House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 69% of the vote.
National Parole Board October 23rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the lights are still not on in the second row.
During a parole hearing Mr. Noyes confessed to having at least 60 victims and hundreds of incidents of abuse. He has been diagnosed an incurable pedophile by Correctional Service Canada.
How can the solicitor general sleep at night when he knows he is responsible for letting dangerous pedophiles out on the street, or doesn't he think he is responsible?
National Parole Board October 23rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general admitted that the parole board is responsible to no one. Here is an example.
In 1986 school teacher Robert Noyes was sentenced to an indefinite term and declared a dangerous offender after pleading guilty to 19 charges of molesting children in British Columbia. Mr. Noyes' victims have learned that this dangerous pedophile has been granted unescorted temporary absences from his Quebec prison.
Can the solicitor general explain why he has placed the community at risk?
Privilege October 22nd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I feel that my rights and privileges need to be addressed as soon as possible.
With respect to the Board of Internal Economy, I do not think it is their responsibility. It is your responsibility—
Privilege October 22nd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I would seek your wisdom on that. I can wait. I have not introduced my third point.
Privilege October 22nd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I rise again on three separate questions of privilege arising from the question of privilege that I raised yesterday.
Yesterday when I raised my question of privilege the table officers failed to follow the procedure of the House according to Beauchesne's. Citation 116 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms , sixth edition, states:
Should a question of privilege be based on published material, the article in question must be submitted and read at the Table.
Yesterday I asked: “I have a copy of this memorandum for the Speaker. Does he want the article read now?”
Mr. Speaker, I am quoting from the blues because the official Hansard record does not record my asking you this question or your response. You responded, and again I quote from the blues, “I would like to have the article brought to”, and so on. Neither my question nor your response were included in the Commons Debates for October 21, 1997.
My first question of privilege is to ask that the official record of this House be amended to include my question and your response. I cannot defend my rights and privileges as a member in this House if the record does not accurately reflect what both you and I said in the House.
My second question of privilege relates to the fact that the memorandum which was delivered to you was not read as the procedures of this House say it must be done. I will not go into all the details here. I can explain it to you later. The record shows that you accepted that my question was in fact a question of privilege and only your ruling was held in abeyance.
Privilege October 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, it is not exactly the same point that was raised previously with regard to restricting the ability of lawyers in legislative counsel to work on private members' bills and so on.
My question relates more to how to change the legal and legislative services available to members. I believe that decision involves process. I am concerned about the process. I am not allowed any input as a private member. It is being done by political parties through the Board of Internal Economy and so on. It is not being debated in this House.
I am not being allowed as a member of Parliament to have my direct input.
Privilege October 21st, 1997
This internal memorandum addressed to the procedural clerks in the legislative services directorate indicates a number of important changes that have been made to the level and the quality of the independent legal services available to members. These changes have been made without the full knowledge of the members of Parliament, without MPs having a full understanding of the consequences of these changes and without debate and approval of members of this House as a whole.
As I understand the memorandum, the changes include four things: relegating legislative counsel to drafting only private members' bills; delegating procedural clerks to draft amendments to government bills, a function that used to be performed by legislative counsel; prohibiting legislative counsel from providing legal advice to members in relation to government bills or amendments to government bills either in private or in committee; restricting the drafting of members' amendments of government bills to compatible language as opposed to credible, legally binding amendments drafted by legislative counsel, a service to which we were accustomed in the previous Parliament.
The initiation of these changes interferes with my ability to do my job as a member of Parliament and as such constitutes a breach of my rights and privileges. It strikes to the very heart of what we do as MPs in this House.
I point this out not as a hypothetical case because according to that memorandum a pilot project has been initiated. Over the last couple of years the independent legal services available to me through legislative counsel have been constantly eroded by administrative decree. I have not been given an opportunity to debate this issue or vote on the changes imposed on me by the House of Commons administration over which you, Mr. Speaker, preside.
Further to this, Beauchesne's citation 33 states:
The most fundamental privilege of the House as a whole is to establish rules of procedure for itself and to enforce them. A few rules are laid down in the Constitution Act, but the vast majority are resolutions of the House which may be added to, amended, or repealed at the discretion of the House.
When changes in the ability of independent legal services are made unilaterally by an administrative directive rather than with the full understanding and approval of this House it violates the privileges of this House and every member who sits in this House. It ought to be of concern to each one of us.
I quote citation 114(2) of Beauchesne's:
A complaint of a breach of privilege must conclude with a motion providing the House with an opportunity to take some action.
Therefore I would like to make the following motion.
Privilege October 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege.
I have in my possession a copy of a memorandum dated Wednesday, October 1, 1997 from the acting deputy principal clerk, committees and legislative services, addressed to procedural clerks in committees and legislative services directorate regarding the drafting of amendments to bills.
This is the first opportunity I have had to raise this question of privilege since this memorandum was brought to my attention, and the implications of it became clear.
Citation 116 of Beauchesne's sixth edition states:
Should a question of privilege be based on published material, the article in question must be submitted and read at the Table.
I have a copy of this memorandum for the Speaker. Does he want the article read at the table now?
National Family October 7th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, this week is national family week. The October issue of Reader's Digest said it received an enormous response to a July article and that the vast majority of letter writers agreed wholeheartedly that it was unfair for the government to tax a single income family more than a double income family making the same amount.
Some families with one parent at home pay thousands of dollars more each year than their double income counterparts. Sheila Donovan from New Brunswick commented that staying home to raise children is a real job: “Not only are we not valued by society but our government does not value us either”. Rhonda Pomeroy of Carrot River, Saskatchewan wrote: “I find it appalling that families who have a full time parent at home are at a disadvantage compared to homes where both parents work”.
Strong families are the fundamental building block of Canadian society. We need policies that support parents as they raise their children not which put them at a disadvantage. Canadian families are not asking for special treatment. They are just asking for equal treatment.
Canadian Wheat Board Act October 7th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. If I were to get the unanimous consent of the House I could go through these nine points because they are essential.