Debates of June 1st, 2006

Bill C-2

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we do know one thing, and that is that party over there will do absolutely everything to stop a bill respecting accountability.

What I can say is that we received the opinion from the Law Clerk. The committee has asked the Law Clerk to come to committee. The members opposite are entitled to ask questions in that respect.

Firearms Registry

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, first, the Liberals incorrectly claimed that the long gun registry would cost a mere $2 million. We now know that it is $1 billion in direct costs only. They tried to keep the escalating costs of the registry hidden from Canadian taxpayers.

We have heard from the Auditor General and senior bureaucrats that the Liberals deliberately hid millions of dollars from Parliament.

Can the Minister of Public Safety tell us how this government will do things differently?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recall that just a few short years ago, while the member for Yorkton—Melville was raising the issue of overruns with the long gun registry he was being scorned and ridiculed by the Liberals as being out of touch with reality. Now the Auditor General has confirmed what the member for Yorkton--Melville has said and what we have said, that while he was raising these concerns, the federal Liberals in high places were conspiring to hide those overruns from Canadians and in contempt of Parliament.

We will go after that. We do want to find out who is responsible. At the same time, we will take the savings from the long gun registry and create safer communities and protect us from gun crime.

Tourism Industry

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Industry finally awoke from his 100 days of slumber to participate in the debate about passport issues and the effect on tourism.

In his response he blamed the previous administration and also the former minister of industry, who is now sitting with him on his own bench. The old saying goes that if you buy the dog, you get the fleas that come with it.

I want to know from the Minister of Industry, does he consult with the former minister of industry who is now with him in caucus about the fact that they did nothing and he is doing nothing right now? Is that the strategy, to consult with his own?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Industry, I am very proud and very pleased to work with the Minister of International Trade. He is an important asset to this government. The proof of this is the agreement that was reached on softwood lumber. This agreement is a tremendous success for Canada and for workers, and we owe it to the Minister of International Trade and the Prime Minister.

National Revenue

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec has announced that it will relinquish the $24 million in taxes owed by Vincent Lacroix and use the money to compensate the people who were defrauded in the Norbourg case. We know that Vincent Lacroix also owes the federal government $12 million.

Does the Minister of Finance intend to follow Quebec's example, relinquish its $12 million and use the money to compensate the people in Quebec who were defrauded by Norbourg?

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a question that is currently before the courts. We are looking into the situation and it would be inappropriate for me or any member of this government to comment on the issues of individuals involved in this matter.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Harry Van Mulligen, Minister of Government Relations from the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader if he could inform the House of his plans for House business for the rest of this week and all of next week.

I would ask him specifically if he could confirm the government's agreement to our suggestion that the House should deal with Bill C-15 on agricultural cash advances by consent at all stages in no more than one hour tomorrow and then send that bill immediately to the Senate for speedy consideration there.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today the House will continue with the Bloc opposition motion and tomorrow we will be continuing with the debate on Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding conditional sentence of imprisonment.

It was our intention to then begin debate on Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code requiring minimum penalties for offences involving firearms and to make consequential amendments to that act.

On Monday we will continue with the two justice bills, if necessary.

I hear the hon. member's suggestion with respect to Bill C-15. I would be glad to talk to him about that, but we are looking for the completion of Bill C-9, the justice bill. At the same time, I understand there have been discussions that have taken place between the parties and I hope that comes to some fruition.

Given that the Standing Committee on Finance has concluded its consideration of Bill C-13, an act to amend certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, it is my intention to call it at report and third reading stage on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, and Thursday, June 8 will be an allotted day.

Oral Questions

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair has notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, during today's question period, the Minister of International Trade stated that I, being from Atlantic Canada, have no reason to stand in the House and raise concerns about Canada's softwood lumber deal. I take great offence to this statement.

As his critic I represent all Canadians, whether it is at committee or in the House. I will continue to defend all Canadian exporters. I expect an apology from the minister and for him to remove his remarks.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The minister will take the hon. member's comments under advisement.

The hon. member for Davenport is also rising on a question of privilege.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today during question period the Minister of Environment mentioned that the CEPA legislation, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, was not moving forward due to the Liberals and the NDP stalling it at committee. I want the minister and the House to be clear that we had in fact all party agreement at committee to move forward with our scheduled agenda to deal with the issue.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am sure that the comments of the hon. member for Davenport are of interest, but I do not think that they constitute a question of privilege.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Yorkton—Melville during question period misled the House intentionally as far as I am concerned. He declared that the Liberals purposely hid money. This is totally unacceptable and not true.

There have been two standing committees. This is totally unacceptable. None of this was proven it was exactly the opposite. The questions were put to the bureaucrats over and over. The information is absolutely not accurate and the member for Yorkton—Melville purposely misled the House. I demand an apology because there are facts on paper. I dare him to read the transcripts of the committee reports, the two of them, and read what the witnesses said.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am sure the hon. member for Beaches—East York has made her point and I am sure the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, who I believe was the subject of her complaint, will have due regard to what she has said. If he feels it necessary, he will be back to the House in due course and in the interim of course the matter can be looked at.

However, it sounds to me like a matter of debate, but I will of course look at the hon. member's point of order and the comments to which she referred made by the other hon. member, and I am sure he will as well. I hope that we will get back on that one.

The hon. member for Mississauga South has also given notice of a point of order. We will hear from him next.

Private Members' Business

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday after question period you made statements for the information of the House relating to private members' business and particularly regarding those that may possibly require a royal recommendation in order to be votable.

I took the opportunity last evening to go through the order paper and reviewed the items on the order of precedence, the first 30, and found that 10 of those bills have been identified by the Chair as possibly requiring a royal recommendation.

This is a little bit alarming. I think there is some concern here and I am certainly concerned. As a big fan of private members' business, I am attempting very hard to find a resolution to protect the opportunity for members of Parliament, particularly these 10, to have a votable item before Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, you stated yesterday and I will repeat it for those members who did not hear it, but the principle here of royal recommendation is that:

This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue--

And it goes on, but it is basically spending revenue.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, you can increase a tax deduction, but you cannot introduce a new subsidy. It is an anomaly which I really think that we ought to consider.

Second, I am aware that the vote that would be taken on an item at second reading is not considered a vote for the purposes of that provision under royal recommendation. Even if we were to require a royal recommendation, there would be a second reading vote. It would go to committee. It would come back for report stage and third reading. However, if a royal recommendation is required and is not forthcoming, then the bill would die and there is no third reading vote.

I am also aware that a bill may be repaired at committee or during report stage and also that a minister at any point in the legislative process can come forward. That is not a problem and I believe the member for Scarborough--Guildwood has a bill on international development which I think can be repaired in that fashion.

My concern is that the House and committees will be spending an enormous amount of time dealing with a number of items for which there will never be a vote possible in this place.

I am concerned that some members may want to do that but, and this is the point, there are some members who, had they received earlier notice of the concern of a requirement for a royal recommendation, may have made the necessary arrangements to swap another bill in the same position to allow them at least to have a votable item in this Parliament. I am aware of at least two members who would have done so had they been given that notice.

Mr. Speaker, you also said yesterday:

Should the member decide to proceed with the bill and select it for inclusion in the order of precedence, then, at the beginning of the second reading debate, the Speaker will draw to the attention of the House concerns regarding the royal recommendation. Members may then make submissions regarding the royal recommendation and, if necessary, the Chair will return with a definitive ruling later in the legislative process.

It raises the question of whether or not once we hit private members' business and the bill is called, and the Chair rises to give formal notice that there is a concern about a royal recommendation requirement, the member would, if necessary, then make an argument why it should not be subject to a royal recommendation requirement. This is not clear.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that in the past we may have made your decision or flagged that bill earlier in the day, so that in fact members could have an opportunity to debate it fully and others could participate in the debate on the royal recommendation possibility, but not impinge either on the amount of time available for members to debate their bill or indeed time available for private members' business in total.

I have raised some questions. I have raised them with other parties and there are other members who may want to comment on this. In view of the questions that were raised yesterday by the member for Hochelaga and those that have been raised today by me and I suspect by others, I will be seeking unanimous consent for a motion which will refer these questions and concerns to the Procedure and House Affairs Standing Committee, effectively to protect the opportunity of members to have at least one votable item in a Parliament, and not to have lost it on the matter of royal recommendation.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga South has made some very legitimate points. Certainly, I do not think anyone in the House wants members to lose an opportunity to bring forward a private member's bill or motion on the basis that they would lose it because of a royal recommendation.

This information was provided yesterday. The Chair made a correct ruling and that is not being disputed. We are trying to deal with what kind of mechanism or process we can agree to, so that members who have bills in the first set of 30 basically are given an opportunity to have some discussion and make some changes.

I agree that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would be the place to do that, to work out between the parties a way for members who are affected by the lack of royal recommendation, of which I believe there are 10. Perhaps there could be some accommodation made in the spirit of the Speaker's decision yesterday, but that would ensure that members do not lose their place.

I agree that the discussion should happen, from the point of view of my party, and we would encourage the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to actually do that and arrive at a sensible solution.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across certainly raised a number of interesting points. However, it seems to me it is incumbent upon the individual who is putting together a private member's bill to ensure the bill itself does not require a royal recommendation. To say, Mr. Speaker, that you only just informed the House yesterday and somehow there is a problem with that, it seems to me the problem is much earlier in the process.

Hon. members can dismiss this and say that it is only a royal recommendation and we should not be worried about the expenditure of money. We are quite worried about committing the Government of Canada to the expenditure of money. That is why the rules are in place. It is incumbent upon members to check it out and ensure that their bill does not have this because those are the rules. It was perfectly appropriate for you, Mr. Speaker, to make a ruling on this as you did yesterday.

The final part of what the hon. member said is that he wants some sort of a change in the rules, so that when a bill is introduced we do not address the concern of whether it is a royal recommendation at that time. We are prepared to live by the rules that have been agreed upon by the parties over the years as they relate to private members' bills and we will raise these matters at the appropriate time. Those are the rules.

If the hon. member wants to change them, there is a process in place whereby we can discuss them and have a look at those things, but we are not going to arbitrarily start changing the rules for members who have made a mistake by including a royal recommendation in their private member's bill.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. There are three things that I think are important in this discussion.

First, this is not a case of a House of Commons rule that requires a royal recommendation. It is a constitutional requirement, and it is one that has consistently been enforced by Speakers in this House. I have no intention, as Speaker of this House, of abandoning the practice in respect of this matter. The Constitution is supported by the Standing Orders of the House that require that there be a royal recommendation before a bill that authorizes the expenditure of public funds can be adopted by this House.

In 2003, as I pointed out in my ruling yesterday, the rules were changed to allow debate on this kind of bill to start and proceed until the third reading stage in the expectation that a royal recommendation might be received by the House in respect of that bill. If one is received, then a vote can be held at third reading. Otherwise the House has had a good debate, but the bill will not be put to a vote and cannot be adopted by the House.

That was the change in the rules that was agreed to in 2003 and that is the change we are living with now, which perhaps the hon. member for Mississauga South does not like, but that is a matter that was agreed to then. If the House wishes to change the rules, that is fine, and I will enforce the rules if the House does so.

Second, members who had bills drafted should have been informed, and my understanding is that they were informed, by the drafting clerks that there would be a potential problem with their bill because it included authorization for the expenditure of public funds. That was the practice adopted in 2003. I have no reason to believe that practice was not followed in respect of the bills that I mentioned yesterday; in other words, that the member involved was informed that there could be a problem with that bill when it came to the House, in that without a royal recommendation, it could not proceed to third reading.

Third, in my ruling yesterday, I invited comments from the House, House leaders or indeed from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on how we might review this process to improve it, because the management of this part of it, given the large number of bills that seem to be causing a problem here, may result in some need for address.

I respect the hon. member for Mississauga South's suggestion that the matter be brought up. I urge him to go the procedure and House affairs committee, as I urged yesterday in my ruling, and that the matter be considered there with a view to looking at the practice to see if there could be improvements made. The Chair is always willing to live with changes in the rules. I do so on a regular basis.

I am not in any way suggesting that the point of order the hon. member has raised is out of order, but I think that what we are doing, and what I sought to do in the ruling yesterday, is conform in every respect with the rules we now have in place. The House is free to change those at its whim and fancy, aside from the requirement that this not override the Constitution.

The hon. member for Ajax--Pickering is rising on another point.

Member for Ajax--Pickering

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege that was raised by the Minister of Finance yesterday. Yesterday the finance minister had a question of privilege about a statement I made in the House suggesting that an environmental measure in the budget may benefit his brother's company, Dorset Industrial Chemicals.

My statement was based on an article in the May 12 Ottawa Citizen, which noted the company supplies chemicals to the pulp and paper industry that are used in the process of cogeneration. This budgetary measure accelerates the capital cost allowance for equipment using a pulp and paper chemical byproduct called “black liquor” in the cogeneration process.

As a result of this article, I asked the Ethics Commissioner to look into the actions of the minister to see if the code might have been violated. In light of these serious allegations, my enquiry was appropriate.

I have seen the letter from the Ethics Commissioner and the news release issued by the minister and I do not believe they properly address the allegations contained in the Ottawa Citizen article. There was never any suggestion that Dorset would itself claim the capital cost allowance, so this was in fact never the issue.

In fact, the Ethics Commissioner's letter states:

Based on the information you have thus far provided my Office, and on condition that your Department can confirm to you that a company such as Dorset would not be eligible to avail itself of this particular budgetary measure, I am of the opinion that you are not in a conflict--

Clearly the Ethics Commissioner's statement is conditional and it is premised on an assumption that was in fact never the issue. The issue is whether or not--

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. I have grave concerns about this matter being raised in this way. When matters are referred to the Ethics Commissioner, members are not to comment on those matters.

This matter was referred to the Ethics Commissioner. The hon. member apparently, from what I have heard so far, is dissatisfied with the answer that came back. It seems to me that the proper course for him at this point is not to raise this matter on the floor of the House but to raise the matter with the Ethics Commissioner.

Getting into debate here is contrary to the practice, as he knows. When a matter is referred to the Ethics Commissioner, it is not to be raised on the floor of the House. In fact, I usually get a letter from the Ethics Commissioner telling me that the matter has been raised with him and therefore I should not permit discussion of that matter here.

I think if the member is dissatisfied with the answer he has received, his argument is with the Ethics Commissioner. It is not here with the minister on the floor. He is free to point out to the Ethics Commissioner facts that he thinks are relevant.

It seems to me that he ought to make sure that avenue is fully exhausted before we are having debates about these kinds of matters on the floor of the House. I know that the question can be asked. It clearly was in this case. I assumed it was asked before the matter was referred to the Ethics Commissioner and the reference was then made. The minister has come back with an answer and tabled it in the House because of the allegation that was made.

I do not know the exact order of all these things, but I am concerned that getting into this kind of debate about members' personal financial affairs, when there is an avenue for doing this outside the House and that is by an independent person who makes these adjudications, is only going to get us into severe difficulty. I urge the hon. member to take the matter up with the Ethics Commissioner.

I know that the minister yesterday asked for an apology. It is clear that he is not going to get it today from what I am hearing so far, but I would rather have the matter resolved properly there than have endless debate about it on questions of privilege in the House which the House cannot resolve and is unlikely to resolve in the circumstances.

The hon. member for Ajax--Pickering.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fact the question was raised by the finance minister. He quoted specifically from a letter that had been sent out from the Ethics Commissioner and asked for an apology from me. That is why I was answering in that way. What I will say, and what I will leave it at, is that at this point I stand by my original statement and would encourage the finance minister to furnish the additional information that has been requested of him.