Joe Comuzzi

[Points of Order, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that you are going to have to take this decision under advisement. Let me just say that there was no objection this morning in the resumption of the meeting. I thought the member of the Bloc was satisfied that he had at his side a member from the translation services. If there had been an objection at the time, it would have been listened to.

I think we complied with the essence and the meaning of the act, with the intention of whatever the regulatory control is, in holding a meeting this morning in order to oblige the rules of the House that unless estimates were presented today they would be considered passed.

I again want to compliment the members of the Standing Committee on Transport for the hard work they did throughout this whole estimates process. I think we complied with every rule and every intention of the House. There was no mischief involved.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you give the results of this meeting and the report that is tabled today your favourable interpretation.

[Points of Order, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what the House leader had to say. He referred to some references in the parliamentary procedure. I would like to report as an aside that perhaps if we had proceeded and had some control over the process that has been happening in the House of Commons over the last little while we could have avoided the problem we found ourselves in last evening.

We started our meeting yesterday afternoon at 3:30. There was much debate over the estimates. We concluded the meeting last night after a continuous hearing from 3:30 in the afternoon to 9:30 last evening. We did not adjourn the meeting last night. We suspended the meeting at that point in time in as much as we did not have a quorum present at 9:30. We attempted and the clerk attempted to get a quorum.

When the meeting was suspended last evening and because there was no other place in the House to conduct that meeting we decided to use a room in the parliamentary dining room. At 8 o'clock this morning the suspended meeting of last evening was commenced again. We did have interpretation and recording. An interpreter from the interpreter's department was present at the table to offer interpretation.

Therefore we did in fact provide the proper interpretation services. We had the recording, the clerk was present and we had a quorum. We debated until five minutes to ten because the estimates had to be presented today or else they would go on as approved.

I am really disappointed in the actions that our House leader has taken this morning with reference to a legal technicality. I think we have obliged every rule of jurisprudence in the House. I want to compliment the members of the transport committee for having the diligence and perseverance to go through the work that we have had to go through for the last several weeks in order to get these estimates through.

I take what the House leader has said as an affront to the work of the committee, and I stand by the recommendations that I presented.

[Committees of the House, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Transport has considered the estimates for 2003-04 and has the honour to present its third report.

Pursuant to the orders of the House dated Wednesday, February 26 for the consideration of estimates 2003-04 on votes 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55 and 60, your committee has considered vote 25 under transport, VIA Rail Canada Inc., for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004, and has reduced vote 25 from $266,201,000 to $257,201,000, which is equivalent to a 2.95% reduction, amounting to $9 million.

A copy of the relevant minutes of the proceedings of Meeting No. 30 is hereby tabled.

[Parliament of Canada Act, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, would you please seek consent to add my name to those who voted in favour?

[Committees of the House, April 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport entitled “An Industry in Crisis: Safeguarding the Viability of the Canadian Airline Industry”.

I would like to thank the committee members who worked so diligently on this file. I particularly thank the clerk of the committee and his staff for working through the night in order that I could table this document today.

The are four recommendations contained in the report so I will read them:

Recommendation No. 1:The federal government wind-up the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority and establish a multi-modal Transportation Security Authority. The operating costs of this Authority, as well as expenses associated with providing safety and security, should be funded out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This Authority should report annually to Parliament on the state of transportation security within Canada.

Recommendation No. 2: The federal government eliminate the Air Travellers Security Charge.

Recommendation No. 3: The federal government suspend rental payments by airports for a two-year period and the airports shall pass the rental savings to air carriers.

Recommendation No. 4: The federal government, for a two-year period, reduce by 50% the federal aviation fuel excise tax rate.

When we return from the break, we will be analyzing the NavCan situation and how HRDC can assist with those people in the airline industry who will be subject to the problems that they are all facing.

In closing, I know that this crosses between the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance. I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of this document to the Prime Minister asking him, since this industry is in crisis, that he act--

[Points of Order, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is on the same issue that the right hon. member brought up to protect his rights in the event that somewhere down the line they needed some protection.

What I want to talk about is the ministerial statement made by the Minister of Justice this morning. I think the area of ambiguity, the area that needs some clarification, is this, and I quote from his words: “I have already indicated that there are some limited funds left in the firearms program. We are looking within existing justice operational appropriations to manage any shortfall in program resources until the review is completed”.

Those were his words and I trust that he will clarify them. What we are particularly concerned about is that sometime last week when the supplemental estimates were coming before the House there was a $72 million item that was removed, we will recall, from the supplementary items because of the Auditor General's report with respect to the mismanagement of the firearms registration process.

What we want in the clarification from the minister is that he should also confirm to the House that funds he talks about as operational will not be used from other ministries such as the Solicitor General to support the firearms registration system, but more importantly, that only funds heretofore approved by the House for other justice programs not be diverted to the firearms program.

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Transport.

The report I am presenting before the House today has the unanimous consent of all committee members. I wish to thank all members from both sides of the House for their diligence and hard work in preparing this report, in such a short period of time, which is of so much interest to every traveller in Canada during this period.

The recommendation in the report states:

That the Standing Committee on Transport urges the Government to implement an immediate and substantial reduction of the Air Travellers Security Charge.

This report meets all the criteria of the principles of user pay that has been adopted. The committee has established beyond a reasonable doubt that there is more than enough money in the treasury that has been collected already to pay for this. The committee urges the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to immediately adopt the substance of this report and give the travelling public in Canada a break over the holiday period.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to report on the Canadian delegation to the 43rd annual meeting of the Canada-United States interparliamentary group, held in Rhode Island in May 2002.

This is the first time that we have had the opportunity to meet with our American parliamentary colleagues since 9/11/01. Needless to say, terrorism and the security of our citizens was front and centre in our debate.

This year we introduced a new format. This report, which we consider to be so important with Canada-U.S. relations, will be circulated to every member of the House and every member of the Senate. I hope they take the time to go through it. It will also be circulated to members of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, our friendship with the U.S. is built on our close economic reliance and mutual trust. We share the same air, water and ecosystems. We have respect for the freedom of the individual and we mutually respect a system based on the rule of law. The efficient flow of people and goods between our two countries is vital.

However maintaining this close relationship is not without its challenges. Up to now our relationship has been based mainly between the administrations of our two governments and at the ambassadorial level. This relationship I am pleased to report is strong and will be enhanced. Added to our U.S. policy are new initiatives to form stronger, long lasting and productive negotiations with elected members of the U.S. senate, the house of representatives and our elected members of parliament through parliamentary diplomacy.

I urge all members in the House to participate in this very new and exciting venture in foreign affairs.

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, you and I came to the House at about the same time and I never thought I would have to rise on an occasion such as this to defend a former colleague who is being maligned by the House almost on a daily basis. The opposition keeps maligning his character and his reputation. His character is often brought into disrepute and the member is no longer in the House to defend himself or his position. Above all else this is blatantly unfair. It is inequitable, unfair and should not be done.

The former colleague was a former minister of public works, Alfonso Gagliano, now Ambassador Gagliano. We know the way things run around here and I am positive that if he were to read Hansard or be advised that I am up in the House today defending him, he would be absolutely surprised. I confess that Ambassador Gagliano and I were not the best of friends. We were often at loggerheads on issues that affected my riding of Thunder Bay--Superior North. Many of the issues over the years were never reconciled which thus lead to a stalemate perhaps between two rather stubborn individuals who share the same heritage.

Ambassador Gagliano above all was very dedicated to his job. He worked exceedingly hard. One could often find him in his office late at night. He does not deserve what he is getting. Above all Alfonso Gagliano was a gentleman and a good person.

The problem is not with the present minister of public works who is now under attack, or the previous minister of public works. The Department of Public Works and Government Services is large and cumbersome. It reaches into every part of Canada and is involved in many contracts. It really is a very difficult department to administer. I could cite example upon example of problems I have had with the Ontario section of public works in the area I represent.

I ask the hon. member for Battlefords--Lloydminster, on a valuable day where the whole day is devoted to the opposition, why can we not be constructive instead of destructive? Why do we not--