House of Commons Hansard #96 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was guidelines.
Stan Dromisky Liberal Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Recently the Canadian and United States governments signed a lumber agreement in which the Canadian government had to set quotas for those Canadian companies that are exporting softwood lumber to the United States.
What is the government doing to ensure that the Canadian companies that have exceeded their quotas do not have to close their mills or lay off their employees?
Ron MacDonald LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, the member is right. The Canadian government entered into an agreement with the United States called the softwood lumber agreement in which 14.7 billion board feet of lumber would be allowed to cross into the United States free of any fees for the next five years.
Over the last two quarters, the price of Canadian lumber on the U.S. market has skyrocketed. One year ago today the price was about $233 U.S. It is now trading at about $505 U.S.
As a result, many companies have decided to use more of their quotas in the first two quarters than what they would otherwise normally do because of the high price.
Because the government has always maintained that it is concerned about jobs in that very important sector, the minister has put a number of options into the program that will allow for companies that find themselves at the quota wall and unable to ship as of Friday, to make a request to the government and be able to get some quota for future years so that the jobs in those mills will continue.
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Recently, during a meeting of the UN task force on indigenous people, a Canadian delegation recognized the right of the indigenous people to self-determination. The grand chief of the Cree, Matthew Coon Come, claims that this means that the Canadian government would allow the native people to separate from a sovereign Quebec.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs clarify the nature and the extent of the government's position in this matter?
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the statement made in Geneva by the Canadian spokesperson on indigenous people's rights concerned international law and the right to self-determination. There was no reference to Quebec or Canada's internal situation. This was a matter under the UN-negotiated convention on indigenous people.
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, the minister might want to clarify this once and for all. I am asking him to set the record straight with regard to what the grand chief of the Cree said, and to state clearly and unequivocally that the native people do not have the right to separate from Canada or Quebec?
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the interpretation provided by any other individual. I simply know what we were putting forward after years of negotiations. I am sure negotiations that members of the Bloc would support would be to better establish within internation-
al law the rights of indigenous people to have certain rights of self-determination within the context of the nation state. That is all we were proposing in Geneva.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC
Mr. Speaker, last week some very disturbing news came to light in the other house. An entity of the Government of Canada is undermining the will of the House of Commons. The CRTC is lobbying the senators to vote against Bill C-216, the negative option ban which passed the House on September 23.
Does the heritage minister support the CRTC in its lobby effort to defeat Bill C-216?
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is asking for a reflection on the activities of the other place. I think he might want to address his questions to the other place.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC
Mr. Speaker, in fact I am reflecting on the actions of the CRTC which comes under the heritage minister. The CRTC is effectively lobbying against the passage of Bill C-216 in a place where they can stop the passage of that bill.
I ask the same question. Is the heritage minister supportive of the actions of the CRTC in attempting to squash Bill C-216?
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the claim of the hon. member.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Last week the vice-president of the Retail Council of Canada met with me along with representatives of major Canadian retailers such as Sears, Eaton's, Canadian Tire, Shoppers, and so on. They informed me that the new HST in the maritime provinces was going to cost them in excess of $100 million and that they, the retailers, and us, the consumers back home, would have to absorb that.
Is the minister aware that those retailers are now talking about closing out their operations in the maritimes and that thousands of jobs in the three maritime provinces could be lost because of the HST?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, tax inclusive pricing is something that has been asked for by Canadians from coast to coast.
The member also knows, I am sure, that we have met with the retail council and that the three provincial governments have done so and that consideration will be given to any difficulties that the retailers may have.
The hon. member also will be aware that the retailers themselves now for the first time will be able to take advantage of input tax credits and, as a result of this, their costs will be substantially lower. I certainly hope they pass those lower costs on to the consumers.
John English Liberal Kitchener, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Canadians are deeply concerned about the tragedy that is unfolding in the areas of Rwanda, Burundi and Zaire.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs further explain what activities the international community and Canada can undertake at this point to improve the terrible situation there?
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, first to provide further explanation, the mission of Ambassador Chrétien is being fully supported by a number of Canadian diplomats in our missions in the African area. As well, we are providing a support service here and logistical support.
In addition, as I mentioned, our secretary of state has just returned from Africa where she met with a number of African states and we intend to follow through with any form of available assistance we might provide if there is to be some form of decision to allow for safe corridors.
Last week the Minister for International Co-operation and I announced a new strategy for the Government of Canada and the Canadian people, what we call peacebuilding. It will allow us to mobilize Canadian resources of a variety of kinds, to fit themselves into areas of post-conflict where there is turmoil and disruption taking place. It is a kind of civilian peacekeeping operation which will allow us to have a rapid response so that we do not continue to suffer the kinds of tragedies that we have seen in Rwanda, Burundi or Zaire.
We have to be able to develop new mechanisms to respond to these new realities and we are taking the lead in our own country and promoting the idea of peacebuilding in international organizations.
Presence In GalleryOral Question Period
The Speaker
I bring to the attention of the House the presence in our gallery of three distinguished visitors: Hon. Cynthia Y. Forde, Senator, Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Education, Youth Affairs and Culture, Senate of Barbados. She is accompanied
by Mr. Duncan Carter and Mr Denis St. Elmo Kellman, members of Parliament of the House of Assembly of Barbados.
Stan Keyes LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour and privilege to table in both official languages the government's response to six petitions.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which represented Canada at the 96th inter-parliamentary conference which was held in Beijing, China, September 14 to 21, 1996.
Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 42nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move later this day concurrence in the 42nd report.
Alfonso Gagliano LiberalMinister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-66, entitled: "An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts".
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I plan to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development before the second reading.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB
moved:
That, no later than the conclusion of Routine Proceedings on the 10th sitting day after the adoption of this motion, Bill C-234, an act to amend the Criminal Code, shall be deemed reported back to the House without amendment.
Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a very brief point of order concerning the admissibility of this motion at this stage of our proceedings.
It appears this motion has been set down under Routine Proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 67(1)(p) as a motion:
-made upon Routine Proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business-
I would refer the Chair to the annotated standing orders, page 213, which state very clearly:
With reference to subsection (p), the Chair has consistently ruled that all motions referring to the business of the House should be introduced by the Government House Leader.
Speaker's rulings to this effect can be found in Journals from May 30, 1928, May 11, 1944 and May 2, 1961. Madam Speaker Sauvé ruled very clearly against such a motion's being proposed by a private member on April 21, 1982, as seen at pages 16701-2 of Debates for that date.
On July 13, 1988 Mr. Speaker Fraser gave a more adventurous opinion, saying with regard to such motions: "It is not the exclusive purview of the government despite the government's unquestioned prerogative to determine the agenda of business before the House".
On September 23 our present Speaker went one step further when he said: "Under our current practices the Chair may well accept after due notice such a motion on the condition that it is very strictly limited to the terms of the committal of a bill to a committee and that it is not an attempt to interfere with the committee's proceedings thereon".
The Speaker has said that such a motion may be in order but that if the motion sought to interfere with the committee's work on the bill other than to oblige the committee to complete its work by a
specified time, it would not be possible to admit such a motion under Routine Proceedings.
If one reads the motion in question, one sees that the motion would not only order the committee to complete its study of the bill by a certain time, but it would also propose to instruct the committee that it cannot make any amendments to the proposed bill. This clearly and explicitly violates the conditions set down by Mr. Speaker on September 23 last.
The motion is clearly an attempt to interfere improperly with the committee's proceedings on the bill in question and I submit that even if the motion were otherwise acceptable the inclusion of the words "without amendment" violates the conditions set down by the Speaker and makes this motion inadmissible under the rubric Routine Proceedings to propose a motion of this nature under Routine Proceedings.
John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, while this motion is in no way, shape or form intended to restrict the committee in doing its work, it only asks that the committee report back here and if it has not done so, that it be deemed to have done so by a certain date.
Reform raised this point of privilege some weeks ago when the House reconvened. On September 23, 1996 you ruled, Mr. Speaker, that the matter was not a matter of privilege:
Since hon. members and the House have a remedy to their grievance I cannot find that the decision taken by the committee has prevented members from expressing their opinions or attending to their parliamentary functions.
Instead, Mr. Speaker, you viewed this as a substantial grievance and you pointed to a mechanism to resolve this matter:
However, should the House be of the opinion that the bill has remained with the committee too long it can look into the matter.
With respect to the committal of the bill a motion can be placed under the rubric motions. That is your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
This is precisely what the hon. member for Crowfoot has done. He did so because private members need to resolve this particular matter. This matter is important to the private member because it represents the larger question of whether a private member can present an alternative when faced with the disapproval of the government leadership.
If this motion is not pursued at this time and, for example, is transferred to Government Orders, the answer to the above question would therefore be no.
If it is to become a government order then only a cabinet minister will be able to continue the debate on this matter of a private member's business, and that would be a dangerous precedent. We, as private members, sent Bill C-234 to committee. We, as private members, should be able to cause a vote to take place on this motion.
A thorough majority of the private members of this House have had no real input into the discussion. This does not necessarily mean that the majority wants the motion to be taken away and buried. We, as private members, may want to continue the debate on another day. If this issue is transferred, for example, to Government Orders, we allow the government to hide behind a technicality as raised by the chief government whip, which is how we got into this mess in the first place, and the government has now become involved in Private Members' business and impeded the process through a procedural trick. We cannot allow that to happen in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I refer you to Standing Order No. 1:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chairman-
I would also refer you to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 1002 and 1006. These citations explain how it is the responsibility of the Speaker to carry out and arrange for scheduling as well as to determine priorities for Private Members' Business.
This is the first time that we have had such a motion in this House with regard to this issue. Mr. Speaker, not only is it within your power to set a practice but it is your responsibility to ensure that a matter of Private Members' Business remains a matter of Private Members' Business.
This motion must be allowed to remain before the House under motions so that a private member can resume that we can continue the debate. Another option is to consider transferring the motion to Private Members' Business as a votable item. In any event, we voted freely to have Bill C-234 referred to committee and we should vote freely to have Bill C-234 reported to the House.
As private members and particularly as private members in a minority situation, we must be protected by the rules and we must be protected from government domination.
The responsibility of deciding this issue rests with you, Mr. Speaker. I urge you to rule once again on the side of the private member.
Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure you that the motion I have placed before the House will in no way impede the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The committee has completely dealt with the bill. It decided by way of motion not to move the bill forward. The only alternative that I have to bring the bill back before the House to be dealt with by members
of the House is to bring forward this motion as you indicated, Mr. Speaker, in your decision on the earlier motion.
I wish to assure you that this motion does not interfere at all with the workings of the committee regarding the bill because the work of the committee has been absolutely finalized and completed. I place my remarks on the record for your purpose.
Bill C-234Routine Proceedings
The Speaker
My colleagues, I do take a great interest in this motion and I am fully aware of the decision which I rendered on September 23.
I have of course listened to the advice of the chief government whip. He raises one or two points that I wish to consider.
I would like to take some time to once again go over the decision in light of the circumstances which have been brought forth and I will return to the House with a decision. In the meantime, this motion will remain on the Order Paper under Motions under Routine Business until I do render my decision. That will be as soon as I can get to it.