Debates of March 19th, 2001

Aboriginal Affairs

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, these investigations are under way. We are pleased to now have the co-operation of all parties in examining the facts.

When the reports are ready, they will be made public, and we will move to take the necessary action.

Immigration

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

Mr. Speaker, Gaetano Amodeo and his wife applied for permanent resident status on June 10, 1999. His name may have later been removed, as the minister has told us, but it was known to her department. Although separated, Mr. Amodeo's name would still appear on the original documents.

Why was there no CPIC or Interpol cross-reference which would have revealed the name of Mr. Amodeo, who was wanted for three murders and Mafia involvement, and why was he allowed to enter and leave the country 17 times after that?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again that this individual is not an immigrant. He was not granted permanent resident status. As soon as my department had sufficient evidence and knowledge of the identity and whereabouts of the individual, he was arrested. He is presently in detention and is awaiting a deportation hearing.

The innuendo and suggestion from the member opposite are completely inappropriate.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Girts Vladis Kristovskis, Minister of Defence of the Republic of Latvia.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

I also draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Oscar Lathlin, Minister of Conservation for the Province of Manitoba.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Points Of Order

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is in regard to a decision of the chairman of the transport committee which I believe contravenes the rules of the House. I am bringing this matter to the House instead of to the committee because, as Speaker Parent ruled on June 20, 1994, and again on November 7, 1996:

While it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House.

Committees receive their authority from the House. In cases where the standing orders do not specifically outline a rule for committees, committees are guided by the provision of Standing Order 116, which states:

In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable—

The rule of the House that applies to the standing committees actually stems from section 49 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 49 provides that questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by the majority of votes. This is the rule that was breached by the chairman of the standing committee for transport. The majority instructed the chair to carry out its wishes and the chair ignored that decision.

On Tuesday, February 27, 2001, the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations was convened to establish the future work agenda of the committee. On a point of order I interjected that it was unclear who had scheduled a briefing on Bill S-2 for the following Thursday when the purpose of the meeting was to determine the future work of the committee.

The chair acknowledged that he alone had asked the clerk of the committee to put together an agenda based on the anticipated work of the committee for discussion by the members. During the ensuing debate, numerous committee members indicated that they were new to the committee and were not prepared to discuss the future schedule until they had received briefings from each of the ministries. There was unanimous agreement that the committee would adjourn and return to hear respective briefings only.

The chair declared the meeting adjourned, at which time an interjection was made by the parliamentary secretary to the transport minister as to the status of Bill S-2. The chair advised the parliamentary secretary that he understood that the government officials would provide whatever information he required and reiterated that the meeting was adjourned, whereupon the parliamentary secretary expressed his concern again that Bill S-2 might be forgotten in the request for briefings and the chair advised that the bill would be scheduled for March 20. This was done without the agreement of the committee, and after two assertions that the committee was indeed adjourned.

The final briefing and return to the future work discussion was scheduled for March 15, 2001. On March 14, we received notice that the last ministry, treasury board, could not appear and was rescheduled to appear March 22, and that the meeting scheduled for March 15 was cancelled unilaterally by the chairman based on his concern that there would not be enough members in attendance for a quorum.

We were not consulted prior to this decision, nor were we consulted regarding his decision to proceed with Bill S-2 on March 20, tomorrow. This was prior to the establishment of the future work agenda and contrary to the wishes of the majority of the committee.

We are concerned about the disregard for committee protocol as it relates to the rescheduling, cancellation, agenda and adjournment of committee meetings as demonstrated by the committee chair. He did not have the authority to make the decision to cancel.

On page 843 of Marleau and Montpetit, it states:

Where the meeting has been convened by order of the committee, the Chair consults with representatives of the various parties before sending the cancellation notice.

In summary, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations did not consult with members prior to cancelling the March 15 meeting and, likewise, did not have majority support to reschedule the March 20 meeting to hear witnesses concerning Bill S-2.

The chairman does not have the authority or the power to run the committee as he sees fit, and neither does the parliamentary secretary to the transport minister, at least not without a vote where he can, at the minimum, get the Liberal members of the committee to raise their hands.

It is important that we must, at a minimum, continue to have the illusion of democracy at our committees.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that this question would be raised this afternoon, but I think the Chair should be aware that the numerous matters which the member has raised are on the agenda of the committee for tomorrow.

He began by speaking about the powers of committees and, in fact, their ability to manage their own affairs consistent with the standing orders, with the exception that in a standing committee the standing orders shall apply only so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why this issue was brought before you today, because the hon. member has five motions before the committee to be dealt with tomorrow when the committee meets at its regular time of 11 o'clock, which deal with precisely the issues he has raised in the House today.

In addition, there are two motions from the hon. member for Skeena having to do with the procedures and the way of conducting committee business, which again were put before the committee with proper notice and will be dealt with by the committee tomorrow.

I would suggest that the Chair should consider that the committee be allowed to deal with these matters. which have been placed on its agenda and which are before it tomorrow, and that if the member is still dissatisfied, he might consider raising this issue again.

[The Speaker]

I know that the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River has clearly been reading Marleau and Montpetit, which is very commendable. I know that he and the other members of the transport committee will want their copies handy tomorrow at the meeting to which the hon. chief government whip refers.

This is clearly a procedural matter of some import that has to be dealt with by the transport committee and, with great respect to the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River, I do not think it is one that the Chair should get involved in at this stage, and probably not ever. Committees are masters of their own proceedings. I know the hon. member has read that line in Marleau and Montpetit as well.

The Chair is very reluctant to involve itself in the affairs of committees unless something quite extraordinary happens. I must say that on all the evidence I have heard here today—I call it evidence—there does not seem to be anything that is terribly out of the ordinary and I know that the hon. member will want to raise these issues in the committee tomorrow. I encourage him to do so at the very next meeting and we will see what transpires there. However, at this point I think it would be premature for the Speaker to become involved in this matter and accordingly I decline to do so.

Chief Electoral Officer

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the 2000 report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 37th general election.

This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Government Response To Petitions

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.

Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition containing hundreds of names of citizens of Guysborough county, a region that continues to live in hard times.

Canso, Port Felix, Whitehead, Little Dover, Fox Island, Durells Island and Tickle all call upon the government to enact legislation that would widen the definition of intermediate zones as defined in the Canada Income Tax Act to include communities, such as those I have mentioned, which are geographically remote and which, we would suggest, are deserving of special status.

The petition is brought forward with a common sense plea for assistance in very difficult times, and I am honoured to table it on behalf of these citizens.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my petition is from constituents who are concerned that the present laws regarding divorce and child custody lend themselves to making worse the animosity between spouses and to increased tension among children.

The petitioners call upon parliament to ask the government to implement a national strategy to create a non-adversarial marital separation code. They list five specific and very worthy points and I look forward to the government's response to this petition.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present to the House a petition signed by residents of the city of Val-d'Or and the Vallée-de-l'Or RCM regarding the Sigma-Lamaque and Beaufor mines.

The petitioners call upon parliament to set up a financial assistance program for thin capitalization mines in Canada's resource regions.

Similarly, they call on the government to take action to increase its presence and its involvement in resource regions that are having trouble adjusting to the new economy.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour of presenting the following petition to the House.

The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that rural route couriers are not permitted to bargain collectively so that they may improve their wages and working conditions.

Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post collective agreement.

Starred Questions

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 5. I ask that it be printed in Hansard as if read. .[Text]

*Question No. 5 —

[Jim Pankiw, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Of the $1.5 billion assistance the minister of agriculture pledged to farmers under the agricultural income disaster assistance program, AIDA, what amount has been paid out to Saskatchewan farmers as of December 31, 2000?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, as of December 31, 2000, $223.4 million had been paid out to Saskatchewan farmers for the 1998 and 1999 AIDA claim years.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the House would be willing to give unanimous consent to return to introduction of private members' bills. I understood we would not be doing that until later and I just got here and would like to do that today.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to revert to introduction of private members' bills?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.