Ralph Goodale

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the matter in relation to the Coffin company was identified in the course of an internal audit that was inspired and undertaken by the department of public works itself. The general results of that audit have been on the website since October 2000.

There were remedial actions taken by both of my predecessors in this portfolio. As I indicated earlier to the Leader of the Opposition, I am considering now what further may be required.

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman will know, that request would involve a very considerable amount of paperwork. I would assure him of my personal commitment to transparency. I am very anxious for Canadians to be fully informed with respect to these matters. I will be very carefully examining what steps are necessary in order to accomplish that.

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give the hon. gentleman a precise answer to what he is inviting with respect to the advertising part of his question.

However, with respect to the sponsorship issue, unless and until I am satisfied that the program criteria are correct and that each and every project in fact meets those criteria, I will be making no further approvals.

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is no information before me at the present time that would lead me to the conclusion that the Leader of the Opposition invites.

However I want to assure him sincerely that the matter is under a very active review by me. If such circumstances should arise, he can be assured that the appropriate action will be taken forthwith.

[Business of the House, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we shall continue this afternoon with the debate on the opposition motion. Tomorrow, we will return to Bill C-56, respecting reproductive technologies, followed by Bill C-55, the public safety bill, and Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments. On Monday, we will continue consideration of these bills.

Tuesday will be an allotted day. In the evening on Tuesday, as the House already knows, we will sit in committee of the whole pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a) to consider the estimates of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

On Wednesday, if necessary, we will return to any of the bills I have previously mentioned that may not already been completed, subject to arrangements we may make to deal with the Senate amendments to Bill C-23, the competition legislation, Bill S-34, dealing with royal assent, and perhaps Bill C-5 concerning species at risk. We are also hopeful that Bill C-54, the sports bill, and Bill C-53, the pest control bill, will be reported from committee in the very near future, so that we may take up report stage and third reading of those particular items.

Finally, we are also looking forward to reports from committees of the House on two other bills that have been in committee for what would appear to be an inordinate length of time, namely, Bill C-48 dealing with copyright, which has been before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for more than three months now, and Bill C-19, the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which is fast approaching its first anniversary before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I am sure the House is anxiously awaiting the reports of those committees so that legislation can be proceeded with through its final stages.

[Question No. 133, May 21st, 2002]

I am informed by National Defence as follows:

(a)The Canadian forces have conducted several overflights of the Kananaskis area in preparation for the G-8 meeting. (b)Between August 2001 and 20 April 2002 Canadian forces CH-146 Griffon helicopters conducted 16 such flights, some of which have involved more than one aircraft. (c)These flights were conducted to gain an appreciation of the terrain and its challenges. (d)The cost of these flights is estimated at $36,000. While it is likely that one or more additional overflights will be required before the G-8 meeting, it is not possible at this time to determine their precise number or cost.

I am informed by the Solicitor General as follows: The RCMP has conducted overflights in the region of the G-8 meeting in Kananaskis and Calgary. Since August 2001 the RCMP conducted five overflights for the purpose of taking low level photographs of the Kananaskis area over a three day period. The RCMP has also contracted a local firm to take high level photography on one occasion. The RCMP is unable to determine the total costs of flights at this time. Future photography overflights are planned for security purposes.

[Payment Clearing and Settlement Act, May 9th, 2002]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Payment Clearing and Settlement Act, May 9th, 2002]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[Privilege, May 9th, 2002]

The hon. gentlemen says that we should respect the rules, and I agree entirely. That is what has happened in this case and I intend to ensure that the rules are respected.

When a motion is made it may be amended and a vote may be taken. Surely the hon. gentlemen across the way understand that at any moment in the House a member of parliament may make a motion, and it is perfectly within the rules for another member of parliament to amend the motion, and in due course a vote is taken. That is the way the rules exist at the present time.

If what we are hearing from the opposition and from other members in the House is that particular procedure ought not to apply to private members' business, then fine, let us change the rules.

Under the auspices of the House leaders and of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs very honest and sincere attempts are being made to find better ways to manage House business on behalf of all members. This is not a partisan issue. This is not an issue that sets government against opposition or one party against another. It is an issue in which all of us have a vital interest. We can deal with it substantively or we can deal with it through nonsensical heckling. I prefer to deal with it substantively, and that is what the government intends to do with the co-operation of every member of the House who intends goodwill on the subject matter.

[Privilege, May 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, over the last number of weeks the issue of how best to handle private members' business has been a subject that has preoccupied members on all sides of the House, and I think seriously so.

There has been most recently a discussion of this matter in a round table organized by the House committee on procedure and House affairs to revisit this whole question of how private members' business, on behalf of all members of the House, not just the government or just the opposition or any party in the House, can best be advanced in the interest of parliament and in the interest of the democratic process.

My first point is that this is not a partisan matter that pits government against opposition or one party against another. We all want to see private members' business properly and respectfully managed.

Second, with respect to the particular item that was referred to by the hon. member having to do with the earlier private members' business proposed by the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, the suggestion has been made that the government in some way took steps to make that particular item of business non-votable. In fact the record will show that is not true. There was a vote on the matter. A motion was made, that motion was amended and the vote was taken. In effect, there was a vote.

The outcome that the House arrived at is that the subject matter of that bill is not dead. The subject matter of that bill is alive in a committee of this House, the special parliamentary committee on the non-medical use of drugs. I fully expect that committee, chaired by a member on this side with a very distinguished vice-chair from the opposition, will deliberate on this matter along with any other matters having to do with the nonmedical use of drugs.

In due course that committee will make a report to the House. I fully expect the House will want to act upon that report in full context at the time.

The subject matter of that particular private member's item is still very much before the parliamentary process in the context where all members of parliament will be able to deliberate upon it.

Finally, let me make this point. It is important that we find better and improved ways to deal with the management of private members' business.