House of Commons Hansard #114 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was impaired.
Herb Dhaliwal LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, at this time I am looking at a multi-year plan on the northern shrimp. I have had representations from Quebec as well as from Atlantic provinces. I will be reviewing those representations.
I assure the hon. member that I will make a fair and reasonable decision in the northern shrimp plan so that we take into consideration the adjacency but also other factors in terms of historical links to ensure that we are fair and reasonable to all parties that are requesting access to it.
Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL
Mr. Speaker, that probably means the answer is yes. Why is the minister announcing the shrimp management plan in Ottawa, not in Newfoundland and Labrador adjacent to the resource? Has the government completely given up on the principle of adjacency?
Herb Dhaliwal LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, the northern shrimp fishery has increased from 37,000 tonnes to 100,000 tonnes. The lion's share of that shrimp fishery goes to Newfoundland, recognizing the adjacency principle. Quebec and other provinces also have access to that.
I will take the representation from the hon. member as well as other members to make sure that we have a fair and reasonable allocation of that resource.
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The people of the north know better than any others that environmental damage created thousands of miles away is having a huge effect on our children's health. When the minister met with his American and Mexican counterparts earlier this week, what decisions were made that will protect all our children from environmental damage?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, when I met with my American and Mexican counterparts, we agreed to focus our efforts on the specific problems of respiratory problems of children, asthma, other respiratory diseases, and the effects of toxic substances. This is also part of our domestic policy.
The member will recollect that recently we tightened controls on sulphur and gasoline. We are reducing the level of sulphur in diesel from 500 parts per million down to indeed 15.
I will be discussing a specific side agreement with the United States. In fact, discussions are on today on the ozone agreement with the United States. In addition—
The EnvironmentOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.
Gerry Ritz Reform Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, the government is continuing to prove that it is big on press releases and promises and real short on delivery.
Less than 30% of the $2 billion promised to farmers has gone out while the further $400 million in transportation assistance for Saskatchewan and Manitoba will be clawed back from any future AIDA payouts in those two provinces.
The only help the Liberal government has given to farmers is that everything it touches turns to fertilizer. I ask the minister how many times can the same promised money be recycled through the same failed programs?
Joe McGuire LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the government has been very generous over the past year and a half in assisting western farmers.
We have given over $2 billion to the western farmers because of the conditions in the marketing of their grain and in transportation. Overall, I think the farmers are very pleased with the government and the efforts it is making on their behalf.
Hélène Alarie Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Speaker, summer is approaching and the public is concerned about what is going to happen, as far as GMOs are concerned, over the summer when MPs are in their ridings and no longer able to question the government in the House.
Can the Prime Minister guarantee there will be no new GMOs approved by the Canada Food Inspection Agency as long as the Standing Committee on Agriculture has not finished hearing witnesses and made its recommendations to the government?
Joe McGuire LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member knows very well that in the standing committee we are conducting investigations and hearings into GMO products as to whether the labels should be voluntary or mandatory.
She also knows that we have a number of committees that are working and will be working all summer to give the government advice on the policy we should pursue in view of GMOs.
Gordon Earle NDP Halifax West, NS
Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced long overdue payments to our merchant marine veterans he talked about “their enormous contribution and sacrifice”.
Now that the funds set aside appear to be drying up, will the minister clearly state to these veterans and their surviving spouses right now that the Liberal government will ensure that all qualifying applicants receive their maximum payment, or is he now qualifying how much sacrifice and contribution he believes these veterans made?
Merchant Marine VeteransOral Question Period
Gander—Grand Falls Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
George Baker LiberalMinister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)
Mr. Speaker, all veterans organizations, including the national council representing veterans groups, the army, air force and navy, the merchant navy organization and the Royal Canadian Legion, will be holding a meeting at the end of July to examine the situation.
The hon. member should be standing in his place to congratulate the government for giving $50 million for this initiative.
Angela Vautour NDP Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Now that the period of consultation with respect to the review of the boundaries of EI economic regions is over, will the minister assure us that the changes proposed by MPs and by the public will be taken seriously, and that the necessary adjustments will be made in order to ensure that the new zones are indeed representative of the economic reality of every region across the country?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, without question the comments from citizens across the country will be taken seriously.
House Of CommonsOral Question Period
The Speaker
My words today are for our pages who have been with us for one very brief year in the life of our parliament.
Pages of the House of Commons for 1999-2000, today we the parliamentarians of Canada bid you farewell. It seems a little strange since the House is still sitting and we are all still on duty, but the weeks before summer recess have a way of becoming a little hectic and we may not have another chance to thank you properly.
On behalf of all my colleagues here in the House, I wish to thank you and congratulate you on the work you have done for us over the past year, the first of the new millennium. Your job has not always been an easy one, but you have all behaved professionally and we appreciate it.
I would be the first to admit that sometimes we have been a little tired and preoccupied, maybe even impatient.
House Of CommonsOral Question Period
The Speaker
Some of us have been that way. We have not always taken the time to acknowledge you, but today I ask you to receive our collective thanks and our best wishes for your future careers.
Perhaps some day soon we will have the pleasure of seeing you sitting at these desks and thinking perhaps it was your experience with us that gave you the desire to serve as a member of parliament.
I thank you very much for what you have done for us. We have paid you I think the greatest compliment we can pay our pages, that is we have trusted you so implicitly that we have virtually ignored you in all of our conversations. We treat you as one of us. We treat you as part of the family, which you are now and always will be.
House Of CommonsOral Question Period
The Speaker
I see that most of us are still here. As is the custom every year, I will be having a reception for our pages in my chambers. I do hope that you will take just a few minutes to come in to say a personal farewell to them. It will be continuing until 5:30.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to Motion No. 425 standing on the order paper in my name. The motion reads as follows:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House wishes to convey its dismay regarding the undue delay in the Senate's progress on Bill C-247, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Members of the House of Commons have expressed their distress at the unnecessary delay in dealing with this legislation and in the interest of co-operation between the two chambers, and, ultimately service to the Canadian public, the House feels compelled to express its serious concerns regarding the handling of Bill C-247 by the Senate.
On the notice paper this motion is listed as a private member's motion. I intended this motion to be placed on the order paper so as to be moved at Routine Proceedings under the rubric motions. I believe this is the only way a private member can realistically and practically deal with the Senate with respect to a private member's bill. I will also argue that placing this motion on notice for Routine Proceedings is in keeping with our practice.
On September 16, 1996, a number of members raised questions of privilege to complain that the Standing Committee on Justice was not dealing with Private Member's Bill C-234. It was argued that while a government could use time allocation to dislodge a bill from committee, a private member had no means to do this except by way of introducing another private member's motion.
It was pointed out that a second private member's motion dealing with the issue would have little chance of being considered by the House because of the complex and sometimes awkward process of private members' business. It would be like lightning striking the same place twice and very unlikely to ever happen.
Members felt that since the majority sent the bill to committee, the committee should respect the will of the House. This principle was so important to members that the standing orders were changed to ensure that this situation would never happen again. Before this change was instituted, the Speaker felt that one way of dealing with the matter was to allow a motion to be moved by a private member during Routine Proceedings.
The principles regarding the fate of Bill C-234 in 1996 are similar to the principles regarding Bill C-247 in this parliament. In both cases the government leadership was out to kill a private member's bill. Fortunately both bills enjoyed the support of the majority.
In the case of Bill C-247 it was gutted at committee by the government leadership. Thankfully it was restored by the power of the backbench and opposition members when it was reported back to the House. Through all its stages and despite the efforts of anyone else the majority supported the bill, and finally the House sent it to the Senate.
Unfortunately the Senate has unduly held up Bill C-247. I suspect this hold-up is due in part to the many friends that the government side may have over in the Senate, possibly because of the appointments that have been made there. Sadly this may cause more problems for private members' bills that do not enjoy the support of the Prime Minister in the future.
On September 23, 1996, the Speaker made his ruling on the questions of privilege regarding Bill C-234. He did not rule the matter to be a prima facie case of privilege but he did make the following comment and suggestion:
Should a member or a minister be of the opinion that a committee charged with the review of a bill is defying the authority of the House, he or she may choose to bring it to the attention of the House by placing on notice a motion to require the committee to report by a certain date.
As hon. members know, this can indeed be done under Government Orders or Private Members' Business, but such a notice of motion could also be placed under the rubric motions and be dealt with under Routine Proceedings.
As Speaker Fraser ruled on July 13, 1988, at page 17506 of the Debates , referring to the then Standing Order 56(1)(p), which is our current Standing Order 67(1)(p):
“This Standing Order lists as debatable items usually raised under Routine Proceedings motions concerning the management of the (House) business (and) the arrangements of its proceedings.
“The rubric motions usually encompasses matters related to the management of the business of the House and its committees, but it is not the exclusive purview of the government, despite the government's unquestioned prerogative to determine the agenda of business before the House.”
Under our current practices the Chair may well accept, after due notice, such a motion.
Standing Order 67 lists motions that can be moved during Routine Proceedings. They are:
—for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangements of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.
The Senate's failure to deal with Bill C-247 in a timely manner relates to the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority and the management of its business.
Since we are talking about a private member's bill, it stands to reason that a private member should be allowed to move a motion under the rubric motions and send a message to the Senate regarding the progress of the said bill.
If a government bill was stuck in the Senate, the government could move a motion under motions to send a message to the Senate. Mr. Speaker, as you ruled on September 23, 1996, motions are not for exclusive use by the government. Therefore, I should be allowed to move my motion under motions.
In conclusion, the Prime Minister has been talking about an election perhaps in the fall, certainly within 12 months. If the Senate does not deal with Bill C-247 it will die. This government, through its power to send a message to the Senate and through the leader of the government in the Senate, can easily set the government's priority in the other place. Private members cannot.
On the eve of an election, if we are on the eve of an election, this House should be allowed to send a message to the Senate without going through the many hoops and the impossibility of timing of the private member's system. There is not time to do that.
In the interests of the people who elected us to this House and those who want Bill C-247 to become law, which is a majority of people in this place, the House has an obligation to communicate to the Senate its concern about the fate of Bill C-247. Once again, the motion says:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House wishes to convey its dismay regarding the undue delay in the Senate's progress on Bill C-247, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, members of the House of Commons have expressed their distress at the unnecessary delay in dealing with this legislation and in the interest of co-operation between the two chambers and, ultimately, service to the Canadian public, the House feels compelled to express its serious concerns regarding the handling of Bill C-247 by the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for your consideration of that point of order.
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the hon. House leader for the official opposition has made a plea that the situation of Bill C-247 was, in his view, substantially similar to that of Bill C-234 and therefore the judgment of the Speaker on Bill C-244 applies equally to Bill C-247.
The issues are not at all the same. In the case of the other bill that the hon. member referred to, it had to do with the House exercising its authority over one of its committees. In this case, the situation is totally different. This does not take away from the merits of the bill in question and so on. I am not pronouncing myself on that. This is a procedural argument as to whether or not what was used in the case of one applies to the other. I submit to your honour that it does not.
The hon. member also referred to 67(1)(p) of the Standing Orders. Standing Order 67(1)(p) refers to:
such other motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House,—
It is not of the Senate. That is not covered by that particular item. The order goes on to say:
—the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business—
“Its authority” means the authority of the House. “Its officers” means officers of the House not the Senate. “Its business” is the House's business, and so on and so forth.
In reference to the Senate, there are only two applications under the standing order where it applies. This has to do with a conference of the Senate which only applies in the case where a bill has been passed by the House, refused by the Senate, sent back to the House, the House has disagreed with the Senate and then a conference is necessary in order to re-establish how to deal with the matter. That is the only place where it applies to the Senate. It has to do do with a conference stage of the bill which is about three steps away from what we have now, in any case, a very long time from the period that we have in question.
The standing order in question applies only to the House.
There is only one minor exception where it could apply and that is Standing Order 67(1)(g) when we are considering Senate amendment to a House of Commons bill. Again, that proposition is not before us. Although the hon. member may have made an interesting point, I do not believe that the reference to motions as being applicable for this particular case works at all. I am convinced that it does not.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting procedural argument, but I would just like to say that whatever its outcome, I would think all members of parliament, no matter how they voted on the particular private members' bill in question, should be concerned about any developments which tend to sanction or portray an inability on the part of the House to have the Senate deal expeditiously with things that have been passed here in the House of Commons. This is, after all, the elected Chamber in this parliament and the Senate should not take upon itself the role of deliberately withholding the appropriate procedural passage of anything that has already gone through the House of Commons.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
I do not want to get into a debate, but if the opposition House leader has something to offer for my consideration, then I want to hear it.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I do realize that the Standing Order 67, which I quoted, does only refer to the Senate and how we can handle House business and so on and does not necessarily refer to the Senate.
The government House leader has pointed out that we are probably three steps away before the normal process of dealing with business coming back from the Senate. Of course, that is the essence of my argument. We will never get those three more steps going if the Senate continues to wilfully block it in that place.
If this is allowed to continue, the logic is that the Senate could take a bill and we would never see it again.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
Let me understand this. First, the Senate is the master of what it does in the Senate and we are the master of what we do here in the House.
As I understand the member's point of order, he is suggesting that this item, which he has brought forward in a private members' bill, should be moved over into motions. Is that correct?