CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 141 Ï NUMBER 060 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 39th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Thursday, October 5, 2006 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) Also available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 3675 HOUSE OF COMMONS Thursday, October 5, 2006 The House met at 10 a.m. PETITIONS FALUN GONG Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my Prayers privilege today to table some petitions which originate in the constituencies of Lethbridge and Calgary Southeast. The petitioners urge the government to investigate the persecution ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS of Falun Gong practitioners. MARRIAGE Ï (1005) Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the second [English] petition is to re-open the issue of marriage in order to promote and GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS defend marriage as the lawful union of one man and one woman. Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of AGE OF CONSENT the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my next Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing petition is from concerned Canadians who wish to see the age of Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the consent raised from 14 to 16. government's response to three petitions. EUTHANASIA *** Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the last petition is one to maintain current criminal sanctions against PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) AND euthanasia and that greater resources be devoted to palliative care TERRORIST FINANCING ACT for the terminally ill. Hon. Rob Nicholson (for the Minister of Finance) moved for [Translation] leave to introduce Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Income HOMELESSNESS Tax Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. Mr. Christian Ouellet (Brome—Missisquoi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) I would like to present a petition on behalf of people who have expressed their support for the RHF and small SCPI communities *** programs. This petition is from the Maison d'accueil pour sans-abri de Chicoutimi. This is a shelter for homeless men and, with great COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE support, it is calling for the SCPI program to be renewed. CANADIAN HERITAGE I therefore present this petition. Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. *** Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report related to the Canadian Museums, and the eighth [English] report related to the court challenges program at the fiscal 2005-06 QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER level of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of HUMAN RESOURCES, SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC): Mr. allowed to stand. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the The Speaker: Is that agreed? fourth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Some hon. members: Agreed. 3676 COMMONS DEBATES October 5, 2006 Business of Supply PRIVILEGE He told me that if I were to continue to raise these frivolous points of FREEDOM OF SPEECH order that there would be retribution. This is a matter of threatening or intimidating a member of Parliament in the conduct of their Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is responsibilities. The member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskas- with some regret but with a sense of responsibility that I rise on a ing, who was in his seat, observed and heard all that was said. matter of privilege. I have been in this place since 1993 and I have a great deal of I refer to Marleau and Montpetit under “The Structure of respect for the House. I take this matter very seriously because there Privilege” on page 70 where it states: is a pattern, there is a history, with regard to the member for Nepean —both the House in its collective capacity and Members individually have the —Carleton. However, I will not go into those as the Speaker is well responsibility to protect from abuse their rights and immunities, particularly aware of them. freedom of speech. Ï (1010) Under “FREEDOM OF SPEECH” on page 71, it states: I have raised this question of privilege because I do not think any ...a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. member should be approached by another member, particularly in the House, and told that they should not be doing something that is That is what freedom of speech refers to. their right and that, if they do, they would be subject to some sort of It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or retribution. express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents. I believe I have satisfied the two conditions with regard to a matter of privilege: first, in regard to making a case that it is a prima facie Yesterday, just prior to the taking of the recorded divisions, I rose breach of my privileges as a member not to be threatened or on a point of order on a matter of relevance and this was with regard intimidated by another member in the performance of the conduct of to the member for Nepean—Carleton who was in the process of my duties; and second, having raised it with the Speaker at the addressing the House. earliest opportunity. In Marleau and Montpetit, on page 83, under the section, Should the Speaker find a prima facie case of privilege, I would be “FREEDOM FROM OBSTRUCTION, INTERFERENCE, INTI- prepared to move the appropriate motion. MIDATION AND MOLESTATION”, it states: Hon. Rob Nicholson (Leader of the Government in the House Members are entitled to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed. The assaulting, menacing, or insulting of any Member on the floor of the House or while of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. he is coming or going to or from the House, or an account of his behaviour during a Speaker, I will certainly raise this matter with the hon. member for proceeding in Parliament, is a violation of the rights of Parliament. Any form of Nepean—Carleton, but you have been around long enough to know intimidation...of a person for or on account of his behaviour during a proceeding in that there are usually two sides to every story. Parliament could amount to contempt. I refer further to dealing with a matter of privilege. On page 121 of I know the hon. member in question is a responsible individual Marleau and Montpetit it states: and, quite frankly, if the hon. member was going to raise this, it might have been a courtesy to let the individual know that this was The House of Commons is certainly the most important secular body in Canada. It is said that each House of Parliament is a “court” with respect to its own being raised at this particular time. However, I will certainly inform privileges and dignity and the privileges of its Members. The purpose of raising him of the fact that this has now taken place in the House. matters of “privilege” in either House of Parliament is to maintain the respect and credibility due to and required of each House in respect of these privileges, to uphold Again, there are two sides to every story. The hon. member for its powers, and to enforce the enjoyment of the privileges of its Members. Nepean—Carleton is a very responsible member of this caucus and of this government and I am quite sure he will have something to say That includes the freedom of speech. on this matter. A genuine question of privilege is therefore a serious matter not to be reckoned with lightly and accordingly ought to be rare, and thus rarely raised in the House of Ï (1015) Commons. The Speaker: The Chair will take the matter under advisement Finally, Marleau and Montpetit, in guiding members with regard and get back to the House in respect of this alleged breach of to matters occurring in the House, said that a complaint on a matter privilege in due course and we will deal with the matter then. of privilege must satisfy two conditions before it can be accorded precedence over orders of the day. First, the Speaker must be convinced that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been GOVERNMENT ORDERS made, and second, that the matter must be raised at the earliest opportunity. [Translation] Dealing with the second matter first, as I indicated, this matter BUSINESS OF SUPPLY happened yesterday during debates at approximately 5:25 p.m., just OPPOSITION MOTION—FOR OLDER WORKERS INCOME SUPPORT prior to the sounding of the bells for recorded divisions, at which time I rose on a point of order due to relevance. Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute- Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I believe that you would find Mr. Speaker, at that point I was approached by the member for unanimous consent in the House for the following motion.