Paul Devillers

[Standing Orders And Procedure, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to comment on the motion on our standing orders, pursuant to S. O. 51(1).

I believe this is a worthwhile debate, even if some consider it a mere formality. The standing orders regulate almost every aspect of parliamentary procedure, and the legislative process could not function without them. Let us take the example of a debate that is still very fresh in our memories, and those of all Canadians, the flag flap. Without a concise set of standing orders, the House would find itself in a terrible mess from which no one would benefit.

In the time available to me I will not be able to address all questions surrounding the standing orders in any depth. I will therefore limit my comments to a few areas, and to some related issues of particular interest to me.

First I would like to turn to the issue of private members' bills, clearly a popular topic in today's debate. For many members, private members' bills are one of the most visible ways members can influence the debate of the House and reflect the particular concerns of their constituents. One current problem with private members' bills is the system of making bills votable or non-votable.

Currently a very limited number of private members' bills are deemed votable. This designation is decided unilaterally by a subcommittee of the House procedural committee. There is no appeal and no justification given for this decision.

The reasons for the designation of non-votable should be given to the MP sponsoring the bill. A right of appeal of the subcommittee's decision should be created. This right of appeal would be before the substantive committee most directly concerned by the subject matter of the bill. The committee would be asked to study the bill for a limited period of time to give the author of the bill a chance to present the problem and the context that gave rise to the legislation.

Without unduly tasking committee time this hearing would provide a more visible record of the myriad of concerns that members raise through private members' bills.

I understand that currently there is an examination of the legislative and procedural changes proposed in the last parliament by the House affairs and procedural committee. This report contained many suggestions designed to increase the number of private members' bills, to increase the number of bills that would be votable and to increase the number of those bills that could be adopted by the House.

As the government House leader mentioned in his presentation on this issue, any of these changes would require the House to perform the close scrutiny of private members' bills that currently occurs on government bills. It is clear that increased scrutiny would fall in many ways to committees. My suggestion about the right of appeal of votable designation would be a compromise between the present system and the proposals of the House affairs and procedural committee.

Committees and the House would not be overtaxed with frivolous legislation while private members' bills would get the hearing sponsoring MPs deserve and desire.

A related topic is the availability of legislative drafting counsel for private members' bills. Hon. members will be aware of the consternation expressed by some members during the previous parliament regarding the availability of legislative counsel for private members' bills. Essentially this problem arose as the private members' office lost legislative drafting advisers.

In my opinion the innovative project between the House and the legislative drafting masters program at the University of Ottawa should be attempted again. This kind of practical experience is essential for graduates. In addition, these students would provide an important service for members of parliament.

As lawyers, these masters students are well aware of the confidential relationship between the solicitor and their client. Furthermore, given the success of the policy in legal internships currently available to members' offices, I feel that a similar approach to legislative drafting would be welcome.

I would like to comment on the distinction to be made between bills that are financial in nature from those that are not. I feel, and I believe I am not the only one, that more and more private member's bills are financial in nature.

Subsequent to a reform to the standing orders in 1993, a member can, under certain circumstances, introduce a bill which involves public moneys, provide it obtains a royal recommendation before third reading. There is no provision, moreover, to prevent a member from introducing a bill which would reduce allocations of funds.

This raises matters of principle, however. The British parliamentary system has bequeathed us certain basic principles we have a duty to respect, including that of responsible government.

Canadians insist that their government be answerable to it for its decisions, particularly anything of a financial nature.

This can only be the case if we allow members of Parliament to introduce tax bills and if we pass these bills. We should probably review the related provisions of the standing orders, to ensure that the principle of government accountability is fully maintained.

Let me turn briefly to another issue that has been vigorously discussed in this parliament, that of electronic voting. Let me say from the outset that I do not support this initiative. Forcing all members to stand in their place and be counted is an important part of the job of a member of parliament. When sensitive issues are debated and decided members are forced to declare their vote or their lack of vote as the case may be. I feel strongly that electronic voting would remove some of the symbolic accountability from this place.

I have one last point before concluding. The standing orders provide that, during an opposition day, a member of the party tabling the opposition motion can amend the wording of the main motion. Since the standing orders also allow the member of the opposition party who begins the debate to share his or her time with another member, that second member has the first opportunity to propose an amendment to the wording of the motion.

However, this prevents any other member of the House from proposing an amendment to the main motion, and not only to the amendment to the motion. This procedural tactic is unfair, in my opinion, and the standing orders should be reviewed and amended accordingly.

I hope members of this House share my views on these issues relating to our rules. It is our responsibility to ensure the standing orders are as concise as possible, if this House is to operate effectively.

[Taxation, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the current oil spill preparedness and response regime was put in place by the previous government to supplement the Canadian Coast Guard's existing capacity to respond to a major oil spill anywhere in Canadian waters.

The hon. member can be assured that Canada's preparedness capacity has been significantly increased since the Nestucca and Exxon Valdez spills of 1989, with teams and equipment in place in all regions capable of responding to spills of up to 10,000 tonnes. That is more than 10 times the size of the Nestucca spill.

Further, in the event of a catastrophic spill, equipment and personnel would be moved in from other regions and from other countries to protect our marine environment.

The government strongly supports the principle that the potential polluter pays the cost of the preparedness system. This means that those who transport oil in Canadian waters must pay a fee to cover the cost of equipment and infrastructure that stand ready to combat a spill should one occur.

After extensive consultation, industry stakeholders agreed on the basic structure of a business based regime that would ensure that all potential polluters shared these costs.

Some major oil companies then invested approximately $50 million in response organizations in order to put this preparedness system in place. No other companies made that investment. However, all potential polluters have an obligation to pay their share of the system.

The gold panel made a number of sweeping recommendations on the governance of the regime along with a different approach for deriving fees. Taken as a whole these recommendations constitute a complete reworking of the existing regime.

The minister accepts the panel's concern but has an obligation to consult with the stakeholders who worked with the government in creating the regime rather than imposing the new system proposed by the panel. A decision by the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans on fees is now imminent.

Our goal is to create an integrated public and private sector system where prevention is encouraged, preparedness is required and the best possible response is available in all Canadian waters in the event of a spill.

[Taxation, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, scrapie is a naturally occurring disease that has been around for over 200 years.

The present scrapie program in Canada is one of the best in the world. It was launched in 1945. There is no known link between scrapie and human diseases. There is therefore no reason to alarm the public.

All animals that show clinical symptoms of scrapie or are felt to present a high risk of contracting the disease are ordered destroyed under the supervision of the Canada Food Inspection Agency. The carcasses of such animals are incinerated or buried.

Farmers are compensated for the animals ordered destroyed under the Health of Animals Act. In addition, recent amendments to the regulations now guarantee payment of compensation for the associated costs of disposal.

Compensation encourages owners to report diseases and to play an active role in the fight against them, as well as in the efforts to track down their origins. Responsibility for maintaining consumer confidence in access to international markets rests with farmers, the industry and the government.

Canada's scrapie program is recognized as one of the most rigorous in the world. We will continue to work closely with the industry to combat this disease.

[Simcoe North Francophone Community, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Semaine de la francophonie gives all Canadians the chance to celebrate French-speaking communities throughout Canada. My riding has a proud French-speaking community that is not afraid to take its future into its own hands.

Through perseverance and solidarity with other French-speaking communities and successive governments, this community in Simcoe North has been able to get the means and resources to secure its collective development and well-being. For example, the French-speaking people of Simcoe North have their own community radio station, literacy centre, schools, community centre and newspaper.

This community is always facing new challenges, but I am sure it will be up to the task thanks to the solidarity that exists among its members and among all of Canada's French-speaking communities.

Long live the French-speaking community in Simcoe North and long live the Canadian francophonie.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of brief questions to the member. He made reference to it being morally wrong for members to vote to prohibit the placing of flags on desks in the Chamber. My understanding is that in the G-7 there is not another legislature that permits individual flags at individual desks of members.

Why is it morally wrong for this legislature to follow what is generally the accepted practice in the legislatures around the world?

There are already flags beside the Speaker's chair. Many of us wear the Canadian flag pin on our clothing. I wonder why he feels there is a need for additional flags.

[Petitions, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition requests that parliament review the mandate of the CRTC and direct it to administer a new policy which will encourage the licensing of religious broadcasting.

[Petitions, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the standing orders of the House I present two petitions on behalf of 79 and 75 constituents respectively.

The first petition requests that parliament refrain from any action on the proposed changes to the old age security.

[Calgary Declaration, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government has always shown support for the provincial initiative undertaken in the Calgary declaration. The government remains prepared to support it.

The Calgary declaration is a declaration of principles that may or may not lead to constitutional action at a later time. At this point the federal government is happy that the provinces have been working on it. Most provinces are prepared to pass a resolution. We will be waiting to see the final result before taking action.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, this morning, the minister was following the practice of this House. Anything can be done with unanimous consent. It happens all the time, and it is not exceptional. The hon. member is impugning the minister's motives, but he could perfectly well do what he did under the rules of the House.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I want to remind the House that, this morning, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs proposed an amendment. The Chair ruled that amendment out of order. The minister then asked the unanimous consent of the House for his amendment to be accepted, but the House refused to give unanimous consent. I am not questioning the Chair's ruling, but these are the facts.