Geoff Regan

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 230 and 234 could be made orders for return, the returns would be tabled immediately.

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

[Government Response to Petitions, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 20 petitions.

[*Question No. 241, September 15th, 2003]

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

[Starred Questions, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 241. I ask that the answer to Question No. 241 be printed in Hansard as if read.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 204, supplementary, 229 and 240 could be made orders for return, the returns would be tabled immediately.

[Question No. 206, September 15th, 2003]

I am informed as follows:

Finance Canada

The air transportation industry is under pressure globally. The events of 9/11 exacerbated a weak air market caused by a slowdown in global growth. The war in Iraq and the SARS outbreak intensified these challenges.

In the budget presented to the House of Commons on February 18, 2003, the government reduced the air travellers security charge for air travel within Canada from $12 to $7 for one way travel and from $24 to $14 for round trip travel. This represents a reduction of more than 40 per cent that will benefit all domestic travellers in Canada.

To help the tourism industry, the government committed $20 million to promote Canada as a business and leisure travel destination. The federal government is also working with the tourism industry and provinces to promote Canada. The government continues to review carefully the policy underpinnings for a safe, reliable and viable air transportation industry for Canada.

I am informed by Transport Canadaas follows:

The government has taken, and continues to take, the necessary action to stabilize the industry in the long term interest of travellers and airlines alike. For example, after the events of September 11, 2001, the federal government created a fund to compensate carriers for revenues that were lost during the closure of Canada’s airspace. Later, a number of carriers received funds to reinforce cockpit doors to promote safety and security. Air carriers also continue to benefit from relief from insurance costs since the government is still providing coverage for war risk insurance.

Furthermore, in March 2003 the government introduced Bill C-27, the new Canada Airports Act, that will provide airlines with more input into fees charged by airports. The government is also undertaking a review of airport rents, since those rents directly affect the amount charged by airport operators to airlines using the airport.

The government is also assessing recommendations with respect to relief for the industry made recently by the Standing Committee on Transport.

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 36, 205, 206, 207, 214, 223, 231, 232, 234, 237 and 244.

[Government Response to Petitions, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 100 petitions.

[Order in Council Appointments, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made recently by the government.

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to talk about the work done by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on Bill C-34, which provides for an independent ethics commissioner who is to report to Parliament.

I would like to thank the members of the committee for the zeal with which they tackled Bill C-34, which they began studying as draft legislation last year.

Bill C-34 was sent back to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs before second reading. The Standing Committee reported back to the House of Commons with an amendment.

This amendment would add a provision requiring the Prime Minister to establish ethics principles, rules and obligations for public office holders and to table them in each House of Parliament within 30 sitting days after coming into power.

Any subsequent change to these ethics rules would have to be tabled in Parliament within fifteen sitting days of being made by the Prime Minister.

The government in 1994 established and made public a conflict of interest code for public office holders shortly after entering office, so this is a practice that predates the current bill. Nevertheless, the amendment makes it clear that future prime ministers will have this obligation within a specific timeframe.

I want to turn now to the report stage motion tabled by the member for Windsor—St. Clair, which proposes the deletion of clause 38 of the bill. Clause 38 is a coordinating amendment of the definitions found in the Federal Courts Act, which ensure that the institution of Parliament is not subject to judicial review by the Federal Court. This is consistent with Parliament's long-standing privileges. Clause 38 amends subsection 2(2) of the Federal Courts Act by adding references to both the ethics commissioner and the Senate ethics officer in order to exclude these officers from being subject to judicial review by the Federal Court.

During committee examination of Bill C-34, parliamentarians were clear: they want Parliament, not the courts, to administer and enforce their own ethical codes, as has always been the case. I would add that Bill C-34 contains other provisions to ensure that both the ethics commissioner and the Senate ethics officer are able to perform their functions fully and independently as officers of Parliament. These provisions include express recognition that both officers enjoy the privileges and immunities of the House and Senate respectively in carrying out their duties and functions, and express recognition that the bill does not in any way limit the powers, privileges, rights and immunities of Parliament or its members. These privileges include freedom from scrutiny by the courts in matters relating to the conduct of members of either House. These provisions are based on the principle that Parliament regulates its own affairs. This is a long-standing parliamentary tradition and privilege, which is critical to the effective functioning of Parliament and its members.

The proposed amendment to Bill C-34 by the member for Windsor—St. Clair is inconsistent with this approach. The government does not support the amendment because it could provide a basis for arguing that the Federal Court can review the activities of the ethics commissioner in relation to the conduct of members of Parliament. The amendment is inconsistent with other provisions of the bill that provide for the ethics commissioner to have the same privileges as Parliament and the amendment is contrary to the views of the House and Senate committees that reviewed the draft bill. Accordingly, I would ask members of this House not to support this amendment.