Debates of Oct. 29th, 1997

Tourist Industry

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

In an article that appeared in yesterday's media, Canadians were given the impression that Canada has lost ground in the tourist industry.

Can the minister confirm that Canada's tourist industry will continue to play a lead role world wide?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to underline the importance of tourism, an industry that brings in $42 billion in revenue every year, in Canada.

I also want to underline the importance of the formation of the Canadian tourism commission in 1994. It has not only created a partnership with provincial governments and the industry itself, it has not only increased Canadian promotion of tourism products internationally, but it has resulted in moving Canada from 12th to 10th place in tourism receipts and increased—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

Pacific Salmon Treaty

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the United States caught $650 million more in salmon than allowed under the Pacific salmon treaty.

The Liberal government has known since 1993 that this has been happening. We now know that the Liberal's own negotiator advised that the U.S. federal government, and not the states, is responsible for the treaty.

Why has the government ignored the advice of its negotiator and taken a softball approach to the United States government?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, we have known for four years, ever since this Mulroney negotiated treaty failed, that there was no provision for continuing and no provision for dispute resolution.

We tried year after year to get the Americans to come to the table so they would recognize the need for continuing arrangements for fishing. In most of those years we have been successful with the north and south regional arrangements or with an overall annual arrangement.

There is no question that American fishermen have taken larger numbers of fish than we feel they are entitled to and which the treaty suggests they should have.

Tobacco Legislation

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

Yesterday, the Minister of Health said that he would amend the anti-tobacco legislation so as to allow international Grand Prix races to be held. The secretary of state for regional development indicated, and I quote: “It goes without saying that the Formula 1 changes will apply to all events”.

Will the minister confirm the statement by his colleague, the secretary of state for regional development, that the measures applied in the case of the Grand Prix races will apply to all major sports and cultural events?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks I have stated this government's position many times. We must and we will keep the promise made last April.

I am now working with my colleagues, in particular the minister responsible for economic development in Quebec, on the amendment. I would suggest that the hon. member wait until I am prepared to table this amendment.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I would like to draw to members' attention to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Alvaro Ramos, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I have two points of order and a question of privilege. I am going to do it a little bit in reverse today because I think the points of order might be a little shorter and I want to give the hon. member a few minutes at least to put his question of privilege.

Point Of Order

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period I made reference to a document that I would like to table at this time. It is entitled “Employment Development Program: Program Report, January 1997 to September 1997, of the Community Fisheries Development Centre”. In it, in particular in annex one, you will discover the $12.5 million in programs that this one organization has from Human Resources Development Canada.

[The Speaker]

Of course we will table the document. The other point of order has been withdrawn so I am going to go directly to the question of privilege.

Privilege

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege to bring to your attention an issue which I think compromises the rights and privileges of all members of this House.

I speak in particular of a news release dated Thursday, October 23 brought to my attention last night in which the Government of Canada announced that provincial and federal governments had constituted a nominating committee to nominate candidates for the new Canada pension plan investment board.

This nominating committee consists of 10 members and will be responsible for drawing up a list of recommended candidates for the new CPP investment board proposed by Bill C-2 presently before this House.

From this list the federal Minister of Finance will select 12 directors, including a chairperson for this board. This is what the finance minister is quoted in his release as having said, that “the nominating committee will play a key role in selecting the CPP investment board”.

The press release ends by saying that the nominating committee is expected to submit its list of recommended candidates to the federal finance minister and the finance ministers of the participating provinces before the end of this year.

The nominating committee I have just described is provided for under clause 10(2) of Bill C-2 which reads:

The minister may establish a committee to advise the minister on the appointment of directors. The committee shall consist of a representative designated by the minister and a representative of each participating province designated by the appropriate provincial minister for that province.

I want to refer to two precedents from Hansard .

On March 9, 1990 Speaker John Fraser ruled on a question of privilege brought by the member for Kamloops in which a pamphlet regarding the GST was disseminated by the government prior to the passage of the GST legislation. Speaker Fraser ruled it not to be a question of privilege but only because the pamphlet stated within it that the legislation was before the House and that the information in the pamphlet was only a proposal.

The second precedent also concerns the goods and services tax. The member for Cape Breton—East Richmond brought a point of privilege on March 16, 1991 on exactly the same point. Speaker Fraser once again ruled on March 25, 1991 that it did not constitute a point of privilege, on the grounds that the newsletter indicated that the information it contained were proposals only. Specifically he decided that the minister had not acted as if the House had already passed the budget measure approving the GST and that the advertising did not prejudice a future decision of the House.

The situation before us is similar but much, much more serious. Obviously the Minister of Finance has already designated a committee defined under clause 10 of the bill. He clearly expects the committee to meet, to incur expenses and to make important decisions that will obligate the Government of Canada in various ways, in other words to perform a function that is essential to the thrust of Bill C-2.

The question of privilege arises in that the bill only went to the Standing Committee on Finance for consideration on second reading yesterday. Members of the committee may want to alter clause 10 of the bill and the government is proceeding as if Parliament has already given the minister authority to act under that section when it clearly has not done so.

If the government is allowed by the House to proceed to enact a bill that has not been passed by the House, a dangerous precedent will have been set, a precedent that undercuts the authority of Parliament and derogates from the rights and privileges of every member to have input into legislation prior to its enactment.

Once again the action considered today is a matter of privilege for the reasons I have already stated. The minister has actually designated a committee under an act yet to be passed or even considered in the standing committee, and the nominating committee has already been given a deadline to submit names as the bill directs if it were to be passed in its present form. Since the bill only went to committee yesterday, this matter is very timely and is very time sensitive.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to give this matter careful consideration so that the rights and privileges of all members of Parliament and ultimately the rights and privileges of all citizens of Canada will be protected and preserved and that the proper constituted authority is followed.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things that the Chair may want to consider before it rules as to whether or not this a prima facie question of privilege.

First the member referred to proposed Bill C-2 and that recommendations would be made by the minister. In other words, in both instances where the hon. member across the way made such references, he made references to things that were not definitive, namely a proposal and a recommendation as opposed to a specific action of appointment.

Second, when referring to the March 9, 1990 decision, the hon. member recognized that the action at that time did not constitute a question of privilege. Again in 1991 the advertising at that time was not deemed to be a question of privilege because, according to the hon. member and I agree with him, it did not jeopardize the passage of the bill.

One would have to be pretty hard pressed today in the House of Commons to arrive at the judgment that the House would be influenced to pass or not pass the bill, as to whether or not a proposal has been made or recommended to have people to sit on an advisory committee to recommend others to sit on a future committee to be put in place after the passage of the bill. As such, it would be overstating the facts considerably.

No one is saying that the government in that advertisement will put this bill in place or put in place the eventual board of directors whether the bill is passed or not. That is not claimed at all by the government. As a matter of fact, I say to the people across the way that this is an advisory committee to recommend people to sit on a future committee. Of course the future committee would only exist with the passage of the bill.

Obviously if the bill does not pass there is no need to have the permanent committee in place. Nor do I think the government would ever consider putting such a permanent committee in place if that were the case. It is an advisory committee to select members to sit on the future permanent committee which is not yet in place.

One has to hold the following proposition before Canadians and before Your Honour this afternoon. The bill if passed, and I would like to say when passed, will come into force next January 1. If it does not pass, it will cost Canadian taxpayers the sum of $400 million if there is a delay of one year. Therefore the government has to be ready with all the proper recommendations just prior to the January 1 tentative implementation date. The implementation date will only be firm once the bill is finally passed.

Once the bill is passed, the government would only be prudent to take the necessary lead time to make the necessary preparation in order to then have at that time the final nomination of the people for the permanent committee. It is the prudent thing to do. It is one that saves taxpayers dollars which is essential not only in the eyes of the federal government but in the eyes of the eight provinces that have signed on to the agreement and even in the eyes of the other two that have also said they want to place people on the board of directors should it come into place once the bill is adopted.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, as I mentioned the last time, I want to have a look at any question of privilege that impinges on members of the House. The hon. member for Fraser Valley quoted from a document which I have not seen. I would ask him to please leave me the document so I can read it. I want to have a look at this thing and I want to reserve judgment on it.

If the House will grant me, I will return to the House if and when it is necessary, but I want to have a look at the document before I make a ruling.

Committees Of The House

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Deputy Speaker, first it is a pleasure to welcome you in that seat. It is very nice to have you call for this report which I am honoured to present as the chair of the official languages committee. It is the first report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership and associate membership of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the sixth report later this day.

Parliament Of Canada Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-13, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. government House leader, on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent to deal with this bill later this day.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Perhaps we could have the bill read a first time and then I will deal with the minister's motion.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[The Deputy Speaker]

When shall the bill be read a second time? The hon. government House leader on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, rather than the traditional later sitting of the House, I wish to seek unanimous consent that the bill be dealt with later this day. There has been consultation among all parties.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there agreement that the bill be ordered for consideration later this day?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.