Ralph Goodale

[Privilege, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I note that my great friend from Newfoundland always has such a calming influence on the House of Commons that I am delighted to be able to speak after him on the very important point he has made. I have four quick points I wish to make very briefly.

First, having listened to the discussion over the last number of minutes involving people who were participants in the committee work earlier today, what I hear from those representations is obviously a disagreement among committee members with respect to work that went on in the committee this morning. Some obviously are satisfied with what the committee did, others are dissatisfied, but it is important to note that what we have here primarily is a dispute among members with respect to the satisfactory nature, or not, of the committee's work.

Second, it would appear that some members in the committee wish to pursue a line of questioning that has to do with certain allegations and accusations. I think that in all of the representations that have been made, it has been conceded that while different members may have different views with respect to those allegations and accusations, they are in fact in the category of things that are unproven and unsubstantiated, allegations or accusations that members may or may not believe but are not in the realm of that which is proven.

Third, it appears to me from the time during which I was able to watch some of those committee proceedings through the television service of the House of Commons that the ambassador designate provided a very fulsome and extensive description of his view of his qualifications and his aspirations as a representative of Canada overseas. He was very fulsome in coming forward with his description of those things. I would note that in fact it was a three hour meeting, which provided a very substantial opportunity for views to be expressed and questions to be asked.

Finally, I would note that in any event, as is well established by the procedures of the House, a committee is in fact the master of its own procedure. There is obviously a complaint about the committee's work on the part of some members, but I would observe that whether a member is particularly happy or unhappy with what a committee has done, a complaint about the nature of the work does not constitute a question of privilege. In fact, what we are left with is a disagreement among members about what that work was, the overriding consideration being that the committee is in fact the master of its own procedure and is able to determine these things for itself.

[Privilege, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will say a brief word I hope will be encouraging to members of parliament who have the kinds of concerns that have been expressed by the hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier.

This subject matter has expressed itself in frustration on all sides of the House of Commons. I think there is a general desire in the House to find a better way of dealing with these matters and determining how private members' business proceeds through the House and ultimately does or does not come to a vote. I suspect the matter does not fall precisely within the definition of a question of privilege but it is a genuine expression of concern that begs for a solution.

It is my understanding that the committee, in this case the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, is prepared to examine yet again possible solutions to the matter.

Among the House leaders there have been preliminary discussions and some understanding that at an early meeting we will turn our attention to the matter to see if we can find a better way to deal with these types of proceedings so individual private members can feel a higher degree of satisfaction that their issues as expressed in bills, motions and so forth are properly addressed by the House and in a timely manner.

That does not specifically speak to the procedural point about privilege but I hope it indicates a clear willingness on the part of all of us to find a better way to deal with the matters that have been raised today by the hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier.

[Business of the House, March 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we will conclude the third reading stage of Bill C-49, the Budget Implementation Act, 2001.

Monday and Tuesday shall be allotted days.

Next Wednesday we will consider report stage of Bill C-15, certain amendments to the criminal code. On Thursday, March 21, I expect to return to report stage of Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation or perhaps other unfinished business. On Friday, March 23, we will again consider Bill C-50 respecting the WTO followed by Bill C-47, the excise tax amendments.

With respect to the specific legislation that the House leader for the official opposition has referred to I will pursue that matter with the solicitor general to determine what plans he may have.

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place among all the parties in the House and I believe you would find that there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on the Opposition motion standing under the name of the Member from Vancouver Island North, the said motion be deemed carried unanimously.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 13th, 2002]

moved that Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001, be read the third time and passed.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That in relation to Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the bill and two sitting days shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the second day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[Question No.100—, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it has not been possible to reach an agreement under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on December 10, 2001.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) therefore, I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose, at the next sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.

[Tributes, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following order. I move:

That at 3 p.m., on Wednesday, March 13, 2002, the Right Hon. Herb Gray shall appear at the Bar of the House of Commons to hear remarks by one representative of each party in the House and to respond thereto; and

That the time taken by these proceedings be added to the time for government orders that day.

[Privilege, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of parliament from western Canada who has taken a great deal of interest in issues related to grain transportation I take the provisions of the Canada Transportation Act in relation to grain very seriously. Therefore, I do want to treat the point made by the hon. member with the seriousness that it deserves.

If the section of the statute that has been referred to is examined carefully, namely subsection 50(3.2), there is a requirement with respect to the filing of a report within a certain time period but it is all conditional upon certain other events having taken place. There is an issue here of whether the creation of a new regulation triggers the time period involved or whether action is in fact taken under pre-existing regulations.

It is a complex matter in terms of exactly what the trigger is that starts the time clock ticking. It might be useful for the House to reflect on this matter to determine whether we are within that six month period yet or not. It might be appropriate if we could return to this item after the constituency week that is soon to be upon us. I will consider the matter in more detail at that time.

It is my view at the moment that the triggers referred to in the legislation that would require the filing of a report within a certain time period have not yet been pulled and therefore the government is not in any way in violation of the legislation.

I would like further time to reflect on the point. It is quite technical. I do want to say that this is an important matter. It is one that we take seriously and we will provide the hon. member with a substantive response.

[Kyoto Protocol, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the consultation process that we are now engaged in is to ensure that all Canadians, not just members of any particular government, can fully understand the details of what is involved here.

This is the single most complex environmental and economic problem of our time. It is global in scope. It needs an intelligent response. The government is determined to provide that intelligent response based upon meaningful consultations with other governments and the private sector and non-governmental organizations.