Scott Reid

[Statistics Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the suggestion that the long form be made voluntary. One concern I would have if that were to be done would be that people would exclude themselves on a non-random basis, which means that the data collected, while still true of those who filled it out, might not actually be representative any more of the population as a whole.

People are selected right now on a random basis for the long form. Given the very large number of Canadians and given that these forms are intended primarily for the purposes of data that is aggregated into very large areas--provincial levels, whole metropolitan areas, or national data--I wonder if we could simply reduce the number of people who are required to fill out the long form. Perhaps we could provide a spot for them to indicate whether or not that additional data would be made public in the future. This of course refers not to past censuses but purely to censuses that are being collected in the future and which will be revealed many decades into the future.

[Petitions, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my petition comes from Verona in Frontenac County. It is, as are many other petitions that have been received in the House recently, on the subject of the definition of marriage. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Madam Chair, I will be very quick because I do want to hear what the hon. member has to say in response to my question.

Would a Conservative government and would she work to ensure a Conservative government ensures there are some resources devoted to the agricultural sector in Canada? In particular, would some resources be devoted to expanding slaughter and processing capacity to which again the government has contributed nothing?

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Madam Chair, in making my comments, I would like to return to something the minister of agriculture raised.

The minister mentioned, which I guess is another Liberal talking point, that our party's strengthening commitment to supply management somehow suggests that what occurred in the past is the relevant policy to look at. He stated incorrectly that we did not support supply management prior to the March convention.

What he did infer, which is correct, is that our supply management commitment has grown and did grow at the March convention. That was the result of the fact that there were a number of people, myself included and the hon. member who spoke earlier, who worked very hard to ensure that our commitment to supply management was strengthened. It is a real commitment, not the kind of make believe commitment we see from a government over there that did not give one penny for the support of agriculture in its last budget. This is despite the fact that we have had the worst agricultural year in the history of our country.

That is the record of the government. The fact that its members are squawking over there right now shows just how upset they are when the facts are laid in front of them.

The Liberal government has committed not a penny. Would a Conservative government and would she work to ensure that a Conservative government ensures, first, that there would be some commitment of resources to the agricultural sector in a Conservative budget?

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I am sorry, but the irony of hearing Liberal members talking about things that have barely passed after this government is surviving on the basis of a tie vote, the only government in Canadian history to survive on the basis of a tie vote decided by the Speaker, is just really laughable.

I was at the Montreal convention of our party. I actually was involved in a fairly controversial issue at that convention, so I know a little about things barely passing, and I can assure members that there was widespread support for the pillars of supply management, for the policy our party now has.

I want to point out as well that I am a former member of Parliament from the Canadian Alliance and I am very much in support of the policy put forward at that convention. It was our agriculture critic who led the charge on it. She herself is a member of Parliament from Ontario and a former Canadian Alliance member.

What this indicates to me, in the special way in which the member opposite chose to word his question, is that he is trying to design it so he can find some way of finding someone who does not support our policy. Then he can leave the impression out there that somehow, despite a clearly stated policy, we are wavering, when in fact his government's policy with regard to agriculture has been one of absolute neglect.

It has been one of absolute neglect and there was not one penny in the latest budget for agriculture, not one penny in the worst year in agriculture in Canadian history. That is the record of the Liberal government. The Liberals should hang their heads in shame. That member in particular should hang his head in shame for not giving the slightest amount of interest to the farmers who put him here in the first place.

My question is simply this. Going back to 2003, our party has taken quite a strong approach on cull cows and as well on increasing slaughter capacity, which is of no small interest to those producers, both supply managed and not, who have cull cows in their herds. I wonder if the critic could comment on plans to deal with slaughter capacity.

[Democratic Reform, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to guess that the minister will be voting in favour of the bill based on the fact that www.vote16.ca has her picture on its front page and has this quote from her:

The new Canada is the future, and lowering the voting age is a step in providing fresh oxygen to our political process.

I might add that the Prime Minister's solution to the democratic deficit seems to be to have a surplus of ministers responsible for democratic reform. Let me ask the one responsible for electoral renewal, will he be acting promptly on the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding electoral reform?

[Democratic Reform, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before she became a Liberal, the Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal was one of the co-sponsors of Bill C-261, which would lower the voting age to 16. She even toured the country in support of the bill.

My question is, now that she is a minister, does she still support Bill C-261 and the lowering of the voting age to 16?

[Privilege, May 31st, 2005]

No, Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a matter that is related.

I am not revealing anything that was done in camera when I say this, but the committee was reviewing its 40th report to the House of Commons which contained a series of motions put forward by the leader of the New Democratic Party. One specific item with regard to scheduling, which I regarded as impractical, was the subject of discussion.

I will be seeking the unanimous consent of the House to present this draft report and table it here. It then will become evident that what is going on here is in fact very different from the presentation of the facts given by the member for Ottawa Centre.

For this reason, I am asking for unanimous consent to table this draft report in the House.

[Privilege, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. During question period the hon. member for Ottawa Centre made reference to events that took place earlier today in the procedure and House affairs committee meeting that was being held in camera. In fact, I have the notice of today's committee meeting no. 37, which states, “Orders of the day: In camera discussion of electoral reform”.

His presentation of the facts is extremely selective. He knows full well that having raised it publicly, I am in no position to respond to his statements other than to make the point that they vary considerably from an objective review of the facts of what actually happened and certainly in spirit are basically opposite to what actually went on, in my opinion.

He did this in a way that I believe violates the privilege of the entire committee by revealing in camera proceedings and, in particular, those members from the Conservative Party whose actions are being presented in a negative light and in a way that precludes their responding without making a similar offence to the Standing Orders.

I am well aware, as you no doubt are, Mr. Speaker, that Speakers have consistently ruled that except in the most extreme situations they will only hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings upon presentation of a report from the committee which directly deals with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual member.

However I believe this is an extraordinary situation. I draw your attention to pages 128 and 129 of Marleau and Montpetit where it states:

Committees have reported to the House on the refusal of witnesses to appear when summoned; the refusal of witnesses to answer questions; the refusal of witnesses to provide papers or records; the refusal of individuals to obey orders of a committee; and the divulging of events during an in camera meeting.

I would think the divulging of events in a selective manner that is not fully in accord with the actual events of what took place in the committee would seem to me to be a matter that requires the personal attention of the Speaker.

When you are finished with this question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask for unanimous consent for the tabling of the motion that was under discussion in the House so that all members can examine it and see that in fact the hon. member from Ottawa Centre was presenting the facts highly selectively.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to be lectured on constitutional conventions by a member of a government that has just broken one of our most fundamental constitutional conventions by governing unconstitutionally after it had lost several confidence motions in the House until it could find a way of buying or bribing its way back into power.

I will simply point out that this is far from being a matter that is irrelevant, unlike for example, Bill C-9, which we were discussing today which will change the name of a department, or the debate many engaged in this morning over whether or not the House of Commons should have a symbol. Those are truly irrelevant debates.

We will just use Liberal Party policy as opposed to the others who have spoken in favour of getting rid of the power of disallowance. Pierre Trudeau advocated this in the 1960s. In 1972 in the Victoria charter he actually brought forward a constitutional amendment to get rid of the disallowance power. He brought it back again in 1978 in the constitutional amendment bill. It was once again brought forward in the Charlottetown accord, which members from many parties, including the Liberals and the NDP voted in favour of. The Bloc did not exist then.

This is a matter of national consensus, but for some reason the minister has decided to reverse, as I say, half a century of consensus in this country.