Garry Breitkreuz

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the government motion to reinstate bills from the previous session.

The Prime Minister claims to have formed a new government. Yet with this motion he is claiming the privileges of being the former government of Mr. Chrétien. Procedurally speaking, the Prime Minister wants to be seen, as most Canadians see his government, as the old Chrétien government. While we in opposition would agree with that definition, my argument today will put to the test the Prime Minister's self-proclaimed public definition of being a new government.

I accept that it is a well established practice for a government to reintroduce a reinstatement motion in a new session. However, it is not established that a so-called new government in a new session can reinstate bills from the previous government. I have examined all the precedents and I could not find one example of a new government reinstating bills from a previous session.

From Journals of October 21, 1970, at page 46, it is recorded that the House adopted a reinstatement motion. The Prime Minister was Pierre Trudeau and the motion reinstated bills of Mr. Trudeau's government from the previous session.

For May 9, 1972, at page 281 of Journals we have another motion adopted with, once again, Pierre Trudeau being the Prime Minister in that session and the previous session.

On March 8, 1974, at pages 25 and 26, a reinstatement motion was adopted with the same circumstances as those of May 9, 1972.

On October 3, 1986, at pages 47 to 48, Mr. Mulroney's government introduced a reinstatement motion reinstating bills of the Mulroney government from the previous session.

On March 4, 1996, at pages 34, 35 and 39 to 41 of Journals , Jean Chrétien's government reinstated government bills of the Chrétien government from the previous session.

On November 12, 2003, the government of Jean Chrétien once again successfully reinstated bills from a previous session, although he ran into a bit of a problem with his attempt to reinstate other business, resulting in a Speaker's ruling that divided the motion into three parts.

Mr. Speaker, many arguments have been made against the practice whereby a Prime Minister reinstates his government bills from a previous session. It goes against the practice, consequences and reasons for a government to prorogue. It contradicts the notion of beginning a session with fresh ideas and a new direction.

What we are talking about here today is far worse and, I would argue, procedurally unacceptable. The current Prime Minister is attempting to reinstate bills of another prime minister from a previous session and has the moral effrontery to call his government “new”.

When this Prime Minister promised democratic reform and made a commitment to do things differently we thought he meant to improve how Parliament functions. So far the Prime Minister has behaved less democratically than his predecessor, something most of us thought would be impossible.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to examine the precedents and rule the motion to reinstate government bills out of order.

[Points of Order, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I raised this issue with you. I indicated before this session opened that I wanted to speak to the motion that I made. I stood here waiting for that debate but I guess you did not see me.

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to revisit your decision to not allow me to address the issue on which you ruled and on which you allowed me to pass my motion. I am asking for you to reconsider that because at this point it seems that there was a problem with the procedure. I think you know what I am referring to. I would like to address the motion that I put and I was not allowed. I think people opposite saw me stand on debate, but you, sir, did not.

[Points of Order, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions. Do I understand now that the point of order is done and you have ruled that it is finished? If that is the case, I would like to raise another issue that I discussed with you briefly.

[Points of Order, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it has just been pointed out to me in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, the consolidated version of November 5, 2003, under “Unprovided Cases” that:

In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chair, whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House.

I hope that is enlightening to you, Mr. Speaker, in view of what is occurring here today.

[Points of Order, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that if one person is on a point of order, another person cannot interrupt that person on another point of order.

[Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the matter of the question of privilege raised on May 12 and May 16, 2003 and February 5, 2004 be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Privilege, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege regarding a matter that was raised in a previous session. On May 12 and May 16, 2003 the former government House leader raised the issue of parliamentary privilege exempting members from being called as witnesses in any court when the House is in session, specifically the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal on April 23, 2003 in what is known as the Ainsworth case.

The issue raised in that case was whether the Prime Minister could claim parliamentary privilege to provide legal protection against any action against him from the court for failing to attend an examination for discovery. He also raised the matter of a decision of the Ontario Superior Court with respect to another member involving Telezone Inc.

The latter was dealt with on January 6, 2004 when the Ontario Court of Appeal made a decision with respect to Telezone Inc. I believe that its decision satisfies the former government House leader, although a number of questions remain. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the parliamentary privilege of a member of Parliament not to attend as a witness in a civil action applies throughout a session of Parliament and extends 40 days after the prorogation or dissolution of Parliament and 40 days before the commencement of a new session.

The case of the Prime Minister remains unresolved because the two cases are different. In the case of Attorney General of Canada, et al. v. Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd. (B.C.) (29842), the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Prime Minister still does not have the right to claim this privilege. The issue of whether or not he can claim this privilege remains unresolved. It is not clear whether or not the House agrees with the former government House leader in that the Prime Minister should be able to claim this privilege.

In his submission, the former government House leader on May 12, 2003 argued that in the Ainsworth decision, the B.C. court confirmed the existence of parliamentary privilege of members against participating in legal proceedings when Parliament was in session. The court recognized that this applied throughout the parliamentary session including adjournments and other periods when the houses were not sitting. However, the court ruled that there was no legal support for extending this privilege for 40 days before or after a parliamentary session.

The then government House leader felt the court's ruling raised an important issue. This is the question of whether it is the role of Parliament or the role of the courts to define what parliamentary privilege is.

On May 26, 2003 the Speaker ruled the matter was a prima facie question of privilege. He also agreed with some members that there was a need for an even-handed application of privilege with respect to the rights of other Canadians. He pointed to a suggestion that it might be appropriate for the House to revisit its current interpretation of the immunity that its privileges provide. He concluded by recognizing the special requirements of the House which make privilege necessary, that there is need to ensure that other citizens are not adversely affected by those privileges.

In particular, members had expressed concern during the debate on the question of privilege that the blind application of the rights of members, such as the right not to be compelled to appear before a court as a witness, might interfere unduly with the rights of others.

The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee's initial research revealed that there were two types of situations that can arise: one where a member is a party to a civil action, the case involving the Prime Minister; and one where the member is merely being asked to attend as a witness, the case involving the former member for Ottawa South.

The research claimed that while the parliamentary privilege to avoid appearing in court as a witness does not apply to the Prime Minister because he is named as a defendant in a civil action, the privilege can be claimed by Mr. Manley because he was not named as a party in the case and was simply asked to appear as a witness in the court. The recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal would confirm that finding.

The research also left many questions to be answered, such as whether the distinction between being a party to a civil action and being a witness is reasonable and should be reviewed. Should one privilege be extended or the other limited? How should these privileges relate to criminal matters? What is the privilege procedure for a member to claim these privileges? Given the privileges belong to the House of Commons, is the 40 day rule an appropriate length of time for the immunity of being a witness and from arrest, especially given that the parliamentary sessions in the Canadian Parliament are typically quite lengthy? Should the fact that there is a fixed parliamentary calendar for the House make a difference?

The 40 day rule arose at a time when parliamentary sessions were short. The members could not really leave the capital before, during or after a session. Should the ease of modern transportation be relevant? Should the 40 day rule be retained or shortened?

Mr. Speaker, as a result of prorogation, the terms of reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has lapsed. Since a committee cannot on its own consider a matter of privilege without a reference from the House, I ask that you rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege to allow me to move the motion referring this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Older Adult Justice Act, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her answer to my question and I really would like to sincerely work on this issue. If this goes to committee, I hope I can be part of it, and I appreciate the opportunity she has given us to discuss this whole thing.

Bill C-439 recognizes the fact that older adults are often vulnerable to exploitation, abuse and neglect. The principles of the bill include the prevention and treatment of this problem. It also includes, for the purpose of sentencing, the vulnerability of the older adult victim as an aggravating circumstance under the Criminal Code. These principles, I believe, are generally sound and worthy of support.

Members of the official opposition have been very vocal on the protection of children under the law. It follows that we should be also protective of elderly people. We should invest in the just treatment of the elderly and in some cases an equally vulnerable group of people.

However, the creation of a new government agency raises issues of cost and encroachment on provincial jurisdiction. I realize the member has talked about this and does not want to see this happen, but the overall objective of the bill is worth supporting. I want to underline that I am supporting the overall objective of the bill.

However, I believe it may not be necessary for a new government agency to be established in order to achieve this objective. Before we could support legislation creating a brand new bureaucracy, members of Parliament would have to know exactly how the ombudsman proposed in the bill and the older adult justice agency would fit in with all of the other services provided for the elderly.

For example, the federal government and the provinces have been working on this issue for a number of years. I would like to quote from a news release issued by Health Canada on June 27, 2002, following a meeting of federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for seniors. Item 4 in the release was specifically “Addressing Elder Abuse”. The minister stated:

Research indicates that the abuse of older adults is a hidden problem as reported cases only represent the "tip of the iceberg". Older adults are often reluctant to report abuse due to fears of retaliation, shame, family loyalty, abandonment and institutionalization. Therefore, continuing attention to public education is important. Ministers have requested further analysis on existing elder abuse strategies and legislation across jurisdictions in Canada. The analysis will continue their collaborative efforts to address the safety and security needs of seniors by identifying priority strategic initiatives for potential action, for governments who so desire.

I put that into the record because it appears that much of what is proposed in the private member's bill may already be being done. That does not mean that we should not discuss that here, but I think that we have to make sure that we are not duplicating things.

Health Canada's division of aging and seniors provides federal leadership in areas pertaining to aging and seniors. The division serves as a focal point for information and the centre of expertise and some of its activities include:

--providing advice and supporting policy development; conducting and supporting research and education activities; encouraging innovative means of improving the health of seniors in situations of risk and in preventing situations of risk from developing; working and consulting with partners, including the provinces, territories, seniors organizations and other sectors; and encouraging communication and disseminating information; and providing operational support to the National Advisory Council on Aging.

In executing all of its roles and responsibilities, the Division promotes the meaningful participation of seniors in federal decisions and activities that affect them.

I would also like to quote again, this time from Health Canada's National Advisory Council on Aging. It has been operating for the last 24 years. Its stated purpose is to:

--to assist and advise the Minister of Health on all matters related to the aging of the Canadian population and the quality of life of seniors. These may be matters that the Minister refers to the Council or that the Council considers appropriate.

The Council consists of up to 18 members from all parts of Canada and all walks of life. The members bring to Council a variety of concerns, experiences and abilities. Members are appointed by Order-in-Council for two to three-year terms, renewable once.

Support for the Council's operations is provided by a team of federal public service employees located in Ottawa.

I have some questions for the minister and I do not know when she will have an opportunity to answer them. Would the National Advisory Council on Aging be replaced by the agency and ombudsman proposed in this older adult justice act?

The National Advisory Council on Aging recently published an excellent eight page bulletin entitled “Hidden Harm: the abuse of seniors”. On page 8, it provides a list of toll free numbers in every province and territory advising where to get help for seniors experiencing abuse.

Anyone listening to this debate today should be aware that there is some of this already. Hopefully the message will get out that if these abusive situations are taking place, people should already be seeking these numbers and they should be looking for assistance because there is some assistance already available.

I checked out one of these, the province of Manitoba senior's directorate. It provides a senior's abuse line, a senior's information line and it also has a Manitoba Council on Aging. Many provinces have this. It is not clear to me how the ombudsman and the agency proposed in the bill would work with the existing provincial governments and agencies. Do the provinces support the creation of this agency? Will they help finance it? Will the new federal ombudsman and the agency fill a gap in services or will it duplicate existing services? I ask these questions because we all have to answer questions before we vote on a bill.

I do not want to give the minister the impression that because I am asking these tough questions I am not concerned about elder abuse. The exact opposite is true. I realize that it is a severe problem and we need to deal with it. The statistics I have seen show the horror stories in the media and we all should be very concerned about it. However being concerned does not mean that we should automatically create another government agency or bureaucracy, unless we can show that bureaucracy will actually solve the problem. That is what I want to get at. We have to solve this very serious problem.

We have all seen the problems we have got into by passing ill-considered legislation. You know, Mr. Speaker, the legislation we have passed since 1995. I have tracked it since then. We have spent a lot of money. It resulted in the creation of a huge bureaucratic boondoggle and we did not solve the problem of violence in our society. I want to make sure if we are to create some kind of agency, we do not go down that path again.

We all want an agency that will actually result in a reduction in the number of incidents of elder abuse and see that this objective is accomplished in a cost effective manner. I am not convinced that what is being proposed here will produce the results. It will have to go to committee if we approve this.

Again, I thank the member for raising this issue, one of the most important issues in the country. I look forward to working together with her on it. I think many members in our party will support this because it is something that needs to be investigated and it may need to go to committee to ensure that we get it right.

[Older Adult Justice Act, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation to the member for Sudbury for bringing forth this issue.

Reams and reams of paper come across my desk every week, but when I saw this bill, it tweaked my interest, so I requested to have a few minutes to speak on this. However, I have some questions.

Maybe I will date myself by some of my questions and some of my thoughts as I go into this, but this is private members' business. We talk about things in private members' business and we raise issues that normally do not come across in Parliament. That is one of the reasons I appreciate this, and what we say does not reflect necessarily on our political party.

When we were growing up, I remember that abuse of aging parents was virtually unheard. Grandparents and aging parents were very seldom sent off to homes pass away. Families, churches and charities looked after aging parents for as long as they were physically able to do so.

The question I have is this. Because we are discussing the whole issue of abuse and taking care of elderly people, how can we maybe step back again and encourage families, churches and charities to once again assume a little more responsibility for this?

I reflect on this and I wonder--and I do not know how to say this in a different way--if Liberal social engineering has diluted everyone in society into thinking government can solve all our problems. Does big government have to look after all this? Maybe this is not what the member is getting at, but we have a problem here. I know we have been taxed and we have a debt of half a trillion dollars now. Maybe we have removed the financial wherewithal from families, charities and other organizations in the community to do something about it.

Would the member like to broaden the discussion in this way? I really appreciate the fact she has brought this forward, and these are some of my thoughts and questions as to whether another big government program would get at some of the root causes of this.

[Firearms Registry, February 5th, 2004]

The fact is he broke his promise in less than 24 hours.

The Liberals' 1993 red book made no mention of a universal firearms registry. When the man who wrote the red book became finance minister, he wrote most of the cheques for this billion dollar boondoggle.

The Prime Minister made national news once again about how all of his programs are going to pass seven tests. The gun registry fails all seven of the Prime Minister's expenditure review tests. It fails all seven and again he says one thing but he does another. Why is he just reviewing this firearms fiasco instead of scrapping it?