Debates of Feb. 8th, 2008

Oral Question Period

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. In his response to a question, the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière made a very disparaging remark about receptionists.

I think the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière should realize that receptionists are much more than “charming”. They are skilled, efficient and diligent people, not just “charming”.

I would like the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière to apologize to all secretaries and receptionists.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, again, we have an example of members of the opposition entirely distorting what a member said. I think the member was speaking about the positive aspects of actually having a minister respond rather than having to always be stopped at the line of a receptionist, whether that receptionist is pleasant or not.

Obviously, we value them. I have wonderful receptionists with whom I have worked with in my life and I think everybody here feels that way. I am sure that the member, now that he is here, will agree in the same fashion.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I do not think this is a point of order or a question of privilege.

The parliamentary secretary's response was not an insult directed any one person. Nonetheless, I will take another look at the response, since the hon. member for Lavalhas raised a question of privilege. And if it seems necessary, I will come back to the House to address this.

Oral questions directed to committee chairs

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from question periods this week. This week, on two occasions, questions were directed by members of the opposition to committee chairs in the House, which as you know is perfectly permissible under our rules of order.

Today, a question was directed to a committee chair who happens to be a member of the opposition and you appropriately recognized that committee chair to respond to the question that was directed toward her.

Yesterday, however, a question was directed toward a committee chair who happened to be a member of the government. The member was present at the time and he was able to answer the question. He scurried out of the House after the government House leader started to answer the question.

However, the point is this, if the question is directed to the committee chair, then it is the committee chair who must respond to that question and not just a general member of the government.

The point is, when a question is directed to a minister or to a parliamentary secretary, it is perfectly permissible for any member of the government to respond on behalf of the government.

However, when the question is directed to a committee chair, it does not have to do with the administrative responsibility of the government. It has to do with the agenda of the committee and only the committee chair or in his or her absence, the vice-chair of the committee, has actually the knowledge and the capacity to answer that question.

Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, you would be implying, by allowing a member of the government to answer, that in fact the government controls the agenda of committees. That is not the case.

Committees are masters of their own house. The government does not control the agenda of the committee and therefore, when a question is directed to a committee chair, only the chair or the vice-chair has the capacity to answer.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure this situation has arisen inadvertently, although the government was obviously trying to stifle that particular answer yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to look at this question seriously and give us some guidance in future as to when a question is directed to a committee chair, is it permissible for a member of the government to answer, that is a minister or parliamentary secretary, or does it in fact have to be the committee chair himself or herself? We believe it is in fact the latter.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Liberal House leader got himself into quite a lather on that role there. The fact that he started with was wrong. I know we are discouraged from commenting on the presence or absence of members in the House of Commons, but the chair of that committee was not present in the House at that time.

The fact is simple. He and I had discussed, in advance, should there be any questions of that committee chair, whether he would respond to them. I advised him clearly that he would respond to them. He understood that. That was what he wished to do, and had he been here, I would have permitted him to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I think you were quite correct in the circumstances in how you handled the matter. If it should have been the vice-chair, then perhaps the opposition House leader has a point. My understanding was that chairs were permitted to answer questions in the House, not vice-chairs.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the question of privilege raised by my colleague from Laval requesting an apology from the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have indicated that I am going to consider the remarks and look at what he said. If necessary, I will come back to the House to address this. That is the end of the question. I do not believe there are any other points to raise. I have to look at what he said. I will do so and, if necessary, I will come back to it.

I would now like to come back to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Wascana.

Yesterday, when this happened, no one rose except the government House leader to answer the question concerning the business of this committee, so I recognized the government House leader. I did not see the chair of the committee. I do not know whether he left the House or not. In any event, he did not rise to answer the question, and I do not believe he was in his seat. I do not know who the deputy chair of the committee is off the top of my head, but no other member rose to answer, so I recognized the government House leader.

I do not think the question is whether anyone else is allowed to answer or not. The question for the Speaker of the House is to take a look at those who are standing to answer and choose who is going to answer.

The chair, as I say, did not rise. The House leader did. No one else did so I recognized the House leader to answer the question. I assumed the member would prefer to get an answer from the House leader than none whatsoever, and on we went.

If the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs wishes to make recommendations on how the Speaker should deal with those questions in future, I am more than happy to receive recommendations from it. Of course the House leaders and whips can have a little meeting and tell me what they think. I am happy to hear on this, but in my view, when no one else rises, it is reasonable to expect an answer to a question, even if it comes from on high. Yesterday that is exactly what we got.

Therefore, I do not think it was an error in that sense if the chair was not here and the deputy chair did not rise.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on this point, would you reflect on one particular matter.

If a member of the government, that is a minister or a parliamentary secretary, is permitted to answer questions on behalf of committee chairs and those questions to committee chairs can only deal with the agenda of the committee, is it not the implication of this situation, then, that the government, and not the committee, controls the agenda of the committee?

I think this is a very important distinction that should be reflected upon.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I do not think it is for the Speaker to involve himself or herself in the affairs of committees to the extent that he says who sets the agenda in the committees. That is for the committee to decide. There may be consultations between the chair of the committees and even the government House leader, if that is imaginable, or possibly with an opposition House leader if the chair of the committee comes from the opposition, or even if they are on opposite sides they can consult and get information.

It may be that some consultations had taken place which resulted in the government House leader rising. I have no idea. However, this is something, as I say, that can be explored by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs at its leisure. If it feels a report or a restriction on who is allowed to answer in the case of questions being asked is applicable or responsible, it can suggest that to the House. If the House adopts it, of course I will not recognize anybody else. However, in the circumstances no one else rose. The member who posed the question clearly wanted an answer and got one, or at least got a response.

I will bear what the hon. member has said in mind.

Government Response to Petitions

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary 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 five petitions.

Autism

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from a number of Fraser Valley residents, eight of whom are from my riding of Langley.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Canada Health Act to include ABA therapy for children with autism as a medically necessary treatment, that it require all provinces to provide or fund essential treatment for autism and that it contribute to the creation of academic chairs at a university in each province to teach ABA treatment at the undergraduate or doctorate levels, so Canadian professionals will no longer be forced to leave the country to receive academic training.

Equalization

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House. The first is the second half of a petition that I first presented in the spring.

The petitioners call upon the government to remove non-renewable resources, without the imposition of a cap, as part of the equalization formula. This was a promise by the current Prime Minister. Many people in Newfoundland and Labrador feel that the promise was broken.

This petition was presented to me by Mr. Steven Saunders.

National Defence

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I also have the second half of a petition from Johanna Ryan Gui, which calls on the Department of National Defence to review regulations and to increase the resources, so the squadrons across the country have a two hour window during off hours to respond to an emergency. She would like that policy changed.

She calls upon the Government of Canada to provide the necessary funding to boost the readiness of search and rescue squadrons across the country.

Security and Prosperity Partnership

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to present two groups of petitions signed by hundreds of residents of British Columbia, the Kootenay region and the Lower Mainland.

The petitioners are very concerned about the government and the former Liberal government's agenda on the so-called security and prosperity partnership.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to halt any further negotiations on the SPP. They ask for a complete, transparent and accountable public debate on the SPP process, including meaningful public consultations with civil society. They also ask for a full legislative review, including the work recommendation reports of all SPP working groups and a full debate and a vote in Parliament.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition which calls upon the government to respect not only international law and international treaties to which it is a signatory, but also the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and democratic questions of the people of Canada by immediately making provision for U.S. war objectors to have sanctuary in our country and halting all deportation proceedings against U.S. war objectors.

On January 26, I attended a rally at Bloor Street United Church in Toronto in support of the war resistors. I am proud to say that former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and the Liberal Party opposed our involvement in the Iraq war.

Former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau once said that Canada should be a haven from militarism and allowed thousands of Vietnam war resistors to stay in Canada.

I encourage the government to allow all those brave soldiers, who have said no to this illegal war, to stay in Canada.

Afghanistan

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition that I would like to bring to the attention of the House. The petitioners call upon the government to remove Canadian soldiers from Afghanistan immediately.

Income Trusts

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I present this income trust broken promise petition on behalf of a constituent in Mississauga, Ontario. He remembers very well the Prime Minister boasting about his apparent commitment to accountability when he said, “The greatest fraud is a promise not kept”.

The petitioners would like to remind the Prime Minister that he promised never to tax income trusts. Then he recklessly broke that promise by imposing a 31.5% punitive tax, which permanently wiped out over $25 billion of hard-earned retirement savings of 2 million Canadians, particularly seniors.

The petitioners therefore call upon the Conservative minority government to: one, admit that the decision to tax income trusts was based on flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions; two, to apologize to those who were unfairly harmed by this promise; and finally, to repeal the punitive 31.5% tax on income trusts.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 64 and 160 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 64

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

With regard to the fishing organizations or groups of fishing licence holders who, excluding fees for commercial fishing licenses as set under the regulation, provide monies, fish quotas or allocations to fund Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) activities on an annual basis for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007: (a) in each year, what fishing organizations or groups of license holders have paid for science, DFO administration, enforcement or other departmental activities by an allocation of quota from their fishery; (b) in each year, what fishing organizations or groups of license holders paid for science, DFO administration, enforcement or other departmental activities by way of a cash contribution to the department or its contractor; (c) in each year, what is the total value by fishing organization or groups of license holders of the cash contributions or quota allocations aforementioned; (d) what science, administration, enforcement or other departmental activities carried out in 2005 and 2006 and not paid directly from the department’s ‘A’ base budget will be undertaken and paid for by an allocation from the department’s ‘A’ base budget for 2007; (e) how much did each fishing organization or groups of license holders pay DFO, by way of an allocation of quota or cash contribution, for activities such as science, administration, enforcement or other departmental activities for 2005 and 2006; (f) which fishing organizations or groups of license holders has the department agreed to reimburse wholly or in part for their cash contribution or quota allocations to cover the department’s science administration, enforcement costs or other activities from previous years, indicate how much or what portion of what was collected by year will be returned to the fishing organization or groups of licence holders; (g) did the department indicate that it would need to curtail fishing opportunities unless fishermen agreed to contribute money or fishing quota to fund departmental activities and, if so, what are the nature of the fishing opportunities at issue and the fishermen or fishing organization involved; (h) were the amounts raised from fishermen and their organizations reported and accounted for in the department’s spending estimates submitted to Parliament in each of these years, if so, indicate where and in what manner and form, and, if not, why; and (i) has the Auditor General ever reported on or advised the department on its method of collecting funds from fishermen or their organizations or with respect to the use of fish quotas or allocations to fund departmental activities, if so, when and what actions were taken to implement the Auditor General’s advice?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 160

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

With respect to Old Age Security, what are the government's policies and procedures concerning the case of a person born in Canada with no government records available to support the birth, in terms of recognizing that birth to approve pension payments and the recognition of residency for a person who was born in Canada and has lived in Canada their entire life but there are no records available?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

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