement workers.
The apparent difference from Bill C-257 is not in fact a material one. Bill C-415 would not create a new category of essential services. Nor would it designate a group of workers to perform this work. Rather, it simply recasts as “essential services” existing provisions in the Canada Labour Code, which obliges services to be maintained during a strike or lockout in order to “prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public”.
Since Bill C-257 would not have affected these existing protections in the code, simply adding a provision about essential services to Bill C-415 does make it substantively any different than Bill C-257.
Therefore, the purpose of both these bills is simply to ban the use of replacement workers. As I have already indicated, Bill C-415 does not alter the means to use to achieve this purpose which is primarily by amending section 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code.
By allowing Bill C-415 to proceed, Mr. Speaker, you will be asking the House to revisit its decision on Bill C-257, which is not permitted. I submit that it should not be called for debate or for a vote and would ask that you rule on that question.
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have two very short points that may be helpful or not helpful, depending on the outcome.
First, Bill C-257 is not now on the order paper. Bill C-415 is. Therefore, there is not, on the face of the order paper, a conflict between these bills.
Second, you will probably be aware that the private members' business bundle of which Bill C-415 forms a part is still yet to go through a private members' business subcommittee, a procedure that would look at all private members' business for votability. It might be that your decision could await the outcome of that procedure, which I believe is imminent. I do not believe that any of these new bills in the private members' business envelope will be coming before the House in the imminent future. They will come at a later date.
Bill C-415—Canada Labour CodePoints of orderOral Questions
The Speaker Peter Milliken
I thank the government House leader and the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River for their submissions with respect to this bill. I will look into the matter and get back to the House in due course with a decision on it.
Ministers' Responses Regarding AfghanistanPrivilegeOral Questions
Carleton—Mississippi Mills Ontario
Conservative
Gordon O'Connor ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I am rising in response to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Mississauga South on April 26. The member suggested that I should have provided the information that was given to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on April 25 earlier that day in reply to oral questions or perhaps earlier in the week in reply to oral questions.
The member alleges:
—there appears to be some indication that the misinformation to the House may have been deliberate and in fact has breached my privileges and those of other members of Parliament.
I submit that there was no misinformation to the House and no privileges were breached.
On April 25, I was informed that military representatives of the Canadian Joint Task Force Afghanistan had made contact with the regional director of the National Directorate of Security in Kandahar province, General Quyaum. In that meeting the NDS provincial director informed our representatives that he agreed to provide Canadian officials full access to detainees transferred by the Canadian Forces without any caveats.
This arrangement was accepted by our representatives who subsequently inspected the detention facilities.
It has always been my intention to be open and transparent with Parliament and the public. During the question period of April 25, I responded to two questions: one requesting the cessation of the transfer of detainees and the other regarding the Strategic Advisory Team and its knowledge of the Afghan justice system. I answered both of these questions to the point and based on facts.
On leaving the chamber, I proceeded to my appearance the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. During my appearance I had the opportunity, in response to a question, to inform the committee that a new access arrangement was in the process of being struck.
I have not provided any misinformation to the House with respect to this matter and there is no evidence that any member's privileges have been breached. In fact, in the spirit of openness and transparency I informed Parliament of this news while it was in the development stages.
Ministers' Responses Regarding AfghanistanPrivilegeOral Questions
York—Simcoe Ontario
Conservative
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on some of the procedural aspects of the question of privilege that were raised by the member for Mississauga South on April 26, 2007.
I believe the Minister of National Defence has answered in terms of the factual issues and set those clearly on the record. In terms of the question of timeliness, I think that matter is now entirely clear.
There are still some other procedural issues that I would like to pursue further. I submit that this is not a valid question of privilege. At most the member may have a grievance. However, he has not demonstrated that the information provided by the minister has in any way impeded or obstructed any member of the House in the performance of their duties.
In order for there to be a valid question of privilege, there must be evidence that the minister intended to mislead the House.
Page 234 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada states that before the House will be permitted by the Speaker to embark on a debate on a question of privilege, there must be:
—an admission by someone in authority, such as a Minister of the Crown...either that a Member of the House of Commons was intentionally misled or an admission of facts that leads naturally to the conclusion that a Member was intentionally misled...
I submit that the member has not provided any evidence to this effect. There is no evidence that any minister has misled or misinformed the House at all, whether deliberately or not.
In fact, what we hear from the statement by the Minister of National Defence is that his facts are entirely accurately.
Citation 31 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's provides a lengthy list of issues that are not questions of privilege. Some of these include:
A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
Further:
The failure of a Minister to answer a question may not be raised as a question of privilege.
And Beauchesne's cites a Speaker's ruling from October 30, 1969, which states:
The question has often been raised whether parliamentary privilege imposes on ministers an obligation to deliver ministerial statements and to make announcements and communications to the public through the House of Commons or to make these announcements or statements in the House rather than outside the chamber. The question has been asked whether Hon. Members are entitled, as part of their parliamentary privilege, to receive such information ahead of the general public. I can find no precedent to justify this suggestion.
Those are three elements that are relevant.
I would also note that Marleau and Montpetit state, at page 433:
The Speaker, however, is not responsible for the quality or content of replies to questions. In most instances, when a point of order or a question of privilege has been raised in regard to a response to an oral question, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is a disagreement among Members over the facts surrounding the issue.
I would go further and add that the Speaker is not responsible for the quality of the questions either. In this case it is the question and the point of order from which the problems arise.
To conclude, I submit that the member has provided no evidence that the Minister of National Defence or any other minister has infringed the privileges of the House.
Mr. Speaker, as you can judge from question period last week, members may be in a debate over facts. None of this would constitute a basis for a prima facie question of privilege.
Ministers' Responses Regarding AfghanistanPrivilegeOral Questions
The Speaker Peter Milliken
The Chair has heard the arguments advanced by the Minister of National Defence and reviewed the arguments advanced by the member for Mississauga South initially in this matter and I have heard now from the government House leader.
I am satisfied that in my view there has not been a case of a breach of privilege as laid out in the arguments advanced to me. Accordingly I am not going to proceed further with this and there will be no motion permitted at this time.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.