House of Commons Hansard #27 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was food.

Topics

Air Transportation SecurityOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance department released the audited statements for the air travellers security charge.

It shows the government made an incredible $234 million profit on the backs of air travellers. The best part is that the finance department could not figure out how much security would cost. It certainly figured out how to make money. This is just another tax grab by the Liberal government.

Will the government immediately announce an end to this tax and start paying for our security out of the money the government has already over-collected from Canadians?

Air Transportation SecurityOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Outremont Québec

Liberal

Jean Lapierre LiberalMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. Perhaps his colleague would like to listen to the answer. It is simple: we collected this tax, but not all the money was spent at the beginning, because the security system had to be created. Some equipment was not delivered the first year or in 2003 but the figures will even out over a five-year period. We do not want to do everything the first year. There are still many airports in Canada where things are being installed. So this money will be used for air security in Canada, one of the safest countries in the world. No one will make—

Air Transportation SecurityOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Niagara Falls.

Air Transportation SecurityOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Mr. Speaker, the government said that the security tax would be revenue neutral but that was never the case. It was a tax grab from day one.

The Minister of Transport knows the Canadian airline industry is struggling to get back on its feet and this tax is one of the reasons passenger traffic is down.

Will the minister urge the finance minister to do the right thing, start helping the Canadian airline industry and scrap this tax?

Air Transportation SecurityOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Outremont Québec

Liberal

Jean Lapierre LiberalMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced the hon. member wants the Canadian air sector to be the safest in the world. We simply want to be sure that passengers can travel in safety and feel secure with this means of transportation. Consequently, this tax will continue to be used to guarantee their security. We have high technology equipment being purchased and installed every day all across the country. Until that is all done we will, of course, continue to collect the tax. We have already reduced it in keeping with requirements. However, the work is not complete. We will not stop until—

Air Transportation SecurityOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Ajax—Pickering.

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

November 18th, 2004 / 2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged by the government's continued commitment to wind energy in the Speech from the Throne, and particularly the WPPI program, which has been a tremendous success.

Could the Minister of the Environment comment on the possibility of extending the WPPI program beyond 2007 so that wind turbine manufacturers can make long term decisions about locating in Canada?

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion LiberalMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. We will improve our capacity to have wind power in Canada. Today it is 400 megawatts, which is astonishingly low, but it will be 4,000 megawatts in 2010. With what we will do with our initiatives, what the provinces will do, what the private sector will do, it is not impossible to have 10,000 megawatts for 2010.

Whistleblower ProtectionOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11 is cause for alarm. Using the sponsorship scandal as an example, the Information Commissioner told us this morning that this bill would allow a minister to hide for 20 years information on an issue disclosed by an honest whistleblower.

Will the President of the Treasury Board admit that he is preparing the biggest cover-up in parliamentary history?

Whistleblower ProtectionOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Winnipeg South Manitoba

Liberal

Reg Alcock LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to read the report that was put out. The recommendation that is in the legislation was drawn directly from the report of the expert committee. The trade-off is that the committee will have to decide between protecting the confidentiality of the employee who brings it forward, as the committee requested, and dealing with the responsibility of being transparent.

It is a value judgment that the committee will have to make, which is why the bill is at first reading. The member should read the report.

Whistleblower ProtectionOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Mr. Speaker, the government's Bill C-11 contains no new mechanisms for whistleblowers to report reprisals to their employers. It contains no punishment for employers who discipline whistleblowers. As a matter of fact it explicitly refuses to protect whistleblowers who go public. Yet it authorizes departments to hide disclosures of wrongdoing for up to 20 years. The bill is designed to protect a corrupt government, not whistleblowers.

When will the government stop using honest public servants as an excuse for a bill designed to hide corruption?

Whistleblower ProtectionOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Winnipeg South Manitoba

Liberal

Reg Alcock LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, as this is an enormously important issue and an enormously important debate, it would help if the member would take the time to read the reports of the experts and the employees who have informed us of the kind of bill they want.

He has the bill at first reading. It is possible, frankly, for the committee to look at these issues, listen to employees and come to the decisions. The reality of a minority government is that the decisions it makes are real, and to use our employees as a political foil is unacceptable.

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, we estimate at approximately 300,000 the number of shells, of which nearly 8,000 are unexploded, lying at the bottom of Lake Saint-Pierre, a UNESCO declared world biosphere reserve. These shells represent an environmental threat, and the public is tired of waiting for a decision about their removal.

Does the Minister of National Defence not think that the time has come to act and proceed with the removal of the 300,000 shells laying at the bottom of Lake Saint-Pierre?

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Toronto Centre Ontario

Liberal

Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, we are very aware of the danger posed by these war devices that have been laying there since World War II. Our department is making great efforts to resolve the problem. We are working with the local communities, Environment Canada and others. We will make every effort to reduce this danger. This is a problem, but we are in the process of resolving it.

Aboriginal AffairsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, of the $1.6 billion allocated for the Indian residential schools question, over $285 million is earmarked for Department of Justice lawyers to fight these claims and resist them.

Would the government not see and be ready to admit how flawed the current resolution system is? Would it not agree today to take the AFN's recommendation of granting a settlement for these claimants in a fixed dollar amount to get this money into circulation rather than paying 90 Department of Justice lawyers hundreds of millions of dollars to oppose the claims?

Aboriginal AffairsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Edmonton Centre Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, I thank the AFN for its report. We are going to look very seriously at the recommendations. I do want to indicate to the hon. member, who has expressed a longstanding interest in this issue, that the reason we put forward an ADR process, an alternative dispute resolution process, was in fact to avoid lengthy, time consuming trials and to reduce the legal costs that would otherwise be borne by the Canadian taxpayer. In fact everything we are doing is hopefully expediting the resolution of these claims on behalf of the victims.

Textile and Clothing IndustryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, I met with over 200 apparel workers in my riding of Cambridge last week. They were stressed out. Some were crying. Thousands of existing jobs are on the chopping block, unless the government does the right thing and implement the recommendations of the finance committee right away.

The clock is ticking. Canadians do not want more conversation. They want action. Will the minister extend the remission orders for the apparel industry to save these jobs, yes or no?

Textile and Clothing IndustryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Scarborough—Guildwood Ontario

Liberal

John McKay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, in fact the finance committee has submitted a report with respect to this matter. At this point it is being considered by the finance minister.

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked a question of the government concerning the decision by the Vermont Environmental Board to permit the doubling of the Coventry site's capacity. The answer was far from satisfactory.

Why did the government not take this issue to the International Joint Commission when we asked it to, and is it going to do so soon?

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion LiberalMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, that is a very serious question. We are pleased that the RCM of Sherbrooke was given the right to intervene in this matter. Of course, the Government of Canada will be tackling this head on with my American counterpart, and the Prime Minister fully intends to raise the issue with President Bush.

Private Members' BusinessOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I wish to make a statement to the House regarding private members' business.

Members will recall that on October 29, 2004, the House concurred in the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning the provisional Standing Orders on private members' business. The effect of that report is to continue the provisional Standing Orders concerning private members' business until the last sitting day in June 2005.

The complete order of precedence for private members’ business was published this morning in the Order Paper.

The provisional Standing Orders provide that private members' business will not operate on a sessional basis. That is to say that proceedings on private members' business originating in the House will not expire on prorogation, and that the order of precedence will continue from one session to the next.

It is therefore very important that members be clear on the workings of the provisional Standing Orders, as they may not have a second opportunity to present an item even should the House be prorogued. Members should also note that unless specifically designated as non-votable, all private members' business items will be votable.

I would like in particular to draw to the attention of members the possibility that a proposed private members' bill may require a royal recommendation or a ways and means motion.

First of all, I wish to address the royal recommendation. Any bill which authorizes the spending of public funds or effects an appropriation of public funds must be accompanied by a message from the Governor General, recommending the expenditure to the House. This message, known formally as the royal recommendation, can only be transmitted to the House by a minister of the crown. House of Commons Procedure and Practice , page 710 states:

In 1994, the Standing Orders were again amended to remove the requirement that a royal recommendation had to be provided to the House before a bill could be introduced. The royal recommendation can now be provided after the bill has been introduced in the House, as long as it is done before the bill is read a third time and passed....The royal recommendation accompanying a bill must still be printed in the Notice Paper, printed in or annexed to the bill and recorded in the Journals.

With respect to private members' bills, it is stated on pages 711 and 712:

--since the rule change of 1994, private Members' bills involving the spending of public money have been allowed to be introduced and to proceed through the legislative process, on the assumption that a royal recommendation would be submitted by a Minister of the Crown before the bill was to be read a third time and passed. If a royal recommendation were not produced by the time the House was ready to decide on the motion for third reading of the bill, the Speaker would have to stop the proceedings and rule the bill out of order. The Speaker has the duty and responsibility to ensure that the Standing Orders on the royal recommendation as well as the constitutional requirements are upheld.

Where it seems likely that a bill may need a royal recommendation, the member who has requested to have it drafted will be informed of that fact by the legislative counsel responsible for drafting the bill. Members may wish to consult with legislative counsel or with Private Members' Business Office to obtain further advice with respect to individual cases.

It remains my duty as Speaker to make the final decision concerning the need for a royal recommendation. I remain open to hear the submissions of hon. members from both sides of the House who may wish to assist the Chair in reaching a decision on particular bills.

As the House has not yet begun to debate items of private members' business, I felt that it would be of assistance to alert hon. members to the important impact that the requirement for a royal recommendation may have on their bills. The Standing Orders leave no doubt that the House cannot be asked to decide on the motion for the third reading of a bill requiring the expenditure of public funds unless proper notice of a royal recommendation has been given. Should members have any concerns about the provisions of individual bills in this regard, it would be prudent for them to raise such concerns well before the third reading stage is reached.

With regard to ways and means, any bill which imposes or increases a tax on the public must be preceded by the adoption of a motion of ways and means. Such a motion can only be proposed by a minister of the Crown. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at pages 758 and 759:

The House must first adopt a Ways and Means motion before a bill which imposes a tax or other charge on the taxpayer can be introduced....Before taxation legislation can be read a first time, a notice of a Ways and Means motion must first be tabled in the House by a Minister of the Crown--

Furthermore, it goes on, at page 898, to state:

With respect to the raising of revenue, a private member cannot introduce bills which impose taxes. The power to initiate taxation rests solely with the government and any legislation which seeks an increase in taxation must be preceded by a ways and means motion.

A member who has requested to have a bill drafted that proposes the imposition or increase of taxation will be so advised by the legislative counsel responsible for drafting the bill. Members may wish to consult with legislative counsel or with Private Members' Business Office to obtain further advice with respect to individual cases.

The Standing Orders are more restrictive with regard to ways and means bills. The Speaker will identify such bills at an early stage to prevent them from being placed on the order of precedence.

I have made this statement as part of my responsibility to ensure the orderly conduct of private members' business. If members should have specific questions on a particular item, I would invite them to contact the Private Members' Business Office.

I would like to inform the House that under the provisions of Standing Order 88, at least two weeks shall elapse between the first and second reading of private members' public bills.

The second reading of Bill C-333, standing as the first item on the order of precedence in the name of the hon. member for Durham, could only have been considered on or after Monday, November 29, 2004.

The debate at second reading of the bill can therefore not take place as scheduled tomorrow. Accordingly, I am directing the table officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence in the Order Paper.

Private members' hour will thus be cancelled and the House will proceed with the business before it prior to private members' hour tomorrow.

I understand the House leader for the official opposition has a question to ask.

Business of the HouseOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

John Reynolds Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

Mr. Speaker, knowing how Hamiltonians feel about the Toronto Argonauts, I am sure the government House leader wants to wish the British Columbia Lions well on Sunday.

At the same time, he may want to tell us what is happening tomorrow and what the business is for the following week.

Business of the HouseOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Hamilton East—Stoney Creek Ontario

Liberal

Tony Valeri LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that the Hamilton Tiger Cats are certainly looking forward to next year at the Grey Cup. We actually have a great contingent up here for the Sunday game.

This afternoon we will continue with the opposition motion.

Tomorrow the House will proceed with report stage and, if possible, third reading of Bill C-7 respecting parks. When this is complete, we will consider a motion to refer to committee before second reading Bill C-20, the first nations fiscal legislation. Should there be time left after that, we will return to Bill C-9, the Quebec economic development legislation.

On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday we will start with Bill C-7 and Bill C-20, if they are not already complete. We will then proceed to consider reference before second reading of Bill C-21, the not for profit legislation. This will be followed by second reading of Bill C-23 respecting human resources, and Bill C-22 respecting social development. We will then return to any bills not yet completed.

On Tuesday evening, as all members know, the committee of the whole will consider the estimates of the Minister of Health.

Next Thursday shall be an allotted day.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Scarborough—Guildwood Ontario

Liberal

John McKay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In response to a question earlier from the member for Winnipeg North I inadvertently misled the House. I indicated that Bill C-13 was introduced on September 15 when in fact the regulations were proclaimed on September 15. I want to correct the record, if I may.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.