House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 54% of the vote.
Minister Of Canadian Heritage June 14th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's question.
Ministers take part in fundraising activities just as the leader of that party takes part in fundraising activities. It is a normal part of the political process in this country to take part in fundraising activities.
Minister Of Canadian Heritage June 14th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I could ask the leader of the Reform Party in return why the hon. member cannot see that this is an open and transparent event because of the way the donations are reported according to the election law of Canada. Therefore what the hon. member is looking for is simply not there.
Motion To Adjourn June 12th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
Business Of The House June 9th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I should remind the hon. member that Bill C-68, the bill to which he refers, was debated for days and days in this House. It was then studied for weeks and weeks in committee.
The hon. member speaks of 100 amendments. Most of them are his party's amendments. I can ask why the amendments of his party were not proposed in the parliamentary committee, which is the normal time and place for amendments. Is the purpose of the hon. member at this time to use the device of proposing amendments simply to engage in what amounts to a filibuster? That is a question the majority of Canadians, who want this legislation, can validly ask the Reform Party, although the majority of Canadians who support this legislation already know the answer.
The hon. member should be aware that in our parliamentary system the other place still has to consider this measure. That is its right and duty under our Constitution. If the hon. member does not want to see this bill and its implementation delayed
even longer than the date provided for in the statute, and if he wants to have adequate time for its orderly and fair implementation, then rather than urging that there be further delay until the fall for the consideration of this bill in this House of Commons, he will be applauding our efforts to have it voted on before June 23.
In my view, this is a fair and reasonable step to make sure that the bill is not only law but is adopted and implemented in a fair and reasonable way to serve the overall public interest when it comes to protecting Canadians from improper and unlawful use of firearms, which the majority of Canadians indicate over and over again in public opinion polls that they want from this Parliament.
I am surprised that my hon. friend, interested as he says his party is in listening to people, refuses to listen to them on this important issue.
Business Of The House June 9th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, we ordinarily do not discuss before the House consultations we have with other parties outside the House with respect to the business of the House. Under the circumstances, I can only agree with what the hon. member has said.
We have shared this list or one very similar to it with opposition parties, not today in my speech for the first time but a number of days ago. We have sought co-operation-I point especially to the Reform Party-on working out the schedule to get this set of measures completed.
The attitude of the Reform Party speaks for itself as to the degree of co-operation it has offered. I would not like to say the degree of co-operation it has offered can be characterized by the word zilch because I am not sure the word zilch is parliamentary; if it is not, I will withdraw it. If it is all right I will leave it on the record and everybody will know what I mean.
It is quite correct that under the rules we could not move this motion for extended hours until today. There have been other occasions, I have been reminded by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, when efforts have been made to extend hours on individual measures, and opposition members, especially Reform members, have always blocked that. They could easily have had additional time to consider some of these measures individually in the past, and I am informed they blocked efforts to do this.
The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has raised some interesting points. I hope my comments have shed some light on these matters.
I further add that contrary to what was suggested by the leader of the Reform Party in some quite unwarranted remarks I saw reported in the press this morning, the date of June 23 is the date for the adjournment of the House for a summer break, which comes into place automatically under the rules of this House and has been part of the rules for some time. This should be borne in mind in assessing measures being taken to facilitate the business of the House in the days leading up to June 23.
Business Of The House June 9th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend would look at the list of bills I have mentioned, they are almost all bills that have already had extensive debate in this House and extensive consideration in committee. With respect to most of them we are only asking the House to move on the final stages of debate, report stage and third reading.
Why would the hon. member want to hold up for months more Bill C-45, to update our parole and corrections system? I thought that would be something the Reform Party would want to see in effect. Why is it backing down on something like this? This is the kind of thing we want to make progress on. We are providing extensive additional hours of debate.
There are some measures that we are simply asking to be the subject of motions and referred to committee for more detailed study. Almost without exception we are talking about measures that have already had very extensive debate in this House and in committee. We are only asking that the final stages of debate, report stage and third reading, be proceeded with. We have extensive additional hours, which we hope all members of the House will be willing to use to complete these stages.
That is the answer to my hon. friend's question. Again, I hope we will have his and his party's co-operation in making progress on these bills in the overall public interest.
Business Of The House June 9th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), I move:
That, commencing on June 12, 1995 and concluding on June 23, 1995, on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays the House shall continue to sit until 11.30 p.m. and, on Fridays until 5 p.m., for the purpose of considering Government Orders, provided that proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 shall, when applicable, be taken up between 11.30 p.m. and 12 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this motion is a normal proposal at this time of year. The standing orders anticipate that there will usually be a backlog of business before the House in June. Therefore, as part of what might be called a trade off in the rules which provide for an automatic summer adjournment beginning on June 23, there is a provision for an extension of sitting hours during the two weeks prior to that date, the intention being that the additional time be used to complete business that the public interest requires.
When the House resumed the session last September, there were five government bills on the Order Paper and seven in committee. Fifty-two more government bills have been introduced since that time. We have passed 34 of the bills and have made progress on 20 more, but we are now at that point of the parliamentary calendar when the rules I mentioned were designed to come into effect to facilitate a special effort to help complete the legislative agenda.
I should like to outline for the House the business the government would like to see done by June 23, which I repeat is the date of adjournment for the summer period specified by the rules.
It is our intention to seek completion of all remaining stages of Bill C-68, the firearms bill; Bill C-41, the sentencing legislation; Bill C-85, the parliamentary retiring allowances
bill; and Bill C-72, dealing with the defence of criminal intoxication.
We also will give similarly high priority to the completion of the debate on the motion for a special joint committee of the House and Senate to consider an update of a code of conduct for parliamentarians, that is, both members of Parliament and senators.
We also would consider it a high priority to deal with, if necessary, any messages from the Senate concerning Bill C-22 regarding Pearson airport and Bill C-69 concerning electoral boundaries.
There are a number of other bills to which it would be very much in the public interest for the House to give third reading before we adjourn on June 23. Some of these are bills which have an impact on the fiscal position of the government or on economic development for the country. These include: Bill C-70, amending the Income Tax Act; Bill C-82, regarding the Royal Canadian Mint; Bill C-86, concerning the Canadian Dairy Commission; Bill C-88, regarding the removal of internal trade barriers; Bill C-89, the CNR commercialization legislation; Bill C-91, regarding the business development bank; Bill C-92, regarding the Canadian Wheat Board; and Bill C-94, regarding the fuel additive MMT.
There is also an international commitment which Canada has for quick passage of Bill C-87 regarding chemical weapons.
In addition, there are a number of bills that have been before the House for some time which ought to have their report stage and third reading completed so they can be moved on to the Senate very soon. I am speaking about Bill C-45, to update our parole and corrections system; Bill C-52, reorganizing the Department of Public Works and Government Services; Bill C-54, concerning administration of the old age security and Canada pension plan systems; and Bill C-65, to reorganize or eliminate certain government agencies.
We would also like to send to the appropriate parliamentary committee for consideration before second reading two rather complicated bills, Bill C-62 regarding regulatory reform and Bill C-84 also concerning regulations.
This is a rather heavy legislative agenda. It is for this reason that we are proposing extensive additional sitting hours for the next two weeks, that is until June 23, the normal date of adjournment for the summer provided for to come into place automatically under the rules.
Our proposal is for the House to sit until 11.30 p.m. with an additional half hour for the adjournment debate Monday through Thursday, and until 5 p.m. on Friday. We have opted for later hours than in the past because of the heavy agenda, but we are prepared to be flexible on a day to day basis.
To conclude, I want to say accordingly it is our hope to be able to work with the opposition in the detailed scheduling of the business I have outlined with a view to serving the public interest, the interests of all Canadians. Therefore we seek the co-operation of all members of this House. I make special reference to the opposition parties in this effort.
I urge the House to support this motion. It is very much in the public interest that this motion be adopted and the legislative agenda I have outlined be completed.
Bill C-69 June 9th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the increase in seats that would come into effect, not just in the bill he is talking about but in the redistribution process that was interrupted by it, is provided for in a formula in the Constitution of Canada.
This government does not propose opening a new round of constitutional discussions. I am surprised my hon. friend wants to take up the time of the country with a new round of constitutional discussions. I am sure the people of Ontario and British Columbia would be most displeased and disheartened to learn that he does not want them to have fair representation in the Parliament of Canada.
Bill C-69 June 9th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in his question is reflecting adversely and unfairly on the work of members of this House who for the first time under the rules of parliamentary reform actually brought in and drafted a bill. Instead of his unwarranted criticism, he should be recognizing this good work and urging his friends in the Senate to respect the wishes of the elected people of this House and let this bill go through.
Aboriginal Affairs June 5th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, in this matter the RCMP is not acting on behalf of the federal government when it comes to enforcing an order of the courts in British Columbia. The RCMP is acting as the provincial police service pursuant to an agreement with the Government of British Columbia.
Therefore I again suggest to my hon. friend that he direct his question to the attorney general of British Columbia. I understand my hon. friend's concern about the matter, but it is not one under which the RCMP is acting under the direction of the federal government.