Debates of June 12th, 1996

Irving Whale

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Last Monday, I asked the Minister of the Environment whether the insurance coverage for the contractor responsible for refloating the Irving Whale had been revised since last year, and whether it now covered PCBs? Taken unawares by my question, the minister did not make any reference to insurance coverage in his response.

I am therefore asking again whether he can give us a guarantee that the new insurance contracts have been revised and do contain coverage for PCBs?

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the government has undergone a number of consultations and assessments on the Irving Whale . We are going ahead with the lift this summer.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to date, the refloating of the Irving Whale has cost the Canadian taxpayer no less than $18 million. What is more, it has not been successful, so several millions more will have to be spent.

Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans make a commitment before this House to claim the entire costs of this operation from those who are in reality the only ones responsible, that is to say the Irving Company?

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to the polluter pay principle. Once we bring the Irving Whale up, we will be able to assess the real reason for its sinking. At that time we will take appropriate action.

Taxation

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, by removing the tax credit on the GST, the finance minister has raised the purchase price of all used goods bought by ordinary Canadians while quietly reaping a huge tax windfall for his own coffers.

Car dealers, auctioneers, people who sell used furniture and used clothing, virtually anybody employed in the used goods sector, will be under pressure. They tell us that bankruptcies and lay-offs are imminent.

Can the finance minister tell the House if it is his intention to use this silent tax windfall financed from the pockets of ordinary Canadians to pay for his billion dollar pay-off to Atlantic premiers?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, that is a used question. Because it is a used question, let me simply deal with the last part of the question, this constant reference to a bribe, this constant insult to Atlantic Canada.

It is really important to understand this is one country. It is not incumbent upon a member of any political party to stand up and insult one region of the country.

This is fundamental change that will benefit small business in Atlantic Canada. It is fundamental change that will benefit the consumers of Atlantic Canada. It will give Atlantic Canada a chance to basically get its business costs in line.

I do not think it is incumbent upon any member of the House to stand up and constantly insult a region of the country.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member would please answer the question. Page 22 of the red book said any changes to the GST would be revenue neutral. This clearly is not, since it will cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Will the finance minister admit today that not only is he incapable of keeping his promise to abolish the GST, but that he has reneged on his page 22 promise of revenue neutrality. Is he not just like Sheila Copps?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let the hon. member understand that on June 17 Sheila Copps will win an overwhelming majority.

Second, let the hon. member understand that his own party talked about ripping the heck out of the GST and scrapping it. Then, when the finance committee came to me, his own party recommended harmonization. His own party recommended broadening the base. His own party has flip-flopped back and forth on this issue more times than anybody can count.

The fundamental issue is why does this hon. member, after his convention at which they said they would adopt a more enlightened view, continue to expostulate the voices of extremism?

International Conference On Aids

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the llth international conference on AIDS, being hosted by Canada in Vancouver next month. Is the Prime Minister prepared to reconsider his decision not to attend this very important conference, particularly in view of the letter which his own colleague, the Minister of Health, sent to him on May 15 stating: "If you choose not to attend, Canadians and representatives from other countries will receive a signal that Canada is less than committed to fighting this disease"?

Will the Prime Minister listen to the Minister of Health, listen to Canadians who are fighting desperately against HIV and AIDS? Will the Prime Minister now agree to attend the conference and make a commitment to renew the national strategy on AIDS at the conference?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I considered the possibility of attending the conference. If I cannot go, I hope the head of state for Canada, the Governor General, will be there.

The commitment I have expressed in support of this cause is well known. I was one of the leaders who went to the conference in Paris which was convened two years ago. It is possible that I will not be able to be there. If I cannot be there, I hope the Governor General as the head of state for Canada will be there.

Endangered Species

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.

One of the commitments in the throne speech was legislation on endangered species. In light of the Sierra Club report, can the parliamentary secretary tell this House what action we can expect on endangered species in Canada?

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the minister remains committed to introducing federal legislation relating to endangered species in the House. As the member has pointed out, it is a throne speech commitment. If we are to have effective endangered species legislation, then we have to factor in habitat as well.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I would like to bring to your attention the presence in the gallery of Mr. Robin Teverson, member of the United Kingdom Delegation of the European Parliament.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

I would also like to bring to your attention the presence in the gallery of some of what I would call our unsung heroes who represent us as Canadians. I am referring specifically to the physicians who in our name travel to third world countries at their own expense to treat people, thereby doing a great service for them and for Canada.

Would these physicians please stand and be recognized.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Point Of Order

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in regard to a motion I placed on the Order Paper. The motion is as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, a message be sent to the Senate respectfully requesting a free conference with Their Honours to consider the issue of the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament with respect to the accountability process for the main estimates.

My point of order will address the issue of where the motion stands on the Order Paper. I do not feel it should be the subject of a private member's motion but a matter that can be moved under Routine Proceedings under Motions. I will also address the issue of the necessity of a procedure that has fallen into disuse.

I understand that historically conferences with the Senate are to work out disagreements with respect to legislation. In fact it is part of the legislative process. However this is the first time that the Senate has been asked to account to this House for its spending. Consequently it is the first time there has been a disagreement or misunderstanding on how to proceed in this matter. There is no mechanism nor are there any references to meetings with the Senate on this issue. That is why a free conference may serve the purpose.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, messages sent to the Senate are usually made under Motions. In addition there is the definition of section (p) of Standing Order 67 which describes motions that can be made under Routine Proceedings. These motions are for the maintenance of the House's authority and "the management of its business". My motion is such a motion.

The estimates of the Senate are not an issue of ministerial responsibility, which I will explain further, but are a matter of the Senate as a whole and consequently a matter of this House as a whole. If this House needs to take action on such issues, then there should be a quick mechanism through which it can take that action.

We need this conference to manage our business of supply and maintain the authority of the elected House. The deadline to deal with the estimates is June 21 or possibly earlier. We are under a deadline and we need to get together with the Senate soon.

I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 745 which states:

Either House may demand a conference-to communicate resolutions or addresses to which the concurrence of the other House is desired-

Citation 746(3) states: "The free conference is a meeting of managers attempting, by discussion, to effect an agreement between the two Houses".

Although citation 748 of Beauchesne's says that conferences between the two Houses are now obsolete, a motion for a free conference with the Senate is still on our books. It can be found in Standing Order 67(1)(h).

Citation 750 of Beauchesne's makes a qualifying point:

While still theoretically possible under the Standing Orders, both the conference and the free conference have been effectively replaced by the exchange of Messages between the two Houses and the attendance of Ministers at the committees of both Houses.

Citation 751 goes even further:

What may be described as less open and ostensible means of communication arise from the fact that representatives of the government sit in both Houses, so that every public question is presented by the executive to both Houses-

As I mentioned earlier, the matter of the estimates of the Senate is not a matter of the government. It is not the Leader of the Government in the Senate who is responsible. The responsibility lies with the Senate as a whole. It does not matter if ministers from this House attend Senate committees or that a minister sits in the other place.

This is a unique situation. The arguments set out in citations 750 and 751 do not apply because ministerial accountability does not apply in this case. The use of a free conference is therefore justified and suitable to this particular issue.

Since it is a matter respecting the authority of the House or lack thereof to consider the management of its business, it is therefore a matter to be considered under Motions. I understand that it has been a long time since such a conference has been sought. However with respect to the relationship of the two Houses regarding the main estimates in modern times, it is fitting that an archaic rule will be necessary to attempt to bring the accountability practices of the Senate from the 1880s to the 1990s.

In conclusion, I view this situation as a very serious one. Outside of voting down the funds of the Senate, we in this House are virtually powerless to do anything about the issue of the main estimates of the Senate.

I would like to give this process another chance. We need to come to some agreement with the Senate so that the public can have confidence in this institution and the way it accounts for the spending of their money.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few issues raised by the hon. member.

I disagree with his interpretation of the rules whereby Standing Order 67(1)(h) could be used for such a purpose. I also believe that

his reading of Beauchesne is inaccurate, or at least the interpretation thereof is inaccurate. Let me deal with both issues.

Standing Order 67(1) refers to debatable motions. Standing Order 67(1)(h) refers to a conference with the Senate. That may be quite true. However, Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms , sixth edition, as my colleague across the way has just indicated, under the general rubric of conferences, it is referred to under the heading ``Intercourse Between the Two Houses''. Citation 743 reads in part:

When the House of Commons does not agree to the Senate amendments, it adopts a motion which states reasons for its disagreement. This is communicated to the Senate by written Message.

It then lists the steps that are to be followed following that kind of a disagreement on Senate amendments to a bill or a motion coming from the House. This of course has never occurred. Therefore, the prerequisite for invoking Standing Order 67(1)(h) that the hon. member brings to our attention has not, in my opinion, been satisfied.

With respect to the calling of such a conference, citation 745 states:

Either House may demand a conference upon the following matters: to communicate resolutions or addresses to which the concurrence of the other House is desired; concerning the privileges of Parliament; to acquire or to communicate statements of facts on which bills have been passed by either House; to offer reasons for disagreeing to, or insisting on, amendments-

The House has not made that kind of determination to make the request to the other House. Therefore, that has not been satisfied either. That is citation 745 which follows citation 743 under the general rubric to which I referred.

For all of these reasons the criteria have not been satisfied. There is absolutely no provision under which the standing order in question should be allowed, that is to say, a motion under Standing Order 67(1)(h), nor is the interpretation of citation 745(1) of Beauchesne accurate as presented to the House by our colleague across the way.

It is quite true of course that this House can invite another House or a committee of another House for a review of whatever, presumably estimates and other things. If the House wants to do that-and I understand that such an invitation has been sent-that is one thing. However, the fact that such an invitation has been sent does not at all satisfy the prerequisite which I have just outlined. Therefore, I believe the hon. member's point of order should be rejected by the Chair.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, although we are dealing here with procedure, I wonder if the House would give its Speaker the time to get more information on the matter. In the first place, the point is well taken. I also accept the other side of the argument which has been put forth by the government whip. I will look at this particular procedure and I will return to the House as soon as I can with a decision on this matter.

The Late Joe Flynn

[John English, Liberal, Kitchener, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the former member of Parliament for Kitchener, Joe Flynn.

Joe Flynn died Monday morning in Kitchener. He served in the House between 1974 and 1979. He retired in 1979. After that, he took up a position on the Canadian Pension Commission where he served with distinction until 1984.

Joe Flynn is remembered best as a son of Ireland. Joe talked endlessly about Irish tales, the Irish past and his own Irish heritage.

He was born in Ireland in County Cork in 1921 and came to Canada in 1925. He came, like nearly all Irish immigrants, as a poor boy from a poor family. But as the greatest Irish poet of this century once wrote, "but being poor I have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet". Those dreams for the Flynn family led very far.

The dreams that his parents spread out beneath the Flynn feet led one son to the House of Commons as the member for Kitchener and another son to the office of the chair of Metro Toronto and unfortunately to the Conservative Party. But Joe was the Liberal member for Kitchener with great pride between 1974 and 1979.

In 1939 when war broke out, Joe Flynn joined His Majesty's Canadian Navy, with more emphasis on the Canadian than on His Majesty. He served with great courage during the second world war.

In 1948 he came to Kitchener and raised his family in that city. His role in the community was notable. I list a few of his accomplishments, probably the major one being that he raised seven children in the city of Kitchener. Today several of his children occupy posts of considerable distinction.

He was active in the Knights of Columbus, the Sales and Ad Club. He was the past president of the K-W Blue Line Club and the founding director of the Kitchener Rangers Hockey Club. Many of us who attended Rangers games remember Joe's booming voice when he sang with great pride O Canada. He was a founding member of St. Teresa's Catholic Church and at the House of Commons chaired the committee on veterans affairs.

He was a model immigrant. He was a model resident of Kitchener. He was a wonderful member of this House.

Today, I would like to recall Joe Flynn and the many memories he has given us and to express on behalf of all of us our sympathy to Betty and the family. Kitchener will miss Joe Flynn very much.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would also like to express the sincere condolences of all the members of the Bloc Quebecois to his family and friends.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party of Canada I would like to express our sympathies, our understanding and certainly condolences to the Joe Flynn family and all of his friends.

We recognize the contribution Mr. Flynn made to the House of Commons and to his constituents during his hard work and the contribution in his own community. He worked with the school board, the Chamber of Commerce and a number of other organizations.

I am sure he will be missed and truly recognized for the contributions he made. We extend our condolences and our understanding.

Business Of The House

[Benoît Tremblay, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I an seeking the unanimous consent of the House to defer debate on Motion M-169, which was to be debated this evening under Private Members' Business, and to place it last in the order of precedence.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.