Dale Johnston

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, I would like some clarification. The role of this committee with respect to the main estimates is to examine them with the authority to reduce. Nowhere is it written that the examination of the main estimates in committee of the whole precludes the moving of a motion to reduce the estimates.

If you examine the modernization committee report that recommends this new rule, you will not find any reference to such restrictions. In fact, the report confirms that the consideration of the estimates in committee of the whole replaces the consideration of estimates by a standing committee. The report says:

The regular rules regarding Committee of the Whole would apply. Such a procedure would permit a meaningful examination of certain Estimates; it would facilitate the participation of Members who are interested in the department or agency whose Estimate were being considered; and by being conducted in the chamber, and televised, it would confirm the financial oversight role of the House of Commons.

I would like to know how removing a committee's right to vote down or reduce the estimates would be a confirmation of the financial oversight of the House of Commons? If you read the Standing Orders, Mr. Chair, you will discover that nowhere does it say that motions cannot be moved. If you read the report, you will also fail to find any reference to restrictions regarding the movement of motions.

The Standing Orders provide that “when the committee rises the estimates shall be deemed reported”. It does not say “deemed reported without amendment”. If the committee changes the estimates, these changes will be deemed reported.

When a Standing Order intends something to be deemed reported without amendment, it says so. For example, I draw the Chair's attention to Standing Order 97(1) in reference to a private member's bill being reported. It is specifically deemed reported without amendment. Obviously, if the intent were to have something deemed reported without amendment, the Standing Order would say so. Standing Order 81(4)(a) simply says “deemed reported”.

It is clear that the consideration of the estimates by the committee of the whole is a replacement of the standing committee's consideration of the estimates. Paragraph(a) of Standing Order 81(4) states:

...the said estimates shall be deemed withdrawn from the standing committee to which they were referred...consideration of the main estimates of the said department or agency shall be taken up by a Committee of the Whole...

[Library and Archives of Canada Act, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members will support this motion.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members will oppose this motion.

[Cpr, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, every year 23,000 Canadians die from heart attacks, and more than half of those die before reaching hospital care. Lives could be saved if more Canadians were trained to administer CPR.

This year 600 grade 10 students from the Wolf Creek School District in my constituency of Wetaskiwin are learning how to recognize the early warning signs of heart attacks and strokes, and how to apply CPR. Just last week in British Columbia, the friends of a drowning 13 year old girl saved her life because they knew CPR. Like insurance, we hope that we never need it but CPR training is invaluable in an emergency.

Locally, the STARS Foundation donated 80 mannequins, the St. John Ambulance trained high school teachers to be CPR instructors, and the Ponoka News donated the printing of the student manuals.

Thanks to the ACT Foundation and the generosity of the private sector, this important technique is now part of the Alberta school curriculum. This is a win-win program for the community, and I want to commend all involved.

On a personal note, I would like to announce the safe arrival this morning at 4:30 Mountain Daylight Time of my very first grandchild, and congratulate my daughter Dalene and her husband Andy who have made us very proud.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on Bill C-28 Canadian Alliance members will be voting no.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members vote no to the motion.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the name of the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan recorded with the Canadian Alliance on that last vote.

[Petitions, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present from several constituents on the issue of child pornography. The petitioners call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps so that all materials that promote or glorify pedophilia are eliminated.

[Petitions, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, other petitioners have concerns with the definition of marriage. They want to make sure that the House of Commons maintains the present term of marriage, which is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Petitions, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to revert to petitions. I have a petition signed by several hundred of my constituents in Wetaskiwin. They are concerned that the adoption of the explicit protection of homosexuals under Bill C-250 would imperil their religious freedoms. I would like to present that petition on their behalf.