House of Commons Hansard #39 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was provinces.

Topics

Border CrossingsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Rahim Jaffer Canadian Alliance Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, directives have come down from the department that this will actually stop on March 1. The minister has to find out what is going on in her department. She has to learn that our border crossings are not Tim Hortons drive-throughs.

There are serious threats to Canada's security. The government is wasting $1 billion on registering legal guns and is doing little to stop criminals crossing our border with illegal guns.

When will the government commit to implementing the legislation and fully enforce the Criminal Code at all land, air and sea ports?

Border CrossingsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Thornhill Ontario

Liberal

Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has been one of the leaders of the blame Canada club. He does Canada a disservice by repeating what is absolutely false and untrue. That kind of message hurts all Canadians. Our border is safe and secure and the member ought to know it.

Public Service of CanadaOral Question Period

December 5th, 2002 / 2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, a survey of federal public employees has found that, far from declining, harassment remains a harsh reality. Twenty-one percent of employees report having experienced some form of harassment and discrimination in the workplace.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. How many victims will it take for her to get her colleagues from other departments to take the necessary action to put an end to harassment in the federal public service once and for all?

Public Service of CanadaOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Westmount—Ville-Marie Québec

Liberal

Lucienne Robillard LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, a policy against harassment is currently in place. It is quite clear that all departments must enforce it. Unfortunately, the results of our last survey have shown that improvements are slow in coming.

I will say that we are very concerned with this situation. We have decided to sit down with union representatives and with managers to try to come up with solutions to this problem together.

Infrastructure ProgramOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL

Mr. Speaker, over the last few years we have seen a lot of downloading on municipalities. Government has talked about putting a lot of money into infrastructure and has talked about the great highway network program.

When can we see funding forthcoming not only to help provinces and municipalities but to create work in the construction industry where it is so badly needed?

Infrastructure ProgramOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Etobicoke Centre Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, after the election of this government in 1993 we launched a unique and innovative infrastructure program which created jobs and renewed Canada's infrastructure. That program was renewed and then renewed again. Just this past year we created the strategic infrastructure fund by which we are putting $2 billion into major projects around the country.

I was pleased to meet with the Prime Minister in St. John's a few weeks ago to talk about the provincial priority, which is the cleaning up of St. John's harbour.

Through these and other projects we will not only create jobs, we will make Canada more productive.

PassportsOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gurmant Grewal Canadian Alliance Surrey Central, BC

Mr. Speaker, a constituent of mine applied for a passport for himself and a family member but received three in the mail. Surprise, surprise, the third belonged to a complete stranger. This is a breach in security. It opens the door to abuse. It undermines national security. This despite post 9/11 government assurances of a secure passport system.

The Auditor General has already reported on abuse and fraud of social insurance cards.

Will the minister admit that our passport system is still insecure? What will he do to correct the situation? What will I do with this passport?

PassportsOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Toronto Centre—Rosedale Ontario

Liberal

Bill Graham LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member and the House that the passport office in our department is making every effort to ensure the security of Canadians and the security of the Canadian passport, which is one of the most secure travel documents and is admired around the world.

If the hon. member has a sincere desire to cure the problem, he could bring the issue to me instead of raising it as a political matter in the House. I would be happy to receive the passport.

Business of the HouseOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

Mr. Speaker, could the government House leader advise what the business is for the rest of today, tomorrow and the rest of next week before we break for the Christmas recess?

Business of the HouseOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with the business of supply. I understand that the votes are scheduled for a 5:15 p.m. bell, followed by the votes of course.

Tomorrow the House will consider the message from the Senate with regard to Bill C-10, the Criminal Code amendment.

In spite of the fact that we have debated it extensively, the government is prepared to offer yet another day, next Monday, with regard to debating the Kyoto protocol.

On Tuesday and Wednesday we will return if necessary to Bill C-10, and if and when completed, followed by Bill C-4, the nuclear safety bill with the possibility of also doing Bill C-3, Canada pension plan amendments, and Bill C-15, the lobbyists registration bill.

While I am on my feet I might as well give the plan for the rest of next week. Next Thursday and Friday, I will be calling the annual prebudget consultation debate.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I am ready to rule on the point of order raised yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona and again today by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, and then the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough this morning, concerning the message received from the Senate relating to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, and the actions taken by the other place in connection with this bill.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House, and the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton for their interventions.

On Wednesday, December 4 the hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona raised a point of order to draw to the attention of the House the action taken by the hon. Senate in dividing Bill C-10 into two bills, Bill C-10A, which the other House passed, and Bill bk C-10B, which it still retains. The hon. member pointed out that this was the House that should decide which pieces of House legislation were divided up and how they should be dealt with. At that time no message had been received from the other place and therefore the matter was, in the view of the Chair, hypothetical. The Chair was not prepared to deal with a purely academic matter, noting that it was inappropriate until a message had in fact been received. I did point out however, that though the Chair might have something to say in this matter, that was probably a matter for the House to decide.

A message from the Senate on Bill C-10 was received at the end of Wednesday's sitting, and the matter has now properly been brought to the attention of the House. There is also a motion on the Order Paper for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill. As hon. members are aware this motion, when called, is debatable and amendable and the government House leader has just indicated that he intends to call this matter before the House tomorrow.

I must point out at the outset that I cannot make comments on the workings of the honourable Senate. This would be quite inappropriate.

The fact that Bill C-10 was reinstated from the previous session, as provided for by special order of this House, does not have any bearing on its subsequent proceedings, either in this House or the other place.

As noted in the intervention of the hon. member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, this is not the first time the Senate has divided a bill originating in this House. In 1988 the other place divided Bill C-103, an Act to Increase Opportunity for Economic Development in Atlantic Canada to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts and returned only part of the bill to the House.

At that time the propriety of the Senate's action was raised and Mr. Speaker Fraser ruled on the matter. His ruling was extensive and exhaustive and has been much quoted this morning, although I must say the quotations seemed selective and incomplete.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

I am afraid so. I know hon. members would not think of such a thing but it seems to have happened.

In that ruling of July 11, 1988, at pages 17382 to 17385 of the Debates , the Speaker noted that there were several cases in which the Speaker of the House of Commons had ruled certain bills originating in the Senate out of order because they infringed the financial privileges of this House.

Mr. Speaker Fraser noted a precedent where two Commons bills were consolidated into a single legislative measure by the Senate. That took place, and the parliamentary secretary made reference to this as well, on June 11, 1941, with a message from the Senate asking for the concurrence of this House. The Commons agreed with the Senate proposal. I would refer hon. members to the Journals of June 11, 1941, at page 491. On that occasion, the Commons waived its traditional privilege and a single bill was eventually given royal assent.

In the 1941 case, the Senate specifically sought the concurrence of the House for its action and it was the disposition of this House to accept it. In the 1988 case, the Senate did not seek the Commons' concurrence in the division of the bill and simply informed this House that it had done so and returned half of the bill. The House did not accept that action by the Senate and the Senate subsequently reversed itself and the bill was adopted by the Senate in its original form.

In making his ruling in 1988, Speaker Fraser stated at page 17384:

The Speaker of the House of Commons by tradition does not rule on constitutional matters. It is not for me to decide whether the Senate has the constitutional power to do what it has done with Bill C-103. There is not any doubt that the Senate can amend a Bill, or it can reject it in whole or in part. There is some considerable doubt, at least in my mind, that the Senate can rewrite or redraft Bills originating in the Commons, potentially so as to change their principle as adopted by the House without again first seeking the agreement of the House. That I view as a matter of privilege and not a matter related to the Constitution.

In the case of Bill C-103, it is my opinion, and with great respect of course, that the Senate should have respected the propriety of asking the House of Commons to concur in its action of dividing Bill C-103 and in reporting only part of the Bill back as a fait accompli has infringed the privileges of this place.

In the current case, unlike the case in 1988, the Senate explicitly seeks the concurrence of this House in its action. This was contained in the message we received from the Senate yesterday.

The hon. member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar cited Mr. Speaker Fraser to the effect that the privileges of the House had been infringed. However the hon. member did not fully cite a passage she read to the House where the Speaker went on to state the following:

However, and it is important to understand this, I am without the power to enforce them directly. I cannot rule the Message from the Senate out of order for that would leave Bill C-103 in limbo. In other words, it would be nowhere. The cure in this case is for the House to claim its privileges or to forgo them, if it so wishes, by way of message to Their Honours, that is, to the Senate, informing them accordingly.

I agree fully with Mr. Speaker Fraser in this matter. Just as the cure proposed at that time was for the House to claim its privileges or to forgo them if it so wished, that is the course that is available to the House in respect of the message that we have received today.

With respect to the royal recommendation, the Chair cannot see that there has been any change in the circumstances, manner and purpose of the appropriation of public revenue in the legislation that was the subject of the royal recommendation, and so I see no need to intervene to insist on the financial prerogatives of the House in this case.

In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary pointed out that the financial provisions in Bill C-10 applied to that part of the bill that had been returned to the House as Bill C-10A, that is the firearms section, which had been passed by the other place without amendment. I have examined that part of Bill C-10, which has been appended to the Senate message as Bill C-10B, the cruelty to animals section, and I am of the opinion that it would not require a royal recommendation were it introduced into this House in that form.

In conclusion, I want to make three points. First, the Chair does not see any grounds to intervene with respect to the financial aspects of this issue. Second, while the Speaker agrees with the view of Mr. Speaker Fraser that privileged matters are involved where the Senate divides a House bill without first having the House's concurrence, this is not the case in this instance. Our concurrence has in fact been requested.

Therefore I cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege, but I stress that it is open to the House to address this issue as it sees fit and as it no doubt will do by adopting some kind of motion in respect of this matter.

Finally, in their consideration of their motion to concur in the Senate message, I would remind all hon. members that they will have the opportunity to debate fully the motion and propose whatever amendments they see fit within the rules that they wish to do to that motion.

Supplementary Estimates (A)Oral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the two objections that I filed on Tuesday to the government's supplementary estimates asking Parliament to authorize a further expenditure of approximately $72 million for the firearms registry, as it pertains to the vote tonight, I wish to advise that there have been consultations among parties and I believe you may find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move, seconded by the member for Yorkton--Melville: That the Supplementary Estimates (A) be amended by reducing vote 1a under Justice by the amount of $6,872,000, for the Canadian firearms program, and vote 5a under Justice by the amount of $9,110,000, for the Canadian Firearms Centre, and that the supply motion in the bill to be based thereupon altered accordingly.

Supplementary Estimates (A)Oral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Calgary Southwest Alberta

Canadian Alliance

Stephen Harper Canadian AllianceLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, we would, with a slight change, be happy to give unanimous consent. I would point out that in question period and before, the government and the official opposition had agreed to this and it was only the childish games of the member that held this up.

Supplementary Estimates (A)Oral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Supplementary Estimates (A)Oral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Stephen Harper Canadian Alliance Calgary Southwest, AB

This is important. Under vote 1a, I would point out to the hon. member and his party that the amount is $62 million, not $6 million. It is $62,872,916. I believe the government House leader will confirm that.

Supplementary Estimates (A)Oral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, may I first thank members on all sides of the House for their kind and generous support.

For the benefit of all members, I did circulate an updated version of this during question period because the Treasury Board has a slight modification to the amount. I understand that the first amount now has been read into the record as being corrected by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, for which I thank him. I understand there is a slight difference in the second amount as well, so I will read it for greater precision, and thank all those members who proposed and who corrected the motion.

The amount should be, under vote 1a, $62,872,916 and under vote 5a, under Justice again, again for the firearms control program, the amount should be $9,109,670. That should have appeared in the latest version that I believe was adjusted a little earlier today.

I regret if members received the latest version only moments before the end of question period. I hope that did not cause any inconvenience and I thank them all for their support.

Supplementary Estimates (A)Oral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

It would assist the Chair if I got the corrected motion because it seems there is some dispute as to figures. As the government House leader has the version, perhaps I will read it to the House because there have been variations here.

Is there unanimous consent that the following motion be put to the House:

That the Supplementary Estimates (A) be amended by reducing vote 1a under Justice by the amount of $62,872,916 and vote 5a under Justice by $9,109,670 and that the supply motions and the bill to be based thereon altered accordingly.

Supplementary Estimates (A)Oral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Supplementary Estimates (A)Oral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Supplementary Estimates (A)Oral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I believe there may be some confusion due to the numbers. The numbers that have been read into the record, I would submit if you check with the House again, that you would find that there is unanimous consent for the particular motion I have moved, seconded by the member for Yorkton—Melville, and I seek that unanimous consent.

Supplementary Estimates (A)Oral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

I thought the figures had been changed from the hon. member's motion. That is why I read the most recent one. Is the motion that I read to the House the one that the House wishes to deal with?

Supplementary Estimates (A)Oral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jay Hill Canadian Alliance Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There seems to be a bit of confusion. I just wonder if you could clarify that the point of order that you are referring to is the point of order by the hon. leader of the Government in the House?

Supplementary Estimates (A)Oral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

I am not referring to a point of order. I am referring to a motion which I read a moment ago which was provided to me by the government House leader. Is this motion the one the House wishes to deal with?