Ralph Goodale

[Business of the House, March 29th, 2007]

Yes, fixed date elections. There is a royal assent this afternoon. I asked earlier today in the House whether or not the government would make it possible for Bill C-16 to be approved at all remaining stages in the House and put on the list for royal assent this afternoon.

Obviously the Liberal Party is prepared to agree with that. I understand the Bloc has already given consent. It only remains for the government and the NDP to consent. I see the deputy House leader for the NDP nodding his head, so it would appear that the only thing standing in the way at this moment is the government House leader.

I wonder if he could agree to move on Bill C-16, give it the necessary unanimous consent and put it on the list for royal assent this afternoon. Fixed election dates would then be a reality.

Secondly, Bill C-29, the bill dealing with the application of official languages with respect to Air Canada, has not appeared on the business list for the government yet, and I wonder when the government House leader intends to call Bill C-29.

Finally, when will the government table the exact mandate and the exact legal authority given today to some unnamed individual to investigate the trouble in the RCMP? When will we have the tabling of the mandate and the legal authority under which the government is acting?

[Business of the House, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the business of the House, I wonder if the government House leader would be good enough to inform us of what his plans are for the rest of this week and also for the first week that the House will return after the Easter break, that is, the week beginning April 16.

Specifically, I wonder if he could provide us with information on three particular points.

First, yesterday we received back from the Senate Bill C-16, having to do with--

[Business of the House, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before we get to petitions, I wonder if I might ask the Chief Government Whip about the government's plans with respect to Bill C-16.

It arrived back from the Senate last evening, I believe, with one technical amendment. Since there is already a royal assent scheduled for later today, I wonder if the government would consider moving Bill C-16 through to its final conclusion in the House quickly, before the time of the royal assent, so that Bill C-16 could be included on the list for royal assent today. It is my understanding that the amendment is a very technical one that probably can be agreed to very quickly. I just wonder if the government has that issue under advisement.

[Business of the House, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader would be kind enough to indicate to us his business plan to carry through for the next week right up until the Easter break.

Specifically in that report, I wonder if he could indicate his plan with respect to what was Bill C-55 and is now Bill C-47. Opposition House leaders have been asking about this bill for some time now. We have been asking for a report from the Minister of Labour as to exactly what is wrong with Bill C-47 and how the Minister of Labour proposes to correct it. The minister made some favourable comments in question period a few moments ago, so I wonder if the House leader could indicate if we will see that bill in the properly revised form within the course of the next 10 days.

Second, I wonder if the minister could tell us about Bill C-16, the bill dealing with the timing of election dates. I understand that is subject to a technical amendment in the other place today. I wonder if the government House leader would give us the assurance that the unelected Conservative senators in the other place will not delay that bill. Perhaps we could deal with it tomorrow or at the beginning of next week.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the first point in the budget documents, not the second or third point, says that there will be a cap. And, as Premier Calvert has pointed out, as the Conservative opposition leader in Saskatchewan has pointed out and as every journalist in the province has pointed out, that cap means that the full exclusion of non-renewable natural resources will never be achieved.

The government gives with one hand and puts a lid on it with the other. The fact is that Saskatchewan does not get and will not get what the Prime Minister, the former leader of the opposition and the Conservative Party, promised to Saskatchewan.

The problem here is that the Prime Minister deliberately left the impression that Saskatchewan would be getting $800 million a year. That is what Conservative campaign literature in Saskatchewan said and that is not what the government or this budget has delivered.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the economy of Saskatchewan. I am very proud of the investments the previous Liberal government made that helped the province of Saskatchewan to create that buoyant economic situation.

The issue here is not about the fine points of the equalization formula. Let us be clear about that. The issue here is that the Prime Minister made a promise and he did not say that promise was capped. He made a promise that Saskatchewan would see the full removal of non-renewable natural resources from the formula and that the benefit to Saskatchewan, given the high price of resources like oil and gas right now, would net back to Saskatchewan a benefit in the neighbourhood of $800 million per year.

The issue is not how one structures the equalization formula. The issue has become that the Prime Minister made a promise. Whether that promise was a wise one, a foolish one, a complicated one or a simple one, the fact is that he made a promise and that promise has been broken. Never once in the Conservative vocabulary did the word “cap” appear until it was published in the budget three days ago.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte.

I am pleased to participate today in this discussion about Canada's equalization system, the way that the government has changed it and the deep concern in both Atlantic Canada and western Canada that the Prime Minister has failed to keep his word.

At least five provinces are upset. The Conservative budget is proving to be controversial and deeply divisive in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

The details of equalization vary across the country. It is a complex system with 1,432 moving parts and all of those parts fluctuate and change over a four year time span during which fiscal results in 13 different jurisdictions are measured and compared.

Reasonable people with different points of view can obviously have legitimate arguments about what formula is the best, but what cannot be argued, what is beyond all doubt, is that the Conservatives made a huge, specific equalization promise to buy votes in Saskatchewan in the 2005-06 campaign, and that promise, as of the budget, has been broken.

Saskatchewan firmly believes that it has been lied to. So says the NDP government of Saskatchewan. So says the Saskatchewan Party, that would be the Conservative Party, the official opposition. So says every reporter, every columnist sand every journalist who has covered this story in Saskatchewan.

They differ on whether the promise was a smart one to make in the first place. Some of them argue that the promise was foolish or misguided to begin with. However, Saskatchewan is unanimous that the promise was in fact made and that it has in fact been broken. The issue in Saskatchewan has now changed. It is no longer a narrow debate about the fine points of equalization. It is now a more serious debate, a lament really, about not being able to trust the government, not being able to believe, in particular, the Prime Minister.

The Conservative position, at least as it then was, was laid out in the House exactly two years ago today, on March 22, 2005. That day was designated as an opposition day, just like this day, and the Conservatives moved on that opposition day motion calling for the full exclusion of non-renewable natural resources from the equalization formula. The debate makes fascinating reading. I have it with me.

The Conservatives from Saskatchewan all joined in, one after the other after the other. The member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, the member for Prince Albert, the members for Yorkton—Melville, for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, the members for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, for Battlefords—Lloydminster, for Blackstrap, for Saskatoon—Humboldt, the members for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, for Souris—Moose Mountain and even the previous Conservative member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

I would note that only the members for Palliser and Regina—Qu'Appelle missed that debate two years ago today but they quickly joined in the clamour a few days later.

They all called for non-renewable natural resources to be removed, not just a little bit but 100%, from the equalization formula and those Conservatives were good enough to calculate exactly what that would mean in dollars for Saskatchewan. They did not leave it as an abstract matter of some formula. They put a dollar figure on it: $800 million per year, every year for Saskatchewan. That is what they told the people of Saskatchewan. It was in their speeches. It was in their election campaign material. It was everywhere.

The Prime Minister repeated the promise. He went on television about the promise. Election ads were run about the promise. It was clear, unequivocal and undeniable that the Conservatives would fully remove non-renewable natural resources from the equalization formula and Saskatchewan would thereby get an extra $800 million every year.

If we look through all of that documentation, all the debate from two years ago, the full Hansard record on several occasions since, all the election advertising, all those brochures, all those letters and correspondence and all the speeches, never once does that little word “cap” appear, never once does it come up in the Conservative vocabulary until the budget of 2007.

That is where and that is how the Conservative government has broken its solemn promise to Saskatchewan. It drove a stake through the heart of its promise. It drove a stake through the heart of its integrity. The Conservatives betrayed Saskatchewan because the cap they have imposed on Saskatchewan's fiscal capacity means non-renewable natural resources will never be fully excluded from the formula. Saskatchewan will never get that promised, I repeat the word “promised”, $800 million per year, $800 million from equalization alone.

What is in the budget, and I have read it with a great deal of care, is the rather paltry sum of $226 million for Saskatchewan for equalization and that amount is not ongoing. It is there once this year, probably an election year, and if we look to next year it is gone. The budget shows for next year in that column a great big zero.

This is an absolute fraud on the people of Saskatchewan and especially so when we consider that last year's Conservative budget dug a deep financial hole for the province of Saskatchewan. Far from making the fiscal situation in Saskatchewan any better, the Conservative government last year made it worse: $105 million over four years was taken away from early learning and child care; $110 million over four years was taken away from labour market partnerships for workplace training; $130 million was taken away from financial aid for students seeking higher education; $80 million was taken away from the prairie grain roads program; $50 million was taken away from the innovation agenda. The loss in aboriginal programs and services was likely in the order of about $650 million over four years. That list goes on.

If we add that all together, the accumulated losses imposed on the Saskatchewan government and the Saskatchewan people by the Conservative government and its negative decisions in the past 14 months, the tally of the losses exceeds now $1 billion over four years, which is more than $250 million on average per year. That is the annual loss and it is an ongoing loss.

Saskatchewan, in light of that, will not be placated by a one time capped payment of $226 million. Neither will Saskatchewan be fooled by this flim-flam, this con job, that somehow it is gaining by other means some $878 million. The most recent spin from Saskatchewan Conservative MPs is that this budget gives Saskatchewan $878 million. It is just not true. It is just more Conservative deception, false promises, concocted figures, everything, including the kitchen sink and the toilet, thrown together to tell a tale but not the truth.

Their arithmetic includes a great deal of one-off, one time funding that is here today, gone tomorrow and is not ongoing on an annual basis. It includes some speculative projects that have not yet been approved by independent granting agencies that make the decisions, not the government according to the Auditor General. It even includes personal tax relief projections as if that is somehow an intergovernmental transfer of funding, and it is clearly not.

The Conservatives fail to mention that virtually all that tax relief has already been offset, cancelled out already, by the personal income tax increases imposed by the government last year. They give with one hand what they have already taken away with the other. For all Canadians nationally, it is a new ongoing personal income tax burden of $1.4 billion in effect since last July.

On the overall question of transfer payments, using the government's own figures as published in the budget, over the next five years the government is taking away about $10 billion from the provinces and is only giving back $11 billion. If we take away $10 billion and give back $11 billion, it is no wonder--

[Points of Order, March 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when I was on my feet earlier in this discussion, I indicated that there were precedents for motions of the genre that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine has proposed.

I noticed in the course of his remarks the House leader for the Bloc made reference to one of those precedents, which was the same one that I had in mind, and I have since been able to find the exact reference. It appears in the Journals of the House of Commons for Tuesday, November 5, 2002. There was a motion put forward, interestingly enough moved by a member of the Conservative Party and seconded by a member of the New Democratic Party to change the Standing Orders of the House in that particular case dealing with the election of committee chairs.

The point is this. Like that motion from two or three years ago, the motion which we hope will be before the House tomorrow is a motion that proposes to change certain procedures under Standing Orders. That is the nature of what is being proposed, just as was the motion of a few years ago.

One might logically ask, what is more normal or natural for Parliament to do than to deal with its own procedures and Standing Orders in order to expedite the public business of the country? That surely is a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada.

The government House leader has tried to circumscribe those words to say they mean something less than a plain, common sense meaning of those words would conclude. We should bear in mind what the words themselves say without circumscription; they say “any matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada”. That open and broad interpretation is confirmed, indeed, by Marleau and Montpetit and there are precedents, including the one to which I have just referred, which indicate that Parliament before has taken the kind of action on an opposition motion on an opposition day as that proposed for tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I would also point out that in 2005, when the party that is now the government was the opposition, there were a number of motions on the order paper standing in the name of the Conservative Party that proposed similar types of action. We would have to check the record to see if any of them actually proceeded at that time because there was a long list of various measures put on the order paper, but the important thing to note is that those proposals made by the Conservative Party at that time were of a very similar nature to the kind of proposal that we are discussing.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would make the point that once you have given this matter thorough reflection, you should in our view conclude, and we hope you will conclude, that the motion in the name of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is perfectly in order and the debate tomorrow should proceed as scheduled.

[Points of Order, March 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the point of order raised by the government House leader.

I will make two specific references and then cite one historical precedent that I hope will help the Chair come to the conclusion that the point of order is not well based and in fact that the motion for tomorrow is perfectly in order and should proceed.

I first draw to your attention to Standing Order 81(13), which says:

Opposition motions on allotted days may be moved only by Members in opposition to the government and may relate to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada and also may be used for the purpose of considering reports from standing committees relating to the consideration of estimates therein.

The latter part of the citation is not relevant here, but I would underscore the language in paragraph 13, which says that the motions moved on allotted days “may relate to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada”. It seems to me that is very broad language. On a plain meaning of that language, it would appear to me perfectly evident that the subject matter raised by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is, in terms of its content, a matter that relates to the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada.

That point is reiterated in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Marleau and Montpetit, at page 724, when we find similar language:

Members in opposition to the government may propose motions for debate on any matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada, as well as on committee reports concerning Estimates.

That is found in the section of Marleau and Montpetit which refers to opposition motions.

Accordingly I think we have very clear evidence on the plain meaning of the words that are contained in Standing Order 81(13) and we have confirmation of that very plain language as it appears on page 724 of Marleau and Montpetit.

However, I also note that a matter relating to a procedural issue was, two Parliaments ago, moved on an opposition day, by the party that is now the government, objecting to this procedure. If the House could bear with me for a short time, I will find that precedent where in fact the official opposition, on an opposition day, used the occasion of one of those opposition days to propose a motion, which was at that time ruled perfectly in order, that is of the same genre as the motion that proposed today by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Accordingly, because the words in the standing order are crystal clear, because the language and that crystal clear interpretation is reiterated and made plain for us all by Marleau and Montpetit and because there is historical precedent two Parliaments ago for exactly this type of proceeding, I make the argument that in fact the motion is not out of order, it is perfectly in order, and that the debate tomorrow should proceed as planned. Should it be the good wisdom of the House that the motion is approved by a majority of members in the House by the end of the day tomorrow, we could see a terrific expedition of the agenda before the House related to justice matters.

[Points of Order, March 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be helpful here for the sake of clarity.

It seems to me that the proposition the government House leader is now making relates to the request of one by one by one for unanimous consent pertains to the four pieces of legislation. It would seem to me that whether this is necessary or not depends upon the Chair's ruling on the government House leader's point of order. He is making the proposition for unanimous consent because he has concerns, as expressed in his point of order, about the validity of the motion that is on the order paper for the opposition day tomorrow.

First, it would be useful for the Chair, either now or after some reasonable time for consultation, to make a ruling on the point of order and then we would have a better idea as to whether the items requiring unanimous consent are in fact necessary.