House of Commons Hansard #32 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was kyoto.

Topics

Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2002Government Orders

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2002Government Orders

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried on division.

(Motion agreed to)

Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2002Government Orders

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

The Chair has a number of points of order. The hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, last week on Tuesday, November 19, Parliament voted to withdraw the proposal changing the disability tax credit, which was released on August 30, 2002.

Parliament voted unanimously, with 100% of the members who were in the House of Commons voting to withdraw the proposal.

Today I was sad to hear that the Minister of Finance has decided to duck out at the last vote that we had and just walk away. Then he turned around today and said that now he is going to consult. That would go against the motion that was put in the House and the democracy that we believe in. The decision was taken, with 234 members of Parliament against nil. Has the Minister of Finance become nil now? Is that his new name? It is unacceptable that a minister would turn around on a mandate from Parliament.

I would like the Speaker to rule on this, that with a mandate of Parliament that work will be withdrawn. All the Liberals who were in the House of Commons have expressed themselves and they all voted in favour to withdraw that work. We have disabled people in our country who are waiting for some action from the government.

When we asked the government to look at people who were being fined, big corporations, the government was fast on its feet to say “no, no, it is not the business of Parliament, it is the government's.” Here we have something that is very clear. This is the business of Parliament. We made a decision. I would like you to rule on it, Mr. Speaker.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member, I am sure, is raising a grievance, but I do not know how the Speaker is supposed to rule on the effect of motions adopted by the House unless they deal with some procedure in the House itself. I am unaware of some procedure that is before the House in relation to this matter and on which the Chair could possibly be involved.

The hon. member has made his point. I think he made a point during question period, but I am not sure on what authority he is relying for the Chair to assist him in the circumstances he has outlined at the moment. In the circumstances I am not sure there is anything the Chair can do.

I see that the Minister of Finance is rising to speak to the point of order. I will hear him on the point if he wishes.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Ottawa South Ontario

Liberal

John Manley LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, if I understood what you were saying, you are quite right. Nothing was tabled in the House to withdraw. A press release that was put out by the Department of Finance dealing very specifically with a case that was determined by the Federal Court of Appeal.

From my understanding, in discussion with representatives of various persons concerned with this, the issue really is how we can ensure that the disability tax credit is extended to all those for whom it should be available.

There is an issue around the Hamilton case. If the hon. member will be fair, he will recognize that there may be some implications to the Hamilton case that ought to be taken into account. Quite frankly, it was of concern to me that the proposed amendment, which was offered in response to the Hamilton case, may have gone too far. That is why I indicated to our members that it was fine with me if they wished to vote for the resolution.

However, I think--

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Why did you walk out?

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

John Manley Liberal Ottawa South, ON

They do not want to hear what I have to say, Mr. Speaker, and that is unfair.

However to be fair, it is important that we take the time to consider the matter carefully. Taking the recommendations of the House, we will produce something that changes what was issued before, but I have not tabled an amendment so I have nothing to withdraw.

I have undertaken to the House, to members and to groups in the disabled community that I will hear them out, will consider the matter very carefully and will take action that is appropriate.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, you raise a very real question as to what the authorities are here, but there is no doubt that there is a very significant problem. It has to do with whether debates and votes in the House have any utility or are simply an exercise in futility. There could be no mistaking the intention of the House on this matter.

The minister is now trying to narrow down the interpretation of the language to a particular case. That is not the language on which the House of Commons voted. The House of Commons voted, calling upon the government to withdraw the proposed changes to the disability tax credit released on August 30. That has implications beyond one specific measure, despite what the Minister of Finance is trying to suggest.

We have a difficulty here where there may not be authorities in the hands of the Speaker, but the Speaker has an overall responsibility to ensure that the House functions effectively. I think what the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst is asking, what many of us would ask, is that the Speaker consider how we can come to a situation where votes that are taken in the House, particularly votes that have the support which this unanimous vote had on this matter, are treated with respect by the government and not simply cavalierly dismissed.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

The Chair will want to make it very clear that the motion that was adopted by the House on November 19 states “That this House call upon the government to”, and it lists a series of things such as develop a comprehensive program and so on. I will not read the entire resolution but it is a call on the government to do this. I have not heard the minister say that he would not do it. I have not heard the minister say that he is doing any of it yet. The call was made. Surely it is reasonable for some time to elapse for the minister to make his decision.

The call has been issued by the House and we are awaiting a response. Until we get a response on all the matters, the House will have to wait. It is not something that said that the minister will do this tomorrow. It was a call upon the government to do this, and with great respect, parliamentary tradition would certainly allow reasonable time for the government to formulate a response to some call from the House.

In the circumstances I believe that is what we have before us and I accordingly do not find there is a valid point of order at this time. Hon. members may wish to raise it on another day. The fact is that there was a call issued, there has not been a response brought to the House yet, and given the date of it, I cannot say that I am surprised. Heavens, if you send a letter to the minister, you will wait longer than a week and a half for a reply. We all know that.

In the circumstances, I think that it is reasonable to leave this matter for the time being and I am sure we will hear from the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst another time.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware this question of privilege was raised by the whip for the NDP, the member for Acadie--Bathurst, and responded to by the member for Nickel Belt, who is the chair of the aboriginal affairs and natural resources committee.

This question of privilege is a result of a process that the chair kicked into place at a meeting last week, as a result of a motion brought by myself asking the committee to pass a resolution which would have had the effect of compelling a witness to attend before the committee to testify on a bill which the committee was considering.

I was speaking to the motion seeking resolution for the summons to be issued and was interrupted by the chair. He indicated that he would cut off any further right on my part to speak. I continued to speak and he then allowed a point of order from the parliamentary secretary to put the question on the resolution.

The precedent that I would like to draw to your attention that governs this type of situation is that of the meeting of the industry committee on Tuesday, March 23, 1999.

The Bloc member for Mercier moved a motion. There was a very brief discussion. The chair I think stepped out of the chair and was replaced by the member for Essex who suspended the meeting, which is in accordance with Marleau and Montpetit. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to page 857 if you wish to consider that. It was in accordance with the statements in that part of the text.

In a subsequent meeting, I believe the following day, the government member for Hamilton West moved a motion setting time limits on debate on any motions or discussion pertaining to that bill. After debate the question was put and it was passed.

That is not the procedure that was followed here. The chairman of the committee simply allowed, improperly I would submit, the request for a point of order which then turned into the question being put on the main motion, the motion I had brought forward. It is important to appreciate that at that point I had spoken less than 10 minutes. I would estimate that I spoke somewhere between five and seven minutes, and I still had a number of points that I wanted to make.

The other thing I would ask you to take into account, Mr. Speaker, is that it had been indicated in previous meetings that this witness would attend. If the blues are considered, the chairman indicated he agreed with me that this individual might be the most important witness that the committee needed to hear with regard to the bill under consideration. In spite of that and in effect by allowing the procedure to go ahead, he cut off any further debate on my part to convince the rest of the committee of the importance of that party coming before the committee and in spite of the fact that it was crucial for that party to give testimony before the committee. I believe he agrees with me.

I want to again draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that at that point on the motion in that committee we were not faced with any time limits. The committee had not agreed to any time limits and had not imposed any time limits on members of the committee.

I quote from page 857 of Montpetit and Marleau:

On occasion, committees place strict limits on the amount of time during which a given item will be considered.

That did not occur here. It is my position that anyone speaking to that motion would have had unlimited time to speak to it.

As I said, this was not a situation where I had used an unreasonable amount of time. It was not a question where the committee was being thwarted in its actions. I had spoken less than 10 minutes on what was a very important motion with regard to the issue of this witness appearing before us, who, it had been understood, was in fact going to appear before us.

On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider the privilege motion and make a ruling that the procedure followed both by the chair and, in effect, by the committee was improper and not in keeping with the procedures of committees or of the House.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, this is not a proper point of privilege. First, no notice has been given by the member to refer the issue to the committee procedure as would be a prerequisite had this been done properly. Second, the bill in question is not before the House, so the question of privilege is in itself out of order because we are not at that particular time yet. Third, the committee is meeting, if I understand it correctly, 10 minutes from now to discuss the point that the hon. member wishes to raise in committee.

Additionally, I understand the committee work being done was programmed. In other words, the committee had agreed to a particular program, including witnesses it would hear, time thereof, the date that the bill was reported, and the committee had adopted the program. It is the equivalent of mutual agreement on the part of everyone to time allocation of the initiative. That was done, voted on and accepted by the committee. I understand in addition to that, the chair granted an additional courtesy to the hon. member, notwithstanding the program and motion to which the committee had agreed.

Finally, whether the vote was to take place was agreed to by the committee by a vote of seven to one.

It is a one clause bill. I do not want to get into the substance of the issue. To summarize it, in my view the bill was handled properly at committee, by agreement of the committee, programmed by the committee. It is improperly before the House with regard to timing. It is still before the committee and no proper notice has been given as part of the plea of the hon. member to refer the issue to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The entire thing is improperly done.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

The Speaker

I think the government House leader will recognize this is the third time the Chair has heard submissions on this very point. It was raised initially last week by the member for Acadie—Bathurst because the hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair could not be here at that time to present the matter. Since it was a question of privilege he felt it had to be raised urgently.

Subsequently, yesterday I then heard the hon. member for Nickel Belt who presented his arguments on the matter. Now today we hear from the horse's mouth, as it were, the member who initially raised the matter, the member for Windsor—St. Clair, and we have heard now from the government House leader. I thank all hon. members for their submissions.

The Chair will continue to take the matter under advisement. I hope I do not hear more submissions on it before I can render a decision. I delayed decision making on this issue until all hon. members involved had made their pitches, as it were. The pitches having been made, the Chair will consider the matter and get back to the House in due course.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jim Pankiw Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During today's question period the Solicitor General responded to my question by saying he rejected the premise of it. However, the premise of my question was based on an access to information request that I made to the RCMP, for which he is responsible and for which it provided information to me which proves that it has taken racial inventories, set racial quotas, engaged in racial profiling, discriminated--

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

The Speaker

I am afraid the hon. member is engaging in debate. It is not uncommon to have the premises of questions rejected and, indeed, the premises of answers rejected. The hon. member will have to make his argument at another place and another time. It is not a point of order. I am afraid the hon. member is out of order on this one.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jim Pankiw Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

The point, Mr. Speaker, is that I have the document right here that reveals what I am saying and proves it. I want to table it.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member wishes to table a document. Is there consent?

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gurmant Grewal Canadian Alliance Surrey Central, BC

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with all parties and I request the unanimous consent of the House to move that the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations presented to the House on Thursday, November 21 be concurred in.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

Does the hon. member for Surrey Central have the unanimous of the House to propose the motion?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.