Debates of March 23rd, 2000

Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Then somebody needs to stand to speak on debate.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we recess for five minutes to sort this out, because we have to get legal advice on where we stand on this issue. I think because the government used some trickery to bring this motion we are entitled to at least five minutes.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have listened for some minutes now to what hon. members have been saying, and it seems to me that you have made a ruling, and it seems to me that we should stick by it. It also seems to me that we should proceed. We have had enough talk from opposition members about trickery and other things, and now it is time to proceed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I really want to thank all members for their interventions. Now we are on debate.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of addressing Bill C-13 before and my friend, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, was quite pleased to see that even though the riding of Chambly, which I represent here, does not have research institutes as such, it may have some one day.

In Chambly, as elsewhere, we have skilled people. In particular, we have pharmaceutical institutes and companies, and this, of course, is of interest to our constituents.

I was listening to government and opposition members. Those who care about scientific research are pleased, in a way, to see that, at last, the federal government—

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. An event has just happened in the House so serious I dare not describe it, but which I would like to bring to your attention.

Parliament works marvelously well when members, House leaders, and politicians on all sides of the House come to an agreement behind the curtain so that things run as smoothly as possible in the House. This always involves giving our words as individuals and parliamentarians.

Earlier today, the member for Mississauga South—after we refused to give consent to table a motion—came to my office to discuss the problem. I told him we could not give consent unless the motion provided that only the House of Commons could be on the reviewing committee.

He agreed, we struck a deal and he gave me his word he would amend his motion so that it would be acceptable to us. We came to the House and we gave our consent to a motion amended as per the member's word.

Only minutes after we gave consent, the member amended his motion back to the original motion. This, Mr. Speaker, is a very serious breach of parliamentary usage. An agreement between two members, two men, to obtain consent under false pretence is not only contrary to the rules, it shows contempt.

It is extremely serious and I hope that, if the member does not amend his motion, we can withdraw our consent. One should not mislead a political party by asking for unanimous consent and then amending the motion later. This is just not done, it never was, and we cannot accept it. I call on your judgement, and the government's fair play. The House cannot operate that way.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

This is a very serious consideration. I will recognize the parliamentary secretary in a moment.

I have been advised by the table once again that there could be a good deal of confusion in the problem we have. I would invite members to approach the table for clarification. In the opinion of the table, the members who are upset have no reason to be upset because what they are upset about has not in fact happened. I would invite members to double check with the table to ensure that we are concerned about something that is real.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to apologize to the members of the Bloc Quebecois. I have made a serious mistake this day.

As members know, backbenchers have an opportunity through report stage motions to try to influence legislation. Motion No. 56 in my name basically calls for a five year review of this legislation so parliament could be involved. That is in fact the original motion.

This morning when Group 2 was called, I was not in the House. I was at finance committee and unfortunately I made the mistake of not asking one of my colleagues to move my Motion No. 56 as it was on the order paper. I was contacted and immediately came to the House. I was told that to get my motion properly on the floor, I would have to seek unanimous consent of all parties of the House.

In an attempt to speak with all parties, I met with the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois with my request. The party members came back with a request that I would agree to amend Motion No. 56. I agreed to do this and I came back to the House. But I am also advised that I cannot amend my own motion. All I can do is table Motion No. 56 and the Bloc accept it in accordance with our understanding that it would get unanimous consent to be put on the table, subject to and as I said in my comments, amendments that would be tabled by another member and be in order.

I discussed this and I made these arrangements and provided the information to the parliamentary secretary to pose such amendments which I could not make myself. I came to the House and I made the motion. The Bloc and other members gave me their consent to move Motion No. 56 as it is on the order paper. In between this time what happened—and I have no control over it—the government refused to support the amendment I had agreed upon with the Bloc and I could not deliver.

The Bloc members who have spoken on this and the member from the Conservative Party are quite correct. This is not the proper way for business to be handled in the House. I apologize sincerely for upsetting the House with this matter. I would ask now for the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Motion No. 56.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

What is before the House is the amendment. There would first have to be a request to remove the amendment before the motion could be removed.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I will read from Beauchesne's 6th edition, pages 177 to 178:

A member, having proposed an amendment, and subsequently desiring to amend the same can do so only if the House allows the original amendment to be withdrawn, at which time the member may then propose a new amendment. It has been long accepted that government motions may be moved by any member of the Ministry.

Preceding this, I want to get into Beauchesne's again regarding the form and content of amendments and subamendments because this does get pretty ticklish in terms of what the government attempted to do. The subamendment is where I think the government got derailed in terms of its abuse of the rules. It says that a subamendment cannot be moved if it proposes to leave out all the words of the proposed amendment.

That is up to the House, or the Chair, to decide. They are referring to Journals March 8, 1937, page 208; Journals November 29, 1944, page 934; Journals March 14, 1947, page 198.

Second, a subamendment must be relevant to the amendment it purports to amend, and not to the main motion, referring to Journals January 18, 1973, page 49.

Third, further on it points out that a subamendment which proposes an alternative to the original amendment is in order provided it is relevant to the question, which I believe this is not, referring to Journals June 23 and 24, 1926, pages 465, 468.

Fourth, when the House has negatived a subamendment to strike out certain other words in a proposed amendment, it is in order to move another subamendment to insert other words than those used in the original subamendment, referring to Debates June 19, 1925, page 4554.

And on and on we go. I will now go back to page 178 in the 6th edition of Beauchesne's , regarding withdrawal of motions and amendments. I will go through this step by step, clause by clause. I think we have a case for this one. Just bear with me.

The member who has proposed a motion may withdraw it only with the unanimous consent of the House.

We touched on that.

An amendment may be withdrawn with the unanimous consent of the House, but neither a motion nor an amendment can be withdrawn with the—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I realize that the hon. member is in full flight but the Chair is privileged to have the advice of the best parliamentary minds our country has to offer.

Having made use of that advice, I am going to suggest that in this particular case that Motion No. 56 was properly introduced, properly presented and properly accepted.

[An hon. member]

In good faith.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am not talking about anything other than the fact of whether it was done properly procedurally.

The subsequent amendment was properly moved. If it is the desire of the House that Motion No. 56 should be withdrawn, and the amendment, then it would be in order for someone to make that motion. It is not possible for the Chair to move it. It has to come from the House itself.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am always willing to do the will of the House if that can be discerned. If it is the will of the House, I would move in fact that you seek unanimous consent that both the motion and the amendment be withdrawn.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has sought the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Motion No. 56 and the subsequent amendment.

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion and amendment withdrawn)

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one can easily get lost in this kind of debate. I do not know exactly where I was when you interrupted me.

My colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve tells me that I was talking about the fact that there is pharmaceutical research being done in Chambly. There is also the space centre in Saint-Hubert, just a few kilometres from the beautiful riding of Chambly. Some people who work there live in my riding. At this time of year, with the Richelieu River thawing out and the Canadian geese flying across the area, Chambly is probably the most beautiful riding in Canada.

[An hon. member]

After Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

After the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles represented by my colleague to my right, and maybe also after the riding of my friend from Châteauguay. In any event, it is one of the most beautiful ridings in Canada and I take this opportunity to salute all those who live there.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

There is also Acadie—Bathurst.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

I hear the member for Acadie—Bathurst who would like me to mention his riding, which I have visited and which is indeed very beautiful.

We are talking about scientific research. We are talking about clarity and about good faith among parliamentarians just after an intervention where the leaders of all parties recognized that keeping one's word is sacred, including in parliamentary law.

We know the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who never stops talking about good faith, kindness, friendship and compassion like the constitutional good guy that he is. On this side, we cannot adhere totally and without reservation to what is in the bill.

This bill is good for scientific research, but what worries the opposition is that, once again, the very same thing that happened with Atomic Energy of Canada, where development was done in Ontario, could very well happen again. Atomic Energy of Canada represents a $12 billion investment over the years. When it was noticed that there was a small head office in Montreal, it was quickly moved to Ontario a few years ago, because it was no longer appropriate to leave it where it was. The head office was in Montreal, but the activities of Atomic Energy of Canada were conducted exclusively in Ontario.

This has happened time and time again. For instance, Ontario got the lion's share of the automobile industry among others. We understandably have concerns about Bill C-13.

Mr. Speaker, you are frowning at me. I hope there is nothing unparliamentary in saying that we are concerned that once again the spinoffs of the act will benefit Ontario.

[An hon. member]

He just said it makes sense.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for listening to me with interest.

This is what worries parliamentarians. We know no modern country can make progress without helping scientific research. The member for Chicoutimi, whom I salute, is nodding in agreement; he knows that, in his riding as in ours, there are bright minds. But the private sector cannot always be there for them, because it takes equipment, infrastructures and money. “No money, no candy”, as our friends in Ontario say, and “no fun”.

We are welcoming this initiative to spread scientific research across the country instead of building a huge structure at some street corner, in Hamilton or Toronto, where scientific research would be concentrated.

Thanks to modern means of communication such as Internet, scientific research in a given field could be done by someone in Chicoutimi who would be connected to colleagues in Calgary, Mississauga or, of course, Chambly. Scientists could work and collaborate from their homes or their offices in the regions.

The strength of this bill, if it is implemented properly, is in networking. But if everything is in Toronto, if all the lines and wires are converging on Toronto, the bill will have a negative impact on the other provinces.

Research is important. We can focus our economic development according to our skills and expertise. That is the problem for all regions, except Ontario. In Canada, and this is a major mistake that was repeated thousands of times, economic development is invariably based on technical knowledge and expertise. If that expertise is concentrated in one area, the resulting economic development will benefit that specific area.

This is why, in the past, research on the seabed, marine species or fishery resources was conducted in the maritime provinces. Regional economy was based on the skills and knowledge that existed in a given region. The same research could not have been conducted in the central provinces, where agriculture is predominant.

When research is not based on raw materials, but on technical knowledge such as the breaking of the atom—