Geoff Regan

[Privilege, March 20th, 2018]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 26 by the hon. member for Abbotsford concerning briefings held by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change in relation to Bill C-69, an act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I would like to thank the member for Abbotsford for having raised this matter, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for their comments.

In raising the matter, the member for Abbotsford explained that within an hour of having introduced Bill C-69 in the House on February 8, a briefing on the bill was offered to the media and to stakeholders. This briefing was more than five hours before members of Parliament were offered the same. With members unable to respond immediately to media and stakeholder inquiries, he contended that this was a profound act of disrespect on the part of the minister that constituted a contempt of the House.

The parliamentary secretary disagreed, saying that the minister had not deliberately tried to impede members’ access to information on the bill and would offer additional briefings, if requested. Noting that the bill was not debated in the House until days later and that departmental briefings are beyond the purview of the Chair, the parliamentary secretary said that no breach of privilege had occurred.

As I already noted, the Chair is concerned that this question of privilege was not brought up at the earliest opportunity. Members know that in determining a question of privilege prima facie, the Speaker must consider whether the two requisite conditions have been met; that is, whether the matter was raised at the earliest opportunity and whether, in the Speaker's view, it constitutes, at first view, a breach of a parliamentary privilege.

With respect to timeliness, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 145:

...the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation. When a Member has not fulfilled this important requirement, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is not a prima facie question of privilege.

In this particular case, I note that between February 8, the date of the alleged contempt, and February 14, the date on which the member raised his complaint in the House, several sitting days had elapsed during which the member was aware of the situation that gave rise to his question of privilege. This is cause for concern for the Chair, particularly as the member did not provide an explanation as to why the condition of timeliness was not satisfied. While I am prepared to be flexible on this point this time and not dismiss his question of privilege for this reason alone, it is a condition that must be taken into account in assessing the alleged question of privilege.

Now, turning to the substantive elements of the member’s question of privilege, there have been past instances where members have raised concerns about departmental briefings. Speaker Milliken, in a ruling on November 21, 2002, stated, at page 1742 of the Debates:

It is very difficult for the Chair to intervene in a situation where a minister has chosen to have a press conference, or a briefing or a meeting and release material when the Speaker has nothing to do with the organization of that....The same thing goes for those who are invited to meetings and for the way people are notified of meetings. Whether there is one meeting, or three or four, makes no difference. In my opinion, it is impossible for me to intervene in this case.

It is equally important to understand that the House’s right to first access to legislation was respected in this instance since, as the member acknowledged, Bill C-69 was introduced in the House before either of the briefings in question took place. Thus, this situation cannot be characterized as one of premature disclosure of a bill, even if Members were excluded from the first briefing, that of the media.

The member stated that a contempt may occur if, by diminishing the respect it is due, the House’s ability to perform its functions is impeded. Speaker Sauvé, in a ruling on October 29, 1980, at page 4214 of the Debates, said:

…while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred.

This points to an essential truth that to constitute a contempt, it is necessary to demonstrate that a proceeding in the House, or the ability of members to fulfill their parliamentary duties, was in some way impeded. In response to a similar complaint, on December 4, 2014, at page 10168 of the Debates, my predecessor reminded the House:

That is not to say, however, that every proceeding or activity related to delivering or accessing information by members implicitly involves their parliamentary duties.

He also had cause to state on March 3, 2014, at pages 3429 and 3430 of Debates:

When a situation is brought to the Chair’s attention, it must be assessed within the somewhat narrow confines of parliamentary procedure and precedents. ...the Chair must assess whether the member has been obstructed in the discharge of his responsibilities in direct relation to proceedings in Parliament. ...a member who is preparing to participate in proceedings—whether through a technical briefing or some other means—is not participating in the proceedings themselves. While such preparation is no doubt important, it remains ancillary to, rather than part of, Parliament's proceedings.

That being said, as Speaker, I understand the member for Abbotsford's frustration and the sense of disrespect that he feels in not having had priority access to a briefing on such a complex piece of legislation. In fact, the Chair not only finds this matter to be unfortunate, but also entirely avoidable. While no parliamentary rules may have been broken or privileges breached, respecting members’ needs for timely and accurate information remains essential. There is no question that the work of members of Parliament is made more difficult without expeditious access to legislative information. Given this reality, there is a rightful expectation that those responsible for the information should do their utmost to ensure members’ access to it. Not respecting this expectation does a disservice to all. It is particularly disconcerting when the government gives priority to the media over the members of Parliament.

Having examined the evidence and given the limited parameters of the Chair in this matter, I cannot conclude that the House or its members were unable to fulfill their parliamentary duties. Accordingly, I cannot find that the question raised constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House, and thus there is no case of privilege.

I thank all honourable members for their attention.

[Point of Order, March 1st, 2018]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on February 27, 2018, by the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé concerning the second reading of Bill C-69, an act to enact the impact assessment act and the Canadian energy regulator act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, under the provisions of Standing Order 69.1.

I would like to thank the hon. member for having raised this question, as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his intervention on this point.

The hon. member argued that Bill C-69 is an omnibus bill, as she feels it contains several different initiatives which should be voted on separately. She noted that the bill would delete two existing acts, would enact new ones, and would amend over 30 other acts. The hon. member requested that the Chair divide the question at second reading to allow for a vote on each of the three main parts of the bill.

Part 1 would enact the impact assessment act and repeal the existing Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Part 2 would enact the Canadian energy regulator act as well as repeal the National Energy Board Act. The hon. member argued that this second part deals more with natural resources than with the environment and should therefore be voted upon separately.

Part 3 consists of amendments to the Navigation Protection Act, which would be renamed the Canadian navigable waters act. As this deals with matters relating to transportation, she felt that this part should also be subject to a separate vote.

The hon. member helpfully identified which of the consequential and coordinating provisions, contained in part 4, she believed were associated with each of the other parts. I am grateful for her specificity in this regard. I would note that these consequential and coordinating amendments represent the changes to the 30 other acts referenced by the hon. member. In the vast majority of cases, the changes are to reflect updated terminology relating to the names of new agencies or statutes created by the bill. The fact that there is a large number of them is not a significant factor in determining whether or not this constitutes an omnibus bill.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader agreed that the bill amends several acts, but argued that there is in fact a common element to link together all of the changes. He stated that the bill represents a comprehensive review of federal environmental and regulatory processes and that to consider them separately would create unnecessary uncertainty about the overall framework.

As members will recall, Standing Order 69.1 took effect last September. It gives the Speaker the power to divide the question on the second or third reading of a bill where “there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked”. The critical question for the Chair, then, is to determine to what extent the various elements of the bill are linked.

To date, I have been asked to apply this standing order on two instances. On November 7, 2017, I declined to allow multiple votes in relation to Bill C-56, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Abolition of Early Parole Act, as I felt the two issues raised by the bill were sufficiently related and that they were essentially provided for under the same act. On November 8, I agreed to apply the standing order in relation to Bill C-63, the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, as I considered that there were several issues contained in the bill that were not announced in the budget presentation. On November 20, in relation to Bill C-59, the national security act, 2017, I ruled that the standing order could not apply to a motion to refer a bill to committee before second reading, though I invited members to raise the issue again prior to third reading of the bill if necessary.

I would underscore, as I did in my ruling on Bill C-63, that the Chair does not have the power to divide a bill into different pieces of legislation to be considered separately. The Standing Order only allows me to divide the question on the motions for second and third reading for the purposes of voting.

Bill C-69 does clearly contain several different initiatives. It establishes two new agencies, the impact assessment agency and the Canadian energy regulator, and makes a series of amendments to the Navigation Protection Act. One could make the case, as did the parliamentary secretary, that there is indeed a common thread connecting these various initiatives, in that they are all related to environmental protection. However, the question the Chair must ask itself is whether the purpose of the standing order was to deal only with matters that were obviously unrelated or whether it was to provide members with the opportunity to pronounce themselves on specific initiatives when a bill contains a variety of different measures.

In presenting arguments relating to Bill C-63, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard raised an interesting concept from the practice in the Quebec National Assembly. Quoting from page 400 of Parliamentary Procedure in Québec, he stated: “The principle or principles contained in a bill must not be confused with the field it concerns. To frame the concept of principle in that way would prevent the division of most bills, because they apply to a specific field.”

While their procedure for dividing bills is quite different from ours, the idea of distinguishing the principles of a bill from its field has stayed with me. While each bill is different and so too each case, I believe that Standing Order 69.1 can indeed be applied to a bill where all of the initiatives relate to a specific policy area, if those initiatives are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate decision of the House.

In this particular instance, I have no trouble agreeing that all of the measures contained in Bill C-69 relate to environmental protection. However, I believe there are distinct initiatives that are sufficiently unrelated that they warrant multiple votes. Therefore, I am prepared to allow more than one vote on the motion for second reading of the bill.

As each of the first two parts of the bill does indeed enact a new act, I can see why the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé would like to see each one voted separately. However, my reading of the bill is that the regimes set out in part 1, the impact assessment act, and part 2, the Canadian energy regulator act, are linked in significant ways, reflected in the number of cross-references. For example, the impact assessment act provides for a process for assessing the impact of certain projects, but contains specific provisions for projects with activities regulated under the Canadian energy regulator act. There are also obligations in the Canadian energy regulator act that are subject to provisions in the impact assessment act. Given the multiple references in each of these parts to the entities and processes established by the other part, I believe it is in keeping with the Standing Order that these two parts be voted together.

With respect to part 3, which amends the Navigation Protection Act, I find that it is sufficiently distinct and should be subject to a separate vote. While there are some references in part 2 to changes made in part 3, I do not believe they are so deeply intertwined as to require them to be considered together. There would be an opportunity to correct these references as part of the amending process if part 3 should not be adopted by the House.

As I stated earlier, part 4 of the bill is made up of consequential and coordinating amendments arising out of the other 3 parts. In my ruling on Bill C-56, I recognized that the analysis and division of a bill into different parts can sometimes be quite complex. Based on my reading of part 4, which differs slightly from that of the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, clauses 85, 186, 187, and 195 seem to be related to part 3 and will be voted with that part. The remaining clauses in part 4, with the exception of the coming into force clause, specifically 196, appear to relate only to parts 1 and 2 and will therefore be grouped with those parts. The schedule relates only to part 1 and will also be grouped with it.

[Privilege, January 30th, 2018]

On December 5, 2017, the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge raised a question of privilege concerning allegedly misleading statements made by the Minister of National Revenue.

I would like to thank the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge for raising this matter, as well as the Minister of National Revenue, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for their comments, which assisted me in assessing the prima facie merits of this question of privilege.

The member for Calgary Rocky Ridge explained that some responses to oral questions made by the Minister of National Revenue regarding disability credit eligibility criteria contradicted information found in an internal departmental memo obtained through an access to information request. The member explained that the minister had repeatedly said that the disability credit eligibility criteria had not changed nor were there any changes to the way the law is interpreted. However, in the member’s opinion, the departmental memo showed otherwise. This, he contended, was proof that the minister had deliberately misled the House.

He then raised this matter again on December 11, adding that comments by the minister’s parliamentary secretary in a recent media interview were further proof of this allegation.

In turn, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons noted that, as the minister's statements were neither inaccurate nor contradictory, the requisite conditions for determining that the House had been misled have not been met. Thus, he concluded that this is simply a matter of debate.

The Minister of National Revenue rose in the House on December 12, and maintained the validity of her previous statements to the House on this matter. However, she did concede that the internal departmental memo in question, even though she argued it did not outline a change to the eligibility criteria, may have had unintended consequences in contributing to confusion. For that, the minister apologized.

Before addressing the matter at hand, I would like to remind members of the conditions involved in raising a question of privilege.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 141, states:

First, the Speaker must be convinced that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made and, second, the matter must be raised at the earliest opportunity.

There is a tacit understanding that, if a matter goes to the heart of a member's or the House's privileges and immunities, or that contempt is involved, it is of the highest importance and should be addressed urgently. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 143, reminds us that:

...the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation. When a Member has not fulfilled this important requirement, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is not a prima facie question of privilege.

This, of course, is in addition to the need for members to provide a written statement to the Speaker at least one hour before rising in the House.

When examining a charge that a member has deliberately misled the House, the Speaker is strictly limited with respect to what can and cannot be considered. As recently as November 20, 2017, at page 15325 of the Debates, I reiterated the following:

Members know well that in any case in which the veracity of what a member of the House has said is called into question, the Chair's role is very limited to the review of the statements made in a proceeding of Parliament. In other words, the Chair cannot comment on what transpires outside of the deliberations of the House or its committees.

Speaker Milliken also upheld this important principle on February 10, 2011, at page 8030 of the Debates, stating that:

…the Chair is bound by very narrow parameters in situations such as this one. It may sound overly technical but the reality is that when adjudicating cases of this kind, the Chair is obliged to reference material fully and properly before the House.

As has been acknowledged, in examining this case, involving a series of statements by the minister, there are three necessary conditions to be met: the statements must be misleading; the member must know when making them that they are incorrect; and, finally, there must be proof that the member intended to mislead the House by making the statement.

In reviewing the statements made by the minister, which is all that the Chair is able to assess in this instance, I am unable to find evidence that they were deliberately misleading when measured against the threshold set by the House.

This is in addition to our long-standing practice of accepting members at their word, something I am bound to do. As my predecessor stated on April 29, 2015, at page 13198 of the Debates:

…as your Speaker, I must take all members at their word. To do otherwise, to take it upon myself to assess the truthfulness or accuracy of members' statements is not a role which has been conferred on me, nor that the House has indicated that it would somehow wish the Chair to assume, with all of its implications.

Consequently, for these reasons, I cannot find that a prima facie question of privilege exists.

That being said, this situation should serve as a pointed reminder of the need for clear and accurate exchanges of information in the House. Members' inalienable right to clarity and consistency in the information they receive underpins their ability to carry out properly their responsibilities as legislators and representatives. Any information that fails to support this right and obligation is in essence a disservice to all members.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

[Concurrence in Vote 1B--Department of Finance, December 4th, 2017]

Is it agreed to proceed in this manner?

[Point of Order, November 30th, 2017]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on November 22, 2017, by the member for Montcalm regarding the participation of the Minister of Finance in the vote on Motion No. 42. In raising this matter, the member for Montcalm reiterated the arguments raised by the member for Joliette on November 8, 2017, contending that the Minister of Finance was in contravention of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons by participating in a vote on Motion No. 42 relating to tax avoidance. He also argued that the minister had attempted, through his parliamentary secretary, to influence the House in the furtherance of his private interest.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, page 568, states:

No Member is entitled to take part in debate or to vote on any question in which he or she has a private interest (formerly referred to as a “direct pecuniary interest”), and any vote subsequently determined to have been cast in these circumstances would be disallowed....

If a Member's vote is questioned after the fact, it is the practice to accept his or her word. If the House wishes to pursue the issue, notice must first be given of a substantive motion to disallow a Member's vote.

In addition, section 13 of the Conflict of Interest Code, which was established to guide members in the ethical discharge of their duties, including when there are private interests, states, and I quote:

A Member shall not participate in debate on or vote on a question in which he or she has a private interest.

Based on the restriction provided in the code, it is clear that the right of members to debate and vote is not absolute. Furthermore, Speaker Milliken, on October 6, 2005, stated, at page 8473 of the Debates:

...the Conflict of Interest Code contains rules that the House has adopted for itself and that the House has mandated the Ethics Commissioner to interpret and apply the code.

It is the commissioner who has the sole authority to apply the dispositions of the code and to investigate any alleged conflicts of interest. It should be noted, however, that members do have the ability to refer matters to the commissioner. Section 27 of the code establishes the process relating to concerns about a potential conflict of interest involving another member. The House too can direct the commissioner to conduct an inquiry by way of a resolution. Section 28 then outlines how the House may proceed if the commissioner concludes that a member has not complied with an obligation under the code.

It is not the role of the Chair to determine if a conflict of interest exists, but instead, to ensure that the rights and privileges of members of this House are always safeguarded. By extension, as Speaker, I cannot unilaterally deprive a member of the right to vote any more than I can unilaterally order that a vote be redone.

As members will surely appreciate, the seriousness of a charge against a member is such that the Chair must make absolutely certain that the procedures that the House has adopted are strictly followed. I would like to thank all members for their attention in this matter.

[Canada's 2017 Special Olympics World Winter Games Athletes, November 29th, 2017]

It is my pleasure to welcome onto the floor of the chamber many of the athletes who competed in the 2017 Special Olympics World Winter Games in Austria last March, led by the chef de mission and the 2017 honorary coach.

These athletes on the floor of the chamber and in the gallery have competed in alpine skiing, cross-country skiing, figure skating, floor hockey, snowshoeing, and speed skating.

Canadians from across the country are justly proud of you, and so are we. Like them, we appreciate the years of training and sacrifice, and the determination it takes to become a world-class athlete.

You are all champions. You are an inspiration to your fellow Canadians.

Today is also an opportunity to recognize coaches, mission staff, and Special Olympics Canada for their hard work and dedication. Many of them are sitting in the gallery, and I would ask them to stand.

Congratulations again, félicitations, thank you all for representing Canada so well in the Special Olympics, and good luck in your future endeavours:

Sara Albers, Chris Anderson, Adelina Bailey-Lopes, Alexia Barré, Emile Baz, Matthew Bedard, Donna Bilous, Ryan Blinn, Kirsten Bobbie, Robert BomBoir, Darren Boryskavich, Serge Boulianne, Ronald Brandt, Susan Brophy-Leblanc, Holly Burton, Ronald Cambridge, Julien Cardinal Moffet, Alyssa Chapman, Janet Charchuk, Dr Neil Cheeseman, Ernest Chua, Janet Collins, Matthew Cormier, Mark Cullen, Kyrren Dean, Sheldon Dean, Justin Dodge, Kevin Dooks, Sylvie Ducharme, Doug Dunk, Jack Fan, Chelsea Fidler, Matthew Fields, Robert Fougere, Michael Gilbert, Timothy Goodacre, Stephen Graham, Jacqueline Gravel, Adam Guthrie, Shane Haddad, Tyler Haddad, Sébastien Hamel-Bourdeau, Brianna Harris, Floressa Harris, Kristen Hudson, Maureen Hunter, Raymond Huson, Elijah Ilag, Christopher Innes, Darren Inouye, Jade Irvine, Jennifer Jackson, Darlene Jakubowski, Evan James, Dan Jamieson, Mark Jamieson, Rosie Laidler, Michael Langridge, Zane Lauritsen, Veronique LeBlanc, Nancy Leduc, Allison Libertini, Terry Livingstone, Adam Lloyd, Allison Love, Dennis Lynch, Darlene MacQuarrie, Benjamin Maeseele, Daniel Martin, Rachel Mathews, Sarah McCarthy, Tijana McCarthy, Sara McKelvie, Andrew McTaggart, Paul McTaggart, Tracey Melesko, Kelsey Mellan, Michael Milani, Jill Moore, Paige Norton, Valerie Nyhout, Alexander Pang, Renée Pelletier, Christine Peters, Roxana Podrasky, Juli Prokopchuk Brattan, Barb Prystai, Mario Richard, Jonathan Robbins, David Robertson, Elizabeth Roman, Hellaina Rothenberg, Michael Roy, Jamie Salé, Stéphanie Savard, Randy Scott, Patric Seeds, Olivier Séguin, Justin Sigal, Sandra Smith, Peter Snider, Katherine St Amand, Francis Stanley, Philip Ste-Marie, Elouise Stewart, Shane Stewart, Kailinda Stewart, Ron Struch, Michael Sumner, Marc Theriault, Erin Thom, Ben Tinholt, Paul Turner, JorDen Tyson, Garth Vickers, Lucie Villeneuve, James Walker, Susan Wang, David Whyne, Tony Wilkinson, David Wilkinson, Michael Wimbs, Elijah Wood, Katie Xu, Crystal Young, Joanne Zahaiko, Tracey Zwiers,

[Bill C-352--Canada Shipping Act, 2001, November 28th, 2017]

The Chair wishes to make a brief statement on the manner in which the secret ballot vote will be conducted on the designation of Bill C-352, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to provide for the development of a national strategy (abandonment of vessels). In so doing, I also wish to address the point of order raised yesterday by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

With regard to the voting process, members may obtain their ballot from the table officer seated on their side of the chamber. They will then be able to mark their ballots in secret at one of the two voting stations situated in the corridor behind the Speaker’s chair. Completed ballots are to be deposited in the ballot box which will be placed at the foot of the table.

During statements by members and oral questions, ballots will be distributed from the corridor behind the Speaker's chair and the ballot box will also be placed there so as to not disrupt the proceedings.

With regard to the manner in which the results will be revealed, I am afraid that I cannot accept the argument made by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby that this process should be treated differently from the only other analogous practice that exists in our Standing Orders, that for the election of the Speaker.

In that case, Standing Order 4(12) provides that all ballots and records of the number of preferences marked for any candidate are to be destroyed by the Clerk of the House. It also instructs the Clerk to in no way reveal the number of preferences marked for any candidate.

Standing Order 92 does not provide any direction to the Chair which would cause it to depart from that now established practice. Accordingly, when the two days of voting have been completed, the table officers will count the ballots and provide me with the final result, not the number of members voting for or against the motion.

I will then provide that result to the House at the opening of the sitting on Thursday, November 30.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs may wish to consider this matter and if it deems necessary, provide further direction to the Chair with regard to the manner in which the result of the secret ballot is revealed.

Pursuant to Standing Order 92(4), I now direct that the vote on the designation of Bill C-352commence.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

[Points of Order, November 20th, 2017]

I will ask the member to be patient for a moment while I provide a quick ruling on a point of order raised a bit earlier, and then there will be three minutes remaining in questions and comments. This will not take long.

I thank the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly for raising a point of order with regard to the application of Standing Order 69.1, a motion under Standing Order 73. As hon. members know, Standing Order 69.1 is new, but its wording is clear. As is often the case, the powers of the Speaker are limited in the Standing Orders and that is case with Standing Order 69.1.

I will read the section that I believe pertains in this case. The Standing Order says, “the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill”.

The motion currently before the House, the one requested in the point of order, is not in fact a motion for second reading. Nor is it a motion of course at third reading to adopt the motion. It is instead a motion to refer the bill to committee forthwith.

As the Speaker, I am bound to apply the Standing Order as it is written, and Standing Order 69.1 is not written in a manner that allows me, as the Speaker, to apply it in a motion which is to refer the bill to committee before second reading. Therefore, I cannot, in my view, invoke Standing Order 69.1 in this case.

However, should the motion in fact be adopted to send the bill to committee before second reading and should the bill be concurred in at report stage and second reading, I could certainly, as the Speaker, apply Standing Order 69.1 at second reading of the bill. At that time, one would anticipate that after it came back from committee, the bounds of the bill and its principles would be more clearly established.

As I mentioned a few days ago, in my previous ruling on a motion concerning Standing Order 69.1, at such time I would encourage members to bring forth their arguments about whether the bill should be divided for the purposes of voting as early as possible.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

[Privilege, November 20th, 2017]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 2, 2017, by the hon. member for Thornhill concerning allegedly misleading statements by the Prime Minister.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Thornhill for having raised this matter, as well as the parliamentary secretary to the government House Leader and the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for their comments.

In raising the matter, the member for Thornhill alleged that the Prime Minister had misled the House when, during oral questions on October 31, 2017, he stated that the Minister of Finance was the only minister currently holding controlled assets indirectly. This, the member indicated, contradicted information provided by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

In turn, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader noted that, in fact, the then Ethics Commissioner herself declared that she was not at odds with the Prime Minister's statement. Furthermore, he explained that the established criteria used to determine if a member has deliberately misled the House had not been met and characterized the matter as simply a dispute as to facts.

Members know well that in any case in which the veracity of what a member of the House has said is called into question, the Chair's role is very limited to the review of the statements made in a proceeding of Parliament. In other words, the Chair cannot comment on what transpires outside of the deliberations of the House or its committees.

Speaker Milliken reiterated this essential principle in a ruling of February 10, 2011, which can be found at page 8030 of the Debates:

It may sound overly technical but the reality is that when adjudicating cases of this kind, the Chair is obliged to reference material fully and properly before the House.

In keeping with this limitation, any comments made by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner outside of our proceedings are not officially before the House. That is not to say that the right and need of members to receive accurate information is in any way diminished, for it is not, but it does place boundaries on what comments the Chair can review.

In addition, as with any charge that a member has misled the House, the Speaker must uphold the requirement that the three pre-established conditions be met; that is, the statement must be misleading, the member must know in making the statement that it is incorrect, and finally, there must be proof that the member deliberately intended to mislead the House by making the statement.

In the absence of these criteria, the matter is usually found to be simply a question of debate. In a ruling from January 31, 2008, which can be found at page 2435 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken stated that:

...Any dispute regarding the accuracy or appropriateness of a minister's response to an oral question is a matter of debate; it is not a matter for the Speaker to judge.

A review of the evidence officially before the House leaves the Chair unable to conclude that on the basis of exchanges last October 31, the member was unable to fulfill his parliamentary functions. Accordingly, I do not find that there is a prima facie question of privilege.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

[Points of Order, November 8th, 2017]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on November 3, by the hon. member for Carleton concerning the applicability of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-63, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Carleton for raising this matter, as well as the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard, and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader for their comments.

The hon. member for Carleton asked that the Chair use the authority granted under Standing Order 69.1 to divide the question on the motions for second and, if necessary, third reading of Bill C-63, as he argued the bill contained measures not announced in the budget of March 22, 2017.

He noted, for example, that the summary indicated that a measure in part 2 of the bill was implementing a change to the GST/HST rebate for public service bodies announced on September 8, 2017. He also argued that the measures concerning the taxation of agricultural and fisheries co-operatives in part 1, and those concerning beer made from concentrate in part 3, were not in the budget, nor were three measures from part 5, namely division 5 regarding the Bank of Canada, division 11 concerning judges, and division 13 regarding payments to discharge debt.

The hon. member also argued that the monies authorized in part 5, division 2, regarding the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, AllB, far exceeded what was announced in the budget.

In his budget speech, the Minister of Finance indicated that the government would be investing $256 million in the AllB over five years, while clause 176 of the bill authorizes the minister to spend $375 million U.S., or roughly $480 million Canadian.

While he indicated that he did not feel strongly about having a separate vote on each of the other measures, the hon. member for Carleton was particularly keen on having a separate vote on this measure. He thought the Standing Order provided the Speaker with such authority, given that the bill authorized quite a bit more spending than what was announced in the budget.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby argued that the bill was in fact an omnibus bill, insofar as it contained measures not announced in the budget. He also noted that this was specifically the case in relation to the measures concerning agricultural and fisheries cooperatives and those concerning beer from concentrate. Furthermore, he argued that the inclusion of such measures meant that Bill C-63 could not qualify for the exemption provided in the Standing Orders for budget implementation bills and that therefore the entire bill should be treated as an omnibus bill.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, in his intervention, sought to reassure the House that certain measures were indeed arising out of the budget. He pointed out that the plan for Canada to become a member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was indeed announced in the budget, and that the bill operationalizes that plan. He also argued that the amendments to the Judges Act in division 11 give effect to the intention announced in the budget to implement the recommendations of the 2015 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. The changes relating to the Bank of Canada in division 5, he contended, are part of the government's plan to bolster the tool kit for managing the resolution of Canada's largest banks, as announced in the budget.

Finally, he insisted that the Standing Order does not foresee the division of a bill for the purposes of debate or committee referral, but only for the purpose of voting at second and third reading.

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard argued that in coming to a decision, the Speaker should be inspired by the procedure in the Quebec National Assembly in relation to motions to divide bills. He argued that the Chair should not confuse the principles contained in a bill with the field of legislative action it addresses. While the measures in the bill all deal with economic policy, he did not think that the Speaker should conclude that they are all interrelated. He also raised a number of points that were less specifically about Bill C-63, but concerned the mechanics of implementing a decision to divide a question, which he argued are unaddressed by the Standing Orders. In particular, he raised issues relating to amendments to the second and third reading motions, referral to committee, report stage and consideration of Senate amendments.

Yesterday, in response to a point of order from the hon. opposition House leader, I delivered a first ruling concerning the new Standing Order 69.1 on omnibus bills. This Standing Order empowers the Speaker to divide the question on the motion for second and third reading of a bill in circumstances where the bill contains a number of unrelated provisions.

The matter before us today concerns paragraph (2) of that Standing Order, which makes an exception for budget implementation bills. That paragraph reads as follows:

69.1(2) The present Standing Order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.

The question for the Speaker, then, is whether or not the measures identified by the hon. member for Carleton and the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby correspond to provisions announced in the budget.

Let me first say that establishing such a link is not always obvious. The budget document itself is almost 300 pages, while the supplementary tax information represents another 100 pages. The Chair has done its best to review the material in arriving at this decision.

Let me first deal with the measures in the bill relating to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The hon. member for Carleton acknowledged that these measures were indeed announced in the budget. The only issue is whether or not the variance in the amount invested is sufficient to sever this relationship.

In my view, the spirit of the Standing Order was to provide for a separate vote when new or unrelated matters were introduced in the budget implementation bill. The fact that the amounts are higher, though I admit the variance is considerable, does not, in my opinion, make the matter of the AllB markedly different from what was announced in the budget.

I believe it is understandable that, in between the time the budget is presented and the time the budget implementation bill is introduced, a change in circumstances could produce such a variation. I do not believe it is necessary to insist on an identical amount when the overall policy initiative is substantially the same. Therefore, I do not believe it would be appropriate to have a separate vote on this matter.

Let me turn now to the other issues raised by hon. members. I am willing to accept the arguments from the hon. parliamentary secretary that division 5 of part 5 regarding the Bank of Canada and division 11 of part 5 regarding judges’ compensation flow out of measures announced in the budget. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate that those measures be included in the general vote at second reading and, if necessary, at third reading.

However, in relation to the other matters raised by the hon. members for Carleton and New Westminster—Burnaby, I have been unable to find a link between them, and what is contained in the budget documents. The parliamentary secretary did not refute the contention that these matters were indeed new and unrelated to the budget.

Accordingly, I believe that I can and should exercise the powers granted to me in the Standing Order to divide the question at second reading and, if necessary, at third reading.

Having come to this conclusion, the question is, how to effect such a division? The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby argues that the entire bill should be subject to division. Since it does not solely implement measures announced in the budget, he believes the exemption in Standing Order 69.1(2) no longer applies.

As I stated earlier, I believe the purpose of the Standing Order is to allow such a division in relation to those matters which are unrelated to the budget, accepting that the purpose of the remainder of the bill is to implement the budget.