Bruce Stanton

[Recall of the House of Commons, March 24th, 2020]

Colleagues, before we begin our proceedings, I would like to say a few words.

We all recognize that this is a highly unusual sitting, given the extraordinary circumstances in which we all find ourselves presently.

As a result, you will notice that the arrangements we are used to are different today. We are fewer in number and other special measures have been put in place based on the recommendations of public health officials.

To that end, I understand that there will be agreement to see the application of Standing Order 17 suspended for the current sitting to allow members the practice of social distancing. I encourage all members to follow this and other recommended best practices during today's proceedings.

As a result, any member who wants to speak or address the Chair can rise from any seat in the House.

In addition, we will suspend the sitting every 45 minutes for approximately one minute in order to allow employees who provide support for the sitting to substitute for each other safely.

Finally, I would ask all members who are tabling a document or proposing a motion to sign the document and bring it to the Table themselves.

I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 28(3), the Speaker sent a notice calling the House to meet this day and I now lay this on the table.

What is more, on Sunday, March 22, 2020, the Speaker sent every member a message explaining why the House was being recalled. I would also like to inform the House that, as part of the steps taken by the government under Standing Order 55(1), the Speaker published a special Order Paper and Notice Paper giving notice of a government bill.

I also wish to lay upon the table a letter from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, dated March 22, 2020.

I recognize the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Supplementary Estimates (A), 2019-20, December 9th, 2019]

Order. Today's debate is a general one on all votes tabled before the House on Thursday, December 5, 2019.

Pursuant to the provisions in the motion adopted on Thursday, December 5, 2019, the total length of time for debate will not exceed four hours. 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 rotation.

Each member will be allocated 15 minutes at a time, which may be used both for debate and for posing questions. Members wishing to use this time to make a speech have a maximum of 10 minutes, leaving at least five minutes for questions to the minister.

When a member is recognized, he or she should indicate to the Chair how the 15-minute period will be used, meaning how much time will be spent on the speech and how much time will be used for questions and answers.

Members should also note that they will need unanimous consent if they wish to split their 15 minutes with other members.

When the time is to be used for questions and comments, the minister's response should reflect approximately the time taken to pose the question, as that time counts toward the member's allotted time.

I also wish to indicate that in committee of the whole, comments should be addressed to the Chair, much as in debate in the usual House. I ask for everyone's co-operation in holding all established standards of decorum, parliamentary language and behaviour.

Just as another note to hon. members, as we are in committee of the whole, members will in fact be recognized from the seat in the chamber they choose.

We will now begin tonight's session. The House is in committee of the whole, pursuant to the provisional Standing Order 81(5), consideration in committee of the whole of all votes in the supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020.

Debate, the hon. member for Edmonton Mill Woods.

[Election of the Speaker, December 5th, 2019]

Mr. Chair, it is an honour to speak in this chamber, as you well know. For the next few minutes I am going to provide some thoughts for members' consideration in choosing our Speaker for this 43rd Parliament.

First, let me take a moment to congratulate all those taking their seats for the first time in this House of Commons and all those who were re-elected in October. It will be a privilege to serve with you all.

I can recall my first days here as an MP and the great sense of wonder as the reality began to sink in as to how it was that I found myself here. As we begin our duties it is right that we ask not just how we got here, but why we are here.

Whether in government or in opposition, we have a duty. We are here to oversee, question and hold to account the undertakings of government and Parliament on behalf of, and for, Canadians. The ability of the members to do this depends on our Standing Orders and practices and the interpretation of them by the Speaker.

I am running to be your Speaker because I believe I can assist all members in the discharge of their responsibilities to Canadians. I promise impartiality and respect for all members at all times.

I have occupied this role since 2011.

I was the assistant deputy speaker under the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, then deputy speaker under the hon. member for Halifax West. It was an honour to work with them.

Before entering politics, I ran our family business, a family-oriented resort and convention centre in southern Ontario's cottage country. That is where I learned what it means to be a good employer and to foster a culture of equality and respect for clients, colleagues, suppliers and even competitors. That experience has served me well as an MP, and I will put it to work for you as your Speaker.

Returning MPs may remember that, when I first came to the House of Commons in 2006, I did not speak a word of French. I have since taken classes through the House of Commons language training service, and I can now function comfortably in my second language, which I am constantly seeking to improve.

As Speaker, I pledge to make French and English my and my office's working languages on a daily basis both here in the House and elsewhere.

Discussion of the speakership rightly tends to focus on procedure and proceedings in this chamber, but the Speaker has another role that should be part of members' consideration as they mark their ballot today, and that is the well-being of Parliament as a community. We all have our differences and we are here to express them in a civil and courteous way.

My pledge to you is that I will work to foster our community and a respectful tone and decorum in this chamber so that at the end of this Parliament, whether it be long or short, members will be able to say that their experience in this 43rd Parliament was a positive one, that their friendships stretch beyond party boundaries and, when members return to their ridings, that the work of this chamber reflects the expectations Canadians have for their Parliament.

We should never let up in our pursuit of strengthening Parliament and ensuring its members are well served because if we can do that our constituents will also be well served.

I am seeking your support, and I thank you for your attention.

[May 14th, 2019]

Before we get underway with tonight's committee of the whole, I just have a few instructions, some preamble, to set the guidelines for this evening's committee of the whole.

Tonight's debate is a general one on the votes under Department of Justice. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government and the New Democratic Party. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.

Each member will be allocated 15 minutes at a time, which may be used for both debate or for posing questions. Members wishing to use this time to make a speech have a maximum of 10 minutes, which leaves at least five minutes for questions to the minister.

When a member is recognized, he or she should indicate to the Chair how the 15-minute period will be used, in other words, how much time will be spent on the speech and how much time will be used for questions and answers. Members should also note that they will need the unanimous consent of the committee to split their time with another member. When the time is to be used for questions and comments, the Chair will expect that the minister's response will reflect approximately the time taken by the question, as that time counts toward the time allocated to the party.

I also wish to indicate that in committee of the whole, comments should be addressed to the Chair. I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all the established standards of decorum, parliamentary language and behaviour.

We will now begin tonight's session.

The House in committee of the whole, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), consideration in committee of the whole of the votes under Department of Justice in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020.

The hon. member for Milton.

[Petitions, April 11th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present an e-petition in respect of an important initiative in women's health, that of the health risks associated with breast implants. The more than 3,400 signatories call on the government, specifically Health Canada, to investigate the correlation between breast implants, autoimmune diseases, and breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, BIA-ALCL, to ensure that patients are at the centre of these undertakings; to seek greater transparency from manufacturers of breast implants and to hold plastic surgeons to a higher level of accountability in respect of the health risks associated with breast implants; to require mandatory testing of recipients of implants for BIA-ALCL; and to have mandatory reporting of any confirmed cases of this disease.

I refer this petition for the government's careful consideration and thank Judith Coates, a constituent of mine, for her efforts in bringing attention to this important health issue.

[Privilege, April 8th, 2019]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 22, 2019, by the hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook concerning the alleged breach of the confidentiality of an Ontario Liberal caucus meeting.

In his intervention, the member argued that information reported in the media about the discussions held during the Ontario Liberal caucus on March 20, 2019, violated the expectations of confidentiality and was a breach of parliamentary privilege. He underscored that it was the publication of the confidential information, rather than the leak itself, that was the catalyst for him asking the Speaker to intervene.

In response, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that, not only do matters of caucus proceedings generally lie beyond the Speaker's purview but, also, precedents demonstrate that prima facie questions of privilege have involved the secret recording of members in caucus.

The Chair is being asked to determine if, in this instance, the evidence presented is sufficient to have the Speaker intervene in a matter that is normally outside the confines of parliamentary proceedings.

Parliamentary caucus meetings are, by definition, meant to be exclusively for members belonging to the same political party. They are closed meetings, conducted in the expectation of airtight confidentiality. As the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice explains at page 34:

Because they are held in camera, caucus meetings allow Members to express their views and opinions freely on any matter which concerns them. Policy positions are elaborated, along with, in the case of the government party, the government’s legislative proposals. Caucus provides a forum in which Members can debate their policy differences among themselves without compromising party unity.

While caucus meetings are obviously different from proceedings of the House, they nonetheless have an effect on, and ultimately serve, the interests of the House. The member for Flamborough—Glanbrook had good reason then to cite Speaker Milliken’s ruling of March 25, 2004, which states at page 1712 of Debates:

The concept of caucus confidentiality is central to the operations of the House and to the work of all hon. Members.

The question that the Chair must consider carefully is how far, if at all, parliamentary privilege extends to protect the deliberations of a caucus. The precedents cited by the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook are helpful. One precedent led to the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on April 26, 2004. The report is useful because it explains what could trigger a possible intervention by the Chair. Basically, it is related to House support for these caucus meetings. As the report noted:

To the extent that caucus confidentiality is breached by Members by disclosing what was said or went on to non-members of caucus, this is a matter to be dealt with by each party caucus. Any unauthorized recording of caucus meetings, however, is a matter for the House itself. Not only does this arguably impede Members in carrying out their parliamentary functions, but it also could constitute a contempt of the House of Commons.

In the present case, it is not clear that it was caused by a failure of House support. Nor did any caucus members bring this to the attention of the House. Nonetheless, this should not be construed as an endorsement for divulging caucus information, even in the most general of terms, without the caucus approval.

Absent any sufficient evidence to demonstrate that members’ privileges were breached, I must conclude that there is no question of privilege.

I thank honourable members for their attention.

[Privilege, April 8th, 2019]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 22, 2019, by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington concerning an apparent violation of section 49.8 of the Parliament of Canada Act.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and a number of other members also contributed to the discussion on this alleged question of privilege.

In raising this matter, the member for Perth—Wellington explained the meaning of certain provisions added to the Parliament of Canada Act in 2015. As a result, caucuses are legally obligated to conduct certain votes at their first meeting after a federal election, one of which is to confirm whether section 49.2 of the act, which stipulates the process for expelling a member from caucus, will apply.

The member for Perth—Wellington concluded by asking that the House be allowed to deal with this matter, given the lack of judicial recourse offered to members in this regard and the generally accepted limited authority of Speakers to interpret the law.

In response, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader contended that, as the member for Whitby confirmed that her resignation was in fact voluntary, the requirement of timeliness for a question of privilege had been disregarded, and the Speaker cannot adjudicate on the legality of matters, the issue was a matter of debate, rather than a question of privilege.

With respect to this specific case, there are a few points that need to be clarified. I will deal with them in reverse order.

One, asking the House to deal with the possible expulsion of a member from caucus is not a proper subject for a question of privilege. If the member believes that the House needs to put in place certain practices, perhaps by way of additional Standing Orders, this should be done through a substantive motion following proper notice.

Two, as was pointed out, I as Speaker, have no role in the interpretation of statute nor in the conduct of these 2015 provisions. All that is allowed under subsection 49.8(5) of the Parliament of Canada Act is that I shall be informed of the results of any vote taken by a caucus to formally expel a member within the terms of the act.

Three, from the knowledge that I have, the hon. member for Whitby was not expelled. Instead, she voluntarily withdrew from the caucus to sit as an independent.

Based on this understanding and these facts, there is no question of privilege.

[Committees of the House, March 22nd, 2019]

We are going to resume debate. However, I want to bring to members' attention that the issue of relevance was brought up in the last exchange. Members are reminded that we are in debate on a matter that was proposed by the member for Carleton in respect to the Standing Committee on Finance during its consideration of Bill S-6. This is just to remind hon. members with respect to the rule of relevance that these things do come up on a regular basis.

I am quoting from the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states:

Notwithstanding their importance, these rules remain difficult to define and enforce, not least because such enforcement must respect the freedom of debate enjoyed by all Members. The rule against repetition can be invoked by the Speaker to prevent the repetition of arguments already made.... The rule of relevance enables the Chair to counter any tendency to stray from the question before the House or committee. It is not always possible to judge the relevance...of a Member’s remarks until he or she has spoken at some length or even completed his or her remarks....

The Speaker must exercise his or her discretion:

...if the rules are applied too rigidly, they have the potential for severely curtailing debate; if they are neglected, the resultant loss of debating time may prevent other Members from participating in debate. Particular circumstances, the mood of the House and the relative importance of the matter under debate will influence the strictness with which the Speaker interprets these rules.

I say that just as a reminder to hon. members, since the time of the House is limited when a matter is before it. This is why we encourage members, who have great liberties to phrase their arguments in the way they wish, to ensure at the very least that the arguments they make have relevance and can be tied to the question the House has been presented with.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Foothills.

[Petitions, November 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on behalf of dozens of citizens to bring attention to Parliament in respect to concerns about the international trafficking in human organs and the fact that there are two bills before Parliament at the moment, Bill C-350 and Bill S-240 in the Senate.

The petitioners are seeking Parliament's quick attention to this proposed legislation and that it be passed as soon as they possibly can.

[Petitions, November 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.

The first is from a group of citizens in my riding of Simcoe North who are bringing attention to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change in respect to the Champlain Monument that is situated in Couchiching Park. It was removed mid-year in 2017, with the idea of having it restored and replaced by this time this past summer in 2018. However, that did not occur and the petitioners are bringing attention to this and seeking the agreement of the minister to make sure that this monument is back in the park for the coming summer.