House of Commons Hansard #188 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was asbestos.
Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary 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 responses to six petitions.
Citizenship and ImmigrationCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
November 29th, 2012 / 10:05 a.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration entitled “Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act”. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.
Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in relation to Supplementary Estimates (B), 2012-13.
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration entitled “Supplementary Estimates (B), 2012-13”.
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present to the House of Commons this morning from a number of petitioners in my riding of Dufferin--Caledon.
The petitioners state that Canada's 400-year-old definition of a human being says that a child does not become a human being until the moment of complete birth, contrary to 21st century medical evidence. They note that that Parliament has a solemn duty to reject any law that says some human beings are not human and, therefore, they call upon the House of Commons to confirm that every human being is recognized by the Canadian law as human by amending section 223 of our Criminal Code in such a way as to reflect 21st century medical evidence.
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition in support of Bill C-400 introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. The bill aims to ensure accessible, affordable and secure housing. The petitioners are calling on the House to pass this bill in order to develop a national housing strategy.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have a very clear message to the Prime Minister from constituents of Winnipeg North. The petitioners ask the government not to increase the size of the House of Commons, that it retain the current 308 seats at a time of when massive cuts are being made to different services and the age of retirement is being increased from 65 to 67, and things of this nature. My constituents believe that the Prime Minister has his priorities wrong.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions this morning. The first deals with the controversial Enbridge project. These petitioners are from Vernon and Victoria, B.C., and upon the House of Commons to ensure that this project not be approved due to its negative environmental impacts.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of Victoria, B.C., who call upon the House of Commons to ensure that there be a full independent investigation into the robocalls affair in the last federal election to try to get to the bottom of it. There are no accusations as to who was behind it, but surely someone was. We need answers well before the next federal election.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Mr. Speaker, last week the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie suggested in his point of order that my private member's bill, Bill C-377, requires a royal recommendation before it can proceed to a third reading vote. The basis for his point of order is that the bill would impose additional spending obligations on the Canada Revenue Agency in order for it to implement my bill's requirements that labour organizations disclose financial information to the agency.
O'Brien and Bosc, at page 833, note that there are two types of bills that require a royal recommendation. The first is an appropriation act, or supply bill, which involves the expenditure of funds from the consolidated revenue fund. The second is a bill that imposes new charges for purposes not anticipated in the estimates. Under this category of bill the charges imposed by legislation are “new and distinct” and are not covered elsewhere.
It is clear from an examination of my bill that Bill C-377 does not seek funds from the public purse, nor is the bill a taxation measure. Bill C-377 can be properly characterized as a bill that would require the Canada Revenue Agency to establish some administrative procedures for the receiving of financial disclosures from labour organizations and to make these materials available to the public.
The costs that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie quoted as an estimate from the Canada Revenue Agency will not be accurate, should the amendments that I will table today in the House be adopted. In particular, my amendments would remove the requirement for cross-referencing, which is apparently a significant cost when managing databases, and it will require that all filings be electronic. Electronic reporting means no paper and therefore no need to transcribe data manually, which should ensure minimum costs in collecting and posting data. It may be argued that at most, Bill C-377 imposes an administrative obligation of the kind that many non-spending or non-taxation bills would impose on government departments when Parliament wishes to regulate some aspect of economic or social activity.
Clearly, the Canada Revenue Agency already has the administrative apparatus to receive documents and make them available on the CRA website. The argument that there would be an additional cost burden on the department may be met by referring to Speaker Milliken's ruling of October, 2003 where he held:
It is important to remember, however, that the requirement for a royal recommendation relates to the expenditure of public funds and not simply to the fact that someone, somehow or other, may be required to make an expenditure as a result of a provision in the bill.
In this ruling, Speaker Milliken held that Bill S-7, the heritage lighthouse protection act, could conceivably require the expenditure of public funds to maintain a lighthouse, but only once it had been given a heritage designation. He ruled that no royal recommendation was required.
In commenting on Speaker Milliken's ruling of October 29, 2003, O'Brien and Bosc note, on page 834, that any additional expenditures that may be incurred by a department in ensuring that a bill's objectives are carried out, fall within the department's operating costs, for which an appropriation would have been obtained in the usual course.
In another ruling on February 10, 1998, Speaker Parent considered a point of order as to whether Bill S-3, an act to amend the Pension Benefit Standards Act 1985 and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, required a royal recommendation because it gave the Superintendent of Financial Institutions additional supervisory powers. While conceding that the enhanced supervisory powers of the superintendent would require additional expenditures by that office, Speaker Parent noted that there was no provision for spending in the bill. The Speaker went on to rule that should an allocation of money be required an appropriations bill would be brought. He said:
Should an increase in resources be necessary as a result of these new powers, the necessary allocation of money would have to be sought by means of an appropriation bill because I was unable to find any provision for money in Bill S-3.
The factual context of Speaker Parent's February 10, 1998 ruling is analogous to the factual context with respect to Bill C-377.
Through Bill C-377, the agency would be given new responsibilities to oversee financial disclosure from labour organizations, much like the Superintendent of Financial Institutions was given new supervisory powers. The bill that extended those powers was held not to require a royal recommendation, since the allocation of money to facilitate the increased responsibilities would be achieved through an appropriation bill should that be required.
The precedents are clear and they could not be any other way. If we consider for just a moment the consequences of ignoring these decisions by past Speakers, any private member's bill that could potentially lead to the need for the allocation of resources, which would be a long list of bills, would henceforth be challengeable as needing a royal recommendation. That would mean that much private members' business could not go forward without the consent of the government. Such a scenario would dramatically impact the rights of members of Parliament to introduce and to have considered a wide range of legislation.
I am confident that upon reflection even the member opposite who raised this point of order does not want to see a situation whereby the government has a virtual veto over much of what happens in private members' business.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to your ruling.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I thank the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale for his further points on this question.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I am now prepared to rule on the points of order raised on November 26, 2012, by the hon. House leader for the official opposition and the member for Kings—Hants, both of which arose from proceedings in the Standing Committee on Finance during its consideration of Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.
I would like to thank the hon. House leader of the official opposition and the hon. member for Kings—Hants for having raised their concerns, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for their interventions.
In raising his point of order, the opposition House leader asserted that the Standing Committee on Finance, through the adoption of a timetabling motion on October 31, 2012, regarding how it would conduct its proceedings on Bill C-45, went beyond its mandate and usurped the authority of the House when it invited other standing committees to study particular sections of Bill C-45 and to forward any proposed amendments back to the finance committee. He drew particular attention to that part of the finance committee's timetabling motion that provided for amendments to the bill recommended by other committees to be deemed proposed to the finance committee and must be considered in its proceedings along with amendments proposed by members of the committee. He argued that, as the House had referred the bill specifically and solely to the finance committee and had not adopted a motion of instruction authorizing other committees to study specific parts of the bill and subsequently report back to the House in the usual manner, the 13th report of the committee on Bill C-45 should be ruled out of order.
In replying to these arguments, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons insisted that the Standing Committee on Finance had at no time relinquished any of its authority over the committee proceedings on Bill C-45, as it had simply invited other committees to offer suggested changes to the legislation. Further, he stated that there was an established practice whereby a committee charged with studying a bill has consulted other committees by inviting them to study a particular subject matter in the bill and then provide feedback.
The point of order raised by the member for Kings—Hants centred on the manner in which the committee dealt with the amendments to the bill which he, as a member of the committee, had submitted. He pointed out that the motion adopted by the committee on October 31, 2012, specified that once a specific time was reached, “the Chair shall put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill”, and explained that, accordingly, the chair of the committee ruled that the committee would not be voting on any amendments on notice which had not been moved prior to the deadline.
Because the committee overturned that decision by the Chair, the member for Kings—Hants argued that the committee forced votes to be held on all amendments submitted, even those which had yet to be moved. He alleged that the removal of his discretion to decide which amendments he wanted to move, coupled with the overturning of the Chair’s procedurally sound ruling, constituted an abuse of the committee process.
The government House leader began his remarks by pointing out that, as committees are masters of their own proceedings, such matters ought to be settled in committee. He then argued that a broader interpretation of the timetabling motion adopted by the finance committee was needed in order to have a consistent interpretation in committee and in the House of such practices. He asserted that, in overturning the chair's decision, the committee broke no rules, nor did the putting of the question on all amendments submitted result in the member's rights being denied.
The Chair is therefore being asked to address two questions. First, did the Standing Committee on Finance overstep its authority when it adopted a timetabling motion, which, among other provisions, asked other standing committees to consider the subject matter of various parts of Bill C-45 and to offer suggestions as to possible amendments?
Second, do the actions of the committee in overturning the Chair so as to have all amendments on notice, including all the amendments of the hon. member for Kings—Hants, deemed moved during clause-by-clause consideration constitute a denial of his rights as a member?
The government House leader and the parliamentary secretary have both argued that the approach taken by the Standing Committee on Finance, namely, to seek the assistance of other standing committees in the consideration of the subject matter of a bill, is not extraordinary. In support of that contention, the parliamentary secretary referred to a motion of the Standing Committee on Finance on April 28, 2008, when it proceeded in a similar fashion by requesting that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration consider the subject matter of a part of Bill C-50, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget.
While it may be overstating matters that this is “established practice”, it is true that committee practice is of considerable flexibility and fluidity. This is acknowledged by the opposition House leader himself who spoke of the need for committees to respect clear and distinct limits but declared to that, “when work is assigned to it by the House, it is largely up to the committee to decide how and when to tackle it”.
It should be noted that in the present case, even though other committees were invited to suggest amendments, it is the finance committee itself that chose to do so. It also decided how to deal with any suggested amendments and it retained the ability to decide whether or not to adopt any such amendments.
This is not the first time proceedings in a committee have given rise to procedural questions in the House and concerns about precedents being created. The Chair is reminded of a ruling given by Speaker Fraser on March 26, 1990, which can be found at page 9757 of the Debates of the House of Commons, in relation to a particularly controversial committee proceeding. He said:
I would caution members, however, in referring to this as a precedent. What occurred was merely a series of events and decisions made by the majority in a committee. Neither this House nor the Speaker gave the incidents any value whatsoever in procedural terms. One must exercise caution in attaching guiding procedural flags to such incidents and happenings.
The case at hand is not necessarily analogous to the one before us now but, nevertheless, this quote from Speaker Fraser serves as a useful reminder that committee practice is in continuous flux and that it is important to place particular occurrences in context.
As all members are aware, it is a long-established practice that committees are expected to report matters to the House before they can be considered by the Speaker. Speaker Milliken, in a ruling made on November 27, 2002, which can be found at pages 1949 and 1950 of the Debates, put it this way:
As Speaker, I appreciate the responsibility that I have to defend the rights of all members and especially those of members who represent minority views in the House. At the same time, it is a long tradition in this place that committees are masters of their own proceedings. Ordinarily the House is only seized of a committee matter when the committee reports to the House outlining the situation that must be addressed.
In the same ruling, he added:
—it is true as well that committees are permitted a greater latitude in the conduct of their proceedings than might be allowed in the House. It may not always be clear in a particular set of circumstances how best to proceed and so the ultimate decision is left to the committee itself.
Even the rulings of the chair of a committee may be made the subject of an appeal to the whole committee. The committee may, if it thinks appropriate, overturn such a ruling.
Today, I am being asked to decide, in the absence of a report from the committee whether, in this particular instance, the committee exceeded the limits of its powers to such an extent as to warrant an intervention from the Chair. As I see this case, the House referred the bill to the committee for study. The committee proceeded to study the bill, as has been described, and then the committee reported the bill back to the House without amendment. The report of the committee returning to us the bill is all this House has before it.
In other words, I cannot see how the Chair can reach into committee proceedings to somehow provide redress without a report to the House from the finance committee detailing particular grievances or describing a particular set of events. Accordingly, I cannot find sufficient evidence that the standing committee exceeded the limits of its mandate and powers in the manner in which it considered Bill C-45.
The Chair is fully aware that some members are frustrated with the way in which the proceedings took place in committee, particularly given that, as events unfolded there, they believe they were left without recourse. However much I might appreciate these frustrations, the fact remains that none of the actions of the Standing Committee on Finance have been reported to the House for its consideration. Therefore, in keeping with the long established practices of the House in that regard, the Chair is not in a position to delve into the matter further.
In conclusion, the Chair finds that the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-45 is properly before the House and, accordingly, that the bill can proceed to the next steps in the legislative process.
I thank members for their attention.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Before delivering a ruling regarding the report stage of Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, the Chair would like to take a moment to respond briefly to certain arguments raised yesterday by the hon. House leaders of the government and the official opposition. A more comprehensive ruling, dealing with their points in detail, will be delivered at a later date. Today I will limit my comments to only a few key points.
Yesterday, the hon. opposition House leader raised a point of order about the manner in which votes were applied in June of this year at the report stage of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures. He expressed concern that, as a result of the grouping of votes at report stage, members may, in essence, have had to cast a single vote that would apply to several motions, some of which they supported and some of which they opposed.
Let me say at the outset that analyzing report stage motions for purposes of selection, grouping for debate and voting is never an easy task and represents a significant challenge for the Chair, particularly in cases such as the present one where a very large number of motions have been placed on notice. As I stated in my ruling of June 11, 2012 in relation to Bill C-38:
In my selection of motions, in their grouping and in the organization of the votes, I have made every effort to respect both the wishes of the House and my responsibility to organize the consideration of report stage motions in a fair and balanced manner.
The Chair is being asked to consider the suggestion that every motion to delete a clause should be voted on separately. This would diverge from our practice where, for voting purposes where appropriate, a long series of motions to delete are grouped for a vote. Since the effect of deleting a clause at report stage is, for all practical purposes, the same as negativing a clause in committee, to change our practice to a one deletion, one vote approach could be seen as a repetition of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee, something which the House is specifically enjoined against in the notes to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5), which state that the report stage is not meant to be a reconsideration of the committee stage.
That said, though, it has been a long-standing practice for the Chair to select motions to delete clauses at report stage. I reminded the House of our practices in that regard in my ruling in relation to Bill C-38 when I stated, “motions to delete clauses have always been found to be in order and it must also be noted have been selected at report stage”.
To provide just two examples, I would refer members to a ruling by Speaker Milliken regarding the report stage of Bill C-50 on May 30, 2008, which can be found at page 6341 of the Debates of the House of Commons, as well as my own ruling regarding the report stage of Bill C-9, which can be found at page 2971 of the Debates for May 26, 2010.
In the absence of any specific guidance from the House with regard to motions to delete and other matters raised in the points of order, the Speaker cannot unilaterally modify the well-established current practice. Accordingly, with regard to the report stage of Bill C-45, the Chair will be guided by my past rulings and, in particular, by the ruling on Bill C-38.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
There are 1,667 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-45.
Motions Nos. 241, 387 and 388 will not be selected by the Chair since they require a royal recommendation.
Motions Nos. 4, 39 and 62 will not be selected by the Chair as they should have been preceded by a ways and means motion.
Motion No. 1085 will not be selected by the Chair as it could have been proposed in committee.
Motions Nos. 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12 to 17, 19 to 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 33, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53 to 60, 66 to 73, 75 to 77, 79 to 82, 85 to 94, 98, 107, 117 to 130, 132 to 135, 137, 141, 148 to 150, 152, 154, 156, 161, 238, 239, 244, 247, 250 to 252, 255 to 277, 283 to 285, 290, 291, 298, 301, 342, 343, 358 to 360, 367, 391, 403, 406, 408, 412 to 414, 416 to 418, 420, 421, 424, 425, 427, 429 to 437, 439, 441, 444, 447, 450 to 453, 462, 468, 496, 576, 584, 585, 593, 609, 668 to 1084, 1086 to 1336, 1339 to 1547 and 1549 to 1667 will not be selected by the Chair as they were defeated in committee.
Motions Nos. 1337, 1338 and 1548 will not be selected by the Chair because they are repetitive.
All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.
The motions will be grouped for debate as follows.
Group No. 1 will include Motions Nos. 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 18, 22, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 34 to 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 61, 63 to 65, 74, 78, 83, 84, 95 to 97, 99 to 106, 108 to 116, 131, 136, 138 to 140, 142 to 147, 151, 153, 155, 157 to 160 and 162.
Group No. 2 will include Motions Nos. 163 to 237, 240, 242, 243, 245, 246, 248, 249, 253, 254, 278 to 282, 286 to 289, 292 to 297, 299, 300, 302 to 341, 344 to 357, 361 to 366, 368 to 386, 389, 390, 392 to 402, 404, 405, 407, 409 to 411, 415, 419, 422, 423, 426, 428, 438, 440, 442, 443, 445, 446, 448, 449, 454 to 461, 463 to 467, 469 to 495, 497 to 575, 577 to 583, 586 to 592, 594 to 608, and 610 to 667.
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 18, 22, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 34 to 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 61, 63 to 65, 74, 78, 83, 84, 95 to 97, 99 to 106, 108 to 116, 131, 136, 138 to 140, 142 to 147, 151, 153, 155, 157 to 160, and 162 in Group No. 1 to the House.
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
moved:
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 9.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
, seconded by the member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, moved:
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-45, in Clause 9, be amended by deleting lines 12 and 13 on page 14.
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-45, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 15 with the following:
“before 2020, or”
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
moved:
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
moved:
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 11.
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 13.
Motion No. 37
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 14.
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
moved:
Motion No. 40
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 16.
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 17.
Motion No. 44
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 18.
Motion No. 46
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 19.
Motion No. 48
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 20.
Motion No. 50
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 21.
Motion No. 52
That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 22.