John Reynolds

[Business of the House, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader may be wondering why my leader was asking questions about what was going on in the House. We know the Liberals' plan changes so often these days we thought if we asked him at the start instead of at the end we might really find out what is going on.

We would like to ask the government House leader if the reports are true that the government House leader has told all House leaders that he wants the party financing bill through the House and the Senate before we adjourn for the summer. Will the member for LaSalle—Émard be able to change his mind on that or will he still insist on having this legislation done before we go home for the summer?

[Perth--Middlesex, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, being tucked away over in the corner must be making the PC members stir crazy. Now they are seeing things in Perth--Middlesex.

The latest figment of their imagination was an alleged ear piece, allegedly worn by the Alliance candidate during a debate through which she allegedly received verbal coaching. This tall tale came from the alleged PC candidate who heard the message from the mother ship through the receivers in his tin foil helmet.

With great glee and dignity, as one would expect, he informed the local media and even the Toronto Star , which said it needed to hear the message itself and could not accept hearsay.

We know the truth. The PCs simply could not understand why our candidate, Marian Meinen, could give thoughtful and intelligent answers to difficult questions. Marian Meinen, or any other woman for that matter, does not need coaching to out-think any PC candidate or even any PC member of Parliament, like the member for South Shore.

[Order in Council Appointments, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The motion to proceed to orders of the day is out of order because the motion is attempting to bypass routine proceedings without just cause and the opposition, knowing that it is against the rules to do so, did not expect the government to do this and did not have time to raise the point of order before the motion was moved.

There was a ruling on this very matter on April 13, 1987--

[Points of Order, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I do not normally intervene in these matters. However, since I do sit on that committee that is looking at this legislation, I would like to support the right hon. member from Calgary on this issue. My party, with the support of his party, the support of the Bloc, and the support of the NDP, moved to invite all the presidents of all the parties to this committee and it was voted down, with every Liberal voting against it. Every Liberal was brought in there to stuff the committee with members who had never been on a committee before. They got rid of the guys who might have voted for it.

We could go on and on in this debate, but it is obvious the Liberals do not want the president of their party here. We would love to have him here and I actually sent him a letter this afternoon inviting him to come.

[Points of Order, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages and how it may relate to Standing Order 21. I also seek your opinion regarding its relevance to parliamentary privilege and whether it is a conflict of interest.

The report reads as follows:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108, the Committee adopted the following resolution:

It is resolved that the Standing Committee on Official Languages express its support for the initiative of [the member for Ottawa--Vanier] in the Quigley v. Canada case, and request the House of Commons suggest to its Board of Internal Economy to make available a maximum budget of $30,000 to cover a portion of the legal fees incurred by [the member for Ottawa--Vanier] for his role as intervener in this case.

The report is signed by the member for Ottawa--Vanier.

Standing Order 21 states that no member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he or she has a direct pecuniary interest.

Page 189 of Marleau and Montpetit states:

On being elected, Members of the House of Commons become trustees of public confidence. Members must be seen to be impartial and to derive no personal benefit or gain from their decisions.

I am not sure if the member voted for or against the motion in committee but signing off on any document is a decision. A signature is legal proof of a person's decision on the matter.

The member for Ottawa--Vanier has made a parliamentary decision that grants him personal gain to the tune of $30,000.

Page 194 of Marleau and Montpetit states:

A Member with a pecuniary interest in a matter simply refrains from voting. In the event the Member votes, the vote may be questioned and eventually disallowed.

What I am arguing today, Mr. Speaker, my be breaking new ground by introducing the notion of a signature on a report, but there is a clear relationship between the report and the member's pecuniary interest. The member's signature on the report has a parliamentary consequence almost as effective as the member's vote.

I would think that a chairman with a pecuniary interest in a committee report would refrain from signing on it, as a member should refrain from voting on such a matter.

Since the signature of the member for Ottawa--Vanier constitutes a decision, it meets the criteria on page 189 of Marleau and Montpetit:

Members must be seen to be impartial and to derive no personal benefit or gain from their decisions.

This decision by the member for Ottawa—Vanier is a clear conflict of interest and a breach of the Standing Orders and the practices of the House. The report, Mr. Speaker, should be withdrawn.

[Business of the House, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the government House leader to advise us of what the business is for the rest of this week and next week. Could he also advise the House if he will be bringing forward Bill C-10A? It has been on the agenda week after week on Tuesdays and always withdrawn. Will it be on the agenda next Tuesday, and will he use his time allocation motion so that it is completed on that day?

[Points of Order, April 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, toward the end of question period the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia asked a question with regard to ports. He asked the question of the minister in charge of Manitoba. Then the Minister of Veterans Affairs got up and answered the question. Is this a new precedent for the House?

In the past when the opposition has asked a question of the political minister of a province, it has been refused in regard to asking the question. It was allowed to happen today and I just want to make sure that same opportunity will be available in the future to all opposition members.

[Points of Order, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second point of order in recent weeks regarding the inaccuracy of Hansard , and once again it concerns the Hansard of April 1.

There is a discrepancy in the recorded Hansard regarding the vote on Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code. The vote was conducted using the application method of voting. The whip of the Progressive Conservative Party indicated that his party would be voting against the bill. However the Progressive Conservative caucus was recorded as voting for the bill in the actual recorded division that followed.

It is not clear how the Conservatives voted but I would think that this error taints the accuracy of the position of all parties in the House. The accuracy of our records is very important. The public needs to know why and how members voted.

I would ask the Speaker to check into this and make sure that we get accuracy so that people will know how we all voted on this very important issue in the House of Commons.

[Right Hon. Prime Minister, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of my caucus who celebrated his 30th anniversary of being elected to the House I get the honour of saying a few words about the Prime Minister.

Today we salute a long and distinguished career in Canadian politics. The right hon. gentleman from Saint-Maurice celebrates the 40th anniversary of his first election to the House. We join all hon. members in offering our congratulations for a career that has spanned five decades commencing on this day in 1963 when he became the hon. member for Saint-Maurice--Laflèche.

We were colleagues in the House, although on the opposite side of the Chamber during the early seventies. We had many personal contacts and many good political debates.

In 1987, my friends and supporters organized a fundraising roast for me. They thought that the little guy from Shawinigan would be a great roaster, so they invited him. He was a man of great stature at the time and was the featured speaker at my roast. The evening drew more than 1,200 paying guests and raised the largest amount of any political fundraiser at that time in British Columbia's history.

I should add by comparison that the then Liberal leader, John Turner, drew only 600 paying guests the night before and did not raise nearly as much money. Perhaps he should have called on the little guy from Shawinigan for help.

Perhaps after the Prime Minister retires to Shawinigan to play golf he will invite me to his riding for a gold tournament. We could make a personal wager on every hole and we could donate that money to a charity of his choice in Shawinigan.

It has been a truly remarkable career. He has seen seven Prime Ministers come and go during this time. In fact, it can be said he helped some of them go. For the record, here are the names of the Prime Ministers who have served Canada since the right hon. gentleman first got involved in politics: Diefenbaker, Pearson, Trudeau, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, Turner, Mulroney and Campbell.

Perhaps the Prime Minister should reconsider his decision to retire. His friend Jacques Chirac is running again and he is 70 years of age right now. There is another reason why he should contemplate seeking the leadership of his party once again. There is no Quebec-born candidate for the leadership for the first time in living memory in Canada. If he were to seek the leadership as a favourite son candidate from Quebec he would undoubtedly clobber the competition.

The Prime Minister need only serve one term and then retire. The member for LaSalle—Émard could continue campaigning and recruiting delegates until that final retirement. And when and if the party chooses the member for LaSalle--Émard as leader, he will not be any older than the Prime Minister is now.

Louis St. Laurent did it. Jacques Chirac is going to do it. Ronald Reagan managed to hang in there. Why does the Prime Minister not change his mind? It will give the member for LaSalle--Émard time to develop his own red book, even though by that time he will be referred to as the really ancient mariner.

Seriously, we are here to acknowledge and congratulate the Prime Minister on reaching this milestone. He did not win his first election and subsequent elections all on his own. He had the loving support of a devoted partner and family. While we pay tribute to the right hon. gentleman on this 40th anniversary, we also acknowledge the tremendous contribution that is made by those we call our partners. The Prime Minister has often paid tribute to Aline and we congratulate her as well for her contribution to Canada.

We have had differences of opinion in this place and we will continue to have differences of opinion. Harsh accusations are hurled across this floor and returned with equal velocity. But at this one moment in time in the House of Commons, I think it appropriate to offer nothing but best wishes on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Prime Minister's first election.

On behalf of my colleagues, I wish to congratulate both him and his charming wife Aline, his children and grandchildren.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order pertains to the motion to concur in the Senate's message respecting the vision of Bill C-10. I will also comment on the notice given by the government to curtail debate on the motion using Standing Order 78.

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, both the Senate and the Commons have clearly established a difference between dividing bills and amending bills. It would be inconsistent not to apply the same logic and establish a difference between the Senate messages that amend bills and Senate messages that divide bills.

I will argue that the motion to concur in the message from the Senate regarding Bill C-10 cannot be considered a stage of a bill nor can the Senate's division of Bill C-10 be considered an amendment to Bill C-10.

Accordingly, the motion to concur in the Senate's message should not be listed on the Order Paper as a motion in response to an amendment made to a bill. It should properly placed on the Order Paper as a government motion. If you were to agree with my point of order, there are two consequences.

First, the notice given by the government to time allocate the motion in response to the Senate message is invalid since Standing Order 78 cannot be used to curtail debate on a government motion unrelated to the legislative process.

Second, the wording of the motion is incorrect. It is worded as a motion to concur in a message from the Senate regarding an amendment to a bill.

As was argued on December 5, 2002, the issue of the Senate dividing a Commons' bill was unprecedented.

We all assumed and accepted that this message seeking concurrence to divide Bill C-10 should be treated as an amendment made by the Senate. There are no other precedents regarding messages from the Senate dealing with legislation. If we had thought it through, we could have concluded that the division of a bill should not be treated as an amendment. Dividing a bill has never been considered an amendment and never should be.

The two most common messages that we receive from the Senate to which we are expected to respond are messages regarding amendments to legislation and messages regarding participation on joint committees.

A message regarding amendments made to legislation is treated as a stage of a bill. A motion pursuant to Standing Order 78 would, in that case, be in order to curtail debate.

A message regarding a committee, or any other business, would also be responded to by a motion. However the motion would be considered a run of the mill government motion and would be listed on the Order Paper accordingly.

Just because the Senate message is concerning legislation does not make it a stage or an amendment to a bill. Consider as examples the numerous House orders that are moved in regard to legislation. They are not treated as stages or as amendments to bills. Let us take a more specific and pertinent example such as the division of a bill.

At page 641 of Marleau and Montpetit, it states:

--the House may give the committee an instruction by way of motion which authorizes it to do what it otherwise could not do, such as, for example...dividing a bill into more than one bill....

A motion to instruct a committee to divide a bill stands alone from the legislation. It is a separate substantive proposition. It relates to the bill but is not a stage of the bill. The government could not use time allocation to curtail debate on such a motion.

On the Order Paper we have a motion instructing the health committee to divide Bill C-13. It was moved on November 22, 2002 by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. It reads:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Health that they have power to divide Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproduction, into two bills in order to deal with all matters related to the criminalization of practices such as cloning in another bill.

As you are aware, Bill C-13 has advanced beyond committee stage and the consideration of this motion is of no consequence to the legislative process of Bill C-13. If it were considered an amendment it would have to be disposed of first before advancing Bill C-13 any further.

If dividing a bill is not considered a stage or an amendment, then how can we consider as an amendment the motion concurring in the message from the Senate advising the House that the Senate has divided Bill C-10 into Bill C-10A and Bill C-10B.

The Senate itself did not consider the procedure to divide Bill C-10 as an amendment. The motion concerning the division of Bill C-13 is not considered an amendment in the House either. If that is the case, why are we treating the message from the Senate regarding the division of a bill as we would treat a message from the Senate regarding an amendment to a bill?

The motion to concur with the Senate should be listed under “Government Business” in the Order Paper with the other government business alongside the adjourned motion of the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve regarding the division of Bill C-13.

There was only one other precedent regarding the issue of the Senate dividing a Common's bill. On June 7, 1988, the Senate considered the matter of dividing Bill C-103, an act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. The issue on June 7 had to do with the fact that Bill C-103 was no longer on the Senate Order Paper but was superseded by two separate bills and that the chair had a problem accepting that the two separate bills were still government bills.

Mr. Speaker also said:

Senator Graham's instruction does not deal with amending a government bill, but with dividing a government bill into two bills.

The Speaker of course was correct. No one was arguing that it was an amendment. Everyone agreed that it was a separate motion adopted by the Senate. The issue was whether the Senate could adopt such a motion, not whether it was an amendment.

On July 11, 1988, the Speaker of the House of Commons ruled that the procedural event concerning Bill C-103 was totally without precedent. In his ruling on Bill C-103, the Speaker stated that he did not have the power to enforce the privileges of the House directly. He said that he could not rule the message from the Senate out of order for that would leave Bill C-103 in limbo. He said:

The cure in this case is for the House to claim its privileges or to forgo them....

I am not asking the Speaker to enforce the privileges of the House but to define what we are dealing with and have it worded properly and listed in the right place on the Order Paper. That would not leave Bill C-10 in limbo.

In the 1988 case the Speaker did not rule the statement made by the Senate Speaker was incorrect. I am referring to the statement that the division of a bill is not an amendment. It simply was not directly pertinent to the particular arguments put forward in the case of Bill C-103 and it was not a factor in the Speaker's ruling on Bill C-10.

The opinion of the Senate Speaker that dividing a bill is not an amendment has not been dismissed. It is accepted by both Houses that dividing a bill is not an amendment but, for some reason in the case of Bill C-10, the act of dividing a bill morphed into an amendment somewhere along the road from the Senate to the Commons.

As I said earlier, we did not know what else to do with such a message because, as Mr. Speaker stated in 1988, the procedural event concerning the division of a Commons bill by the Senate was totally without a precedent.

If we look at the message itself, it does not claim to be an amendment. The message was sent on December 4, 2002 and it is recorded in Journals as follows: “A message regarding C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, was first received from the Senate as follows”:

Ordered, That the Clerk do carry this Bill back to the House of Commons and acquaint that House that the Senate has divided the Bill into two Bills, Bill C-10A, an act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act, and Bill C-10B, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), both of which are attached to this Message as Appendices “A”and “B” respectively; and

That the Clerk further acquaint that House that: (a) the Senate desires the concurrence of the House of Commons in the division of Bill C-10; (b) the Senate has passed Bill C-10A without amendment; and (c) the Senate is further considering Bill C-10B.

The message does not claim to be anything more than a message. The Journals Branch does not attempt to classify the message as anything other than a message either. It began its life on the Order Paper as an amendment after the government gave notice of its motion in response. Therefore it is the government's response to the message where things went wrong procedurally.

I suspect that the government regarded the message from the Senate as an amendment made to legislation because it had no other experience of messages from the Senate regarding legislation.

Even though the message represented an extraordinary procedural event, the government's response to that extraordinary event was to use a traditional response. The motion obviously came from a template that has been used countless times.

Beauchesne's 6th edition has a number of them in appendix 1. All one has to do is fill in the blanks. There are templates in appendix 1 regarding the proper wording for report stage motions; six month hoist motions and concurrence in Senate amendments. Template No. 74 reads as follows:

That the amendments made to Bill C-...., an act...., be now read a second time and concurred in; but that this House, while disapproving of any infraction of its privileges or rights by the other House, in this case waives its claims to insist upon such rights and privileges, but the waiver of said rights and privileges is not to be drawn into a precedent.

The government's motion regarding Bill C-10 and the template are almost identical. I am not knocking the government's use of templates. We all use them. In fact, the opposition amendment to the government's motion could be considered a template amendment to a template motion. While the use of the templates help keep us consistent, they cannot be used in response to an extraordinary and unprecedented procedural event. We are required to think a little harder under those circumstances.

While the template theory may explain why we considered another message from the Senate regarding the division of a bill inadvertently as a Senate amendment, sound procedural practice does not come from a good explanation of how a mistake was made. Sound practice comes from correcting those mistakes.

Just how material are those mistakes to my argument, or how material will they be when touted as precedence, will be included in the much anticipated opposing argument that I am sure the government House leader will present in a few moments.

The House never adopted a motion that concurred in the Senate's division of a House of Commons bill. The motion before us has not been adopted yet and the only other motion, the motion regarding Bill C-103 from 1988, disagreed with the Senate. The House has never accepted the division of a bill by the Senate to be an amendment. The House thus far has rejected the Senate's power to divide a House of Commons bill outright.

That is why it is so important for us to get this right before the government adopts the motion. I would urge the Speaker not to put much stock in mistakes of the past. I would urge the Speaker to consider instead the pure logic of the argument I am presenting today. There is no question the logic is in the Speaker's Chair. It always is and always has been.

Since both houses have clearly established a difference between dividing bills and amending bills, it would be consistent to apply that difference to our response to Senate messages that amend bills and Senate messages that divide bills. If the Speaker were to agree with my argument, there would be another issue regarding the wording of the motion. It reads:

That, in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code--

The reference to amendments is what I am concerned with. If the Speaker were to agree with my argument, would that not disqualify the motion since the motion would not make sense if it were determined that the division of a bill is not an amendment to a bill? The proper course of action would be to place motions in response to Senate messages regarding the division of House of Commons bills on the Order Paper as a government motions, and not as amendments. Motions in response to Senate messages regarding the division of House of Commons bills should either agree or disagree with what the Senate has done and should not masquerade as an amendment. Dividing a bill is not an amendment.

In preparing my argument I considered the following question: Would the adoption of a motion that addressed an action of the Senate that was not considered an amendment to a House of Commons bill satisfy the legislative process? In others words, must the communication between the House and the Senate regarding legislation be exclusively about amendments in order to satisfy the constitutional requirement that both houses pass the same bill?

I raised a point of order last spring regarding Bill C-10A. I argued that Bill C-10A should not be allowed to remain on the Order Paper because the bill lacked a procedural necessity to qualify it to exist, let alone proceed to the next stage. Bill C-10A was the offspring of Bill C-10 and was divided as a result of a separate substantive motion that instructed a committee. I attempted to convince the Speaker that since Bill C-10A had not been read a first time, nor had it been read a second time, it was not legitimately before the House.

On June 3, 2002, the Speaker ruled on the matter. He said:

However in the circumstances, given the House's explicit instructions to the committee to divide the bill and report it in two parts, like dividing things like the Red Sea, we do have to follow the instructions that the House gave. In my view the procedure adopted by the committee was the exact instruction the House gave, which was to divide the bill into two parts and report it accordingly.

It was an excellent ruling. It did not matter to the Speaker that the bill in question did not actually receive second reading. The Speaker was satisfied with the procedural standing and legislative course of Bill C-10A because it was established through the adoption of a motion by the House. He maintained this opinion even though the motion that established the existence of Bill C-10A was not considered a stage of the normal legislative process.

In the case of the motion to concur in the Senate's division of a House of Commons bill, the fact that the motion to concur is not considered a stage of the bill or an amendment is immaterial. The Speaker, in this case, would have to respect the decision of the House as he did with the division of the bill. The records would show that both houses were in agreement and that the constitutional requirement would have been met.

Mr. Speaker, my arguments have raised two questions which I hope, in your wisdom, will give us an answer because we must ensure we do things right for the future of parliaments in this great land. Can the motion be time allocated using Standing Order 78? Can the motion remain on the Order Paper as placed and as worded?

Until the Speaker rules on this point of order I would request that the Speaker refuse to allow the time allocation motion to be moved and defer any vote on the motion regarding the Senate message until this matter is resolved.