House of Commons Hansard #197 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was process.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure bank needs to be split off from Bill C-44. Enough with these massive bills and poison pills hidden in 500-page tomes. The infrastructure bank is a bad idea that is going to weaken Quebec to the benefit of wealthy investors.
Will the Prime Minister listen to Quebec, the farmers, and even the Senate and remove the infrastructure bank from Bill C-44?
Amarjeet Sohi LiberalMinister of Infrastructure and Communities
Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect us to build the best public transit to reduce the gridlock facing our communities. They want us to invest in more affordable housing to create opportunities for Canadians. They want to invest in recreational and cultural infrastructure.
That is exactly what our infrastructure plan, an ambitious $186-billion plan, will do. With respect to the jurisdictions of provinces and municipalities, the bank will do that.
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what the Liberals are missing. The way Bill C-44 is drafted, the infrastructure bank can ignore the laws of Quebec and circumvent municipal bylaws. No agricultural zoning, and the power to expropriate: that is what will come out of Bill C-44. We have said it, the constitutionalists have said it, the National Assembly has said it, the farmers have said it, and even the Senate has said it.
When will this government listen to us and split its bill to have a second look at its infrastructure bank?
Amarjeet Sohi LiberalMinister of Infrastructure and Communities
Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to be working with our Quebec caucus to deliver on the commitment that we made to all Canadians, including the Province of Quebec. A $1.3 billion investment in Montreal's transit system will create 34,000 jobs in that region.
That is delivering for Canadians. That is delivering for the Province of Quebec. As far as the legislation is concerned, we are very confident that the way it is being done will respect the local jurisdictions in Quebec and in other provinces.
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Mr. Speaker, forestry workers are demonstrating across Quebec today to call on the government to negotiate a fair and balanced agreement on softwood lumber. That may seem obvious, but the forestry sector has learned not to trust Ottawa.
Arguing over guarantees has cost weeks of work for workers, who are more than ready for a bit of stability.
Will the government make a solemn promise to refuse to sign any sellout agreement that could hurt forestry workers?
Jim Carr LiberalMinister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question because it is a chance to remind the House of the significance of the measures that we have undertaken to make sure, both in the short term and in the long term, that the forestry industry is respected in Canada.
That includes $605 million from the Export Development Corporation. It includes very timely measures to expand export markets. That includes taking the leaders of the industry in Quebec to China to begin to make the argument that our wood is the best wood in the world.
We are very proud of that initiative. We are very proud of how we have stood up for the forestry—
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that my parliamentary privileges, and those of the other members of the House, have been violated.
The Commissioner of Official Languages reports not only to the government, but also to Parliament. As a result, Parliament must know who the Commissioner of Official Languages is so it can address this individual, ask questions, and receive information.
Today, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage who the current Commissioner of Official Languages is and at what time we will know when a new Commissioner of Official Languages is appointed.
We currently do not know who the official languages commissioner is. Perhaps the government knows, but if we parliamentarians do not know, then this is a violation of our rights as parliamentarians, because commissioners do not report to the government, but to Parliament as a whole.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I thank the hon. member. I will look into this matter and, if necessary, come back to the House.
The House resumed from June 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and other acts respecting transportation and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 30, 2017, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-49.
Call in the members.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I attempted to rise to vote yea before you called for the votes on the nay side, and I do not think my vote was recorded.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to do with decorum in this House. I asked a question of the Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women today, and in spite of the fact that he stands right in front of me, I could not hear his answer.
In 1982, Margaret Mitchell stood in this House and was heckled when she talked about violence against women. I would have hoped that 35 years later, members of this House would stop heckling when we are talking about gender-based violence. I should be able to hear the hon. member's answer to my question, especially with him sitting right in front of me.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I thank the hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington for her point of order. I urge all members to show respect for this place, and I would prefer for each other as well.
The hon. member for Perth—Wellington is rising on a point of order.
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I understand that in a few moments, the government will be moving motion No. 635 on the Order Paper to appoint, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1, the new Clerk of the House of Commons. I believe you will find, Mr. Speaker, upon review of the evidence, that this motion should be ruled out of order at this time.
As you know, the ancient rule of anticipation is one that is little employed in its application to this body, but nonetheless, it is instructive to the operation of the House. I would suggest that in the matter at hand, the application of this rule is appropriate and necessary.
The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is presently seized with the proposed nomination and has met for barely 45 minutes on this matter, but it has not yet reported back to the House either in the affirmative or the negative. It is for this reason that the rule of anticipation would apply.
I would note that House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 560, accurately notes:
While the rule of anticipation is part of the Standing Orders in the British House of Commons, it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons. Furthermore, references to past attempts to apply this British rule to Canadian practice are inconclusive.
However, it goes on to note:
The rule is dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session.
In this circumstance, I would submit that going forward with this motion at this time anticipates that the procedure and House affairs committee would not submit a report to the House in the negative.
I draw your attention to Beauchesne's sixth edition, which is instructive on this point. Page 154, citation 514(2), states:
Debate on a government motion effectively blocks debate on a notice of motion for the consideration of the report of a committee which deals with essentially the same subject. Had the motion for consideration of the committee report been moved, it would have had precedence over the government motion and blocked debate on it. Once a motion has been transferred for debate under Government Orders it becomes the government's decision and the government's responsibility to decide whether it will proceed with its motion. It is at that point that the anticipation rule might become operative in the sense that the government motion, if proceeded with, might block consideration of the committee report.
It further states, at page 154, in citation 513(1):
In determining whether a discussion is out of order on the grounds of anticipation, the Speaker must have regard to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable [period of] time.
The circumstances previewed in Beauchesne's are precisely the scenario in which we find ourselves today. The matter is very likely to return to the House in a more appropriate form, that being a report from the procedure and House affairs committee, the committee to which the matter was referred, pursuant to the Standing Orders, and the matter can and will be brought to the House within a reasonable period of time one way or another. Either the matter will be reported back by the committee within 30 days, or the 30 days provided by the Standing Orders will have expired. Either way, the matter will have been dealt with conclusively within a reasonable period of time, as envisioned by the authorities.
Further, last Thursday I filed with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs a certificate to obtain evidence from particular persons, pursuant to Standing Order 122.
Mr. Speaker, you are both the Speaker of this place and a lawyer. The analogy I would use is one of a legal nature. In this case, judgment is being sought prior to the evidence being presented. I know you would not accept this in a court of law, and neither should it be accepted in this place.
I am well aware that the Standing Orders of the House do not explicitly state the rule of anticipation. However, I would draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 1, which states:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chair of Committees of the Whole, whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House.
On this matter, I would submit that the rule of anticipation is evident in comparable jurisdictions but has also become a usual practice of the House, particularly in dealing with the subject matter at hand.
Standing Order 28 of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom states:
In determining whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, regard shall be had by the Speaker to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time.
I would draw your attention to Erskine May, 24th edition, at page 390, which states:
In determining whether a discussion is out order on the ground of anticipation, the probability of the matter anticipating being discussed within a reasonable time must be considered...and recent practice has been to interpret the rule so as to not, in the current circumstances, to impose what might risk being unreasonable restrictions on debate.
For greater clarity, I would interpret the 30-day period envisioned by Standing Order 111(1) of this place to be reasonable time. Further, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the proposed motion was put without amendment for debate. Therefore, allowing the motion to go forward at this time would effectively eliminate any potential for further debate, analyses, witnesses, or discussion at the only venue open for such action: the procedure and House affairs committee.
Erskine May goes on to note, at page 398:
...the rule against anticipation...as strictly enforced earlier times, was that a matter must not be anticipated if it were contained in a more effective form of proceeding by which it is sought to be anticipated...
Again, it is the established practice of the House, as noted in Beauchesne's, that a motion on a committee report would have been a more effective means rather than government action.
Further to this, Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to a Canadian authority on the matter. Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, edited by John George Bourinot, is one of the accepted authorities of this place. At page 339 of Bourinot, it is stated:
The old rule of Parliament reads: “That a question being once made, and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again, but stand as the judgment of the house.
This is an echo of Erskine May's 1844 A treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings and usage of Parliament, at page 186, which establishes the same principle.
As both Bourinot and May would foresee, were this motion to go ahead, it would forestall a committee report and concurrence in that report, thereby, the rule of anticipation would be offended.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you that a report from procedure and House affairs committee prior to the question being put on the nomination is clearly the established practice of the House.
I would draw to your attention the 47th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, 38th Parliament, 1st Session, in which the committee recommended to the House that the House ratify the appointment of Ms. Audrey Elizabeth O'Brien to the position of Clerk of the House of Commons.
I would note that the now Clerk Emeritus's appointment was the first made under the provisions now contained in Standing Order 111(1). That report was prior to a vote in the House of Commons.
While the Clerk of the House of Commons has only been appointed once prior pursuant to current rules of this place, it is nonetheless instructive to the process and vision by those who have sat in this place before us.
I well recognize there may be instances in the past where a government has moved in a similar way as the current government is now moving. I know of none off the top of my head. However, the fact that there were no objections in those cases may imply the agreement of the House. This is not the case here. Objection is being stated.
In light of the foregoing evidence presented, I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to rule this motion out of order until such time that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has reported back to the House of Commons or the expiration of the 30 days, as provided for in Standing Order 111(1).
I might add as well, Mr. Speaker, that there are rumours around this precinct that you yourself were not consulted on this proposed nomination. If this is the case, and I hope it is not, it is shameful and an offence to the position that you hold and the great respect in which we hold you in this place, as the defender of the rights and privileges of this place.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Does the hon. Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard wish to rise on the same point of order?
Appointment of Clerk of the House of CommonsPoints of OrderGovernment Orders
Beauséjour New Brunswick
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc LiberalMinister of Fisheries
I do, Mr. Speaker. With respect, we would submit to you that my colleague has raised an argument without merit.
I would draw your attention to Standing Order 111.(1), which states:
Where the government intends to appoint an Officer of Parliament, the Clerk of the House...the name of the proposed appointee shall be deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee, which may consider the appointment during a period of not more than thirty days.
The rules are clear. The committee may study the proposed nomination, which it has. There is no requirement to report back to the House of Commons on the matter before a vote in the House is taken.
Page 1014, of the second edition, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, states:
As in the case of the procedure for appointments by Order in Council and certificates of nomination, a committee that receives an order of reference in relation to the proposed appointment of an Officer of Parliament has no obligation to consider the matter.
I would urge, Mr. Speaker, and suggest that we could proceed to the business as planned this afternoon.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, you appear poised to rule on this matter.
The hon. member for Perth—Wellington was very thorough and impressive in the academic rigour of his presentation. He did not make the case that the rule of anticipation has ever been codified in our Standing Orders, but rather that we could have reference to it.
This is a very critical matter for all members of this place. I have to express deep discomfort, because the Clerk will be someone with whom we will all work and on whom we will all rely, and there does seem to be a matter of extreme haste. The position was posted with a deadline of February of this year, while our current Clerk has been in the position in an acting capacity since 2014. I feel there is something of a rush that may undermine the new person and the government's intent to name a new clerk.
The member for Perth—Wellington raises a very strong point, because the parliamentary committee on procedure and House affairs had begun the work of asking questions and pursuing this matter. The appointment of our previous Clerk was by consensus; that clearly would be the preferred route here.
I appreciate your time, Mr. Speaker, in letting me weigh in to support the point of order by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I thank the hon. member for Perth—Wellington, the hon. Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, and the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for raising the point of order and for their comments on this point of order.
I want to refer them and colleagues to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, 2009, by O'Brien and Bosc, at page 458, which refers to the question of the committee and says:
The committee is not obliged to report to the House on the appointment, even if it has been examined.
Then it says, down below:
The notice of motion to ratify the appointment may be given at any time during this 30-day period, whether the committee has reported to the House or not, and the motion may be adopted before the end of this period.
Both of these suggest that in fact the report from the committee is not required in order to proceed.
Also, footnote 248 says:
In the Thirty-Ninth Parliament, the name of the candidate for the position of Commissioner of Official Languages (Graham Fraser) was referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages on September 18, 2006. The notice of motion to ratify the appointment was given on September 27, 2006, and the motion was concurred in on September 29, 2006.
I am informed that in fact in that case the committee did not report.
As a result of these provisions, I am prepared to allow the motion to proceed.
Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Beauséjour New Brunswick
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc LiberalMinister of Fisheries
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government response to the report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans entitled “Newfoundland and Labrador's Northern Cod Fishery: Charting a new sustainable future”. Of course, I thank the committee and all our colleagues for their excellent work.
Kevin Lamoureux 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 responses to five petitions.
Mark Holland LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2016 annual report on the RCMP's use of the law enforcement justification provisions.
This report addresses the RCMP's use of specific provisions within the law enforcement justification regime, which is set out in sections 25(1) to sections 25(4) of the Criminal Code. This report also documents the nature of the investigations in which these provisions were used.