Debates of Jan. 31st, 2001

Points Of Order

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I notice in The Canada Gazette that an amount of $1.768 billion has been approved by Governor General's special warrant providing for expenditures from January 13, 2001 to February 11, 2001.

I refer to private member's Bill C-270, assented to on February 19, 1997, with which I think the Speaker is quite familiar. If I may quote the bill, it says “Subject to subsection (1.1) where payment is urgently required for the public good” and “there is no other appropriation pursuant to which the payment may be made”, the Governor General may authorize the payment.

When I look at the details of this special warrant, I see that they are all basically for operating expenditures. The House approved operating expenditures for all the departments mentioned when we approved the main estimates last June.

Therefore in my opinion this is not eligible to be approved by way of special warrant because there was already an appropriation made by the House last June to cover the operating expenditures for the departments listed in this special warrant.

Therefore I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board why this $1.768 billion of taxpayer money is being expended without reference to the House and when this will be rectified. Perhaps she could clarify whether or not this is actually legal, because in my opinion it is in contravention of the law as it currently stands.

[The Speaker]

The Chair has grave reservations as to whether this is in fact a point of order or a matter of argument on the application of the law.

Perhaps the government House leader, in a brief reply, could clarify the situation for the hon. member for St. Albert in a way that would let the matter rest for the time being at least. I know there will be other opportunities to investigate these special warrants.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Standing Order 81 explains for the hon. member and for anyone else how the convention of supply works. It should be obvious to anyone that the House could not grant supply before parliament had been reconvened. The House was of course called back to elect our Speaker on Monday and received its Speech from the Throne yesterday. The hon. member knows that even before estimates could be approved by the House we would need at least seven opposition days in order to do that.

The hon. member is questioning whether these expenditures are necessary because they are for operations. Need I remind him that if there is no money for operations and the government ceases to function at the same time as he and his colleagues are demanding further expenditures, there would be at least something wrong. It is not only the privilege but the duty of the government to ensure that the government functions until parliament can properly grant supply.

[The Speaker]

We will treat the matter as closed for the time being. I am going from memory at this point, but my recollection is that these special warrants are referred to the standing committee on something or other, and I think it is the public accounts committee.

I know the hon. member for St. Albert was a member if not the chair of that committee in the last parliament. Who knows what will happen when the striking committee reports, but I am sure that if he is the chair he will be able to take up that matter in the committee with vigour and enthusiasm and find out all the details about whether there was anything amiss in the special warrant to which he refers.

I believe the Chair has notice of a point of order from the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

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

Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate you on your rocket-like ascent to position of Speaker.

I rise on two points of order. My first point of order concerns a letter that was referred to in an answer in question period. I would ask that the Minister of Industry table the letter so that it forms a part of the record of the 37th parliament. I acknowledge that he has provided us with a copy.

My second point of order concerns a response to a question I posed to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Industry characterized my question as a false and misleading statement. Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to Beauchesne's sixth edition, a publication that I know you are very attached to. At page 151, citation 494, it states:

It has been formally ruled by Speakers that statements by Members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be accepted. It is not unparliamentary temperately to criticize statements made by Members as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible. On rare occasions this may result in the House having to accept two contradictory accounts of the same incident.

It may be that the Minister of Industry is feeling a bit testy because his old riding of Straits—White Bay North has just gone Tory for the first time since Confederation. Trevor Taylor was elected there.

I would ask in all honesty that the new member would now withdraw that characterization as false and misleading in this Chamber.

[The Speaker]

I will deal with the first issue concerning the tabling of a letter. If the Minister of Industry did read from a letter, I would be glad to hear from him on that point.

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to table the letter in question but pursuant to standing orders I will have to await the appropriately translated version of the letter in order to lay it on the table of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I await your direction on this, but with respect to the second matter I would be happy to respond now if the Speaker so desires.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has raised an interesting point. Perhaps if instead of reading Beauchesne's he had read Marleau and Montpetit, he would have come up with a slightly different bent on his argument.

As he knows, Beauchesne's is an older book now and Marleau and Montpetit is just the latest and greatest on procedural matters, of course. I know the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough reads that book extensively. However the difficulty is that the words the Minister of Industry used did not include the words deliberately misleading. My recollection, without having gone through Marleau and Montpetit extensively on this occasion, is that the words must be that the statement was deliberately misleading the House. He did not say that.

Accordingly, while I heard him say it and the thought passed through my mind, as I know it did through that of the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and sent him running for Beauchesne's, I do not feel that he has transgressed the rules today on this point. Accordingly I have nothing further to say. I do not think the point of order is well taken.

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I was well aware that the word deliberately in fact would have put me in a position where I would have transgressed the rules of the House.

However, I want to say that I have been in a far gentler House for the last five years, a gentle place full of gentlemen and gentlewomen, and I realize today that I have returned somewhat to old form. Even though I have not violated the rules of the House, because it is my first day back and I want a good start, if I in any way, shape or form have offended the sensibilities of the member opposite, I want him to know that I hope he sleeps well tonight.

Ways And Means

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of ways and means motion relating to the assessment of expenses regarding a financial consumer agency, and I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration thereof.

Board Of Internal Economy

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that the following member has been appointed a member of the Board of Internal Economy for the purposes and by virtue of the provisions of the Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, chapter 32 of the Statutes of Canada, 1997: the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to seek the consent of the House, following consultation on all sides, to present without debate the following motion. It is a motion that I believe is supported by members of all parties represented in the House and is seconded by my colleague, the member for Vancouver East.

I move that this House condemn the cruel punishment of 100 lashes administered on the 22nd of January last to Bariya Magazu, a Nigerian child in Zamfara state, as an act of torture and a breach of Nigeria's commitments under the UN convention against torture, the UN convention on the rights of the child and the international covenant on civil and political rights, and call on the Canadian government to work with the Nigerian federal government and all relevant authorities in an effort to ensure that this cruel and unusual punishment is not repeated.

[The Speaker]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek guidance of the Chair. There have been consultations on all sides of the House and an agreement from members representing all parties. With great respect, I wonder if the Speaker might seek consent of the House once again. I think he might find that it is forthcoming.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps there were consultations with all House leaders. However, when members produce a long motion like the member just gave looking for unanimous consent, I think some of us would prefer a bit of notice so we could consider it in detail.

[The Speaker]

I think it is apparent there is not consent. Clearly the hon. member could put his motion on the notice paper and then seek consent once it has been on the notice paper for a period of time. Perhaps that is the way to deal with it.

Petitions

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am today tabling in the House three petitions concerning employment insurance by constituents of the riding of Charlevoix.

Since the Minister of Human Resources Development is simply putting off the problem of seasonal workers by gradually changing the limits of employment insurance regions over the next three years, the people of Charlevoix will continue to pressure the government.

They ask the government to make acceptable changes as quickly as possible so seasonal workers are not penalized.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by several hundred people from Peterborough and elsewhere. The petitioners point out that kidney disease is a huge and growing problem in Canada, and that real progress is being made in various ways of presenting and coping with kidney disease.

They call upon parliament to encourage the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to explicitly recognize kidney research as one of the institutes in its system. The institute would be named the institute of kidney and urinary tract diseases.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Request For Emergency Debate

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, welcome back to the chair. I have had a lot of good opportunities when you have been in the chair to ask permission for an emergency debate.

Under Standing Order 52, I ask that the House, through your auspices in the chair, allow an emergency debate with respect to the crisis in agriculture today. As seen in the House today, all parties, including the government, agree that there is a general crisis in agriculture. We should have the opportunity in the House to discuss openly what is happening right now in my community and other communities across the country.

Since 1999 we have lost 22,000 farmers. The year 2000 was the worst. The year 2001 and beyond will be worse yet. We have to talk about short term requirements and long term support programs, and we have to talk about them now. I ask the Speaker to allow us an emergency debate on agriculture.

[The Speaker]

The Chair has carefully considered the point raised by the hon. member for Brandon—Souris. While the Chair was tempted to grant the emergency debate, I point out to the House that we are debating today, tomorrow, and I believe Friday, the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. That allows debate on any topic.

Since any topic may be raised, including the very important topic mentioned by the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, during the next few days at random, the Chair feels that it would be inappropriate at this time to grant an emergency debate on the subject raised. Of course the hon. member is free to bring the matter before the House on another occasion.