Jim Abbott

[Points of Order, November 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday in the other place a point of order was raised regarding the Kyoto motion that I believe must be raised in this House as well.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the motion in the Senate is identical to the motion before the House. While the Speaker in the Senate has reserved his decision, I do not think that should be a deterrent to raising it at this time, since the Senate Speaker's ruling, while we would of course consider it, is not binding on the House and in the past conflicting rulings on an identical matter have been brought down. Bill S-13 from the last Parliament comes to mind. The Senate Speaker ruled that it did not infringe on the financial privileges of the Commons and the Commons Speaker ruled that it did.

In any event, I hope the Senate Speaker rules before Françoise Ducros gets appointed there and becomes the Senate's next Speaker.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister appoints the Senate Speaker, another reason why we should be raising the matter here with our duly secret-ballot elected Speaker.

Having said that, I will go over the points made in the Senate and add a few more to those arguments.

Points were made regarding statements in the press that Parliament would ratify the Kyoto protocol and the statements were attributed to statements made by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister gave the impression that Parliament would ratify Kyoto, and the motion that we ended up with calls on the government to ratify.

Although this adds to the confusion over the issue, what is more important is that Senator Cools and Senator Kinsella argued that the government motion calling on the government to ratify the Kyoto protocol could not be considered a government motion. They argued that a motion that calls on the Senate to recommend something to the government could hardly be considered a government motion.

In our case, the motion calls on the House to recommend something to the government. That is the job of private members during private members' business and it is the job of opposition parties on supply days.

I would like to point out to the government that if it thinks that by passing a motion calling on itself to do something it will get action, I advise the government to check its own record in these matters. The government should know that it does not listen. The last NDP supply day is a perfect example. Our supply motion dealing with the conditions that must be met before Kyoto is ratified is another example. The government ignored those motions and many others like them.

Or maybe the government will comply only with motions that call on itself to act. The government does not mind telling itself what to do; the government just does not like it when others tell it what to do. I have some news for the government: the House speaks with one voice, and when it adopts a resolution the respect given to the motion should be the same no matter who sponsors the motion. Motions should not be judged by the colour of the sponsor's party banner but by the content of the motion adopted by the House.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you made a ruling in regard to the motion in the name of the right hon. member from Calgary. He had placed a motion on the Order Paper instructing a committee, asking it to determine the level of provincial support for Kyoto. The motion was listed to be moved under the rubric “Motions”. I suspect it was there because the member asked that it be placed there. However, Mr. Speaker, you ruled that it should properly be placed on the Order Paper as a private member's motion. As a result, its designation was changed and it was moved.

It is very important to get these things right, Mr. Speaker, because as you know there are different rules for different motions. The case of the motion from the right hon. gentleman is a good example. If the member's motion would have been allowed to be placed under “Motions”, it could have been moved as early as today at routine proceedings. Now that it is a private member's motion, the member will have to wait until his name is drawn in a lottery, and by the time that takes place Kyoto will have destroyed our economy.

This illustrates that the Speaker can decide these matters and it also illustrates what a difference a designation makes with respect to a motion.

One of the points made in the Senate was in regard to the Senate's rule of closure. The same argument can be made in the House. It is not a surprise that the Canadian Alliance will do whatever it can to prevent any ratification of the Kyoto protocol. With the government's record of using 80 closure motions, it is no surprise that it might use closure. In any event, the motion is eligible for closure and any motion that is closure worthy will be too irresistible for the government House leader to pass on his favourite pastime of moving closure.

Senator Kinsella pointed out the absurdity of the government asking the House to ask itself and then forcing the issue through closure of the government asking the House to ask itself. It is kind of a schizophrenic situation.

The government has many prerogatives that private members do not. It controls most of the business of the House. It can move certain motions and bills that private members cannot, like bills requiring royal recommendations. It can raise taxes through ways and means motions and it decides how the money is spent. Does it really need to be muscling in on private members' turf?

Does it need to beg itself to do something? While it is not always dignified, it is the role of private members and the opposition to beg the government. Maybe the Liberals see the writing on the wall and are already in opposition mode, calling on the government to take action. Maybe they have some internal polls they are not sharing with us.

Under the circumstances, I am tempted to recommend that this motion be moved to private members' business or be considered as a supply motion, but since it is sponsored by a cabinet minister it is disqualified. It is disqualified as a private member's motion, a supply motion and a government motion. To complete the set, I would argue that it cannot be moved as a motion under routine proceedings either because, as you have pointed out many times, Mr. Speaker, very few opportunities exist for private members' motions or motions of a private member's nature to be moved under the rubric “Motions”.

The fate of the motion, Government Business No. 9, should be that it be removed altogether from the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, I would also ask again for your considered opinion. Until you have given us a decision on this point of order and the other point of order, I would recommend for your consideration the actions of the Speaker in the other place, whereby he set aside the motion until he could come back with a decision as to the efficacy of moving forward with the motion at this time.

[Points of Order, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in light of that I wonder if it would not be wise to suspend debate until this decision has been made.

[Points of Order, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On Monday my leader raised three points of order concerning the motion of the government on the Order Paper and now currently being debated in which the House is being asked by the government to call upon it to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

I have some new information. The last point of order raised by my leader was with regard to the customary practice of the House that when such a resolution is brought to the House seeking the House's approval to the government ratifying a treaty, the government has to lay the text of the treaty itself before the House prior to any debate commencing on such a resolution.

In your ruling you noted that there had been, from both sides of the House, a “dearth of citations of Canadian practice in this regard”. On this point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to be able to bring those authorities to your attention. This will assist you and all hon. members in ensuring that this point of order has been fully canvassed and properly dealt with. In addition, Mr. Speaker, you indicated in your ruling that the British practice he cited to you would not apply “since we are not by this motion implementing this accord”. I would like to deal with the latter point first.

I of course agree with the Chair completely that the motion that is before us is not one to implement the treaty. Implementation can only be effected by legislation. What is being asked by this motion is that the House approve the government proceeding to ratification. However, the British practice my leader cited to you was precisely in relation to that sort of resolution: a practice in Britain whereby the executive would ask Parliament to approve the ratification of a treaty. That is precisely the type of resolution the government has brought forward by this motion on Kyoto. Such British practice is applicable, although the ultimate decision as to whether it should apply in this case, which I will deal with now, will be your decision. I did want, however, with all respect, to clarify that point.

In fact the tradition and practice of the executive bringing before the House a motion asking the House to approve the ratification of a treaty by the executive has a firm history and foundation with a precise procedure associated with it.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, up to the commencement of the first world war, in international relations Canada was less than a fully self-governing nation. Canada was still regarded as being part of the British Empire with treaty-making power continuing to vest in the British Crown on the advice of the British government and to be carried out on behalf of the entire empire. Therefore, treaty making was regarded as an empire-wide function.

Section 132 of the Constitution Act, 1867, in fact contemplated this empire treaty-making function by providing that the Parliament of Canada was given the legislative power to implement in Canada the terms of such empire treaties.

However, as a result of Canada's participation and the extreme sacrifice made by the members of the Canadian armed forces in the first world war, the then Canadian Prime Minister Robert Borden insisted that Canada sign the Versailles Treaty that ended the war as a separate signatory and not just as a colony within the British Empire. This resulted in Canada acquiring the capacity to enter into treaties in its own name. The legal power to do so became vested in the Canadian Crown acting on the advice of Canadian ministers.

Following on that development, the father of the modern Liberal Party, Prime Minister Mackenzie King, placed considerable emphasis on Parliament as the primary forum for debating and deciding on Canada's external affairs. For instance, on the question of overseas military involvement by Canada, King, in a debate in this House on February 1, 1923, declared:

It is for Parliament to decide whether or not we should participate in wars in different parts of the world, and it is neither right nor proper for any individual nor for any groups of individuals to take any step which in any way might limit the rights of Parliament in a matter which is of such great concern to all the people of our country.

This culminated in June 1926 with Prime Minister King moving a motion which was unanimously adopted by the House, the key part of which read:

--before His Majesty's Canadian minister's advise ratification of a treaty or convention affecting Canada...the approval of the parliament of Canada should be secured.

From this, the firm practice developed that major treaties before ratification were referred to Parliament with this device, the identical device being employed by the government by way of the motion before us.

In all of the cases that we have been able to ascertain so far when this practice was followed, before the House dealt with the motion the actual text of the treaty in question was tabled in the House.

This firm practice of tabling a treaty prior to debate on the motion was applied in the following cases: Treaty for the Renunciation of War in 1929; North Atlantic Treaty in 1949; Charter of the United Nations in 1945; treaties of peace with Italy, Romania, Hungary and Finland in 1947; and the Auto Pact in 1966.

I could cite more examples but this list is sufficient to show that this was the firm and customary practice of this House whenever the government sought such approval for the ratification of a treaty. It would appear that the Auto Pact I referred to was the last time a motion asking the House to call upon the government to ratify a treaty was utilized and the firm customary practice requiring that the text of the treaty be laid before the House prior to debate on the motion was followed. This clearly establishes this firm customary practice of this House when dealing with such motions as the one before us on Kyoto.

There is the other issue raised in this matter concerning the British practice that the Leader of the Opposition cited to the effect that part of the practice was to allow a period of time to expire between the time the text of the treaty was laid before the House and debate on the motion commence. In the specific cases cited, the treaty was laid before the House well in advance of the debate.

In the case of the North Atlantic treaty, it was tabled in the House by Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent, on March 18, 1949, with the debate taking place on April 4, 1949, 16 days later. In the case of the Charter of the United Nations, the text of the charter was tabled in the House on September 7, 1945, and debated in the House from October 16-19, 1945, nearly six weeks later. In the case of the peace treaties after the second world war, they were tabled February 10, 1947, and debated June 30, 1947, more than four months later. In the case of the Auto Pact, the text of the treaty was laid before the House on February 24, 1965 and not debated until May 6, 1966, a year and three months later.

The customary practice of the House has been to allow at least some reasonable period of time to occur before the debate on the motion would commence. My leader had cited the British practice of allowing 21 days and it was from this practice that the Canadian practice clearly evolved.

In any case, although perhaps no precise number of days are required to expire from the time the treaty is tabled to the time the motion on it can be debated, there is no doubt that some period of time has to expire.

The government has chosen to utilize the firm practice as originated by Prime Minister Mackenzie King in the 1920s. If it is going to utilize this procedure then it has to be required to follow the correct procedural preconditions before debate on such a motion can commence. The motion that is now being debated has not been properly brought to this House due to the failure to follow clear procedural steps governed by the customary practice of this House.

Given that debate has already commenced on the motion I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that you should accordingly suspend any further debate on the motion until the text of the Kyoto protocol has been properly laid before the House, and a reasonable time has expired between the time it is so tabled and the debate on the motion is allowed to resume.

[The Grey Cup, November 25th, 2002]

Congratulations, Montreal.

Mr. Speaker, the Montreal Alouettes were winners of the Grey Cup game played yesterday in Edmonton.

Both teams showed the kind of drive, determination and spontaneous action that is required to play our wonderful, unique Canadian Football League rules. The field of frozen grass had the traction of a skating rink and all players had to react to the true north Canadian challenge. Shania Twain's halftime appearance was in keeping with Edmonton in November, complete with parkas and gloves for the band.

The Canadian Football League is to be commended for a showcase this Grey Cup and the job it has done in filling seats and having people view the game on television this year. The CFL showed yesterday what a fine professional organization it is. The game yesterday was a complete sellout and a rousing celebration of our game and the culture that surrounds it, despite the sponsorship dollars that were shovelled in by the Liberals.

Our most profound congratulations go out to the Montreal Alouettes, the Edmonton Eskimos, and the people of Edmonton who once again showed through their hospitality and goodwill that Edmonton truly is the city of champions.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government tabled its latest Kyoto plan yesterday. The reworked numbers are unbelievable, not credible and totally unacceptable to all Canadians.

The provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland are upset. They want into this process.

Why is the government in such a rush to complete the Prime Minister's legacy? Why are we not abiding by the concept that this is a Confederation? These provinces do have equal status, believe it or not.

[Points of Order, November 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, along the same lines, now that we have learned that the Liberals plant questions, I wonder if the answers are the fertilizer.

[National Parks, November 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is considerable hostility between Parks Canada management and parks users. Property owners and lease holders providing services in our parks consistently state that the interests of environmental and native groups have considerably more weight with parks officials than do the concerns of parks users.

When is the government going to see Parks Canada as parks instead of exclusive preserves?

[Prime Minister of Canada, November 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, thoughtful Canadians are shocked as they watch the Prime Minister drive the House of Commons to the basement level of relevance.

He is using this great institution as his toy. In a fit of petulance the Prime Minister has advanced the prospect of a general election to regain control of his fractious backbench. The unmitigated arrogance of his cabinet knows no bounds. His labour minister said, “Could we win an election with this Prime Minister? Tomorrow morning we could, look at his record”.

Well let us look at his record. He has terminated debate, shut up members of Parliament, and treated Liberal backbenchers as mindless voting machines more often than any Prime Minister in the history of Canada.

Issues like Kyoto ratification and health care are on this Parliament's agenda, but I fear the rubber stamp he expects from us. The Prime Minister's petulant outburst is an embarrassment to all of us who take democracy seriously. He has lost control of his party and the moral authority to continue to govern.

Why does he not do the honourable thing and leave, now?

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to my leader I am interested in knowing if he is also aware of the speculation on what will happen when we have population growth. In other words, we are talking about capping at a level under 1990's well into the future.

I wonder if he would have any comment about the fact that obviously as we have a population increase in Canada, which we all hope for so that we end up with more economic activity, we will have more industrial and manufacturing activity. Therefore, I wonder if he would agree with the speculation that this would mean that as we add more people or as we try to add more to the economic value we are generating in Canada, we would have to do it at this capped level well into the future or at least until the Kyoto accord gets revised.

[National Parks, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, God has blessed Canada with some of the most magnificent scenery, environment and animals in the world. Our national park system is part of the preservation and protection of those wonderful assets. It is a shame that successive Liberal governments have presided over the demise of those parks. It has squeezed resources to the point that $375 million is needed just to bring them back to a minimum standard of facility and access.

Our parks have become preserves by default. They limit access of human beings because the roads are literally falling off the mountains. Campgrounds are becoming uninhabitable and businesses providing services for tourists are treated with breathtaking arrogance and disdain by the heritage minister.

Therefore, the promise of 10 new parks with an estimated cost of an additional $3 million to $500 million by the Prime Minister is mere sham window dressing and a joke.

Canadians will believe that the government is serious about the new parks when they see a rebuilding of relationships between top management and wardens and a return to adequate funding of the existing park system.