Andrew Scheer

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario Act, June 16th, 2009]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on May 14, 2009, by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning the need for a royal recommendation to accompany Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario, a bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this matter, as well as for his detailed submission.

In presenting his case, the parliamentary secretary noted two aspects of the bill which he argued violated the financial prerogative of the Crown.

First, since the bill seeks to establish a new government agency, the economic development agency of Canada for the region of northern Ontario, he argued that the establishment of a new department or agency entails those operational expenditures necessary for it to function on a day-to-day basis.

Second, he made reference to the fact that the bill provides for the appointment of a variety of officials and other personnel. He indicated that since remuneration or the possibility of remuneration is provided for in the bill, a royal recommendation is therefore required.

I have carefully reviewed Bill C-309 and given particular attention to both the establishment of the new agency and the appointment of various officials and employees proposed in the bill.

With regard to the establishment of a new agency, the parliamentary secretary cited a ruling of July 11, 1988. As the parliamentary secretary noted, in that ruling the Chair stated that an amendment to establish a separate government department “undoubtedly would cause a significant charge upon the federal treasury in order for the new department to function on a daily basis.” (Debates pages 17366-7) This observation is just as valid when applied to Bill C-309. Accordingly, the Chair believes that the establishment of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario, as proposed by Bill C-309, would give rise to new and distinct government expenditures, thus requiring that the bill be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Bill C-309 also provides for the appointment of members of an advisory committee as well as an agency president, and their remuneration is stipulated in clauses 4 and 9 of the bill. It is well established that such salary provisions constitute a charge on the public treasury.

Furthermore, clause 13 provides for the appointment of officers and employees in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act. Undoubtedly, such appointments would necessarily include remuneration and thus would also involve a new government expenditure.

Clearly, Bill C-309, by providing for both the establishment of a new agency and the appointment of officials, involves the expenditure of funds. Such spending, for a new and distinct purpose would need to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Consequently, I will decline to put the question on third reading of the bill in its current form. Today, however, the debate is on the motion for second reading and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the second reading debate.

Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has five minutes remaining in his time slot.

[Knights of Columbus, June 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, this month marked the 50th anniversary of the Knights of Columbus council at Holy Rosary Cathedral in Regina.

For 50 years, Catholic men from Holy Rosary have worked in and around Regina to serve the community and live out the gospel message.

The Knights of Columbus is a worldwide Catholic institution. The organization was founded to render financial aid to members and their families. Mutual aid and assistance are offered to sick, disabled and needy members and their families.

Today, the works of the Knights are numerous. The United in Charity initiative supports numerous charitable organizations around the world dedicated to alleviating poverty, providing health care for those in need, and building homes for the homeless.

The Knights are also one of the most active Catholic organizations in the promotion of the sanctity of human life. From raising money for pro-life causes to providing assistance to expectant mothers in at-risk situations, Knights work tirelessly to protect life in its most vulnerable stage.

I would like to thank all my brother Knights at Holy Rosary Cathedral for their very important contributions and congratulate them on their 50th anniversary.

[Employment Insurance Act, June 9th, 2009]

Order. I wish to make the following statement before moving on to the next speaker.

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 28, 2009 by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning the need for a royal recommendation to accompany Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (amounts not included in earnings) standing in the name of the hon. member for Welland.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this matter, as well as the member for Mississauga South for his comments.

In his remarks, the parliamentary secretary pointed out that Bill C-279 seeks to exclude pension benefits, vacation pay and severance payments from earnings under the Employment Insurance Act. He stated that the effect of such an exclusion would be to make individuals eligible for benefits who would otherwise not be eligible or to increase the benefits to individuals currently eligible.

He noted that there is ample precedent indicating that legislation proposing new spending not currently authorized under the Employment Insurance Act requires a royal recommendation. In support of his claim, he cited earlier rulings from the first session of the 39th Parliament on this topic.

I have examined Bill C-279 and found that the proposed exclusion of amounts from the earnings under the EI Act would have the effect of altering the terms and conditions of this program in a manner which would infringe on the financial prerogative of the Crown. Simply put, the proposal put forward by Bill C-279 is such that more individuals would be eligible to receive EI benefits and those currently eligible would receive increased benefits.

With regards to a similar bill, I stated in a decision on March 23, 2007, at page 7845 of Debates:

—those provisions of the bill which relate to increasing employment insurance benefits and easing the qualifications required to obtain them would require a royal recommendation.

In my view, the same conditions apply to the bill now before us.

For these reasons, I must conclude that Bill C-279 requires a royal recommendation. Consequently, I will decline to put the question on third reading of the bill in its present form unless such a recommendation is received.

Today’s debate, however, is on the motion for second reading and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the second reading debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

[Employment Insurance Act, June 3rd, 2009]

Before resuming debate on this bill, I would like to issue a ruling.

On May 7, prior to the second reading debate on Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits) standing in the name of the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, a point of order was raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to the effect that this bill requires a royal recommendation.

The parliamentary secretary argued that Bill C-280 would result in significant new expenditures by lowering the threshold for eligibility for some claimants and changing the formula for the calculation of benefits.

He further noted that Bill C-280 was virtually identical to another private member's bill introduced in the last Parliament, Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits), which had been found to require a royal recommendation.

In replying to the parliamentary secretary's point of order, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh expressed the opinion that a royal recommendation was not required since any new expenditure would be covered by contributions from workers and employers and not by the government.

I have examined the bills carefully and found that as the parliamentary secretary noted, Bill C-280 and Bill C-265 are indeed virtually identical. They both contain proposed changes to the employment insurance program that include lowering the threshold for becoming a major attachment claimant to 360 hours, setting benefits payable to 55% of the average weekly insurable earnings during the highest paid 12 weeks in the 12 month period preceding the interruption of earnings, and reducing the qualifying period before receiving benefits and removing the distinctions made in the qualifying period on the basis of the regional unemployment rate.

On March 23, 2007, in a ruling on Bill C-265, on page 7845 of the Debates, the Chair had concluded that:

It is abundantly clear to the Chair that such changes to the employment insurance program, notwithstanding the fact that workers and employers contribute to it, would have the effect of authorizing increased expenditures from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in a manner and for purposes not currently authorized.

Therefore, it appears to the Chair that those provisions of the bill which relate to increasing Employment Insurance benefits and easing the qualifications required to obtain them would require a royal recommendation.

Having heard no new compelling argument to reach a conclusion that is different than the one concerning Bill C-265, I will decline to put the question on third reading of Bill C-280 in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

However, today the debate is on the motion for second reading, and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the second reading debate.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook has seven minutes remaining in his time slot.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2009]

I would like to open this session of committee of the whole by making a short statement on this evening's proceedings.

Tonight's debate is being held under Standing Order 81(4)(a), which provides for each of two sets of estimates selected by the Leader of the Opposition to be considered in committee of the whole for up to four hours. The debate is also held under the motion adopted by unanimous consent on Tuesday, May 26, 2009.

Tonight's debate is a general one on all the votes under Fisheries and Oceans. Each member will be allocated 15 minutes. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.

As provided in the motion adopted on Tuesday, parties may use each 15 minute slot for speeches or for questions and answers by one or more of their members. In the case of speeches, members of the party to which the period is allotted may speak one after the other. The Chair would appreciate it if the first member speaking in each slot would indicate how the time will be used, particularly if it is to be shared.

When the time is to be used for questions and answers, the Chair will expect that the minister's response will reflect approximately the time taken by the question, since this time will be counted in the time originally allotted to the party.

Though members may speak more than once, the Chair will try to ensure that all members wishing to speak are heard before inviting members to speak again, while respecting the proportional party rotations for speakers.

Members need not be in their own seats to be recognized.

I would remind all hon. members that, according to Tuesday's motion, during this evening's debate no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be entertained.

As your Chair, I shall be guided by the rules of the committee of the whole and by the motion adopted on Tuesday. However, in the interest of a full exchange, I am prepared to exercise discretion and flexibility in the application of these rules.

It is important that the traditions of the House in relation to decorum be respected and that members make their remarks and pose their questions in a judicious fashion. The Chair will expect all hon. members to focus on the subject matter of the debate, the main estimates of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I also wish to indicate that in committee of the whole, ministers and members should be referred to by their title or riding name and all remarks should be addressed through the Chair. I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all established standards of decorum, parliamentary language and behaviour.

At the conclusion of tonight's debate, the committee will rise, the estimates under Fisheries and Oceans will be deemed reported and the House will adjourn immediately until tomorrow.

We may now begin this evening's session. The House in committee of the whole pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a).

The second appointed day, consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Fisheries and Oceans in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010.

[Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, May 12th, 2009]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on March 25, 2009, by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-201, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (deletion of deduction from annuity), standing in the name of the hon. member for Sackville-Eastern Shore.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for having raised this important matter, as well as the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for his comments.

In drawing the attention of the House to this matter, the parliamentary secretary pointed out that existing provisions of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the RCMP Superannuation Act provide retiring members of the armed forces and the RCMP with bridge benefits between the time of their retirement and the time at which they reach age 65. The bridge benefits provide these retirees with an amount which is equivalent to the amount which they receive under the Canada pension plan when they become eligible for CPP benefits at age 65.

The current provisions of the two pension plans eliminate the bridge benefits at age 65, when CPP benefits begin. The effect of C-201 would be to continue those bridge benefits after age 65 in addition to the benefits for which they are eligible under CPP.

As members will know, a proposed new and distinct government expenditure must be accompanied by a royal recommendation. Additionally, a royal recommendation is also required when an expenditure obligation not covered by existing authorities, is proposed.

In the present case, it is quite clear that the continuation of these benefits would result in the creation of a new government expenditure obligation with respect to the two pension funds.

The parliamentary secretary estimated that the adoption of Bill C-201 would increase the pension liability of the Canadian Forces by $5.5 billion and of the RCMP by $1.7 billion. He noted further that while payments are currently made from the existing pension funds, the government is responsible for the payment of any shortfall out of the consolidated revenue fund.

In his intervention, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore acknowledged the need for a royal recommendation and he recommended that the matter be given close attention by the government.

After reviewing the issue, the Chair can only subscribe to the arguments made by the two interveners. Simply put, the expenditure obligation which the government would assume if Bill C-201 were adopted is not currently authorized.

I am, therefore, obliged to rule that due to the proposed creation of a new government expenditure obligation, Bill C-201 does require a royal recommendation. Consequently, I will decline to put the question on third reading of this bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

Today, however, the debate is on the motion for second reading and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the second reading debate.

[Employment Insurance Act, April 22nd, 2009]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader on February 26, 2009, concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (removal of waiting period), standing in the name of the member for Brome—Missisquoi. I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary, as well as the member for Joliette, for having brought this issue to the attention of the chair.

Bill C-241 seeks to amend the Employment Insurance Act by removing the waiting period that precedes the commencement of benefits after an interruption of earnings, and repeals provisions that refer to that waiting period.

At issue is whether the removal of the waiting period during the benefit period would require additional funds being disbursed from the consolidated revenue fund, or as a result of legislative changes flowing from the 2008 budget, from a separate account administered by the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board.

This question is of critical importance, since matters related to the appropriation of moneys outside the consolidated revenue fund do not infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown and therefore do not require a royal recommendation.

In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary argued that the bill should be accompanied by a royal recommendation since it would require the expenditure of funds in a manner not authorized under the Employment Insurance Act. He further pointed out that the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development estimated that the removal of the two-week waiting period could cost as much as $1 billion per year.

The member for Joliette for his part, felt that the bill did not need to be accompanied by a royal recommendation since it does not have to do with monies within the control of the Crown but instead with monies in the account administered by the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. His position was based in particular on a ruling made on October 3, 2005 concerning C-363, which had to do with the use of the surplus in the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation reserve fund. The Speaker ruled at the time, on page 8294 of the Debates, that:

The transfer of monies from the CMHC reserve fund to the Consolidated Revenue Fund—or in this case to the provinces—is not a matter relating to the appropriation of monies from the Crown. Therefore, Bill C-363 does not infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown.

The Chair has carefully examined Bill C-241, as well as the arguments put forward by the parliamentary secretary and the member for Joliette. It should be noted at the outset that subsection 77(1) of the Employment Insurance Act makes it clear that EI benefits are disbursed from the consolidated revenue fund. It states:

There shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and charged to the Employment Insurance Account

(a) all amounts paid as or on account of benefits under this Act;

As the member for Joliette mentioned in his point of order, it is true that the Budget Implementation Act, 2008 made certain amendments to the Employment Insurance Act in addition to creating the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board.

The object of the Board was, in particular, to set the premium rate under section 66 of the Employment Insurance Act and to maintain a reserve in accordance with that section. The specific purpose of the separate account in question is to make it possible to reduce premiums. There is no provision for using the account to pay for additional outlays that could result from eliminating the waiting period for the payment of benefits. The amendments to the Employment Insurance Act specified, among other things, the conditions for any interim payment to or by the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. It is important to note that these amendments did not remove the EI Account from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Therefore, it is clear that despite the creation of a new Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, the payment of benefits to eligible workers continues to be made from the consolidated revenue fund through the EI account. Consequently, the chair is of the opinion that the provisions of Bill C-241 would authorize a new and distinct charge on the public treasury. Since such spending is not covered by the terms of any existing appropriation, I will therefore decline to put the question on third reading of this bill in its present form, unless a royal recommendation is received.

Today, however, the debate is on the motion for second reading, and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the second reading debate.

On debate, the hon. member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin.

[Election of Speaker, November 18th, 2008]

I welcome all the new members who are taking their seats for the first time today. I can tell them that the sense of profound awe they might be feeling will not wear off any time soon. I still feel it every time I walk into this place, whether it is the beginning of a session or right in the middle of one.

I would also like to congratulate all members. It is a great honour and privilege to be elected. Welcome to the 40th Parliament.

I would like to discuss the role of the Speaker as I see it. I would also like to talk about the Speaker's historic role and my qualifications. I will begin by thanking the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for giving me the opportunity to be one of the presiding officers during the last Parliament.

It was a great honour and a true privilege to work with him in the last Parliament. I can think of no better teacher when it comes to learning about the history, the sense of importance of the institution and the many Standing Orders and precedents. Although I never subscribed to Hansard when I was in high school, I certainly share some of the same affinities for the history of this place that he does.

Tomorrow, whichever candidate you select to become the Speaker of the House will claim on our behalf all the rights and privileges that members of the House of Commons have enjoyed for centuries. In so doing, he will be reaffirming the tradition of independence that the Commons has enjoyed.

Speaker Lenthall of the House of Commons in Westminster put it best in 1642. When King Charles marched into the Commons and demanded that the Speaker tell him the whereabouts of five members he wished to have arrested, the Speaker replied, “May it please Your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here”.

In my view, that is the primary role of the Speaker. The Speaker must serve the House first. It is the Speaker's responsibility to ensure that all members can exercise their rights and privileges in the House. The Speaker's authority comes from all the members, and that allows the House to function properly.

That brings me to the central role played by the Speaker in the day to day management of the House.

First and foremost, the Speaker must be impartial, fair and non-partisan.

As I mentioned, in the last Parliament, I was fortunate enough to serve in the Speaker's chair as one of the Assistant Deputy Speakers. In that capacity I gained a profound respect not only for the House itself and the rules and precedents that ensured its orderly operation, but for the members themselves. This ties in with the issue of decorum that many you have raised with me on the phone. In campaigning, I wrote some letters and emails and I telephoned you. I was going to go door knocking at the Marriott last night, but I thought that might be going over the top.

You have all mentioned that decorum is important to you, that we need to have a new sense of civility in the House. Serving in the Speaker's chair really helped me appreciate that. I came to understand a bit more that we all come from different political parties and have much different ideological beliefs. However, what I truly came to appreciate was the fact that we all had the same goal. We all want Canada to be a better place. We disagree on how to do that, but we all genuinely want the quality of life for all Canadians to be the best it can possibly be. If we remember that throughout the debates and throughout committee work, it will make it easier to respect the rules of civility and decorum.

In that capacity I believe there may be the need for a different approach to some of those issues. Question period is the window of Parliament for most Canadians. That is where most Canadians watch the work we do, as it certainly gets the most visibility, and that is where the biggest problem arises with decorum.

In the last Parliament I was fortunate enough to also serve with Mr. Bill Blaikie, the dean of the House at the time and the member for Elmwood—Transcona. He had a much larger presence in the chair. He certainly had a more booming voice and a more assertive tone at times when needed.

I think the Speaker could work with the House leaders and the whips to establish that kind of tone early on in Parliament so members of Parliament could not only police themselves, but also have a role in the chair that would help them do that when they perhaps lose sight of the goals of civility, and I intend to do that. I would try to establish early on some indications of zero tolerance, if you will, when people crossed the line to help them in the future.

For my francophone colleagues, I would add that I know that the Speaker must be able to communicate in both official languages. I can say that, as soon as I was first elected, I began taking courses to work on my French. I was in an immersion program in high school and since then, I have learned the subjunctive, despite the imperfect nature of my discourse.

I thank you for your attention and would be honoured to have your support.

[Heroism, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge a local Regina hero, Tina Trombley.

Tina was out with her sisters on July 17, 2005, when she twice stepped in to help a stranger who was being seriously beaten outside a Regina bar. Tina was cradling the unconscious stranger in her lap when a drunken woman inexplicably drove a vehicle into the crowd. Tina was run over and dragged down the street, caught underneath the vehicle. She spent six weeks in the hospital and had to undergo extensive physical therapy.

Because of her selfless bravery, Tina will be awarded the prestigious decoration for bravery this year by our Governor General, an award that she truly deserves.

It is also worth mentioning that she will be the first person from Saskatchewan to receive the award. The example that she has set in her display of bravery and selflessness and the willingness to step in when a fellow human being was in danger should inspire us all.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating Tina for her courageous actions and for the community of Regina and especially the workers at Sasktel who provided support for Tina as she recovered from her injuries.

[Vehicle Theft, April 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, a stolen car can be devastating to a hard-working Canadian family. Beyond the loss of the vehicle's dollar value, which is a devastating loss in and of itself, the degree that families rely on their vehicles only becomes apparent when that vehicle is no longer available. Whether it is driving to work or dropping off kids at school or at doctors' appointments, the lives of honest Canadians are severely disrupted thanks to the criminals out to make an easy buck.

Tragically, car thefts often lead to deaths or serious injuries to innocent bystanders or motorists. Thefts of cars and trucks are not simple property crimes. They are dangerous acts that put the lives and safety of all of us at risk.

That is why I put forward my private member's bill to make auto theft a separate offence under the Criminal Code. It is why I would like to acknowledge the Insurance Bureau of Canada for all its work in bringing attention to this important issue.

I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice for announcing yesterday in Winnipeg tough new laws to crack down on the trade in stolen vehicles that enriches organized crime at the expense of hard-working Canadian families.