Debates of Nov. 16th, 1998

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Chair has ruled on this issue previously. To bring this issue today before the House and to develop it much further is in a way questioning the Speaker's ruling which has already been rendered.

Second, how the House leaders will deal with this issue will be determined at the conclusion of the negotiations that Mr. Speaker has set out, not before they begin.

[An hon. member]

It's not for negotiation.

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

The hon. member opposite says that it is not for negotiation. The Chair has already ruled on that proposition and I have not appealed the Chair's ruling. I could not do so, nor would I have the intention of doing so.

Finally, something has just been raised with regard to private members' items and prorogation. Need I remind the House that all bills disappear at prorogation: private members' bills and government business. In the past we have sought, between parties, to find ways to reactivate bills at various stages and we have achieved a consensus in that regard.

I have more faith in the co-operation between political parties than perhaps some have indicated on the floor of the House today. I am confident that such good arrangements can and will be made in the future.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few brief remarks to the points raised by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton. The point he raises is very interesting.

Obviously, as a House leader I have a bit of a conflict speaking to this. However, I would say that the House leaders, whom the Speaker has said should make the changes to the standing orders, are perhaps not the appropriate ones to do so. I will make that argument.

At the outset, the Conservative Party is in favour of the 13th report.

It seems to me that the problem came upon this House without notice and perhaps without the forethought which might have prevented this problem.

I find it regrettable that the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs lacked the precision and the crispness that one would normally associate with that committee.

Unfortunately, as the Speaker has discovered, the committee failed to draft its report in such a way that would give effect to its own recommendations if the report was adopted.

I assume that this was perhaps a deliberate action on behalf of the committee and that it was not prepared to place the changes it adopted to the standing orders before the House in its report.

In the past Speakers have intervened to prevent the House from going down that road. However, the Speaker has given a ruling in a genuine attempt to assist this House with a difficulty not of the Speaker's creation.

There is a disturbing trend, I might add, of the government trampling over private members' bills, including those of its own backbenchers.

The member for Sarnia—Lambton is quite correct to feel aggrieved. I do not welcome being placed in this position myself, nor does the Chair. Frankly, this all came about as a surprise. I want to assure the member that there was no consultation with other House leaders prior to this matter coming forward or the Speaker giving his ruling.

Because of the way the committee has drafted its report, the House has no vehicle by which to give effect to these recommendations. The committee has a duty to present the House with clear recommendations which, if adopted, would achieve the changes that the committee desires.

I support the objections of the member for Sarnia—Lambton. It is clear that the Speaker cannot get involved in the process of formulating questions for the House, but neither, I suggest, can the House leaders.

The simplest remedy, which I offer with respect to the Chair, is for the standing committee to do its work again, send the matter back, and make the amendments to the standing orders that it desires. Otherwise the House is left with a document which is not much more than a vague wish list.

It is not the duty of the House officers or the Speaker to clear up this matter, it is a matter for the committee itself.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in this House today to voice my support and my caucus' support for the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

Members may not know this, but the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which tabled the report which was unanimously adopted after concurrence, is composed of a majority of Liberal members of Parliament.

Also, Mr. Speaker, for your information, I provide to the members of this House the fact that not only is the majority of the committee Liberals, but that indeed the chief government whip, the deputy House leader of the government and other prominent members of Parliament from the Liberal Party who have significant responsibilities in the government are on the committee.

I am puzzled as to why the government is concerned about adopting all of these recommendations from the committee when it was the Liberal part of the committee which wholeheartedly embraced and endorsed the recommendations that were made.

As a matter of fact, the NDP member, yours truly, was the only one who had some concerns about what was in the report.

That aside, I would abide by and certainly support the initiative which took place in the House with respect to moving concurrence unanimously and adopting the report.

I stand in support of the question of privilege put forward by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton. I believe that government members should shake their heads in bewilderment if they are opposed to this document when it was their own government that embraced it, promoted it and put it forward on the table.

I support the member's question of privilege on this issue.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to rise in support of this question of privilege.

I would point out that in this House there is only one member who is not represented by any political party, I believe, and that is the member for York South—Weston. He too is interested in private members' business and in fact would not be represented at negotiations among House leaders because he does not have the privilege of being represented by any of the House leaders in this place. So the private members' business would go forward, about which he would be particularly concerned and interested, and yet he would not have any input through a party structure in those negotiations.

If this comes back to the House in a format that we again have to decide whether we are going to accept it or not—and we agreed the other day to concur in the report—all we can do is really, really, really agree. We have no choice. The House has spoken. It is time to move it forward.

On those two points I agree with the member's question of privilege, not only with respect to his privileges, but particularly with respect to the member for York South—Weston who will be left out of this process.

[The Speaker]

First of all, with respect to the question of privilege of the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton, I do not consider the point which he brought up to be a challenge to my ruling. I want to make that understood at the outset.

I think what we have had here today is an airing of the ideas which were put forth.

I would like to recapitulate this issue for the House so that we are on the same footing.

I believe that on November 4 a unanimous decision was made by the House to proceed in a certain manner with regard to a matter that was before the House. When the House pronounced on the matter, the Speaker, who has to put into effect what the House has decided, looked at those points of the decision which were procedural. Those points which were procedural and could be implemented at the time were implemented at the time.

I reserved a decision on the other points. Forgive me if I do not have the numbers in front of me, but they were the numbers cited by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

I was left, as the Speaker, trying to decipher what the House had decided. The House had clearly decided to proceed. That was a decision made by the House. Therefore, on those matters which could be changed at the time, I acted on them.

On the others I had to seek advice. In order to do that, I thought the best way for us to proceed would be to ask the clerk of the House to draft motions which he would put into the hands of the House leaders. I presumed that the House leaders would have discussions with members of their own party. But at no time did I say or did I intend to say that the House leaders would decide on these changes. The House leaders would, I hope, agree, but it is the House that will be seized with making this decision when it comes to the floor of the House itself.

As far as the member's question of privilege is concerned, I would rule that he does not have a question of privilege, but he surely has a grievance. I believe that there are methods by which grievances can be addressed.

I would not be so bold as to suggest that any one member, for example the House leader for the Progressive Conservative Party, has all of the solutions, nor does the House leader for the Reform Party. But surely these are points which might be considered when this material is put into the hands of the House leaders.

I would advise and I would recommend to those members who feel aggrieved, if they do not already know all of the means that are at their disposal to rectify the situation, that we would surely be able to give advice on some of the procedures which would be available to members to rectify this situation.

However, I repeat that the decision will not be taken by the House leaders alone. The decision will be taken by the House.

If there is no further debate on this matter at this time, we will leave you to your devices at this point.

Points Of Order

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order today to seek to understand what was unparliamentary or out of order in the preamble to my question during question period today, sir.

[The Speaker]

As a rule the Speaker does not give explanations for his decisions. Generally speaking, what I would hope that this House would stay away from would be remarks that are of such a personal nature that they do not really bear upon the jurisdiction of a particular minister or any particular member.

When I am in the Chair and when these decisions have to be taken, I have to make a decision on how “personal” they are. I judged today that we were getting a little bit close. I asked the hon. member to be very judicious in his choice of words and then I asked the member to put the question. The question still had the preamble and that is why I intervened.

Government Response To Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 60 petitions.

Petitions

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once more to present a petition from my constituency, and there are many more to come.

These petitioners understand the concept of marriage as only being the voluntary union of a single, that is, unmarried male and a single, that is, unmarried female.

It is with pride that I present this petition to the House.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from Salmon Arm and Victoria, British Columbia; Cambridge, Brantford, Ottawa and Etobicoke, Ontario, all on the same subject matter.

These petitioners pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the Interpretation Act, so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female. There are 460 signatures.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition totalling another 1,000 signatures. It calls upon parliament to bring in legislation making the tax deduction for contributions to charitable organizations no less than the tax deduction for contributions to political parties. By happy coincidence that is a motion we will be voting on this evening. It is a motion I brought forward in response to petitioners such as these over the last couple of years.

I am happy to present this petition on behalf of my constituents.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present an important petition signed by hundreds of people in the Peterborough area.

The petitioners point out that merchant navy veterans did not receive post-war veterans benefits and that all of them served under full military command and many of them served under the most anxious circumstances. Casualties in the merchant navy were often worse than in other theatres of war.

These petitioners call upon parliament to act now to compensate merchant navy veterans for their service and hardship after serving on Canadian or allied ships during World War II or in Korea.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of people in the Peterborough area who are concerned about alcohol related accidents on our roads.

The petitioners point out that an average of 4.5 Canadians are killed every day as a result of alcohol related vehicle crashes. It is estimated that there are 4.5 million impaired drivers on Canada's roads every month. The petitioners point out that the trend of hard core drinking and driving has significantly increased over the last seven years.

The petitioners call upon the federal government to provide strong support and encouragement to jurisdictions to continue to introduce administrative sanctions that are user pay, such as ignition interlocks, vehicle confiscation, graduated licensing, and that impaired driving laws be regularly reviewed for their effectiveness.

Questions On The Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, we will be answering Question No. 136 today. .[Text]

Question No. 136—

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Has Human Resources Development Canada carried out studies on the effectiveness of the planned adjustments to short weeks under the employment insurance program that are to end on November 15, 1998; and, if so, what are its findings?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

To address the issue of small weeks adjustment projects, two 18-month pilot projects were established covering a total of 29 employment insurance, EI, regions where the unemplyment rate was above 10%. One of the main reasons these projects were put in place is to help supplement the weekly benefits for those who qualify.

Human Resources Development Canada, HRDC, is currently reviewing available information on the small weeks adjustment projects and will be considering whether they should be renewed.

Preliminary results indicate that between the implementation in May and August 1997, 130,000 claims have been established with small weeks of work.

These results also indicated that more women, 61%, that men are small week claimants, and individuals, both men and women, who participated in the projects received, on average, $19 more per week. This is an increase of about 10% on their benefit level.

Currently, 18 of the 22 regions in Atlantic Canada and Quebec participate in the projects. Ontario has 5 regions out of 16 participating and western Canada has 6 participating regions out of 16. As the projects are directed toward high unemployment regions, over 51% of the claims originated from Quebec and 35% from the Atlantic provinces.

The Government of Canada understands how important these projects are to the New Brunswick economy, and all EI regions in New Brunswick are covered by the adjustment projects.

Upon completion of the review of the small weeks projects, HRDC will then be in a position to announce the government's decision.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

First Nations Land Management Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?