Tuesday, October 6, 1998
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CANADA VOLUME 135 S NUMBER 133 S 1st SESSION S 36th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Tuesday, October 6, 1998 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire'' at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 8801 HOUSE OF COMMONS Tuesday, October 6, 1998 The House met at 10 a.m. political opponent who spent two hours eavesdropping on a private conversation. _______________ There were only two parties to this conversation, myself and Mr. Fred Toole. I would now like to table a letter from Mr. Toole which Prayers supports what I have just told the House. _______________ D (1005 ) D (1000) Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to rise on this question [English] of privilege and to state for the record what really transpired. I am not going to say anything further about what we discussed because this was a private conversation. PRIVILEGE I have full confidence in the independence and impartiality of APEC SUMMIT the PCC and I would ask all hon. members to give the hearing process a chance to work. Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Speaker: Colleagues, this is clearly not a question of privilege. It is a dispute as to the facts, as they may or may not be, Yesterday my hon. colleague, the member of parliament for depending on one point or the other. I am going to rule that it is not Palliser, made some very serious charges in the House. The hon. a question of privilege. The statement is on the record, but it is not member said that in the course of a private conversation he a question of privilege. overheard on a flight from Ottawa to Fredericton that I discussed events relating to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, may I respond very briefly to inquiry into events at APEC. say with great— I categorically deny that I engaged in an inappropriate conversa- The Speaker: I have ruled that this is not a question of privilege, tion that would in any way prejudice the outcome of that inquiry. as we understand it in the House, so the matter is closed. I was seated with another passenger in the course of a two hour flight from Ottawa to Fredericton. We had a wide-ranging con- I would add this addendum. I will not allow the tabling of this versation covering various subjects. At no time did I prejudge the document at this time. There are other means by which the minister outcome of the PCC inquiry, nor did I suggest that my role was to can do this. prevent the Prime Minister from attending the inquiry. With respect to the hon. member for Palliser, although his name First, I have much respect for the independence of the PCC and was mentioned in this non-question of privilege, at this point my its civilian oversight function. ruling is that there is not a question of privilege. Of course the hon. member has other means at his disposal if he wishes to pursue any Second, I am determined to allow this inquiry to run its course other points which he deems to be valuable to this House. and establish what happened at APEC and why. We are now going to proceed to the orders of the day. Third, I fully understand the responsibilities of the Solicitor General and would never jeopardize my lawful duties. Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, if this is not considered a question of privilege— Finally, I am personally offended that the hon. member has chosen to impugn my integrity, my ethics and my commitment to The Speaker: I ask the hon. member if this deals with the this process, particularly since these attacks were made by a question of privilege that I have ruled on because that point is over. 8802 COMMONS DEBATES October 6, 1998 Routine Proceedings Hon. David Kilgour: No, Mr. Speaker, it is separate. The [English] House can do anything it wishes by unanimous consent. I would ask for unanimous consent to table the letter in the House. TABLING OF DOCUMENTS The Speaker: We now have before us in this House a request for Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. unanimous consent from one of our members to table a document Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), I would like to table a in this House. Does the House give permission to put this question? document before the House. Some hon. members: Agreed. * * * An hon. member: No. CRIMINAL CODE The Speaker: Permission denied. Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-438, an act to amend the Criminal Code (taking D (1010 ) samples of bodily substances). Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private seems to me that it is quite possible for the minister to table this member’s bill today. The idea for this bill came from Bev and document under Tabling of Documents, which will happen in Lloyd Bergeson of Cremona, Alberta who lost their daughter Routine Proceedings fairly shortly. Denise to a dangerous driver. This bill would amend the Criminal Code to add that where a Under Standing Order 32(1), a minister is allowed to table any peace officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a document relating to the administration of government. person operating a motor vehicle in a dangerous manner has thereby caused the death of another person, the peace officer shall, The Speaker: There is no question about that. The hon. parlia- by demand made to that person, require the person to provide a mentary secretary is correct. urine sample to enable proper analysis to be made in order to determine the presence, if any, of drugs in the person’s urine, Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Surely breath or blood. if the minister is to make a statement or table a document in this House it should pertain specifically to that which the minister is The taking of samples is necessary for proper analysis to be responsible for and not a document that has been created to cover made in order to determine the concentration, if any, of alcohol in up any particular tracks in an investigation. the person’s blood. The Speaker: We are going to proceed with the rules of the This bill will ensure that those who are suspected of driving House. The hon. parliamentary secretary gave information to the drunk will be tested immediately by a police officer. There will no House which is correct. Any one of us can see that if we just look at longer be any reason for delay or not testing a person immediately the rules. as a result of this bill. I do not have anything in front of me right now except the (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) statement that I concurred with. Now we will proceed to the daily routine of business. * * * D (1015 ) _____________________________________________ COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS FISHERIES AND OCEANS Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr. Speak- [Translation] er, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, presented to the House Monday, March 23, otherwise known as the east coast report, be concurred in. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS The government has now tabled its response to the east coast Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the report. The east coast report was tabled in the House by the chair of Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the standing committee on March 23, 1998. pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government’s response to three peti- I was pleased to be a member of the standing committee that tions. produced this report especially as it was a unanimous report in October 6, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 8803 Routine Proceedings almost every respect. The crises in the fishery were seen by the consider reading this book only if they are able to control their committee to be of pressing importance, and this report was put emotions. They will be sickened by how political timidity leads to out directly in response to these issues on the east coast. horrendous consequences; in this case biologically for our fisheries resources and socially and economically for Atlantic Canadians. The government had an opportunity to accept this report as a breath of fresh air, an opportunity to create a new mandate, a D (1020 ) chance to change the status quo defensive posture of the depart- ment and embark on some vital changes. Instead, the government For many months members of the Standing Committee on has chosen to challenge the report and to shoot the messenger, in Fisheries and Oceans and I have been trying to get DFO to release this case the chair of the standing committee, the member for to the public these foreign fishing observer reports. Gander—Grand Falls. The minister tried to cut a deal with us. The committee members The east coast report has 23 recommendations. The first 9 deal could look at the reports but they could not talk publicly about their with foreign fishing concerns. In particular, recommendation 9 contents. The minister claimed this was because the reports talks about extending our jurisdiction to beyond 200 miles.