House of Commons Hansard #29 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was vote.
Lucienne Robillard LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, to provide an overview of government activities to Canadians and parliamentarians on the government's performance, I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, the report entitled “Canada's Performance 2002”.
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government of Canada's “Climate Change Plan for Canada”.
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the 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 34 petitions.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the legislative committee on Bill C-17, an act to amend certain acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety. This report is deemed adopted on presentation.
By way of explanation, this is simply the list of committee members, which has been submitted by all parties.
Final Offer Arbitration in Respect of West Coast Ports Operations ActRoutine Proceedings
Canadian Alliance
Dale Johnston Canadian Alliance Wetaskiwin, AB
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-312, an act to provide for the settlement of labour disputes affecting west coast ports by final offer arbitration.
Mr. Speaker, for quite some time now, since August 25 to be exact, 650 grain workers have been locked out of the port of Vancouver. Grain handlers have been working without a contract since January 1, 2001, nearly two years. Therefore, the bill would do something to alleviate that situation.
At a time when western Canadian farmers have suffered through one of the worst droughts in Canadian history and one of the poorest harvesting seasons when what they have managed to grow they have not been able to harvest, now they are trying to market some of their tough and damp grain through the Port of Vancouver but are unable to get it there and it is rotting in their bins. It is time something was done about this and my bill seeks to rectify that problem.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
An Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental FreedomsRoutine Proceedings
Canadian Alliance
Garry Breitkreuz Canadian Alliance Yorkton—Melville, SK
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-313, an act to amend an act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867.
Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth time I have introduced my property rights bill in the House. The government has such disdain for any legislative protection for property rights that thus far it has refused to make my previous attempts votable and it has refused all attempts even to have my bill reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Individual property rights need strengthening because they were intentionally left out of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Court cases have proven that Canadians have no protection whatsoever to the arbitrary taking of property by the federal government.
My bill would make up for this mind-boggling omission from the charter by strengthening the property rights provisions in the Canadian Bill of Rights.
My bill would also require a two-thirds majority vote of the House whenever the government passes laws that override fundamental property rights, like it did when it passed the Species at Risk Act, the cruelty to animals amendments in the Criminal Code, the Firearms Act and the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
I am hoping now that the bill will be much more successful.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition calling on the government to ban the patenting of life forms, especially seeds. The international development agency Development and Peace organized a campaign and collected 180,000 signatures across Canada.
The Minister for International Trade will therefore be receiving today 63 boxes containing signed petitions urging him to ban the patenting of life forms. I am tabling a few of these petitions in the House.
Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have three different petitions to present this morning pursuant to Standing Order 36. The first one is from people in my riding in the Thompson area.
The petitioners call upon the government to act on the issue of child pornography, to do whatever it can to ensure that laws are in place to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are not allowed.
Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from people in Flin Flon, Manitoba, and Denare Beach and Creighton in Saskatchewan, who call upon Parliament to act on the issue of spinal cord injuries, muscular dystrophy, diabetes and cancer.
They believe that non-embryonic stem cells, also known as adult stem cells, have shown significant research progress without the immune rejection of ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.
Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from first nations residents of Split Lake, Manitoba, who are concerned that claims for residential school survivors have been outstanding for an extremely lengthy period of time and call upon Parliament to act immediately to ensure the claims are addressed.
Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from approximately 100 people from the St. John's area who are asking Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.
Shawn Murphy Liberal Hillsborough, PE
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to present a petition to this Chamber today from the citizens of my riding of Hillsborough, Prince Edward Island, who believe that the courts of Canada have not applied the current child pornography law in such a way that makes it clear that such exploitation of children will always be met with swift punishment.
They call upon Parliament to protect our children by outlawing all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children.
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Request for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
The chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Churchill.
Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, I seek leave this morning, on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus, for an emergency debate on the Atlantic fishery, specifically with respect to the disturbing news that came to light this morning, that the federal government may close most of the remaining Atlantic cod fishery.
This is of crucial importance to the four Atlantic provinces and Quebec. The consequences of closures for individuals and certain areas could be devastating.
The minister just left a press conference. He should come to the House at the earliest opportunity and share the information with members of the House.
This federal document apparently reads as follows:
Fisheries are at low levels, and while overall impact of possible closures will be less than in 1992, consequences for individuals and certain areas will be significant.
Other fishing opportunities do not exist in the most affected areas where cod is still being caught, provincial officials have indicated they have been told.
Nearly 900 licensed fishermen are considered cod dependent, earning between $3,000 and $200,000 a year from that species.
Almost 18,000 tonnes of cod are processed annually in Atlantic Canada and Quebec and are worth about $26.6 million.
We need to know how many plant workers could be affected by potential closures. About 30 processors in Quebec's Gaspé region and parts of Newfoundland are heavily reliant, at least 25%, on cod.
Mr. Speaker, if you should grant my request, I or the member for Acadie—Bathurst would be pleased to move the appropriate adjournment motion tonight.
Request for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
The hon. member for South Shore has also made an application for an emergency debate. I will hear him at the moment.
Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to comment on what my colleague from Churchill had to say. She has outlined a number of important issues and I would be pleased to support her bid or to have my own bid for an emergency debate accepted.
The one thing I might add to the comments of my colleague from Churchill is that I believe the NAFO meetings will be in January. Another supply day motion will not be available prior to that. Therefore, I think it falls under the point of an emergency debate.
The other issue is that this announcement again was made in secret to a select group of Liberal members of Parliament when the announcement had all the opportunity to be made in the House or directly to the people affected. More important, the ministers of fisheries in Quebec, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Newfoundland and Nova Scotia were not called ahead of time. This decision has just come down and now we are hearing that it may be put off until spring.
This issue needs to be debated in the House. It is timely and of the utmost importance to the fishers of Atlantic Canada. It needs to be dealt with in a timely manner.
Request for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
I am not of course familiar with the announcement this morning. It would be prudent if the Chair had some idea of what was in that and looked at the situation in general before making a decision on this matter. I will take the matter under advisement and get back to the House later this day. I thank the hon. members for their attention.
The House resumed from November 20 consideration of the motion.
John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Speaker, I will pick up from where I left off last evening with respect to the report on democratic reform that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada voted on and adopted at a convention in Edmonton this past August.
I would like to raise a very important issue. We had a situation a few moments ago where the Government of Canada exhibited a complete and unfettered disrespect for parliamentarians and Parliament itself. An announcement was made, with respect to a very significant aspect of business of the Government of Canada, on the closure of the cod fishery. Parliamentarians were not given the courtesy of the minister explaining to us first in this place as to why the Government of Canada was taking that action. The members of Parliament who represent those areas affected should have had an opportunity to hear it directly from the minister in this chamber.
The Speaker just made a comment that he did not know the details of the announcement by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The reason for that, Mr. Speaker, is that you, as well as fellow parliamentarians, as a colleague, were not provided the opportunity to hear that information firsthand so that you could make a learned decision about whether an emergency debate was required.
On this day above all days it is a shameful disregard for Parliament, given the fact that today's business before the House is designed to empower Parliament, to have parliamentary reform which will make the work of parliamentarians even that much more meaningful.
Also today the Government of Canada tabled a document with respect to the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. I would not call it a plan because it is not very comprehensive. Again, the minister met with government members and provided a briefing. Opposition members were provided a briefing with officials, and we commend those officials for their due diligence.
Regarding accountability to parliamentarians, whether government members or opposition members, the minimum the members should have, on the most pressing domestic issues from a pan-Canadian basis, is the courtesy of having ministerial contact, and I would say that an announcement of that nature should be done in this place.
I would like to comment on a couple of the issues which I spoke to last evening.
With respect to the relationship between Parliament and the courts themselves, in recent years some Canadians have become concerned about the appearance that courts have encroached upon the supremacy of the Canadian Parliament by reading into our laws interpretations that appear to be inconsistent with or outside the intended laws when passed by Parliament. This appears to many to be a violation of the basic constitutional principle that Parliament makes the laws, the executive implements them and the courts interpret them. The roots of this perception of judicial activism is that the 1982 Constitutional Act included, for the first time in Canada, a constitutional entrenchment guarantee of civil rights through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We arbitrarily bash the courts because we do not like some decisions they have taken. We think there is a responsibility on behalf of Parliament that if an interpretation has been made, which is outside of the will of what Parliament had intended, there has to be a method to rectify that situation. Therefore we have three proposals that would address that aspect and I will read them into the record as follows.
First is that we should have pre-legislation review to ensure that Parliament clearly specifies within each statute the intent of that statute and obtains independent legal advice on the charter compatibility of the bills before they leave Parliament in the first place. It is almost like a pre-emptive strike that we do not have these constitutional challenges.
Second, we should establish a judicial review committee of Parliament to prepare an appropriate response to those court decisions which Parliament believes should be addressed through legislation.
Third, the name and qualifications of any person proposed for appointment by the Prime Minister to the Supreme Court shall be presented to Parliament which shall after debate make a recommendation on the suitability of the nominee's candidacy. This vote shall be conducted and communicated to the governor in council prior to any such appointment being made.
I believe these three initiatives would help enhance the rights between Parliament and the courts. If we look at the issue pertaining to child pornography, it might be a very solid example. Obviously one aspect of the Sharpe decision by the Supreme Court, in the view of most parliamentarians, is an unacceptable loophole that could expose our most vulnerable population, our children, to heinous acts related to child pornography. If we had a judicial committee of Parliament set in place that would provide us with the opportunity to address that court decision with legislation, we could fast track it to remedy that problem.
Our report is also to restore the confidence of Canadians in their political institution and to involve our fellow citizens more closely in the functioning of their Parliament.
We are convinced that the initiatives we are proposing in this context will strengthen parliamentary democracy.
To conclude, there is a myriad of initiatives that Parliament could undertake. We believe the Government of Canada is not taking steps forward that would empower parliamentarians, empower committees and make a stronger parliamentary process.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague and I am sorry I missed the first part of his address because it was the previous day.
Could I ask for his comments on some aspects of committee work? I know the report on the modernization of parliament recommended, for example, a second television room. However he knows that the rules have already been changed and it is now possible until the end of this parliamentary year for any committee to be televised by the commercial channels with appropriate notice. For example, if the night before the committee chair is advised that a TV company wants to put its camera in the committee room, that is now possible.
That has not been taken up as actively as I and the people involved with this report had expected. I honestly believe that the televising of committees, as well as the televising of the House, is an important way of empowering members and committees.
The second aspect has to do with committee travel. I also believe that committees are empowered when they travel. Essentially what happens is they go to the Maritimes, the west or to the north and when they come back, they then have the genuine evidence, or a feel, for the regions in which they have been.
One difficulty, since I was elected, is that for a committee to travel, unanimous consent in the House of Commons is required. That is often not given by the opposition parties. My colleague is in a small party. I understand what a travelling committee means to a small party like his own because it takes away a member.
Would the hon. member support the idea that: (a) committees should travel more and that it be easier for them to do so; and (b) it be possible for them to use the existing quorum for receiving witnesses, which is a small part of the committee, so they can travel and then come back and report to their main committee? I think that would empower members.
John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to state for the record that I know the member for Peterborough generally wants to be a steward for increasing the parliamentary process. I would be comfortable with both of the suggestions he made.
The point with respect to televising committee meetings indeed has merit as does the capacity to define a more flexible situation so that those committees can travel to get a perspective from a regional basis on proposed Government of Canada legislation.
I listened to the hon. House leader's so-called parliamentary reform initiatives. The initiatives would essentially make it easier to apply votes, reinstate government bills and institute electronic voting. They would make it easier for the executive branch and not empower Parliament. To raise the threshold from 20 to 25 members to block a consent vote would make it again easier for the executive branch and not easier for parliamentarians themselves.
Programming stages of bills was mentioned. Is that fast-tracking legislation? It would take away parliamentary debate making it easier for the executive branch and not for Parliament. Having time allocation with respect to amendments at the committee level would make it easier for the executive branch and not for Parliament.
The two initiatives that the member for Peterborough spoke about would move the yardstick. He is trying to help the parliamentary process, but the initiatives encapsulated in the House leader's speech have nothing to do with parliamentary reform and empowering Parliament as opposed to just giving additional powers to the executive branch.
Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL
Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member's comments on the whole procedure. When there is so much of importance going on in the country we are into a two day debate on a modernization issue that nobody understands because what is entailed has not been clarified. It was introduced by a government that for the past nine years has taken away every parliamentary right of the opposition, committees and of individual members.
A week ago the government fought a motion put on the floor by the Canadian Alliance dealing with the election of chairs. The established government, the cabinet and the Prime Minister fought against it. Right out of the blue we had a former finance minister, who was probably the worst perpetrator in taking away individual and committee rights, preaching the gospel.
Now the government comes in with a two day debate on modernization because it wants to modernize the whole show. It is completely and utterly mystifying and I would like the hon. member's comments on that.