Debates of May 27th, 1999

Points Of Order

[The Speaker]

I have notice of a point of order that I want to take before we go into Routine Proceedings. Normally I would hear it under motions, but I will hear it as a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. My colleagues and I consider this to be an important matter regarding adjudication by the Chair.

This morning's notice paper contains a notice which I gave yesterday pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) to extend consideration of the estimates of the Department of Human Resources Development beyond the normal date of expiration.

Normally the Leader of the Opposition would give such a notice and tomorrow it would be deemed adopted by the House. However, the Leader of the Opposition has neglected his obligation to use all means to hold the government to account by giving to all members of the House an opportunity to pose questions of the government with respect to billions of dollars of expenditures for authorization.

In the instance of the employment insurance program there are significant issues which I know all members of my party, and I suspect all members of the House, would like to be given the opportunity to address. I know there is no direct precedence in this matter to guide you, Mr. Speaker.

I readily acknowledge that the standing order specifically names the Leader of the Opposition as the member who is entitled to give this notice. However, the closest analogous situation may be found in the the citation 924 at page 257 of Beauchesne's sixth edition. In the case of a conflict among the opposition leaders over the use of an allotted day the Speaker has intervened where there is a breakdown of the informal House leadership machinery.

I believe some analogous precedent can be drawn here. In this instance the failure of the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition places every member of the House at a disadvantage. All of us on both sides of the House have operated under the assumption that this debate of the estimates would continue, at least for this one department, past the May 31 deadline because of the expectation that the Leader of the Opposition would move his motion under Standing Order 81(4).

There are urgent questions which all members want answered with respect to the granting of supply in the Department of Human Resources Development. I humbly submit we should not be denied this opportunity, simply because the Leader of the Opposition has failed in his duty to have the entire House given this opportunity.

The Leader of the Opposition was not prepared to let the House of Commons do its work in this important area. This party is prepared and we are asking, Mr. Speaker, that you grant this discretion. Given the abrogation of the responsibility to the whole House by the Leader of the Opposition, I ask that you permit this party and myself as House leader of this party to give this notice which would be considered under Standing Order 84(4) of the standing orders.

I submit that it is within your discretion, Mr. Speaker, to transfer that power which is normally reserved solely for the Leader of the Opposition to another opposition party which has gone through the normal procedures that would be followed in this matter. We have made the effort to do that and to follow the precedent and procedure that are set. I would ask that the Chair to adjudicate on this matter and I thank the Chair for its indulgence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not really prepared for this point of order, but in terms of the statements by the leader of the fifth party of the House all I can say with respect to Standing Order 81(4) is that it is in the opinion of the House leader for the Conservative Party.

What the Speaker has heard this morning is politics and just politics. I would caution the Speaker that what we could be looking at is that every pet project of every opposition party in the House could suddenly become subject to challenge under this section.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that Standing Order 81(4)(a) says that the Leader of the Opposition may give notice. Given that this is optional and the Leader of the Opposition may give notice, it could also be that he may not give notice.

One is a direct corollary of the other. This is not rocket science. It is easy for anyone to understand that if it is optional to do something, it is equally optional not to do the precise thing in question, in this case giving notice to extend the consideration of the estimates.

Perhaps it is the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition that the estimates are just fine the way they are and he wholeheartedly supports them. We will find that out on June 9 when we get to that stage. Meanwhile it is strictly optional on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to do whatever he or she likes with regard to proposing or not proposing such an extension. He is fully within his right to do or not to do just that.

By extension, it has been alleged that because the Speaker has discretionary authority on the determination of which party will have the use of an opposition day during the supply cycle, in the event of a dispute that provides authority for the Speaker to intervene in this case.

There are a number of differences. First, in the case of supply, authority is invested with the Speaker to make the determination. In the case of Standing Order No. 81(4)(a), there is not the discretionary power granted to the Chair. The standing order is quite clear. I do not believe it was ever the intent of the standing order to make it such that the Speaker could overrule the standing order. The speaker obviously interprets the standing order and always does so in a very judicious and excellent manner. However, this is a different proposition altogether.

Members may have legitimate grievances, but there are three supply days left in this cycle. I am sure that during those supply days we will have the opportunity to listen to the grievances of the people as expressed through the normal supply cycle process.

Finally, of course, the government is accountable every day at question period and always provides excellent answers to both the hon. member across and all of his colleagues.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I find this to be a serious point. With your indulgence, I would like to inform myself more. I am aware of the standing order as pointed out by all three parties that have intervened in this.

I just want to look a little further at the citation the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough takes from Beauchesne's sixth edition. I am going to reserve judgment and I will come back to the House and make a decision on this.

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 four petitions.

National Defence

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Chief of the Defence Staff for 1998-99, entitled “Into the New Millennium”.

Automotive Pollution Reduction Act

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-514, an act to protect human health and the environment by reducing automotive pollution.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a bill aimed at protecting human health and the environment by reducing automotive pollution. This bill is governed by the precautionary principle according to which the lack of scientific certainty must not be used as a reason to delay appropriate measures if there is a risk of serious or irreparable harm to human health or the environment.

The bill will prohibit the production or import for use or sale in Canada, or offer for sale in Canada, of any gasoline that has an oxygen content of less than 2.7% by weight or any diesel fuel that has an oxygen content of less than 5.25% by weight, or any gasoline that contains the additive MMT. This would take effect on July 1, 2003.

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

Petitions

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by 26 citizens of my riding which reads as follows: “We, the undersigned residents of Canada, call upon”—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. It is out of order for the hon. member to read petitions to the House. In compliance with the rules, he may give a brief summary of the petition. I would invite him to do that rather than read the petition which, as he knows, is contrary to the rules.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this petition calls upon parliament to enact an immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides until such time as their use has been scientifically proven to be safe and the long term consequences of the applications are known.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the Inuit community of Kangiqsualujjuaq, in Nunavik.

According to the petitioners, from 16 to 24 people live in three bedroom housing units during the winter. The Inuit find housing arrangements in Nunavik to be extremely disturbing. The situation is deemed to be absolutely intolerable. It contributes to the high incidence of tuberculosis, infectious diseases and social problems.

The federal government must fulfil its obligations under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement regarding housing in Nunavik.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents expressing concern about Canada's continued role in the NATO bombing of Kosovo and asking the government to reconsider its policy.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition on behalf of Canadian citizens living in my home town of Onoway.

These petitioners pray that parliament preserve the institution of marriage as it has always been known and understood in Canada. I agree with the petitioners.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I know the hon. member knows the rules demand that he not express his support or opposition to a petition he presents but to merely present the petition. I know he will want to comply with the rules in that regard.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from citizens of Peterborough concerned about cruelty to animals.

The petitioners point out that there is mounting evidence of a link between animal abuse and domestic violence and violence against people in general, and that the Criminal Code regards animals as property and offences against them are little more than property offences.

The petitioners call upon parliament to work toward swift and effective action to modernize Canada's laws dealing with crimes against animals and that the penalties for such actions be made strict enough to act as a deterrent against such behaviour.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from citizens of Peterborough who point out that the people of Iraq have suffered untold hardship in the wake of the gulf war, and that far from helping to destroy the repressive government of Saddam Hussein, these actions, including the sanctions, have actually strengthened that regime and destroyed any useful opposition to it.

The petitioners call upon parliament to strongly appeal to the United Nations, the United States and Britain for a rejection of any further military action against Iraq, and call for a serious attempt at peace negotiations with Iraq and its neighbours. In order to build a stable and sustainable society in Iraq, that excluding an embargo on military materials, all other sanctions be lifted.

The petitioners urge that Canada vastly increase its efforts to provide food, medicine and infrastructure support in Iraq.

Questions Passed As Orders For Returns

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

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 159 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed. .[Text]

Question No. 159—

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

What is the total direct federal government funding to organizations and projects in the Nova Scotia Regional Municipalities of Cape Breton, the Town of Port Hawkesbury, and the counties of Inverness, Richmond, and Victoria?

Return tabled.

[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 May 12 consideration of Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Group No. 1.