Debates of Feb. 13th, 2007

Status of Women

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous agreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem and do give unanimous consent, but I would note for the table that the member for Scarborough Southwest has left the chamber and he did vote on the previous motion.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

So there will be one vote less on the yeas.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #106

Committees of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

l declare the motion carried.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Citizenship and Immigration

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote previously taken to the motion presently before the House.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

There is no consent.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #107

Committees of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

It being 6:15 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The hon. government House leader is rising on a point of order

Bill C-288--Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that you have already made two rulings on the issue of the royal recommendation in Bill C-288. Given the possible magnitude of what is proposed in Bill C-288, I would like you to consider the matter further and to consider additional issues with respect to the bill. The main point that I would like to make is that as it purports to create--

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Before the hon. the government House leader goes on, I want to indicate that I am prepared to hear his arguments on this, but I have grave doubts that it is now in order to hear further argument, when this matter has come to a vote in the House and the vote has simply been deferred. It is most unusual, it seems to me, to have arguments about the procedural admissibility of the motion when the motion has been put to the House and the House has declared itself on it, but has deferred the actual vote taking.

I will hear the hon. government House leader, but I wish to make sure that caveat is firmly in his mind.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed further with the argument perhaps I will address that one short issue. I would refer you to pages 711-2 of Marleau and Montpetit where it states:

If a royal recommendation were not produced by the time the House was ready to decide on the motion for third reading of the bill, the Speaker would have to stop the proceedings and rule the bill out of order.

At this point in time, we have not reached that stage. Therefore, I would argue that this is in order; however, I will continue with the argument as you, Mr. Speaker, instructed.

The main point I would like to make with the bill is that as it purports to create standards or targets that the government must then try to meet through whatever means it has, then this is, in effect, an attempt to do indirectly what the House cannot do directly, and that is, force the government to spend money as the measures in the bill are trying to achieve and cannot be implemented without the expenditure of funds. As a result, this matter goes to the heart of the principles of responsible government and the financial initiative of the Crown.

Let me turn to some specific aspects of the bill that underscore these points.

First, on this general rubric of attempting to do indirectly what cannot be done directly and the general obligations, subclause 7.(1) of the bill states that:

--the Governor in Council shall ensure that Canada fully meets its obligations under Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol--

This would create an obligation to implement Article 3 of the Kyoto protocol which would require us to reduce our emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. Our emissions are currently 34.6% above this target.

The government's view is that if Bill C-288 were to create a legal obligation for Canada to meet the emission targets set out in the Kyoto protocol, as the sponsor of the bill has publicly stated, the bill would effectively require the expenditure of funds. Common sense dictates that the expenditure of funds would be necessary to achieve the Kyoto targets without devastating the Canadian economy.

Members of the official opposition have stated as much before the legislative committee studying Bill C-30. In addition, the leader of the official opposition has stated that major spending measures were being contemplated in the last Parliament, although specific legislative measures to fully meet the Kyoto targets were never brought before Parliament for consideration.

We therefore have with Bill C-288 an unprecedented attempt to legislate indirectly what the previous government did not legislate directly, and on a matter which the official opposition itself recognizes would involve spending in the many billions of dollars.

By creating a legislative target, if that is what Bill C-288 seeks to do, it puts the government in the untenable position to spend resources if it is to try to meet what has been set in legislation. It is not the Crown that is initiating all public expenditure. It suffices that targets be set in legislation for the government to have to come to Parliament to appropriate the funds needed.

With the greatest of respect to the Chair, it is not sufficient to say that the government can come forward at a later point in time with its specific measures to comply with Bill C-288 with that royal recommendation attached at a later time, which is what I take to understand as one of the Speaker's previous rulings.

The House would in effect be compelling a royal recommendation as there would be no alternative left to it. The only question is, what exact form of that royal recommendation would it be, not the requirement for that royal recommendation.

In effect, the House would have indirectly required expenditure of funds, which it cannot directly require through the provision of a private member's bill. I think that is a very significant bridge that we would be crossing here and it would have profound consequences for the operation of Parliament for generations to come and would be inconsistent with the history of how these matters have been dealt with in Parliament.

Clause 6 of the bill is one issue that I do not believe has been fully addressed. It authorizes the governor in council to enact a broad range of regulations to implement the Kyoto protocol. A new bureaucracy would be necessary to implement and enforce such regulations. The government is therefore of the view that clause 6 entails the expenditure of funds and requires a royal recommendation.

In addition, clause 6 authorizes regulations “respecting trading in greenhouse gas emission reductions, removals, permits, credits, or other units”. However, the Minister of the Environment informed the legislative committee last week that an emissions trading market would cost the government billions of dollars.

Therefore, the bill clearly contemplates not only direct government spending, for example, due to regulations providing for trading in greenhouse gas emission credits, but also considerable indirect government spending on the bureaucratic and administrative support necessary for implementing the regulations.

As you noted in your ruling, Mr. Speaker, if spending is required then a specific request for public monies would need to be brought forward by means of an appropriation bill.

Given this, Bill C-288 creates a legal obligation for the expenditure of funds. That is the only way in which the government would be able to comply with the requirements of Bill C-288 regardless of whether that was in the provisions of the bill specifically as laid out now.

This would be an example of the House doing indirectly what the House cannot do directly forcing the government to spend money that has not been authorized.

I think that the parliamentary traditions of this place are very important and the question of the royal recommendation does indeed go back to the very beginnings of our Parliament. Since the bill purports to indirectly force the government to spend money, allowing this bill to proceed to a third reading vote would be inconsistent with the principles of responsible government and the Westminster tradition of parliamentary democracy. As Marleau and Montpetit note at page 709:

Under the Canadian system of government, the Crown alone initiates all public expenditure and Parliament may only authorize spending which has been recommended by the Governor General. This prerogative, referred to as the “financial initiative of the Crown” is the basis essential to the system of responsible government and is signified by way of the “royal recommendation”.

This principle makes perfect sense in a parliamentary democracy, as the government is responsible and accountable to the House for its budgetary priorities.

Bill C-288 appears to seek to force, and more than appears to, in fact it does, force the government to change those priorities. It takes the initiative away from the Crown.

Through Bill C-288 the opposition is attempting to reverse the principle on its head by attempting to legislate obligations that everyone recognizes will require the expenditure of funds. Passage of this bill would create a dangerous precedent whereby the opposition can direct the future expenditure priorities of the government. The precedent could forever change the nature of our parliamentary system.

Similar analogous arguments can be seen bringing forward legislation requiring that everybody in the country achieve a minimum standard of compensation and guaranteed minimum income without specifying what that would be or how the government would go about achieving it. However, if those goals were there and were seen as enforceable, obviously they could only be achieved with government spending. Again, that is an example of the kind of loophole that would be opened, the kind of path that would be tread should Bill C-288 be regarded as being acceptable and not offending the royal recommendation.

Given the significance of such a precedent I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider these issues carefully.

The government also has significant constitutional concerns with the bill. The regulatory provisions of the bill appear to be ultra vires as they cannot be said to be within the federal government's criminal law powers or the general powers of the federal government for peace, order and good government.

While I recognize that the Speaker cannot rule on matters of law, I wanted to take this opportunity to advise the House of the government's significant legal concerns with the bill.

In conclusion, ultimately, Bill C-288 is an example of a bad law. As the current Standing Orders governing private members' business are relatively new, I believe all parliamentarians should wish to avoid creating a precedent that puts this process into disrepute.

The government believes that the credibility and authority of Parliament to legislate in a clear and open manner is at stake on this matter.

If a royal recommendation is required for Bill C-288, that bill will not proceed further. However, the government will continue to move forward with its legislation on the environment, such as Canada's clean air act and the additional legislation to implement the government's February 12 announcement of a $1.5 billion ecotrust fund.

If a royal recommendation is not required for Bill C-288, the only conclusion that Canadians can draw is that this bill is a political attempt to do indirectly what the previous government was not willing to do directly.

As we look forward to what would be opened, the precedent, if we could simply establish targets, goals and objectives, and say that by so doing we are not creating an obligation for spending, yet a government would be obliged to meet those targets and objectives, we are creating indirectly a requirement for a royal recommendation.

I repeat, as I said before, it is not sufficient, with the greatest of respect, to say that the government can worry later about how it meets those objectives and targets, that the government can worry later about how it achieves the specific details and that the government can later craft a royal recommendation to do so.

The fact is the obligation will have been created now at this stage of the process. That is what the principle of the royal recommendation was always intended to prevent.

If we were to allow this to proceed at this point in time, I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, you would be making a ruling that would be turning on its head over a century of parliamentary practice. With the greatest of respect, I think there is great risk in going down that path.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there may well be a number of members on this side, including the member for Honoré-Mercier, the sponsor of Bill C-288, who may wish to add to the discussion, but I will make one or two brief points.

The first one is fairly obvious, Mr. Speaker, and you referred to it yourself a few moments ago. You have already had the occasion to consider this matter with great care, at least twice, and you have made your ruling on this matter already. You have clearly said that there is nothing in Bill C-288 that impinges on the prerogative or the initiatives that have just been referred to by the government House leader. In fact, the bill falls within the rules because it does not impose the obligation to spend.

In meeting the objectives laid out in the legislation and providing for the measures for which the legislation calls, spending is one alternative that the government may at some future date decide to avail itself of and, in those circumstances, it would no doubt provide the royal recommendation at that time. However, as has been made clear in the committee and in the debate previously in the House, spending is not the only way by which the objectives of this legislation can be met.

The other day in the House, in debate on this point, the member for Honoré-Mercier pointed out that there were regulatory measures, reduction incentive measures, domestic trading measures, international trading measures and measures provided under the protocol itself having to do with the clean development mechanism and joint implementation initiatives. There are a wide range of means by which the objectives of this legislation can be met, including but not limited to and not necessarily requiring new spending. I think that is the essence of some of your previous rulings, Mr. Speaker, on this matter.

With the greatest of respect, I would submit that the argument presented by the House leader for the government just now does not amplify, either in terms of factual information or legal argumentation, the point that he and his parliamentary secretary have attempted to make in the House on at least three prior occasions and upon which you have already ruled in the clearest of terms, the latest being just a day or two ago. There is nothing in the legislation that necessarily requires a royal recommendation and, therefore, it is fully within the rules and fully in order and the vote can be taken at the appointed time tomorrow.

It is instructive though, while cloaked in an argument of parliamentary procedure, what the government has revealed is its absolute determination to try to scuttle anything that bears any relationship to Kyoto. That is the clear message. It is a political message; it is not a parliamentary message or a financial message. You have already ruled on that, Mr. Speaker. What it is seeking to do now is amplify a political message and it will find out in due course from Canadians that this message is rejected as well.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope my remarks will be helpful. I agree with the official opposition House leader. I think the government minister has been overly dramatic in describing the impact of the decision that the Speaker has already made.

The bill, as the Speaker has already pointed out, does not require the government to reinvent itself. It requires the government to set standards. All the government has to do is continue to pay its public servants in the generation of standards. Almost all legislation that goes through this place requires governments to cobble together paperwork, staples, paper clips, ink and electronic data. That is routine in governments and it does not require a royal recommendation, in my view.

The minister suggested to the Speaker that the mover of the bill and the Parliament and the House were attempting to force the government to do something indirectly which it could not do directly. I put it to him and to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government, with this Hail Mary pass attempt to overturn your previous ruling on this, is attempting to force Parliament indirectly to do what the government will not do directly, which is to adopt Kyoto greenhouse gas emissions standards.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the third time in a very short while that we are having this debate. The government is trying to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. It is a crying shame.

You studied the matter once. Then you studied it again. The House counsel also studied it. Every time the committee studied this bill, its members ensured at all times that nothing they discussed would incur any costs or require the reallocation of funds.

This bill proposes a number of options, many of which do not require additional expenditure. It will be up to the government alone to choose. We are not trying to usurp the government. We are not trying to do anything indirectly. Mr. Speaker, you understand. You said so clearly twice. This third attempt leads me to believe that there is a lack respect for you and for this House.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to very briefly address once again the issue you raised at the beginning of my comments, which is the issue of the time at which this question is raised and whether or not it is appropriate.

The point I was making is that, as is stated by Marleau and Montpetit, “If a royal recommendation were not produced by the time the House was ready to decide...”. There is certainly the implication that if I had walked in here right now and provided a royal recommendation and you had ruled previously that one was required, this matter would be able to proceed to a vote, and that would be appropriate.

Obviously, by extension, the converse has to be the case: that if the matter is still open to question, that issue could still be changed. If the matter is not finally crystallized, then we can also make this argument at this time. To decide otherwise would be to say that in no way could we rescue something that you had found to be faulty at this stage before the vote had occurred and once the debate had been completed. I do not believe that is what is concluded by Marleau and Montpetit, nor do I believe that is the particular practice.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I thank the hon. members, the government House leader and the members for Honoré-Mercier, Scarborough—Rouge River and Wascana, for their submissions on this matter. Obviously I will get back to the House in due course, which will be soon, given the events that are to transpire otherwise tomorrow evening. I will take the matter under advisement.

The House resumed from November 22, 2006, consideration of the motion that Bill C-289, An Act to amend the Indian Act (matrimonial real property and immovables), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Indian Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Yukon had four minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks. I therefore call on him to address the House.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, before I start my remarks, let me say I am delighted that the House leader confirmed that the government would be bound by the vote tomorrow.

I would like to thank the member for Portage—Lisgar for bringing forward this private member's bill and also thank him for his hospitality to me when I was at the summer games in Manitoba last year. As he knows, I have a number of aboriginal people in my riding and I always try to support aboriginal people, as I have done several times today.

Of course we know that the Liberal Party has always strongly supported women's rights. Over the last few months, we have been fighting to get back the money for the Status of Women to give them back the ability to advocate for the equality they so rightly deserve and, in my case in particular, for a northern office for the Status of Women.

Bill C-289 is a very important bill for my riding and also for Parliament. I am delighted that the member for Portage—Lisgar has brought this bill forward. Our government was working on this bill in great detail and very intensely. I believe this should be dealt with. I congratulate the member.

The problem is that it is a very complex issue. In fairness, I do not think this can be accomplished by a one page bill. That cannot cover all the ramifications. For instance, the bill does cover on reserve, but in virtually my whole constituency there are vast areas without reserves and there is a whole different legal framework related to the land claims and the self-government agreement that we have signed.

A bill of this nature has to cover all aboriginal people, the Métis, the Inuit and the first nations people, and how their aboriginal rights would stand in respect of such a bill. There are various treaties, different land claim agreements, and self-government agreements that are quite different across the country. That results in a very complex task. It should be dealt with comprehensively in a bill in which everyone is treated fairly.

Another example of the complexity is that this issue has already twice been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, because aboriginal rights cannot be overruled in regard to dealing with family law on reserve, as outlined by the Indian Act.

When we do get a very comprehensive government bill dealing with matrimonial real property and immovables, we realize it is important. We would like to deal with it as quickly as possible. I hope the government proceeds as quickly as possible with the bill.

The decision will be very interesting. It will be a debate between the aboriginal rights in section 35 of the Constitution, which talks about the collective rights of aboriginal people, a whole different society that has lasted for thousands of years and, in some respects, with a life view that is different from ours.

That is then balanced, as the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms often do, in regard to different rights, somewhat conflicting rights, and we also have to balance the individual rights under section 15 of the charter. This is a very important debate that we are also going to be debating shortly in another bill related to human rights. People should take the bill seriously and give it a lot of thought.

I congratulate the member for bringing the bill forward, but for the reasons I have given, I do not think it could possibly be supported. I liked what the parliamentary secretary said earlier in this debate when he said that the government had enthusiasm for moving forward. I hope that also includes moving forward far more quickly on land claims and outstanding self-government agreements across the country.