Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2005

Broadcasting

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the CKAC matter, the minister knows she can intervene with the CRTC. Even though the union has made its intention known, the minister does not have to wait for some kind of formal request before intervening in this case.

Since her inaction would result in more Anglophone newsrooms than Francophone ones in Montreal, what is she waiting for to take up this matter with the CRTC?

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, CKAC employees have made their intention clear, and I am waiting for their requests to look at the case and review the entire context, in other words the possibility of AM stations, their viability and information transfer to FM stations.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, quite unexpectedly on the eve of the budget, the minister says she fears there will be cuts in her department. The minister must not have much weight to say such a thing.

Is the Minister of Canadian Heritage in fact not preparing to blame her colleague, the Minister of Finance, to cover up her own inability to deliver the goods?

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will all see what is in the budget. Indeed, there are budgetary realities, and everyone is crossing their fingers. We will see what happens tomorrow.

Health

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the health committee is diligently investigating the online pharmacy issue so that the best interests of Canadians will be served, yet the minister is determined to act rashly and shut down the industry, ignoring the health committee. Obviously he is under pressure from the U.S. government. Thousands of Canadians will be affected because the minister is caving in to the Americans.

What representation or correspondence has the minister received from Washington? Why will he not stand up to the American arm twisting?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has strange logic. We have received requests from the governors of six U.S. states to do reimportation from Canada. There is a bill in the U.S. Congress asking for reimportation from Canada. What we want to do is good medicine based on good ethics in Canada and ultimately protect the Canadian pricing regime which saves Canadians billions of dollars.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the health minister dithers aloud that the government may or may not restrict Internet pharmacies in Canada. We know the industry has been selling online for five years without impact on the Canadian drug supply, as admitted by the minister. We know that the Internet pharmacies contribute 4,000 jobs and $1 billion to the economy, much of it in rural Canada, yet the Liberals talk of heavy-handed legislation that may eliminate the industry entirely.

Will the minister guarantee that his government will not legislate Internet pharmacies out of business?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, what we will guarantee is that there will be good ethics in Canada when they are practising medicine. There will be good ethics being conducted by the pharmacists. There will be good business in Canada. As well we will protect the pricing regime for the country.

We are not intending to shut down any business in this country. We just want to make sure that we have good medical ethics and that we protect the pricing regime for all Canadians.

Child Care

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Social Development.

The chair of the Ottawa French Language Services Advisory Committee recently pointed out that there is a serious shortage of subsidized child care spaces in the francophone community in this very city.

I would like to know whether the minister intends to address this problem in his child care program. Can he assure us that there will be a financial component for child care in official language minority communities?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, Minister of Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in the House earlier, we know that the language used by a child when he or she first goes to child care will very likely be the language chosen in kindergarten, elementary school and high school. It means that what we do in terms of early learning and child care matters. That point was made significantly and often in our last meetings. The provinces and territories are very aware of the importance of that. We will continue to press that point.

Air Transportation

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in connection with the airline industry, the Minister of Transport yesterday declared his preference for open skies and indicated that this had cabinet approval. The concept is good, yes, but clearly the minister has no plan. His questions are rhetorical in nature, he comes up with a seven-page pamphlet, and he claims to be prepared to negotiate with the Americans.

With such an important objective, why the minister's willingness to pilot the project alone and with no map?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, in 1995 Canada-U.S. air transport agreements set the stage for a very significant growth in the Canada-U.S. air transport market, one of the largest such markets in the world. The minister has asked the committee and the minister has asked this House that we examine the possibilities and look what tomorrow will bring.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport claims to be gung-ho about an expanded open skies agreement with the United States. However, international aviation law is incredibly complex and getting this deal done requires a specific plan on how to get that done.

Yesterday the Minister of Transport confessed to the committee that all he has done is prepared a seven-page document that is half questions and that he does not have a blueprint beyond that to actually have consultation to get this thing done.

How can Canadians trust a transport minister who does not have a plan and who does not understand the issues associated with opening our skies?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, on November 4, 2004, the minister asked the transport committee to take a look at this. We from the Liberal side are trying to engage all the members to come and talk in Parliament so we can listen to what they have to say and proceed forward.

Unfortunately, it is the Conservatives and it is the member opposite that said yesterday that they were not interested. So if they are ready to roll, let us get on with it, let us talk about it, and get the instructions to the transport committee to proceed forward.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Bernard Cleary, Bloc, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on November 17, the Assembly of First Nations presented the government with its report on the Canada's dispute resolution plan to compensate victims for abuses in Indian residential schools. Three months later, the federal government has yet to act.

Does the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development intend to take advantage of Phil Fontaine's appearance before the committee today to finally announce the implementation of recommendations by the Assembly of First Nations?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned before in this House, we have received the report from the AFN. We have established a working group with officials from the AFN and my officials in the Indian residential schools resolution unit. We are reviewing the AFN's resolutions.

In fact, we provided funding for the AFN to prepare that report. We are working with the AFN on its recommendations. Clearly, it is in the best interests of us all to work together and try to expedite the resolution of these claims.

Points of Order

[Inky Mark, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the Chair for a ruling that the restitution provision of Bill C-331 does not require a royal recommendation. The Chair has questioned the clause that proposes the establishment of a museum at the site of one of the World War I internment camps. The concern is that the establishment would require public funds.

After lengthy consultation with the Ukrainian community in Canada, both the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association, let me assure the Chair that no new museum is being requested in Bill C-331. No extraordinary financial commitments are being requested. Therefore, I believe Bill C-331 is not a money bill and does not require a royal recommendation.

Allow me to explain how the idea of the museum came about in the bill. During the last session of Parliament the former heritage minister, the hon. Sheila Copps, instructed her department to meet and discuss ways to deal with the Ukrainian redress issue. A number of meetings took place and progress was made. This process was terminated with the call of the general election.

The museum idea was a proposal discussed at these meetings. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Ukrainian internee labour was used to build much of the Banff infrastructure. The proposed museum would be housed in an existing facility that is currently maintained by Parks Canada as an office complex storage area at Cave and Basin in Banff National Park, formerly known as the Old Tea Shoppe building.

This structure's first floor would be cleared out and Parks Canada would continue to have access and use the lower basement level. The first level would be reconstituted as a meeting place, for education, commemoration and reflection for the exclusive use of the Ukrainian Canadian community in perpetuity. This facility would include a small meeting area, a permanent exhibit about the internment operations, the current washroom facilities and some office space, as well as a small chapel and place of reflection. As well, the existing exhibit information about the internment operations in the Cave and Basin centre would be expanded.

Parks Canada would maintain the existing facilities as part of its annual budget for the Cave and Basin Banff National Park, as it does now, ensuring proper security, heating, maintenance and the like. As this function is already performed by Parks Canada and is included in its annual operating budget, no additional funds would be required. As the proposed place of reflection and commemoration would only be used on a irregular basis by the community and not normally open to the public, its maintenance would not require any extraordinary expenditures.

Design, development and reconfiguration of the first floor area to meet the requirements of the Ukrainian Canadian community would be undertaken in consultation with Parks Canada and any other relevant government ministries to ensure the heritage integrity of the building.

The costs of any restructuring of the internal space of this building to meet the needs of the community would be paid for from funds coming to the community as a result of a calculation of the contemporary value of that portion of the wealth confiscated from the internees that was not returned, a figure to be arrived at by government forensic accountants and economists in consultation with the designated representatives of the Ukrainian Canadian community. The community expects to be involved in negotiations with the appropriate federal government authorities as anticipated in Bill C-331 to determine the appropriate level of symbolic restitution.

These details have previously been discussed in meetings initiated by the former minister of Canadian heritage, the hon. Sheila Copps, and communicated to the senior members of that government department and others.

In closing, no new museum is being requested. No extraordinary financial commitments are being requested. In the view of the Ukrainian community, Bill C-331, the Ukrainian Canadian restitution act, is not, therefore, a money bill and should be voted and discussed in the House of Commons.

If Bill C-331 is successful and is sent to committee for further study, the committee may amend or delete this clause if it is the will of the committee. At this time, Bill C-331 has already received one hour of debate. It would be a great disappointment to the one million Ukrainian Canadians if Bill C-331 was ruled out of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to provide some advice to the Chair on what we consider to be an important issue. The member for Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette made a very useful intervention in describing some of the context of what he is trying to achieve in Bill C-331.

I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, when you make your ruling on this issue to be restricted by the text of the legislation that is before the House. Some of the information that the member offered in his intervention is not reflected in the actual text of the bill. I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to be very careful in considering this matter and to restrict yourself to the text of the legislation. With that in mind, I would like to make a few observations on the matter.

As the hon. member mentioned, on December 7, 2004, in the first hour of debate on Bill C-331, the Acting Chair invited any members interested in the matter to make a submission to the Chair explaining their views on whether or not this bill requires a royal recommendation.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, under the Canadian system of government, the Crown alone initiates all public expenditure, and Parliament may only authorize spending which has been recommended by the Governor General.

This is the essence of our system of responsible government.

This prerogative is signified by way of the royal recommendation, which accompanies all appropriation acts or bills which authorize new charges for purposes not anticipated in the estimates.

This reference by Marleau and Montpetit specifies that the charge imposed by the legislation must be “new and distinct”; in other words, not covered elsewhere by some more general authorization.

Allow me to examine in particular Bill C-331. With respect to clause 2, it is the government's view that it is in fact the creation and operation of a new permanent museum and that this would obviously impose a new expenditure and therefore require a royal recommendation.

The Parks Canada Agency Act and the Historic Sites and Monuments Act allow the minister to designate a historic place as a national historic site and provide the minister with the powers to designate them by means of plaques or, with the approval of the governor in council, establish historic museums.

Establishing a new museum, as is contemplated in this legislation, is potentially a very expensive undertaking. The Department of Canadian Heritage estimates that building a new museum would cost up to $6.5 million, plus the considerable ongoing costs to maintain the exhibit and the building and provide the appropriate staff.

The royal recommendation that accompanied the original legislation authorized expenditures for the purposes, manner and cases provided for in that bill. Any new cases, we would argue, would require a new royal recommendation.

The intent to limit expenditures for new museums is further made clear by subsection 3(c) of the Historic Sites and Monuments Act that I referred to earlier, which limits the power of the minister to establish a museum by requiring the approval of the governor in council. The royal recommendation for that bill only applied to the establishment of new museums authorized by the governor in council.

Bill C-331 would oblige the minister to establish a new museum without the approval of the governor in council. This alone is an expenditure, in our view, outside the scope of the existing legislation. The case for a royal recommendation is made even stronger by the signal that the original legislation itself contemplated the Crown's control of expenditures under this part.

Turning now to clause 3 of that legislation, the Speaker noted that the restitution provisions in the bill are contingent on the successful completion of a negotiation process.

I would like to draw the following issues to your attention, Mr. Speaker, in seeking further clarification from you on this point and to further clarify the government's position in the hope that you will reflect on that issue with renewed vigour and insight.

There are two issues at hand: first, whether the bill imposes a new expenditure that is not covered by the existing statutes, and second, the issue raised by the Speaker, if the expenditure is in fact conditional on the outcome of negotiations, whether a royal recommendation is also necessary.

On the first question, clause 3 of the bill requires the minister to negotiate a restitution payment and prescribes the activities that the payment “shall” be applied to. In our view, this is clearly a positive obligation imposed on the Crown. The wording of this clause clearly imposes a new expenditure. The word “shall” cannot be attributed to anything other than a positive obligation to expend money.

While the outcome of the negotiation may be unknown, it could be argued that the bill requires a “non-zero” outcome, as the bill itself explicitly requires that a payment be made as the outcome of the negotiations. What is hypothetical is simply the amount of the payment.

On the first question, a new charge is created by the bill, and so in our view, a royal recommendation is needed.

On the second question, even if the outcome in terms of the amount is hypothetical, Erskine May indicates that a recommendation is still required, by stating:

The same applies to a totally new legislative purpose which imposes only a potential liability on public expenditure. For example, the argument cannot be sustained that a proposal to confer on a Minister a discretionary power to expend money in certain circumstances escapes the need for a Money resolution because the circumstances may not arise or the discretion may not be exercised.

I would also draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the government's position that we have the same concerns with respect to another bill before the House, Bill C-333, which was debated for its first hour in this place yesterday, I believe.

That bill specifies that the redress agreement “shall consist” of the establishment of a foundation and other educational projects, which makes clear that an expenditure of funds is also required by that bill, even if the amount of the expenditure is to be determined by negotiation. We view that as another positive obligation.

I am concluding by saying that the addition of the words “to be proposed to Parliament for approval” does not in fact solve the situation, since it is clearly this bill which places an obligation as well on an expenditure for the government. Whether or not Parliament ultimately approves the specific agreement does not change the fact that it is this instrument which creates the new charge.

In conclusion, our view is that a royal recommendation is required for both the creation of a new museum and the negotiation of any restitution payments, a negotiation, as I said, which does not contemplate whatsoever a non-payment by the Crown.

When one considers these questions, Mr. Speaker, it may be instructive to ask yourself, if these bills had been proposed by the government would a royal recommendation have been attached? I hope you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that the answer to that question is yes, and therefore in this case a royal recommendation is also required.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take but a few moments and just go over some of the obligations set forth in the bill. I have read the bill. It is a very short bill.

For instance, clause 2 of the bill states that the Minister of Canadian Heritage “shall”--it is an obligation--“cause memorial plaques to be installed” and so on. Paragraph 2(1)(c) says again that the Minister of Canadian Heritage “shall establish a permanent museum...”. Subclause 2(2) states, “The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall arrange for suitable ceremonies...”.

Subclause 3(1) states that the Minister of Canadian Heritage “shall negotiate with the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association...a suitable payment...”. The words are “a suitable payment“. Subclause 3(2) identifies that “The restitution payment shall be applied...”. In other words, there is no possibility here that there will not be a payment. It is a payment of some sort, in other words, an obligation on the Crown.

Paragraph 3(2)(a) again states that the payment “shall” include “the development and production of educational materials...”. This is an obligation as part of the payment, not instead of but in addition to some form of payment.

Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice , the 22nd edition, informs us on pages 732 and 733 of the following:

It was a central factor in the historical development of parliamentary influence and power that the Sovereign was obliged to obtain the consent of Parliament (and particularly of the House of Commons as representative of the people) to the levying of taxes to meet the expenditure of the State. But the role of Parliament in respect of State expenditure and taxation has never been one of initiation: it was for the Sovereign to demand money and for the Commons to respond to the demand.

In other words, it has to originate in this place and of course from a minister. Erskine May continues:

The development of responsible government and the assumption by the Government of the day of the traditional role and powers of the Crown in relation to public finance have not altered this basic constitutional principle: the Crown demands money, the Commons grant it, and the Lords assent to the grant.

That is the order. No other order is contemplated. At page 733, we read about “Charges upon the public revenue or upon public funds”. Erskine May states:

A charge 'upon the public revenue' or 'upon public funds' now means an obligation...

I remind Mr. Speaker of the word “shall” all throughout the bill. I read it six or seven times. Then, in brackets to the above, is added “(or a potential obligation)”.

There is nothing potential in this bill at all. Everything is an obligation because the possibility of non-payment is not even contemplated in the bill, should the bill pass. I will continue to read from same section of Erskine May, which states:

--to make a payment out of the Consolidated Fund....

In other words, a potential obligation to make a payment would offend this principle and this is not potential; it is stronger than that. I will keep reading to the end of the sentence: It states:

--or the National Loans Fund to cover an item of public expenditure.

I just wanted to raise these two items with the Speaker: one, the bill leaves no discretion at all as to whether or not the obligation is there; and two, that obligation can only be initiated by a minister, receive the consent of this House and then go to the other House. No other sequence, according to Erskine May, is suitable or even acceptable.

[Inky Mark, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind members opposite that Bill C-331 has already had one hour of debate and the Chair has ruled that the restitution component does not require royal consent. It just does not make any sense that we start debating a bill and all of a sudden the government objects. I do not believe we should be dealing with Bill C-333 when we are talking about intervention with Bill C-331.

The member opposite stated that all these clauses start with “shall”. Could he show me a government bill that does not have the word “shall” in it? If we were to withdraw all the shalls from the short bill, we would not have a bill.

This is to continue negotiations. The crux of the bill is to ask the government to sit down with the Ukrainian Canadian community and negotiate. No dollars are noted in the bill.

On the issue of the museum, I have stated, and this is actually from the past history of the last government, how close it came to resolving this issue.

If the bill is successful on the vote at the end of the second reading, the committee can deal with it. The committee can eliminate, delete, amend or do whatever it wants. The government will have plenty of say. After 20 years surely the House would allow the one million Ukrainians in communities in Canada to have their say. I think that would be justice for that ethnic community. This is a long time to rule this bill out of order. Let the committee decide.

[The Speaker]

I will take the matter under advisement.

I thank the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell for their assistance.

I will get back to the House in due course on this matter.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[The Speaker]

Before question period, the hon. member for Jonquière—Alma had the floor. There are six minutes remaining in the time allotted for his speech. The hon. member for Jonquière—Alma.

[Sébastien Gagnon, Bloc, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just before oral question period, I was addressing an opposition motion from the Conservative Party concerning the accountability of foundations, which must be improved, and the need for the Auditor General to be in charge of the external audit of these foundations.

If I may, I would like to briefly congratulate the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier on his presentation. My remarks followed his presentation. In my remarks, I even referred to a number of things he mentioned. It is important to review this, since there was a relatively long hiatus between the two parts of my remarks.

I also related my experience of collaborating with the Government of Quebec with respect to general auditing. It was in connection with the management of a large, $240 million fund, which I had the opportunity to run and which could be likened to some of the funds run by the federal government. Under the Quebec system, this fund was audited by the Auditor General. This was interesting because, from the time this fund was established, the Auditor General was involved, not in the accountability process, since we were just starting up, but in the start-up process per se. In fact, the Auditor General wanted to make sure that all the criteria for the selection of projects were consistent with the business plan that had been developed on the basis of stated concerns, and respected particularly those who stood to benefit. So, I gave an overview of my experience.

Now, I would like to remind the House of certain facts and the reason we are debating this motion today. If we look at the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which has received $3.6 billion, the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, with $2.5 billion, Canada Health Infoway, with $1.2 billion, Genome Canada, with $300 million, we cannot say that these are not important foundations, certainly with respect to their funding. I cannot understand how such institutions can be overlooked by the Auditor General.

This motion calls for a review of this method, this way of doing things. I do not want to dwell on this subject, since we have heard a great deal on it already. Nonetheless, having the Auditor General involved in it permits some transparency and accounting. In addition, it avoids something we have already seen in this House, neither less than a scandal, such as the sponsorship scandal.

I draw the House's attention to another phenomenon, that of transfer payments of $9.1 billion for these foundations. Last year, there was a $9.1 billion surplus, which the Minister of Finance underestimated. Another possible surplus of $8.9 billion is expected. We are talking about $25 billion. We cannot help but be affected by this, all the more so because, of all the funds allocated to these foundations, some $7.7 billion has yet to be spent.

During my first intervention, I noted that my constituents are affected to some extent by these unspent amounts. At least, we believe they have not been, ill advisedly. This is cause for reflection, because at present, my region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean is experiencing a serious economic crisis, particularly in relation to the softwood lumber crisis and the mad cow crisis. Jobs have been lost as well due to plant closures, which is extremely significant not only for this riding but also for the region. Six hundred jobs were lost at the Port Alfred mill. Alcan has also closed its smelter. It has not laid off any workers, but this still means 600 fewer jobs for the region and for the next generation of workers. Again last week, 200 jobs were lost, at Wal-Mart.

When we see this money and the government's attitude, we cannot remain unaffected. There is a regional consensus to create an investment fund so as to enable the local economy and local stakeholders to take rapid action to save plants in difficulty and support one time projects.

When we see this attitude, these billions of dollars just lying in those accounts, we cannot remain unaffected. That is why I am asking the House, all my colleagues, to reflect and support this bill so that there is, in fact, better control and better use of such funds, and so that everyone can benefit from them, be they in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean or here in the capital.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke of the Canada Health Infoway Inc. I do not know if the hon. member is aware of the fact that the Province of Quebec is an equal partner in this foundation. I would like to know if the Bloc has spoken with its Quebec counterparts. Are they in favour of having the Auditor General of Canada appointed to audit this fund every year, this fund, which is managed in partnership with all the provinces, including Quebec?

We are not the only ones in charge of these foundations. As I have already said earlier, I would be pleased to see the Auditor General have oversight over the Canadian funds, the dollars we have invested in these foundations. In my opinion, the ideal solution would be to let the foundations find their own auditors, when they want to, but the Auditor General would be given the right to track any federal funding and report here, to Canada's Parliament.

Does the hon. member agree?