Barry Devolin

[Points of Order, April 23rd, 2010]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader on December 10, 2009 concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave), standing in the name of the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this important matter, as well as the hon. member for Joliette for his remarks concerning the bill.

In presenting his concerns with respect to Bill C-343, the parliamentary secretary stated that, in his view, the bill infringes upon the financial initiative of the crown. Specifically, he pointed out that the bill seeks to modify the Canada Labour Code to permit employees to take leave without pay for a number of family-related reasons. He explained that the bill would also amend the Employment Insurance Act in order to allow these employees to receive employment insurance benefits while on such leave for a period of up to 52 weeks, thus resulting in new government spending.

In his intervention, the member for Joliette argued that a royal recommendation is not required since the funds in the employment insurance account consist of premiums paid by both workers and employers and do not constitute government funds.

The Chair has examined the bill carefully, and it is quite clear that Bill C-343 alters the terms and conditions of the existing program under the Employment Insurance Act. The argument put forth by the member for Joliette regarding whether or not funds contributed to the employment insurance fund constitute public revenue was addressed in a Speaker's ruling delivered on November 16, 2009, at Debates page 6751, where it stated:

In essence, all monies received by the government, regardless of source, are deposited in the consolidated revenue fund and become public funds, that is, funds of the Crown. The Constitution Act of 1867 and Standing Order 79 apply to these funds. Thus, a bill proposing a new or increased expenditure of public funds, that is, an appropriation, requires a royal recommendation.

The employment insurance program operates under this framework. The funds in question are public funds and their management is subject to the financial initiative of the Crown.

By extending benefits to employees taking an unpaid leave from work for family-related reasons, Bill C-343 is increasing the expenditures under that act. These expenditures would be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. As the House is aware, such provisions can only be put to the House for a final decision if they are accompanied by a royal recommendation as set out in Standing Order 79(1).

Consequently, the Chair 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.

[Employment Insurance Act, November 16th, 2009]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader on October 7, 2009 concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute) standing in the name of the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this important matter, as well as the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé for his remarks concerning the bill.

In presenting his concerns with respect to Bill C-395, the parliamentary secretary stated that in his view the bill infringes upon the financial initiative of the crown. Specifically, he pointed out that the bill seeks to change the purposes of the Employment Insurance Act by adding a new provision that would extend the qualifying period for an undefined period in case of a work stoppage caused by a labour dispute. He also argued that by altering the calculation of the qualifying period, the bill would result in increased government spending on employment insurance.

In support of his contention that the bill requires a royal recommendation, the parliamentary secretary made reference to a Speaker's ruling on Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits) on March 23, 2007 and a ruling by the Speaker of the Senate in Bill S-207, an Act to Amend the Employment Insurance Act (foreign postings) on January 29, 2009.

Both bills were similar to the present bill in that they sought to modify the employment insurance qualifying period, and both were found to require royal recommendation.

In his intervention, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé argued that a royal recommendation is not required since the funds in the employment insurance account are paid by workers and employers and do not constitute government funds.

The Chair has examined the bill carefully and, it is clear beyond all doubt that Bill C-395 alters the terms and conditions of the existing program under the Employment Insurance Act. The argument put forth by the hon. member for Berthier--Maskinongé regarding whether or not funds contributed to the employment insurance fund constitute public revenue is a recurring argument. It has been brought forward during similar discussions on Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system) as well as Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system) from the previous Parliament. In essence, all monies received by the government, regardless of source, are deposited in the consolidated revenue fund and become public funds, that is, funds of the Crown. The Constitution Act of 1867 and Standing Order 79 apply to these funds. Thus, a bill proposing a new or increased expenditure of public funds, that is, an appropriation, requires a royal recommendation.

The employment insurance program operates under this framework. The funds in question are public funds and their management is subject to the financial initiative of the Crown.

By extending the qualifying period for employment insurance benefits by the amount of time a person was unemployed due to a work stoppage resulting from a labour dispute, Bill C-395 is increasing the expenditures under the act. These expenditures would be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. As the House is aware, such provisions can only be put to the House for a final decision if they are accompanied by a royal recommendation as set out in Standing Order 79(1). Consequently, the Chair 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.

[Capital Experience, November 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there is a special group of students here today. They are participating in a program I call a “Capital Experience”, where two student leaders from each of the seven high schools in my riding come to Ottawa for three days each year to learn about career opportunities in public life.

They have visited Parliament, Amnesty International, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the CHUM television station, the Press Gallery and Summa Strategies.

I wish to thank those who shared their time with these students, and to thank the businesses and service clubs that sponsored them.

Today I welcome to Parliament: Chris Oag and Sarah Hutchings from Brock; Jacob McKend and Matthew Godja from Crestwood; Jacob Nicholls, Kyle Gavin and Riley Wilson from Fenelon Falls; Graeme Lloyd, Kurran Devolin and Kyla Suchovs from Haliburton; Emily Seabrook and Iain Becking from I.E. Weldon; Graham Batty and Jacqui Van Warmerdam from L.C.V.I.; and Ashely Obress and Emily Champagne from St. Thomas Aquinas.

I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing these young people all the best as they make decisions regarding their future careers.

[Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act, September 17th, 2009]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 2, 2009, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, a bill standing in the name of the member for Vancouver East.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having brought the issue to the attention of the chair, as well as the member for Vancouver East for her comments.

In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary stated that the bill went beyond the establishment of a national housing strategy by requiring, in clause 3(2), that it provide financial assistance to those who were otherwise unable to afford rental housing. Such a change, he argued, made it clear that a key element of this new national housing strategy would lead to an increase in federal spending on housing and thus should be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

The hon. member for Vancouver East argued that the focus of the bill was not on spending but rather on having the federal government develop, in co-operation with the provinces, territories, first nations and municipalities, a housing strategy for Canadians. She contended that there was a difference between a bill that called for the development of a strategy and one that calls for money to be spent.

In determining whether or not Bill C-304 should be accompanied by a royal recommendation, the Chair must judge if the bill seeks an authorization to spend public funds for a new and distinct purpose.

Clause 3(1) of the bill requires the establishment of a national housing strategy. It states:

3(1) The Minister shall, in consultation with the provincial ministers of the Crown responsible for municipal affairs and housing and with representatives of municipalities and Aboriginal communities, establish a national housing strategy designed to ensure that the cost of housing in Canada does not compromise an individual’s ability to meet other basic needs, including food, clothing and access to education.

However, it is the effect of the second paragraph of this clause which is in dispute. That paragraph reads as follows:

(2) The national housing strategy shall provide financial assistance, including financing and credit without discrimination, for those who are otherwise unable to afford rental housing.

As the Speaker stated in his decision on March 21, 2005, at page 4373 of Debates,

—a bill effecting an appropriation of public funds […] or an equivalent authorization to spend public funds does so immediately upon enactment.

Once Parliament approves a bill that requires a royal recommendation, there should be nothing further required to make the appropriation.

In the case before us, Bill C-304 does not contain provisions which specifically authorize spending for a new and distinct purpose. Rather, the bill seeks Parliament's approve for the minister, in consultation with various stakeholders, to develop a national housing strategy. While the bill requires that strategy to provide for financial assistance to those unable to afford rental housing, the bill itself provides no such assistance. Furthermore, clause 4(2) of the bill provides the minister with great latitude concerning the measures that have been taken to implement such a strategy. The Chair cannot speculate on what these measures might be.

In other words, Bill C-304 requires the government to develop a plan. It does not address the actual implementation of that plan. If Parliament decides to approve this bill and a national housing strategy is developed, it will then be up to the government to determine the financial resources required to implement the strategy and to set about getting Parliament to approve such resources. This might involve an appropriation bill or another bill proposing specific spending, either of which would require a royal recommendation.

However, those decisions lie in the future. Meanwhile it is Bill C-304 that is before the House and is being proposed to members for second reading. The Chair is of the view that the bill does not require a royal recommendation and may proceed.

[A Capital Experience, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there is a special group of students here today. They are participating in a program I call a “Capital Experience”, where two student leaders from each of the seven high schools in my riding come to Ottawa for three days each year to learn about career opportunities in public life.

They have visited Parliament, the Korean Embassy, Amnesty International, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister's office, the press gallery and Summa Strategies. I wish to thank those who have taken their time with these students and thank the businesses and service clubs who sponsor them.

Today, I welcome to Parliament: Jesse Besaw and Lori Josephson from Brock; Loretta Shaughnessy and Danielle Goldberg from Crestwood; Grant Leeder and Laura Backman from Fenelon Falls; Lindsey Snelgrove and Mitchell Rea from Haliburton; Waylon Skinner and Sarah Prozak from I.E. Weldon; Cody Welton and Wyatt Weir from Lindsay Collegiate and Vocational Institute; Jessica Lang and Olivia Demerse from St. Thomas Aquinas; and Amanda Hickey from St. Peter's.

I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing these young people all the best as they make decisions regarding their future careers.

[Election of Speaker, November 18th, 2008]

Good morning, dear colleagues. Recently, a number of members have asked me two questions. The first was “Do you speak French?” The second was “Do you have the necessary experience to serve as the Speaker of the House?” Those are good questions, and here are my answers.

I came to Ottawa more than 25 years ago to attend university. Since then, I have devoted most of my time to the legislative process. I studied political science at two universities, one in Canada and the other in the United States. I served as the director of research for a federal political party. I was chief of staff for two provincial ministers. I was an advisor to a premier of Ontario. I have been a member of this House for four years, and I have chaired the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. As you can see, I have a great deal of experience in this area. In addition, I have lived in Europe and Asia. I believe that my experience will help me be a strong ambassador for Parliament and for Canada.

Those are the two questions that I have been asked most frequently since I put my name forward 10 days ago. However, there are two other questions that I also need to address to you: number one, why am I running for Speaker; and number two, why should you support me.

I am running for Speaker because I think we need a change in that chair. I have the greatest respect and affection for the member for Kingston and the Islands, but I profoundly disagree with his House management style. I think we need to re-establish decorum and civility in this place. However, unlike some of the other challengers, I think that this is a responsibility that falls to all of us as members of this place. We need to work together. We need to demand of each other that we will show respect and that we will establish a decorum that will allow us to welcome our constituents, our children and our grandchildren to come to this place.

I do not share the notion that this is a top-down exercise, that somehow by choosing a new Speaker there is a new sheriff in town, that somehow the solution is for the Speaker to lay out discipline, to crack the whip and make sure that members do what they are supposed to do. Quite the contrary, I think this ought to be a bottom-up exercise. I think all of us ought to expect and demand a level of respect from our colleagues that Canadians across Canada would demand in their workplace. There is no other place I can think of where people are routinely exposed to the kind of verbal abuse that takes place in this house of Parliament.

My riding is relatively close to here and as a result, lots of school groups from my riding visit Ottawa. Obviously I want to meet with these groups while they are in town, but I always try to meet with them before they attend question period because I want to prepare them. I explain to them what is going on and what they are going to see. In fact, I make excuses for what goes on in this place, and I do not think that is reasonable.

Over the last four years, I have sat in this House and have behaved myself, and I have looked around and seen many other members in all four caucuses do the same thing. I do not accept the notion that what goes on here is inevitable. I do not accept the notion that there is nothing we can do about it.

A lot of people have talked about decorum. Two weeks ago I took the time to sit down and write out a plan. Many of you have seen this plan. I am proposing three things.

First, there are four people who sit in that chair and they need to work together. Like a curling team, the skip is important, but if the other players are not using the same strategy, it will not work.

Second, I have said that we need to start at the periphery and move towards the centre. While it may be impossible to exercise the kind of control that is needed in question period with 300 rowdy members in here, I do think there are many other times, when there are only a dozen or 20 of us in our places, that the rules could be implemented and we could build momentum and move towards the centre.

Third, I have said that we ought to develop a code of conduct to lay out basic expectations for members in terms of what their behaviour ought to be. Rotary International has the four-way test. I think we can come up with something similar. I ask you for your support in doing that.

[Agricultural Fairs, June 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as summer gets into full swing, many towns across my riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock are again preparing for their annual fairs and agricultural exhibitions.

In most cases, it is the local agricultural society that runs these multi-day events. While fairs have always been one of their major functions, agricultural societies also pursue the advancement of agriculture with other activities, such as the buying and selling of seed and the keeping of breeding stock.

My riding boasts a variety of traditional summer and fall fairs, many with well over 100 years of history, as well as numerous other fall festivals.

This weekend the 159th annual Millbrook Fair kicks off fair season in my riding. I am pleased to say my family and I will be there to take part in the opening ceremonies. Next weekend it is the 160th annual Oakwood Fair.

I recognize that many of these events continue today because of the hard work and dedication of many volunteers. For most of the year, fair and exhibition volunteers give freely of their time, skills, creativity and energy for the benefit of people and communities, helping to make Canada one of the best places to live.

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. In accordance with the order of reference of Monday, May 26 the committee has considered Bill C-34, the Tsawwassen first nation final agreement act, and has agreed to report it without amendment.

[Child Care, May 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, last night members of the House were supposed to debate the NDP child care bill, but for the seventh time NDP members have played procedural tricks to delay debating their own bill, a bill that would take away $2.4 billion a year in direct support to Canadian parents. It would also stop the provinces from creating the types of child care spaces that worked best for them, more than 60,000 of which have been announced so far.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development tell the House what effects the NDP bill would have on the progress that our government has made so far on child care?

[Lebanon, May 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, for the past few days Canadians, along with the rest of the world, have watched with great concern as the irresponsible actions of Hezbollah threaten to plunge Lebanon into deeper chaos. At least 36 people have died and hundreds have been injured. There is still fighting in the north of the country.

Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House the government's response to what is taking place in Lebanon?