Bill C-24 (Historical)

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

An Act to impose a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products to the United States and a charge on refunds of certain duty deposits paid to the United States, to authorize certain payments, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and to amend other Acts as a consequence

The purpose of this enactment is to implement some of Canada’s obligations under the Softwood Lumber Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States, by imposing a charge on exports of certain softwood lumber products to the United States and on refunds of certain duty deposits paid to the United States and by amending certain Acts, including the Export and Import Permits Act. The charge on exports will take effect on October 12, 2006 and will be payable by exporters of softwood lumber products. The enactment also authorizes certain payments to be made.

Opposition Motion—Softwood Lumber Agreement

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to the friends and family of Jim Prentice. He was a respected parliamentarian, and my heart goes out to all of my colleagues who are mourning his tragic passing today.

Today's motion is timely, and I am glad my Conservative colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster has brought it forward for debate. The motion urges the government to take all necessary steps to prevent a trade war with the United States over softwood lumber exports.

I absolutely support the motion. For the many thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods depend on this important industry, it is imperative that Canada secures a fair deal with the United States.

Softwood lumber is a vital part of Canada's forestry sector. For many rural communities, it is the backbone of their economy. According to Canada's labour force survey, in 2015, the forest industry accounted for 260,000 direct and indirect jobs, compared to just over 400,000 jobs in 2003. Hundreds of sawmills across Canada have been shuttered, taking with them high-quality, well-paid jobs, the kind of jobs on which families and communities depend.

Today, the softwood lumber industry is on the verge of more job losses. With the expiry of the 2006 SLA, producers are bracing for more U.S. tariffs, which will further devastate an industry that has already been hard hit by the long-standing dispute with the U.S., as well as factors like the recent recession, the crash of the U.S. housing market, and domestic issues like the spread of the pine beetle across British Columbian forests.

Canadian producers and workers are hoping that a new SLA will bring fairness and predictability.

The Canada-U.S. softwood lumber dispute first began in 1982. For nearly 35 years, the American industry has argued that Canadian producers benefit from subsidization, a claim that has been defeated time and time again.

Over the years, there have been several managed trade agreements and upon their expiration, more duties slapped on Canadian exports to the U.S. and more costly litigation. Canada has spent in the ballpark of $100 million in legal fees to defend our position.

After the previous agreement expired in 2001, the U.S. levied $5.4 billion in duties on Canadian imports, money that should have stayed in the pockets of Canadians. It was the beginning of a decade of massive job loss in the Canadian industry.

Soon after the Conservatives were elected in early 2006, they quickly negotiated a new agreement with little to no consultation with Canadian stakeholders. The result was a very controversial agreement that many argued represented a sellout of Canadian interests. For starters, it was based on the falsehood that Canada's industry was subsidized, which tribunal after tribunal has said is not the case. This set a terrible precedent that the rules of trade did not apply.

The agreement provided an option for Canadian regions of an export tax or a quota with an export tax at a lower rate. It took $50 million from Canadian industry to create a binding dispute settlement system where the U.S. was able to bring more actions against Canada. Perhaps most egregiously, the agreement allowed the U.S. to keep $1 billion of the duties it illegally levied on Canadian producers.

At the time, BMO Nesbitt Burns analyst, Stephen Atkinson, said, “Why would you give 22 per cent to your competition?...This money belongs to the companies and their shareholders, and the Canadian government is giving it away.”

Canadians were furious with the 2006 SLA. When the Conservatives brought it to Parliament in the form of Bill C-24, the NDP argued vehemently against the agreement. When we look back at this agreement, it is fair to say that the Conservatives caved to American interests. Today, it is imperative that the Liberals do not do the same.

As we know, the 2006 agreement was renewed in 2012 and expired last October. The Liberals love to blame the Conservatives for failing to initiate negotiations on a new agreement. It would seem the Conservatives made zero effort to work on the issue before the election. However, the current government must shoulder the responsibility for its role in failing to get a new deal done in time. For months, the government has hinted at breakthroughs that have never materialized.

In March, the Prime Minister boasted, “I'm confident that we are on a track towards resolving this irritant in the coming weeks and months.” That is from the CBC. The fact is that the Liberals broke their own commitment and failed to get a deal done before time ran out.

Beyond softwood specifically, the government does not seem to have a plan for the forestry sector. The federal budget contained no vision for supporting this important industry, which provides jobs right across Canada. It also failed to renew funding for the forest innovation program, which expired earlier this year.

The international trade committee undertook a brief study of softwood lumber earlier this spring, given that the expiry of the standstill clause was fast approaching. Over the course of two meetings, we heard from witnesses from British Columbia, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada. We heard a lot of frustrations about how Canada had gotten to the place it was at now. The 2006 SLA was a bad deal and the Conservatives did a poor job of negotiating it.

While many concede that another managed trade deal is better than more costly litigation, there is something inherently unfair about the fact that despite continued findings that Canada is not in the wrong, we continue to negotiate agreements that are clearly in the interests of U.S. industry. Many witnesses expressed a desire to see Canada and the U.S. reach a negotiated settlement, one that would work for all our regions. However, I also heard very clearly that people did not want another bad deal. Quebec, for example, has made a lot of changes in its forestry practices and any new agreement must recognize these and other regional differences. A one-size-fits-all solution simply will not do.

One important voice we did not get to hear from at committee was labour. The United Steelworkers, which represents some 40,000 forestry workers, has laid out several requirements for what it would like to see happen now that the 2006 SLA has expired.

It wants the creation of provincial forest community restoration fund. These funds would be invested in workers, forest-dependent communities, and forest health. It wants fair access to the U.S. lumber market and discourages a new quota system. It also wants a guarantee that Canadian producers will have the same access to the U.S. market that other countries will enjoy.

I appreciate the perspective of the United Steelworkers because it represents the workers' point of view. For workers, these three things would help give them greater job security and strengthen, instead of weaken, the industry.

The committee's final report made five recommendations to the government, including that it get a deal done that would serve Canadian interests, that it consult with big and small producers, and that any new deal respect regional differences. The committee submitted its report to the House last spring, but as the summer went on, we continued hearing worry and concern over the lack of progress on the government's part. In August, opposition committee members, including myself, pushed for a summer meeting to get an update from the department.

We also called on the government to broaden its consultations and convene a round table of stakeholders that had been excluded in the past. The Liberals rejected this proposal and, quite shockingly, called the whole meeting a waste of time.

In just a few short months, Canadian producers expect to be hit with U.S. tariffs of around 25%. Mills will be shut down right across Canada. Thousands of jobs will be lost. It is extremely important that the government gets this deal done right and gets it done fast. I hope the government understands the gravity of what these job losses will mean in our communities: thousands of people with no jobs to go to, no more paycheques to bring home, and families worried about how to pay the rent or make the next mortgage payment.

I am from southwestern Ontario and people in Essex know what it is like to lose a lot of jobs in one sector. It is tough and people are resilient, but it is very difficult for families and communities to work through these types of events. I urge the government to act in the interests of those whose jobs are on the line. That means getting the deal right and working collaboratively with the communities that will be impacted by another round of duties.

If the Liberal government is serious about holding out for a good deal, instead of signing a bad one tomorrow, then it owes Canadians more transparency and openness about how it will help Canada's industry weather this impending trade storm. Some in the industry want the government to provide loan guarantees to help them deal with a new round of U.S. duties. If this prevents sawmills from closing and jobs from being lost, then it is imperative that the government provide this support. Canadians deserve answers from the government, not more empty promises and hollow words about meetings and consultations.

The New Democratic Party supports this motion and urges the government to make a new agreement that is in the best interests of Canadians a top priority.

Report Stage Amendments—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Before addressing the selection and grouping of report stage motions for Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts, I would like to address the point of order raised on May 6, 2014, by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I would like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for raising this matter as well as the Government Leader in the House, the House leader of the official opposition, and the members for Toronto—Danforth, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, and Winnipeg North for their comments.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands raised concerns that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs adopted a motion requiring all remaining questions necessary to dispose of its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill to be put by a specified time, effectively creating a deadline for the debate to end. She argued that this motion contradicts an earlier committee order adopted on October 29, 2013, which gives members from non-recognized parties the ability to speak to their suggested amendments to bills before they are voted on by the committee. Because of the imposed deadline, the member's opportunity to speak to her amendments was interfered with, pursuant to the committee order of October 29, 2013. As such, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands suggested that substantive amendments, even if already voted on by the committee, should be selected for consideration at report stage. Several members rose in support of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands' point of order.

The government House leader made two central points in response. First, he reminded the House that at report stage the Speaker's authority to select report stage amendments is limited to determining whether they were presented, or could have been presented at committee. Second, he pointed out that the deadline adopted by the committee affected all members the same way, so it is inaccurate to claim that members from unrecognized parties and independents were particularly penalized in this regard.

In examining the matter, it is useful to remind the House of the power of the Speaker to select amendments at report stage. To place the matter in its proper context, it is helpful to refer to the March 21, 2001, statement by Speaker Milliken, found at page 1991 of the Debates, which establishes the guidelines upon which I rely to discharge my responsibility to select amendments at report stage. Speaker Milliken was clear in his intent when he urged:

…all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created, namely for the House to consider the committee report and the work the committee has done…

These principles are also reflected in the interpretive notes attached to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5). House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, further expands on these principles, explaining at pages 783 and 784 that:

…the Speaker will normally only select motions in amendment that could not have been presented in committee.

I would remind all members that the guidelines for selection specify whether amendments could have been presented in committee and whether they were defeated in committee. In the case of the committee's consideration of Bill C-23, all members of the committee, as well as any interested independent member, were given the opportunity to present their amendments at committee, and a certain number of these amendments were defeated. The hon. member is now asking the Chair, in exercising its powers of selection, to evaluate whether the consideration afforded such amendments in committee was sufficient.

It is evident that the committee chose to handle its consideration of Bill C-23 in a particular way. A motion setting out the process to be followed was proposed, debated, and ultimately agreed to. Just as the opportunity to present and speak to amendments was decided by way of a committee motion, the deadline by which debate would end likewise was decided by a committee motion. Such decisions are the exclusive responsibility of the committee. I do not believe that it is for the Chair to second-guess how committees choose to manage their business.

The hon. member has asked that I select motions for consideration at report stage because she was not able to debate them in committee. In doing so, she referred to a ruling I gave on December 12, 2012, whereby I noted that I would continue to select motions from independent members at report stage until such time as a satisfactory method was found for them to participate in the clause-by-clause consideration at committee. I understand that the hon. member found unsatisfactory the opportunities afforded to her at the procedure and House affairs committee in relation to Bill C-23. Other members of the committee echoed they too were not satisfied that certain amendments were not debated once the committee's self-imposed deadline was reached. That said, it remains clear to me that the committee considered and voted on all amendments she is asking me to select.

In 2006, Speaker Milliken dealt with a somewhat analogous situation in relation to Bill C-24, the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act.

On November 6, 2006, the hon. member for Burnaby-New Westminster raised a point of order regarding the decision of the Standing Committee on International Trade to limit debate and set a strict deadline by which point debate would end.

Though the situation was different insofar as he was a member of the committee concerned, I believe Speaker Milliken's response, found on page 4756 of Debates, was instructive:

I do think that committees are masters of their own procedure. They are entitled to make provisions in adopting orders in the committee that govern the way they are going to conduct their business...The committee is allowed to make amendments to the bill. The committee has imposed rules on how those amendments will be dealt with in the committee and how members will be able to address the issues raised by the amendments. It seems to me that [it] is entirely within the jurisdiction of the committee and indeed [it] is [a] quite normal exercise of its powers.

When the bill was taken up at report stage, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster submitted a large number of the amendments that had been defeated in committee, and asked the Chair to select them on the basis that they had not been debated in committee.

In a ruling I gave as Acting Speaker on November 21, 2006, found on page 5125 of Debates, I declined to do so, reminding the House that:

...the Chair selects motions which further amend an amendment adopted by a committee, motions which make consequential changes based on an amendment adopted by a committee and motions which delete a clause.Aside from this, the Chair is loath to select motions unless a member makes a compelling argument for selection based on the exceptional significance of the amendment.

As far as the Chair is concerned, in keeping with past precedents, I cannot see how the imposition of a deadline for the end of the debate could constitute a justifiable argument for the selection of amendments at report stage that were already presented and defeated in committee.

Notice of Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I have the honour to table a notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006. I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on October 9, 2009, by the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel regarding the use of Standing Order 56.1 to disallow further amendments and subamendments at the second reading stage of Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

I want to thank the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, as well as the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. Minister of State and Chief Government Whip for their comments.

The member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel argued that the motion of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, having been moved pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, should be ruled out of order since it does not fall within the definition of a routine motion as prescribed in that Standing Order. Instead, he argued that the Standing Order was used to limit debate, in the same fashion as moving the previous question.

In addition to agreeing with the arguments raised by the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, the member for Vancouver East expressed concern about the expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 and the “creeping, sort of incremental change” accompanying this, which then led her to question the appropriateness of its use in this case. She added that there are other mechanisms available to the government to manage the amount of time allocated to debate on Bill C-23.

The chief government whip contended that the government was applying Standing Order 56.1 correctly and that there had been previous instances where the Standing Order was used in this fashion.

For the benefit of members, the motion adopted on October 9, 2009, reads as follows:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of the House, the second reading stage of Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, shall not be subject to any further amendments or sub-amendments.

As mentioned by the member for Vancouver East, similar concerns over the expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 were raised in 2001 when it was used for the disposition of a bill at various stages. When I ruled on that point of order on September 18, 2001 in the Debates at pages 5256 to 5258, I expressed reservations about the trend toward using that Standing Order for purposes other than for motions of a routine nature. My predecessor had already urged the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the use of Standing Order 56.1, and I reiterated this need for the committee to do so at the earliest opportunity.

In the absence of such feedback, on May 13, 2005 in the Debates at pages 5973 to 5974, I allowed a motion that provided for the completion of the second reading stage of two bills to be moved pursuant to Standing Order 56.1. Again, I highlighted the fact that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs still had not undertaken a study of Standing Order 56.1, and as such, I was not in a position to rule definitively on the appropriateness of that Standing Order's use and I stated the following on that occasion.

I believe having had nothing back [from the committee] I can only allow this one to proceed at this time, particularly so when the time allocated here is much more generous than would be the case under closure or under time allocation…Accordingly the motion appears to be in order.

Similarly, on October 3, 2006, I allowed a motion moved pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 which in part disallowed further amendments or subamendments to the second reading stage of Bill C-24, the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006. Another motion with such provisions was allowed to proceed on December 12, 2007, in reference to Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007.

As was the case in those two most recent examples, even though the current motion disallows further amendments and subamendments, it still allows members who have not yet done so to speak to the amendment and the main motion. Furthermore, as I then stated in my ruling in the Debates on October 3, 2006 at page 3571:

The motion does not set a deadline for completion of the proceedings, as would be the case under time allocation or closure...There is a significant difference.

This does not, however, negate the concerns expressed by members over time about the need for a clearer and agreed upon understanding of this Standing Order. The following quote from my 2006 ruling still applies in this case:

My predecessor and I have both encouraged the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the appropriate use of the Standing Order. To date I am not aware of any report by that committee on this question.

Should the House feel the need to change the parameters pertaining to the use of Standing Order 56.1, I would suggest once more that members bring their concerns to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Since the committee has not yet offered clear direction on the definition of Standing Order 56.1, and since motions disallowing amendments and subamendments have been ruled admissible in the past, I rule that the motion moved by the Government House Leader on October 9, 2009 is in order.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Opposition Motion—Forestry Industry

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all l would like to thank the hon. member for Halifax West for his insightful comments.

I thank my Bloc colleague for his motion and want him to know right off that I share his opinion on the need to establish a plan to help the forest industry. My party therefore supports the spirit of this motion. However, my colleague will not be surprised to hear me say that the plan should apply to the industry as a whole and not just to the portion of it in la belle province of Quebec.

The forest industry in Quebec, the Maritimes, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia is facing major challenges these days. If we think back, we will remember that the Liberal government itself put forward a forestry strategy in 2005.

On November 24, 2005, the Liberal government announced, in partnership with forest industry stakeholders, a true plan for the forestry sector, a forest industry competitiveness strategy committing $1.5 billion over five years. This strategy included: $215 million for the development of new technologies in areas such as the pulp and paper industry to enhance its competitiveness; $50 million to support the forest industry to develop bioenergy and cogeneration power technology; $90 million to support innovation in value-added wood products; $66 million in wood product market development; $10 million to enhance workplace skills in the forest sector; $150 million to help forest dependent communities diversify economically; $800 million in loan support to help Canada's forest companies invest to improve competitiveness; and $100 million in loan support for small forest sector businesses.

We can see that the Liberal government had anticipated quite a bit of what is happening today. Upon forming government in 2006, the Conservatives, however, cancelled the plan. Today Canadian forestry workers are paying the price for that action. Instead of investing then in improving technology, skills and competitiveness to strengthen the industry and to save jobs, Canada now faces tens of thousands of job losses. Since the Conservatives took over government, Canada has lost 18,000 forest sector jobs. Not only that, they negotiated a poor settlement on the softwood lumber dispute and we are paying the price today.

As regards the softwood lumber agreement with the United States, the Liberal Party of Canada has always supported a two-step approach to resolving the dispute over softwood lumber—arbitration by the courts and negotiation.

On September 19, 2006, the Liberal Party voted against the agreement on softwood lumber, and, on December 6, 2006, against Bill C-24 on the softwood lumber export fees. The Liberal Party wanted to be sure the Conservative government would respect the North American Free Trade Agreement and keep its election promise to recover all the customs duties collected illegally by the United States.

We believe the softwood lumber agreement is full of holes for the following reasons.

It is a reversal of the position adopted by successive federal governments and supported by NAFTA and World Trade Organization trade panels that our softwood lumber sector is not subsidized.

It compromises Canada's chances of helping a sector already in difficulty, by handing part of our sovereignty over our natural resources to our American competitors. The fallout of such capitulation will be felt in future disputes, which will no doubt arise not only in the softwood lumber industry, but also in other sectors facing the same accusations by our American competitors.

It creates an export tax, which, at the current rate, is in fact higher than the illegal American customs duties of the past.

It strips NAFTA of any credibility as arbitrator of trade disputes and voids the principles governing such discussions.

It drops $500 million into the hands of the American forestry sector, which uses it to fund legal and political attacks against the Canadian industry and another $500 million into the hands of the American government.

And, finally, it contains anti fluctuation provisions that will deny the Canadian industry the flexibility it needs to deal with the unexpected, such as the infestation of the pine beetle.

The Conservatives claim that their softwood lumber agreement put an end to the dispute, but the United States began consultations questioning the forestry policies of Ontario and Quebec within seven months of signing the agreement.

Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Alberta face the same attacks. It is the $500 million the Conservatives handed over to the Americans that is being used to finance these attacks. On April 4, 2007, the Liberal Party announced that a Liberal government would organize a national summit on the forestry sector bringing together the stakeholders—public officials, the localities involved and the forestry sector—to work out responsible measures for the environment and protect jobs in the Canadian localities.

Instead of being proactive in investing to strengthen the industry, the Conservatives are now being reactive, announcing band-aid programs. The Conservatives' lack of vision has led to this crisis in the forest sector and caused many Canadians their jobs.

For our softwood industry, the Conservatives' softwood lumber deal has also been a failure. The Conservatives rushed into a flawed agreement that left $1 billion in the pockets of the United States. The Conservative government said that the softwood lumber agreement would put an end to litigation, yet Canada is back in court.

Unlike the Conservatives, the Liberal Party believes that there is a role for government to play in helping these sectors and the workers who depend on them.

My party has long recognized that action is essential. Accordingly, it is prepared to support a real plan to help the forest industry, a plan that would include a series of specific measures to ensure sustainable development.

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development--Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Before going to orders of the day I would like to give the ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Wascana regarding the use of Standing Order 56.1 to timetable the proceedings on a bill in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

On May 31, 2007 during routine proceedings the government House leader sought, but did not obtain, unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, when the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development convenes a meeting, it shall not be adjourned or suspended until it completes the committee stage of Bill C-44 except pursuant to a motion by a parliamentary secretary and, provided the bill is adopted by the committee, agrees to report the bill to the House within two sitting days following the completion of the committee stage.

He then moved the motion again pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 and the motion was adopted when fewer than 25 members rose to object. A short time later, the hon. member for Wascana raised a point of order regarding the use of Standing Order 56.1. He was supported by interventions from the hon. member for Joliette and the hon. member for Hamilton Centre, while the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that the motion adopted earlier had been appropriately presented under Standing Order 56.1.

Given that a meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development was imminent, I delivered an immediate ruling promising that the Chair would return to the House later with reasons. I am now prepared to do so.

First, the Chair would like to thank all hon. members who intervened on the point of order for their contributions on this question and is particularly grateful that members have taken note of certain key rulings, specifically those the Speaker delivered on September 18, 2001 and October 3, 2006.

A key element in my ruling today is the fundamental precept that standing committees are masters of their own procedure. Indeed, so entrenched is that precept that only in a select few Standing Orders does the House make provision for intervening directly into the conduct of standing committee affairs. In addition to the power the House has to give instructions to committees by way of a substantive motion that is subject to debate, there are, of course, Standing Orders 57 and 78, which can be used by the House to allocate time or for closure proceedings on a bill in committee. It is toward the use of these very instruments that the Speaker directed the House in his ruling of September 18, 2001, on Debates page 5257, where, as the hon. member for Wascana pointed out, the Speaker stated:

The expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 since 1997 causes the Chair serious concern. The government is provided with a range of options under Standing Orders 57 and 78 for the purpose of limiting debate.

Let us now turn to the Speaker’s ruling of October 3, 2006 allowing the use of Standing Order 56.1 to extend, in an open-ended fashion, the debate on Bill C-24, the Softwood Lumber bill.

It should be noted at the outset that when Standing Order 56.1 was used in reference to Bill C-24, the bill was then before the House at second reading, not before a standing committee. In allowing the use of Standing Order 56.1 in that case the Speaker did so with some concern and on the basis that:

The precedents available to me, including my own previous rulings, are [therefore] insufficient for me to rule the motion out of order on this occasion.

This is part of the Speaker's ruling quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. At the time the Speaker had more to say. He also encouraged, as had Mr. Speaker Parent before him, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the appropriate use of this Standing Order, a pretty clear indication of the difficulties with which the House has had to deal when Standing Order 56.1 has been invoked in questionable circumstances.

In the present case, the Chair has looked carefully at the wording of Standing Order 56.1, which states in reference to the House itself that the Standing Order can be used to move motions in relation to “the management of its business” and “ the arrangement of its proceedings”. Interestingly, the only reference to committees in the Standing Order is one allowing motions for “the establishing of the powers of its committees”, suggesting that the rule was meant to be used not to reach into the conduct of standing committee affairs to direct them, but rather in a routine manner, to provide them powers they do not already possess. A review of the previous uses of Standing Order 56.1 appears to support this. The only examples dealing with standing committees or standing committee activity the Chair has been able to find have to do with granting standing committees the power to travel. The power to travel is, as all hon. members know, a power standing committees do not possess and so the use of Standing Order 56.1 in that regard falls squarely within the parameters of the rule.

Accordingly, to repeat the words I used when this matter was first raised, the use of Standing Order 56.1 to direct the business of the committee, of any committee, is a new development in the House and one that I find out of order.

I thank all hon. members who intervened for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their interventions, although I believe that you will find in your ruling that there has been precedents set, as was in the case of Bill C-24, and you will rule this motion in order.

I just want to respond to my colleague, the hon. House leader for the Bloc Québécois, who was making the argument that perhaps in some manner, witnesses coming from far afield would be inconvenienced. In fact, just the opposite is true. Witnesses are already here, witnesses from Saskatchewan and other provinces, since there is a committee meeting starting in approximately four minutes.

Therefore, there is absolutely no inconvenience to any witnesses. In fact, it gives them an even longer opportunity to present their case before the committee so that the committee will have the ability, should it choose to sit extended hours.

I would argue that there is more opportunity for not only witnesses but committee members to discuss this bill and in fact, that is quite the opposite of closure. It is giving all committee members an opportunity to speak for as long as they wish, which I think, quite frankly, is entirely democratic.

Document for Committee Chairs

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

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Halton wants to continue to heckle, perhaps he can add to the debate after I am done instead of just shouting out his nonsense.

The reality is that this is a similar document that all parties produce to help train their individual members. I note that this internal document, as I say, is not a government document. It is something that was produced by the Conservative Party to assist our chairs.

Since the NDP members are so concerned about this, perhaps they could reveal to us their playbook or explain their tactics when they were delaying and continue to delay Bill C-45, the Fisheries Act; or Bill C-44, the amendments to the Human Rights Act; or their earlier extensive delay in filibustering Bill C-24, the softwood lumber act. In all of those things they employed tactics to delay passage of government legislation.

What about a chapter from their playbook dealing with moving concurrence motions to obstruct government legislation from following the due process and the procedure that we have become accustomed to in passing through the chamber? Instead, they resort, almost daily, to moving concurrence motions to delay that legislation.

I have remarked that the further training of our chairs, our committee members and, indeed, all of our caucus is to ensure that we are well aware of any procedural tools that we might have as a government, recognizing that we are a minority government and that we are outnumbered, not only in the chamber but at each and every standing committee. When we are confronted, as we have been by the opposition parties, which have become increasingly obstructionist, with a lot of legislation, we need to ensure we use every possible tool at our disposal to get our legislation passed through the committees, passed through the chamber and ultimately passed through a Liberal dominated Senate to become law in order that we can keep the promises that we made to the Canadian people in the last election campaign.

I have been noting that the people of Canada did not elect a coalition government of opposition parties. They elected a minority Conservative government and we have been trying to govern as such.

It is certainly my contention that this is an internal party document and that all parties have similar types of documents. It is beyond the pale that we would start out this final week with this bogus question of privilege.

Softwood Lumber

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here in the House as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and tell members that a lot of hard work and negotiations went into the softwood lumber agreement. Not only am I proud that Bill C-24 passed, but I am also proud to be part of a government that does what it says it is going to do and works as a team.

On Wednesday I was disappointed to see all but two Liberal MPs stand in the House of Commons and vote against the softwood lumber agreement. This is shameful, given the support for the agreement by the provinces, including the province of Quebec, where the new Liberal leader is from, and the support from industry, labour and unions in Quebec.

How could the Liberals not support an agreement that is obviously in the best interests of Canada? This further demonstrates the Liberal tradition of playing political games. By not supporting the deal, the Liberals are putting their own partisan interests ahead of the needs of all Canadians.

Business of the House

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I will do better than just tell the hon. member what will happen next week, I will tell him how we will conclude this week.

This afternoon we will be on the report stage of Bill C-24, the softwood lumber agreement. As you may know, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow and Friday the House will be adjourned for the Liberal leadership convention, and we will all be watching that with interest.

On Monday it is my intention to call ways and means Motion No. 12, a motion to refer Bill C-30, the clean air act, to a legislative committee before second reading. We will continue that week with Bill S-5, on tax conventions, and Bill C-34, on the first nations education agreement.

On Tuesday we will then consider the third reading stage of Bill C-24.

Later on that week it is my hope that we will begin the debate on the marriage motion. I will continue to consult my colleagues with respect to a date for the final vote on that. After that it is my intention to proceed with Bill C-28, the budget tax measures.

I hope that is of help to the hon. member.

National Peacekeepers’ Day Act

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to respond to a point of order that was raised by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on Tuesday, November 21 during debate on Bill C-24, the softwood lumber products export charge act.

I referred to the Minister of International Trade, that he had committed a treasonous act. I was referring to the time when he crossed over from the Liberal Party shortly after the last election to the Conservative Party. I realize that wording was unparliamentary and I would like to withdraw it. Hopefully it will end at that.

Business of the House

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's first question concerning my preferred schedule, my preferred schedule would be a schedule where all government business gets expedited and passed in the next three weeks and have the other place return the bills that we have already sent them. That is my preferred option.

In any case, if that is not possible or probable, we will continue today with the debate on the Bloc opposition motion and tomorrow we will begin on the government's motion in the name of the Prime Minister, followed by report stage of Bill C-24 and Bill S-5.

We will continue with the business from Friday next week, with the exception of Tuesday, November 28, which of course will be the final allotted day. We will be adjourned for Thursday and Friday of next week, Mr. Speaker, as you may already be aware.

I can indicate to the hon. member that we will be proceeding with the motion that he referred to and we will get to it before the Christmas break. I will be continuing my discussions with House leaders of all political parties as to some parameters and to get some common agreement on the conduct of that debate.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, we will be calling that debate that the hon. member just mentioned in due course.

Today, we will continue the debate on Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders act.

There is an agreement to complete Bill C-25, proceeds of crime, tomorrow. In a few moments I will be asking the approval of the House for a special order in that regard.

When the House returns from the Remembrance Day break, we intend to call for debate a motion in response to the much anticipated message from the Senate regarding Bill C-2, the accountability act. As well, we hope to complete the report and third reading stages of Bill C-24, the softwood lumber act.

Thursday, November 23 will be an allotted day

I want to inform the House that it is the intention of the government to refer Bill C-30, the clean air act, to a legislative committee before second reading.

International Trade

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

In accordance with its order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, the committee has considered Bill C-24, An Act to impose a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products to the United States and a charge on refunds of certain duty deposits paid to the United States, to authorize certain payments, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and to amend other Acts as a consequence, and has agreed on Tuesday, November 7 to report it with amendments.

Standing Committee on International Trade

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment too and maybe help give you some insight into the proceedings that led up to this intervention by the hon. member. The committee adopted the said motion in a recorded vote. I would suggest that this is absolutely parliamentary procedure. If the hon. member had been serious about actually discussing Bill C-24, as the rest of us were trying to do, he might not have spent four and a half hours filibustering committee.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order that stems from a meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade held last Thursday, November 2.

Subject to the interpretation of the Speaker, I know that he cited, in relation to a question that was asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, in a point of order that was raised on October 6, that in relation to legislation before the House in relation to committee members, the House of Commons Procedure and Practice indicates that the Chair will become involved if the question at issue is whether a committee has exceeded its powers in its clause by clause review of a bill.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, Bill C-24, the softwood lumber bill, is before that committee.

Last Thursday, the committee adopted a motion that reads as follows: “That the total number of minutes of debate per amendment per member be limited up to a maximum of three minutes; that three minutes per member also be allotted to the clause, amended or not; that the committee finish clause-by-clause consideration for Bill C-24 by the end of the day on Tuesday, November 7, 2006; that all clauses that have no proposals for amendment be voted on together in one vote at the start of the meeting on Tuesday, November 7, 2006; that Bill C-24 be reported back to the House on Thursday, November 9 or as soon as possible; that the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-24 be completed before considering any other committee business; and that any debate on motions related to Bill C-24 be limited to three minutes per person, per motion”.

Considering that two clauses certainly go beyond the mandate that was given by the House to the Standing Committee on International Trade, that is, limiting the total number of minutes of debate per amendment to a maximum of three minutes, which is unprecedented, as you know, Mr. Speaker, in parliamentary history, and also that all clauses that have no proposals for amendment be voted on together in one vote at the start of the meeting on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, it gives rise to my point of order.

It is unbelievable that this might happen, but my point of order consists of the fact that the mandate that was given by the House to the committee was to consider, clause by clause, the extensive number of clauses of Bill C-24. There are over 110 clauses of that particular bill, and we now have, in a very real sense, an inability to consider it clause by clause and an inability to propose the amendments. As we know very well, Marleau and Montpetit, at page 874, state, “Motions to amend a clause of a bill do not require notice”.

To this extent, there were no instructions from the House that actually provided that guideline to the committee, and we now have no opportunity for amendments on all of the clauses that might be pushed forward tomorrow morning. We also have a very strict limitation on the ability to improve what is, in my opinion, an extremely flawed bill.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, on October 6, you said that when we talk about clause by clause review of a particular bill, you have the right and the ability to intervene as far as a committee is concerned.

Going back to precedents, I cite from Marleau and Montpetit, footnote 400, which references the minutes of the Standing Committee on Industry, March 23, 1999, meeting 104:

In 1990, following a lengthy examination of Bill C-62, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Criminal Code, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Income Tax Act, the Statistics Act, and the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Chair of the Finance Committee unilaterally terminated debate on a motion to limit further debate and set out a schedule allotting time for the remainder of the Committee’s consideration of the Bill. The Chair’s decision was appealed and sustained by the Committee.

Similar action took place last Thursday, November 2 at the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Further to that notice in Marleau and Montpetit, it states:

The Committee subsequently made a report to the House outlining its concerns about the manner in which debate had been limited and asking that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Today that committee is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It continues:

The House concurred in the report... After study, the Privileges and Elections Committee suggested that Standing Order 78 (time allocation) was the appropriate vehicle to use when proposing a limit on committee consideration of a bill.

Standing Order 78(1) states:

When a Minister of the Crown, from his or her place in the House, states that there is agreement among the representatives of all parties to allot a specified number of days or hours to the proceedings at one or more stages of any public bill, the Minister may propose a motion, without notice, setting forth the terms of such agreed allocation; and every such motion shall be decided forthwith, without debate or amendment.

We have a situation whereby a committee has clearly arbitrarily set the most severe limits in Parliament's history on discussion of this bill. The committee has not received those instructions from the House of Commons. Very clearly, precedent shows that when a committee goes beyond what instructions were given to it, the House must provide that direction. So I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that in light of this draconian motion of closure that is being imposed on the Standing Committee on International Trade, you would request of the Chair of the standing committee not to proceed forthwith tomorrow morning, but rather to hold off until you, as Speaker of the House, can make an appropriate ruling in regard to this very draconian abuse of parliamentary privilege.

Procedure and House Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to what I consider to be an extremely important issue.

First, beyond the issue that we will be discussing for the next few minutes, there is something all Canadians should recognize as well. Despite what my hon. colleague from the official opposition, the opposition chief whip, has stated, the intent of this motion is not to discuss whether provisional Standing Orders should be made permanent. It is not even about whether an agreement was broken. The purpose of the motion today is the official opposition, and I suspect in concurrence with other opposition parties, clearly wants to hijack the workings of Parliament. The members of the opposition are using procedural tactics, which are available to them, to delay proper implementation of government legislation. They are using delaying tactics, in other words, to disallow full discourse and debate on government legislation, which we introduced into this place. They are doing that for their own political partisan reasons and, frankly, that is not only objectionable, it circumvents and undermines the purpose of this place.

My hon. colleague, the chief opposition whip, said in her opening remarks, when she introduced the concurrence motion, that the provisional Standing Orders served a number of purposes. One is to allow opposition parties the ability to introduce motions, to speak and to question government members. However, she also said something extremely important. The provisional Standing Orders or the Standing Orders should allow the government to conduct its business. In other words, it should allow the government to govern.

I totally agree with that. The Standing Orders should allow governments to govern. On one hand, the chief opposition whip agrees with that statement. Yet on the other hand, and proof is in today's concurrence motion, which is the fourth of fifth concurrence motion we have had in the last two weeks, she is delaying the ability of the government to govern. That is the first point and I want to get it on the record.

This is highly objectionable. I think most Canadians would agree with me that the purpose of Parliament is to pass legislation or to at least have healthy debate on the it. Yet by the very action of the opposition members, that debate is not taking place. They are finding ways, through procedural tactics, to shelve any meaningful debate on legislation that the government plans to bring forward.

This aside, that is their right. Under the Standing Orders, they can introduce concurrence motions. They have done so. We are now debating the motion for three hours instead of debating government legislation, but so be it. I will accept that because it is something that is available to all opposition members.

I want to turn my attention to the motion at hand. I again want to emphasize that the real issue in the debate on Standing Orders, whether the provisional Standing Orders should be made permanent, is not the issue. The issue is there was an agreement in place that was broken. I believe strongly that agreements and words are extremely important in this place. We could not operate in this place if we had a culture in which a word that was given could be broken at a whim.

I know you, Mr. Speaker, being the senior statesman in this place, would understand. Over the last few decades you have worked in this place and represented Canadians here. I suggest to you that you feel quite strongly that when one gives his or her word to a colleague, that word should be respected, that word should be honoured and to break that word is extremely serious. This is the issue with which we are dealing.

Even though it has been talked about before, let me give the scenario that occurred, chronologically.

On September 19 of this year, the meeting of the House leaders took place, at which time the government House leader talked about extending the provisional Standing Orders for approximately 60 days, until November 21. The reason the government House leader introduced this was because the previous agreement was that the provisional Standing Orders would stay in place only until October 10. If they were not put into place in a permanent fashion at that time, we would revert back to the old Standing Orders.

The government House leader then said that we should have some all party discussion on whether these provisional Standing Orders should be made permanent or whether they should perhaps be amended somewhat. He proposed to extend the provisional Standing Orders until November 21, an additional 60 days. He suggested that during that 60 day extension, the staff of all four parties get together and discuss whether there should be amendments or whether we were happy with the provisional Standing Orders as written. Then we could adopt them into a permanent state, with or without amendments, by the November 21. All House leaders said that was reasonable and they agreed to it.

The following day, on September 20, the government House leader, in this place, introduced the motion asking for unanimous consent to extend the provisional Standing Orders until November 21, as agreed upon in the previous day's House leaders' meeting. It was unanimously agreed upon. That is why I say there is indisputable proof that there was an agreement made at the House leaders' meeting of September 19.

I have great respect for all of my colleagues in positions such as whips or House leaders, or caucus officer positions. Not only do I have respect for them, I absolutely know they are intelligent people who would not allow a motion to pass unanimously unless there had been an agreement. In other words, if we, as the government, tried to pull a fast one and we asked for unanimous consent for a motion and we tried to slide something through, if there had not been an agreement the previous day at the House leaders' meeting, my colleagues on the opposition benches would not have given unanimous consent. However, they did not do that. Everyone agreed to pass the motion unanimously, which again verifies my contention that there was an agreement in place. That is indisputable.

Now having proved that there was an agreement in place, what happened? Rather than waiting until November 21, rather than waiting for all staff members from all opposition parties and the government to get together to examine these provisional Standing Orders to determine whether there should be amendments made and rather than honouring the agreement, on October 5 of this year, at the procedures and House affairs committee, the chief opposition whip introduced a motion, without prior consultation, stating that she wished to make the provisional Standing Orders permanent immediately. That was in violation of the agreement, which stated they should remain in effect until November 21. This is the issue that I am debating. An agreement was broken.

The reason the opposition whip introduced this motion was payback. Opposition members were upset at us because we used a provisional tactic several days beforehand, Standing Order 56.1, and we caught the opposition by surprise.

The circumstances were this. Bill C-24 was being debated in this place. It was the softwood lumber debate, legislation which we had introduced and we wanted to get passed as quickly as possible. Our colleagues from the NDP, during debate, kept raising amendments and subamendments, and then putting up speakers to deal with those amendments and subamendments. That is perfectly acceptable under the Standing Orders of this place. NDP members were, in other words, using procedural tactics to delay implementation of Bill C-24. They did not agree with Bill C-24, so they were using procedural tactics to delay the implementation of it as long as they possibly could.

The Conservatives disagreed. We felt this bill was an extremely important piece of legislation that would benefit the softwood lumber industry and finally put an end to years and years of litigation and dispute between Canada and the U.S. We wanted to fast track the bill. We wanted to stop with these sorts of procedural delays, get the debate completed, get the bill to committee, and ultimately vote on it in this place.

What did we do? We employed a procedural tactic of our own. It is called Standing Order 56.1(3). For those in the gallery and the Canadian viewing public, it is what I would suggest is a fairly arcane procedural Standing Order, which says that there needs to be 25 members of the opposition in this place to defeat a motion that we were about to bring forward.

One day, knowing that the opposition tends not to show up to work very often, the Conservatives introduced a motion which would, to cut to the chase, effectively limit the amount of debate that the NDP would be able to use. In other words, it would stop the NDP from using its procedural tactics to continue to delay the implementation of this bill.

The Conservatives introduced a motion and all of a sudden, by the rules of this place, all of those opposed to our motion had to stand and be counted. There needed to be 25 opposition members to defeat our motion. What happened? There were only 21 opposition members in this place at that time.

I would suggest that speaks volumes about the intentions of the members opposite who actually do not think it is that important to show up to this place during routine proceedings. Nonetheless, only 21 members stood, so the NDP could not defeat our motion. Consequently, it was stymied in its attempts to delay discussion and debate on Bill C-24.

In other words, because of the procedural tactic the Conservatives used, the opposition was angry. Opposition members were very angry and decided they had to push back, that there was payback and there were consequences. They were angry that the Conservatives pulled a fast one like that, embarrassed NDP members, and stifled their ability to talk about a bill they did not agree with.

What happened? On October 5 in the procedure and House affairs committee the opposition whip introduced a motion to break an agreement. She introduced a motion that would place a permanent status on the provisional Standing Orders. She said no, the opposition was not going to honour the agreement to wait until November 21 and was not going to honour the agreement to allow all staff members to get together and examine the provisional Standing Orders to see whether amendments should or could be made. It was going to say to heck with that, it wanted to break the agreement, and wanted these Standing Orders to be made permanent immediately.

That is the issue. The opposition members broke their word. That much is indisputable. In every question and comment period, I have asked every member opposite the simple question of whether there was an agreement in place and not one of the members has had the courage to stand here and say, “Yes, you were right, there was an agreement and that agreement was broken”. They try to change the channel, skirt the issue, and stand in this place to say that is not really issue. The issue is that we should be discussing these provisional Standing Orders. That is the issue.

When members give their word of honour in this place, I suggest they must honour that word. This place could not operate without it. We all know that. From time to time in committees, opposition and government members get together and say, “We are debating something in committee. Can I count on your support?” If somebody says yes, that word is taken as that person's bond.

If we start breaking agreements and breaking our word, then our word is meaningless. This place will not operate. I will give an example of something that affected me, but will show all members how I try to conduct myself in this place.

I was first elected in 2004. I was new to this place and new to the committee structure. I was on, ironically enough, the ethics committee at that time. During debate of some motion that was coming forward, the hon. NDP member for Winnipeg Centre, I believe, gave me a phone call and told me he was introducing something and that he would like my support. He explained his position to me. I said it sounded reasonable and made sense, so I said I would vote with him and support him when that initiative was brought before the committee.

I found out fairly quickly that perhaps before giving one's word one may want to consult with one's own party because I found out afterwards that it was not the position my party wanted to take. They gave me some very salient and cogent sort of explanations of why we should oppose the initiative that the member for Winnipeg Centre was going to introduce.

It came before the committee and what did I do? I voted with the member. I opposed our party's wishes. I paid for it. I had a discussion with some of our caucus officers who told me that they did not really appreciate my position, but the reason I did it was because I had given the member my word and was willing to live with the consequences. That is how this place must operate, I would suggest.

We have a fundamental issue and that is the issue of the day, the agreement that was made at the September 19 House leaders meeting has been broken. Nothing else matters. These provisional Standing Orders, I could live with them as they are. I could live with them with minor amendments, but that is not the issue.

An agreement was broken and it was done deliberately for partisan reasons, not for the benefit of Canadians, and not because we want to get these provisional Standing Orders in effect today. They would have been effect in any event come November 21 because I would guarantee that all members of the committee, prior to November 21, would have brought forward a motion to deal with it before the deadline ran out. It would have been voted in favour. Those provisional Standing Orders would have been adopted with or without amendments.

However, the opposition party and the chief opposition whip brought this motion forward as a form of what probably may be considered as political payback, but in effect the opposition broke an agreement. It broke its word and that is the issue that we have to deal with here.

We will always disagree on fundamental issues. We will always agree to disagree ideologically, politically and philosophically, but I would suggest, and hope, that every member in this place would agree that when a member of this place gives his or her word to another member, that word should be honoured, and it is not.

We have had, in my opinion again, a serious breach of trust in this place. Some might suggest that the trust has been lacking for a long time. I could agree where some members would suggest that this place is not conducive to trustworthiness. Certainly, all parties are suspicious of the motives of other parties from time to time.

I am quite convinced, even as I speak now, that there are members in the opposition ranks who feel that my motives are politically driven. I just want to assure them, whether or not they take me at my word, that they are not. I absolutely believe that when one gives his or her word in this place, it must be honoured.

We are starting to break down the ability of members to trust one another in the most primary and fundamental environment of asking whether another member will agree to support one and to support a piece of legislation. When a word is broken, when a trust and a bond is broken, I do not believe we can operate efficiently. That is the issue.

I would ask in summation that every member in this place stand during their comments or in their questions, and please accommodate me and answer one simple question. Do they not believe that when one gives his or her word in this place, it should be honoured?

Vote on Amendment to Bill C-24

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Without having a continuation of the debate, let me put the question to the House. Does the proposal that the chief government whip has put forward, that the members of the New Democratic Party who voted on the previous motion be counted as having voted yea on the amendment moved by the Liberal Party to Bill C-24 at second reading last evening?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the proposition that the whip for the government presents on the floor this morning comes as a bit of a surprise because of the government's position last night, which was exactly the opposite.

The proposition that he is bringing forward appears, from a substantive point of view, to be a reasonable one in view of the fact that there was either confusion or an error in the course of the taking of the vote on the amendment to Bill C-24 that was entirely unintentional and inadvertent on the part of the New Democratic Party. I suspect there is a will in the House to see that it is corrected.

However, I need to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the first time this has occurred. We saw a similar incident in the spring in relation to a vote on a budget bill; I hasten to add, not on the budget itself, but in relation to the vote on the budget bill. At that time the House, specifically on the part of the government and perhaps the Bloc, but I do not want to characterize its position because I do not know for sure, did not have the will to accommodate the simple correction of what was an obvious inadvertent occurrence that, since that time, I must say, the government has been at some pains to exacerbate.

The point is that these incidents do, unfortunately, occur. It is obvious to all members of the House that they are inadvertent and there has, at least up until last spring, been the will in the House to immediately recognize the reality of the situation and to cooperate with each other to correct the error and ensure the record accurately reflects what the will of the House would be.

In this instance I think it is obvious what the NDP intended, even though that was not reflected in the detail of what happened last evening. From the opposition's point of view, we are certainly prepared to see that inadvertent situation put right and the accurate reflection of the NDP's position to show through in the proceedings of the House.

I simply make the point that the same goodwill, the same give and take and the same sense of fair play and accurate reflection should apply in all circumstances.

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, I think quite inadvertently, a mistake was made during the deferred recorded division on the Liberal amendment to Bill C-24.

I am sure you will recall, Mr. Speaker, as you were in the chair at the time, that during the vote process the NDP rose to seek consent to have NDP members who were present for the previous vote recorded in support of the Liberal amendment to Bill C-24. Unfortunately, the reality is that when the NDP House leader rose for a second time to seek consent, that consent was denied by the House at that time.

As it was very evident to me, I rose on a point of order and stated that no points of order were to be entertained by the Chair during the vote process and, second, that I wanted to ensure the public viewing the vote process last night did not blame the clerks for the NDP members missing their opportunity to vote. Likewise, I believe that when a party, or an individual member for that matter, seeks to correct the record of a vote after the vote process is completed, it is normal tradition in the House that consent is granted by the members present in the House.

In conclusion, I believe that one mistake in the House should not be compounded by a second mistake. Therefore, in the interest of non-partisanship, common courtesy, traditional practice and in fairness to the New Democratic Party, in particular my colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, I seek the unanimous consent of the House at this time to have the results of the deferred division taken last night on the Liberal amendment to Bill C-24 corrected to indicate that the NDP did intend to support the Liberal amendment.

Business of the House

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue to debate an opposition motion.

Tomorrow, we will complete debate on the amendment to Bill C-24, the softwood lumber agreement. Under a special order adopted Tuesday, there is an opportunity to sit into the weekend if needed to give members, particularly members of the New Democratic Party, the debating time they requested on such an important bill.

Next week, the House will be adjourned to allow members to return to their ridings.

When the House resumes on October 16, we will debate Bill C-23, the Criminal Code; Bill S-2, hazardous materials; and Bill C-6, aeronautics.

On Tuesday I will call Bill C-24 again. Thursday will be an allotted day.

We will introduce the motion that the hon. member requested in due course.

At the same time, I would like to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving weekend.

Softwood Lumber

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is urgent, but it took six months for the leader of the Bloc Québécois to take a position on this agreement.

It is essential to have this agreement adopted as quickly as possible. I ask the Bloc Québécois to work with us to pass Bill C-24, so that the companies can receive the funds provided by this government.

Government Operations and Estimates

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House that, in relation to the second reading stage of Bill C-24, and notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, Bill C-24 shall not be subject to any further amendments or subamendments; and on any day Bill C-24 is under consideration at second reading, the House shall sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment and shall not be adjourned before such proceedings have been completed except pursuant to a motion to adjourn proposed by a minister of the Crown.

Business of the House

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the hon. gentleman would like us to table everything we are going to do for the whole fall, right up to Christmas. Usually, the Thursday question is just for the week ahead, but it seems to have expanded.

Today, for sure, we will continue with the debate on the opposition motion of his party.

Tomorrow, we hope to complete Bill C-24, the softwood lumber agreement, which will followed by Bill S-2, hazardous materials, and Bill C-6, the Aeronautics Act.

Tomorrow, I intend to ask the House to approve the appointment of Graham Fraser as Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada for a term of seven years.

Depending on progress on the softwood lumber bill, it is my intention to call three justice bills next week as follows: Bill C-19, street racing; Bill C-18, DNA; and Bill C-23, Criminal Code efficiency and effectiveness.

Next Thursday will be an allotted day.

The answers to the hon. member's other questions he will know in good time.

Finally, there have been consultations and there is an agreement to have a take note debate on the situation in Sudan. Therefore, I think you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That a take note debate on the subject of the Situation in Sudan take place, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Tuesday, October 3.

Emergency Management Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-12. This is a moment I have been eagerly awaiting, for I am well aware that in the world in which we now live, the issue of emergencies certainly demands the attention of legislators.

Just earlier, I was pondering the fact that, even in the 1800s, people were trying to regulate emergencies with the Quarantine Act. Why did they attempt to use this act in part to regulate emergencies? Because disease was surely the greatest threat to human communities, to the human condition about which Malraux spoke to us with such talent. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you are an enthusiast of Malraux. I know your erudition, and even your epicurean side. Of course, if we are talking about the 16th, 17th or 18th centuries, the spread of disease could not possibly be compared with the SARS crisis that we experienced, for example. And for once, the federal government was in a field of jurisdiction that belonged to it alone, under a class of subject enumerated in the Constitution.

When we speak of emergencies, the word “emergency” is in itself open to many meanings. What does it mean when we speak of emergencies? Are we talking about disease, the unleashed forces of nature, public transit, natural catastrophes, the overflowing of the Red River, the pollution in the big cities, terrorist attacks? Terrorism is a real fact of our collective life.

If I may digress, for a parliament and a parliamentarian, the end can never justify the means. One can never say, on account of some context one considers extraordinary, that one is going to take certain actions prejudicial to personal freedoms. In any case, you know how the Bloc Québécois is. If there is one party in this House that could hold a set of scales in its hands, with a centre of gravity that can balance human rights with necessary protection of the community, that party is surely the Bloc Québécois. How could we not be disturbed by Bill C-24, and its successor Bill C-36 on anti-terrorist measures. The government was trying to plagiarize the previous government, and it plagiarized certain provisions of the Patriot Act, tabled by the Bush administration. Incidentally, it will be with great interest that we shall read the judgment to be rendered shortly on the security certificates.

I know that some of my caucus colleagues, and in particular our immigration and public safety critics, have a lot of reasons to be worried. I would ask you the question, Mr. Speaker. Is it acceptable, in a country that adheres to the rule of law, for a person to be subject to arrest without warrant, arbitrarily detained, and not have access to the complete evidence in his or her court file? Do we not learn in our law schools that it is important to have a just and fair trial? Are we not in the post-Stinchcombe era? The Supreme Court has given judgment on this point. My colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin is aware of that. Stinchcombe requires that all evidence be disclosed. That is surprising, because Stinchcombe involved a tax fraud matter, if I recall correctly.

In any case emergencies cover a range of situations: SARS, overflowing rivers, terrorism, or mass transit.

We know that in some democracies, the evil hand of certain groups has used mass transit to spread toxic substances. Plainly it is a concern of governments, I would even say their duty, to have evacuation and emergency plans.

Let us ask the question: is this primarily the responsibility of the federal government? That question arises in the case before us. This is not a case involving quarantine, an epidemic or virology.

The bill says:

This enactment provides for a national emergency management system that strengthens Canada’s capacity to protect Canadians.

Obviously, when we read the bill, we can say that it is reasonable for the federal government, in the departments for which that government is responsible, to have an emergency plan. We therefore understand that it is reasonable for there to be a plan for public safety, health, national defence, or any other example that my colleagues may bring to my attention.

Closer to home, I know that on Parliament Hill, the Board of Internal Economy, of which the various party whips are members, thinks about how to ensure that the Hill is safer. There have been very few unfortunate incidents, but still, there have been a few.

In fact, there is a new Sergeant-at-Arms in the House. I would like to wish him success in the responsibilities of his position. He is the person who is responsible for the safety of parliamentarians.

In the British parliamentary tradition, the distance between the opposition and the government is two and a half sword lengths. Why? Because when Parliament was first created, when the institution of Parliament was created in the United Kingdom, the monarch stood in fear of members of Parliament. That is the source of the tradition, when the Speaker is elected, of dragging him or her by the arm while being met with resistance. That is because some of the speakers, in some of the Parliaments of Great Britain, who were called burgesses, were beheaded when the king did not agree with them.

So as not to wander too far afield, let us come back to the Sergeant-at-Arms. He is responsible for parliamentarians’ safety, and in emergencies he must arrange for the Hill to be evacuated.

I would like to give you an example of a traumatic event that I experienced personally. Every member of this House is familiar with my sturdiness, physical strength and self-discipline. Then there is the President of the United States, who thinks he is the master of any house he happens to be in. When President Bush visited the Hill, some parliamentarians, including me, were not allowed access to the Hill. My colleague from Saint-Lambert was also denied access to the Hill. Why? Not because the constables prevented us from entering. After all, their kindness is known to us all. They were not the ones who denied us entry. It was security personnel outside Parliament who stopped us; they went about it quite rudely, I might add. Such events prompt us to think about how we might react in an emergency that forced us to evacuate the building rapidly.

I know that Board of Internal Economy members, including the whips, have discussed this issue.

So, yes, we have to have emergency measures in place in our large communities, especially in big cities. Emergencies can be caused by natural disasters, terrorist attacks on public transportation or, of course, disease. Obviously, we do not deal with disease as we did in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, but imagine the impact of a virus spreading through our communities. Even in our modern society, we have come to realize that hospitals are not always a safe haven. We do not think that going to the hospital can make us sick. I feel comfortable talking about this before the member for Québec because I know she is as healthy as a horse, but people sure do not expect to get sick when they go to the hospital.

We recently learned that some hospitals in Canada were vectors of contamination. This is one of the emergencies for which we must plan.

Although the Bloc Québécois agrees with this bill in principle, we have some concerns. First is the issue of respecting provincial responsibilities. A national emergency should never mean there is just one government. We are long past the time of the Rowell-Sirois commission. We are not in an apprehended war situation. As elected members of the Bloc Québécois, as representatives of the people of Quebec, we must never act as though there were just one government.

The National Assembly, whose first speaker was Mr. Panet—if I recall correctly—is one of the oldest Parliaments in North America. A number of years ago, it passed its own public safety plan. And who was the author of this important plan that respects decentralization, a plan whose goal was to have the regional county municipalities, the municipalities and the health care system work together? When we think of emergencies, these are the players we want to see promote a common vision.

The National Assembly was the first francophone Parliament in North America. It was led by Speaker Panet and founded under the Constitutional Act, 1791, with ministerial responsibility introduced in 1848. It used to be referred to as the Salon de la race, but that expression is no longer used. It passed its public safety plan. We are most privileged to have among us the author of the plan, none other than the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who was the public safety minister at the time and who served the Government of Quebec well.