House of Commons Hansard #196 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was dollar.
Diane Marleau LiberalMinister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie
Mr. Speaker, yes. In light of recent natural disasters, CIDA was given additional moneys in the past budget.
I am pleased to announce that we will be purchasing $29 million worth of Canadian wheat, beans, oil and other agricultural commodities. This will not only feed these starving people but it will also have spinoff benefits for our own agricultural producers.
John Nunziata Independent York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Canadian tax law allows large Canadian companies to incorporate in tax havens like Barbados to avoid paying Canadian taxes. In the result, Canada is losing billions of dollars in taxation.
When will the Minister of Finance close these unconscionable tax loopholes and put a stop to this government sanctioned tax avoidance scheme?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, measures have been put in place over the course of the last number of years. The government has moved to close those loopholes that allow Canadian companies that ought to be paying taxes not to pay them. We are one of the leaders in this area. At the same time we have led with the OECD because it will be required that all countries act in concert.
Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
Mr. Speaker, today is chainsaw day in the Okanagan Valley. Two years of weather related disasters and low market prices are forcing apple producers to cut down their trees. The government has responded with a disaster relief program that makes apple growers a poor cousin to other agricultural commodities. What is it going to take for this government to get disaster relief to apple producers, or is this government in favour of clear cutting orchards in the province of British Columbia?
Lyle Vanclief LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's memory may be short but he should be fully aware that as long ago as last December this government, with the co-operation of the provinces including the province of British Columbia, put in place a program that will make available up to $1.5 billion to hard pressed and hurt Canadian farmers in situations like this.
Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC
Mr. Speaker, through his recent statements, the Secretary of State for Agriculture had generated legitimate expectations among residents of the Quebec City region and the potential buyers of MIL Davie, but the Minister of Industry put him in his place.
How can the Quebec City region feel protected within cabinet if the secretary of state responsible for the region knuckles under to the Minister of Industry, who refuses to lift one finger to save MIL Davie's 1,500 jobs?
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I explained a few days ago that we already have major tax shelters for the shipbuilding industry.
I also want to point out to the hon. member that, since the eighties, the federal government has invested $1.6 billion in MIL Davie. Is it not enough?
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, public confidence in the health protection branch or what is left of it is at an all-time low. Too many Canadians have seen corporate interests put ahead of the public good. Even the unelected, unaccountable Senate has called for an independent review into the drug approval process. When will this government finally see the light, investigate the HPB and stop letting industry expectations take precedence over public safety?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the report from the Senate committee. Many parts of that report are excellent. The whole thrust of the report fits very nicely with what we are doing at Health Canada: reviewing the way the health protection branch does its job, reaching out to the science advisory board, getting independent scientists of international reputation to advise on hiring good science for the department. There are the steps we took in the budget. We added some $60 million for health protection to strengthen our food and safety branch. These are all going in the same direction which is toward protecting the safety of Canadians because that is our bottom line.
Jim Jones Progressive Conservative Markham, ON
Mr. Speaker, in 1996-97 alone the federal cost recovery program was estimated to cut Canada's GDP by $1.3 billion costing 23,000 Canadian jobs in the process. Yet for every dollar in user fees charged to business, the feds are only gaining 20 cents in additional revenue. Why did the President of the Treasury Board not listen to the pleas of small, medium and large businesses and put a freeze on new or increased user fees until a new fairer framework could be put in place?
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, once again the principle underlying cost recovery is quite clear. It has to be equitable to all Canadians in the fact that it is the people who get the benefit who must pay for it. We have had discussions with all parts of Canadian industry. We have listened to what they had to say. Nobody likes to pay more money except that most of them accepted in the end that this was a fair way to deal with their problems. We have dealt with them and we now have a better system.
Claude Drouin Liberal Beauce, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour and concerns the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, more specifically part I on labour relations, which came into effect on January 1, 1999.
Could the minister inform the House of the benefits of that reform for workers who come under federal jurisdiction?
Claudette Bradshaw LiberalMinister of Labour
Mr. Speaker, when the government decided to modernize the Canada Labour Code, it chose to consult union organizations and groups of employees that are under federal jurisdiction. This led to a reform of the federal labour legislation that is based on a consensus between management and the unions.
I would like to congratulate all those who have contributed to that reform and I reiterate the government's commitment to free collective bargaining and constructive settlement of disputes.
Presence In GalleryOral Question Period
The Speaker
I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Giancarlo Aragona, Secretary General of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Inky Mark Reform Dauphin—Swan River, MB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to a breach of Standing Order 106(3) by the chairman of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
On June 20, 1994 and on November 7, 1996 the Speaker made the following ruling:
—while it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House.
In both these cases the committees in question were in breach of the provisions of Standing Order 114.
In this case the chairman of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is in breach of Standing Order 106(3) which directs the committee as follows:
Within ten sitting days of the receipt, by the clerk of a standing committee, of a request signed by any four members of the said committee, the Chairman of the said committee shall convene such a meeting provided that forty-eight hours notice is given of the meeting. For the purposes of this section, the reasons for convening such a meeting shall be stated in the request.
I submitted a letter pursuant to Standing Order 106(3) to the clerk of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on February 18, 1999. The contents of the letter are as follows:
We are writing pursuant to Standing Order 106(3) to convene a meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for the purpose of hearing testimony from former National Arts Centre Director John Cripton and possibly other expert witnesses, and to examine additional information concerning the NAC which has not been available to the Committee to date.
Today is the 12th sitting day and the standing committee has yet to convene such a meeting. What the committee did was deal with the issue in a routine steering committee meeting instead of convening a specific meeting to consider the request.
If you check, Mr. Speaker, every request under Standing Order 106(3), you will note that in every case the chairman convened a specific meeting to deal with the request. It is no coincidence that every committee does this.
If we allow committees to deal with requests under Standing Order 106(3) at a routine steering committee then Standing Order 106(3) becomes redundant. We do not need Standing Order 106(3) to propose a motion at a routine steering committee. The intention of Standing Order 106(3) is to allow the minority on a committee to have a specific meeting convened to consider its request.
A routine steering committee is often in camera and crowded with other items. The actions of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage rendered Standing Order 106(3) redundant. We cannot allow a committee to enjoy that kind of independence from the House. Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 760(2), states:
Committees receive their authority from the House itself and the authority of the House overrides that of any committee.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you rule on this matter. I would ask that you consider if the chairman of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is in breach of an order of the House and guilty of a grave contempt.
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the request of the hon. member opposite.
In the beginning I think most of us felt that no meeting had been held. Initially I would have been prepared to say that it would have been inappropriate if no meeting at all been held. What the hon. member is telling us is not that. It is that a meeting was held but because other items were on the agenda he does not consider that a separate meeting was held for the purpose of Standing Order 106(3).
The Chair might, I submit, have to rule as to whether or not a meeting for the purpose of Standing Order 106(3) has to be a separate meeting where no other items are dealt with, or whether it is appropriate to deal with items under Standing Order 106(3) while other items are on the agenda.
The hon. member opposite also said that if the interpretation was that other items could be discussed at the same time as an item under Standing Order 106(3), it would render Standing Order 106(3) redundant. Those were his words.
I would challenge that and say I do not believe that such is the case. This offers a protection for members in the event that a committee is not scheduled to sit for a long period of time. This would actually cause a meeting within 48 hours. I would suggest that this is not meant to replace the regular rule that exists whereby an item can be discussed if the committee is meeting anyway.
This does not make the rule redundant. Standing Order 106(3) offers a measure for the protection of members in the event that a committee is not scheduled to sit. It offers them a quick step on having the committee meet to discuss the item in question. That is the appropriate interpretation.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, thank you for listening to this point of order which I think is a serious one.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, as you consider the problem which has been raised by the member from Dauphin, that you also consider the other thing happening with Standing Order 106(3). Routinely the chair of the committee or the committee itself moves in camera upon receipt of one of these letters.
This format allows not just one party but at least two of the opposition parties to find an issue or agree to an issue that should go to a committee and should have a meeting to deal with the specific subject matter. As the standing order states, it has to describe in detail what the matter is and how it should be dealt with.
Instead of giving the opposition parties a chance to publicize what they might consider a very serious issue, the committees move in camera and then dispose of the matter by saying that they will not deal with it further. In other words, the intent of Standing Order 106(3), which is to allow opposition parties on occasion to raise the profile of an issue, is being thwarted by a routine in camera meeting.
The member is describing a kind of two pronged problem for an opposition party. Standing Order 106(3), which is one of the few tools left to us in committee, is being thwarted on two counts. Not only is it wrapped up in other business but it also routinely goes in camera, is disposed of, and no one sees it. That means this standing order is of little use to members of parliament.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
The points that are being raised cause a bit of concern to the Chair. I would address myself to the member for Dauphin—Swan River. I think he mentioned that this matter was discussed in a steering committee.
Was it a steering committee or was it the standing committee which met in camera? Could he please clarify his statement for me?
Inky Mark Reform Dauphin—Swan River, MB
Mr. Speaker, the item was discussed in a business agenda meeting, just a general meeting which, as my colleague indicated, was held in camera. The order was very specific in terms of what the request was to the committee.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
Was it a steering committee or was it the standing committee which met in camera? Could he please clarify that?
Inky Mark Reform Dauphin—Swan River, MB
Mr. Speaker, it was the standing committee meeting in camera.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
Therefore the question that I have to decide is whether the mandate given to the committee was carried out.
There were four members, as I understand it, who signed a request that a meeting be held in a certain period of time. I believe you said 10 sitting days. Was the meeting held? According to the hon. member the meeting was held.
Was it held in public or was it held in camera? I do not know if there is a difference. I would say there is not, providing it was the standing committee which was sitting.
In the absence of any other information and judging from what the hon. member said, this was not a steering committee. This was the standing committee and it met in camera, which is its right. Is what I am saying so far correct? I just need a yes or a no.
Inky Mark Reform Dauphin—Swan River, MB
Mr. Speaker, yes, it did, but the problem was the standing committee did not deal with the directive under Standing Order 106(3) which was to have a meeting with Mr. Cripton.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
I will deal with that now. The committee met—this is my word—legitimately as it was supposed to meet. The hon. member is saying that because other issues were dealt with at that time it was not only for that specific case.
I would rule that when a meeting is called, it is not necessarily for one specific thing to the exclusion of all the others.
If indeed the committee did meet and this matter was brought up, however fleetingly, I would rule that he does not have a point of order in this case.
However, I will check with the clerk of the committee and if it is necessary for me to come back to the House, I will.