PDF
| Alberta
| Nova Scotia
| Ontario
| Quebec
| Saskatchewan
| Yukon
| Senate
| House of Commons
|
Nova Scotia
The Second Session of the 53rd General
Assembly in Nova Scotia adjourned June 1, 1983, and was one of the shortest in
recent years. The legislature passed one hundred bills which, for the most
part, were of limited consequence. An exception was the new Planning Act, a
replacement for the province's first venture into planning in 1969. The new Act
has been several years in the drafting stage, the government having bent over
backwards to allow for public scrutiny of proposed changes. This entailed
numerous seminars involving planners and municipal officials and a 1ravelling
road show" which elicited public input in every part of the province and
culminated in the introduction of Bill 71 this session.
While Nova Scotia procedures for dealing
with bills are quite standard, our Assembly is unique in that all public bills
are referred to the Law Amendments Committee after second reading. The public
at large (through organizations or individually), by customary right, present
briefs and make known to the Committee their reactions to all new public
legislation. After many submissions to the Committee, the Planning Act came
back to the House with more than one hundred amendments! This dramatic effect
shows the value of the Law Amendments Committee process.
Another matter of some interest involving
the same Law Amendments Committee occurred during the session. The Committee
considered Bill 83, which was a single clause amendment to the Theatres and
Amusements Act changing some of the penalties for violations of the Act. When
the bill was reported back to the House by the Committee, it looked quite
different. It retained the original clause concerning changes in penalties
under the Act, but five additional clauses were added to the Bill which now
imposed a tax on cable television services.
On April 18 the Minister of Finance, Joel
Matheson, had delivered his budget, in which he announced a tax on cable
television services. But when this item was added to Bill 83 by the Law
Amendments Committee, the opposition objected. On May 24 the member from
Antigonish, J. William Gillis, argued that only a Minister of the Crown, not a
parliamentary committee, can introduce a tax measure. Furthermore, he argued
substantive changes by the committee violate the principle that committees can
change only details of legislation approved in principle by the House.
On May 25 Speaker Arthur Donahoe made a
decision which in effect ruled out of order the clauses relating to the
imposition of a tax added by the Committee. The Speaker indicated that the
Committee, while possessed of the same power on bills as a Committee of the
Whole House, had exceeded its jurisdiction in that the amendments recommended
went beyond the principle of the Bill. In the absence of unanimous consent to
the changes, the Speaker ordered the Bill sent back to the Law Amendments
Committee. The original Bill, with minor changes, was later reported and
subsequently passed by the House. A totally new Bill was introduced with respect
to the taxing of cable television services. It received quick passage through
all stages and was given Assent before the end of the session. Nevertheless the
Speaker's ruling served to remind members that an important parliamentary
convention had been broken.
Rod MacArthur, Assistant Clerk, House of Assembly Nova Scotia,
Yukon
The Third Session of the 25th Legislature
was adjourned May 2, 1983. The only legislative activities which have taken place
since then are the sittings of the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and
Privileges. That committee is attempting to come to some agreement on a pension
plan for members of the Yukon Legislative Assembly. It is also examining a
proposal for implementing a system of severance pay.
Although the legislative program for the
fall sitting is not yet clear, it has been announced that new human rights
legislation will be introduced. The Minister of Justice, Hon. Clarke Ashley,
has requested written submissions on the legislation from interest groups and
concerned individuals and says that it will include new areas of protection 1o
ensure that Yukoners are afforded the same rights as other Canadians." The
Assembly is not expected to resume until sometime after mid-October.
Patrick L. Michael, Clerk, Yukon Legislative Assembly, Whitehorse
Ontario
Following the pyrotechnics of the winter
sitting over the government's public sector restraint programme, the
"trust companies affair" and the controversial bill dealing with
Toronto school boards, the spring sitting proved relatively quiet. No single
issues dominated the House as had been the case in the previous session.
In question period, the Liberals continued
to pursue the government's regulation of trust companies . The Leader of the
opposition. David Peterson, also devoted substantial time to the issue of
pornography, calling for government action against what he termed "an
explosion of new forms of violent pornography that are socially offensive in every
way". The New Democrats' questions were mainly directed to government
scrutiny of nursing homes and of illegal strike breaking activities by private
security firms. Both opposition parties asked an unusually large number of
questions of Environment Minister Keith Norton, ranging in topic from acid rain
to sanitary landfill sites to water quality in the Great Lakes. On two separate
occasions, the Speaker, John Turner, found it necessary to adjourn the House
for grave disorder during question period. Once the cause was a demonstration
in the public gallery and once the Speaker used his prerogative to cut short a
shouting match between Health Minister Larry Grossman and NDP Leader Bob Rae.
The Budget
The most significant event of the spring
sitting was Treasurer Frank Miller's fifth budget, on May 10; however,
controversy focused more on a leak of budget material than on the contents.
Several days before the budget, a Toronto Globe and Mail reporter found
discarded budget proofs in a garbage bag outside the printing plant where the
budget was being produced. Among other things, the documents pointed to
specific spending decisions and a five per cent increase in health insurance
premiums.
The morning the Globe published the budget
material was almost entirely taken up with points of order and privilege. Both
Mr. Peterson and Mr, Rae called on the Speaker to rule that the 'leak'
constituted a breach of parliamentary privilege. Other speakers widened the
debate by raising the issue of ministerial responsibility and the traditions
surrounding budget secrecy. They called upon the Treasurer to resign. The
Speaker ruled that budget secrecy is a matter of political convention rather
than parliamentary privilege. He did, however, permit an emergency debate on
the matter.
For his part, the Treasurer indicated that
he would present his budget as scheduled and then take a decision as to
possible resignation. Several days after bringing down his budget, Mr. Miller
announced to the House that after careful thought he had decided to remain as
Treasurer. His advisors, he said, had concluded that the three requirements for
the Minister's resignation were all absent: "First, the Minister himself
was not in any way responsible; second, all reasonable precautions had been
taken; and third, no tax measures were involved, prior knowledge of which could
have prevented unfair gain".
As for the budget, its prime objective, said
the Treasurer, was "to encourage and sustain the economic momentum as it
gains strength". He likened the Ontario economy to a patient who has been
taken off the critical list but remains in only fair condition. Mr. Miller
stipulated that the government's role was to assist the private sector, which,
necessarily, is leading the economic recovery.
Based on predictions of 1.9 per cent real
growth for gross provincial product and an increase in the consumer price index
of 6.6 per cent (the lowest in a decade), the Treasurer forecast provincial
spending at $24.7 billion and revenue at $22 billion, creating a record deficit
of $2.7 billion. Unemployment was expected to be in excess of 11 percent.
The principal new measures announced in the
budget related to job creation and manpower training. An accelerated capital
works programme, expansion of the joint Canada-Ontario job creation scheme and
a special $25 million fund for youth employment were central features of the
government's policy to stimulate employment. In addition, the retail sales tax
was lifted for 90 days on household furniture and appliances so as to encourage
consumer demand for Canadian products. Other initiatives included a beginning
farmers programme to subsidize loans to new farmers, incentives to encourage
more industrial research and development and a $40 million package to improve
rental accommodation.
On the taxation side, the perennial
favourites, liquor and tobacco were subjected to higher taxes; health insurance
premiums were raised five per cent; corporation taxes were increased by one
percentage point; and provincial personal income tax was subjected to a
temporary five percent surcharge, styled a "social services maintenance
tax".
Mr. Miller announced the end of Ontario's
longstanding veto to the "child-rearing dropout" provision to the
Canada Pension Plan, which would permit women to leave the labour force to
raise families without suffering reduced CPP benefits upon retirement. On a
less happy note, the Treasurer took the opportunity of the budget speech to
warn recipients of provincial funds – municipalities, school boards, hospitals
and other public agencies – that they should not anticipate future funding
increases "at levels above, or even at, the rate of inflation".
Liberal Finance spokesman, Patrick Reid,
criticized the budget as one riddled with sins of omission, He did not object
to much that was in the budget, but castigated its failure to deal effectively
with unemployment or the long term structural problems of the Ontario economy,
particularly those relating to productivity. The budget, said Mr. Reid,
"has refused to face the future squarely". After detailing what he
saw as the budget's shortcomings in the agricultural, tourism and auto
manufacturing sectors, in provision of social services and environmental
protection, and in efficient management of the public purse, Mr. Reid concluded
that the Treasurer should resign "not because of the leak but because this
is an abysmally bad budget".
In his response to the budget, the NDP
Treasury critic, David Cooke, attacked the Treasurer for accepting and failing
to deal with a very high level of unemployment. He contrasted the budget's
"miserly approach to youth unemployment" with its "$200 million
tax giveaway" to profitable small businesses, which he dismissed as
political gimmickry. The way out of the province's economic difficulties, Mr.
Cooke argued, is through a government actively involved in creating jobs in the
food processing industry, in housing, in the social services and in
manufacturing. The private sector was not leading Ontario towards economic
recovery, he said, so that it was up to the government, through public
investment, to lead the way.
Legislation
Most of the government legislation dealt
with during May and June was relatively routine and non controversial. Among
the more significant bills were Education Minister Bette Stephenson's measure
to limit university deficits and to impose government sanctions and controls on
universities whose operating deficits exceed two per cent of their budgets, and
a bill brought forward by Health Minister Larry Grossman authorizing the
government to take control of nursing homes under special circumstances.
introduction of this measure followed weeks of attack by Mr. Rae and his health
critic, Ross McClellan, on Ministry regulation of the nursing home industry.
On June 21, the last day before the summer adjournment,
Government House Leader Tom Wells sought and received three readings for an
amendment to the Legislative Assembly Act raising members' indemnities and
expense allowances by just under five per cent to $33,345 (indemnity) and
$11,130 (non taxable allowance). The extra indemnities paid to presiding
officers, ministers, parliamentary assistants, whips, house leaders and
committee chairmen were increased in similar proportion. The bill also
established a new grievance procedure for employees of the Legislature.
liberal Whip Dick Ruston put forward a
rather different amendment to The Legislative Assembly Act. His private
member's bill, which received second reading on May 19, would deduct $100 for
each day (in excess of 10 days a session) an MPP missed a House sitting except
for reasons of illness, official business or pregnancy. Although the bill was
supported by a majority of government members, including the Chief Government
Whip, it had not been called by the government for committee stage by the time
of summer adjournment.
Committees
The bulk of committee activity through May,
June and July was given over to estimates review. The Resources Development
Committee continued its review of workers' compensation, and in holding public
hearings found itself in an unusual venue. The Committee sent notices of a
public meeting to tens of thousands of injured workers and, despite arranging
for an extremely large meeting room, found itself hopelessly overcrowded with
spectators. Eventually the meeting was reconvened with the committee and the
witnesses on the front steps of the Legislature speaking to a noisy crowd of
hundreds of compensation recipients. The casual observer might well have
mistaken the committee meeting for a protest rally!
In May the Select Committee on the Ombudsman
presented a special report calling on the Legislative Assembly to take a more
active role in speaking out against violations of human and political rights
throughout the world. The committee argued that, provided representations are
channelled through the Department of External Affairs, there is a positive duty
for provincial legislatures to combat the evils of political repression and
torture wherever they occur.
Graham White, Clerk Assistant, Ontario Legislative Assembly,
Toronto
Saskatchewan
After 59 sitting days, the Second Session of
the 20th Legislature adjourned for the summer on June 17, 1983.
Statistics demonstrate that the House has
been busy: in the last year, the Assembly sat for a total of 111 days and passed
160 pieces of legislation. Major bills passed in the spring portion of the
current session included legislation to reorganize the provincial government
creating new departments and shuffling responsibilities in an attempt to make
government more efficient, a new Vehicles Act permitting the taking of blood
samples from people involved in accidents and suspected of being impaired and a
bill to establish a system of autonomous local government in northern
Saskatchewan. The most controversial legislation of the session has been Bill
104, amendments to the provincial Trade Union Act, which increases the rights
of employers, makes it more difficult to form unions and prohibit strikes or
lockouts during the life of a collective agreement. This Bill was passed just
prior to the summer adjournment.
One unusual event during the session was an
apology to the Assembly by Premier Grant Devine after he provided incorrect
information to the Committee of Finance during review of spending estimates for
the Executive Council. He had told the committee that no decision had been made
to raise the salaries of some out-of-scope staff, but cabinet documents later
revealed by the Opposition showed he was mistaken.
David Mitchell, Clerk Assistant, Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly,
Regina
Alberta
The 20th Legislature resumed its spring
sittings April 28 after a four-day adjournment for public hearings into Bill
44, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act. The sittings continued until June 6,
making it the longest session in many years (89 days). A total of 114 pieces of
legislation were introduced; 81 were passed; and a number of important
legislative initiatives were undertaken.
Legislation
After the public hearings, Bill 44 was
passed by the Assembly with several amendments and received Royal Assent June
6, despite opposition by the New Democratic Party members.
Following study by a standing committee of a
government White Paper proposing changes to the Legislative Assembly Act, Bill
67 was introduced into the House. The major changes included a clarification of
the areas of potential conflict of interest to MLAs. allowance for air travel
for MLAs for northern Alberta constituencies, and a waiver of the power to
extend the life of a legislature beyond five years during an emergency. (Such
power had been granted to the Assembly by section 4(2) of the new
Constitution.) Bill 67 received Royal Assent on June 6.
Two other Bills of considerable interest
passed during the spring sittings were Bill 60, the Surface Rights Act, and
Bill 38. the Health Care Statutes Amendment Act. Bill 60 brought changes to the
process of determining surface rights settlements in response to a 1981 select
committee report and recommendations. Many of the recommendations of this
committee were incorporated in the new legislation, including provisions for a
payment to land owners to cover the force-take aspects of the procedure. Bill
38 introduced the practice of suspending Alberta Health Care Insurance coverage
if a person is more than three months in arrears in health care payments. Both
bills were debated at length and received Royal Assent on June 6.
Racism
In mid-April the NDP opposition members
questioned the government about the actions it planned to take against an
Alberta teacher who had been fired for promoting anti-Semitism in his
classroom. On May 12 Premier Peter Lougheed responded to the situation in a
ministerial statement with a three-part plan of action: first, a public
education program might be aimed at cornbatting racism: second, the Department
of Education was requested to begin a review of the curriculum guidelines to
ascertain how tolerance could be promoted in the schools; and finally, the
Minister of Education was asked to recommend new procedures that could be
established to promote more effective parent-school communication to eliminate
similar occurrences. The opposition welcomed these initiatives and called for
quick action on the plan. In June, the Minister of Education announced the
appointment of a committee to review possible changes to the education system
to promote tolerance and understanding of other religions and races.
Question Period
On May 19 NDP member Ray Martin rose to ask
a question dealing with purchasing practices of the Alberta government in 1979.
The question was ruled out of order by Speaker Gerard Arnerongen because the
matter it dealt with was not current. Subsequent questions were also
disallowed, and Mr. Martin rose and left the Chamber. Ray Speaker. Leader of
the Independent Opposition. raised the issue as a point of privilege the next
day, arguing that members were clearly entitled to ask questions about the
past. Speaker Amerongen denied that a question of privilege was involved and
proposed to outline more fully the rules governing questions that may be asked
during Question Period.
On May 30 the Speaker read a statement
clarifying the rules and procedures to be followed in Question Period. This
statement was publicly criticized by opposition members. The four opposition
MLAs subsequently declined to participate in Question Period for the duration
of the spring sittings.
Keith Krause and Deborah Steinstra, Legislative Interns, Alberta Legislative Assembly,
Edmonton, Alberta
Senate
There was much committee activity during the
period under review. On June 15, Senator Paul Lafond tabled the Report of the
Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on National Defence entitled "Canada's
Maritime Defence". The Report climaxed an 18-month study of the Maritime
Command (MARCOM). As Senator Lafond told the Chamber 'The story we have to tell
is not a pleasant one,' it is a sad one. We have been and are being terribly
imprudent in ignoring elementary safeguards for the protection of our
sovereignty, in peace as well as in conflict, and we are unacceptably deficient
in honouring commitments to our allies in the defence of our continent or of
the alliance of democracies".
The Sub-committee made thirty-two
recommendations for improving MARCOM. It proposed that work on a white paper on
national defence begin immediately and that it be followed by a government
commitment to insure that the required manpower and material will be provided
according to a definite timetable. It recommended that the defence budget be
increased by seven per cent. It made a number of proposals for a balanced fleet
and recommended the purchase of 18 more Aurora aircraft. It stressed that the
primary aim of Canadian maritime defence policy should be the creation of a
renewed. balanced fleet within twelve years. The Subcommittee plans to continue
its study of the Armed Forces, including the review of other commands, such as
the Mobile Command and the Air Command.
On June 16, Justice Minister Mark MacGuigan
appeared before the Special Committee on the Reform of the Senate and submitted
the government's long-awaited discussion paper on Senate reform. Designed to
provide the Joint Committee with the preliminary views of the government and to
encourage public discussion, the paper dealt with a number of subjects. It
reviewed the principal functions that could be performed by a reformed Senate.
It considered the various methods of selecting Senators, the powers the Senate
might exercise, the various ways seats might be distributed and the ways in
which the aboriginal peoples of Canada might be represented. At the moment, the
government feels that of all the potential functions for a reformed Senate,
regional representation is the most important. With regard to powers, they
"should be just strong enough for it to make its weight felt, where
appropriate, but not so strong as to prevent Parliament from taking decisive
action where national leadership is required". With regard to the three
options by which Senators could be chosen direct election by the people,
appointment by governments or indirect election involving the provincial legislatures
and the House of Commons, the government did not express a preference but
instead stated that it looked forward to the Joint Committee's conclusions
before it made up its mind. The Joint Committee continued its work over the
summer and after cross country hearings in the fall expects to submit its final
report by December 1. 1983.
On June 29, on motion by government Leader
Bud Olson, the Senate approved the establishment of a special committee to
examine the subject matter of Bill C-157, the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service Act. The committee was given the power to act jointly with any similar
committee appointed by the Commons. 11 is chaired by Senator Michael Pitfield
and is to submit its report not later than October 27, 1983.
Legislative Activity
Bill S-32. An Act to amend the Penitentiary
Act and the Parole Act, which had been referred to the Legal and Constitutional
Affairs Committee on November 23, was subjected to a lively debate. The Bill,
as passed on second reading, dealt primarily with the case of an offender on
mandatory supervision and what would happen if mandatory supervision were
revoked, In committee, Solicitor General Robert Kaplan suggested certain
amendments relating to the practice of "gating" federal inmates, i.e.
re-arresting potentially dangerous offenders until their entire sentence has
been completed. Senator Earl Hastings objected to the admissibility of the
amendments on the grounds that they were beyond the scope of the Bill.
Committee Chairman Joan Neiman ruled that the amendments would, if adopted,
extend the provisions of the Bill to objects that, although they were cognate
to its general purposes and within its principle, were not covered by the
subject-matter of the Bill as disclosed on second reading. She felt that the
committee should seek an instruction from the Senate before it proceeded with
the amendments. The instruction was given by the Senate May 31. The amendments
were subsequently passed by the committee, reported and concurred in by the
Chamber, and the Bill was given third reading and sent to the Commons on June
9.
Bill S-33, designed to give effect to the
Uniform Law Evidence Act adopted by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, was
referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee last December, and
has undergone intensive study. Many organizations and individuals have appeared
as witnesses, including the Canadian Bar Association and le Barreau du Québec.
The most frequent criticism made to the committee is that, during the genesis
of Bill S-33, there was insufficient consultation with academic experts as well
as with the practising Bar, with the result that the Bill tended to be
"Crown oriented". There was also doubt expressed as to whether S-33
was a code of evidence. On June 28, Senator Neiman was given leave by the
Senate to make an interim report on the Bill. The Committee recommended that
the Justice Department, when revising the Bill, should work closely with the
appropriate professional groups; and that the revision contain a preamble
indicating clearly that the Uniform Law Evidence Act is not intended to be a
code. The committee plans to continue its hearings on the Bill.
Constitutional Amendment
On June 28, Deputy Government Leader Royce
Frith moved a resolution authorizing the Governor General to issue a
proclamation to amend the Constitution with respect to aboriginal rights. It
was the first Governments-sponsored amendment to the Constitution since the
April 17, 1982 proclamation of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Senate dealt
with the resolution concurrently with the House of Commons. The amendments
proposed to broaden the scope of aboriginal rights to include rights that now
exist by way of land claims agreements. They also proposed that aboriginal
rights be guaranteed equally to male and female persons and that more
constitutional conferences regarding aboriginal peoples be held. Senator David
Steuart expressed misgivings at the speed at which the government was
proceeding in having the resolution passed and suggested that more consideration
be given to the serious implications the amendments, if adopted, would have. He
moved an amendment that the resolution be not now adopted but that the
subject-matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee
for study during the summer recess. The Senate concurred in Senator Steuart's
amendment. Although a constitutional amendment of this type needs the agreement
of the Senate, the Senate's veto may be overridden within 180 days after the
Commons had passed the amendment, by the Commons' readopting the resolution.
Gary W. O'Brien, Chief Minutes and Journals Branch (English), The
Senate, Ottawa
House of Commons
In the early evening of Thursday June 29th.
the House adopted a motion to adjourn for the summer proposed by Yvon Pinard,
the Government House Leader and supported by the House Leaders for the two
opposition parties. This was the first time in some years that the House began
its break before the July 1st holiday – a consequence of the provisional
changes to the Standing Orders put into force last December. The adjournment
came at the end of two months of considerable activity during which the
government faced determined opposition to its bill to alter the Crow rate but
secured the passage of Canagrex legislation and several other bills including
some related to the budget.
The difficulties encountered with the Crow
Bill demonstrate once again the influence of a determined opposition on the
proceedings of the House. This particularly contentious bill was stalled for over
a month while other legislation passed through the House more easily and
quickly. Though the government has a majority and controls the sequence of
debate for its own business, the opposition has the ability to delay or
accelerate the process of legislative consideration. The significance of delay
comes from the fact that there is a fixed daily adjournment and thus a limited
time during a sitting day for debate. As days are lost, the government must
either rearrange its calendar of legislation, seek an understanding with the
opposition, or ultimately seek to limit debate through time allocation or
closure.
In the case of the Crow Bill, which proposes
to change dramatically the historic fee structure for moving western grain by
rail, the events of May and June demonstrated the wide range of procedural
tactics available to the opposition to frustrate the government's legislative
plans. It began the very day Jean-Luc Pepin, the Minister of Transport, sought
leave to introduce Bill C11 55. Normally, this is a very routine matter.
However, on this occasion the opposition insisted on a recorded division and
the government was caught unprepared. The bells were kept ringing for several
hours while the government mustered their backbenchers. Once they were confident
that they had enough supporters to carry the vote, it was the turn of the
Progressive Conservatives to decide that they were not ready to come into the
House. Finally, after 10:30 p.m., Speaker Jeanne Sauvé announced that the vote
would not take place until the next morning, and that accordingly the sitting
would be suspended until then.
The next day, after the vote had been taken,
the government moved the first reading of the bill, and again there was a
recorded division. Two days later, May 12, the debate on second reading began.
On May 16, Eugene Whelan, the Minister of Agriculture gave notice of the
government's intention to allocate only one more day to the debate at that
stage. The reaction of the opposition came the following day when Blaine Thacker
denounced the government's decision and moved "That this House do now
adjourn". The bells continued to ring for the rest of the day until the
Speaker intervened to declare that the motion had lapsed because the hour of
adjournment had been reached.
On May 19, the NDP blocked consideration of
any government business, including the two hour debate required prior to
adopting a time allocation order, by taking up the entire day in reading
ninety-six petitions protesting the proposed changes to the Crow rate. When it
appeared that they might again introduce a lengthy series of petitions on May
24 the government sought to short-circuit the tactic. Mr. Pinard moved that the
House proceed to orders of the day. Such a motion, however, requires a vote and
again the opposition took the opportunity to keep the bells ringing in protest.
At six p.m. the Speaker informed the House that the motion had lapsed and the
sitting was adjourned in accordance with the Standing Orders.
In the last days before the scheduled
adjournment, the government made another attempt to secure second reading by
resorting to the previous question. Second reading was finally obtained June 22
in return for a promise that the Standing Committee on Transport would hold
cross country hearings on the Bill during the summer.
Second reading of Bill C-155 followed by one
week the third reading of another much disputed piece of legislation, Bill
C-85, creating Canagrex, a crown corporation charged with the responsibility of
promoting food exports and of finding new markets for the country's
agricultural products, The Progressive Conservative opposition had spoken
against the bill since it had been introduced. Last December, they protested
vigorously when the government attempted, and succeeded, in imposing time
allocation limiting debate at report and third reading stages to two days. It
was not until June, six months later, that the government brought the bill
before the House for the final debate.
Several other bills considered in the House
before the summer adjournment were much less contentious. Three of these were
related to the budget presented last April by Marc Lalonde, the Minister of
Finance. Two bills, C-147 and C-148, concern loans to support the farm sector
and the fisheries. The third bill, C-161 increases loans available to
university students and extends the repayment deadline for those graduates who
are unemployed. Co-operation among the parties permitted the legislation to
pass through the House without delay. All three passed through second reading,
committee, and third reading stages the same day.
Two other bills were also passed by the
House in June. The first was Bill C-156, adopted June 2, which amends the
Unemployment Insurance Act by improving unemployment insurance benefits for
maternity leave and providing payments to parents adopting children. The second
legislative measure which received third reading was Bill C-95. This bill
allows the government to conduct a betting pool on sporting events like hockey
or baseball. One of its objectives, according to the government, is to raise
revenue in support of the Calgary Olympics. Opposition critics charge that the
scheme would involve the government in a gambling operation and could be used
to support patronage.
Committee Reports
Several committees submitted reports to the
House on legislation and routine matters. One special committee was set up, a
Parliamentary Task Force, to study the problems faced by visible minorities,
The seven member task force under the chairmanship of Bob Daudlin will report
its findings within six months.
The Special Committee on Standing Orders and
Procedure presented its seventh report which recommended changes to enhance the
role of parliament with respect to financial accountability. According to the
special committee, there is a need to create several more committees if the
House is to "exercise greater influence in the examination of public
expenditures and finance". These committees would supplement the work
already being done by the Public Accounts Committee. The first of these would
be concerned with the fiscal framework of the government. Taking a
macroeconomic perspective, it would seek "to relate more closely the
revenue and expenditure sides of government finances and examine more closely
the government's overall handling of the national economy and the direction
which this should take", A second committee would concentrate on reviewing
the government's expenditure plans. A third would be charged with the task of
scrutinizing the activities of agencies which are Crown-owned or
Crown-controlled or in which the government has an interest. To better
co-ordinate the efforts of these committees in their investigation and
surveillance of the government, the report recommended the establishment of a
liaison committee which would have the responsibility of facilitating the flow
of work and information among committees in order to eliminate any potential
conflicts, overlaps and duplication.
Administration of the House
On May 26, the Speaker tabled a follow-up
report by the Auditor General to his 1980 study of the administration of the
House of Commons. The report reviewed the changes implemented during the past
three years and surveyed the opinions of "31 Members, certain of their
support staffs and approximately 90 House officials". The report found
that "management has made significant progress in addressing the major
deficiencies. The House is now in a much better position to provide and
maintain the levels and quality of service required by Members and to do so
efficiently and economically". The report noted with approval the changes
implemented since 1980. The structure of operations in the House has been
substantially revamped and rationalized. The administrative responsibilities
formerly borne by the Clerk of the House have been assumed by a fulltime
Administrator. This "basic separation of responsibilities between
procedure and administrative functions has provided better career path
structure for career progression within the House." The report also noted
that the "administrative, financial and operational systems procedures and
controls have been significantly improved." To insure that the changes
implemented to date become permanent the report recommends that 1he House
should consider formalizing the position of Administrator and the
administrative organizational structure in governing legislation and/or
Standing Orders".
Charles Robert, Table Research Branch, House of Commons, Ottawa
|