House of Commons Hansard #70 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.
John Cummins Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and the minister responsible for Canada Post.
Would the minister provide the House with an update on the difficulties facing international remailers? This is an issue of much importance to many small businesses from coast to coast.
Lawrence Cannon ConservativeMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, many members from all sides of the House have indicated support on this issue. Indeed, the new government supports small businesses and competitive economic conditions needed to ensure their survival.
This is why the government will be coming forward in a few weeks with substantive steps to deal with the issue regarding international remailers.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that the government had put the Wheat Board under access to information. Actually, the government was advised by its legal counsel not to include the Canadian Wheat Board because it was not a government agency and the government did not.
Access to information was squeezed in by the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre during his convenient love affair with the Conservatives.
Is it the intent of the government to include all grain companies, such as Cargill and Agricore, under access to information or does the Prime Minister just want to give multinationals an advantage over the farm owned farmers marketing institution?
Chuck Strahl ConservativeMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, the government is not involved in a financial way with Cargill. We do not force farmers to deal with Cargill if they do not want to.
Since there is a monopoly situation on the Prairies and only western Canadian producers need to deal with the Canadian Wheat Board and since there is government money involved, farmers should have access to information and access to the Wheat Board so they can find out where their money is being spent.
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Mr. Speaker, will the minister admit that the study on which he based his decision to allow breast implants does not deal with ruptured devices or the diseases caused by ruptured devices, which means that it is incomplete and does not provide the minister with the essential data on which to base a decision?
Tony Clement ConservativeMinister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario
Mr. Speaker, there are really many examples. A second study examines mortality and was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology. This study found that breast implants do not increase mortality in women. There are many studies, among which are the two that I mentioned.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the winner of the 2006 Saidye Bronfman Award for Excellence in the Fine Arts, Mr. Peter Powning; and past award recipients: Michael Hosaluk, Kai Chan, Maurice Savoie, Susan Warner Keene, Carole Sabiston, Michael Wilcox, Micheline Beauchemin, Lois Etherington Betteridge, Robin Hopper and Marcel Marois.
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, as is the tradition on this day, I wonder if the government House leader could give us an indication of his plan for government business between now and the time when the House will take a recess for Remembrance Day.
I also wonder, with his report, if is he now in a position to specify the two dates upon which the House will on certain evenings consider the estimates in the committee of the whole of two government departments. Those departments have already been indicated as HRSDC and National Defence, and I would be grateful if the minister could specify the dates upon which those estimates will be called forward.
In light of the minister's public commentary about the government's plans with respect to any motion pertaining to same sex marriage, would the minister be in a position to be any more specific as to when that motion will be called, and particularly, would it be happening before the end of November?
Rob Nicholson ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with Bill C-28, the bill to implement the 2006 budget tax measures. This would be followed, time permitting, with Bill S-2, hazardous materials, and Bill C-6, the aeronautics amendments.
Tomorrow we will continue with the business from today with the possibility as well of completing the third reading stage of Bill C-16. I will talk to the opposition House leader about that after this.
Next week we hope to begin debate on some of the government's justice bills. The first one will be on the age of consent, Bill C-22. If we could get unanimous consent to pass that at all stages that would be very much appreciated.
We will go then to Bill C-27, our dangerous offenders bill and any cooperation we can get to move that along would be appreciated, I think, by the people of this country.
I am looking forward to sitting down with the official opposition and other parties to discuss the speedy passage of the many popular bills that the government has introduced and I am looking forward to their cooperation on that.
Pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), I would like to designate Tuesday, October 31, as the day to continue debate on the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
In response to the member's questions, consideration in committee of the whole of the votes under the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development on the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007, shall take place on Wednesday, November 1, 2006, pursuant to the Standing Orders. The second day for consideration of committee of the whole will be November 7, 2006.
As well, I should indicate that Thursday, November 2, 2006, shall be an allotted day.
With respect to the member's questions with respect to the same sex marriage, we will fulfill our campaign promise on that and we will be proceeding with it this fall.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege to seek unanimous consent of the House to place on the table a copy of the defence minister's transition briefing book which he said, yet again today, that he has never seen nor read.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
Does the hon. member for Halifax have the unanimous consent of the House to table this document?
Jean-Pierre Blackburn ConservativeMinister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec
Mr. Speaker, during oral question period, the hon. member for Bourassa asked me a question about the Normand Forest Communication firm, which we apparently hired.
We are indeed talking about a contract that was awarded for the period from February to March, before his cabinet appointment, and was paid using cabinet's regular budget, as duly disclosed on the website. We must have been satisfied with his work if we hired—
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the government is making it a habit to mislead the House and it occurred again today with the parliamentary secretary.
I am happy to talk about the trip I took. In fact, I sent out a press release about the meetings I had with Governor Schwarzenegger and other key officials in California, with a real minister of the environment working toward a real plan to solve our environmental problems.
As for the hotel expenses, as the parliamentary secretary should well know, I did not pay for the hotel because it was already prepaid by the ministry and reported, if he bothered to look, with the broader expense claim. It is there, fully reported.
This stands in stark contrast to what was done by both Brodie and Burney, individuals within the PMO who took a Challenger flight without a minister, which is against the rules. These are individuals who did not follow the rules by disclosing where they went, what they paid, what they did and when they went. I followed the rules. They did not. They should be ashamed by casting that aspersion.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
We do not want to get into a debate here and it looks as though that is where we are heading.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is rising on the same point I have no doubt.
Jason Kenney ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to table the disclosure of travel and hospitality expenses filed by the member for Ajax—Pickering for his travel with a current member of this House to California to meet with, I gather, George Bush's close personal friend, Republican Governor Schwarzenegger, in Los Angeles and San Francisco. His claim for accommodation is zero.
The funny thing is that on the same trip, on the same dates and on the same voyage the former minister of the environment made an accommodation expense for himself, not his whole group, in the amount of $853.42. I am delighted to table these and provide them to the media so the member opposite can answer the pertinent questions.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
I am sure the points raised by both members have clarified the position.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on October 6 concerning the admissibility of an amendment to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption), adopted by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for having raised this issue as well as the hon. members for Burnaby—Douglas and Vaudreuil-Soulanges for having made submissions on this matter.
In his presentation, the parliamentary secretary asserted that an amendment to Bill C-14 adopted by the standing committee was inadmissible for three reasons: it was contrary to the principle of the bill, it was incomplete and it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown. The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas presented arguments to the contrary.
To summarize the situation briefly, at its meeting of June 21, 2006, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration adopted an amendment which reads as follows:
Any decision of the Minister under this section may be appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
That amendment was ruled admissible by the chair of the committee after a point of order was raised by the parliamentary secretary in committee. The ruling was then appealed and sustained. Following further consideration of the bill, the committee reported it to the House on October 2, 2006.
As all hon. members know, the Chair has always been extremely reluctant to be drawn into procedural arguments over committee proceedings since to do so would reopen matters which are properly left to committees themselves to resolve. Perhaps more significantly, such a practice would also undoubtedly tie up the time of the House in reviews of committee decisions defeating the very purpose of committees.
The one exception to this practice is, however, the one cited by the parliamentary secretary in relation to legislation before the House. As he has indicated, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at pages 661 and 662, indicates that the Chair will become involved if the question at issue is whether a committee has exceeded its powers in its clause by clause review of a bill.
As Speaker Fraser indicated in a ruling found at page 9801 of the Debates for April 28, 1992:
When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting this may be.
The first issue raised by the parliamentary secretary in his presentation to the House relates to the amendment being contrary to the principle of the bill. As the parliamentary secretary himself stated at page 3769 of the Debates:
The principle of Bill C-14, as adopted by the House, was to allow for a grant of citizenship to foreign adopted children without first requiring them to be permanent residents.
Having reviewed the bill as reported to the House, I cannot conclude that an amendment which provides for an appeal of a decision by the minister is contrary to the principle of the bill. As I see it, such an amendment places a condition on how decisions of the minister are exercised, but the principle of the bill remains intact. In the view of the Chair then, the amendment is admissible in that respect.
The next issue relates to the amendment being incomplete. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice explains at page 656:
—an amendment is out of order if it refers to, or is not intelligible without, subsequent amendments or schedules of which notice has not been given, or if it is incomplete.
Here again, in reviewing the bill, as reported to the House, I have not found any difficulty. As I read it, the amendment is intelligible, grammatical and complete as to the course of action that it is proposing. I cannot concur with the parliamentary secretary.
In his third and final argument, the parliamentary secretary claims that the amendment creates a new and distinct purpose for the Immigration and Refugee Board beyond its existing legal mandate under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and that this infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown. The member for Burnaby—Douglas disputes this conclusion, arguing that no expansion of the mandate is contemplated.
The Chair has noted that Bill C-14 proposes no amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Nor does the disputed amendment propose modifications to that act. As I read it, the amendment only provides that decisions arrived at under the terms of Bill C-14 may be appealed to the IRB's Immigration Appeal Division. Although immigration and citizenship issues are inextricably inclined, Bill C-14 deals solely with the issue of foreign adopted children and not with the mandate of the Immigration and Refugee Appeal Board. In effect, the Chair must limit itself to the bill currently before the House and cannot delve into the provisions of acts not addressed in the bill. The same principles apply to the amendment.
The Chair has concluded that the amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has respected the rules of admissibility. It may be that the amendment to the bill will require other legislative actions in order to be fully implemented, but that is a legal question and not a procedural one. The Chair is limited to the narrow confines of Bill C-14 and must conclude that, standing alone, the amendment does not create a new and distinct purpose. Nor does it authorize the expenditure of public funds for a new or distinct purpose.
In summary, then, I find that the bill, as reported to the House, is procedurally in order. Of course, the House may choose to revisit the particular amendment that gave rise to the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, using the appropriate mechanisms provided for under the report stage rules.
The Chair wishes to thank the House for its patience in dealing with this rather unusual situation.
Official LanguagesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
October 26th, 2006 / 3:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, in relation to its study on the vitality of official language minority communities, seven (7) members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages be authorized to travel to St. John's, Moncton, Sherbrooke, Toronto and Sudbury, in November and December, and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.
(Motion agreed to)
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On a point pertaining to business earlier this afternoon, just before your ruling, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, speaking to a certain matter, sought to table some documents, and I understand the tabling in fact took place.
The member for Ajax—Pickering has indicated that he has some material pertinent to the same matter, which he may wish to table in order to complete that particular record.
As a matter of fairness, I think it would be appropriate, since the parliamentary secretary has been permitted to table his material, that should the member for Ajax—Pickering wish to table material in relation to the same matter, he should be allowed to do so.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
I presume the member for Ajax—Pickering will come in and ask for consent when he has the documents in hand and it will be dealt with. From what I am hearing in the chamber, it sounds as though there might be agreement to allow that to happen. Obviously we will have to hear what the documents are.