House of Commons Hansard #149 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was land.
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.
Tom Wappel Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from constituents of mine concerning convicted child killer, Robert Latimer.
The petitioners make the point that a lenient sentence or executive clemency for Mr. Latimer would imply to all Canadians that killing a vulnerable person is a lesser crime than killing an able-bodied person. They therefore call upon parliament to uphold the Latimer decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
Is that agreed?
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
Apparently the hon. member for Saskatoon--Humboldt had risen and I am sorry I missed seeing him. Is he rising on a motion?
Jim Pankiw Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to move concurrence in the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The members on this side expected that you might seek concurrence or unanimous consent to return to motions. Is it your feeling that there was an error with the situation?
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
Yes, the Chair heard the hon. member call a point of order when the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest was on his feet presenting a petition. I did not see him rise but I did not look up because I had not been told any motion would be moved. I assumed we would be sailing right through so I moved quite quickly.
Under the circumstances my inclination is to allow the hon. member to move his motion. Because we did not have notice I am proposing to put the motion to the House.
Jim Pankiw Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Mr. Speaker, I move that the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented to the House on Tuesday, February 19, 2002, be concurred in.
The public accounts committee made the report based on consideration of chapter 18 of the December 2000 report of the Auditor General of Canada pertaining to governance of crown corporations. Before I get into the findings of the committee report I will cover some factual pieces of information.
Crown corporations are administered under the Financial Administration Act. A board of directors oversees the management of each crown corporation. The federal government's responsibilities are as follows. First, it is responsible for appointing directors and chief executive officers to the boards of crown corporations including the level and degree of their remuneration.
Second, it is responsible for directives and regulations pertaining to crown corporations.
Third, it is responsible for approval of corporate plans and budgets.
Fourth, it is responsible for conducting special examinations every five years to provide the board of directors with an independent opinion of how well the corporation is being managed.
The report of the public accounts committee is based on the findings of the auditor general. First, specific examinations revealed that 66% or two-thirds of crown corporations have serious deficiencies in corporate and strategic planning. The deficiencies are broken into two categories. Some 38% are described as extremely serious and 28% as serious to a lesser degree. Nonetheless, two-thirds of all crown corporations have serious deficiencies in corporate and strategic planning.
Second, the government's process for approving corporate plans is deficient.
Third, performance and accountability are inadequate.
Fourth, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Finance exhibit a weak understanding of crown corporations and demonstrate limited skill in analyzing and interpreting financial statements.
That is a scathing indictment of the bureaucrats in the finance department. They are the people responsible for drafting the annual budgets of the federal government. It is no wonder that when we look at the most recent federal budget we see no provisions for making payments on our massive $547 billion national debt over the next three years. It is consistent with the findings of the report. The report says the bureaucrats in the finance department demonstrate limited skill in analyzing and interpreting financial statements. Why would we have bureaucrats in the Department of Finance who are not skilled at interpreting financial statements? It does not make sense. It is a scathing indictment of the competence of the Liberal government.
There are three more findings of special note.
First, audit committees lack financial literacy and accounting experience. This results in incomplete financial oversight. They lack the required capacity, knowledge and experience to effectively carry out their mandates. It begs the question of why. Why do we have incompetent people on the audit committees? How do they get there? Why do we not have competent people in these positions?
Second, members of boards of directors have serious weaknesses and lack key skills and capabilities in finance, administration and management. In my opening remarks I gave general information about crown corporations being managed by boards of directors appointed by the governor in council. The report finds members of the boards have serious weaknesses and lack key skills and capabilities in finance, administration and management. It again begs the question of why. Why do we have incompetent people on the boards of directors? Why were competent people not put there in the first place?
I might add that Canadians expect crown corporations to be managed effectively and efficiently. To find that the members of the boards of directors, who have been appointed by the government, are not qualified, raises some very serious questions. I will get to that in a minute but I want to cover the last and final finding.
The process of appointing crown corporation CEOs lacks transparency and accountability. Members of the boards of directors, CEOs and members of audit committees are being appointed by the government in a process that the report has found to be lacking in transparency and accountability, and they are not qualified to be there.
What I am getting to is the scandal in the public works department and the fact that the former minister, Alfonso Gagliano, used political interference to land jobs and contracts with crown corporations for friends and supporters of the Liberal Party. That is a violation of the code of ethics, the very code of ethics that the government brought in itself in 1995. It is the same code of ethics that the Prime Minister himself broke when he lobbied the head of the Business Development Bank of Canada to get a loan for his friend.
What we see is pork barrel, patronage politics, using political influence and breaching the code of ethics to get jobs and contracts for Liberal friends and supporters. The government has structured a system of appointing CEOs and members of boards of directors to crown corporations in a manner that lacks transparency and accountability and allows them to appoint Liberal supporters. In the end Canadians pay the price because our crown corporations are not being managed properly.
As the report itself found, the members of the boards of directors lack key skills and capabilities in finance, administration and management. In other words, they are completely unqualified to sit in those positions, yet they have been appointed through a process that lacks transparency and accountability so that the Liberal government can play games of patronage and land contracts and jobs for its friends and supporters. This is not only an obvious breach of the code of ethics but we know that at least two ministers, and this is a matter of public record, the Prime Minister and the former minister of public works, Alfonso Gagliano, openly breached that code of ethics by using improper political interference. This is a matter of ethics and integrity in government. The stench of corrupt activity is overwhelming.
The report by the members of the public accounts committee concluded that the appointment process for members to the board of directors of crown corporations lacked accountability. That was pretty clear in the findings. It stated that CEOs and members of the board of directors of crown corporations should have the required skills and experience to effectively carry out the objectives and mandate of the corporation. Once again it is an obvious statement and makes us wonder why this was never the case in the first place.
The Liberal government has been in power since 1993. Why have corporations not been managed properly from the beginning? Why has there not been an open, transparent manner of appointing CEOs and boards of directors who are competent and capable of fulfilling their mandate?
I think we know the answer to that question. It is the same reason that the Prime Minister lobbied the head of the Business Development Bank of Canada: to get a loan for a friend. It is the same reason that the former public works minister and his staff inappropriately interfered in the management of crown corporations: to land jobs for Liberal friends and supporters.
The report contains 10 recommendations but I will only highlight three specific recommendations. First, the selection criteria for members of audit committees must ensure that all members are financially literate and at least one member should possess the required knowledge and experience in financial management and accounting.
I stress the words “all” and “one” because the report itself had those words underlined. It is almost a facetious indictment of the government, in other words insinuating that there is not one member of those boards of directors who is financially literate. Surely the government could ensure that at least somebody on the board would know what he or she was doing instead of just stacking boards of directors of crown corporations with Liberal friends and supporters.
Another recommendation is that government and responsible ministers should take into account the skills of appointees to board chairs and directors of crown corporations.
Once again, stating the obvious, it is a scathing indictment of the Liberals and the degree to which they have been using inappropriate political interference to the detriment of Canadians. No wonder our crown corporations are not running effectively or efficiently when audits are done and we see that the proper processes were not being followed.
The final recommendation I want to highlight is that the process of appointing directors and CEOs to crown corporations must change. Not only must the appointment process of CEOs to the boards of these crown corporations change, but we need to seriously examine the code of ethics and the consequences that stem from inappropriate political interference and patronage and pork barrel politics.
I put forward two motions to the committee responsible for the public works department on two separate occasions in the last month requesting that Jon Grant, the former president of the Canada Lands Company, come before the committee to testify to the degree of political interference, patronage and pork barrel political games played by the former minister, Alfonso Gagliano. The Liberals stacked those committee meetings and refused to allow the committee to even call witnesses to try to understand or reveal the extent of corruption and wrongdoing. It is quite unbelievable.
Just for the record, and as it pertains to the former minister. Mr. Gagliano, and his inappropriate interference in crown corporations, I want to cover a background of deals by that individual, a former Liberal cabinet minister and the cabinet minister for whom the current public works minister has refused to request an RCMP investigation and for whom the Liberal whip has whipped Liberal backbenchers into preventing the committee from investigating.
In 1993, a background check revealed a link to convicted criminal Agostino Cuntrera. He remained a client of Mr. Gagliano's accounting business from the 1970s until 1993.
In 1998, 20% of all the cultural and sporting grant money given out by the federal government found its way into just 2 of the 301 ridings in Canada, the ridings of the Prime Minister and Alfonso Gagliano. Is anyone surprised? In 2001, he was accused of conflict of interest after Communication Canada subcontracted federal advertising contracts to a Montreal firm employing Alfonso Gagliano's son.
In 2001 it was also revealed that former Italian senator, Maurizio Creuso, who was convicted on corruption charges and has known Mr. Gagliano since 1983, received two lucrative government contracts from Canada Post and CMHC. These are the very crown corporations whose boards of directors are staffed with Liberal funds and supporters. Do members see the corruption? Do members see the extent of patronage and pork barrel politics?
These were complete violations of the code of ethics and fly in the face of everything that is right. It reveals everything that is wrong in the Liberal government and the extent to which it will go to engage in wrongdoing in an effort to shore up the Liberal machine.
In 2002 the former chair of Canada Lands Company alleged that Gagliano and his staff interfered in the day to day management of the crown corporation.
The former minister has quite a record indeed.
I will conclude by saying that, according to the auditor general, the Liberals should end their ability to play pork barrel politics when appointing directors of Canada's crown corporations. The evidence revealing that Liberal cabinet ministers were involved in these scandals has destroyed the notion that crown corporations are independent.
Liberal MPs are using crown corporations as a trough for their supporters and friends. Canadians are fed up with such a lack of ethics in the administration of government departments.
Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, having been involved in foreign affairs for about seven years in this House, I was insulted when I heard that a guy without credentials and without having been presented to the Danish government beforehand, would become its new ambassador for Canada. It all seemed pretty shady and underhanded, and certainly against what I would hope my country would do in the area of foreign affairs.
As to the question the member raised, it appears that this could be the Enron of Canada. There are so many shady things happening it would seem to me.
Does the hon. member believe that an investigation of this case is necessary and that it must be done now in order to clean up this patronage corruption, which everyone knows goes on? Would this not be the opportunity for the government to come clean and really explain all this?
Jim Pankiw Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned a couple of things. The first is the fact that Alfonso Gagliano, after leaving behind a track record of very questionable deals, unethical conduct, breaches of the code of ethics and having no apparent credentials to receive an appointment for an ambassadorship, was appointed ambassador to Denmark. One of the first questions that comes to mind is: What did Denmark do to deserve this?
It is pretty clear that not only, according to the committee's report and the recommendations of the auditor general, should the process of appointing CEOs and members to the boards of directors of our crown corporations change so that they are not staffed with incompetent Liberal supporters and friends, but that the appointment process for ambassadors should also be looked at very closely.
My hon. colleague asked if I thought it was essential that an investigation be conducted. I believe the answer to that is obvious. Even the Liberal MPs themselves know it. We have tried repeatedly to have the appropriate committee investigate the degree of corruption, scandal, wrongdoing, breach of the code of ethics and political interference in the crown corporations but they have been whipped into voting that down.
Twice in the past couple of weeks in the House during question period I asked the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to either have a committee properly investigate it or to conduct an RCMP investigation and he refused. I might say that is the same minister who, when he was the public works critic in opposition, said that any time there were allegations of wrongdoing by a minister of the crown, the RCMP should investigate. Why this double standard on ethics and integrity? Why is it okay to investigate allegations of wrongdoing when someone is in opposition but when in government one just uses the whip and the Liberal machine to cover it up?
It is clear that this corruption is being covered up. Actually, it is not even covered up. It is out in the open. We know the Prime Minister broke the code of ethics by lobbying the head of the Business Development Bank of Canada for a loan. We know that Alfonso Gagliano, the former minister of public works, and his staff politically interfered in the operations of crown corporations to land lucrative contracts for friends and Liberal supporters. An investigation is essential. It is clearly required. This scandal is growing in proportion by the day.
Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened to what my colleague had to say with great interest.
When the Auditor General of Canada made recommendations, as he did to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, was he not, essentially, expressing concern about a real potential danger, that the appointment of friends of the government could very well reach proportions, maybe not like the Enron affair in the United States, but that could lead to investments? Take the pension fund for government employees, for example, and many other funds managed by the government that are the government responsibility and managed by incompetent Liberal hacks whose only qualification is their party membership card.
In this example, one has to wonder if this could not, at some point, lead to poor investments that could result in not only taxpayers dollars, but also money from the pension plans of those who worked their entire lives for the government, diappearing completely because of poor choices, choices made by people who were incompetent, in the end.
I would like to know if this was included in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts study, and in the recommendations of the auditor general—the last auditor general—and if it was one of his concerns. If so, what impact might this have on the corporation?
Jim Pankiw Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. He raises a very good point.
The concern expressed was that appointees to these boards of directors of crown corporations did not have the skills to be there. I do not know myself what the consequences would be. I do not know whether anyone knows what the total degree of the consequences are or what they would be. The auditor general did allude to it of course, and that is why these recommendations came forth.
One of the member's questions referred to wrongdoing and how we would know the extent of it. We would not. We know that people who are not qualified for these positions are being appointed because they are Liberal supporters. Does it end there?
We know that in Quebec federal assets from land was sold at far below market value. People on the boards of directors made that decision. Were there kickbacks? What was the level of corruption? Did money find its way back into the hands of the Liberal minister himself? We do not know.
I will say this however. When former Italian senator Maurizio Creuso, convicted on corruption charges and a friend of Gagliano since 1993, receives two lucrative government contracts from crown corporations, it definitely raises a question. Were those members of the boards of directors giving payback to the minister for having been appointed. Was the minister doing a favour by giving his friend the contracts? Did he get a kickback? I do not know. How do we know the extent of the corruption?
My hon. colleague made another point regarding the poor choices made by incompetence. Not only were there probably shady deals going on but crown corporations themselves were not being managed properly. That has an underlying effect on Canadians through our tax dollars and we will suffer as a result of that.
Andy Burton Canadian Alliance Skeena, BC
Mr. Speaker, these types of allegations do not help Canada's reputation abroad in terms of the strength of the dollar and our general reputation. I believe it is important to Canadians and to our reputation to clear up these types of allegations and get to the bottom of the matter one way or the other.
Would the hon. member expand a little on what sort of process he feels should take place, in what sort of timeframe, and how we could resolve this quickly and improve Canada's reputation?
Jim Pankiw Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first part of the question on process and off the top of my head I do not recall the two countries that were referred to specifically in the report, but two Commonwealth countries have adopted different methods.
One of them, I believe it might be Great Britain, has some kind of a commissioner of appointments. When an appointment is required to a board of a crown corporation or an appointment of a CEO, this commissioner is involved. He functions in an open and transparent fashion and reports to parliament, certainly not just to the Prime Minister as is the case of the ethics counsellor in Canada. Our Prime Minister appoints an ethics counsellor who answers only to him. It is like having his own little lapdog who is not accountable to parliament at all.
I might add that with respect to the scandals surrounding all these crown corporations and the department of public works the ethics counsellor is refusing to investigate as well. We have the Prime Minister's personally appointed ethics counsellor refusing to investigate. We have Liberal members stacking the committees refusing to allow the committees to investigate. The minister is refusing to request an RCMP investigation. All the while we know that the Prime Minister and the former minister of public works breached the code of ethics and improperly interfered in the operation of crown corporations
The second part of my hon. friend's question dealt with timelines and process to clean this mess up. I do not know about timelines but I think as soon as possible, today if we could. We should strike a special committee to investigate all of the circumstances of corruption, patronage, political payoffs, scandal, wrongdoing and breaches of the code of ethics. We should get to the bottom of it and let that committee make recommendations on how to proceed from there.
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
moved:
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.
John Williams Canadian Alliance St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am rather disturbed that the government has moved that we proceed to orders of the day. I was hoping I would not have to discuss this point of order but I will.
My point of order concerns the attempt by the government to bypass the business that is before us at this time. There was a ruling on this very matter in 1987 and it is outlined on page 369 of Marleau and Montpetit. It states:
On April 13, 1987, the government attempted to skip over certain rubrics under Routine Proceedings when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister moved that the House proceed from “Tabling of Documents” to “Motions” which, if carried, would have had the effect of superseding all intervening rubrics. The Speaker had ruled out of order a similar motion only a few months earlier.
In his ruling, Speaker Fraser expressed concern and in the end he ruled that the motion could stand, but stand for one time only. He said at page 370 of Marleau and Montpetit:
...the House would be served best if the government were allowed to proceed, in this instance only,...
He elaborated further:
...that the decision was circumscribed by events for which the rules of procedure offered no solution and was not to be regarded as a precedent.
That particular issue arose because the government's agenda and the agenda of the House were being seized by various motions and issues that disrupted the proceedings of the House and the House could not do its business.
That cannot be said of what we are debating today. We are debating a report that was tabled by myself in the House last week. It is a serious report on the issue of governance of crown corporations.
The government's agenda is not at risk here. In fact, it could be argued that it does not have an agenda. There are just a few bills on the order paper and a whole year ahead of us. How can a motion regarding the Public Accounts of Canada be considered a disruption as defined by Speaker Fraser in 1987?
I would argue that any other business that attempted to displace the motion of concurrence that is before us would be a disruption. I question the government's use of the motion to go to orders of the day.
It concerns me greatly that parliament's rights would be thwarted by the government. There is an ancient rule in parliament that says before parliament listens to the government, the government will listen to parliament. That rule was instituted about 400 or 500 years ago when the King, the monarch of the day, would go to parliament seeking authority to raise taxes. When he got that he would then dissolve parliament and send the members home. They would ask about the business they wanted to transact. The rule and fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy was instituted that says before parliament listens to the government, the government will listen to parliament.
That has evolved to routine proceedings today and every day. It is important that we deal with all the items of routine proceedings, right from tabling of documents through to questions on the order paper, before we go to government orders.
This is an important point of order that is fundamental to the administration of this place. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the reason you have the title of Speaker is because you speak for this House and therefore it is important that the Speaker stand up for the rights of this House. No one else has that authority but you and the person in your chair.
This is a serious point of order. Parliament has to be heard by the government before parliament listens to the government. That is a fundamental practice. If this House loses that we have nothing left. We are only an instrument of the government.
At page 366 Marleau and Montpetit says:
As the Speaker calls each rubric in Routine Proceedings, Members who wish to bring forward matters rise in their place and are recognized. Usually they will have previously indicated to the Chair or the Table their wish to raise an item. The amount of time required to complete Routine Proceedings varies from day to day depending on the number of items dealt with under each rubric.
All rubrics up to and including “Introduction of Government Bills” must be called each sitting day.
I believe the Speaker did call for petitions before he realized that the member was standing under motions but we did not deal with petitions. Therefore we did not complete the routine proceedings of the day even though the Speaker had called petitions.
It is important, according to Marleau and Montpetit, that each item be called every day. It goes on to say:
Thus, at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday and Thursday, “Statements by Members” interrupts Routine Proceedings if the rubric “Introduction of Government Bills” has not yet been completed. The ordinary daily routine of business then continues at 3:00 p.m., immediately after Question Period, until all items under “Introduction of Government Bills” are completed, suspending as much of the hour set aside for Private Members' Business as necessary.
It continues on and I do want to read this into the record because it is important.
Obviously, this does not apply on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, since on those days “Statements by Members” and Question Period take place before Routine Proceedings. If the proceedings are not completed by the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on any sitting day, the House continues to sit until such time as all rubrics under Routine Proceedings up to and including “Introduction of Government Bills” have been called and completed.
Continuing on page 369 of Marleau and Montpetit and this is dealing with Speaker Fraser:
In his ruling, Speaker Fraser expressed concern about the disruption which these procedural tactics--
It is talking about at that particular time the House was in a little bit of an uproar.
--had on Routine Proceedings and the inappropriate use of the rules of procedure as a substitute for debate: “It is a practice which can supersede the presentation of petitions, delay indefinitely the introduction of Bills--those of Private Members as well as those of the Government--and completely block debate on motions for concurrence in committee reports as well as on allocation of time motions.”
As the House will see Speaker Fraser said, because of the circumstances of the time, for that time and that time only he would allow the motion to move beyond orders of the day.
However there is no disruption of the House today. The agenda of the government has been continuing. The debate on the concurrence of an important report is not a disruption of the business of the House. If the House wants to talk about the concurrence of a report of its own committee, surely the House has that right. To deny otherwise would be to say this whole place is an absolute farce and a talking shop that means nothing.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you take this issue seriously and recognize the fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy that has been thwarted by the motion from the government side who want to shut down parliament to talk about its business. It does not want to listen to parliament at all. Therefore the motion must be ruled out of order.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, I will be brief and will not reiterate the same points raised by my hon. colleague from St. Albert. The issue of a concurrence report being discussed by parliament is something that is very fundamental. The issues that are raised in the report, as alluded to by my friend, are extremely important. They go to the very root of the integrity and the importance of debate. The relevance of parliament itself is at stake when we simply thwart every attempt that is made to have these discussions.
I suggest that in the context of your decision, Mr. Speaker, you do have to weigh the legislative agenda itself that is before the House and the level of disruption that would occur. What we have before us is an attempt by my colleague from Saskatchewan to bring forward an extremely important debate to allow other members to engage in that same discussion, and the parliamentary secretary for the government House leader suggests that we have to cut this off immediately by some emergency circumstance and resort to orders of the day.
This is not consistent with the aims and goals of parliament whatsoever. It is reminiscent of Mr. Jeffrey Simpson's recent book, The Friendly Dictatorship, where we are told that parliament is not to be heard from, that we have a very autocratic system in place which is thwarting the very purpose of parliament.
The Fraser ruling is germane to your decision on this issue. Government must give the opposition and parliament the opportunity to have its say. I would suggest it would be a dangerous precedent if in every case we allow the government to shut down these types of debates.
An important issue is at stake here. It is Shakespearean tragedy if we ignore this. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, to which my friend alluded. There is no disruption. There is no hue and cry from the members, other than from the government side, and I would suggest it is the palace guard on the government side who is upset by this.
All members would like the opportunity to engage, so I would very much support the words and the actions of my colleague from St. Albert and urge the Chair to allow the debate to continue.
Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
I would like to thank the hon. member for St. Albert for a well prepared point of order. I also thank the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough for his intervention.
It is not for the Chair to decide what the practice could be or should be. I can only act according to what the practice has been and continues to be. Certainly at this point the Chair is satisfied that the motion brought forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is consistent with those practices.
I might add, if it should be the desire of the House at some point in time to bring the matter to the committee on procedure and House affairs to look at and possibly implement changes to what is the customary practice as of this moment, that is entirely in the hands of the House. However I would remind colleagues and draw their attention to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice of Montpetit and Marleau on page 460. Under the rubric of motions to proceed to the orders of the day, it states:
The motion “That the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day” may be moved by any Member prior to the calling of Orders of the Day; however, once the House has reached this point, the motion is redundant. The Chair has ruled that a motion to proceed to the Orders of the Day is in order during Routine Proceedings...
I thank members for their interventions, but I am satisfied that everything at this point in time is in order.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
All those opposed will please say nay.