Dale Johnston

[The Environment, November 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health, who just happens to be the senior Liberal in Alberta, said:

...we must ensure that there is nothing, as we move forward to implement Kyoto, that in any way would undermine or impede the growth of projects like the oilsands--

It is too late, I am afraid. Husky Oil and Petro-Canada have already pulled back $5 billion in investment in western Canada alone.

If there was an implementation plan, why did she not share it before Lloydminster lost the Husky Oil upgrade?

[Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2002, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions amongst the parties. I think if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to dispose of this motion on division.

[Points of Order, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is in regard to the rule of anticipation with respect to the government motion on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

I would like to make the point of an argument made by the government House leader three weeks ago regarding a supply day motion dealing with secret ballot elections of a committee. He was arguing the rule of anticipation. It is an argument that I believe applies to the government motion asking the House to ratify Kyoto. The difference is that my points relate to the rule of anticipation and the government House leader's point dealing with the supply motion on secret ballot election at committees did not.

The government leader argued that the secret ballot motion could not be considered by the House because of the rule of anticipation. In that case we were faced with two motions dealing with secret ballot elections. In that case none of the motions had been decided yet by the House.

In the case I present to today we have a clear decision from October 24, 2002.

The government House leader quoted Marleau and Montpetit from page 476 dealing with the rule of anticipation and he said, “a motion could not anticipate a matter which was standing on the Order Paper for further discussion”. He failed to mention that at the top of page 476 it states that the rule of anticipation is no longer strictly observed with respect to two motions sitting on the order paper.

However the last paragraph on page 476 of Marleau and Montpetit states:

The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of.

That is the difference between the government House leader's flawed argument of October 31 when he tried to derail a Canadian Alliance supply motion and the two motions dealing with Kyoto. I am referring to the supply motion from October 24 and the government motion currently on the order paper today.

The supply motion from October 24 dealing with Kyoto was moved and disposed of. The House decided that it would not ratify the Kyoto protocol until there was a plan Canadians understood and that set out the costs and the benefits. The House cannot be seized with a second motion until those two conditions have been met.

The government House leader presented a Speaker's ruling on October 31 by Speaker James Jerome from November 14, 1975. I thank him for that ruling because it substantiates the point of my argument today.

The ruling involved an opposition day motion that was similar in subject matter, only the subject matter not the same text, to a bill that had received second reading and had been referred to a committee.

As I said, the government House leader has helped demonstrate the difference between the circumstances of October 31 and today. On October 31 no decision was taken. Today's circumstances are in line with the ruling he cited from November 14, 1975. The Speaker ruled that since a bill had received second reading the supply motion was out of order.

Here we have an identical scenario but in reverse. Since the opposition motion dealing with Kyoto from October 24 was adopted, the government motion dealing with Kyoto cannot be moved. I would like to add that the motion adopted on October 24 was adopted unanimously.

The question of confidence is not an issue. The government's motion however has been designated a motion of confidence by the Prime Minister. This poses a problem for the House because the October 24 resolution reflects the true will of the House.

Members freely determined that until certain conditions were met the House would not ratify the Kyoto protocol. Notwithstanding the fact that the conditions from the October 24 resolution were not met, the government has given notice of a motion to ratify the Kyoto protocol and the Prime Minister has declared the motion a motion of confidence.

As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Speaker, the McGrath committee of 1985 studied the confidence convention and it was concluded that only explicit motions of confidence, or matters central to the government's platform, should be treated as confidence. All references to confidence were expunged from the standing orders to regulate the functioning of Parliament.

The government motion calling for the ratification of the Kyoto protocol is not worded as a motion of confidence. It is only considered confidence because of the designation the Prime Minister gave it. This designation is an admission by the Prime Minister that the conditions contained in the resolution of October 24 have not been met. If they were, he would let the House determine on its own whether the conditions have been met. The Prime Minister is using coercive tactics to try to usurp a previous decision of the House, a decision that was brought about freely.

He is threatening the Liberal Party with political suicide if he does not get his way. Going into an election under his leadership and the Kyoto protocol as an election issue would reduce the Liberal Party to a rump in the House of Commons. I am having a hard time deciding whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.

The government motion deals with the Kyoto protocol. Dealing with that protocol is out of order.

With respect to the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and the word, “should”, the Oxford Dictionary , ninth edition, defines the word as, “to express a duty”. In other words, an obligation.

Mr. Speaker, I refer you to page 63 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May. It talks about the principles that govern the conduct of ministers of the crown in relationship to Parliament. It states, “ministers have a duty to Parliament”.

I think it is very clear that the government has a duty to Parliament. The motion of October 24 provided a duty and it failed to comply by introducing a motion to ratify the Kyoto protocol before there was a plan that Canadians understood. I do not think one Canadian in a thousand understands the Kyoto protocol. It also has not set targets, benefits and costs.

The other consideration is the fact that the motion is concerned with the House and not the government. I would think that the House would have more respect for itself than the government would care to have. The enforcer of the rights of the House is the Speaker, therefore the Speaker will have to decide if he has a duty or obligation not to allow the motion to ratify the Kyoto agreement to be put to the House.

We are talking about a resolution adopted by the House, not a shady deal written on a napkin. Mr. Speaker, I leave it with you.

[Petitions, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there are several hundred names on this child pornography petition. It calls upon the government to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

[Petitions, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners call upon the House to look into stem cell research for the treatment of Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, muscular dystrophy and spinal cord injury. The petitioners urge Parliament to support adult stem cell research to find cures and therapies necessary to treat those illnesses.

[Petitions, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.

In the first one the petitioners call upon the government to have a public inquiry to look into the relationship between the Liberal Party of Canada and some advertising agency with which it has had millions of dollars worth of dealings.

[Grain Transportation, November 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced a private member's bill that allows the labour minister to step in when the collective bargaining process at west coast ports bogs down and before costly work disruptions take place.

Since August 25, 650 grain handlers have been locked out at the port of Vancouver. At a time when western farmers are suffering through one of the worst droughts in Canadian history and one of the poorest harvest seasons, they are unable to move what little grain they managed to grow through the port of Vancouver.

If the government had passed final offer arbitration when I first presented the bill in 1996, this work stoppage could have been averted. It is time we had a permanent and fair resolution process that is removed from the whims of government.

The minister stands idly by while the reputation of Canada's largest port and the livelihood of 650 grain handlers hangs in the balance. Besides all of that, Canada's farmers deserve better.

[Final Offer Arbitration in Respect of West Coast Ports Operations Act, November 21st, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-312, an act to provide for the settlement of labour disputes affecting west coast ports by final offer arbitration.

Mr. Speaker, for quite some time now, since August 25 to be exact, 650 grain workers have been locked out of the port of Vancouver. Grain handlers have been working without a contract since January 1, 2001, nearly two years. Therefore, the bill would do something to alleviate that situation.

At a time when western Canadian farmers have suffered through one of the worst droughts in Canadian history and one of the poorest harvesting seasons when what they have managed to grow they have not been able to harvest, now they are trying to market some of their tough and damp grain through the Port of Vancouver but are unable to get it there and it is rotting in their bins. It is time something was done about this and my bill seeks to rectify that problem.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Points of Order, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we have just been notified of a Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage meeting to take place tomorrow at 3:30 p.m. On that point of order, this notice was sent out by the committees directorate advising of that meeting of Canadian Heritage without the required 48 hours' notice. The notice states that the order of the day is pursuant to Standing Order 106(1) and (2), election of the chair and vice-chairs.

As you well know, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 106(1) states in part that:

...the Clerk of the House shall convene a meeting of each standing committee whose membership is contained in that report for the purpose of electing a Chairman, provided that forty-eight hours' notice is given of any such meeting.

The heritage committee did meet this morning after 48 hours' notice, but failed to elect the chair and so dispersed.

As I mentioned earlier, a notice has now been sent to my office stating that a meeting has been rescheduled for tomorrow, which in my view is in violation of the 48 hours' notice provision. I have inquired with the clerk in charge of committees and the Clerk of the House, who state that the 48 hours' notice in their opinion is not required because it has been given earlier. To back up this point of view they cite one incident from the 35th Parliament involving the public accounts committee.

I submit that the one incident does not constitute a proper precedent. I submit the former clerk of the House said that “Often bad precedent does not make good practice”. I would submit also that this is the case here today, especially given that at the time of that incident both the official opposition and the third party in the House were brand new to this environment and did not have enough knowledge or experience to question the ruling made at that time. As Mr. Speaker will know, at that time there were some 205 of 295 newly elected members to the House.

I would therefore ask, Mr. Speaker, that you rescind this notice in favour of a new notice that respects the standing orders, particularly the 48 hours' notice.

[Government Contracts, November 1st, 2002]

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, since the public works minister admits he has no authority, I will ask the Deputy Prime Minister.

There seems to be a pattern here. The immigration minister has stayed at the Everest condo, denied it and then eventually had to come clean.

Why does the Deputy Prime Minister not save the immigration minister a lot of pain and just ask the ethics counsellor to investigate this and find out in fact whether the e-mail was correct or the minister's statement was correct?