Derek Lee

[Committees Of The House, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if you would check the record, when I proposed the motion for the disposition of this matter without debate the House gave its consent and then I proposed it. If there was no concurrence, then that is another issue, but I did propose it.

[Committees Of The House, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership and the associate membership of the committees of the House.

If the House gives its consent, I would move concurrence in the first report without debate.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Greater Toronto Airport Authority, February 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Greater Toronto Airport Authority for its recent initiative in instituting a new ground transport taxi permit system at Toronto's Pearson International Airport. The GTAA has demonstrated industry leadership in developing a fairer system, which benefits the travelling public.

The new system lowers economic barriers to entry for new taxi drivers. The cost had exceeded $200,000 in the secondary market. The public will no longer have to bear the imputed cost of this entry capital. The number of licences issued will now match demand, and market sensitive fees will generate fair revenues for airport overheads.

I also thank the city of Mississauga mayor and council for working with the GTAA, allowing access by licence holders to city taxi permits on a restricted basis for use in connection with airport ground transport.

The public is now seeing better service and more efficiency at Toronto airport. We are excited by the future potential of our new airport terminal now being built by the hardworking Pearson airport team.

[Supply, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member opposite that there may be a profound misunderstanding, wilful or inadvertent, on the part of some members about what the ethics counsellor is or does.

I heard the hon. member refer to the ethics counsellor as an ethics commissioner. There is a very big difference. The opposition is clearly seeking someone who will be an enforcer, a policeman, a judge, someone who will do his or her job in enforcing a code of conduct or ethics. The ethics counsellor is none of those.

The ethics counsellor is a counsellor to those who are appointed, who are ministers, who are parliamentary secretaries, so that they can avoid the difficulties of conflict of interest and pre-empt difficult situations. That issue has been addressed back and forth today.

Let me put another issue to the hon. member. All of us in the House are busily holding forth on the issue of compliance with a code of conduct which would exist for ministers, for officeholders and for parliamentary secretaries. There is no code of conduct. For all of those here who are holding forth, there is no code of conduct for members of parliament. They are very willing to hoist upon the other officeholders a code of conduct, but not one element of a code of conduct applies to members in the House. That is business that we have to do.

Before we wax eloquent on what is missing in all of the other codes of conduct, I suggest we get our own House in order. I ask the member to comment on that.

[Supply, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for bringing the debate around to something a bit less over the top and more rational. I am very pleased to have a chance to comment on his remarks.

He made reference to the framework under which the ethics counsellor operates. Other speakers have questioned whether or not such a framework exists and suggested they could not find it. I have a copy obtained from the Internet this morning. The document is public and the rules under which the ethics counsellor operates are quite public and available. One could argue that those rules should be expanded, but in any event what is there is there and available for all to see.

The member opposite, and other members have also done this, moved from referring to an ethics counsellor to an ethics commissioner. There is a difference between the two. It is important to realize the distinction. The Liberal Party's commitment in 1993 was for an ethics counsellor.

I submit to members that this is not necessarily an ethics enforcer or an ethics policeman, but rather a counsellor who will counsel officeholders.

Does the member opposite not think there is at least room for disagreement here or misunderstanding? Office holders rely on a counsellor. We would not be as forthcoming to a policeman as we would a counsellor. The counselling function is very important. We may need a policeman, but a counsellor we have.

[Supply, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly speak to the procedural issue. I hope I can be helpful to the Chair.

The purpose of an amendment is to make an item under consideration more acceptable to the House. I submit that is what is intended by the subamendment. I would not view it as a wrecking amendment, and I hope the Chair would not view it as such.

The opposition has suggested that some political stuntery is involved in the subamendment. The opposition has proposed its own amendment by inserting an adverb or putting a new definition into the motion. The subamendment proposed by the government House leader merely changes the adverbial definer that was inserted in the amendment.

Standing Order 85 specifically authorizes and speaks to the issue of an amendment and subamendment to supply day motions. It is specifically authorized in Standing Order 85.

In terms of whether or not the government has done this before I regret I do not have a specific citation, but I am advised that the government has been offering amendments to supply day motions since the days of Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent back in the fifties. I am advised as well that it has occurred since 1993. In the next few moments a citation may find its way to the Chair. If I am wrong in that regard I apologize and stand corrected, but this is what I am informed.

I suggest the subamendment is certainly in order. It does not reverse, undermine, negate or denature the opposition motion dealing with a particular subject matter. I submit that it is in order. Some members in the House may find the subamendment refreshingly appropriate.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Petitions, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As we are still in routine proceedings, I wonder if there would be consent in the House to revert to introduction of private members' bills to deal with two items that members apparently wish to bring to the House?

[Motions For Papers, February 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.