Debates of April 1st, 2009

Health

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, April is Daffodil Month, a month dedicated to fight cancer. On this first day of April, it is my honour to present a very extensive petition from the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

The petitioners are extremely concerned that pesticides are associated with brain cancer, birth defects and childhood leukemia, that pesticide exposure is associated with cancer risks for adults and children and that people can be exposed to pesticides by absorption through the skin, through inhalation, breathing into the lungs, swallowing, by eating residues on vegetables and fruits, drinking or touching hands to mouth. They state that leading health organizations have urged a ban on non-essential pesticides and that organic lawn products without pesticides also produce beautiful properties and lawns.

Therefore, they call upon the government to ban non-essential pesticides across Canada.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to present a petition calling for a halt to negotiations on the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. There are numerous petitioners, as the member for Burnaby—New Westminster pointed out.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to halt the current Colombia free trade negotiations until such time that the human rights impact assessment is developed and that the agreement be renegotiated along the principles of fair trade, which would take into account the full environmental, social and human impact and sincerely respect labour rights and the rights of all parties affected.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 14 and 61 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 14

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

With respect to gas and diesel prices: (a) is the government planning to implement the Energy Cost Benefit program, announced in October 2005; (b) what measures is the government implementing to build a greener economy, promote transparency in markets, promote alternative energy sources and improve fuel economy; (c) what steps will the government take to greater transparency in markets, fuel efficiency improvements and fuel alternatives; (d) is the government planning to index both the old age security pension and the Guaranteed Income Supplement payments to offset the increasing gas prices; and (e) what is the government’s specific plan with respect to research investments to develop renewable and alternative fuels, such as cellulose-based ethanol and hydrogen-based fuels, to reduce Canadians’ reliance on global fuel markets?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 61

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

With respect to the Toronto Port Authority, will the government order the release of the hospitality and travel expenses incurred in the last two years (2007, 2008) by its former CEO and, if so, what were those expenses?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

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

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers Nos. P-3 and P-4 in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Motion P-3

That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all agreements reached between Industry Canada and Vale Inco relating to the purchase of Inco.

Motion P-4

That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all agreements reached between Industry Canada and Xstrata relating to the purchase of Falconbridge.

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

Mr. Speaker, the requested documents may not be disclosed in accordance with the confidentiality provisions in section 36 of the Investment Canada Act. I therefore request that the hon. member withdraw those notices of motions.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is very important for my community. We do not have anything to hide. Obviously the government does. I therefore ask that these be transferred for debate.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Motions Nos. P-3 and P-4 are therefore transferred for debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Second Report of the Standing Committee on Finance

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the report of the Standing Committee on Finance that was tabled just moments ago.

I submit that the report is out of order as it is beyond the mandate of the committee as set out in Standing Order 108.

On Tuesday of this week, a motion was moved at the finance committee regarding funding of the Library of Parliament. The chairman of the finance committee ruled the motion out of order on the grounds that it went beyond the mandate of the finance committee.

Standing Order 108(2), the standing order governing the committee's mandate, clearly states that the Standing Committee on Finance is

empowered to review and report on:

(a) the statute law relating to the department...;

(b) the program and policy objectives of the department and its effectiveness in the implementation of same;

(c) the immediate, medium and long-term expenditure plans and the effectiveness of implementation of same by the department;

(d) an analysis of the relative success of the department, as measured by the results obtained as compared with its stated objectives; and

(e) other matters, relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation of the department....

It is therefore clear that the allocation of operating funds to the parliamentary library, an organ of Parliament not of the Department of Finance, is a matter outside the purview of the standing committee's mandate.

Notwithstanding this fact, the opposition overturned the chairman's ruling that the committee's mandate must be respected.

As a consequence of the opposition setting aside the rules of the House, the House is now seized with an invalid report.

While the Speaker often declines to interfere with committee proceedings, he is obliged to intervene when these proceedings go beyond the powers conferred upon committees by the House.

At page 879 of Marleau and Montpetit, it states:

Committees are entitled to report to the House only with respect to matters within their mandate. When reporting to the House, committees must indicate the authority under which the study was done (i.e., the Standing Order or the order of reference). If the committee's report has exceeded or has been outside its order of reference, the Speaker has judged such a report, or the offending section, to be out of order.

Mr. Speaker, you made a ruling on March 14, 2008, regarding the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. You ruled at that time that the report was out of order because it clearly was not within the mandate of the committee as spelled out in Standing Order 108.

At that time, Mr. Speaker, you will remember, many committees were operating outside of the rules and often were overturning decisions of chairmen, as was done at the finance committee on Tuesday. As a result, you took it upon yourself to make a statement in this House. You expressed concerns about procedurally sound decisions by committee chairs being overturned by majorities of committees.

In your March 14, 2008, ruling, you stated:

appeals of decisions by chairs appear to have proliferated, with the result that having decided to ignore our usual procedure and practices, committees have found themselves in situations that verge on anarchy.

I refer to this particular ruling because of what took place in the last Parliament. In that Parliament, many committees of this House became dysfunctional. In fact, the opposition's illegal use of committees to smear the reputations of members and of the public was so widespread that it was one of the reasons the last Parliament was dissolved.

Given that we are in a minority situation again in this Parliament, we must learn from our mistakes of the past.

In a ruling on March 29, 2007, you made a statement in the context of a minority Parliament. You said:

...neither the political realities of the moment nor the sheer force of numbers should force us to set aside the values inherent in the parliamentary conventions and procedures by which we govern our deliberations.

That advice is as valid in this, the 40th Parliament, as it was in the 39th. You need to intervene in this matter because we risk returning to those dysfunctional days of the 39th Parliament. I think we can all agree that the public does not want us to do that.

Thank you for your attention to that, Mr. Speaker, and I would urge you to consider this matter very carefully and give us your considered opinion as soon as possible.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I deplore and regret having to intervene on this matter today. I find it rather ironic that the Conservative party is not supporting a motion to ensure that the parliamentary budget officer has the wherewithal to be as effective as possible. My colleague is claiming that the motion with respect to the parliamentary budget officer passed by the Standing Committee on Finance is beyond the mandate of the committee. I do not agree with this statement.

Before beginning on the procedural aspect of this matter, permit me to remind my colleague of the promises and claims made by his own party regarding the position of parliamentary budget officer. In the 2006 election campaign, the Conservative party complained of the lack of transparency in the budget process. After describing the inaccuracy of the Liberal party's budget forecasts, the Conservatives concluded that it was impossible to demand an accounting from the government if Parliament was unaware of the state of the public finances.

As a solution to this problem, the Conservatives proposed that a Conservative government would create the parliamentary office—

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Order, please.

I do not want to hear arguments as to whether these officers should be paid. This is a point of order before us today. I remind the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain of that.

I would like arguments as to whether the position put forward by the parliamentary secretary and the government House leader is correct.

Does this report come under the mandate of the Standing Committee on Finance? That is the only question before us at the moment, and it is on this question I want to hear the member's arguments.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was coming to that point. That is what I was saying as a preamble, and I was getting to the procedural matter. The position of parliamentary budget officer was created under the very first bill introduced in the House by the new Conservative government during the 39th Parliament, Bill C-2. Today, however, the Conservative party is waging a procedural debate on the role of the parliamentary budget officer.

Let us be clear. The real problem is not a procedural one. The real problem is as follows. Like many other public officials, the parliamentary budget officer upsets the Conservatives, who find a number of its statements and figures contradicted by this senior official. That is the whole problem.

Every time the parliamentary budget officer intervenes, he contradicts the government. He even told the Standing Committee on Finance that he was to present reports to the standing committee and that, to do so, he needed documents put out by the Department of Finance. He went on to say to the committee that the Department of Finance had not given him all the documents.

Clearly, there is a problem with equity and transparency on the part of the government. It is absolutely essential that the Standing Committee on Finance make a recommendation in that regard. Bill C-2, which established the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer, added to the Parliament of Canada Act section 79.2(b)(ii), which states:

The mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to

...when requested to do so by any of the following committees, undertake research for that committee into the nation’s finances and economy:

...the Standing Committee on Finance of the House of Commons or, in the event that there is not a Standing Committee on Finance, the appropriate committee of the House of Commons—

The finance committee is indeed the one which hears the Parliamentary Budget Officer most often. It is the committee to which he reports. We cannot see how the sales pitch for this point of order could hold. Since the Parliamentary Budget Officer reports to the Standing Committee on Finance and this committee needs the Parliamentary Budget Officer's insight on the budget, we cannot see how it could be unable to ensure that this officer is provided with what he needs to do his job properly.

It is totally absurd to oppose a motion passed by the Standing Committee on Finance, arguing that it is normal, because the Parliamentary Budget Officer provides us with information, which means that this absolutely has to be the committee reviewing the needs of that officer. As I said earlier, the last time he appeared before the committee, the Parliamentary Budget Officer told us that the Department of Finance had not been transparent, in that it failed to provide him with all to the documents he needed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am truly sorry that we have to waste Parliament's time listening to such a frivolous argument.

The point is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, and you identified it yourself. The report and the actions by the finance committee, particularly the opposition members in overturning the Chair's ruling, are clearly outside the mandate of the committee.

The budget officer is not responsible to the Department of Finance. He reports to the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament. Unfortunately, my hon. friend has either deliberately ignored that premise or he is trying to cause some concerns within the government ranks with respect to the budget officer.

Mr. Speaker, you have ruled effectively before in this area. I would with great respect ask you to do so again, as quickly as possible, if not immediately.