Debates of Feb. 17th, 2005

Report on Governance of Crown Corporations

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, as part of an effort to provide parliamentarians and Canadians with the most comprehensive review of crown corporations governance in over 20 years, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a report entitled “Review of the Governance Framework for Canada's Crown Corporations: Meeting the Expectations of Canadians”.

Certificate of Nomination

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 110(2), I am tabling a certificate of nomination with respect to the national round table on the environment and the economy. This certificate stands referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

Committees of the House

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on citizenship issues.

In November 2004, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons asked for recommendations from all committees regarding the prior parliamentary review of order in council appointments falling under their mandate, and this report lays out a procedure on how this can be accomplished.

The committee has adopted a motion that calls on the government to develop a transparent and accessible standing committee review process for all government appointments which establishes skills based criteria for appointments and requires each nominee to demonstrate that their skills meet the established criteria.

Petitions

[Dale Johnston, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present, on behalf of the constituents of Wetaskiwin and others in central Alberta, a petition calling upon Parliament to respect the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

They point out that this honourable House passed a motion to that effect in June of 1999, and they request that Parliament affirm the legislation recognizing the institution of marriage in federal law as being the union of one man and one woman.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to introduce three petitions.

The first two petitions are from citizens in my riding stating that because the majority of Canadians support the current legal definition of marriage as a voluntary union of a single, that is unmarried, male and a single, that is unmarried, female, it is the duty of Parliament to ensure that marriage is defined as Canadians wish it to be defined.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from the citizens asking that the support of the federal funding for juvenile type I diabetes research be done by the government so young people can be helped.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today to the House signed by a number of Canadians, including from my own riding of Mississauga South, and it has to do with the definition of marriage.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that they believe that the majority of Canadians believe that the fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament and not the unelected judiciary, and also that it is their view that Parliament's duty is to ensure that marriage continues to be defined as Canadians wish it to be defined.

Therefore they call upon Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including the invocation of section 33 of the charter, referred to as the notwithstanding clause, if necessary, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 9 will be answered today.

Question No. 9

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

With regard to hospitality expenditures by the staff of the president and chief Executive officer of Canada Post from 1999 until 2003, including an itemized list of each expenditure: ( a ) what was the amount of each expenditure; ( b ) who was present when each expenditure was incurred; ( c ) exactly what good(s) and/or services(s) were included in each expenditure; ( d ) where was each expense incurred; and ( e ) what was the purpose of the meeting during which the expense was incurred?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, during the period of 1999 until 2003, Canada Post's president and chief executive officer staff consisted of an administrative assistant and a support officer. Over this period, three individuals held the position of administrative assistant and two individuals worked as support staff.

Canada Post Corporation's policy on hospitality expenditures provides as follow:

Entertainment expenses incurred, while in travel status, include attendance at events where a business discussion takes place with a customer during, immediately before, or immediately after the event.

Subject to prior approval, employees will be reimbursed for entertaining customers:

if the person entertained has a potential or actual business relationship with the company; or

if the expenditure directly precedes, includes or follows a business discussion that would benefit the company.

The staff of the president and chief executive officer during this period did not incur such expenses given the nature of their work.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

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

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Business of the House

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That at the conclusion of the present debate on today's opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until the end of government orders on Tuesday, February 22, 2005.

[The Speaker]

Does the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst have the consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Points of Order

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit to you that recently there was a procedural mistake which took place during the clause by clause study of Bill C-23, which could have an impact on the business of the House.

I specifically ask you to look into the rulings of the chair on the subject of the requirement of a royal recommendation, even where there is a previous statutory authority.

If I can summarize the facts of the situation as I understand them, there was a meeting on clause by clause consideration of Bill C-23 on February 10. Certain amendments were proposed that day by the member for Chambly—Borduas. Specifically, I refer to the minutes which state:

Clause 20,

Yves Lessard moved: That Bill C-23, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 6 with the following:

“consisting of seventeen commissioners to be appointed by the”

Debate arose thereon.—

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringes on the financial prerogative of the Crown, as provided on page 656 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

The chair ruled then, and ruled again today when I attended the meeting, that the proposed amendment to increase the number of commissioners in the bill was outside the scope due to the lack of a royal recommendation.

I submit that the chair and the committee staff failed to take into account the ruling made by Speaker Parent on February 12, 1998 when deciding on the admissibility of the amendment from the member for Chambly—Borduas. I submit a copy of his short ruling.

The crux of the ruling is that a royal recommendation is not required for an initiative for which there is already a statutory authority.

In the case of Bill C-23, I submit that there is a statutory authority for a set number of commissioners. I submit that an additional royal recommendation is not required for the numbers of commissioners to be changed, even expanded, so long as their is existing statutory authority.

I specifically call your attention to Erskine May, 21st edition, page 717 under paragraph (c)(6), which states that a Queen's recommendation is not needed for an expenditure covered by an existing authority, including:

Widening the jurisdiction of a court or creating offences although they may have the effect of increasing the costs of the administration of justice.

That is the quote relied upon by Speaker Parent in his ruling.

In this case the member for Chambly—Borduas was attempting to widen the membership of the board from 4 to 17. I submit that this proposed amendment was in order and that the committee should be given the opportunity to consider this amendment in clause by clause on Bill C-23.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of your rulings on committees that state that committees must be and remain masters of their own affairs, and of course I respect that ruling, but unless we can have clarity on the admissibility of this amendment, I do not see how we can proceed with the legislation should it be reported back this week, which is the current plan of the committee.

I therefore ask you to rule on the admissibility of the amendment and transmit your ruling to the chair of the committee before the committee reports, which has already been done and we have agreed to present it today in the House of Commons. However I hope you will give us a decision that will reflect the decision of Speaker Parent in 1998.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my address concerns the same point of order raised by my friend from Acadie—Bathurst. This is indeed a very serious procedural question. Allow me to explain.

You know that we currently have 22 operational parliamentary committees. One of their main activities is clause by clause study of various bills. Another function, which has fallen to committees is the consideration of certain reports and certain questions, the manner of which is left to the committees.

I do not intend to elaborate on this latter mandate of the committees, but rather on their primary mandate, which is the clause by clause study of bills referred to them by the House. We must have more ample instructions from the Chair on matters that entail monetary commitments on the part of the government, which are not amendable by the committees. This would facilitate the whole task. We must in fact draw a distinction with a private member's bill that involves a monetary expenditure. We realize that private members' business involving are not in order.

As for the purpose of a bill, however, at the time of clause by clause study, it is clear that there are monetary implications. I am informed that the chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has decided that this could not be amended because money was involved.

Consequently, Mr. Speaker, it is for this reason that your decision is important. If committees cannot amend clauses dealing with financial commitments, you will understand the difficulty in justifying the continued existence of parliamentary committees. What will be the use of having them if they cannot amend clauses that have a monetary impact?

That is why I support the point of order raised by my friend from Acadie—Bathurst.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we have not had an opportunity, as the first I heard of the point of order from the member for Acadie—Bathurst was moments ago. It is an important issue. We, from the government perspective, have not had a great deal of time to reflect on precisely the nature of what the member for Acadie—Bathurst is attempting to achieve.

However, Mr. Speaker, you and many of your predecessors have maintained that committees are masters of their own domain. From our perspective, you have been very clear on numerous occasions in ruling that committees within their own domain are masters of their own proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to consider carefully what the member for Acadie—Bathurst has asked. We look forward to your ruling.

[The Speaker]

I would like to express the speaker's appreciation for the point of order raised by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, the comments by the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, and the comments by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader.

In my opinion, we must now consider the situation. I note that the committee has already reported the bill to the House, which is now at report stage. I do not know whether any amendments in connection with the proposals attempted in committee. In any case, I will review the situation very shortly, and perhaps get back to the House later to inform you of my decision.

[Paul Forseth, Conservative, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am the vice-chair of the committee. I just want to provide the further information that the appeal to the House does not have the support of other members of the committee. The committee felt that it completed its business in a proper manner. We noted that there was a protest coming forward but that it really is from that member and that party only and does not have the support of the other members of the committee, especially the chair of the committee and me as the vice-chair.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record that it is not who agreed to or did not agreed to, but what are the rules? It is important, Mr. Speaker, that you make a decision on the rules only.

[The Speaker]

Perhaps the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst could clear up something for me. Was there an appeal of the chairman's ruling in the committee that was decided by the committee?

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup wants to respond to this question.