Ralph Goodale

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, you are far more schooled in the procedures of committees than I could be, having arrived in this position only a few days ago. However as I understand it, once the matter is voted on here it will be properly referred to the committee and the committee will determine the appropriate means by which to pursue the matter.

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the representations from the hon. member as similar representations were made by the hon. member before him. Once again I maintain as a matter of the rules of the House that the issue of the incumbency in the office of the minister is not directly related to the terms and conditions of the motion before us.

We have indicated we are prepared to accept the motion. For whatever reasons the members wish to pursue the larger criticism. It is not a criticism the government is prepared to accept.

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with your admonitions from the chair the issue of the incumbency in the position of the Minister of National Defence has absolutely nothing to do with the terms of the motion before the House. That is a technical observation but I believe it is correct.

From the government's point of view we are glad to hear the opposition's unequivocal endorsement of the Canadian armed forces and Canada's current engagement in Afghanistan. The Canadian Forces have no stronger advocate anywhere than the current Minister of National Defence.

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that in all these matters reason and common sense will prevail. The minister laid before the House earlier this week his explanation of the flow of events with respect to this matter. He made it very clear that at no time did he intend to mislead the House.

The matter is now on its way to a committee where all the details can be examined. That is the appropriate course of action.

To be specific in my response to the hon. gentleman, no, I do not believe the Minister of National Defence should step aside. This country is involved in a major international conflict. This is a time for the minister of defence to be at his post, and he shall be.

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, we want to thank you for your decision today, which was reasoned and careful. You have noted in your remarks, and you have accepted the minister's categorical statement, that he had at no time any intention to mislead or misinform the House. You also noted the Chair's view that the matter before us required some further ventilation to clear the air by discussion in a committee.

Therefore, I simply want to make it clear that without accepting some of the more extreme insinuations that have been put before the House today by others, the government is prepared to support the reference of this matter to the appropriate committee to bring clarity as expeditiously as possible. It is in that committee of course that all the relevant details can be properly pursued.

[Privilege, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting and an important point having to do with a brand new procedure in the House. In order to bring as much clarity to the matter as possible, it is valuable, as the chair of the committee has indicated, for all of us to treat this matter in a serious and civil manner. I appreciate the tone of the discussion.

Referring specifically to the standing order that has been cited, if I could quote a few words:

If such a question remains unanswered at the expiration of the said period of forty-five days, the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond shall be deemed referred to the appropriate Standing Committee. Within five sitting days of such a referral the Chair of the committee shall convene a meeting of the committee to consider the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond.

The standing order does not prescribe how the committee will dispose of the matter. It simply requires that when that time clock goes by and 45 days have passed without the answer having been filed, then the matter goes to a committee within five days and the committee is to consider the matter.

That is not to say or to prejudge in any manner what that consideration will be. That is obviously up to the committee.

In this instance the chairman of the committee has informed us that the question turned out to be just one day late. I believe he said that by the time the committee met to consider the matter, the answer to the question had in fact been filed and that those were factors that members of the committee might take into account, in the words of the standing order, in giving consideration to the matter.

Accordingly, it would be a perfectly legitimate conclusion on your part, Mr. Speaker, that the committee has in this case done exactly what the standing order required it to do. It met within five days and it considered the matter. As a part of that consideration it took into account the fact that the answer to the question was only one day late and that the answer had been filed by the time the committee actually met, and that it could then move on with other business.

What this standing order does is to provide a very useful discipline in the rules about the prompt and timely answering of questions.

I close with the thought that it is important for all members of the ministry to remember that the 45 day rule is there. It is our obligation as ministers of the crown to do our very best to respond to members of parliament within that prescribed time.

[Business of the House, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first reply to the customary Thursday question about House business. I want to thank all the House leaders and deputy House leaders of the other parties for the manner in which they have received this newcomer into their fraternity of House leaders. I look forward to a constructive relationship.

This afternoon we will continue with Bill C-7, the youth justice bill. If this is completed we will proceed to report stage of Bill C-30 respecting courts administration.

Tomorrow we will debate second reading of Bill C-48, the copyright legislation.

Monday we will continue with unfinished business and Tuesday will be an allotted day. Next Wednesday, we hope to be able to start the debate on second reading of the budget legislation.

[House of Commons, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today is a most significant day in the public life of the hon. member for Calgary Southwest. To mark this occasion a number of members wish to make some remarks.

I should just inform the Chair that there is agreement among all parties that we will take some time now, that is four minutes per party, to express our sentiments toward the hon. member for Calgary Southwest. Then we shall hear from the hon. gentleman himself.

[Business of the House, January 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the various parties in the House and I believe you would find the House in agreement that we immediately put to the House the motion to concur in the notice of ways and means that was tabled yesterday.

[Agriculture, December 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the payments in this calendar year for our various safety net programs, federally and provincially, will total very close to $4 billion, much of that related to crop insurance to deal with the drought.

The minister of agriculture is engaged in an ongoing discussion with his provincial and territorial counterparts as well as colleagues within the Government of Canada. They are working on the strengthening of safety nets for the future.

I am confident that as the next days and weeks go by the messages will be very strong in terms of the support provided by all governments in Canada for agriculture--