House of Commons Hansard #93 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was producers.

Topics

2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Saanich—Gulf Islands
B.C.

Conservative

Gary Lunn Minister of State (Sport)

Mr. Speaker, first of all let me be very clear, Canadian taxpayers will not be paying for a single ticket for politicians or bureaucrats to attend the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

MPs, senators and government officials will be paying from their own pockets for the tickets that were made available to the Government of Canada by the Vancouver organizing committee.

International Aid
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, study after study has criticized the ineffectiveness of Canada's foreign aid. Hence Parliament last year passed unanimously Bill C-293.

Bill C-293 requires three things: one, that the aid be effective in reducing poverty; two, that it take into account the perspective of the poor; and three, that it be in compliance with international human rights standards.

In the minister's report on the bill deposited last week in the House, she fails to comment on two out of the three criteria.

How could the minister possibly say that she is in compliance with this legislation?

International Aid
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Durham
Ontario

Conservative

Bev Oda Minister of International Cooperation

Mr. Speaker, we were very pleased to table the report as required under the new Federal Accountability Act, and in fact we do meet all the requirements.

I would point out to the House that not only do we comply but we actually report on real results that CIDA is having in the international world.

We have doubled our aid to Africa. We have untied our food aid. These actions are going to make a real difference in effectiveness and in getting real results.

Business of the House
Oral Questions

October 8th, 2009 / 3 p.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader would be prepared to, in the usual tradition, provide his business program for the days immediately ahead, including the designation of any allotted days that he might have in mind in the week that follows the Thanksgiving week.

I wonder if he could also give us some indication of when the government will fulfill one of its traditional obligations of the late summer or early fall of every year; that is, the tabling in Parliament and the publication of the audited annual financial report of the Government of Canada for the 2008-09 fiscal year. When will that report be forthcoming?

Business of the House
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Prince George—Peace River
B.C.

Conservative

Jay Hill Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that normally in response to the Thursday question, I talk about what government business we will be continuing to debate in this place.

However, because of the NDP House leader, we have not even gotten to government orders yet today. Instead of debating government business this morning, we debated an NDP procedural motion.

Bill C-23, the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia, began second reading debate on May 25, five months ago. Thanks again to the NDP, we are still debating it at second reading.

We keep seeing the NDP leader on television, telling Canadians that he wants to make Parliament work. However, in this House, his main operative, his House leader, is doing everything she can to make Parliament dysfunctional.

I would suggest that he should either stop running his television ads or actually do what he is telling Canadians and make Parliament work.

However, in response to my hon. colleague's questions about the business for the remainder of this week and immediately following the break week, when we eventually, hopefully, get to orders of the day, we will be calling Bill C-13, the Canada Grain Act, followed by Bill C-44, the Canada Post Corporation Act, and then on to Bill C-23, which I mentioned earlier.

We will continue this business tomorrow.

As my hon. colleague said, next week is a constituency week.

Finally, I would like to designate October 19, the first day back, as an allotted day.

To his question about the report, it will be coming in due course.

Statements by Members
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, immediately before question period, when members were making statements under Standing Order 31, the member for Beauport—Limoilou and parliamentary secretary for the status of women, when reading a statement that had been prepared for her by the Prime Minister's Office, alluded to the absence of a member in the House. I would like to quote a passage from page 522 of Marleau and Montpetit, which is very clear:

It is unacceptable to allude to the presence or absence of a Member or Minister in the Chamber.

I suggest that you ask the member to apologize and assign her to read Marleau and Montpetit so that she knows the rules.

Statements by Members
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I will look at the statement by the member mentioned by the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer, and I will certainly come back to the House if necessary.

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke on another point of order.

Comments Regarding Delays in Cancer Treatment
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period on September 16, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine claimed, in a question to the Minister of Natural Resources, that I blamed the delays in cancer treatment in the province of Ontario on doctors.

Her party repeated the claim in a party press release issued that day. In subsequent mailings paid for by taxpayers, it further claimed the health care crisis in Ontario was somehow related to our government's considerable efforts to re-establish the Canadian supply of medical isotopes.

She also blamed the employees at Chalk River and of our government for longer wait times for cancer treatment.

At no time did I or anyone else in the Conservative Party blame doctors for the current crisis in health care in the province of Ontario. In fact, during an appearance before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, on August 21, the former provincial minister of health admitted that the province was responsible for delays in cancer treatment. In order to correct the record, the Leader of the Opposition and his MP from Montreal owe an apology to me and to all the cancer patients and their families who are waiting for treatment.

Comments Regarding Delays in Cancer Treatment
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I am not sure that the hon. member has raised a point of order. It sounds like a disagreement as to the facts, and as she knows, the Speaker does not get into that kind of decision making. When it comes to accuracy, the Speaker has trouble deciding between what one member says is a fact and what another says is a fact. Indeed it is not the Speaker's responsibility but I am sure the hon. members who made the statements will look at the hon. member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke's submissions and return to the House if necessary to deal with the matter.

The hon. member for Simcoe North is also rising on a point of order.

Comments Attributed to Member for Simcoe North
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Bruce Stanton Simcoe North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to bring to the attention of the House and you that yesterday during question period, the member for Labrador in the course of his question attributed a quote to me which reads as follows: “what is needed is an investigation of the disappearances”.

He was doing so in reference to, presumably, my support for his party and for, as he said earlier in his question, the call by aboriginal leaders for a national investigation into cases of missing aboriginal women.

I would just contend that it may have been an oversight on the part of the hon. member, but in fact the quote that he was referring to was from a previous day, Tuesday of this week, in the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. The reference that I made was certainly to investigations but not to an investigation. I appreciate it is a subtle difference, but in the course of my narrative at the committee, I did go on to clarify that these investigations would be of the sort that law enforcement and provincial and territorial organizations would be undertaking, as they should do, in the course of the investigations that are ongoing in this matter.

We heard today from the minister of state who said very clearly that there is in fact a framework for these kinds of investigations and her department of course is working together with aboriginal leaders and the provincial and territorial organizations to pursue those matters.

Therefore I would say that I hope the record can be corrected accordingly.

Comments Attributed to Member for Simcoe North
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I am sure that hon. members will note what the hon. member for Simcoe North has said and bear it in mind in future deliberations in the House, but again I do not believe there is a procedural matter here requiring a decision from the chair.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé on a point of order in response to another member. I will hear him now.

Private Members' Bills
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Bloc

Guy André Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rose on a point of order to say that Bill C-395 would need royal recommendation because it would, and I quote, “requir[e] new spending”.

According to Marleau and Montpetit, the rule regarding royal assent is as follows, “Bills that involve the expenditure of public funds must have a Royal Recommendation.”

I would remind members that the aim of Bill C-395 is to give a very specific group of people, those who have lost their jobs after a long labour dispute, access to the EI system into which they paid. It is an insurance-based system funded by contributions from workers and their employers.

I want to reiterate some of the comments made to me by hon. members.

How can they claim that we need royal assent to spend money that the workers contributed to the EI fund in order to be able to receive benefits if they were to lose their jobs? The very purpose of the bill is to make it possible to pay benefits to those workers who have contributed to the fund.

The money in the EI fund does not belong to the government. It belongs to the workers who contributed to it.

Private Members' Bills
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I thank the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé for his suggestions regarding the point of order. I will consider his suggestions when I give my ruling on the point of order.

Private Members' Bills
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

NDP

John Rafferty Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I must have missed presentation of petitions. Am I in the wrong spot at this time of the day?

Private Members' Bills
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

We do not have any petitions today because there was a motion moved this morning and the debate finished at 2:00 p.m. My understanding is that once that happens the rest of routine proceedings are scrapped for the day.

The hon. member will have to show his usual patience and wait until tomorrow when we have petitions presented at 12:00 noon or shortly thereafter, if that is satisfactory.