Ralph Goodale

[Business of the House, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I know there is a general interest in the House regarding Bill C-15, an act dealing with agricultural cash advances. There have been some consultations about how the legislation might be expedited and perhaps some progress in those consultations, although I know when we get into these kinds of discussions, there are various caveats, conditions and trade-offs that are attached to the deliberations.

Due to the pressing circumstances that many farmers are facing and because the legislation may alleviate some of those pressures, at least in the short run, I wonder if hon. members could agree by unanimous consent, without attaching trade-offs, conditions and other issues that relate to other House business, to proceed with Bill C-15, to deal with it at all stages, and to send it on its way to the Senate for it to be dealt with there.

I do not think there is any dispute about the substance of the legislation, but if we get into the business of attaching conditions about this bill, that bill or the other bill, I think we will be in a hopeless morass.

I wonder if there is a will in the House, in the interests of farmers, to simply dispose of Bill C-15 right now, get it done, get it off to the Senate, and hopefully farmers can benefit from that legislation at the earliest possible date rather than making it conditional on a whole bunch of other things.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in dealing with public policy issues, issues which touch people's lives in very intimate ways, the building of ongoing effective relationships is crucial. Relationships between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples are often particularly delicate and also particularly essential.

By appearing to walk away from such an initiatives as the Kelowna accord, the federal government's relationships with aboriginal Canadians have been damaged.

When the court hearings resume on June 16 with respect to Caledonia, what will the Government of Canada specifically propose to begin rebuilding the relationships in this dispute, which have obviously been so badly damaged?

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario judge, Justice Marshall, is obviously deeply concerned about Caledonia. He obviously believes the involvement of the Government of Canada is indispensable and that the government's involvement so far has been inadequate. It is also clear that Justice Marshall thinks the situation is urgent.

Within the two week timeframe now identified by the Ontario Superior Court, what specific ideas or initiatives will the Government of Canada bring forward and, failing that detail today, what is the process by which the federal input will be developed and exactly when?

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are deeply troubled by the ongoing conflict about land related issues in the Caledonia district of Ontario.

Yesterday, the Ontario Superior Court judge seized with this matter, Justice Marshall, took the extraordinary step of convening a hearing on his own and specifically asked for the presence and participation of the Government of Canada within two weeks.

I understand that the Minister of Indian Affairs said he will cooperate with the court. Could I ask the minister, does that explicitly mean that he will comply with Justice Marshall's invitation, and who will be representing the Government of Canada in court on June 16?

[Points of Order, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, with the House's indulgence, a point of order was raised earlier this afternoon concerning the tabling of some documents.

I have had the opportunity to consult with the government House leader and I believe I have his consent and an invitation from the Speaker to table some documents further in reference to Bill C-292, the private member's bill standing in the name of the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

With the consent of all hon. members and for the information of the House, I am happy now to table, courtesy of the website of the Government of Canada and the Library of Parliament, the documents pertaining to the Kelowna accords, which were referred to earlier today in this House, and I am prepared to now lay them on the table, in both official languages.

[Points of Order, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this is an extraordinarily serious topic and I am glad the House has an opportunity to discuss it.

I must say that I am surprised by the intervention of the government House leader, first, because the government's argument today shows profound disrespect toward Canada's aboriginal peoples, and second, because it shows amazing disrespect for the office of the Speaker of this Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, you have already ruled on this issue many times, including barely one hour ago. The Speaker's ruling on that occasion earlier today and on many other occasions is quite clear. It reflects the view that is reported in Marleau and Montpetit at pages 711 and 712. Let me put those words on the record:

...since the rule change of 1994, private Members' bills involving the spending of public money have been allowed to be introduced and to proceed through the legislative process, on the assumption that a royal recommendation would be submitted by a Minister of the Crown before the bill was to be read a third time and passed. If a royal recommendation were not produced by the time the House was ready to decide on the motion for third reading of the bill, the Speaker would have to stop the proceedings and rule the bill out of order.

Assuming the argument that the government House leader is putting forward has some validity to it, which I do not accept but deny, it would seem to me, in the words of Marleau and Montpetit, that the normal process would be to allow the House to debate this matter in the ordinary course of events until it came to third reading. We would then see if by that time the government has brought forward the appropriate royal recommendations. If so, the matter can proceed to a conclusion but if not, that is the time when this item could be dealt with, but certainly not now and not in this way.

The government House leader's point, it seems to me, is not justified. The procedures of this House are not being infringed by Bill C-292 standing in the name of the right hon. member for LaSalle--Émard.

I want to make another point that relates to the rest of the argument advanced by the government House leader. Royal recommendations are required to accompany new proposals for new spending. The money required to implement the Kelowna accords is not new. Let me just take about two or three minutes to clarify these particular points.

As the federal minister of finance at the time of the Kelowna first ministers' meeting involving the then prime minister, provincial and territorial premiers and the leaders of five national aboriginal organizations, I can confirm that as of that meeting, specifically November 24, 2005, the fiscal framework of the Government of Canada included a total of $5.096 billion to address obligations arising from what became known as the Kelowna accord.

The Kelowna meeting was the culmination of more than 18 months of hard work led by the former prime minister, in collaboration with aboriginal organizations and all provincial and territorial governments, to put together a serious plan to bridge unacceptable socio-economic gaps between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians. The resulting accords focused on issues related to health, education, housing and water, economic development and governance.

In the government's 2005 economic and fiscal update, which was issued on November 14, the importance of the then upcoming Kelowna meeting was specifically mentioned, together with an undertaking to provide the needed funding. I would point out, with respect to the fiscal update, that there was more than enough unused fiscal room in the framework at that time to accommodate the expected sum. When the Kelowna meeting actually took place about 10 days later, the money was booked in the amount of $5.096 billion.

It is interesting that the fiscal treatment of the Kelowna accords was quite similar to how we handled another important issue at that time which was the special federal funding of $755 million to help the grain and oilseed producers in the farm sector. In both cases, formal announcements were not ready to be made at the time of the November 14 fiscal update but both were signalled specifically in that update and flexibility was built into our framework to cover the anticipated expenses.

By November 24, both initiatives were ready to go, both announcements were made and the money for both was booked.

I am very pleased that the government has proceeded with our $755 million commitment to help farmers. That is the right thing to do. In that same spirit, it is also important for the government to follow through on the parallel commitment to aboriginal peoples and deliver the funding that was most certainly set aside for this compelling purpose on November 24 of last year.

It is interesting to note that at Kelowna the now Minister of Indian Affairs was personally present in the room and applauded the result that was arrived at by the discussions in Kelowna. It seems to me terribly unfortunate that the government continues to devote extraordinary time, effort and energy to denigrating the efforts of previous governments and previous parliaments.

Since all of that there has been an election, a Speech from the Throne, a surplus of $12 billion and a budget. It seems to me that it is time for the government to quit blaming the past and to start governing for the future for a change.

[Business of the House, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader if he could inform the House of his plans for House business for the rest of this week and all of next week.

I would ask him specifically if he could confirm the government's agreement to our suggestion that the House should deal with Bill C-15 on agricultural cash advances by consent at all stages in no more than one hour tomorrow and then send that bill immediately to the Senate for speedy consideration there.

[Points of Order, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In light of comments made today in question period, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the testimony of officials from the Department of Finance delivered on May 10, 2006 and recorded in the minutes of the House of Commons finance committee. Those officials indicate very clearly that approximately $5 billion for the Kelowna accord was in fact contained in the surplus figures identified in the November 14, 2005 fiscal update of the Government of Canada.

[Business of the House, May 17th, 2006]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, because of the unusual events of tomorrow, the Thursday question becomes the Wednesday question.

I wonder if the government House leader would indicate what his work program is through the rest of this week and the full week after the Victoria Day break?

I also wonder, while he is on his feet, if he could advise us if the Prime Minister will be tabling in the House the document, clearly a cabinet document, that he was reading from and quoting from directly at 2:38 p.m. this afternoon?

[Points of Order, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I think this is an important issue. I wonder if the minister would take this opportunity to indicate if there is a new process available for passport administration, where, without any requirement for personal appearances at passport offices, members of Parliament may deliver documents on behalf of their constituents in person to the minister for direct processing by the minister where those passports originate from remote locations or in emergency circumstances. If that is in fact a new administrative procedure, it could be very helpful.