Art Hanger

[Points of Order, June 4th, 2003]

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

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

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

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

The response was as follows:

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

Question No. 163 reads:

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

The response was:

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

Standing Order 39(5) reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

[Child Pornography, June 3rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals have put Canada on the map again, this time as a haven for child pornography. ECPAT, the world's largest organization to prevent child sexual exploitation, says that Canada is an international embarrassment. Why?

The Liberals have refused to consider raising the age of consent to 16 and have refused to fund operation snowball, Canada's cross-country effort to arrest child pornographers. They appoint judges who consistently throw out verdicts against child pornographers. They stall a sexual offender registry until a tragedy suddenly motivates them. They write a new bill making it legal to have sex with children, as long as there is no position of trust, and legal to have child porn if there is a public good.

With all this evidence about the unwillingness of the Liberals to protect children from sexual exploitation, Canadians would be in their right to ask what is the government's real agenda? The only thing we know for sure, it is not protecting our children.

[Prime Minister, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, such enthusiasm for this tour. Too bad he did not take that kind of interest in this country.

Back in 1993 a member of the opposition caucus, in which the Prime Minister sat, said this:

How can...Canadians have any hope with this government's sense of priorities when the federal government is spending $1 million on a final farewell tour by [the then] Prime Minister [Brian Mulroney]?

If it was wrong for the then prime minister Brian Mulroney at that time, why is it acceptable now?

[Prime Minister, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is about to embark on a series of very expensive job interviews thinly disguised as a farewell tour. There is no benefit for Canada since he can no longer speak for Canada. He has been neutered. He is a lame duck. His retirement is not only imminent, it is overdue.

Will the Prime Minister do what any other job seeker does, namely pay for his own expenses out of his own pocket?

[Question No. 163, March 26th, 2003]

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

[Question No. 162, March 26th, 2003]

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

[Peggy Engen, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate my constituent, Peggy Engen, who this past Sunday was presented with the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award. This award recognizes the contributions of Canadians such as Peggy who give so much of their time to their fellow citizens through volunteer work.

Peggy has devoted over 50 years of service to the community of Tuxedo Park. She and her late husband coached several hockey, baseball and lacrosse teams. Peggy remains an active participant in the Tuxedo Park Community Association where she has volunteered in many capacities. Today she is serving her third term as president of the association.

Peggy has also helped to establish a youth shelter and has lent her support to several group homes for people with disabilities. Her sense of caring and community involvement have helped make Tuxedo Park an outstanding community in which to live.

Congratulations to Peggy for giving so much of her time and energy to her community. Her courageous leadership and unselfish service is an inspiration to all of us.

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will give a scenario and I ask that the member comment on it. It is a situation that arose in Calgary not too long ago.

An elderly gentleman in his sixties came home and surprised a couple of burglars in his house. They assaulted him. He was transported to the hospital. The incident was reported to the police. The police officers attended. They searched his house and found a gun with a bolt in it, a .22 Cooey rifle, sitting in a closet. The police officers looked at that situation, rushed to the hospital, arrested the man, brought him to the police station, fingerprinted him, took his picture and charged him.

The issue was a 30 year old Cooey rifle. Could the member comment on how this gun legislation will encourage more of that?

[National Defence, February 17th, 2003]

The cheque is in the mail, Mr. Speaker. That is the response from the government thus far.

Colonels and generals who suffer dismemberment definitely receive a lump sum payment while soldiers on the front line receive little or nothing.

Why would the minister want to allow this double standard to exist in the first place and when will he fix it?

[National Defence, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, changes to the Canadian Forces insurance plan will provide unreduced lump sum payments to soldiers who suffer accidental dismemberment while in the line of duty.

Retired Major Bruce Henwood lost both of his legs in 1995 while serving in Croatia and did not receive one nickel in compensation. The minister is very much aware of this case and stated that he is working on the retroactivity section of the proposal.

My question to the minister is, when will soldiers like Major Henwood receive lump sum payments for their injuries?