CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 137 Ï NUMBER 152 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 37th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, March 1, 2002 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken 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 9399 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, March 1, 2002 The House met at 10 a.m. [English] Prayers I shall now propose Motion No. 2 in Group No. 1 to the House. Ï (1005) GOVERNMENT ORDERS Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand your ruling is that Motions Nos. BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2001 10 and 17 are not to be heard because they could have been put at committee. Unfortunately I was not able to attend that committee The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-49, an act to because I was at the procedure and House affairs committee which is implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on dealing with the matter related to the minister of defence. December 10, 2001 as reported (with amendments) from the committee. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, the procedure and House affairs committee has been going virtually non-stop. I simply did not have Ï (1000) an opportunity to introduce Motions Nos. 10 and 17 at the finance [Translation] committee. Had I not been tied up in a motion that I think has precedence because of the extremely sensitive nature of that matter, I SPEAKER'S RULING could have attended the finance committee and introduced these The Speaker: There are 29 motions in amendment on the notice motions. paper in connection with the report stage of Bill C-49. [English] Therefore, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider your ruling in that respect and allow both Motions Nos. 10 and 17. Motions Nos. 1, 10, 17, 18 and 20 will not be selected by the Chair as they could have been proposed in committee. Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a point of order in this regard. I submitted Motion No. 21 will not be selected by the Chair as it requires a three motions yesterday because I am not a regular member of that royal recommendation. standing committee. As well, the official opposition had all its spots filled on that committee at the time so it would have been difficult Motions Nos. 3 to 9, 11 to 16, 19 and 23 to 28 will not be selected for me to sidle up to the table. I was also busy at the time that by the Chair as they are similar or identical to motions defeated in committee was meeting. I am a regular member of the Standing committee. Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and, as a The remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is result, had other committee responsibilities simultaneously. satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in What also needs to be taken into consideration is that the amendment at the report stage. committee jammed the bill through so quickly that even the witnesses who were supposed to be called had only a day's notice or The motions will be grouped for debate as follows: less. As a result, many people refused to appear because it was [Translation] simply unreasonable to ask senior executives of airlines and whatnot to appear with less than a day's notice. The government whip in this Group No. 1: Motion No. 2. case was also very heavy-handed in terms of forcing the bill through. Group No. 2: Motion No. 22. I think all these things need to be taken into account, as well as the The voting patterns for the motions within each group are fact that the witnesses, including Mr. Clifford Mackay with the Air available at the Table. The Chair will remind the House of each Transport Association of Canada, basically said that the tax was too pattern at the time of voting. complex and needed a grace period. 9400 COMMONS DEBATES March 1, 2002 Government Orders On top of that, when the vice-president of WestJet, Mark Hill, I am also aware, and the hon. member has just reminded me, how made his presentation before the finance committee he said that he he could have moved these amendments in the committee had he was shocked that the committee had not done an analysis of the received them from his colleagues. Of course the whole purpose of impact it would have on the airline industry. He said that it would not committee proceedings is to allow for these things to be put in the have been difficult to do the analysis but that it was all a question of committee and dealt with there. I stressed that in my earlier ruling on time. this subject with which I know the hon. member for Calgary Southeast is very familiar. I understand he reads it on a regular basis. Perhaps the question is not on the timing but unfortunately in this place we have been led to believe that government business does not Having said that, I am also satisfied that in this case I note that the have precedence over opposition business in terms of the drafting of bill was referred to the committee on February 18, it got second some of these types of amendments and motions. Nonetheless, that reading that day, and was reported on February 27, so obviously the does not appear to be the case. committee moved with some alacrity on the matter. I know that during that time members have been involved in other committees Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to take all those things into and, in the circumstances, I am prepared in this case to exercise some consideration because frankly these are central and key amendments leniency and allow these five motions in because this bill was to the consideration of the bill. reported on Wednesday and has only come up today. Had there been Ï (1010) a little more time, maybe I would have been a little less generous. The Speaker: Perhaps the member for Calgary West could However, in the circumstances I will put the five motions that we enlighten the Chair by indicating which amendments he is speaking have heard about in, Motions Nos. 1, 10, 17, 18 and 20. They will be about. He did not give me the numbers. lumped into Group No. 1. Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, the first motion I am referring to is Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Motion No. 18 which I believe deals with a 90 day grace period. Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find that after consultation among all parties there is unanimous The next one is Motion No. 20 which has to do with a consent to allow all remaining motions standing in the name of the postponement of the legislation specifically because no impact member for St. Albert to stand in the name of the member for studies were conducted with regard to the industry and consultation Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. They are Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, was not adequately rendered. 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28. The third motion is Motion No. 1 which I believe has to do with The Speaker: Is it agreed that the motions will all stand in the the consultation issue. name of the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca? The Speaker: To clarify for the Chair, the two points of order that Some hon. members: Agreed. have been raised concern Motions Nos. 1, 10, 17, 18 and 20. Is that correct? The Speaker: However, none of the motion numbers I have heard have been selected for debate. Mr. Rob Anders: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): I will now put to the House the motions in Group No. 1. Mr. Speaker, I have a brief intervention on Motions Nos. 10 and 17. MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT I was present at the finance committee during its ostensible Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance) moved: consideration of these motions. I would like to report to the Chair Motion No. 1 that while I understand that committee proceedings are the business That Bill C-49, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 5 the of committee, I think it is important when the Chair considers this following: that he review the blues of the committee as well as published “(6) The Authority must, before December 31 of each year following the Authority's first full year of operations, submit an annual report for the preceding reports of the meeting where permanent members of the committee fiscal year to the Minister, and the Minister must cause a copy of the report to be on the part of the government who had participated in witness tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that testimony were removed from the committee by the whip's office House is sitting after the Minister receives it. and were not there to vote on these amendments and therefore were (7) The report referred to in subsection (6) must include: unable to exercise proper discretion. (a) national, provincial and regional data on the effect of the air travellers security surcharge on passenger travel and economic development; and Furthermore, the chair herself attempted to actually retroactively (b) a review of the impact of all the other surcharges levied on air travel.” undo— Hon.