CANADA VOLUME 134 S NUMBER 139 S 2nd SESSION S 35th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Thursday, March 6, 1997 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) The House of Commons Debates are also available on the Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 8693 HOUSE OF COMMONS Thursday, March 6, 1997 The House met at 10 a.m. which included the insertion of new Standing Order 83.1 to provide for so-called ‘‘prebudget consultations’’ by authorizing the Stand- _______________ ing Committee on Finance to consider and make reports on proposals regarding the budgetary policy of the government. Prayers Accordingly, the Standing Committee on Finance has engaged _______________ on three occasions in a process of public consultation, during which its members were authorized to travel and to listen to the concerns PRIVILEGE of Canadians. Pursuant to Standing Order 83.1, the committee tabled three reports: the first on December 8, 1994, the second on BUDGET SECRECY—SPEAKER’S RULING December 12, 1995 and the third and most recent on December 5, The Speaker: Order. Before we proceed to the orders of the day 1996. I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for York South—Weston on Wednesday, February 19, On the issue of budget secrecy, perhaps it would be helpful to 1997 concerning the availability of budget documents prior to the remind all members of what Speaker Sauvé pointed out in a budget presentation made by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday, decision she gave to the House on April 19, 1983 at page 24649 of February 18, 1997. the Debates: —budget secrecy is a political convention. So also is the practice whereby the [Translation] minister presents his budget in the House before declaring it in any other public forum. I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon. member for I agree with Speaker Sauvé. It would not be proper for the Chair St. Albert, the hon. member for Kootenay East, and the Parliamen- to get involved in the interpretation of budget secrecy, nor the tary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for their comments in this matter of the lock-up. matter. [English] As for the issue of privilege with respect to the matter raised, let me quote again Speaker Sauvé. In a decision which can be found in In his submission, the hon. member for York South—Weston the Debates of November 18, 1981 at page 12898 she stated that: argued that many of the provisions of the budget had been —a breach of budget secrecy cannot be dealt with as a matter of privilege. It might announced by the government prior to the speech of the Minister of constitute a very important grievance for members. Such action might have a very Finance and that budget documents were available approximately negative impact on business or on the stock market. It might cause some people to 15 minutes before the minister rose to make his budget presenta- receive revenues which they would not otherwise have been able to obtain. All of these are possible consequences of breaches of budget secrecy, but they have no tion. He contended that these two actions were in marked contrast impact on the privileges of the member. They might do harm—irrevocable in some to previous practice. case—to persons or institutions, but this has nothing to do with privilege. [Translation] D (1010 ) The member also maintained that the privileges of members of the House are impinged upon when information is released prema- Speaker Fraser was also asked to rule on budget secrecy. On June turely. Finally, he asked the Chair to review the whole matter of the 18, 1987, at page 7315 of the Debates he mentioned: budget lock-up. Budgetary secrecy is a matter of parliamentary convention. Its purpose is to [English] prevent anybody from gaining a private advantage by reason of obtaining advance budgetary information—The limits of parliamentary privilege are very narrow and it Since the beginning of this Parliament, hon. members have is not a responsibility of the Chair to rule as to whether or not a parliamentary convention is justified or whether or not the matter complained of is a breach of that witnessed an important change in the budget process. On February convention. That is a matter of political debate and not one in which the Chair would 7, 1994 the House adopted amendments to its standing orders wish to become involved. 8694 COMMONS DEBATES March 6, 1997 Routine Proceedings I concur with both Speakers in that a breach of budget secrecy D (1015) has nothing to do with parliamentary privilege. Therefore, in the [English] case presently before us, the Chair cannot determine that the hon. member has been in any way hindered in the performance of his BILL C-33 parliamentary duties. Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have three Consequently, it is my decision that there is no prima facie case petitions to present today. The first petition suggests that Bill C-33 of privilege. was debated with undue haste and will undermined the natural [Translation] family. This petition is from people in my constituency of Ma- cleod. I thank the hon. member for York South—Weston for raising his TAXATION matter. Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second _____________________________________________ petition points out that the GST on books is unfair and that there was a promise to remove it from reading material. PORNOGRAPHY ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the final petition points out that the white ribbon against pornography week be given [Translation] more coverage here in Parliament. I agree with all these petitions. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS JUSTICE Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, have a number of petitions here. pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in The first petition deals with profit from criminal activity. It is both official languages, the government’s response to six petitions. being denounced by these constituents and they point out there ought to be absolute certainty that this does not occur. * * * PORNOGRAPHY [English] Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS ACT, 1985 second petition is similar commentary with respect to pornography and its negative effects on society. It is not only denounced, it is in Hon. Paul Martin (for the Minister of Industry, Minister for fact suggested that this should not be happening because it is the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of West- extremely dysfunctional and degrading to women, children and ern Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the others. Federal Office of Regional Development—Quebec, Lib.): TAXATION moved for leave to introduce Bill C-85, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the Office of the Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act. third petition wants to ensure that there are no increases in taxes on gasoline. The petitioners feel that it is already too high. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.) The fourth petition is with respect to reading materials. These * * * petitions want no GST on reading materials, something that I have advocated for some time. They also suggest that reading and [Translation] learning materials could be zero rated. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION AND SAFETY BOARD ACT Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the last petition calls on members of this House to make upgrading of Hon. Ron Irwin (on behalf of the President of the Queen’s the national highway system possible. I am pleased to provide my Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental support for all these. Affairs) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-86, an act to amend the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety LABOUR Board Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act. Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina—Qu’Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speak- (Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.) er, I have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of the March 6, 1997 COMMONS DEBATES 8695 Routine Proceedings Canadian Council of Railway Operating Unions. This petition is The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue signed by communities all the way from Windsor, Ontario to initiatives to assist families that choose to provide care in the home Revelstoke, British Columbia. for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled. What the petitioners are pointing out is that the viability of the ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION CCROU as an effective bargaining unit for the members has been undermined as a result of the government’s interference in the Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the collective process via the maintenance of the Railway Operation final petition is from Dingwall, Nova Scotia. The petitioners draw Act, 1995. to the attention of the House that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause problems or impair one’s ability, and specifi- What they are asking for is that Parliament and the government cally that fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related birth restore meaningful collective bargaining to the process. They call defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consump- on Parliament to recognize the importance of free and unfettered tion during pregnancy.