House of Commons Hansard #301 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was point.

Topics

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the main estimates 2018-19. In fact, I have several points. Some of those points will pertain to the main estimates as a totality, and other points of order will pertain specifically to the so-called budget implementation vote, or Treasury Board Secretariat vote 40, which I will simply refer to as vote 40 throughout the course of my argument.

At the outset, it is important to say that I support the stated objectives of the President of the Treasury Board with respect to reforming the estimates process and having better alignment between the budget document, the estimates documents, and the public accounts. That said, those goals will not be realized if for every step forward, we take two steps back. Moreover, we can have better information and better alignment between those documents without undermining the financial oversight role Parliament plays with respect to the government. It is in respect to that important role that I rise on a point of order today.

It is also important to say that these arguments will be procedural in nature. They are not about the substance of what is in the estimates, and pointing out the deficiencies in the way the government has chosen to seek funding for its new budget initiatives is not the same as opposing the substantive measures.

There are some positive measures in the budget, but the ends cannot justify the means in this case. Our duty as parliamentarians to oversee government spending does not begin with the programs we do not like and end with those we do, just as you, Mr. Speaker, serve the whole House and are charged with upholding the rights and privileges of the House, despite whatever partisan affiliation you may have had prior to your election as Speaker.

The first respect in which I believe this year's main estimates are deficient is in respect to their form. In House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, we read:

The business of supply is the process by which the government asks Parliament to appropriate the funds required to meet its financial obligations and to implement programs already approved by Parliament.

The government initiates its request in the House of Commons because, as stated in Standing Order 80(1):

All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.

To accomplish that task, according to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition:

The Crown, acting on the advice of its responsible Ministers, transmits to the House of Commons the government’s projected annual expenditures, or “estimates”, for parliamentary scrutiny and approval.

Further to that, we are to understand that:

During the legislative phase [of the supply process], the House considers and votes on the government’s proposed annual spending plans (the main and supplementary estimates) and the legislation (appropriation bills) needed to authorize all consequential withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

In other words, the government is meant to receive the authority to spend money out of the consolidated revenue fund from the House of Commons on the basis of the information it provides to members of the House through the estimates documents. As such, the form and content of the estimates have been contested over the last 150 years, and the rules and procedures of this place require certain information to be included in the estimates in order that members of the House are able to assess the spending plans of government prior to voting authority for expenditures of public money.

Requirements of the estimates are described in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition:

The main estimates provide a breakdown by department and program of planned government spending for the upcoming fiscal year. The estimates are expressed as a series of votes, or resolutions, which summarize the estimated financial requirements in a particular expenditure category, such as operations, capital or grants. The votes are expressed in dollar amounts, the total of which, once agreed to, should satisfy all the budgetary requirements of a department or agency in that category, with the exception of any expenditures provided for under other statutory authority.

In response to complaints that the government estimates did not include sufficient information for parliamentarians to properly assess the integrity of government spending plans, the estimates were modified to include departmental plans, which include more detailed information about current and anticipated departmental initiatives. This practice dates back as far as 1981 and is so integral to the estimates process that the departmental plans are, in fact, considered to be Part III of the estimates.

I will spare members of the House a lengthy citation by referring them to chapter 18 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice for a historical survey of the estimates and the incorporation of departmental plans in the estimates.

Departmental plans are considered to be so important to parliamentarians' understanding of the estimates that a given department's departmental plan is automatically referred to the committee considering its departmental estimates. The authority for that comes from Standing Order 81(7), which I quote:

When main estimates are referred to a standing committee, the committee shall also be empowered to consider and report upon the expenditure plans and priorities in future fiscal years of the departments and agencies whose main estimates are before it. Any report on plans and priorities of a department or agency shall be deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee immediately after it is laid upon the Table.

The main estimates 2018-19 fail to meet these requirements of properly constituted estimates. It defies the well-established practice and reasonable expectation on the part of members of the House that the estimates will include the information they need to make a considered judgment with respect to the government's spending plan before giving authority for the spending.

Moreover, it violates the spirit of Standing Order 81(7), a standing order meant to ensure that members of the House have all the relevant information available to them with respect to the government's spending plans before authorizing that spending as part of the estimates process.

These estimates do that by supplanting Part III of the estimates with the budget document for all the government's new budgetary initiatives, valued at over $7 billion, and all lumped together under Treasury Board vote 40.

There is no requirement for the government to present a budget in any given year, and there is no mechanism by which that document is automatically referred to committees for study. Nevertheless, we are being referred to that document, not any document in the estimates themselves, to get whatever details the government is prepared to offer about its proposed new initiatives.

To give a sense of the magnitude of the spending contemplated, consider that of the roughly $276 billion of expenditures forecast in the main estimates, only $83 billion actually stays with the government for operating and capital expenditures. The amount being requested under vote 40 is $7 billion. That is 8.5% of the federal government's own operating and capital expenditures.

Together with the contingency fund of $750 million under Treasury Board vote 5, the government is asking for $7.8 billion, or about 9.4% of its actual budget, without providing the appropriate supporting information under Part III of the estimates.

While these are impressive figures, Speaker Jerome made the point in a ruling on December 7, 1977, that when it comes to deciding whether an item in the estimates is in order or not, “whether the amount is $1 or a billion dollars makes no difference to the Chair.” By extension, it does not matter whether the sum is over $7 billion, either.

As Speaker Lamoureux stated on December 10, 1973, with respect to these matters, “The Chair has to make a ruling on principle”.

To confirm that the government intended to supplant Part III of the main estimates with the budget document, such as it is, I would direct Your Honour to the testimony of Ms. Marie Lemay, deputy minister of the Department of Public Works and Government Services, at the government operations and estimates committee on May 10, 2018, in response to questioning by the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. I quote from committee testimony. The hon. member said:

I want to follow up some of the questions that were raised earlier by [the member for Edmonton West], about table A2.11.

I want to try to clear things up a little....

There are things that are listed there for PSPC—$653 million worth of spending—and for Shared Services—$289 million of spending. That's nearly a billion dollars. Are those in the main estimates?

Ms. Marie Lemay responded, “Those were announced in the budget. They are not in the main estimates.”

That is despite the government seeking appropriation for funds for those measures under Treasury Board vote 40.

I would further draw the House's attention to a number of examples in the documents themselves, which I do not pretend is by any means an exhaustive list but is merely a sampling of instances where authority is being requested for grants that are not described in Part III or any other part of the estimates.

Take for example the item “Ensuring Security and Prosperity in the Digital Age”. In the annex of the main estimates that proposes certain allocations out of Treasury Board vote 40, this item is mentioned on eight separate occasions. The suggested allocations under this item are as follows: Communication Security Establishment, over $42 million; Department of Employment and Social Development, $2.7 million; Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, $3.3 million; Department of Industry, $4.6 million; Department of Natural Resources, $2.2 million; Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, $5,471,000; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, $38,225,000; and the Standards Council of Canada, $1.6 million.

Of the eight departments or agencies in question, only three bothered to mention digital initiatives at all in their departmental estimates. In the departmental plan for Employment and Social Development on page 54, for example, it is not exactly clear, given the subject heading in vote 40 and what occurs in the departmental estimates, how this funding is supposed to line up.

I quote from page 54 of the ESD departmental plan:

ESDC is developing and implementing a modern IT infrastructure that enables digital services; enables effective, efficient and timely availability of information; and ensures a secure technology environment. This will be delivered through initiatives to update and modernize the desktop computing environment, upgrade older server operating systems through the Application Portfolio Management initiative, as well as through establishing an Enterprise Architecture program to deliver on IT-enabled business transformation; and by supporting ESDC in delivering on Benefits Delivery Modernization of the Service Transformation Plan commitments to be delivered in the longer-term.

How that relates exactly to digital security is not exactly clear. The departmental plan for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, on page 22, says:

The Department will strengthen its relationships with information management and information technology services partners and maintain its ongoing participation in government-wide enterprise and modernization initiatives, including: the review and implementation of the new Treasury Board Digital Policy; the promotion of more accessible and open information via Open Government by design and default; the development of interoperability standards; the adoption of Government Enterprise systems such as GCDoc, GCSI (Government of Canada Secret Infrastructure), CTSN (Canadian Top Secret Network), and others.

While the RCMP departmental plan does provide considerably more information, and I will not quote at length from it, that still leaves five of the eight departments or agencies that did not include information on these proposed authorities in the estimates. Perhaps they felt that they did not need to, because the vote seeking authority for that spending actually appears as a Treasury Board vote, so they may have thought they did not need to include it in their own departmental estimates. If so, one might think the Treasury Board departmental plan would provide details for the over 200 items covered under vote 40. Alas, it does not.

Perhaps Treasury Board felt it did not need to provide those details because they appear in the budget document, but the budget document is not part of the estimates, which is, in essence, my point. Unlike Part III of the estimates, it is not automatically referred to committees for their consideration as part of the estimates study.

As a second example, consider the item “A New Intellectual Property Strategy”. That item appears in the vote 40 annex under five separate departments or agencies, but the new strategy is mentioned in only one departmental plan, the one for the Department of Industry. The Department of Industry requests $6.2 million for this, the Copyright Board $600,000, Courts Administration Service $2.7 million—

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Order. I am going to ask in a moment for the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona to give me an idea of how much time he expects to need for presenting the argument he is making on his point of order. However, I also want to make him aware, if he is not already, perhaps, of what is said at page 97 of Beauchesne's. It says:

The Member may interrupt and lay the point in question concisely before the Speaker. This should be done as soon as an irregularity is perceived in the proceedings which are engaging the attention of the House.

In this case, he should know, of course, and he probably does, that vote 40 is not before the House. It is, in fact, before the committee, so that is a fundamental problem.

Perhaps he could give me an idea of how much longer he expects to need to make his presentation. As I said, normally a point of order is raised in a very concise fashion, and he has had about 10 minutes already, which is fine, but I would expect him to wrap up in the next several minutes.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona has a point of order, so I am afraid I cannot let someone else interrupt his point of order.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to give you some sense of how long it will take to make this point. It is an important point, and I think the full point ought to be made. I would like to be able to take the time to show you why it is that members of Parliament are not satisfied that the appropriate information is in the estimates. I would say that this is relevant and an essential part of the argument.

However, before I try to give you a sense of the amount of time the point of order will take, and further to your point about the timing of these points of order, I too would like to quote from House of Commons Procedure and Practice. This is about points of order on the estimates specifically, and not the general point with respect to points of order that you rightly raised. It states:

Speakers have often indicated that Members should take the initiative in bringing to the attention of the Chair any procedural irregularities with regard to the estimates. They have also repeatedly asked that Members raise questions about the procedural acceptability of estimates as early as possible so that the Chair has time to give due consideration to these [points].

I would also refer you to statements made on this very subject by other Speakers, particularly a statement from March 22, 1977, where the Speaker said:

[I]t cannot be expected that points of order would be raised at the time of tabling or referral of the...estimates. Nor can it be left to the last moment of consideration of the supply bill itself, if the administration of the House is to be expected to produce for consideration by hon. members the actual supply bill before the votes are taken.

In other words, if we were to wait until all of this was done at committee, it would put the House on the spot, and it would put you on the spot, Mr. Speaker, because if an important problem with the estimates was found, the House would then have far less time to find a solution to that problem.

I hope the government is compelled by the force of my argument, as I do find these to be compelling arguments, but if it is not, it may want to respond. I think it is reasonable to give the government as much time as possible to prepare its own response, as well as the other—

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona still has not given me an indication, which I asked for, of how long he expects to need for this. I indicated that I was certainly open to hear a few more minutes. However, there is so much detail that it becomes a question of whether this is really more debate than a point of order when he is presenting so much in terms of argument. I would expect him to wrap up in the next few minutes.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, given that the crux of the argument in this particular case is that certain essential information is not being provided in the estimates, I think it is important to show that this information is not provided in the estimates. I think it is also relevant that the government seems to think that this information was provided by referring to documents outside of the estimates process. Therefore, while I do hear and appreciate your concern, I do feel strongly that this information is quite relevant to a technical point of order about procedure. It is not substantive debate. It is trying to demonstrate, for your benefit and for the benefit of all members of the House, that certain information is not in the estimates. If I am going to make the case that the estimates are not in their proper form, I have to be able to demonstrate that, and that is going to require talking about some detail of the estimates. I am making every effort not to debate the substantive merit of those measures, and I believe I am within order on that.

In terms of how long it is going to take, it is going to take exactly as long as it does to present what I believe to be the essential information for this point of order. Therefore, I would continue.

Perhaps these departments and agencies felt they did not need to address the new intellectual property strategy in their departmental plan because the vote-seeking authority for that spending is under the Treasury Board department. I think that this is quite relevant because we have had departments say at committee that because it is under vote 40 they do not have the information in their departmental plan, and because it is not in the departmental plan of the Treasury Board, it is effectively not in the estimates. That is why I think it is important for you to hear that information, Mr. Speaker. As I mentioned before, the Treasury Board departmental plan does not attempt to provide information for those 200 items. We are led to believe that the government believes it is sufficient to discuss these measures in the budget document, but for the reasons I outlined before, they rightly belong in the estimates.

Indeed, the very wording proposed for the appropriations act for that vote refers directly to the budget. I am going to quote that vote to show that the government is invoking the budget document, as opposed to the estimates documents. The vote states:

Authority granted to the Treasury Board to supplement, in support of initiatives announced in the Budget of February 27, 2018, any appropriation for the fiscal year....

In order to respect your consideration of time, Mr. Speaker, I will dispense with quoting the rest of the language of the vote, because the important phrase here is “initiatives announced in the Budget of February 27, 2018”, a phrase that clearly suggests that, in the opinion of the government, an announcement in the budget is a sufficient basis for granting spending authority, notwithstanding the procedures and Standing Orders of the House. I submit to you that this is wrong. Members of the House should expect that the information they need to evaluate the spending plans of the government be included in the estimates themselves.

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Order. I thank the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona. I think I have heard enough on the subject.

The fact is that this is a matter that is before a committee. The House cannot presume what the committee will do, whether it will vote to pass the estimates or not pass the estimates, until it comes back before the House. It is not properly before the House. It is not a matter that I think I can consider in terms of this point of order, until that occurs. However, I thank the hon. member for this point of order.

The hon. opposition House leader.

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order on this.

The rules governing the main estimates were adopted only in June of last year. As the House knows, when new rules are adopted, clarification is often required. We are not talking about some of the rules that the Liberals dumped on us last year, such as their approach to prorogation and omnibus bills. We are talking about the financial role of Parliament. I know that some in this House may be impatient, but I want to remind everyone that it took centuries to get to where we are today, and spending a little time on this important topic on a Friday is not unreasonable.

Page 114 of Josef Redlich's The Procedure of the House of Commons: A Study of its History and Present Form states:

The whole law of finance, and consequently the whole British constitution, is grounded upon one fundamental principle, laid down at the very outset of English parliamentary history and secured by three hundred years of mingled conflict with the Crown and peaceful growth. All taxes and public burdens imposed upon the nation for purposes of state, whatsoever their nature, must be granted by the representatives of the citizens and taxpayers, i.e., by Parliament.

Page 404 of the fourth edition of Bourinot'sParliamentary Procedure and Practice, published in 1916, states:

All the checks and guards which the wisdom of English parliamentarians has imposed in the course of centuries upon public expenditures now exist in their full force in the parliament of the dominion.

It could be seen as scandalous that what took centuries to develop cannot be given a little time on a quiet Friday. I am listening intently, as we all are, to my colleague from the NDP. I want to hear the arguments. I think he has been very careful not to engage in debate. This is an argument that we want to hear. Many of my colleagues who have been engaged on this file for some time, and who have brought it forward, no doubt want to return to the House and continue this debate with their own submissions.

The government proposed a change, promising more complete and accurate main estimates in exchange for less time to scrutinize them at committee. The President of the Treasury Board came through with his promise of less scrutiny at committee but has not provided accurate and complete information to Parliament.

Furthermore, vote 40 in this year's main estimates is nothing more than a $7-billion slush fund that would allow the Liberals to move money around wherever they want, without parliamentary approval. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in his latest report on the main estimates, had this to say:

The Government delayed tabling the 2018-19 Main Estimates by several weeks to ensure better alignment between the Budget and Estimates. While the Government has included a new Budget Implementation Vote for $7.0 billion, the initiatives to be funded through this vote are not reflected in the Departmental Plans. Hence, there remains a lack of alignment between the Budget initiatives and planned results.

The Government’s approach to funding Budget 2018 initiatives provides parliamentarians with information that only marginally supports their deliberations and places fewer controls around the money it approves.

With respect to the former, virtually none of the money requested in the new Budget Implementation vote has undergone scrutiny through the standard Treasury Board Submission process, which as indicated by the Government, is to “ensure resources are directed to programs and activities that remain government priorities and achieve value for money.” With respect to the latter, it is unclear that the proposed vote wording would restrict the Government to funding each Budget 2018 measure in the amount set out in the Budget Plan for each Department and Agency, rather than changing the allocations across any initiative mentioned in Budget 2018.

As I said earlier, some of my colleagues serving on the estimates committee may want to weigh in on this important discussion at a later date. In the meantime, I believe we must hear from the member the full submission on this important topic and the matter that is before the House right now.

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I thank the hon. opposition House leader for her intervention.

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

An hon. member

Point of order.

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

No. As I indicated—

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Point of order.

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Order. The member for Carleton will take his seat as the Speaker is standing.

As I indicated, I have heard enough on this subject. The matter is not before the House. It is before the committee, and I am not prepared to hear any more on this subject. I thank hon. members.

Orders of the day.

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Point of order.

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Does the hon. member for Carleton have a point of order on a different topic?

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is the custom of the House that Chairs recognize points of order when they are called. I called a point of order before you went into orders of the day, and I know that you clearly heard that point of order, because you referenced me while I was making it. I am going to proceed to making that point of order. That point of order began prior to orders of the day.

It does relate to a matter that is before the House of Commons. Vote 40 is a matter before the House of Commons. The House of Commons has delegated to committees the study of estimates. That matter is before—

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Order. It appears to me very clearly that the member is engaging in the same point of order that has already been dealt with. I will examine the arguments that have been made and will come back to the House in due course.

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Point of order. Point of order.

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Point of order.

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The members for Elmwood—Transcona and Carleton will come to order. The members will take their seats. Only one person stands at a time.

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Point of order. Point of order.

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Point of order. Point of order.

Main Estimates 2018-19Points of OrderGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Order. If the member for Elmwood—Transcona wishes to be heard in the near future, he will cease and sit down. The member for Elmwood—Transcona will take his seat.

Orders of the day.

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 22, 2018:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12:00 a.m., except that it shall be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (e), when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2) or Standing Order 78, but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(c) notwithstanding Standing Order 45(6) and paragraph (b) of this Order, no recorded division requested after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 21, 2018, or at any time on Friday, June 22, 2018, shall be deferred, except for any recorded division which, under the Standing Orders, would be deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on Wednesday, September 19, 2018;

(d) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) or Standing Order 67.1(2);

(e) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday;

(g) a recorded division requested in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(h) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(i) no dilatory motion may be proposed after 6:30 p.m.;

(j) notwithstanding Standing Orders 81(16)(b) and (c) and 81(18)(c), proceedings on any opposition motion shall conclude no later than 5:30 p.m. on the sitting day that is designated for that purpose, except on a Monday when they shall conclude at 6:30 p.m. or on a Friday when they shall conclude at 1:30 p.m.; and

(k) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the 20th sitting day after the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 22. The motion would extend the sitting hours of the House until we rise for the summer adjournment.

We are now heading into the final weeks of this current session of Parliament. We have an important legislative agenda before us, and we are determined to work hard to make significant progress. This motion to extend the sitting hours of the House is timely and, clearly, it is necessary. Members opposite will have more time for debate. The motion would do exactly that.

So far in this Parliament, the House has passed 54 government bills, and 44 of those have been given royal assent. We have more work to do. We have many important bills to make progress on before we adjourn for the summer recess and we return to our ridings.

Here are some examples of the important legislation that we would like to see make progress in the House of Commons: Bill C-74, the budget implementation act, 2018, No. 1, which includes measures to ensure every Canadian has a real and fair chance at success, including a new Canada workers benefit to assist low-income workers; an indexed Canada child benefit that will help nine out of 10 Canadian families; a lower tax for small businesses, and I am sure we can agree that the backbone of the Canadian economy deserves lower taxes; and better support for Canada's veterans.

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!