CANADA VOLUME 135 S NUMBER 037 S 1st SESSION S 36th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Tuesday, November 25, 1997 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire'' at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 2141 HOUSE OF COMMONS Tuesday, November 25, 1997 The House met at 10 a.m. appropriation bills be used to legislate. This is a fundamental principle and one which the government wholeheartedly supports. _______________ I am not going to question that principle at all. I would just indicate that the point of order which the hon. member has made in fact Prayers does not apply in this case. _______________ The hon. member identifies five votes in which he claims that the government is seeking parliamentary approval of funds for D (1000) purposes for which Parliament has not yet given legislative author- [English] ity. I will argue that this is simply not the case in any of the five votes which have been mentioned. POINTS OF ORDER I can understand why the hon. member may have come to his MAIN ESTIMATES conclusion. The part IIIs explain the government’s plans for the next three years, not just the first year, 1997-98, which is the only Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and subject of the appropriation bill. Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide additional information to that provided by the In each of the five cases cited, the government has signalled its government House leader as to why the point of order raised by the intention to modify the way it does business. It has done this member for St. Albert is not a valid one. In no way do the estimates through tabling draft legislation for consideration by Parliament which are before the House derogate from or usurp the authority of and, as it undertook to do as part of the improved reporting to this House to adopt legislation, nor do they presuppose the will of Parliament project, it has done this by spelling out its plans in the this House in any way. part IIIs of the department concerned, not just for the main estimates here but for two additional years. D (1005) In being asked to approve supply legislation, Parliament is To begin with, I would like to commend the hon. member for St. requested to approve a series of specific votes. It is the wording of Albert on his continuing interest in the supply process and for the these votes that provides the legislative basis for the expenditures diligence of his research. He will recall, through his active of government. participation in the improved reporting to Parliament project, the initiatives that the government has taken in improving the informa- The previous Speakers’ rulings which the hon. member cited tion provided to parliamentarians over the last 12 months, initia- dealt with specific instances where this wording was considered tives in which the hon. member has been an active participant and inappropriate. That is not the case with the appropriation bill at which he has supported on two occasions in this House. issue here. In no case is the vote wording providing or seeking As part of the 1997-98 estimates process, the government additional authority that has not already been granted by Parlia- introduced modifications to part III of the estimates on a pilot basis ment. for 16 departments. These changes were intended to improve the In each of the five cases identified the funds sought through the quality of the information provided to Parliament and to provide estimates process are needed for continuing operations of the better information on strategic and future plans, as well as to lay programs concerned. If the legislation authorizing the operational the basis for providing performance information on a more timely changes is approved by Parliament, and only if, in each case, then basis. the funds will be spent in accordance with the new legislation. If It is in fact from the part IIIs for these pilot departments that the the enabling legislation is not adopted, then these same funds will hon. member has drawn most of the information he uses to support be spent in accordance with existing parliamentary authorities. his point of order. The part IIIs from which the hon. member draws his information The point of order is based broadly on the precept that the are all quite clear that they are dealing with future plans and in estimates should neither anticipate enabling legislation, nor should depicting any legislation at issue as proposed. 2142 COMMONS DEBATES November 25, 1997 Points of Order D (1010) has not been set aside, repealed or declared invalid by the government or by the court. [Translation] Part II of the estimates that I tabled earlier this year contained For example, part III states clearly, under Agriculture and two assurances. I will repeat both here again. Agri-Food Canada, and I quote: Individual expenditure proposals included in votes seek authority during the Priorities over the next three years include continuing reform of safety nets and 1997-98 fiscal year to make expenditures necessary to deliver various mandates grain policy. which are under the administration of a Minister and are contained in legislation approved by Parliament. Part III under the heading Environment Canada is equally clear: In light of the House of Commons Speaker’s ruling in 1981, the government has made a commitment that the only legislation that will be amended through the The proposed new CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, will result estimates process, other than cases specifically authorized by statute, will be in a more efficient process for categorizing toxic substances. previous appropriation acts. [English] D (1015 ) For the hon. member to argue that these votes be struck down on the basis that the government has provided specific details on its I think that in the estimates what we have done is have submitted future strategies is to argue that the government should retreat for the vote of the House expenditures which correspond exactly to under a veil of secrecy. That is precisely what we are trying to the wording of each vote. avoid as part of the improved reporting to Parliament project, a project that, I underline again, has received the hon. member’s The explanations given in part III, which once again are for three support, for which I both commend and thank him. future years, explained the plans of the government in case new legislation or new policies are adopted. In every one of the cases What a wonderful opportunity these documents provide. Parlia- mentioned by the hon. member for St. Albert, the expenditures that ment now has a three year planning horizon to help them under- are sought in supply are expenditures under the authority expressed stand the context within which new legislative proposals will properly by the wording of the votes. operate. I would go so far as to suggest that this level of future planning information and disclosure is probably unique among our The Speaker: Yesterday when the point of order was brought up fellow OECD countries. I permitted what was like a mini debate. This is new information which I have decided to hear. If there is anything else to be added, The situation is similar for the three items where the hon. if you are going to make an interjection you will get one shot at it. member claims that we are legislating through supply legislation. We are not going to go back and forth. Whatever you have to say on Again, this is simply not the case. this point of order I will listen to. I will then take all the information, retreat and make my own decision. Vote 35 for the Canadian International Trade Tribunal is simply for program expenditures. That is the wording of the vote. There is Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to nothing in these words that could possibly be construed as extend- the President of the Treasury Board with interest and I appreciated ing its mandate as the hon. member suggests. The vote is neither the compliments regarding the work we have done on the improved providing nor is it seeking new or additional authority. It is merely performance and reporting to Parliament. seeking supply. The point we want to make is that by the very definition of As the hon. member notes, the Canada Communications Group improved reporting to Parliament we are in command of better item is statutory. By definition, the amount shown is authorized by information in order for us to make appropriate decisions and vote legislation previously approved by Parliament and by that same according to the information laid before us. definition it is shown in the estimates or information as it does not form part of the appropriation bill that Parliament will be asked to I think the government and the estimates, especially the part IIIs, approve. It is statutory. have not provided that information to us or the minister is alleging that we are unable to discern from these part IIIs what monies are The final item with which the hon. member takes issue is the to be expended including the part IIs and what are for future years. Canada Information Office. The fact of the matter is that the order in council in question is presumed valid until repealed or set aside I have already written to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans by a court.