Debates of June 8th, 1999

Main Estimates, 1999-2000

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

That one member is here too. Here she is, the member for Beaver River. Now that we have the Prime Minister and the member for Beaver River, let us have a contest to see who is right.

The point is that many Canadians voted against it. I want to talk about one issue I am particularly concerned about, and that is drugs. The problem in the country, as I said before, is that the government has the majority. Even though it was elected by 38% of the people in the country, it has the audacity to bring in its own agenda and not the agenda of the people.

I keep referring in the House to the drugs on the street and the drug addiction on the street. The problems with drugs in the country are very serious. We keep raising in the House of Commons that addiction in prisons, of all places, is at a critical stage. We keep coming back to it and the government keeps saying that it will study it. We are long past that situation.

I go to various cities to talk to various people about this problem. In Vancouver there are some 4,000 to 5,000 addicts. In British Columbia there are 15,000 addicts. They do not understand some things. They do not understand why we spend money on foolish projects and in many cases not one red dime comes from the federal government to areas that need it such as to help people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol.

I see a mess in front of me in the waste report produced by the public accounts chairman. This is not a prop. This is reality. It talks about $1,057,933 for the Canadian Canoe Museum. That is just one item, but if we talk to people on the streets who need money to help those who are addicted, they ask what is more important.

Where are the priorities of the government? Members across the way do not know what they are talking about. How is it that the Canada Council used $55,000 of taxpayers money to bankroll a lesbian porno film titled, Bubbles Galore ? The movie won the best film award at the Freakzone International Festival of Trash Cinema in France.

How is it that we spend $55,000 of the taxpayers dollars on that trash and do not have one red dime to help those who are addicted on the streets? Why is that?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I must interrupt the hon. member at this time.

Before I put the question, I would like to advise the House that the point of order raised by the hon. member for St. Albert will be answered by the Speaker after members have been summoned to the Chamber.

It being 10 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

Call in the members.

Before the taking of the vote:

Points Of Order

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I am now prepared to give my ruling on the point of order raised earlier this evening.

The hon. member for St. Albert earlier tonight raised a most interesting point of order challenging the notion of multi-year appropriations and I thank him for doing so.

I must confess that ever since the supply bill was made available to members earlier today, I have had several discussions with the Clerk and his assistants on the very matter raised by the member.

The House is quite aware of the concept of the fiscal year which runs from April to March, and the concept of the yearly appropriation bill which must be based on the estimates for a fiscal year and which must be adopted by parliament to cover the government's expenses for that fiscal year.

We are very familiar with these notions of fiscal year and annual appropriations, which are the cornerstones of our parliamentary financial process.

After having looked carefully at the supply bill which is now before the House, I am satisfied that indeed it is based on the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000. Indeed that fact is well expressed by the short title of the bill which reads in clause 1 “Appropriation Act No. 2, 1999-2000”.

The multi-year appropriation authority covered in schedule 2 of the bill is based on legislation approved by parliament in 1998 by which Parks Canada Agency is granted the authority to carry over to the end of 2000-01 fiscal year the unexpended balance of money in fiscal year 1999-2000. But in my view, that money is originally appropriated for the 1999-2000 fiscal year. Despite what the long title says, we are still talking here about a yearly appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1999-2000. What is included in schedule 2 and referred to in clause 2 is there strictly for information purposes.

My ruling is therefore that the supply bill is properly before the House.

However, I must express strong reservations about the reference in the long title of the bill to two financial years. The reference is not at all needed and is in fact, in my view, misleading. It is obviously too late in the supply process to envisage an amendment to rectify that anomaly, unless of course the House were to proceed immediately to do so by unanimous consent.

In any case, I do hope that in future supply bills the government will ensure that the title reflects that the appropriation requested from parliament, in keeping with our longstanding practice, is for the single fiscal year covered by the estimates.

I want to thank the hon. member for St. Albert for his vigilance.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Based on the ruling which you have just given, I would seek unanimous consent to change the title of Bill C-86 to “an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2000”.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

The House resumed from June 3 consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Supply

[The Speaker]

The question is on the amendment.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 546

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment defeated.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the Reform opposition motion concerning the Nisga'a treaty.

[The Speaker]

Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to the New Democratic Party vote of nay to this motion, the member for Yukon who has just arrived.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 547

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the main motion relating to the business of supply.

The question is on the main motion, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 548

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion, as amended, carried.