House of Commons Hansard #33 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was treaty.

Topics

Government Response To PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Scarborough—Rouge River Ontario

Liberal

Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to nine petitions.

National Horse Of Canada ActRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-390, an act to provide for the recognition of the Canadien horse as the national horse of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce the national horse of Canada act to provide for the recognition of the Canadien horse as the national horse of Canada.

The Canadien horse came to Canada in 1665 from the stables of Louis XIV. The use of the French language “Canadien” is in respect of the breed's early ancestors in France and the fact that the horse was indispensable to settlers in New France.

For over 350 years this little iron horse has worked with Canadians, tilling our soil, carrying our soldiers through battle and providing the foundation stock for today's diverse equine industry. These sturdy little horses adapted to Canada's rigorous conditions, evolving into a breed that is noted for its strength, endurance and determination. Clearly the Canadien horse shares the qualities we all value, making it an excellent choice as the national animal.

The Canadien horse, currently classified as an endangered breed, would enjoy a greater profile and enhance marketability as the national horse of Canada. I hope I earn all hon. members' support for this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Tom Wappel Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by approximately 200 people, mainly from my constituency of Scarborough Southwest.

Their plea is specific. They petition the Government of Canada to take the steps necessary to enact into law significant increases in the maximum allowable sentences which may be imposed upon persons convicted of cruelty to animals. I note that we have acted on that.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Reform

Peter Goldring Reform Edmonton East, AB

Mr. Speaker, today I take great pride in presenting a petition put forth by 1,273 concerned Canadians, mostly from the province of Quebec.

These petitioners ask our government to affirm that all Canadians are equal under all circumstances and without exception in the province of Quebec and throughout Canada. They wish to remind our government to only enact legislation that affirms the equality of each and every individual under the laws of Canada.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by some petitioners to present another petition on the bombing of Yugoslavia, even though at the moment this is a thing of the past. They believe it violates international law and undermines the United Nations.

They call upon parliament to use its influence within the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, to establish a process of genuine negotiations intended to seek a fair and balanced solution to the crisis which still exists in Kosovo.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Reform

Bill Gilmour Reform Nanaimo—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the following petition which comes from my riding of Nanaimo—Alberni and contains 226 signatures.

These petitioners call upon parliament to invoke section 33 of the charter of rights and freedoms, which is the notwithstanding clause, to override the B.C. Court of Appeal decision regarding child pornography and reinstate subsection (4) of section 163.1 of the Criminal Code to make child pornography illegal.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Scarborough—Rouge River Ontario

Liberal

Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 23 will be answered today. .[Text]

Question No. 23—

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC

With respect to incidents of drug overdose in federal correctional institutions in 1998: ( a ) what was the total number for all institutions combined; and ( b ) what was the number for each institution?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Cardigan P.E.I.

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada

With respect to incidents of drug overdose in federal correctional institutions, five incidents were recorded for the calendar year of 1998. They are as follows: April 2, 1998, Kingston Penitentiary, maximum, Ontario region; July 7, 1998, Bath Institution, medium, Ontario region; August 27, 1998, Elbow Lake Institution, minimum, Pacific region; September 2, 1998, Leclerc Institution, medium, Quebec region; and November 27, 1998, Millhaven Institution, maximum, Ontario region.

Starred QuestionsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Scarborough—Rouge River Ontario

Liberal

Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 11. .[Text]

Question No. 11—

Starred QuestionsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

What criteria and evidence does the Department of Environment rely upon to substantiate the argument that PCB compounds are hazardous to your health?

Starred QuestionsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: The Department of the Environment works with Health Canada on the assessment of toxic substances such as PCBs. Environment Canada provides the environmental toxicology and Health Canada provides the health component.

PCBs satisfy all four criteria outlined in the federal government's toxic substance management policy, TSMP, for track 1 substances. Track 1 substances, such as PCBs, are predominantly anthropogenic, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Starred QuestionsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Starred QuestionsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, there have been negotiations among all parties in the House and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding the provision of Standing Order 76(1) and (2), the report stage of Bill C-2 may be taken up on the second sitting day after the said bill is reported to the House by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, provided that any notices of amendments at the report stage may be received on or before the day immediately before the report stage commences.

Business Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

The Speaker

Does the hon. member have permission to put the motion?

Business Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

The Speaker

You have heard the terms of the motion. Shall we proceed in this fashion?

Business Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

The Speaker

In the act to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement, Bill C-9, there are many motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-9. The motions will be grouped for debate as follows.

Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 1 to 30.

Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 31 to 72.

Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 73 to 118.

Group No. 4 will be the rest of the motions.

I will now hear a point of order from the House leader of the opposition party.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker I rise on a point of order with regard to an amendment which I submitted to Journals and which did not appear on the order paper yesterday, nor did it appear on the order paper today. I assume because of that you considered it out of order.

I would like to comment on this particular amendment in some detail. I realize it was a task for the clerks involved in all of the amendments that we had submitted. We were in touch with the Clerk's office frequently. I think perhaps it is just a misunderstanding as to why this particular amendment has not shown up.

The one amendment attempted to attach the Nisga'a final agreement to the bill as a schedule.

I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 690 which talks about new schedules in the context of how they are considered. The sequence in which a bill is considered is new schedules after other clauses and schedules.

Citations 702, 703 and 704 state that schedules are treated in the same manner as clauses; in other words in terms of acceptability and form. Erskine May states the same thing on pages 497 and 498.

Mr. Speaker, there is no prohibition listed anywhere in any procedural text against the inclusion of a new schedule in a bill. The important factor to be concerned with is relevancy. Certainly the Nisga'a final agreement is relevant since it is mentioned in just about every clause of Bill C-9.

In 1956 there was a Speaker's ruling discussing this very point. The Speaker said on page 568 of the Journals of that year:

The hon. member's main objection is this. It is his contention that, because this bill refers to an agreement and the terms of the agreement not being a part of the bill and not being printed in extenso in the bill, the control of the House over the expenditures which may be involved therein is being denied.

The Speaker suggested on that same page that he cannot be expected to study every bill in an effort to find out whether or not something has been omitted.

The Speaker went on to say:

Honourable members have taken care of that by insisting in their procedure that after second reading all bills be referred or committed either to one of their standing committees or to the Committee of the Whole.

He suggested that proper amendments may be moved and new schedules may be inserted.

In that case the complaint was that the bill did not contain the agreement. The Speaker suggested that it could be included as an amendment in the form of a schedule.

In the case of Bill C-9, which we are talking about today, the agreement is also omitted from the bill. I think it should be part of the bill so I am attempting to include it as the Speaker suggested could and should be done in 1956 and as Beauchesne's and Erskine May support.

I was not the only one concerned that the agreement was not attached, Mr. Speaker. Professor Stephen Scott of McGill University raised this in committee. Professor Scott, as we know, is a very knowledgeable individual on these matters. He said:

I am concerned at what seems inadequate provision in the agreement and in Bill C-9 to ensure the continuing integrity and preservation of legislative and administrative archives in the Nisga'a government and indeed, the lack of obligatory provisions for publication of legislative and executive acts. In Bill C-9 itself, the Parliament of Canada has set the worst possible example since the final agreement and related instruments, though they are to be separately published, are not annexed to the bill itself. In practical terms the final agreement and other instruments will often be unavailable to users of Canadian statutes in Canada and abroad, even though by section 4 the agreement is given force of law, and by section 5, binds third parties and can be relied on by them. This is a travesty of the rule of law and a total disgrace. I feel so strongly about this as to think that no responsible that no responsible member of either House could vote for Bill C-9, at least until it is amended to annex the final agreement to the bill and, I think, the related agreements too.

That says it all of what the concern of the official opposition is.

Mr. Speaker, if you and the members of the House are wondering why I want to attach the Nisga'a final agreement to a bill that gives effect to the Nisga'a final agreement, I think Professor Stephen Scott articulated the need very well.

I was thinking about raising the fact that the bill did not contain the agreement at second reading but since Speaker's rulings, Beauchesne's and Erskine May suggest that such an omission could be rectified by inserting it later as a schedule, I do not want to waste the time of the House by making that argument.

I am concerned that today a new precedent will be set wiping out any opportunity to attach a new schedule to a bill in the future. There does not appear to be a sound reasoning to disallow it. Procedural authorities and constitutional experts support including Nisga'a final agreement as the schedule to Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement.

With respect to any minor, and I say minor, technical deficiency which may have existed with the amendment we submitted, the Speaker and/or Journals could have made the necessary corrections. This is done all the time. It has been done since we have been in the House of Commons and even recently. It would be improper for the Speaker to choose to make minor corrections in some cases and not in others, or to choose to do it for some members and not for others. This particular amendment was brought to the attention of the clerk and it was made clear that I wanted to have the Nisga'a agreement attached to Bill C-9.

The Reform Party is alone in the House in opposition to this bill. We are faced with the tyranny of the majority when it chooses to close off debate. We do not need another obstacle to our opposition. We do not need another form of closure with respect to our amendments and the consideration of our amendments.

Not only do I think it is procedurally correct to attach the Nisga'a final agreement to Bill C-9, but I believe it is our duty in the House to attach it.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

The Speaker

I thank the hon. member for his point of order. I will take it under consideration and I will get back to the House.

I would agree with him, perhaps as an understatement, that we did get quite a few amendments to this particular bill and we are doing our best to deal with all of them in a procedural way.

I will take his intervention under advisement and I will get back to the House.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize we are about to begin debate on report stage of this bill. Does the Speaker have a timeframe of when he may be back because it may affect which groups that we are going to be speaking on today and so on?

I do not want to pressure the Speaker too much, but could he give us some idea of when he would report back so we could know which amendments we would be speaking on, and adjust our speakers accordingly.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

The Speaker

Well, I can say this with certainty. It will certainly be before we come to the votes. I want to give myself room. The hon. member has given me quite a bit to have to research from the perspective of the House.

I will get back to the House as soon as I have considered the matter and made a decision, but, yes, it will, of course, be before the vote.