House of Commons Hansard #56 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was million.
A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 2009 was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House.
Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.
Bob Mills Conservative Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation on the meeting of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region in Reykjavik, Iceland, June 1, 2007.
Gary Schellenberger Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage entitled “CBC/Radio-Canada: Defining Distinctiveness in the Changing Media Landscape”.
Over the past year the committee has been meeting and hearing from a wide spectrum of stakeholders and residents in every region of the country. Committee members thank everyone who took part in its proceedings. They were impressed by the keen interest shown by the many individuals who attended and participated in the committee's hearings in Ottawa and elsewhere to voice their opinions and their feelings about the future of our national public broadcaster.
Judging by this and by the hundreds of letters it received, the committee is convinced that Canadians are firmly committed to having a strong national public broadcaster that faithfully reflects our population from one end of the country to the other.
Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, your Committee is requesting an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C-265.
Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Liberal
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(3)(a), a motion to concur in the report is deemed moved, the question deemed put, and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Wednesday, March 5, 2008, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
Rob Merrifield Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, related to Bill C-207, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for new graduates working in designated regions).
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-515, An Act to ensure annual reports to Parliament on Canadian peace initiatives.
Mr. Speaker, this morning it is my pleasure to introduce a bill that I think is of interest and concern not only to Canadians generally but people around the world in relation to their own governments.
Specifically, this is a bill that requires the foreign affairs minister to submit an annual report setting out Canada's initiatives and accomplishments in the promotion of international peace and security, public diplomacy, peace building and peacekeeping, both through the United Nations and other multilateral organizations.
This is one of the great challenges of our time. We enter into various obligations. We do very little systematic reporting back to the Canadian people through Parliament on the results of our efforts. If this is not an important thing on which to report to Canadians, I do not know what is. I very much commend it to all members.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and honour once again this week to present petitions duly certified under Standing Order 36, and thanks to the efforts of B'nai Brith Canada, to highlight three things in this petition signed by some 150 people in the Greater Toronto Area.
First, to thank Canadians and Canada for responding so positively to a previous petition that resulted in the return of the remains of three Israeli soldiers missing in action, Omar Suad, Benny Avraham and Adi Avitan.
Second, to highlight that there are still five others whose status is unaccounted for: Yehuda Katz, Zvi Feldman, Zecharya Baumel, Ron Arad and Guy Hever.
Third, to ask this Parliament to continue in its efforts to ensure that the moral principle of redemption of hostages, so cherished in the Jewish faith and by people of goodwill all over the world, be adhered to by applying pressure to Hezbollah and its sponsor states of Lebanon, Syria and Iran. By using all reasonable means, not excluding sanctions and the severing of diplomatic ties, to ensure that the status of these five soldiers be verified and they or their remains be returned to their families back in Israel.
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Mr. Speaker, from the good constituents of Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, particularly the city of Saskatoon, Martensville, Borden, Langham and Warman, the good folks there, I wish to present a petition calling on Parliament to immediately hold a renewed debate on the definition of marriage, reaffirming as it did in 1999 that marriage is and should remain a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.
The petitioners wish to state that Parliament should take the necessary steps to return to that traditional and heterosexual definition of marriage.
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition from the good constituents of my riding of Saskatoon—Wanuskewin in Radisson, Langham, Saskatoon, Borden, and Dalmeny.
The petitioners are asking to draw attention to a particular concern that they have and that others share. In current federal criminal law an unborn child is not recognized as a victim with respect to violent crimes. When a pregnant woman is assaulted or killed in Canada there is no legal protection offered for unborn children and no charge can be laid.
The petitioners point out some polling results which show that 72% of Canadians, according to an Environics poll, support laws that would protect an unborn child from acts of violence against the mother and that also injure or kill the child.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation which would recognize unborn children as separate victims when they are injured or killed during the commission of an offence against women, allowing two charges to be laid against the offender instead of only one. The petitioners ask for this particular protection in combating violence against women and their unborn children.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 180 will be answered today.
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
With regards to sport infrastructure eligibility in the Building Canada program: (a) how has the government advertised and solicited applications for sport infrastructure projects; (b) how many applications have been received and where eligible; (c) what have been the infrastructure requests in the applications; (d) what is the total amount of funds dispersed for sport infrastructure under the Building Canada program; and (e) what applications have been accepted?
Question No. 180Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Pontiac Québec
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon ConservativeMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), on November 6, 2007, the Prime Minister announced the details of the $33 billion building Canada infrastructure plan, which includes the $8.8 billion building Canada fund that will be invested in clean water and sewage treatment infrastructure, the core national highway system, public transit, green energy, and sport facilities among other categories of infrastructure. The Government of Canada has already identified and announced publicly a number of priorities for funding across the country, one of which is the Centre of Sport Excellence in Calgary. All details of the building Canada plan and its components, as well as all announcements pertaining to agreements and projects, are found on the Prime Minister’s website as well as Infrastructure Canada’s website.
In response to (b), the building Canada Fund has two components in each jurisdiction: the major infrastructure component, and the communities component. Under the major infrastructure component, projects are to be negotiated between the different levels of government. The Government of Canada has already identified a number of priorities for funding across the country, including the Centre of Sport Excellence in Calgary. This priority announcement indicates that the Government of Canada will consider funding this project, once a framework agreement has been signed with Alberta and conditional on the project meeting all applicable federal eligibility requirements under the building Canada fund.
Under the communities component, only Nova Scotia has submitted a first round of applications to date. Since sports infrastructure was not among the target areas for the province on this first call for proposals, no projects for sports infrastructure were put forward. No other province or territory has launched the communities component application process yet, which may only take place once a framework agreement with Canada has been signed.
In response to (c), please refer to part (b).
In response to (d), please refer to part (b).
In response to (e), please refer to part (b).
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 167 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
For each of the years 1997 to 2007, how many dollars has the National Capital Commission spent purchasing poinsettias and other Christmas gifts for Members of Parliament, Senators, Ontario Members of the Provincial Parliament, Quebec Members of the National Assembly, elected municipal officials, and unelected officials broken down by category of recipient, and on shipping and delivering these gifts?
(Return tabled)
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Committee Amendments to Bill C-21--Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
Liberal
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on February 14, 2008 by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians concerning committee amendments to Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.
I wish to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary as well as the hon. members forArgenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, Nunavut and Winnipeg South Centre for their submissions on this matter.
In his intervention, the hon. parliamentary secretary indicated that he was seeking a ruling as to whether two amendments to Bill C-21, adopted by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, are in order. He argued that these two amendments are beyond the scope of the bill and should not be allowed to stand.
The hon. parliamentary secretary went on to describe the main components of Bill C-21 as follows: a provision for the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, a statutory review provision and, finally, a transitional provision with respect to aboriginal authorities. In essence, he stated—in my view, correctly—that the principle and scope of the bill therefore relate to the repeal of section 67.
In his submission, the hon. parliamentary secretary further contended that in reviewing the legislation which has received the approval of the House at second reading, committees are limited to making amendments that respect the principle and are within the scope of the legislative proposal. Here as well, the Chair shares the view expressed by the hon. parliamentary secretary.
However, before going further, it is perhaps useful to review what the two contested amendments seek to achieve. The first is a non-derogation clause added as a new clause 1.1. This amendment indicates that the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from existing aboriginal treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the first nations peoples of Canada and goes on to list certain rights or freedoms.
The hon. parliamentary secretary argues that this amendment adds a new purpose to the bill and is therefore beyond the scope of Bill C-21.
The second amendment that is in dispute is an interpretive clause added as a new clause 1.2. This clause mandates that in relation to human rights complaints, the act be interpreted and applied with due regard to “first nations legal traditions and customary laws”.
This amendment was ruled by the chair of the committee to be inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the bill. Following a successful appeal of the chair's ruling, the amendment was subsequently adopted by the committee.
In her submission, the hon. member for Nunavut expressed the view that these amendments represent an improvement to Bill C-21, inspired by the desire, in her words, “to make sure that the rights of people are protected”.
The Chair has examined the two amendments in question, as well as the proceedings on this bill in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development with reference to the text of Bill C-21 as adopted at second reading. There is no doubt that this committee’s lengthy deliberations reflect the seriousness with which members have approached this issue.
In cases such as this one, the Speaker may be asked to review, on strictly procedural grounds, what went on in committee with reference to the correctness of a chair's ruling, or even the overturning of a ruling in committee.
As I explained when the matter was first raised:
...the Speaker acts as a court of appeal, as it were, from decisions of committees in respect of admissibility of amendments for certain purposes that they can be arguably beyond the scope of the bill or beyond the principles of the bill that was sent to committee at second reading.
In this case, I am simply being asked whether or not the two amendments in question are admissible, more precisely, whether the two amendments in question are within or beyond the scope of Bill C-21.
I said earlier that I agreed with the hon. parliamentary secretary that the principle and scope of the bill relate to the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Now, after due consideration of the procedural issues involved, I have concluded that neither of the disputed amendments, namely new clauses 1.1 and 1.2, interfere with that principle.
In the view of the Chair, the two amendments neither restrict nor expand nor conflict with the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which we all seem to agree is the principle of Bill C-21.
New clause 1.1 describes the existing aboriginal rights framework. New clause 1.2 refers to the due regard that is to be given to first nations legal traditions and customary laws in the adjudication of future complaints made possible under the act by the repeal of section 67.
In the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, “The bill, as amended, still proposes to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act; it still proposes a review and a transitional period for the said repeal”. In short, neither amendment introduces conditions whereby the repeal of section 67 would not take effect. Rather, both amendments provide guidance of a general nature and in a context specific to first nations.
For these reasons, I find the two amendments to Bill C-21 adopted at committee stage to be admissible. I thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this matter.
The House resumed from February 27 consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
When the matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood had the floor and he has four minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks. I therefore call upon the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.