Tony Valeri

[Committees of the House, May 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find it somewhat hilarious to hear the Bloc member actually suggesting he respects rules.

In any event, the motion that is before the House is not a confidence vote in any event. I would suggest that what we were looking to do was to facilitate this going to committee because I believe that the committee will do its work. There was no agreement with respect to House business. The leader of the official opposition made that very clear before he left on this trip.

In any event, this is an instruction to the committee. I would like to see the committee get on with its work. If the official opposition wants to defer this vote until tomorrow, that is fine with us. We wanted to get it to committee, so that the committee could begin its work and ultimately deal with the motion.

[Business of the House, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, for the rest of today, tomorrow and early next week the order of business will be the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-12, the quarantine legislation; followed by third readings of Bill C-9 respecting economic development in Quebec; Bill C-23, the human resources bill; Bill C-22, the social development bill; and Bill C-26, the border services bill.

We would then consider second reading of Bill C-45, the veterans bill; and then Bill S-18, the census bill.

Tomorrow the government will introduce a companion bill to the budget implementation bill. We hope to debate second reading of this bill by Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.

We will then also resume consideration of Bill C-43 which is the budget implementation bill.

To assist members in their planning as well, I wish to inform the House that on the evening of May 18 the House will go into a committee of the whole on the citizenship and immigration estimates, and on the evening of May 31 on the social development estimates.

My hon. colleague across the way asked about opposition days. As the rules provide and call for, six opposition days are required before the end of June. Certainly our focus will be on moving the budget implementation bill forward. I would expect that we would do that.

As far as courage, I am not sure I see very much along the way certainly across the floor when in fact we have people on this side of the House who are prepared on behalf of Canadians to ensure that this Parliament works, but I see no evidence of that from my hon. colleagues across the way.

[Canada Steamship Lines, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is another example of trying to drag people through the mud. There is not much more that can be said here.

The Prime Minister, whether we talk about Gomery or about the finances of this country, brought this country back from the brink. He balanced the books and made investments for Canadians that in fact benefit this country.

When it comes to the integrity of the Prime Minister, I would expect that Canadians will decide, and they have decided over and over again, that the Prime Minister is the leader that they believe has the ability to take this country into the future.

[Points of Order, May 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to consider whether the amendment to the concurrence motion on the third report of the finance committee is in fact in order. I would like to lay out a couple of arguments to that effect.

In terms of background, the third report of the finance committee was tabled on December 20, 2004. It was the committee's report on its prebudget consultations, authorized under Standing Order 83.1. It was then the opposition House leader who moved concurrence in the report. Then his party leader moved an amendment, which reads:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

The Third Report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on Monday, December 20, 2004, be not now concurred in,

But that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Finance with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the government resign over refusing to accept some of the committee's key recommendations and to implement the budgetary changes that Canadians need.

The government has a number of concerns with the approach taken with this amendment. We have our doubts as to whether or not it is in fact in order.

We are not in any way arguing that concurrence motions cannot be amended. In fact, there have already been amendments proposed to several concurrence motions to refer issues back to committee for further study. Citation 896(1) of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's states:

When the motion to concur is moved, the House may refer the report back to the committee for further consideration or with instructions to amend it in any respect.

A relevant precedent is from December 13, 1985, when there was an amendment to a motion to concur in a finance committee report. The amendment was:

--that it be recommitted to the said Committee and that it be an instruction to the Committee that they have the power to amend the same so as to recommend expeditious passage of legislation to give effect to the budgetary measures providing for an exemption of up to $500,000 from capital gains for the proceeds of the sale of farm property.

The Speaker ruled in that particular case that the amendment was in fact in order. Referring to the passage from Beauchesne's that I have cited, he stated:

--the House must have the right, in logic, to refer a report back for reconsideration of the report in whole or for reconsideration of any clause, otherwise the House would be bound to deal with only the report the committee submitted. Clearly the House cannot be bound simply to accept or reject a report on the matter. The House itself cannot amend the report. However, it can clearly refer a report back for amendment, either minor or major, or for complete reconsideration. Those are the practices and traditions of this House.

Therefore, I would argue that it is permissible to amend a concurrence motion to refer it back to committee with further instructions.

I would note, though, that the 1985 amendment was a permissive instruction, that is, the amendment provided an instruction to the committee members that they had the “power” to amend the report. I would note that the Speaker's ruling in 1985 also stated:

The committee's right of decision on the matter is by no means constrained, no matter what the House has asked it to reconsider.

The amendment by the Leader of the Opposition, in contrast, is a mandatory instruction, as the amendment states “with instruction” to “amend” the report, rather than giving the committee the “power” to amend the report. The amendment therefore instructs the committee to come to a conclusion rather than giving it the power to amend the report in a particular manner should the committee itself come to that conclusion on its own.

There are precedents for amending a concurrence motion to give a mandatory instruction to a committee. For example, I would like to draw to the House's attention--and for those members across the way who have no interest in hearing what in fact I am saying, I would like to draw it to their attention--that for example on April 1, 1969, the Speaker was asked to rule on whether an amendment to a concurrence motion can instruct a committee to delete a paragraph of its report.

Mr. Knowles challenged this amendment arguing that the House was not allowed “to tell the committee precisely what to do. All that the House has the right to do is to give the committee the power to make any changes it wishes”.

The Deputy Speaker ruled that the amendment was in order stating that it was competent for the House to adopt a committee report, reject it or refer it back to the committee with our without instructions; and that this decision was supported by the authorities which allow that an instruction can be made “to amend [the report] in any particular”.

There is also a precedent from 1919 that supports the same conclusion. At this time there was an amendment to a motion to concur in a report of a special committee on the question of conferring honours. Initially the amendment was that only part of the report be concurred in. The Speaker ruled that:

When a motion is made for the adoption of the report of a Committee, it is competent for the House to adopt it, to reject it or to refer it back to Committee with or without instructions. Or, a motion may be made for the six month's hoist. I do not think it competent to move to amend the report of a Committee.

Following the Speaker's ruling, a further amendment was put and voted on, which stated that the report be referred back to the committee “with instructions to amend the same...” in a particular manner. The Speaker was not asked to rule on the admissibility of this amendment.

Thus, Speakers have ruled, although with some variation, that while it is not possible for the House to directly amend the text of a committee report, it is possible for the House to give instructions, even mandatory instructions, to a committee to amend its report.

However the report we are addressing today is unique with important distinctions from those precedents.

There are two reasons why I believe the amendment is out of order.

The first reason is that the amendment is procedurally inconsistent with the process for the prebudget report set out in Standing Order 83.1.

In the cases I have cited, the amendments were all within the order of reference of the committees.

However the third report of the Standing Committee on Finance is not a routine report carried out under the committee's general mandate under Standing Order 108. Rather, the order of reference of the report was Standing Order 83.1. This is made quite clear by the report itself which states at the outset:

In accordance with its mandate under Standing Order 83.1, your committee studied proposals on the budgetary policy of the government and has agreed to report the following.

Standing Order 83.1 states:

Each year the Standing Committee on Finance shall be authorized to consider and make reports upon proposals regarding the budgetary policy of the government. Any report or reports thereon may be made no later than the tenth sitting day before the last normal sitting day in December, as set forth in Standing Order 28(2).

The committee's authority under Standing Order 83.1 is tied directly to the government's budgetary cycle. The review takes place in the fall of each year as the economic and fiscal outlook is updated and the report is tabled prior to when the government typically begins its detailed preparations for the budget. The fact that the standing order is placed just prior to Standing Order 84, which outlines the procedures to be followed for the budget and the budget debate, underscores the fact that the committee's mandate is tied directly to the budgetary cycle of the government.

In the case of the December 2004 report, the House agreed to extend the reporting deadline of the committee to allow the report to be tabled with the clerk of the House on a day that the House was not sitting in December. I am sure all members recall that the House did extend that reporting deadline.

I would argue that the proposed amendment by the Leader of the Opposition goes beyond the order of reference for the standing committee.

Under Standing Order 83.1 and the special order adopted by the House in December, the committee had until December 2004 to table its report on its prebudget consultations. This mandate has therefore lapsed for the purposes of the 2005 budget and will not be renewed again until September when the committee begins its prebudget consultations for the 2006 budget.

This amendment is beyond the timetable established in the Standing Orders and would have the effect of extending the committee's order of reference for this report.

At a minimum, in order to make the amendment acceptable, it should have stated that it is “notwithstanding Standing Order 83.1”. However no such wording is provided in the amendment and it is therefore inconsistent with the procedure set out in Standing Order 83.1.

In my opinion the second reason this amendment is out of order is that it is putting a question to the House that has already been voted on by the House.

Following the tabling of the finance committee report, two days were set aside at the first opportunity to debate the contents of the report, which was on January 31 and February 1. While the committee report was debated, no concurrence motion was brought forward to vote on the report prior to the tabling of the budget on February 23, 2005.

I do not need to remind the House that the 2005 budget was successful and received broad support among Canadians. However it is relevant to point out that this House also approved the budget through a recorded vote on March 9, 2005.

Given that the finance committee report was fully debated in the House and that the budget was presented and approved by the House, the issues raised by the committee's prebudget report are now no longer up for debate.

Essentially, what the Leader of the Opposition's amendment purports to do is to instruct the committee to condemn the government for not accepting all of the committee's recommendations on an issue that has already been approved by the entire House of Commons. In effect, the amendment is asking the House to decide the same question for a second time.

I would like to refer members to citation 558 in the 6th edition of Beauchesne's, which states:

(1) An old rule of Parliament reads: “That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House.” Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the House might be used in the discussion of a motion of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session.

I would submit that this is exactly what the amendment is doing. The House has already approved the budgetary policy of the government and the Leader of the Opposition cannot reopen a question that has already been determined by the House.

In closing, I would point out to all members that the purpose of the recent Standing Order change on concurrence motions was to provide an opportunity for committee reports to be debated in the House and come to a vote. The change was not designed to allow ancillary issues to be voted on through amendments.

In addition, the amendment is inconsistent with the order of reference for the finance committee's report, which sets a specific timetable for its report. The absence of any reference in the amendment to it being “notwithstanding” Standing Order 83.1 causes the amendment to be procedurally inconsistently with the Standing Orders. The amendment is asking the House to reconsider the position it has already taken with respect to the budget. The House has already passed judgment on the budget and any motion questioning that judgment should be ruled out of order.

[Presence in Gallery, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with second reading of Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill. This will be followed by consideration of Senate amendments of Bill C-29, the patent bill, and Bill C-12, the quarantine bill.

We will then return to second reading of Bill C-43, the budget bill, and eventually the third readings of: Bill C-23, the HRDC bill; Bill C-22, the social development bill; Bill C-26, the border services bill; and Bill C-9, the Quebec development bill.

Tomorrow we will begin with Bill C-43. If this is completed, we will then return to the list just given.

Next week is a break week. Since it happens to coincide this year with Passover, I would like to take this opportunity to extend to Canadians of the Jewish faith best wishes on this holiday.

After today there are 35 sitting days for the House before its scheduled adjournment on June 23. The government hopes that the House will be able to complete all stages of Bill C-38 and Bill C-43 by that date, which means that the bills will have to go to and be reported from committees in time for report stage and third reading in that limited time. That is why we have given priority to these bills in order to arrive at the supply votes.

The government is obliged to designate by that date 6 of those 35 days as allotted days or opposition days. Since we do not face the logistical and timing difficulties that I have just described vis-à-vis these two major bills, it seems logical and sensible to ask the House to deal with those second readings before proceeding with business such as opposition days, which are not followed by subsequent legislative stages.

If the members opposite would not be so sneaky in trying to change the Standing Orders, in fact, we could perhaps have the kind of dialogue that the hon. member is suggesting we have.

[Natural Resources, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the budget implementation bill is on the order paper. I offered to the House on a previous occasion and I will offer it to the House again: I will ask for unanimous consent to move all three stages of the budget implementation bill, have it passed and send it off to the Senate. Atlantic Canadians would have the Atlantic accord. The money for the new deal for cities and communities would flow to the communities. The child care program would be in place and $700 million would go to provinces for child care.

The hon. member should not suggest that we are not proposing this. What the hon. member needs to do is convince the rest of his colleagues to pass the budget implementation bill.

[Democratic Reform, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in fact I hear the cat calling across the way. It is quite typical of the official opposition in particular.

The members opposite can stomp their feet and yell and scream, but what really happened yesterday is that the official opposition was trying to do something very sneaky and it got caught. That is what happened.

There are six remaining supply days. All of those need to be allotted before June 23. In fact all of those six allotted days will be allotted.

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to inform the House that Wednesday shall not be an allotted day.

[Business of the House, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the opposition day.

On Friday, we will return to Bill C-43, the budget bill. If it is completed, we will proceed with Bill C-40, respecting the WTO.

The first item of business on Monday will be Bill C-40. If necessary, we would then return to the budget bill, which contains all the initiatives that I know Canadians support from coast to coast to coast, like the Atlantic accord, the new deal for cities, and the increase in payments to seniors through OAS.

We will then return to the second reading debate of Bill C-38, the marriage bill, which will be the first item on Tuesday. When that business is completed, we will return to departmental bills: Bill C-23, Bill C-22, Bill C-26 and Bill C-9.

Next Wednesday shall be an allotted day.

[Liberal Party of Canada, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we can tell from the rhetoric from the hon. member that she is getting more excited about her preamble instead of taking the time to ask some significant questions.

However the Prime Minister has been in the House answering questions. We have initiatives in the House and committees are busier than they have ever been. More legislation is being referred to committee before second reading where the opposition has an opportunity to contribute to good legislation. What happens? We get partisan rhetoric instead of good dialogue to put forward good legislation and end up doing what Canadians are looking for us to do, and that is to make this Parliament work.