John Reynolds

[Points of Order, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek clarification regarding a motion on the Notice Paper seeking to restore $266,201,000 to VIA Rail. As you are aware, we have not had to deal with this type of motion for a long time.

The motion is in response to the recommendations of the transport committee that the estimates of VIA Rail be reduced by $9 million. The motion would give effect to the transport minister's statement of disagreement with the transport committee's recommendation and his intention to restore the funds reduced by the committee.

I raise this matter because of our experience with the supply motions, with which we are more familiar, in particular, opposed items. Take, for example, the motion I have on the Order Paper. It is a notice of opposition to reduce Vote No. 1 under Justice by $100 million. This amount reflects the funds for the gun registry. The motion that we end up voting on is not my motion but a motion from the President of Treasury Board. The minister's motion is not a fair reflection of the funds I have targeted

The motion that the House will be asked to vote on is as follows:

June 5, 2003—The President of the Treasury Board—That Vote 1, in the amount of $433,972,000, under JUSTICE—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004, be concurred in.

Voting against the motion will wipe out half a billion dollars, which is a far cry from the $100 million I am after.

The point of order is not about the flaws of the process for opposed items but about the need to clarify the impact of voting against the motion to restore funds to VIA Rail.

The restoration motion reads as follows:

June 5, 2003—The President of the Treasury Board—That Vote 25, in the amount of $266,201,000, under TRANSPORT—Department—Payments to VIA Rail Inc. in the Main Estimates of the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004, less the amount voted in Interim Supply, be restored.

It would be interpreted by some members that a vote against this motion would mean that over $266 million would be voted down. This is the experience we would have with a negative vote to an opposed.

It is my understanding that a vote against restoration motions would result only in $9 million being removed from VIA Rail funds and that a vote for the motion would result in the $9 million being restored.

Put another way, and this is important, Mr. Speaker, a vote for the restoration motion is a vote dismissing the recommendation of the transport committee, a recommendation that was arrived at after careful and responsible consideration of the estimates by the committee. A vote against the restoration motion is a vote in support of the good work of the transport committee. Would that be your interpretation, Mr. Speaker?

I raise this because it is important that members are aware of the impact of their vote this Thursday. I would not want the government whip giving the impression to Liberal members that VIA Rail risks losing $266 million. All that is at risk is the $9 million, as recommended by the committee.

[Portuguese Canadians, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on May 13, 1953 the first officially recognized Portuguese immigrants arrived in Halifax on pier 21. This means that 2003 marks the 50th anniversary of official immigration from Portugal to Canada. I rise today to offer congratulations to the approximately 360,000 Canadians of Portuguese origin on Portugal's national day and to commemorate this historic occasion.

Portuguese Canadians have sewn a beautiful thread through the multicultural tapestry of Canadian society. Whether it is listening to the music of famous Portuguese Canadian Nelly Furtado or witnessing the achievements of the Portuguese Canadian Coalition for Better Education, it is clear the Portuguese Canadian community is thriving. On this historic day, I am honoured and pleased to congratulate the Portuguese community for 50 years of flourishing in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to represent my party and our leader at the luncheon you held today for the Prime Minister of Portugal. I say to other colleagues further down to my left that they should look at his political record and his willingness to lead a centre right coalition to form the government of Portugal.

[Question No. 235, June 4th, 2003]

Pertaining to the Commonwealth Day that took place Monday, March 10, 2003 and the 1.7 billion people in the Commonwealth countries, can the government please indicate the amount, in dollars, spent by it on all activities and undertakings in Canada to recognize this day and our membership in the Commonwealth, and what was the breakdown of the costs?

[Question No. 173, June 3rd, 2003]

Pertaining to the Commonwealth Day that took place Monday, March 10, 2003 and the 1.7 billion people from the Commonwealth countries, can the government please indicate the amount, in dollars, spent by the government on all activities and undertakings in Canada to recognize this day and our membership in the Commonwealth?

[Business of the House, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader if the plans for the government from now until June 20 are the same as he outlined at the House leaders' meeting earlier in the week, and do we plan to have any late night sittings so that we can meet the government's objective to complete all those bills between now and June 20?

[Petitions, May 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by hundreds of people from Vananda, Gillies Bay, Blubber Bay, Texada Island and Powell River in British Columbia.

The petitioners ask that Parliament request the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to prohibit the establishment of a planned fish farm located in Raven Bay, Texada in British Columbia.

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, many times in committee of the whole and in committees, the opposition, and the government many times in public accounts, challenges a ruling of the Chair. My party challenges the ruling of the Chair and we would like a vote on that.

[Privilege, May 27th, 2003]

To be very brief, Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has accused us in the House in the opposition of not doing our jobs by not asking the right questions on many issues. She makes a very good point sometimes and I think this is a very good point in case.

The House leader for the government said that we asked this question yesterday. We did not. It was not brought up. He talked about finality. It is very unclear that there is any finality. The minister has said that he will not appeal this to the Supreme Court.

We have talked about the word “deliberately”. If there was an inadvertent error in what the minister said, and I would certainly give him my trust that he was saying what he thought was correct in committee, as his officials may not have given him the right information, so if it is an inadvertent error that is one thing, but if it is not corrected it then becomes deliberate. That is all that I think some of the members of the House are saying: If there has been an inadvertent error here, let us not make it deliberate. Let us have the minister review his files overnight, maybe.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that as always you will take this under review and look at it. Maybe the minister could take this under review and look at what was said. If he could stand up in the House and say there was an inadvertent error and apologize for that, I am sure the House would be very satisfied, as would all Canadians.

[Question No. 177, May 27th, 2003]

For the past five years: ( a ) what is the total value of loans outstanding, in default and/or written off by the government with a breakdown for each department and crown corporation; ( b ) what is the total value of corporate loans outstanding, in default and/or written off by the government with a breakdown for each department and crown corporation; and ( c ) what is the total amount of individual loans outstanding, in default and/or written off by the government with a breakdown for each department and crown corporation?

(Return tabled).

[Question No. 174, May 26th, 2003]

Pertaining to the Francophonie Day that took place Thursday, March 20, 2003 and the 625 million people from francophonie countries, can the government please indicate the amount of money, in dollars, spent by the government on all activities and undertakings in Canada to recognize this day and our membership in the francophonie?