John Reynolds

[Business of the House, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader if he could tell us what the business is for today, tomorrow and next week.

I also ask him if the government has any plans for legislation with changes to the Canadian Wheat Board that would allow western Canadian farmers to do the same thing as central Canadian farmers without having to go to jail.

[Points of Order, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister states that the House has held up committees. We actually agreed to start two committees of the House because there were very important reasons that they be started. On the others, they can take their normal place of events in the House. We have not held up the committees of the House.

[Points of Order, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order pertains to the attempt by the government House leader to adopt the report of the striking committee with Standing Order 56.1 this morning during routine proceedings.

My point of order will address three issues: first, the minister moved the motion during the tabling of documents and I would argue that he should only be able to move a motion under Standing Order 56.1 at the rubric “Motions”; second, unanimous consent was not requested on the day he moved his motion, and I would like you to rule on the admissibility of proceeding this way; and third, I will be arguing that Standing Order 56.1 cannot be used to adopt a committee report.

Standing Order 56.1 reads:

In relation to any routine motion for the presentation of which unanimous consent is required and has been denied, a Minister of the Crown may request during Routine Proceedings that the Speaker propose the said question to the House.

Section (b) states:

For the purposes of this Standing Order, “routine motion” shall be understood to mean any motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, which may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.

All of those items, while open to interpretation and, as we have witnessed in the past, open to abuse, all of those items, I would argue, would have to be moved under motions. Routine proceedings, as Marleau and Montpetit describe at page 365:

...is a time in the daily schedule when business of a basic nature is considered...This segment of the daily program consists of separate headings or rubrics called by the Speaker each day and considered in succession.

The footnote on page 366 states:

...the Minister or Member may seek unanimous consent to revert to a specific rubric under Routine Proceedings to table a document or present a committee report, make a statement, present a petition or move a motion.

In other words, routine proceedings is not a free-for-all. There is an order established and the rubrics are clearly labelled: during the tabling of documents, one tables a document; at statements by ministers, statements are made; and we present reports during presentation of reports, petitions at petitions, and we move motions at motions.

My second point involves the moving of a motion under Standing Order 56.1 without giving the traditional heads-up of seeking unanimous consent first. Unanimous consent was sought yesterday but I do not think the House has ever entertained a motion under Standing Order 56.1 without the consent being sought on the day the motion is moved. Therefore, a precedent has been established that consent would have to be sought on the day the government intends on moving the motion.

My third point challenges the admissibility of the motion being moved under Standing Order 56.1. I would like to point out that Standing Order 56.1 has its limits. These limits are described in section (b) of that standing order. Marleau and Montpetit give examples of some motions that have been moved under Standing Order 56.1. We find them at page 571. Page 571 suggests that while the rule appears at first glance to have limits, its usage tells us a different story. I think what the authors are trying to say, in a very delicate and diplomatic way, is that the use of Standing Order 56.1 has gone way beyond what it was intended to be used for.

You confirmed this in your ruling, Mr. Speaker, of June 12, 2001. You addressed the matter of the expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 and you suggested that it should be restricted to the arrangement of the business of the House. You stated in your ruling that the standing order should never be used as a substitute for a decision which the House ought itself to make on substantive matters.

Members of Parliament work very long and hard at committee and would be highly insulted if we regarded their reports as routine and not substantive.

This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker, and your ruling will be very significant. Members have been struggling to have their work taken seriously in the House. While we understand that the government does not respect their work, a ruling establishing their reports as routine and not worthy of debate would be disastrous procedurally; it would enhance the powers of the executive and diminish the importance of private members.

This motion is a motion to concur in a report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which strikes all of the committees. First, there is a normal mechanism to deal with this report. After the report is tabled, a concurrence motion should be placed on the order paper.

After the proper notice period, the motion can be moved. There is nothing preventing the government from proceeding this way. In fact the chairman of the procedure and House affairs committee has a concurrence motion on the Order Paper and it is eligible to be moved tomorrow.

There are no extraordinary circumstances impeding the business of the House. The opposition is merely insisting that the rules of the House are obeyed and that it should not have to go to battle to ensure that the rules are upheld. The reason we have a notice period is to allow the House to be aware of the matter for which its consent is being sought.

This report contains 16 to 18 appointments per committee and there are 19 committees. There are numerous associate members assigned per committee. As a result, this report contains over 1,200 separate decisions. I would argue that this is a substantive matter.

I do not think that Standing Order 56.1 can be used to adopt the report of the procedure and House affairs committee for two reasons: one, we are following the normal practice and there is no need to circumvent the process; and two, Mr. Speaker, this is a substantive matter and as you said in your ruling of June 12, 2001, Standing Order 56.1 should not be used as a substitute for a decision which the House itself ought to make.

The normal course of events should be followed because the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is considering an Alliance motion to conduct the elections of committee chairmen and vice-chairmen by secret ballot. If we adopt the striking committee report today, the committees will begin to organize before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has decided on the process to be used to elect the chairmen and vice-chairmen.

It makes no sense to rush and adopt this report today. The House would be better served if its rules were followed to the letter. This is not one of those times when we should be circumventing the process.

In conclusion, the motion under Standing Order 56.1 should not be moved during the tabling of documents and should only be tabled under the rubric “Motions”. Such unanimous consent was not requested on the day the motion was moved. The motion pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 should not be valid.

Finally, Standing Order 56.1 cannot be used to adopt the committee report since such reports are substantive. As I said earlier, the work of committee members is important and vital to this institution and we should grant members the respect they deserve. Their work is not routine. The government House leader thinks their work is routine and devoid of substance but we do not agree.

[Ethics, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, from the standing ovation it seems that some of them already know what is in the report.

They call it the Liberal limbo. The Prime Minister sets the bar so low his ministers can tunnel under it and they choose not to step over it.

Is it not true that the Prime Minister will not fire the Solicitor General because he does not know how many other ministers would be forced to follow the Solicitor General out the exit door?

[Ethics, October 21st, 2002]

The former defence minister argued that the sins of the Solicitor General were the same as the ones he committed.

We have known for weeks that the Solicitor General ignored any thinking person's idea of ethical guidelines. Is the Solicitor General going to remain in place? What is the Prime Minister waiting for?

[Ethics, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister was minutes away from firing his Solicitor General. A cabinet shuffle was imminent because of the unethical behaviour of the man of Green Gables.

Today the Solicitor General is still there--

[Points of Order, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the government House leader for his explanation. I will leave the question period part alone. However, with regard to the Prime Minister's statement, I feel it was a major statement that had not been made inside the House before. I agree with my colleague from the NDP.

I can only suggest to the government House leader that this is happening more and more. Since the Prime Minister has announced that he is leaving, major announcements are made outside the House.

The Speaker did rule the other day that under our modernization committee, he had no power to control that. I appreciate that. However the government House leader should know, and we have a weeks break coming up, that if we continue to have major announcements made outside the House of Commons instead of here, the opposition House leaders will get together and slow down the operation of the House of Commons.

It is not correct that major announcements are made outside the House before they are made here.

[Ethics, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government's ethics counsellor is not an ethics enforcer but an enabler for the ethically challenged front bench.

The Prime Minister stated yesterday that there was always room for improvement, yet he has failed to offer any significant guidelines to improve the lax ethical standards that are displayed by his cabinet ministers.

Again, will the government commit to introducing an independent ethics commissioner, who is so desperately needed, and one who covers all parliamentarians?

[Ethics, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister stated that any changes to the ethics counsellor should include making that person independent. The Liberal government voted a decisive no to an independent ethics commissioner over a year ago. It voted against its own red book promise. Since then the list of the government's ethically challenged has included: the former minister of public works, the former defence minister, the heritage minister and the Solicitor General. It is clear that the government is in ethical disarray.

Will the government commit to introducing an independent ethics commissioner for all parliamentarians?

[Member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend thanks to you and your parliamentary staff for making it easy and comfortable for me to return to the House of Commons. Your collective concern made it much easier than I thought it would be.

I would also like to thank the employees who constructed the tray for my chair so that I can participate in the House.

Our security people have been helpful in finding ways to make access to the building and corridors much easier.

The pages and supervisory staff have been very generous with their suggestions and their service.

To those who step aside or offer assistance on the elevators, I want to also extend my thanks.

I can assure Canadians who are wheelchair bound and considering a career in politics that there are no obstacles to getting the job done once they are elected. All of us in the chamber and all House of Commons employees and political staff should be very proud of how this place has accommodated me.

I have one other person to thank and I could not have coped without the help of my loving wife, Yvonne.