Debates of Dec. 10th, 2009

International Trade

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, another Canadian mining company, Blackfire Exploration, is being blamed for reprehensible conduct in Mexico. It is accused of contaminating rivers and destroying livestock and crops. The local authorities also suspect that the company is linked to the assassination of an environmentalist.

When will this government put in place a legal framework to make Canadian companies working abroad accountable, as proposed by the Bloc Québécois for years?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, there are currently more than 8,000 sites in the world where Canadian mining companies operate. We have put in place a process to establish the best regulations in the world for mining companies. We also have an advisor who can provide advice to companies.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, residential school survivors struggle every day with the agonizing trauma of their experience.

The minister knows that the Aboriginal Healing Foundation has been critical in providing support in terms of counselling the survivors and their families. In my riding alone, 18 projects in 17 communities, depend on this funding.

Since healing is a key part of reconciliation, will the government commit to supporting the Aboriginal Healing Foundation and its programs beyond the March 2010 cutoff?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I share the broad support for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. As the member knows, that five-year segment was part of the Indian residential schools settlement, at which time the government is to work with the foundation to do a review of the efficacy of the program to see what improvements could be made and make sure it is getting the job done.

That evaluation is taking place. When that evaluation is done, it will be posted on our website. As of now the evaluation has not been completed, but as soon as it is I will be sure to get it to the member.

Infrastructure

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just 10 months into our two-year economic action plan we have already committed 97% of the funding.

This adds up to 12,000 projects across the country, 8,000 of which have already begun. All across the country, from coast to coast, projects are up and running, jobs are being created and Canadians are seeing the benefit.

I would like to ask the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to advise this House about an important project that was announced this morning in British Columbia.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, once again this government has been delivering for the people of British Columbia.

This morning, with the province, we announced $25 million for the construction of a new ferry terminal in Klemtu, British Columbia. This work will start immediately. It is a great project in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. It will create jobs and open opportunities and improve the lives of the first nations community who live there.

Step by step, we are delivering for British Columbia like no other government has in Canadian history.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

That will conclude question period for today.

I want to remind hon. members that they have received an invitation to a reception in room 253-D, which starts now, where they will be able to meet the Olympic athletes who were introduced earlier.

All members are welcome.

I also wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings in committee of the whole, government orders will be extended by seven minutes.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, I wonder if the government House leader could explain his business plan for the rest of today and tomorrow, and what his expectations might be for the weekend and next week.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with the business of supply.

Tomorrow it is my intention to call Bill C-56, the fairness for the self-employed act, which as we know is at third reading. It is crucial that we pass Bill C-56 before we rise for the Christmas break. To qualify for benefits, Canada's self-employed must have paid premiums for a year beforehand.

Officials in the department need the green light from Parliament to begin preparing for the January 1 implementation. We cannot start notifying people until the bill receives royal assent.

As we know, this bill is supported by three of the four parties in the House. When there is that much support, anything can happen. We will put that support to the test tomorrow when the government will propose to dispose of the final stages of Bill C-56. The support from the Liberals and the NDP in this minority Parliament are key of course, and I hope their support does not evaporate overnight.

This is our one chance to get this job done. The government will have every available body here tomorrow for the vote in order to get the fairness for the self-employed act into law before we break to ensure that the self-employed benefit from these important and popular measures.

While I am on my feet, I would like to take this opportunity to wish a merry Christmas to all my colleagues on both sides of the House following the rise of Parliament, whenever that might happen.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I thank the government House leader on behalf of all hon. members for his good wishes.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North is rising on a point of order.

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, for which I believe, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent. It is on this day, United Nations Human Rights Day, and the day when the Olympic torch entered the chamber, that I would like to move:

That this House calls upon the government to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which was tabled in the House on Thursday, December 3, 2009, as soon as all provinces and territories have officially given their consent and that this House expresses the hope that ratification is achieved by the time of the paralympic games.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the hon. member for Winnipeg North have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

(Motion agreed to)

Information Related to the Study of Bill C-36—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 30, 2009, by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh concerning the inability of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to obtain documents requested from the Head of Correctional Service of Canada in advance of the committee’s clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, as is described in the 14th Report of the committee which was presented to the House on November 26, 2009.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh for having raised this matter. I would also like to thank the members for Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Mississauga South, the government House leader, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, as well as the Minister of Public Safety for their interventions.

In presenting his case, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh gave a detailed account of his attempts to ascertain whether the information which a witness, Mr. Don Head of Correctional Service of Canada, had committed to provide to the committee prior to its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-36 on November 16 had indeed been provided.

Although the information requested of Mr. Head, the sole source of this information, had been prepared in a timely manner and forwarded to the office of the Minister of Public Safety, it was not until November 23, 2009, the day that Bill C-36 was considered at third reading in the House that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh received an undated copy of a letter containing the information in question. The rest of the committee received a dated version of the same letter on November 25, 2009, the day after the House finished the third reading debate on the bill.

In alleging interference by the minister's office, either through incompetence or deliberate intent, the hon. member questioned the role of ministers in supplying information to committees and concluded that his work as a member of Parliament had been impeded.

This argument was supported by the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, the hon. member for Mississauga South, and the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

On December 1, 2009, the Minister of Public Safety rose in the House to apologize unreservedly for the unwarranted delay caused by his office in transmitting the requested information from Mr. Head to the committee.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), it is a well-established and unequivocal power of all committees of the House to order the production of papers and records. Page 978, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, describes this as “a broad, absolute power”, and at page 979, it states:

No statute or practice diminishes the fullness of that power rooted in House privileges unless there is an explicit legal provision to that effect, or unless the House adopts a specific resolution limiting the power. The House has never set a limit on its power to order the production of papers and records.

When a committee's attempt to obtain information is unsuccessful, there are essentially three options available. As outlined on page 980 of O'Brien and Bosc:

The first is to accept the reasons and conditions put forward to justify the refusal...The second is to seek an acceptable compromise with the author or the authority responsible for access to the record...The third option is to reject the reasons given for denying access to the record and uphold the order to produce the entire record.

Accordingly, it is then incumbent upon committee members to avail themselves of these options which are designed specifically to ensure that a committee’s power to secure information is not circumvented.

In the case at hand, it is the view of the Chair that the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh could have proposed a motion to have the committee report to the House the fact that the information requested had not been received, and request that the House compel the production of that information. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, sets out this process when it notes, on pages 980 to 981:

Since committees do not have the disciplinary power to sanction failure to comply with their order to produce records, they can choose to report the situation to the House and request that appropriate measures be taken. Among the options available to the House is to endorse, with or without amendment, the committee’s order to produce records, thus making it a House order.

By failing to follow this prescribed course of action, the hon. member is asking the House to do that which the committee itself was required to do to remedy this situation. The Chair must note that the committee in question did not come back to the House to request for an order of the House to produce specific papers. As with all claims pertaining to a breach of privilege, the standard which must be demonstrated is whether the member has been impeded in the fulfillment of his or her duties and functions by some action or omission.

As outlined in the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, in the submission of the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, and through the admission of the Minister of Public Safety, there is no denying that the information failed to reach the committee within the specified time. However, it is equally clear that the proceedings on the bill were nonetheless able to continue, with members’ full participation.

Seeing that neither the committee nor the House appeared to share the view of the hon. member that they needed the requested information in order to complete their deliberations on the bill, I cannot find that a prima facie case exists in this matter.

In this case I will dismiss the matter, but I thank the House for its attention to this ruling.

Bill C-471--Pay Equity Task Force Recommendation Act

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding Bill C-471, the pay equity task force recommendations act, on the grounds that it requires a royal recommendation.

Normally, royal recommendation interventions are made before the first hour of debate, which occurred on this bill last night. However, after a request from the Liberal Party, who had an event of some importance last night, we delayed that so that we would not unduly delay the members opposite from attending their most important event.

Let me make my intervention now. Bill C-471 proposes to do two things. First, it imposes on the government a duty to implement the recommendations of the 2004 pay equity task force report that sets deadlines by which this must be done. It is noted in clause 2 of the bill that this includes establishing “all statutory oversight agencies”.

The second component of Bill C-471 is to immediately repeal the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, which was passed by Parliament nine months ago in March 2009. I have objections to both of these components and will address them in turn.

Turning to the first component, subclause 2(1) of the bill imposes an imperative duty on the government to “implement the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force set out in its final report”. I have considerable concerns with this provision. While a sponsoring member may attempt to argue that Bill C-471 is similar to the Kyoto protocol implementation act or the Kelowna accord implementation act, which you ruled in order in the last Parliament, there is significant distinction.

In your ruling on September 27, 2006, regarding Bill C-288, you stated:

In a ruling earlier this week on a similar matter, namely, C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, the Chair made a distinction between a bill asking the House to approve certain objectives and a bill asking the House to approve the measures to achieve certain objectives. So too in the case before us, the adoption of a bill calling on the government to implement the Kyoto protocol might place an obligation on the government to take measures necessary to meet the goals set out in the protocol but the Chair cannot speculate on what those measures may be.

In the case of Bill C-471, the measures are set out in detail in the 113 recommendations of the task force report, which is referenced in this bill. The recommendation is that “Parliament enact new stand alone proactive pay equity legislation”. The other 112 recommendations describe the measures that should be included in that legislation.

As a result, this bill raises grave concerns. It places an impossible duty on the Crown of implementing the recommendations, which can only be done by passage of legislation. It seeks to bind this or a subsequent Parliament to pass this new legislation, which I submit would unconstitutionally undermine the fundamental principle of parliamentary sovereignty. It would fundamentally alter the relationship between the Crown and Parliament, and that is the heart of the financial initiative.

In your February 24, 2005, ruling, you aptly quoted:

Suffice it to say that those relations are neatly summed up in the phrase, “the government proposes, and parliament disposes”.

Bill C-471 clearly turns that relationship on its head by both proposing and disposing the measures in purposes for which public moneys should be spent. This is made even more apparent by subclause 2(2) of the bill. This provision sets the deadline by which the government must implement the task force recommendations. In particular, it states:

The Government of Canada shall ensure that all statutory oversight agencies are put in place no later than January 1, 2011.

This provision of the bill also distinguishes it from Bill C-288 and Bill C-292, considered in the last Parliament. Neither of those bills dictated the establishment of new institutions, much less as part of its expressed terms. Based on the task force report, the duty in subclause 2(2) entails the new creation of two new statutory agencies as well as a new system of adjudicators. Assuming Bill C-471 is constitutional and the government is bound by its terms, it has no choice but to establish these new bodies.

It is trite to say that such a measure would require the expenditure of new funds to a new purpose. For example, the Speaker's ruling of September 19, 2006, concluded that the creation of advisory committee requires a royal recommendation, since this clearly would require the expenditure of public funds in a manner not currently authorized. For this reason, Bill C-471 requires a royal recommendation to be in order.

The second component of Bill C-471 also clearly demonstrates that a royal recommendation is required. As mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, Bill C-471 at clause 3 repeals, in its entirety, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. This repeal would take immediate effect if this bill were to be given royal assent.

The nature of this provision is completely different from anything that was in Bill C-288 and Bill C-292 from the last Parliament.

To fully understand why it has an impact on the financial initiative of the Crown, it is first necessary to understand the purpose of the PSECA. The purpose of this act, put simply, was to remove jurisdiction over public sector pay equity complaints from the Canadian Human Rights Act and to create a new statutory scheme for dealing with public sector pay equity issues proactively.

By the same token, the PSECA removed jurisdiction for dealing with public sector pay equity complaints from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Complaints that arise out of the PSECA process are instead dealt with by the Public Service Labour Relations Board. The grounds for those complaints are defined in the PSECA.

This is underscored in the PSECA's consequential amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act, which states:

The Commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with complaints made against an employer within the meaning of the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act [related to the pay equity provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act].

The effect then of clause 3 of Bill C-471 is to reverse all of that. This has two distinct impacts. First, it gives jurisdiction over public sector employers to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal, whose jurisdiction was expressly removed in the PSECA. Second, it subjects public service employers, that is, the Crown as employer, to liability for new statutory grounds of complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Both of these impacts infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown.

In the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, O'Brien and Bosc state a fundamental principle of the royal recommendation at pages 833 to 834:

An appropriation accompanied by a royal recommendation, though it can be reduced, can neither be increased nor redirected without a new recommendation...A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation, or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown's financial initiative.

Mr. Speaker, this principle is reflected in your ruling of February 11, 2008, in which you held that Bill C-474 required a royal recommendation because it proposed to substantially alter the mandate of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. The same principle applies to the bill before you today.

The object of the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act was to fundamentally change the structure, process and jurisdiction for dealing with public sector pay equity issues from what existed before the passage of the act. A royal recommendation accompanied the budget implementation bill, which included the PSECA.

Accordingly, repealing the PSECA and giving the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal jurisdiction over public sector pay equity complaints is essentially a fundamentally new and altered purpose for those organizations. No royal recommendation accompanies that change in Bill C-471.

The royal recommendation that accompanied the PSECA cannot be redirected to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal, and past appropriations for the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal cannot be used for a purpose and jurisdiction that Parliament expressly removed from the PSECA. On that ground alone, Bill C-471 infringes upon the Crown's financial initiative.

In addition, the bill infringes upon the financial initiative on the basis that it exposes the Crown to a distinct liability that would be paid by public moneys. As stated in Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 21st edition, on page 714:

Any proposal whereby the Crown would incur a liability or a contingent liability payable out of money to be voted by Parliament [requires the Queen's recommendation].

In this vein, a June 12, 1973, Speaker's ruling held that a royal recommendation was required for Bill S-5, an act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.

The Speaker noted:

It may be said that the proposal in Bill S-5 does not in itself propose a direct expenditure. It does, however, propose substantial additional liabilities on public moneys.

Similarly, a May 5, 2009, ruling from the Speaker of the other place ruled Bill S-219 out of order because it would change the Crown's liability under the Canada Student Loans Act. As held in that ruling:

The passage of Bill S-219 would expand the range of conditions under which the government would have to make good its guarantee of loans under the Canada Student Loans Act. This would change the existing scheme, since payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund might increase due to the change in possible obligations. As such, the bill should have a Royal Recommendation, and would have to originate in the other place.

This is also consistent with a ruling on February 12, 1988 regarding Bill S-4, an Act to Amend the Canada Shipping Act. In that case, Mr. Speaker, you found that increases to the limits of civil liability of shipowners did not require a royal recommendation because the payment was covered by the authorization in section 30 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.

My correction, Mr. Speaker, if you were not here in 1988. You have been for so long, I think of you as being here forever. That is a compliment, and please take it as such.

That act essentially provides that the Crown could be civilly liable in court for breaches of what is known in the common law tradition as tort or property law. Crown liability for breaches of its law of civil salvage is also expressly provided under section 5. Section 30 provides judgments issued by a court against the Crown are authorized to be paid.

The case of Bill C-471 is clearly distinguishable from Bill S-4 in that it creates a new and distinct statutory liability for the Crown under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Crown Liability and Proceedings Act does not authorize payments for new statutory liabilities of the Crown. In fact, section 33 states:

Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, nothing in this Act affects any rule of evidence or any presumption relating to the extent to which the Crown is bound by an Act of Parliament.

Bill C-471 would create a new and distinct statutory charge of the Crown's liability. The more adversarial quasi-judicial setting of the human rights regime is fundamentally different from the proactive and integrated approach of the PSECA.

Under the PSECA, pay equity obligations are integrated in the bargaining process subject to complaint on certain grounds of the Public Service Labour Relations Board. In contrast, under the Canadian Human Rights Act, liability is initiated by individual complaints adjudicated before an administrative tribunal and potentially results in awards for damages. The authority for awarding those damages is the Canadian Human Rights Act.

As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, through the previous complaints based process under the Canadian Human Rights Act, the government has paid out of public moneys multi-billion dollar judgments. The Crown's obligations are significantly different under the PSECA and a royal recommendation is required to change that.

Before concluding, and I know the wish is for me to conclude quickly, I would like to address a point that may arise during the study of this bill. As we know, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act has been passed by Parliament, but it has not been not been proclaimed into force. Like many other statutes, Parliament delegates to the Governor-in-Council the authority to determine the day on which the act comes into force.

This transitional period, as one of the terms under which Parliament has passed the law, allows the executive time to prepare for the effective implementation of provisions. For purposes of assessing the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-471, it does not matter whether or not the legislation has been proclaimed into force, it suffices that the law has been passed by both Houses of Parliament and that it has received royal assent.

What is and should be most critical and salient is Parliament's decision to make law. In the 21st edition of Erskine May, in formulating the test for whether a charge is new and distinct, it is stated at page 712:

The question may arise whether a proposal for expenditure or for increased expenditure is not already covered by some general authorization. The test for determining this question in the case of a substantive proposal, ie. a provision is in a bill, as introduced, is a comparison with existing law.

In this case, the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act was passed by Parliament on March 12, 2009. It forms part of the Statutes of Canada, it reflects the will of Parliament and it will be implemented under the terms passed by Parliament because that is what the law directs.

As Erskine May puts it, it forms part of the existing law, this is the law against which the provisions of Bill C-471 must be compared. To look at it another way, there would be no purpose for clause 3 of Bill C-471 but to change the law. It follows that in this instance it also changes the purposes and conditions for which the House has authorized expenditures. For that reason it requires a royal recommendation.

While Bill C-471 is a short bill, it has significant consequences and there are multiple reasons for which it requires a royal recommendation to be in order. I should also add that the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, the sponsor of Bill C-471, has said that he believes Bill C-471 would result in some additional unspecified costs for the government. In other words, the leader of the official opposition, who is the sponsor of this bill, agrees that his own bill requires a royal recommendation.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly we have just listened to another specious argument by the government side against pay equity. The member is beginning to engage in debate of the bill itself with his last comment. If, of course, we do not have pay equity, even though the law is there, it is because the Conservatives have not taken the measures to implement it. However, we as the official opposition will refer our position on this in due course.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary and the hon. member. I look forward to further submissions on the matter and will take it under advisement accordingly. I do not sense a particular urgency in coming up with a ruling on this, so we might not hear until January some time.

I know the hon. parliamentary secretary would want me to take time to give due consideration to every argument he has advanced and they were lengthy.

Oral Questions

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I take my responsibilities in the House of Commons seriously and I do sincerely think I have a contribution to make to the debate in the House. Therefore, I cannot begin to tell you how disappointed I was when I was told, and I did not hear this, that the Minister of National Defence, in response to my second question to him, suggested that “she adds nothing to the debate”.

For that to come from the Minister of National Defence, a minister of the Crown, is truly disappointing and it begs the question of his attitude toward women. I know there have been other circumstances where the minister has had to apologize for saying things that were not proper of a female member in the House of Commons. It was some time ago that he allegedly made remarks about another woman in the House of Commons. He subsequently apologized, even though the ruling was that the remarks he was alleged to have made could not be heard on the tape.

If you were to listen to the tape, Mr. Speaker, and I am told it was very clear, he did say, in response to my question to him, in his concluding remarks “she adds nothing to the debate”. For me it is a serious issue as I think it is for all women who serve our country, no matter what profession. I have to question that kind of attitude being displayed toward another colleague in the House of Commons, whether it be male or female. In this instance it was the Minister of National Defence in response to a very serious question I put to him on a very serious matter taking place in the House of Commons with respect to the Afghan detainee issue. Is this a pattern of the government or is it just this minister in particular?

However, I would like to have an apology from the minister. He needs to show some respect in the House of Commons toward his colleagues and, in this case, toward a woman colleague who has every right to make a contribution in the House of Commons as he does.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague's intervention requiring an apology and suggesting the Minister of National Defence is sexist in any way is outrageous. We sit here day after day. You know, Mr. Speaker, adjudicating this debate every day, the comments that come from the members opposite when the Minister of National Defence gets to his feet are absolutely outrageous. Yet the member has the unmitigated gall to stand here with her feelings hurt, suggesting that the Minister of National Defence is in some way, some fashion, some manner accusing her of something that she considers to be sexist.

This is unbelievable to me to finally have an opportunity to speak first hand with the member opposite on a debate, and this is a debate because it is certainly not a legitimate point of order, when she considers the Minister of National Defence to be sexist. It is something she should apologize for, not the Minister of National Defence.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the House when the alleged remark was made. I recognize that the member is new in the House. I think the fact that her feelings are hurt because somebody disagreed with her comments is probably more reflective of the nature of the comment from the minister. Once she has been here a little longer, she will realize that what was said was purely a response to her remarks with no other innuendo attached to it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was also in the chamber when the Minister of National Defence made the comment that the member had nothing to offer to the debate. It was quite clearly a dismissive remark.

Standing Order 18 reads:

No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof. No Member may reflect upon any vote...

I am advised that this section in our Standing Orders has not changed in its wording since Confederation. I would suggest that its interpretation is a matter of whether it is respectful. The comment made by the Minister of National Defence certainly was not respectful of the hon. member of Parliament.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am not going to hear more on this. I will look into the matter and come back to the House in due course. I thought I heard everything in question period that I could hear given the noise. I did not think anything was said that was out of order. I will look into the matter and come back to the House in due course.