Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2019, with 71% of the vote.
Questions on the Order Paper October 5th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Government Response to Petitions October 5th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.
Motions for Papers October 4th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers to allowed to stand.
Questions on the Order Paper October 4th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Liberal Party of Canada October 4th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, as we get closer to Halloween, the Liberals continue to take cheap, partisan shots over qualified appointments, yet they remain haunted by past cronyism. Let us take a moment to remember the ghosts of Liberals past.
As immigration minister, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie thought it fitting to reappoint her ex-husband to the Immigration and Refugee Board.
The Immigration and Refugee Board had other scary appointments, including the husband of none other than the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.
As justice minister, the member for Mount Royal tried to keep the spirits at bay by making his chief of staff a judge on the federal court.
However, nothing was more frightening than the ghost who hid out in a castle over in Denmark, as the Liberals made the great public works minister, Alfonso Gagliano, the ambassador to Denmark.
As the ghosts of hypocrisy and cronyism continue to haunt Liberals, Canadians must not be scared because Canada's new government is improving the lives of all Canadians.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act October 3rd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on Bill C-285. Without commenting on the merits of this private member's bill, it is the government's view that this bill requires a royal recommendation.
Mr. Speaker, in the 38th Parliament you ruled that a similar bill, Bill C-363, did not require a royal recommendation. I would like to submit additional information on the issues raised during that ruling and I would ask you to review that decision based on this new information.
Bill C-285, like its predecessor, would require the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to distribute its profits to the provinces. On October 3, 2005, Mr. Speaker, you noted that a royal recommendation is required only when an appropriation is made from the consolidated revenue fund and not from other sources. You disagreed with the assertion that:
--because moneys from the reserve fund are integrated into the consolidated revenue fund on an annual basis they may be considered to form part of the general revenues under the control of the Crown.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider two points. The first point is whether assets held by the crown corporations properly fall within the definition of “public revenue”, which is safeguarded by section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and Standing Order 79. I would submit that the assets of the CMHC do fall within this definition.
Section 2 of the Financial Administration Act defines public money as follows:
“public money” means all money belonging to Canada received or collected by the Receiver General or any other public officer in his official capacity or any person authorized to receive or collect such money, and includes...
(c) money received or collected for or on behalf of Canada, and
(d) all money that is paid to or received or collected by a public officer under or pursuant to any act, trust, treaty, undertaking or contract, and is to be disbursed for a purpose specified in or pursuant to that act, trust, treaty, undertaking or contract....
The CMHC is a crown corporation and an agent corporation under the Financial Administration Act, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and the National Housing Act. It is responsible to Parliament through a minister of the Crown. CMHC's activities are directed by the government. Its finances are subject to an audit by the Auditor General of Canada and to parliamentary oversight.
While section 128 of the Financial Administration Act allows crown corporations to have a separate bank account rather than directly depositing their assets in the consolidated revenue fund, this does not make this crown corporation's revenue any less “public money”.
CMHC's net financial results are accounted for on a fiscal year basis and consolidated with the government's financial statements, which means that CMHC's net income is recognized in the government's revenues dollar for dollar. This income is still in the federal purse and is therefore available for future appropriations as determined by Parliament.
The second area of new information I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, relates to your June 13, 2005 ruling, in which you noted that the key issue in determining whether a royal recommendation is required is whether a bill:
--does anything more than rearrange the method of accounting for public funds. If not, then no royal recommendation is required: how public funds are recorded in the government's ledgers does not constitute an appropriation for which a royal recommendation would be required.
In that case, Mr. Speaker, regarding the matter of transferring funds out of the consolidated revenue fund into a separate account with a specific and limited purpose, you found that a royal recommendation was required because:
--these moneys are no longer available for other appropriations Parliament may make. These funds would no longer be available because, in effect, they have been spent....
I would submit that the principles in that rule should apply in the case of Bill C-285. In this case the accounts of the CMHC are consolidated with the government's revenue and available for future appropriations determined by Parliament. By transferring this money to the provinces, Bill C-285 is effectively an appropriation. In other words, the passage of Bill C-285 would have the result that money which was previously part of the public revenue would be directly transferred to the provinces on an annual basis.
This is clearly more than a rearrangement of accounting for public funds, since the money would be out of reach of the government and Parliament. In short, Bill C-285 would result in a new expenditure for a new purpose not anticipated by the existing act. Accordingly, I believe the bill in its entirety requires a royal recommendation.
Mr. Speaker, I trust this additional information will be useful to you in considering this important financial issue.
Questions on the Order Paper October 3rd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that an experienced parliamentarian, like my colleague from Mississauga South, has to constantly refer to notes. I would have thought he could stand up in this assembly and speak from the heart, speak from knowledge deep within, but apparently not. Apparently, he has to have some sort of a note or a canned speech perhaps in his possession. It really is quite disappointing. I would have thought he would have the experience by now, after many years sitting in this place, to ask a four minute question without having to refer to an aid, a crutch, like the notes he has clutched in his possession right now.
We all know the hon. member is off the mark. He is trying to draw a conclusion which is simply not a fact. I honestly feel he hon. member, if he has any conscience whatsoever, should stand in his place and apologize for the actions of his senators in the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, let me first say I find it incredibly amusing that the Liberal member for Mississauga South would stand and try to give this government a lecture on ethics and fundraising when all Canadians know that the Liberal Party of Canada perpetrated the largest money fraud and money laundering scheme in the history of the Canadian Parliament.
The sponsorship scandal is what I am referring to, in which millions of dollars were illegally diverted back to the Liberal Party of Canada, and because of it, we have the genesis of the accountability act. It was the result of the sponsorship scandal. That is why we now have the toughest anti-corruption law in Canada being considered before the Senate. It is to put an end to those practices that the Liberal Party purported to put onto Canadian citizens and taxpayers for many years.
For that member to stand and suggest that our Prime Minister was going to a fundraising event that really flew in the face of fundraising laws of this country is absolutely incorrect. I find it passing strange that any member of the Liberal Party could actually suggest that.
Let me also say that I find it particularly peculiar that the member for Mississauga South, who I thought would have more than a passing knowledge of electoral law in Canada and in the various provinces, would make such a ludicrous statement. I am sure the member understands that there are different election financing laws in Canada and in various provinces. In fact, in Ontario, the law states that contribution limits are $8,400 for corporations or individuals or unions. Plus, another $8,400 can be contributed during an election campaign.
Even more fundamental than that, if the member for Mississauga South were actually doing his homework or chose to investigate, he would understand, because he would have found out, that the recipient of the fundraising event that the Prime Minister attended was the PC Party of Ontario, not the Conservative Party of Canada. There is a huge difference. One is a provincial party and one is a federal party.
The Prime Minister did not receive any financial benefits, nor did the Conservative Party of Canada, yet the member has the audacity to stand in the House and try to accuse this government of breaking some sort of fundraising law when nothing of the sort occurred. In fact, when Bill C-2 is finally passed, and I desperately hope that happens within the next few weeks, it will be the one piece of legislation that I think will define this government, because it is the strongest anti-corruption law that this Parliament has ever considered.
The problem right now is that the Liberal Senate does not want to pass this law. The Liberals are purposely slow-walking this legislation in the Senate. Why? Not for due diligence, but to try to thwart our government for bringing in this law prior to the Liberal leadership convention.
This is unconscionable. It is shameful that unelected Liberal senators, for their own political benefit, would try to slow-walk the most important piece of anti-corruption legislation this country has ever seen. That is exactly what is happening. It is shameful. It is unconscionable. The member should be ashamed of himself. In fact, on behalf of his Liberal senators, he should apologize.
Questions on the Order Paper October 2nd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.