John Reynolds

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding Bill C-15B. I needed to make this point of order before the minister moved the motion because I will be arguing that not only should he not be allowed to close off debate but also that Bill C-15B should not even be allowed to remain on the order paper because the bill lacks the procedural necessity to qualify it to exist let alone proceed to the next stage.

Mr. Speaker, you might remember that in the government House leader's argument he even admitted that Bill C-15B was a distinct bill from Bill C-15. Bill C-15B has not been read a first time nor has it been read a second time and therefore is not legitimately before the House.

On September 26, 2001, a motion was moved regarding Bill C-15. It read:

That Bill C-15, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts, be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights;

That it be an instruction to the committee that it divide the bill into two bills, the first containing the provisions of the bill respecting protection of children from sexual exploitation, criminal harassment, disarming or attempting to disarm a peace officer, home invasions, allegations of miscarriage of justice and reform and modernization of criminal procedure; and the second containing the provisions respecting cruelty to animals and amendments to the Firearms Act;

The motion instructed the committee to bring in two new bills. While the old bill, Bill C-15, was deemed to have been read a second time, Bill C-15B had not.

If the House had deemed the bill to have been read a second time then there would be no problem but since that was overlooked I would conclude that Bill C-15B should be withdrawn.

As a result the strictest standards must apply to its application. It would be wrong to carry the second reading achievement from Bill C-15, the mother bill, to Bill C-15B, its legislative offspring.

The argument that this bill received second reading would be a stretch. Members' speeches during the second reading debate on Bill C-15B would have been significantly and dramatically different than the debate on Bill C-15.

The official opposition supported Bill C-15A, the other half of Bill C-15, and opposes Bill C-15B. Bill C-15A passed through the House without the time allocation and Bill C-15B, according to the government, appears to require time allocation.

According to the government and since Bill C-15A is no longer before the House I am not sure of its fate. If it were in jeopardy I would give the consent of the official opposition to deem Bill C-15A to have received first and second reading. Getting back to Bill C-15B, which is still before the House, I would argue that if there is doubt as to the procedural correctness of advancing Bill C-15B through the system then, Mr. Speaker, you must rule on the side of caution.

A hasty call would not be in the interest of good governance in the House. The history of Bill C-15B warrants caution.

As I argued during the question of privilege on that matter, I pointed out that the member's right to vote and to be heard properly are well established rights that indisputably make up the powers enjoyed by members of parliament. In a constitutional democracy the right of members to vote is fundamental and goes to the very heart of our parliamentary system.

The 1993 Supreme Court of Canada decision in New Brunswick Broadcasting Company v Nova Scotia confirmed the constitutional nature of parliamentary privilege on this very basis.

Most of the powers and privileges of members of the House are the result of centuries of practice and convention. The courts have clearly recognized that conventions are part of our Constitution. Our legislative procedures, including voting, are part of our historical heritage, our parliamentary traditions and indeed of the privileges collectively of the House and individually of its members.

The legislative process requires that bill be read three times. On page 607 of Marleau and Montpetit it states:

Some of the rules concerning the legislative process that were in effect at Confederation are still in effect today. Some examples are: the Standing Orders prohibiting the introduction of bills in blank or in an imperfect form, and stipulating that all bills be read three times on different days....

Page 625 describes how the standing orders of the House require that every bill receive three readings, on different days, before passed. The practice of giving every bill three separate readings derives from an ancient parliamentary practice, which originated in the United Kingdom. At that time when the technology was not yet available to reproduce large numbers of copies at low cost, bills were introduced in handwritten form, one copy at a time. In order for members to know the contents of the bill, the Clerk read the document to them. The idea of reading the bill was taken literally.

Marleau and Montpetit goes on to explain that today a bill is no longer read aloud but the formality of holding a reading is still preserved. When the Speaker declares that the motion for first reading has passed, a clerk at the table rises and announces “first reading of this bill”, thus signifying that the order of the House has been obeyed. The scenario is repeated when the House has ordered a second and then third reading of the bill.

Marleau and Montpetit describe that bills must go through the same stages of the legislative process but do not necessarily follow the same route. It describes on page 626 three avenues for the adoption of legislation. The path of Bill C-15B does not match any of the three avenues described on page 626 and fails to meet the requirements to be legitimately before the House. The three avenues are:

After appropriate notice, a Minister or a private Member may introduce a bill, which will be given first reading immediately. The bill is then debated generally at second reading stage. It is then sent to a committee for clause-by-clause study.

A Minister or a private Member may propose a motion that a committee be instructed to prepare a bill. A bill will be presented by the committee and carried through the second reading stage without debate or amendment.

A Minister may move that a bill be referred to a committee for study before second reading.

Regardless of the avenue that the House decides to take, the bill will then have to be carried through report stage, to be read a third time and be sent to the Senate....

Page 627 of Marleau and Montpetit outlines in detail the stages a bill must go through when it is introduced in the House of Commons:

Notice of motion for leave to introduce and place on the Order Paper;

Preparation of a bill by a committee (where applicable);

Introduction and first reading;

Reference to a committee before second reading (where applicable);

Second reading and reference to a committee;

Consideration in committee;

Report stage;

Third reading (and passage);

Consideration and passage by the Senate--

And on it goes. I point out that Bill C-15B missed a few things, like notice for leave to introduce, introduction and first reading and second reading.

I reviewed the other examples of bills being divided and what I discovered was that normally the bills are divided and presented to the House at first reading and all the constitutional and procedural hoops and loops necessary to advance the bills through the House were met. For example, at page 618 of Marleau and Montpetit there is a reference to Bill C-93 that, at the insistence of the opposition in 1982, the government withdrew the bill and introduced two separate pieces of legislation. The two new bills did not appear on the order paper at report stage, as did Bill C-15A and Bill C-15B.

In the case of Bill C-94, the energy bill that led to the famous bell ringing incident, the bill was divided into eight separate pieces of legislation. Once again there was no Bill C-94A, Bill C-94B, Bill C-94C, Bill C-94D, Bill C-94E, Bill C-94F or Bill C-94G. Bill C-94 emerged from a committee without having gone through first and second reading.

There is a major flaw here with Bill C-15B that has been overlooked.

On page 619 of Marleau and Montpetit it suggests that historically disputes over omnibus bills are brought about by political interaction. While the division of Bill C-15 was brought about by political interaction, the path the government took was different and flawed.

If you like, Mr. Speaker, we can look at other jurisdictions. In the U.K. the process is the same. Page 464 of Erskine May's twenty-second edition states that public bills have five stages: introduction and first reading; second reading; committee; report stage and third reading. The U.K. also has the restriction that successive stages of a bill must be taken up on different days.

There are no shortcuts when it comes to the legislative process. The integrity of the House is at stake here. If there is any doubt I would urge you to rule on the side of caution and withdraw Bill C-15B from the order paper. If the government has to start all over again and proceed legitimately, then so be it.

It is our responsibility to ensure that procedural requirements are observed before a bill leaves this place to become law since the courts have the legal power to inquire into the procedural history of a bill before it has been assented to.

On page 186 of Joseph Maingot's second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , it states:

--the courts might be effective in ensuring the observance of procedural requirements imposed by the constitution with respect to the enactment of legislation.

It would be irresponsible to knowingly cast doubt upon the legitimacy of our proceedings. Bill C-15B must be withdrawn and put back on the order paper.

[Privilege, June 3rd, 2002]

Well, maybe the member is a rural Canadian, but his government does not understand much about rural Canadians or we would not have this bill now.

We implore you, Mr. Speaker, to use the powers that you have to allow this debate to continue so Canadians can really understand what is in the bill.

[Privilege, June 3rd, 2002]

No, Mr. Speaker, I have a few more.

On page 369 of Marleau and Montpetit there is a reference to an intervention by the Speaker on a time allocation related tactic used by the government. It describes how Speaker Fraser ruled on the government tactic of skipping over routine proceedings to go to orders of the day. As we are all aware this tactic, if allowed, would secure for the government the opportunity to move time allocation.

While Speaker Fraser ruled such a motion in order on April 13, 1987, page 369 references another ruling where the Speaker ruled out of order a similar motion only a few months before. The Speaker was able to judge each situation and rule accordingly. Speaker Fraser demonstrated that a Speaker could and should intervene when a government abuses its powers and the rules of the House.

The rule governing time allocation can be found in Standing Order 78. It provides for more than one day of allocated debate yet the government never exercises this option. The government, by only allotting the minimum amount of time to debate each stage of a controversial bill, prevents the opposition from doing its job. It prevents the opposition from enlisting public support and getting its point of view across, thus affecting its privileges.

The right of the opposition to raise the profile of an issue in debate is one of the indispensable principles that make up parliamentary law. These principles, as described in Beauchesne's 6th edition, are:

To protect the minority and restrain the improvidence and tyranny of the majority, to secure the transaction of public business in a decent and orderly manner, to enable every member to express his opinions within those limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time--

Mr. Speaker, you have never ruled in favour of these questions of privilege but there does come a time. The government is into record time allocations; the people have a right to hear this debate. This is an important debate especially for rural Canadians, something the government does not understand much about. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker--

[Privilege, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, citation 3 in Beauchesne's 6th edition outlines some elements of the Constitution Act and our system of government which I believe is relevant to this very point. It states:

More tentative are such traditional features as respect for the rights of the minority, which precludes a Government from using to excess the extensive powers that it has to limit debate or to proceed in what the public and the Opposition might interpret as unorthodox ways.

Earlier arguments regarding time allocation suggested that the Chair intervene on behalf of the collective rights of parliamentarians to ensure that traditional features, as outlined in citation 3, were upheld.

While the Speaker ruled not to intervene in the 69th time the government closed off debate or the 70th, 71st and 72nd time I would argue that since then, and since we are embarking on the 76th motion, considering that the last filibuster tool has been taken away, the moment has arrived to declare the measures imposed by the government today as excessive and unorthodox as described by citation 3 in Beauchesne's. Since the Chair possesses discretionary authority to refuse to allow a motion of time allocation to be put, now is the time to do it.

On May 2, 2000, during a discussion of the time allocation rule at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the former clerk of the House of Commons, Robert Marleau, responded to a question regarding the Speaker's authority to protect the minority in the manner described earlier. He said:

...it exists intrinsically in the role of the Speakership all the time—where there could be the tyranny of either side. It could be the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of the minority.

At a subsequent meeting on May 4 the former clerk suggested that with time allocation the Speaker was less likely to intervene. There is a reference to this in House of Commons Procedure and Practice on page 570. However, the clerk stopped short of suggesting that the Speaker would never intervene. He used an extreme example that if the government time allocated every bill at every stage the Speaker might intervene.

My interpretation of what the clerk said is that there exists a limit to what a majority government can do with respect to time allocation. My interpretation is supported by the citation I mentioned earlier from Beauchesne's which states that a government is precluded from using to excess the extensive powers it has to limit debate. The clerk used the extreme example in his response because he knew it was not up to him to establish the limit. We know that 69, 70 and 75 is likely not the limit. On Friday the government House leader gave notice of his intention to move the 76th motion.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like you to consider the matter of using Standing Order 56.1. In the last parliament the government used this procedure in all sorts of unorthodox ways that went way beyond its powers.

[Privilege, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes to get to that point it takes some basis of building up to the argument. I know the Speaker has been around a while but I wanted to ensure this was all put into the proper context.

In the last parliament the Reform Party offered a unique approach to filibuster. Since the government, under the current House leader, was in the habit of preventing filibusters by closing off debate early and often the Reform Party targeted voting instead of debate and introduced hundreds of motions causing the House to vote around the clock for 42 hours straight. The Bloc Quebecois used it for the clarity bill and so on.

The member for Red Deer argued that the species at risk debate was a successful classic textbook filibuster in that it raised the profile of a controversial issue in Bill C-5.

Why this story is so important is because the debate on Bill C-15B is just beginning to get the attention it needs. The Canadian Alliance has fought for stronger penalties for those who break the law, including individuals who abuse animals. We object to recent sentences for blatant animal abuse that were far below the maximum penalties. Clearly this is inadequate.

Unfortunately, because of the way Bill C-15B is currently worded many ranchers, hunters and medical researchers may be subjected to harassment. The Liberal cabinet states that the bill would protect farmers, ranchers and researchers but the argument has three fatal flaws. Farmers would have to hire lawyers.

[Privilege, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of a motion that the government intends to move with respect to time allocation on Bill C-15B. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, on Friday the government House leader gave notice of his intention to close off debate on this important bill.

I must report that if the motion were moved it would be the 76th time a motion to curtail debate has been moved by the government. The last time this issue was raised with you, Mr. Speaker, the government's record was 69 times. I am aware that you were not sympathetic at that time, nor were you sympathetic on the several other occasions the issue of time allocation was raised. However I believe and I will argue that a Speaker does indeed have the authority to intervene in these matters and prevent a time allocation motion from going forward. It is not a matter of a Speaker having authority, but under which circumstances should a Speaker feel it necessary to intervene.

The government House leader should not be allowed to move his motion because the circumstances that justify an intervention exist more today than at any other time. The right of the opposition to prolong debate has not been respected by the government and one of the last tools the opposition had to slow down a majority government has been taken away. I am referring to the procedure developed by the Reform Party in the last parliament involving the report stage of a bill. Because it was so successful, the government took it away.

The right of the opposition to prolong debate is essential. Without it the public is left without an opposing point of view. We had one successful filibuster in this parliament and it was successful, not because of the opposition, but because the government allowed the filibuster to take place. Bill C-5 represents how essential it is to a democratic institution to have an opposition with the ability to prolong debate.

Let us consider the case of Bill C-5. The member for Red Deer made a good case for the virtues of a good, old fashioned filibuster that was published in a number of papers. He talked about the former Quebec Liberal Senator Philippe Gigantès, who filibustered the GST in the Senate for 17 hours and 45 minutes. Mr. Gigantès told the Hill Times that to delay legislation is the last great tool of democracy. Speaker Fraser put it this way in 1988 when he said:

It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con, and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view.

The member for Red Deer argued that if a filibuster is to be successful it must raise the profile of an issue and enlist enough public support to: put the necessary pressure on the government to back down, or make the government pay a price at the polls in the event it insists on passing the bill into law.

He described how the naval aid bill of 1913 represented the first time in Canadian parliamentary history that closure was ever used. The proposed legislation was introduced by the Conservative government of Sir Robert Borden and if adopted would have authorized the cash donation of $35 million to Great Britain for the construction of the Dreadnought class warships for its navy. Sir Wilfrid Laurier strongly opposed the bill and the Liberals filibustered throughout second reading and committee of the whole. At one point in committee of the whole they kept the whole House virtually in continuous session for as long as two weeks: the House sat from 3 o'clock on Monday March 3 until Saturday at midnight and then again from 3 o'clock on Monday March 10 to Saturday late in the evening. The naval bill was eventually defeated in the Liberal dominated Senate.

Closure was used again to close off the famous pipeline debate in 1956. Well known academic C.E.S. Franks said the pipeline debate was perhaps the most important debate in parliament's history and it had inaugurated the modern parliamentary age of both obstruction and reform.

The debate on the omnibus Energy Security Act of 1982 was made famous because the opposition caused the division bells to ring from 4.20 p.m. on Tuesday March 2, until 2.28 p.m.--

[Government Grants, May 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, they are good if they are a Liberal.

Canadians provide the solicitor general resources to serve as their solicitor general. He represents Canada. No one pays him to be a political minister for Prince Edward Island, yet he hides behind this phantom title.

He understood that by raising the issue of Holland College with the RCMP commissioner and the commissioner of correctional service he was in a conflict of interest, and yet he proceeded to do so.

Is it not time that the Prime Minister expels the count of Cardigan from P.E.I., and when will he do so?

[Government Grants, May 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general claimed that he was simply the messenger for Holland College. Now we learn that he was also the school bully pressing Lucie McClung to cave in and grant the grant to his brother's college.

On May 14 the solicitor general lobbied the correctional service commissioner four months after the college grant application was denied. This is clearly a conflict of interest.

The facts are that he and his political aides used political pressure to assist family members. When will the minister come clean and admit that he broke every rule in the book to help his brother?

[Private Members' Business, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and I believe you would find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:

That Motion No. 388 in the order of precedence be withdrawn and replaced with Motion No. 387, both of these motions standing in the name of the member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin.

[Government Contracts, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate him being transparent. I think any lawyer would tell us the number of more contracts that have gone. We announced publicly that three contracts went. I think Canadians would like to know how many more and as quickly as possible. As soon as he can get us that information, Canadians will believe it.

After all of this is done, will he clear the air now, because he said he would look into this the other day, and allow all parliamentarians to look at all the contracts that are sitting in the files so we can review them as the opposition?