Jay Hill

[Business of the House, June 8th, 2007]

I hope you do, Mr. Speaker. My point is that you have already ruled that this motion was adopted when fewer than 10 members rose. There is no such thing in our Standing Orders about re-ruling.

[Business of the House, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would help if we read Standing Order 53 in its entirety, but I do not intend to do so. As I pointed out, Standing Order 53.(3)(a) states that “the Speaker may permit debate thereon for a period not exceeding one hour”.

You did call the question. Fewer than 10 members rose, and you can look for clarification from the table officers and the clerks, but I still contend that this issue is done. Fewer than 10 members rose to object to the motion and therefore the motion was adopted. Therefore, we are now going to debate Bill C-52.

[Business of the House, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, also on a point of order, in my reading of Standing Order 53.(1) through 53.(5), Standing Order 53.(4) says:

When the Speaker puts the question on any such motion, he or she shall ask those who object to rise in their places. If ten or more Members then rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn; otherwise, the motion shall have been adopted.

Mr. Speaker, it is my reading that you put the motion and less than 10 members rose in objection. Therefore, the motion has been adopted by the House and we will proceed now not with debate on the motion but debate on Bill C-52.

[Business of the House, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given we ran out of time today to complete the debate on Bill C-52 and given that the failure to adopt Bill C-52 by both houses before we adjourn for the summer will result in the loss of some $4.3 billion in 2006-07 year-end measures, pursuant to Standing Order 53.(1) I move:

That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment today to consider Bill C-52.

[Points of Order, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this issue was raised yesterday and again today. I know that the whips have discussed looking at clearing this up. Perhaps I could explain it to other members because I think there is a lot of concern not only by the independent members but by others about what it is that the whips and the procedure and House affairs committee are concerned about here.

As I understand the issue, it is this: When there are a number of independent members there are obviously a certain number of questions and Standing Order 31 statements by members that could be assigned to those independent members.

We have had cases in the past, and indeed we could have cases in the future, where a party falls below the requisite 12 members. For that purpose there has been a precedent set for Speakers to pool the questions that those independent members would be entitled to so that they could assign their questions to their leader or to some other member of their caucus.

In my political lifetime, members will recall that post-1993, we had that situation with two parties in the House of Commons. While the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party were recognized registered political parties outside of this chamber, they did not have the requisite 12 members to be a recognized party in the chamber at the time. One had two members and the other had nine, as I recall. The Speaker at the time pooled, or bundled, or whatever term one wants to use, the number of questions that they would get during question period and then assigned the questions to them as a group.

I think this is where the problem lies, Mr. Speaker. Let us take into consideration that there are currently four independent members of Parliament. Of the questions that we usually go through in the rotation, the number of questions in a day, if we divide those, excluding the three that the government gets, by the number of opposition members of Parliament, whether they are one of the three recognized parties or the four independent members, we get to a ratio of how often each member would be eligible for a question, all things being equal.

The problem arises if, for example, there were three independent members, each one of them should get one question per week. That makes sense. To make it equal, whether they were in a recognized party or sitting as an independent, they would have exactly the same rights to ask one question per week.

What has been happening as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, is that if you bundle those questions together and there are three questions for independents in a week and then two of the independents choose not to ask a question and you give the other questions to that other member as though they were a party, then that individual independent member would obviously get more questions than they would be entitled to if they sat in a recognized party.

I think that is the question that we are trying to deal with. Certainly, and I can speak for myself here, I do not want to see any inequity. I want to see the same rights and responsibilities for every member of Parliament, whether the member is an independent or whether the member sits in a recognized party, with no greater or lesser advantage to being in a party or sitting as an independent when it comes to those rights of a Standing Order 31 statement or asking a question in our chamber.

I think the goal is to ensure that if we take that equation, the number of questions asked per day or the number of questions asked per week and divide it by all the opposition members and we get to how many questions that person would get in a week, then it should be the same whether the person is an independent member or in a party.

Obviously when a member is in a party, there is a mechanism in place to assign that question. Let us say for argument's sake, every member would get one question per week, whether the member was an independent or was in the Liberal Party, for example.

Obviously the Liberal Party has a mechanism in place in its caucus to assign those questions to certain members, whether it is the leader, the deputy leader or whoever it is. However, it should not detract from the basic rule that each member is equal in the eyes of this chamber. That is what we are trying to get to, I believe. I would look for others to support that fundamental principle of equality.

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and I think you would find there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That for the supply period ending June 23, 2007, Standing Order 81(18)(c) be amended by replacing “10 p.m.” with “8:30 p.m.”

[Committees of the House, June 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between all the parties, and I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs be authorized to travel to the DND-VAC Centre for the support of injured members, injured Veterans and their families, in Ottawa, on June 7, 2007, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

[Citizenship Act, June 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to take the Chair a bit by surprise, but there has just been consultation among all the parties and I think you would find the unanimous support of the House this afternoon for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of this House, Bill C-14, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption), be deemed read a third time and passed.

I also believe that you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.

[Citizenship Act, June 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member and many others have said, this is an extremely important issue not only for adoptive children and adoptive families, but for our country. With our declining birth rate we need to rely increasingly on immigration to ensure we have the necessary citizen base for the future of our country. This has certainly been a passion of mine over the last number of years but it is not because I have been an adoptive parent myself.

As a member of Parliament and as someone who has family members and friends who have been in the position where they have availed themselves of adopting children, I am quite familiar with the issue. I think all members of Parliament, regardless of party, do come in contact from time to time with parents who either have not been able to conceive naturally or have made the choice to adopt children. In some cases, they have very generously made the choice to adopt children, in addition to their naturally conceived children.

I was very pleased when the former Liberal government picked up on this and offered a tax incentive for adoptive parents to offset some of the huge costs they incur when they make the choice to either start or to enlarge their families. We are all aware of the numbers. With some of these foreign adoptions, the costs can literally run very quickly into tens of thousands of dollars. It was an important step forward when the Government of Canada at the time did that. It showed its appreciation through making a change to our tax law to assist adoptive families. As the member himself said during his remarks today, this particular bill is another step in the right direction.

As we debate, consult and formulate plans on how to help all Canadian families, not just adoptive families, we are looking for good, new ideas on how to assist in that. Has the hon. member given some thought to that or does he have some other ideas of additional ways that we can reach out and help adoptive families?

[Citizenship Act, June 1st, 2007]

moved Motion No.1:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-14, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 27 to 30 on page 2.