Debates of June 6th, 2007

International Cooperation

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to remind the minister about the former Secretary General of the UN's statement that developed countries had to allocate 0.7% of their GDP in order to achieve the eight millennium objectives by 2015.

Will the minister shake off her inertia to present a plan that will meet this target and thereby really help Africa?

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Africa, allow me to remind the members of the commitment made by the Prime Minister, who is currently in Berlin and who said that Canada was on track to double its aid to Africa by 2008-09.

That being said, with all due respect to the member, our government has set targets it can meet, which is something the Bloc Québécois will never be able to do.

Michael Lukyniuk

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I would like to draw to the attention of all hon. members that Michael Lukyniuk, Principal Clerk in the Legislative Unit, will be taking a well-deserved retirement later this summer after 30 years of faithful service to Parliament, including 16 years as a Table Officer in this House.

Michael is sitting at the Table right now and I know that you will join me in saluting his long and successful career on Parliament Hill.

Michael, we wish you and your family success, health and happiness in the years to come. Congratulations.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Government Response to Petitions

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 17 petitions.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present the 53rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding changes to the Standing Orders. The report contains certain changes to Standing Orders 31 and 37. If the House gives it consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 53rd report later this day.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food respecting the agricultural framework policy, including the dissenting opinion.

Industry, Science and Technology

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology regarding its order of reference of Thursday, May 17, 2007, Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act. The committee has considered Bill C-47 and reports the bill with amendment.

Public Accounts

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on Chapter 8 of the November 2006 Report of the Auditor General of Canada--Allocating Funds to Regulatory Programs--Health Canada.

I also present the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on the roles and responsibilities of the Treasury Board Secretariat and the tenure of deputy ministers.

In addition, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to reports 15 and 16.

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario Act

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-451, An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduce a bill that would bump up the status of FedNor to a full-fledged economic development agency similar to the agencies that exist in other parts of the country where there are economic challenges. It would also redirect the mandate to focus solely on the nine ridings that make up northern Ontario. It would give FedNor a focused and expanded mandate with sound community, economic and development principles.

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

Procedure and House Affairs

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees to give its consent, I move that the 53rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning the Standing Orders of the House presented to the House earlier this day be now concurred in.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was advised that this report was going to be presented. It raises a little bit of concern in terms of the practice of the House with regard to reports from the procedure and House affairs committee.

Normally when they come forward with regard to changes to committees they are deemed to have been reported and concurred in. In this particular case the report is making changes to the Standing Orders. It involves the rights and privileges of members. It is a matter which has been dealt with in the press, but members have not had an opportunity in this Parliament to make an address with regard to Standing Order issues.

In that regard I would like to seek the opinion of the Chair with regard to the debatability of a concurrence motion in a procedure and House affairs committee report that does not deal with changes to the membership of committees, but deals with Standing Order issues.

This is particularly relevant, Mr. Speaker, because of the Standing Order requirement that within the first 60 days of any new Parliament there be a debate in this place on the Standing Orders. As you know, that particular provision of the Standing Orders was waived for whatever reason. As a consequence, members have not had an opportunity given to them to discuss matters regarding the Standing Orders.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I do not understand the hon. member for Mississauga South's point of order. I am not sure what clarification he is seeking from the Chair.

There was no consent for the motion that was proposed by the hon. member for Cambridge, so the matter is not proceeding at the moment.

I would not presume to dictate to any member how they would proceed in these circumstances. As the hon. member knows, he is an experienced member of this House, members can move motions for concurrence in committee reports. Members can put them on the notice paper and in due course they will appear on the order paper and they can be moved for debate in the House.

Any hon. member, I believe, is free to move concurrence in any committee report, to the best of my recollection of the rules, if that is the clarification he is seeking.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I should have concluded that in this particular case it is the practice of the House simply to ask, as the member has, for concurrence in that report without debate.

I have raised this matter before and the Chair has indicated that it is not our usual practice. I wanted simply to point out that should the matter come before the House again for concurrence in this report, I would like to reserve the right to have debate on that report.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

That is a matter for the House to decide. The hon. member, as I say, has asked for unanimous consent and it has been refused, so it is not proceeding at the moment. What happens tomorrow or later is not within the control of the Chair as the hon. member knows.

Is the hon. member for Cambridge rising on the same point of order or is it another motion?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would actually suggest that is not a point of order by the member. The member is rising on an issue of debate. None of the member's privileges have been compromised. He can fully debate the issue at any time that he would like to, including the first 60 days in September.

I believe the member is just trying to get in Hansard.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have never heard of such a thing.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I strongly object to the process and the implications of the motion put forward by the Bloc Québécois and passed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Those listening must know that when a report is tabled, we do not know what it is about. It simply refers to something and we do not know what it really deals with before someone tells us and before we have the chance, perhaps, to read the blues.

I will be very brief. The process is absolutely not transparent. It takes place without debate and behind closed doors. This is serious, because this report, this motion describes three types of members: members affiliated with parties, independent members, and a third category. I will quote the blues for this committee in English, since that is all I have.

It states, “For the purposes of Standing Order 31.1(1), members of political parties not officially recognized in the House are not considered independent members”.

So should this one day be approved, we would have three types of members in this House.

The members in question—the three and now four independent members—were never informed, never consulted and were never invited to appear before the committee. So much for democracy, especially when it comes to this committee. In general, committees are interested in hearing from witnesses—or so I thought—and finding out what people think and, at the very least, inform them.

I do not think that a handful of people in a single committee, as qualified as it may be, should be able to decide on the Standing Orders that govern this House, since this affects parliamentarians and basically takes away the Speaker's right to make decisions and have discretion.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given that that you decided to accept and to open the debate with the completely unfounded intervention by my colleague for Mississauga South, we will run with it.

As for the point of order of my colleague for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, I will add the following point. I would like to remind my colleague and all those listening that, contrary to her comments that everything was carried out behind closed doors and that the committee was not transparent, yesterday's deliberations of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs were public. That is the first point. As for the second point, I know that you are the keeper of the standing orders. Rather than getting our names in Hansard and debating, as the hon. member for Mississauga South is adept at doing by talking about just about anything, we will keep to the standing orders.

I refer you to section 108, paragraph 3, section (a), subsection (iii). With regard to the components, duties and responsibilities of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, of which I am vice-chair, it states in black and white what can be done, namely:

the review of and report on the Standing Orders, procedure and practice in the House and its committees;

That is exactly what my colleague for Cambridge has done on behalf of the committee.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not only do you preside over our debates but you also guarantee that there is fair play in this House. When the Bloc Québécois is not happy with the statements by one of its former members and it attempts, in an underhanded fashion, to undermine the right of independent members to ask questions and make statements, it is your duty to intervene to protect fair play here in this House.

[Joe Comuzzi, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no one in the House can subscribe to the comments made by the whip of the Bloc Québécois. He does not even have the courtesy to comment on members of Parliament in their presence. If you read the blues, Mr. Speaker, you will find out to what I refer. Without his courtesy to other members, I do not think he bears any truthfulness in his comments.

I support the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques and my other colleague. It goes without saying that our numbers are increasing substantially in the House, as you have witnessed, Mr. Speaker. We may have another party here with all the qualifications of a party that should have all of the support. I am not talking about just questions in the House. I am talking about the ability or the right to sit on committees. I am talking about the right to make statements under Standing Order 31 and all the other privileges that every other member of Parliament is afforded.

That is not to be taken away just because we choose, or because someone else chooses on our behalf, to say that we are not members of a political party and we choose not to join another political party of the House. Let me support my colleague from Rimouski in her statements.

Let me close by saying, Mr. Speaker, that you are the guardian in the House in all affairs that are afforded through procedural fairness and natural justice. When the procedures are offended, you are the final arbitrator on those issues of procedural fairness and natural justice for every member of the House. I know full well, Mr. Speaker, that you will guard our rights as a sacred right of the Parliament of Canada.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I greatly appreciate the comments made by all hon. members who spoke on the matter. There are two important things, however, that must be considered. First of all, we have the report from the House committee tasked with reaching decisions concerning the Standing Orders of this House, the committee that can recommend changes to the Standing Orders. That is one thing. The report has been submitted. The committee chair asked for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion to adopt that report and unanimous consent was denied.

Second, we have the fact that the Speaker, as some hon. members have suggested, is in fact the guardian of the rights of hon. members, but the House is also master of its own procedure. If the House adopts Standing Orders, the job of the Speaker is to enforce the Standing Orders, which I do on a regular basis as best I can, aside from the ones that deal with noise in the chamber, which I have some trouble with. But on the others I am able to make decisions which generally are accepted in the House because they are based on the Standing Orders of the House.

What is in those Standing Orders is a decision for the House to make, and what will happen with this report in my view is a matter for the House to decide, not for the Speaker to decide. We will see what happens.

In the meantime, I appreciate the comments hon. members have made.

In my opinion, there is no point of order that justifies intervention by the Chair in this situation.

For now, we can move on to the remaining items in routine proceedings.