House of Commons Hansard #16 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was use.

Topics

JusticeOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Mount Royal Québec

Liberal

Irwin Cotler LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made it clear that there will be a role for a parliamentary committee. However, I want to advise the member opposite that we do not speak any longer about parliamentary supremacy. We have moved from being a parliamentary democracy to being a constitutional democracy, and that is the law of the land.

Public ServiceOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Paddy Torsney Liberal Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, Burlington is located in the region of Halton, and Halton is part of the greater Toronto area.

Imagine my surprise when I received an inquiry from a constituent who wanted to know why he could not apply for a job in downtown Toronto because, according to Treasury Board guidelines, residents of the L7L postal code area were not allowed to apply.

Could the President of Treasury Board tell the House how my constituents, many of whom travel every day to downtown Toronto, can get access to federal government jobs through the website?

Public ServiceOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Winnipeg South Manitoba

Liberal

Reg Alcock LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, I have had similar questions raised by the member for Cumberland—Colchester, the member for Miramichi and a number of members in the House.

It is a policy that has been the practice of the Public Service Commission for 40 years. In 2001 the commission began examining it to see if there were ways it could be modified. It has two test projects underway and it has a proposal for E-recruitment, which I think may solve this.

I would be willing to undertake to arrange a briefing for all members on this so we can clarify these important questions.

AgricultureOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gary Schellenberger Progressive Conservative Perth—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, there are reports today in the press that the Minister of Agriculture is delaying additional help to cattle producers until all the provinces agree to the details of his program. The provinces have repeatedly stepped up to the plate without the participation of the federal government.

Will the minister stop fighting with his provincial colleagues and announce, unconditionally, the program today?

AgricultureOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Sydney—Victoria Nova Scotia

Liberal

Mark Eyking LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Agri-Food)

Mr. Speaker, we have a good relationship with the provincial ministers. Many of the programs that we unfolded over the last eight months were in agreement with the provinces. We will not stop there. We will work on new programs, and we do have a good relationship.

AgricultureOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gary Schellenberger Progressive Conservative Perth—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, the provinces have taken the initiative and left the federal government and that minister behind in helping their farmers cope with the BSE crisis. Almost every province has initiated individual programs, so the minister cannot use the provinces as a reason to hold up his new program that he is planning to announce.

Will the minister stop using the provinces as his excuse and actually do something for our cattle producers rather than just talking about it?

AgricultureOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Sydney—Victoria Nova Scotia

Liberal

Mark Eyking LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Agri-Food)

Mr. Speaker, over the last year we have put out $5 billion with the provinces. We are unrolling CAIS as we speak, as well as the cull cow program. Hon. members should look at the figures and check the facts.

FisheriesOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Fournier Bloc Manicouagan, QC

Mr. Speaker, last week, seasonal workers blocked highway 138 on the North Shore because they want the government to act. The fishing season is about to open in a few weeks and there is still no word on the terms.

Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans tell us when he intends to announce his fisheries management plan for 2004 whether there will be a moratorium and what the quotas will be for groundfish and crustaceans?

FisheriesOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Halifax West Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to speaking with my hon. colleague about this matter. There are many concerns from the region about crustaceans, particularly lobsters. I am aware of these concerns.

There is a four point plan. We have talked to the MFU, the Maritime Fishermen's Union, about this matter. It is a concern in other parts of the country, like Quebec. I look forward to speaking with my colleague.

French Language Health Care ServicesOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jeannot Castonguay Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

Mr. Speaker, coming from a French-speaking region of New Brunswick and knowing the importance to my fellow citizens and other francophones in the country of having access to health care professionals in their own language, could the Minister of Health tell us about the announcement he made today to improve access to French language health care services in Canada?

French Language Health Care ServicesOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, this morning, my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier, who is the government deputy House leader, and I were at the Cité collégiale to announce an investment of $119 million over the next five years to improve access to French language health care services for francophones across the country.

The money will go to initiatives called for by the country's official language communities and developed in close cooperation with them.

Through this program, students will be able to study in French—their own language—and practice in their language, ensuring that health care services are provided in French.

Auditor General's ReportOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

How many crown corporations is the President of the Treasury Board investigating and is the purpose of the investigation to assess the actions taken by the crown corporations at the time of the scandal, or is the investigation simply into the measures that have been put in place since the Auditor General's report?

Auditor General's ReportOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Winnipeg South Manitoba

Liberal

Reg Alcock LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member, who follows these issues and takes them very seriously, asked an excellent question.

The Auditor General mentioned 10 crown agencies as having difficulties at the time of the problems. For four of them, the Auditor General herself in the report says that there are no concerns. For the other ones, the Prime Minister has asked me not to get their response to what went on at the time of the problems, which is for the public inquiry and for the public accounts committee to do, but to simply evaluate whether, since the report came out and they have had the information of the concerns? they have taken the appropriate steps to correct the concerns? Have they taken it seriously? Have they put in place measures to prevent it from happening?

That is the evaluation I am making. That is what I will report to the Prime Minister.

Library and Archives of CanadaOral Question Period

February 23rd, 2004 / 2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday on Radio-Canada we heard confirmation of the Auditor General's report on the disastrous condition of the Library and Archives. We learned that certain irreplaceable documents, including the originals of the memoirs of Champlain, the founder of Quebec, are deteriorating beyond repair because of a shortage of funds. What a fiasco in an area of federal jurisdiction.

Instead of spending millions in the sponsorship scandal, how could the government not have managed to find the millions necessary to ensure the conservation of priceless documents even though it is the one responsible for them?

Library and Archives of CanadaOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Louis-Hébert Québec

Liberal

Hélène Scherrer LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the government took the points raised in the Auditor General's report very seriously. Moreover, steps were undertaken some months ago. I also want to point out to my hon. colleague that $15 million had already been earmarked in the last budget, the 2003 budget, for putting in place concrete measures to protect our heritage.

Canadian National RailwayOral Question Period

3 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Immigration and it has to do with the rail strike that is going on and the extent to which the Canadian National Railway is importing Americans to do the work of striking Canadian railroaders. They are otherwise known as scabs.

Is the minister's department investigating the number of Americans who are coming across the border to do the work of striking Canadian railroaders? Is she willing to call CNR and ask for a list of these thugs who are coming in to do Canadian work? Is she going to call the CAW in and ask for the information that it has about Americans coming in? What is the government doing about this outrage?

Canadian National RailwayOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Eglinton—Lawrence Ontario

Liberal

Joe Volpe LiberalMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, as you may well know, and I know the hon. member knows, the strike action began just last February 20 and the employer is continuing to operate currently with the help of management personnel. However the union and the employer have indicated that grain and passenger services will not be affected by this work. In fact, they have begun to renegotiate.

It is our hope, as it is the hope of everybody else in the House, that those talks will bring about an amicable and worthwhile solution, and that the member opposite can put his outrage toward another serious event.

Canadian National RailwayOral Question Period

3 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, in reference to my earlier question in which I made reference to people accusing the Minister of National Defence of lying, I wish to withdraw that terminology out of respect for yourself and for the rules of the House.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I am now prepared to rule on two points of order: the first one was raised on Friday, February 13 by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough regarding an alleged discrepancy between Bill C-34 from the second session of the 37th Parliament and its reinstated version during the current session, Bill C-4; and the second one was raised by the hon. member for St. John's West regarding the electronic PDF and the HTML versions of the bill.

The member claims that Bill C-4 is not in the same form as Bill C-34 at the time of prorogation because the English version of clause 12 of the reinstated bill contains at page 14, lines 25 and 27, the expression “the office of the Senate Ethics Officer or office of the Ethics Commissioner” whereas Bill C-34 referred to the expression “office of the Ethics Commissioner or office of the Ethics Commissioner”. Because Bill C-4 includes the words “Senate Ethics Officer” in replacement of the first occurrence of the words “Ethics Commissioner” in that subsection, it is the contention of the member that the bill is not in the same form as Bill C-34 at the time of prorogation.

The Chair has looked into the matter and consulted with the officials of the House responsible for the preparation of bills.

I would ask the House to bear with me as I explain the process whereby the change came to be made and render my decision regarding the validity of the point of order before us.

There is a longstanding practice between the law clerks of the two Houses that they will administratively correct errors in bills when they both agree that they are faced with an obvious printing error. This is an authority that they exercise with extreme care, in rare cases, and only after they are satisfied that the error is a manifest error. Let me explain the specific circumstances of this case.

I have been informed that indeed the words “Senate Ethics Officer” were added in replacement of the words “Ethics Commissioner” to the electronic version of Bill C-34 following an agreement between the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the Senate and the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House to the effect that the absence of those words in the subsection rendered the text unintelligible and constituted an error that could be fixed administratively.

On October 30, 2003, when Bill C-34 was in the Senate, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the Senate advised the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House that Bill C-34 contained, at page 14, lines 25 to 27 of the English version, the expression “office of the Ethics Commissioner or office of the Ethics Commissioner”. After careful analysis of the surrounding text in both the English and French versions of the bill, he contended that this redundancy constituted an error that could be fixed administratively if the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House came to the same conclusion. I note here that this error appeared in the first reading version of the bill as drafted by the Department of Justice and had until that point in time remained undetected.

The Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House did indeed reach that same conclusion. His reasoning can be summarized as follows, and there are five reasons.

First, the expression “office of the Ethics Commissioner or office of the Ethics Commissioner” in the English version is a repetition that in itself is nonsensical.

Second, the English version thus refers only to the office of the Ethics Commissioner for the House of Commons whereas the French version of that same subsection refers to both the offices of the House ethics commissioner and the Senate ethics officer, that is the “bureau du conseiller sénatorial en éthique” et le “commissariat à l'éthique”.

Third, when the English and French versions are looked at as a whole, it becomes evident that the absence of the words “Senate” and “Officer” in the English version of subsection (2) renders the meaning of the English version uncertain, whereas the French version is clear and unequivocal.

Fourth, in subsections (1) and (3) of the section amended, as well as in clauses 9 to 18 of the bill, one notes the consistent use of the terms “Senate, House of Commons, Library of Parliament, office of the Senate Ethics Officer or office of the Ethics Commissioner”. Only in subsection (2), which is the one under review, are the words “Senate” and “Officer” absent.

Fifth, the insertion of the words “Senate” and “Officer” in subsection (2) reconciles the two versions of the bill, and achieves consistency of meaning within the English version itself.

In summary, then, the law clerks applied two very rigorous tests to the situation: first, they were satisfied that the error was a manifest printing error; and second, they agreed that there was only one way to correct that error. Therefore, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House prepared a new parchment copy of page 14 where the words “Senate Ethics Officer” were inserted in replacement of the first occurrence of the words “Ethics Commissioner” in subsection (2), and forwarded it to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the Senate.

On October 31, 2003, the electronic PDF version of Bill C-34 was also corrected to reflect the change agreed upon. This took place before the prorogation of the House on November 12, 2003. Unfortunately, because of human error, the HTML version remained erroneous.

When Bill C-34 was reinstated during the present session, the PDF electronic version of Bill C-34 served as a source document for the preparation of Bill C-4. This explains why Bill C-4 contains the expression “office of the Senate Ethics Officer”, as pointed out by the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

After a careful review of the facts, the Chair is satisfied that the administrative correction of this clerical error by the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House was consistent with the long-standing practice of the law clerks of both Houses relating to the correction of obvious printing or clerical errors.

Although such corrections are relatively rare, I believe that for greater clarity there should be a mechanism for informing members of these changes. Accordingly, I have directed the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House to inform the Speaker of any such changes by letter that I will then table in the House for the information of all hon. members.

By so doing, I believe we will ensure that the time of the House or its committees is not wasted on correcting manifest clerical or printing errors, while nonetheless ensuring that members are aware of any change, however minor, made to the text of proposed legislation before them.

So, to turn to the matter of the point of order, it is the opinion of the Chair that Bill C-4 is indeed in the same form as Bill C-34 in the second session. The administrative correction described above did not affect the form of the bill; it was correctly incorporated as part of the bill before prorogation of the last session and so is appropriately included in the bill as reinstated in this session.

I thank the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and the hon. member for St. John's West for their vigilance. Their raising this important matter has given the Chair an opportunity not only to clarify the situation with regard to Bill C-4 but to set down a protocol for better dealing with such issues in the future.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jason Kenney Canadian Alliance Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege follows from a point of order I raised on Thursday, February 19. It is in regard to the failure of the President of the Treasury Board to correct misleading information that he presented to Parliament with respect to the sponsorship scandal.

The House has been presented with two versions. On Wednesday during question period the President of the Treasury Board said, and I quote from page 757 of Hansard :

...the member for Calgary Southeast received $115,000 from the sponsorship program--

Following question period, when on a point of order I challenged the veracity of his statement, the minister corrected himself and said, and I quote:

There was $115,000 given to the organization in the hon. member's riding...I said in his riding. It was given two years in a row.

That appears on page 760 of Hansard .

He was challenged by members of the opposition to table the document from which he was evidently citing. Finally, at the end of the same day, he returned to the House and did that at page 784 of Hansard .

However, his having tabled the document, we had an opportunity to review it. It turns out that no such grant existed, that neither I nor my riding nor any organization in my riding received a $115,000 grant from the sponsorship fund, or any other kind of grant whatsoever.

I sought clarification from the President of the Treasury Board, and he has not yet come forward and corrected the misleading information that he presented to the House. It has been four days since I raised this matter and the two versions are still before the House.

On February 1, 2002, the Speaker ruled on a similar matter in regard to the Minister of National Defence. The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar alleged that the minister of defence had deliberately misled the House as to when he knew that prisoners taken by Canadian JTF2 troops in Afghanistan had been handed over to the Americans. In support of that allegation, he cited the minister's responses in question period on two successive days.

The Speaker considered the matter and found that there was a prima facie question of privilege. He said, and I quote:

The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House.

...in the case before us there appears to be in my opinion no dispute as to the facts. I believe that both the minister and...hon. members recognize that two versions of events have been presented to the House.

As was the case involving the minister of defence, the records of the House will show that there is no dispute as to the facts: that two versions of events have been presented to the House by the President of the Treasury Board. He has offered a verbal statement that states one thing and tabled a document that says something else altogether.

The President of the Treasury Board has refused to advise the House which statement is true. He is in contempt for failing to uphold the traditions of this place and for knowingly providing the House with false and misleading information.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Winnipeg South Manitoba

Liberal

Reg Alcock LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, I will have a little bit of difficulty responding it this on that I was not aware of what the concern is at the front of it; I was given no notice so I had to come back into the House to listen to it. If I understand it, though, and maybe I am reading more into it than is there, it seems to be that there are three issues here.

On the date in question, I read from the document that indicated there had been a $115,000 grant to an organization, I believe in the member's riding, Springhills; I am going from memory here, Mr. Speaker. I do not have the document in front of me. In that same document, in the subsequent year I believe the grant was in the order of $50-some-odd thousand dollars. I do not know exactly what the number was.

Now it is true, I believe, that I made the statement in the House in response to a challenge from the member that it was a $115,000 grant and it happened for two years. So to that extent I misspoke myself: $115,000 versus $52,000 or whatever the number is.

However, the document I was reading from was broadly distributed public information, which I re-tabled in the House. On the question the member is raising about having asked for clarification, this is the very first time I have been informed that there is any request for clarification. I would be more than happy to give it. I would have given it days ago, but not knowing exactly what the allegation is, it is a little difficult to clarify it.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

I think there is a logical thing to do here. I have asked for a Hansard from last Thursday when the hon. member for Calgary Southeast raised the matter. The government House leader took the matter under advisement at the time and said he would get back to the House. Obviously that has not come back yet, but I assume it will and obviously the President of the Treasury Board now says he will come back as well and clear up the matter.

We are going to need to have the explanation from the President of the Treasury Board before we can deal with this, so I can invite the President of the Treasury Board to look at the undertaking given last Thursday, which is to be found in Hansard . However, having just received the copy, I am going to have to locate it again. I have seen it in the transcript but not in the actual Hansard .

Therefore, I will get it to him and will look forward to hearing from the President of the Treasury Board, I am sure in due course, to clear up the matter for the diligent member for Calgary Southeast, who has raised the matter now, as he has indicated, a couple of times. We are always pleased to hear from him on points of order and questions of privilege, of course, as from all hon. members.

Government ContractsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Vancouver Quadra B.C.

Liberal

Stephen Owen LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, in response to the hon. member for Roberval's question on February 18, the list of departments that received the syndicated research poll through the Department of Public Works and Government Services.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment ActRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Brossard—La Prairie Québec

Liberal

Jacques Saada LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-20, an act to change the names of certain electoral districts.

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

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment ActRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Jacques Saada Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all parties with regard to this bill and I believe you would find that there is unanimous consent to deem this bill now to have been read a second time, referred to and reported without amendment from the committee, concurred in at report stage, and read the third time and passed.