House of Commons Hansard #118 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was finance.
Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary 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 five petitions.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to today's announcement by the Minister of Finance. He made a highly publicized statement outside the House concerning the state of Canada's financial circumstances, in particular focusing on the level of the surplus.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you, as a great defender of the significance and the importance of the House, will know that we raised this issue on a number of occasions. We regret that unfortunately the House has not seen fit or the Chair has not seen fit to take a vigorous attitude toward the practices that diminish the House.
Yesterday we heard high praise from the government about the importance of public business of Canadians being conducted in the House of Commons, yet it has chosen to flout the House again. My colleagues in this party condemn the continued marginalization by the Liberal government in the House. We know that the House is being diminished by the practice of announcements being made in the press gallery as opposed to the floor of the House of Commons.
In the words of your sister speaker in the British house of commons in Westminster, I suggest that this would lend support to this point of order.
This statement was made on July 26 of this year from Betty Boothroyd of Westminster and she stated,
Let us make a start by remembering that the function of Parliament is to hold the Executive to account. That is the role for which history has cast the Commons. It is the core task of members—not merely to act as representatives of their constituents, important though that certainly is. It is in Parliament in the first instance that Ministers must explain and justify their policies.
She goes on to say,
I have taken action to ensure that those who advise Ministers should never overlook the primacy of Parliament. This is the chief forum of the nation—today, tomorrow and, I hope for ever.
I would suggest that there is wisdom to be found in those words and that sentiment expressed by the British speaker. I urge the Chair to follow that lead of the parliamentary model in Great Britain and remind the government of the supremacy of Parliament and the importance of speaking to Canadians through its House, this House and parliament.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, it was interesting that the Speaker had commented about the continual practice of the government making big announcements outside of this place, ironically again in the Charles Lynch Theatre today. There seems to be quite a bit of action down there lately.
Earlier in parliament the Speaker brought forward his concern that this not become a habit of the government to make announcements outside of this place. He said words to the effect early in this parliament that “I want to express my concern that the government is continuously or habitually making important legislative announcements outside of this place”. The announcements of the magnitude that we saw again this morning, which was basically an admission that the forecasting ability of the finance minister was zilch, were made outside the place.
I would agree with the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough that it is time that the ministers came before the House, made their presentations, told the House first and then the rest of the world could follow.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker in the absence of our House leader who is busy doing other duties at the moment, I want to add some comments to the points that have already been raised by my hon. colleagues.
We are all cognizant of the fact that Canadians are concerned about the nature of business conducted in the House. It is in the interest of all parliamentarians and the interest of Canada and the parliamentary system to conduct, as much as possible, the serious business of Canada in the House. Today when we watched television and saw the Minister of Finance talk about the surplus and the whole issue and policies surrounding the surplus, the question that came to all of us was why was he not making this now under ministers statements when there would be an opportunity for others to respond and to start this discussion in terms of how to deal with this surplus.
I appeal to not only you, Mr. Speaker, but to the government members, and particularly to the Cabinet ministers, to use this House and give it the due that it deserves. If we do not use it seriously ourselves how can we expect Canadians to take it seriously?
Points Of OrderRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
The Chair has listened to the arguments advanced by the hon. members on this point. I have to say that when this particular chair occupant was in opposition I raised the same point. I am familiar with the argument but I am also familiar, unfortunately, with Speakers' rulings on this point, so I have some bad news for the members who raised this issue.
I cite the decision of Mr. Speaker Fraser on October 4, 1989 who had raised before him a question of privilege by Mr. Ian Angus, the then hon. member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan. He complained about an important announcement made by the transportation minister outside the House. He felt that the matter should have been raised here in the House under statements by ministers instead of at a press conference.
I quote Mr. Speaker Fraser:
The Speaker, of course, is not supposed to have any personal memory of events in this place.
I agree of course.
But I do, and it has been customary from time to time over many years for complaints to be laid before the Speaker with respect to whether or not it was appropriate for the Government to make a statement in the House, which of course, if that is done under the rules enables both opposition critics to have equal time to respond.
In those days there were only three parties.
It has been argued by Members that sit on both sides of this House on different occasions that that is the more appropriate way to proceed. I must advise honourable Members and the public who are listening that that is not a practice which is stipulated in any rules of this House. Of course, as the Chair always says, if the House wishes to change the rules then the Chair will certainly abide by them. There are no rules to that effect as, I say, and the honourable Member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan, in raising this point, raises a complaint.
The Government has made a response which may or may not satisfy honourable Members but it is not a point of privilege and it is not a contempt of the House. I would suggest that honourable members discuss with each other ways and means by which the practice of making statements in the House can be followed as often as possible.
I also refer the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the House leader of the official opposition and the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys to the new book on House of Commons procedure, page 379. I quote:
A Minister is under no obligation to make a statement in the House. The decision of a Minister to make an announcement outside of the House instead of making a statement in the House during Routine Proceedings has been raised as a question of privilege, but the Chair has consistently found there to be no grounds to support a claim that any privilege has been breached.
With regret, I must state the rules as in the precedence and advise hon. members accordingly. If members wish to change the rules, the Chair naturally would abide by those rules and apply them in the House.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the course of Oral Question Period, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General referred to a report that he had in hand that was refuting my comments. It was the report given to the Solicitor General by the Security Intelligence Review Committee.
I recognize that the rules of the House would call for him to have quoted specifically from that report in order for us to order that report tabled. However I wonder if, in the goodwill extended by the parliamentary secretary to myself in his response, he would see fit to table that report immediately so that we can have a look at it ourselves.
Points Of OrderRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
I am sure the parliamentary secretary will note the observations of the hon. member and respond in due course.
Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Canada-China Legislative Association regarding the visit by the co-chairs to China in May 2000.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the time when you called for statements by ministers I thought perhaps there would be one from the minister reporting to us.
Interparliamentary DelegationsRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Apparently not. No one stood.
Jim Peterson Liberalfor the Minister of Finance
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-43, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Act Application Rules and certain acts related to the Income Tax Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of constituents who I am sure are concerned about the high cost of fuels, particularly in terms of transportation fuels, but also home heating fuels.
They question the validity of keeping the 7% GST on the price of fuel. They are concerned about the fact that the money raised by the federal excise tax on fuel is not used for the development and maintenance of highways.
They are concerned that this will result in an increase in inflation. They are asking the Parliament of Canada to do whatever it can to get the government to come to its senses on this issue.
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition signed by 1,261 people in my riding. They ask the government to have more compassion for the elderly in Canada.
The petitioners ask parliament that the elderly, who are often poor, be exempted from taxes, the GST, the costs of medication, dental care, eye care, prostheses, therapeutic devices, ambulance, and public transit.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to present a petition from hundreds of citizens of Winnipeg and Manitoba who are very concerned about the state of health care in Canada today.
The petitioners call upon the federal government to increase its share of health care funding to 25% immediately. Obviously they remain concerned that the recent deal at the first ministers level only brings the federal share up to 13%.
The petitioners also call upon the government to implement a national home care program and a national program for prescription drugs, two ideas which were promised by the government and still not acted upon.
Rose-Marie Ur Liberal Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition on behalf of citizens in the Grand Bend-London-Kitchener area who urge the government to eliminate the gas additive MMT as it has negative impacts both on people's health and our ecosystem at large.
Dennis Gruending NDP Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I also have a petition to present on health care with 400 names on it, not all my constituents but people from throughout Saskatchewan.
They are very disappointed in the government's record on health care. They want the government to raise its expenditure to 25% of the total expenses immediately.
The petitioners also want the government to stop Alberta's experiment with private sector clinics which are really hospitals. They petition the government to do this immediately.
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, many thousands of Canadians have come to me asking me to present a petition which calls upon the government to do something to prevent the terrible gouging in fuel costs.
Specifically they request immediate action to do away with the charging of GST on home heating fuel. Most of the signatories are from British Columbia, but I am sure that most Canadians share their concern over this issue.
Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 71 will be answered today. .[Text]
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Of all Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans for dwellings on Indian reserves, how many of them are in default and must be paid by the guarantor either by the band or the federal government?
Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
I am informed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, and the Department of Indian affairs and Northern Development, DIAND, as follows:
As of November 30, 1999, 24 loans are currently in arrears. All of CMHC's activity on Indian reserves is based on a guarantee from DIAND. CMHC does not pay any claims on these accounts. Once CMHC is notified of an account in arrears, CMHC forwards this information to DIAND.
Since January 1, 1987, as guarantor, DIAND has paid for 18 CMHC loans for dwellings on Indian reserves that went in to default and for which DIAND is recovering payments from the first nations. With respect to loans taken by bands for which the band itself is guarantor, records are kept by the bands themselves.
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers No. P-11 in the name of the hon. member for Surrey Central and No. P-24 in the name of the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville?
Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Perhaps we could deal with one first and then the other. I call Notice of Motion No. P-11 in the name of the hon. member for Surrey Central.
Motion P-11
That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House copies of all documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, correspondence relating, prosecutions and issues related to extradition concerning the bombing of Air-India 182 in 1985.