Andrew Scheer

[Election of Speaker, June 2nd, 2011]

Hon. members, I would like to express my humble thanks for the great honour the House has given me by electing me Speaker.

I beg to return my humble acknowledgments to the House for the great honour my colleagues have conferred upon me by choosing me to be their Speaker.

This is one time in a session when there is a little bit of liberty in whom the Speaker recognizes. I would be remiss if I did not point out my lovely wife and my latest son, Henry, in the gallery. I would not have had any seat in the House of Commons, never mind this seat, if it were not for the support and love she has given me over the years. My parents, James and Mary Scheer, are here as well. A good friend of mine, all the way from Regina, Joan Baylis, is here as well.

I am very honoured by the trust you have put in me today.

As I mentioned in my speech, over the past few years I have had the honour to be deputy speaker and assistant deputy speaker. It truly has made me appreciate all that every member brings to this House.

I have often said that we are all motivated by the same thing. We may disagree fundamentally on issues and ideas, but we all do sincerely want Canada to be the best country it can be. I have come to appreciate that on a personal level with each and every member. Thank you very much for supporting me today, it really means a lot.

It has been a long day of voting, a little longer than last time, so I will keep my remarks short.

I promise that I will do my best to live up to the trust placed in me. I cannot claim that I will ever be perfect, but members can count that I will give 100% to the job they have given me today.

And the mace having been laid upon the table:

[Election of Speaker, June 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Chair and hon. members, first let me also congratulate the members present today. Whether this is your first term or, like you, Mr. Chair and the dean of the House, your ninth, I am sure you will agree that there is nothing like entering the House of Commons for the first time after an election.

If I can beg the indulgence of those members who heard my speech in the 40th Parliament in a similar circumstance, I would like to use the words of Speaker William Lenthall to describe the nature of the position of speaker.

When King Charles went into the House in 1642 and demanded to know the whereabouts of certain MPs, Speaker Lenthall told the king:

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.

I believe I can carry on that legacy thanks to the experience I have gained over the last several years. I have spent the last five years in the Speaker's chair and, up until about an hour ago, as deputy speaker. Before that, I was the assistant deputy speaker from 2006 to 2008.

It is an old maxim that one learns by doing and I have certainly learned a great deal with first-hand experience in the chair. Experience and expertise should count for a lot and, while every candidate has many different experiences in different areas that will no doubt be helpful to them, I believe there is nothing quite like on-the-job training. As deputy speaker, I learned the rules, procedures and precedents while actually being in the chair.

In speaking with many members, I have received very positive feedback on the impartial and fair way I have presided over the House. I have always taken care to ensure that all parties and, indeed, all individual members were treated fairly while I presided.

I have heard some feedback about my age and I know that I am getting quite old now. The current speaker of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, Mr. John Bercow, also faced questions about his age as he was relatively young when he successfully ran for speaker. I am sure he will not mind my retelling one of his stories. In his speech asking members for their support, one particular MP said to him:

Certainly not, Bercow. You are not just too young; you are far too young—given that, in my judgment, the Speaker ought to be virtually senile.

I hope that no one here feels that way.

Many of you have spoken to me about decorum and courtesy.

I absolutely agree that the speaker needs to play a more assertive role in improving the tone of debate in this place. I believe it is time for the speaker to use the Standing Orders that already exist and are available to more strictly enforce the rules regarding behaviour.

When I was in the chair, often throughout debate we would see particular members, and I will not mention any names, consistently be disruptive and discourteous to their colleagues. Because their names were on a list, they would stand in question period, give a statement and expect the floor to be given to them. We should have a system and a speaker in place to ensure that members do not receive respect from their colleagues until they learn to give it.

Rest assured that I will make certain that members who refuse to follow the rules of debate will not be allowed to speak until they have demonstrated the respect deserved by an institution as important as the House of Commons.

In the last Parliament, I also noticed the way toxic language has crept into debate. We have a list of unparliamentary words but we need to go beyond that. I do not think unparliamentary language should be constricted to only a technical list. The speaker should ensure that members follow not just the letter of the rules regarding unparliamentary language but the spirit as well.

Base name calling and questioning the motives of other hon. members create a toxic environment, which I think is what Canadians feel let down the most about. By showing each other the mutual respect that we would expect from anyone else is very important.

As Speaker, I would like to see a respectful and courteous House of Commons in which members can freely discuss laws and ideas, knowing that their rights and privileges are protected. We have a duty to all Canadians to ensure that the House functions properly.

To my francophone colleagues, I can say that I learned French in school for 13 years, but when I moved to Saskatchewan, I forgot some vocabulary and verb conjugations. However, I am making a concerted effort to improve my French. I am learning the subjunctive, despite the imperfect nature of my discourse.

Protecting the rights of individual MPs is also an important task for any Speaker. If you select me, I will ensure that each member has the right to be heard. Our rights should be protected collectively, but each individual MP needs to have his or her rights upheld as well.

Based upon my experience, my passion for this place, and my fair enforcement of the rules, I humbly ask for your support.

[Speaker of the House of Commons, March 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will allow me a few minutes to speak so that I, too, may pay tribute to you. I will not repeat all that we have already heard about your illustrious career as the Speaker of this historic Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, you have been the voice of the Commons for just over 10 years. I have been very proud to have served with you as a Chair for just about half of that time.

In your speech to the House on the first day of the current Parliament, you told members that in your view:

—in a minority House there are certain circumstances that require expertise, not merely experience.

That, I think, has become clear to all members who have served with you since you first took over the speakership of this House in the 37th Parliament. You have shown a great deal of expertise, and not merely experience.

Mr. Speaker, you have consistently demonstrated your vast knowledge of the rules and procedure that guide our deliberations and the precedents that guide the Speaker's rulings

But what stands out the most is the fact that, not only did you carry out your duties with a great deal of expertise, but you did so with a genuine love for Parliament, a true grasp of the important role this institution plays in Canada, and true commitment to its traditions.

Beauchesne's, citations 167 and 168, tells us that:

The essential ingredient of the speakership is found in the status of the Speaker as a servant of the House. The Presiding Officer, while but a servant of the House, is entitled on all occasions to be treated with the greatest attention and respect by the individual Members because the office embodies the power, dignity and honour of the House itself.

The chief characteristics attached to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality.

I think all members will agree that those are two characteristics you have displayed very well over the past several years.

Perhaps many Canadians do not know that the Speaker is often called upon to represent Canada abroad at meetings such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, with the speakers of other G8 countries and on bilateral diplomatic visits.

I can tell the members of the House and, indeed, all Canadians, that Canada was always very well represented when Speaker Milliken represented us.

Members of the next Parliament will no doubt miss your presence in the Chair. They will miss your affable nature in guiding this House through some interesting times, and they will certainly miss your expertise.

However, it is said that it is not what one gets out of something that one is remembered for, but what one leaves behind.

You can be proud of the legacy you are leaving here today. I am not talking only about statistics and numbers, as the longest-serving Speaker, for instance, or the highest number of votes taken, but rather as a Speaker who has left such a mark on the position that it is probably difficult for the members and for Canadians to imagine you no longer occupying the chair.

On behalf of all of those who have worked with you, both in the Chair and as table officers and as the many clerks you have served with over the years, I wish you all the best in whatever your days may bring. I know you will always be welcomed in these corridors.

[Global Transportation Hub, March 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Government of Canada delivered support for Regina's newest transportation facility. The funds went to help aggressively market the global transportation hub to attract new investments in Saskatchewan.

Increased trade and investment with emerging economies in the Asia-Pacific region means there are growing opportunities for the global transportation hub in Regina since it combines rail, truck, and air cargo facilities.

The federal government's contribution will enable the transportation hub to brand itself as an attractive destination for international business and investment.

The project will also highlight the Regina area as an important transportation hub along major North American shipping routes and as a link into the Asia-Pacific region.

It is estimated that this project will help the global transportation hub authority attract up to $300 million in new investments to Saskatchewan and create up to 500 jobs.

I have been proud to work with municipal leaders, the business community in southern Saskatchewan, and the provincial government on this important project.

Thanks to this kind of forward-thinking from Saskatchewan entrepreneurs and community leaders, we have a new economic engine that is already bringing jobs to Regina.

[Free Public Transit for Seniors Act, February 18th, 2011]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader on November 17, 2010, concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-449, An Act regarding free public transit for seniors, standing in the name of the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this issue as well as the member for Hull—Aylmer for his remarks concerning the bill.

In presenting his concerns with respect to the bill, the parliamentary secretary noted that the operative clause of the bill contained an authorization to spend for a specific purpose, which, in his view, infringed upon the financial prerogative of the Crown. His main contention was that the bill, because it empowers the Minister of Finance to make direct payments to a trust established to help provinces, territories and municipalities to offer seniors free local public transport, is equivalent to the creation of a new fund outside the consolidated revenue fund.

The Chair notes that the member for Hull—Aylmer, at the conclusion of his opening remarks during the debate at second reading, acknowledged that the bill might require a royal recommendation but that he expressed optimism that a specific modification could be made during the committee stage to address the issue.

It is clear to the Chair that Bill C-449 in clause 3 would authorize the minister to make direct payments to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund to a trust, which in turn would be used to make payments to a province, a territory or a municipality to fund free local transit for seniors anywhere in Canada during off-peak hours. Such a transfer would clearly create a new appropriation and, for this reason, a Royal recommendation is required in respect of clause 3 of the bill.

Consequently, I will decline to put the question on third reading of the bill in its present form unless a royal 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 current debate.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

On debate, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2010]

There is no consent; therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

[Seeds Regulations Act, December 1st, 2010]

There are 10 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-474.

Motions Nos. 1 to 10 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table. The Chair does not ordinarily provide reasons for selection of report stage motions; however, having been made aware of the circumstances surrounding the committee's study of this bill, I would like to convey to the House the reasons involved in considering these motions.

The note accompanying Standing Order 76(5) reads, in part, “The Speaker will normally only select motions that were not or could not be presented in committee.”

The Chair takes note that the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior sits on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which was mandated to study Bill C-474. Although I believe that the majority of the amendments in his name could have been proposed during the committee consideration of the bill, they were not.

The bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on April 14, 2010. The committee considered the bill on five different occasions either to hear witnesses or to discuss a work plan. Indeed, the committee was still hearing witnesses when its request for a 30 day extension was denied and the bill was deemed reported back to the House without amendment.

It is to this turn of events that the member for British Columbia Southern Interior referred in a letter to the Chair highlighting that the committee was thus unable to commence clause-by-clause consideration.

The member has therefore submitted at report stage the amendments he had intended to move in committee.

The Chair has carefully reviewed the sequence of events and the submission made by the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior and in its view it is reasonable to afford him an opportunity to propose these amendments.

Accordingly, I have selected them for debate at report stage. I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 10 to the House.

[Saskatchewan Roughriders, November 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this week thousands of Rider fans will descend on Edmonton and turn the streets around Commonwealth Stadium into a sea of green. Households will be without watermelons for their families this weekend as the stores will run dry as Rider fans clean them out.

The Riders truly bring the people of Saskatchewan together. NDP or Sask Party, Saskatoon or Regina, Tim Hortons or Robin's Donuts, John Deere or CASE IH, we all put aside our differences every game day.

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the Riders. A special loonie was struck to commemorate the event and dozens of communities across the province celebrated to mark a century of Rider football.

Did members know that over half of all CFL merchandise sold in Canada is Rider gear? Every away game sounds like a home game, as most of the fans in Edmonton, Calgary, B.C. and even Toronto cheer for the green and white.

Darian Durant, Wes Cates, Regina native Chris Getzlaf and the whole Rider team will do our province proud this weekend. Redemption is in order as a rematch of the last Grey Cup will give the Riders another opportunity to bring home the trophy.

With a whole province behind them, I know the Riders will do us proud. Go Riders.

[Celebrating Seniors Awards, October 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Saskatchewan Seniors Mechanism's Celebrating Seniors Awards were initiated to honour the many senior volunteers in Saskatchewan who remain active and continue to contribute to society.

Nominees are outstanding senior citizens who reside in Saskatchewan and who consistently contribute to the overall quality of life in their communities.

This month, the Saskatchewan Seniors Mechanism nominated eight residents from the great riding of Regina—Qu'Appelle: Lorraine Garrett and Alfred Aichinger of Regina; Hummer Bartlett and Eileen Rowbotham of Fort Qu'Appelle; Wes and Judy Bailey of Cupar; and Shirley Bozarth of McLean.

Mae Wesley of Fort Qu'Appelle was the winner of the Lifetime Achievement Award. Her volunteering spirit and dedication throughout her lifetime has improved society and inspired others.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mae and all of the other nominees for their years of selfless service for the many communities in Regina—Qu'Appelle.

[Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights, June 15th, 2010]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on May 6, 2010, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning Bill C-469, An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights, standing in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona for her comments.

In raising his point of order, the parliamentary secretary set out two grounds on which he considered Bill C-469 to infringe the financial prerogative of the Crown. First, he argued that the bill creates potential new legal liabilities for the government because it allows the Federal Court to order that the government pay for the restoration or rehabilitation required by environmental harm or for the protection or enhancement of the environment generally. He pointed out that not only procedural authorities but also a number of previous Speakers' rulings make it quite clear that the imposing of liabilities on the Crown requires a royal recommendation.

His second point dealt with the role which the bill assigns to the Auditor General. He noted that clause 26 of the bill would require the Auditor General to review every regulation or government bill in order to determine whether or not they were consistent with the provisions of Bill C-469. This role would, according to the parliamentary secretary, shift the role of the Auditor General from one of simply auditing to that of reviewing policy proposals that have not yet been approved. He regarded this as an inadmissible expansion of the Auditor General's mandate. In support of his view, he noted that, in a ruling given on February 11, 2008, Debates pages 2853-4, concerning Bill C-474, the Federal Sustainable Development Act, an expansion of the role of the environment commissioner to include a national sustainability monitoring system had been found to represent a change of mandate that required a royal recommendation.

In addressing the point of order, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona argued that the bill does not create a new liability for the government, but merely provides legal standing for actions to be brought should the government fail to assert its existing jurisdiction and legislated powers. She also drew the attention of the House to the fact that statutory authority to make payments exists under the provisions of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, should the government fail to carry out its duties.

With respect to the mandate of the Auditor General, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona pointed out that the Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development falls under the authority of the Auditor General. She indicated that a broad mandate is given to the commissioner and that, in her view, none of the requirements of Bill C-469 went beyond the authority already provided to the commissioner by the Auditor General Act. She also noted that any increased expenditure would be operational in nature and would not involve a new activity or function.

The Chair has examined Bill C-469 carefully, as well as the authorities and precedents cited. There are essentially two points which the Chair is asked to address: first, does the bill authorize new expenditures of public funds by creating new or contingent liabilities for the Crown and, secondly, does the bill alter the role of the Auditor General by expanding her mandate beyond that currently provided for in the Auditor General Act.

In his remarks, the parliamentary secretary cited two cases in which an extension of Crown liability was ruled to require a royal recommendation. In one case, concerning the Farm Improvement Loans Act, it was proposed to raise the loan ceiling from $25,000 to $40,000. In the other case, a bill sought to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act in a way which would have increased the government's liability under the Canada Student Loans Act. In both of these cases, the government, as guarantor of the respective loans, would have been exposed to increased liability.

While the requirement for a royal recommendation in cases concerning loan limits and loan guarantees is well established, not all types of liability are subject to the same requirement. It is important in this context to distinguish between a liability for new payments under an existing program and a liability arising by reason of a court judgment rendered against the Crown. The rulings to which the parliamentary secretary has referred relate to a liability of the first kind. Erskine May, 23rd edition, at page 888 states that no recommendation is required from the Crown where: “—such a liability arises as an incidental consequence of a proposal to apply or modify the general law.”

The parliamentary secretary has argued that new liabilities are created by Bill C-469. The Chair is not convinced of this. The bill provides a new means by which the Crown can be proceeded against where it has failed to meet its legal obligations. This is simply a new means of being called to account, not to a creation of a new responsibility for which additional expenditures of public funds will be required.

The Chair is also of the view that creating a new basis for legal actions against the Crown does not extend the Crown's liability as it currently exists under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. In the absence of an expansion of a liability for the new payments under an existing program, there does not appear to be a basis for the claim that the objects and purposes of that act are being extended to where an authorization is being given to make new expenditures of public funds.

The Chair would now like to turn to the question of whether or not Bill C-469 seeks to expand the mandate of the Auditor General.

As the member for Edmonton—Strathcona pointed out, the Office of the Auditor General includes the position of Commissioner of the Environment, who reports to Parliament through the Auditor General. The Commissioner is given a broad mandate with respect to the content of that office’s reports, as set out in paragraph 23(2) of the Act, which reads, in part:

The Commissioner shall, on behalf of the Auditor General, report annually to the House of Commons concerning anything that the Commissioner considers should be brought to the attention of the House in relation to environmental and other aspects of sustainable development—

The provisions of Bill C-469 concerning the Auditor General are limited to the examination of federal bills and regulations. Here again, it does not appear that the bill broadens the mandate of the commissioner, nor does it require the commissioner to undertake any work not already within his purview.

In conclusion, the Chair is unable to find any authorization for a new expenditure of public funds in Bill C-469, nor does the bill appear to assign any function to the Office of the Auditor General that goes beyond the existing mandate of that office. I therefore rule that Bill C-469 does not infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown and so does not require a royal recommendation.

I once again would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this matter, as well as the member for Edmonton—Strathcona for her comments.

I thank honourable members for their attention.