House of Commons Hansard #71 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was religious.

Topics

Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceOral Question Period

March 21st, 2005 / 2:55 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Merrifield Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Speaker, we recently said goodbye to four fallen RCMP officers in my riding. The killer had a history of violence, intimidation and skirting the criminal justice system.

The victims' families, the killer's brother and all Canadians are saying enough is enough. Hardened criminals should do hard time and we want real action to prevent further tragedies. Will this government agree to mandatory minimum prison sentences for serious violent crimes so that these officers' deaths will not be vain?

Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Mount Royal Québec

Liberal

Irwin Cotler LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, those who have looked into this tragedy have suggested that we should not draw any inferences on any specific policy like mandatory minimums in that regard. All the studies regarding mandatory minimums have shown that mandatory minimums are neither effective nor a deterrent. We are prepared to explore anything that will assist, but not that.

Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Merrifield Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want criminals to do real time. That is why it is called a criminal justice system.

We have confidential information about a plan to cut over 200 members of the RCMP from the national force. This is not the response that the families or Canadians were looking for. What twisted logic would lead a government to cut RCMP officers just after these deaths?

Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Edmonton Centre Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the force is increasing in size. It has seen a significant infusion of new dollars over this past number of years. We are training more young brave RCMP officers all the time at RCMP Depot in Regina.

In fact, if I have not received it already, I think I am going to receive a formal request from the Solicitor General of Alberta to increase the force by over 100 new members in Alberta alone.

Honestly, I do not know where the member gets his information from.

HealthOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health, but before I ask the question, on this day of March 21 I would like to wish all people of Persian descent across Canada norouz mubarak , a happy new year.

Last September the first ministers signed a 10 year plan to strengthen health care, through which the federal government committed $41.3 billion to the provinces over 10 years. Could the minister inform the House of how the federal government will increase funding for federal programs that will improve--

HealthOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. Minister of Health.

HealthOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Vancouver South B.C.

Liberal

Ujjal Dosanjh LiberalMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the $41 billion, the budget provided $800 million more for health care funding federally. It included $75 million over five years to expand programs to assess and accredit foreign trained health professionals. It provided $300 million over five years for the Public Health Agency to develop a national strategy for chronic disease and prevention control. Also it provided $34 million over five years to better prepare Canada for a flu pandemic--

HealthOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora.

JusticeOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Conservative

Belinda Stronach Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON

Mr. Speaker, President Bush's drug czar, John Walters, recently said that drug trafficking from Canada is a significant problem and is getting worse. U.S. officials have warned the government to expect further delays at the border if it decriminalizes marijuana. The U.S. considers the flow of marijuana from Canada to be a national security threat.

When the Prime Minister meets President Bush on Wednesday, how will he address the billions of dollars of marijuana flowing across the border into the U.S. and will he protect Canadian economic interests and jobs?

JusticeOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Mount Royal Québec

Liberal

Irwin Cotler LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister will reiterate what American officials have themselves said, that there has been exemplary cooperation in the matter of cross-border law enforcement and that with respect to the cross-border flow, the incidents of marijuana in the United States in terms of U.S. produced marijuana is less than 2% of all the marijuana produced in the United States.

JusticeOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Conservative

Belinda Stronach Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON

Mr. Speaker, the protection of our sovereignty means the protection of Canadian jobs. Border delays already cost Canadian businesses billions of dollars a year. Canadian businesses do not want to hear from the justice minister. They want to hear from the Prime Minister.

Does the Prime Minister recognize and acknowledge the linkage between illicit grow ops proliferating across our nation and the potential for more costly border delays?

JusticeOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Edmonton Centre Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister and everybody on this side acknowledges is that we are working with the United States, our largest trading partner and best friend. We are working with the U.S. to facilitate the movement of low risk goods and low risk people across our borders and to work together to identify that small number of high risk goods and high risk people who might cause a threat to the collective security of either Canadians or our allies, the Americans. That is what this government is doing.

TaxationOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Bloc

Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Mr. Speaker, last week, Statistics Canada reported that Canadian investment in tax havens increased from $11 billion to $88 billion in 13 years. The Auditor General has already denounced the use of these tax loopholes that erode the government tax base a little more each day.

Since Canadian investment in tax havens has increased eightfold since 1990, why is the government refusing to put an immediate end to this tax evasion? Is it because the Prime Minister himself is very—

TaxationOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. Minister of Finance.

TaxationOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Wascana Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, explicitly the answer to the question is no, that is not the reason. This issue is a challenge for all developed countries. Similar trends to the ones identified by Statistics Canada in fact are observed in the United States and in the United Kingdom. It is one of the unfortunate trends that comes with globalization.

We need a concerted international effort to deal with this. That is why the Government of Canada has raised this issue at the G-7, the G-8 and in a number of international forums, to make sure we can have a coordinated international approach.

Foreign AffairsOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

He and all of us know about the People's Republic of China's anti-secession law threatening both Taiwan and the security of the region. Could the minister tell us what specific action the government intends to take to tell China that this is not acceptable?

Foreign AffairsOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Papineau Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, on March 15 I stated that Canada is especially concerned that the codification in the anti-secession law of the option to resort to non-peaceful means could contribute to increased tensions in the region. I have also said on numerous occasions that Canada remains opposed to non-peaceful methods being used to determine Taiwan's status.

These views have been made very clear by my officials to representatives of the Chinese government in both Ottawa and Beijing.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I am now ready to rule with regard to issues affecting two private members' bills, Bill C-331, the Ukrainian Canadian restitution act, and Bill C-333, the Chinese Canadian recognition and redress act.

Last December 7 when debate commenced on second reading of Bill C-331, the Ukrainian Canadian restitution act, I expressed some concern about provisions of this bill which might infringe on the financial initiative of the crown. At that time I asked for submissions on this matter from interested members before the bill was next debated.

On February 22 the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell made submissions on the requirements for a royal recommendation for this bill. The parliamentary secretary also made a submission of why a royal recommendation was required for Bill C-333, the Chinese Canadian recognition and redress act standing in the name of the member for Durham. The Chair wishes to thank these members for having addressed this matter thoroughly and providing the Chair with sufficient time to consider their arguments.

The central issue which is being addressed at this time is whether Bill C-331 in its present form requires a royal recommendation. If this is the case, the bill in its current form will not be put to a vote at third reading unless a royal recommendation is first brought forward by a minister of the crown. If the bill is amended at committee or report stage, the need for a royal recommendation may be removed and a vote may be requested.

Hon. members may recall the ruling given on February 24, 2005 with respect to the royal recommendation and Bill C-23, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. The issue which was addressed at that time is similar to the one before us today, specifically, is there an infringement on the financial initiative of the crown? The financial initiative of the crown, a well-established principle of our parliamentary system of government, reserves to the government the right to propose the spending of public funds for a particular purpose. The initiative of the crown is assured by the constitutional requirement that any such proposal to the House must be accompanied by a royal recommendation as required by section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and Standing Order 79 of this House.

Does Bill C-331 require a royal recommendation; that is, does Bill C-331 contain a proposal for the spending of public funds that would constitute an appropriation or an equivalent authorization to spend? In my view it does. Clause 2(c) states that the Minister of Canadian Heritage shall:

(c) establish a permanent museum in Banff National Park, at the site of the concentration camp that was established there,--

It is clear that it mandates the establishment of a permanent museum. Therefore, in my view, clause 2(c) constitutes an appropriation within the meaning of section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and Standing Order 79. Alternatively, it constitutes an authorization to spend the necessary public funds and as such is the equivalent of an appropriation under section 54 or Standing Order 79.

The hon. member has advised the House that the new museum would be housed in an existing building and restructuring costs would be paid from funds obtained from the negotiated restitution. However, this is not indicated in the bill, and the Chair can only rely on the text of the bill in these matters.

I appreciate the hon. member sharing with the House what is contemplated by this bill. No doubt the hon. member and others supporting this initiative have been mindful of the need to minimize the cost of this project to the public purse, but costs there nonetheless would be, and for a new and distinct purpose: a Ukrainian Canadian museum at Banff, Alberta. I must assume that these costs would be met by public funds from the consolidated revenue fund. The mandatory language allows me no other interpretation of clause 2(c).

Clause 3 has been challenged by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader who contends that it also requires a royal recommendation. Clause 3 states, in part:

The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall—negotiate—asuitable payment in restitution for the confiscation of property and other assets from Ukrainian Canadians.

The House will recall that in an initial ruling relating to Bill C-331 made on December 7, 2004 it was determined that this clause did not require a royal recommendation. The hon. parliamentary secretary now argues that the notion of a restitution payment created a positive obligation, in his words, to spend funds. I have now given the matter further consideration and I find no requirement for a royal recommendation.

If the term “positive obligation” means that the government is given a mandate to spend public funds, then I would expect to see legislative text that clearly indicates an intention to expend those funds.

This bill provides for a negotiation with the Ukrainian community before any payment can be made, implying that no restitution amount may ever be determined. Accordingly, it cannot be said that this bill upon enactment would effect an appropriation of public funds. At the very least, a bill effecting an appropriation of public funds or an equivalent authorization to spend public funds does so immediately upon enactment.

Once Parliament approves a bill that requires a royal recommendation, there should be nothing further required to make the appropriation. To subject an appropriation to a subsequent action beyond the control of Parliament is in effect for Parliament to delegate its powers and responsibilities in respect of supply to someone else. This Parliament cannot do.

When Parliament adopts a bill, it is either effecting an appropriation of public funds or it is not doing so. A royal recommendation is not required in respect of actions that may or may not ever happen and so is not required in respect of clause 3 of the bill.

Now let us turn to Bill C-333, the Chinese Canadian recognition and redress act sponsored by the hon. member for Durham.

In this case as well the hon. parliamentary secretary argued that the bill required a royal recommendation because it would impose a positive obligation upon the government to spend public funds once the amount of redress was negotiated and formed part of an agreement between the Government of Canada and the National Congress of Chinese Canadians.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary drew attention to Clause 4 that reads:

The Government of Canada shall negotiate an agreement for redress with the National Congress of Chinese Canadians, to be proposed to Parliament for approval.

He argued that the negotiated agreement provided for did not detract from the positive obligation imposed upon the government by the bill. The Chair does not agree with that position.

For the reasons I just gave in respect to Bill C-331 and its restitution clause, I cannot accept that Bill C-333 constitutes an appropriation within the meaning of the term in section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, or Standing Order 79. Nor do I consider that it constitutes an equivalent authorization to spend public funds under these authorities.

Accordingly, to summarize, in the case of Bill C-331, the Ukrainian Canadian restitution act standing in the name of the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, a royal recommendation will be required before it can be put to a vote at third reading in its current form. In the meantime, consideration of this bill can continue in the House and in committee.

With respect to Bill C-333, the Chinese Canadian recognition and redress act standing in the name of the hon. member for Durham, a royal recommendation is not required to negotiate an agreement for redress. This bill in its current form can proceed to a vote at third reading.

I wish to thank the House for its patience in allowing me to review the requirements for a royal recommendation.

As it is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that private members' business is conducted in an orderly manner, the Chair will continue to bring to the attention of the House those private members' bills on the order of precedence which may require a royal recommendation.

If the Chair does not identify a specific bill having need of a royal recommendation, it would still be open to any member to raise his or her concerns at an early opportunity. In this way the House can proceed in an informed manner in its consideration of private members' business.

Ways and MeansRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Wascana Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of ways and means motion respecting an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005.

I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of this motion.

Certificate of NominationRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 110(2), I am tabling a certificate of nomination with respect to the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. This certificate stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to nine petitions.

Older Adult Justice ActRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-348, an act to establish the Office of the Ombudsman for Older Adult Justice and the Canadian Older Adult Justice Agency and to amend the Criminal code.

Mr. Speaker, the bill deals with efforts to reduce elder abuse.

This has become an issue of concern for all Canadians, including many persons in my riding of Brant. The bill aims to: first, establish an office of the ombudsman for older adult justice; second, to establish an older adult justice agency; and third, to include for the purpose of sentencing in the criminal justice system, the vulnerability of an elder person as an aggravating circumstance.

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

Controlled Drugs and Substances ActRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Merrifield Conservative Yellowhead, AB

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-349, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (substances used in the production of methamphetamine).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to introduce Bill C-349 on behalf of the people of Yellowhead and for all of Canada because of the importance of methamphetamine abuse and use within Canada. It is growing, particularly in my riding and it is unbelievably significant.

The bill would give RCMP officers another tool and would allow them to prosecute for the possession of the precursors to methamphetamine.

I will give an example of some of the things that have happened in light of this last weekend. We as a party have pushed back against the criminal element in our country by adopting amendments with mandatory minimum sentences for firearm crimes, by cracking down on smuggling, by strict monitoring of high risk individuals, by putting more law officers on the streets and by protecting children from sexual predators.

This bill would give another tool to the RCMP. The legislation deals with methamphetamine use. Its use is significant because of the abuse within our riding. An ambulance driver has told me that on a weekly basis he fights with somebody who is under the influence of methamphetamine.

The bill needs to be pursued by members of the House and I ask for support of every member here because of the significance within their ridings the same--

Controlled Drugs and Substances ActRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

I remind hon. members that they are to give a brief summary of the bill in their explanation at this stage and not more.

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

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians including some from my own riding of Mississauga South on the subject matter of marriage.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of Parliament that the majority of Canadians believe that fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament and not by the unelected judiciary.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including the invocation of section 33 of the charter, known as the notwithstanding clause, if necessary to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.