Jay Hill

[Committees of the House, June 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear on this. It is ministers who have the responsibility to be held accountable for the actions not only of their staff, but also of their departments. Therefore, the ministers themselves will continue to appear before committees and answer questions, as they did as recently as yesterday.

[Certificates of Nomination, June 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(1), I have the honour to table in the House of Commons and refer to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics a certificate of nomination from the Prime Minister for the appointment of Suzanne Legault as Information Commissioner.

[Copyright Modernization Act, June 2nd, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Points of Order, June 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep this extremely brief. I have made this mini-speech many times in the past but I would urge all colleagues from both sides of the House to consider tempering their remarks in the days and weeks ahead. We still have three weeks to go before the House is scheduled for the summer recess.

As House leader for the government, I certainly try to work co-operatively with my colleagues on the other side of the House to accomplish what we have been sent here by our constituents to accomplish, which is to govern our nation. I would suggest that we all take a breath here and consider tempering our remarks over the days and weeks ahead because the summer weather will get hot and I am sure it will get warmed up in this House.

I have always respected the fact that this is a place of lively debate. When I listened to my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois on his question of privilege or point of order about what was said during statements today, I did not hear one thing that, in some people's opinion, would not have been the truth. I did not hear one thing that was unparliamentary, except what he said, in my estimation, when he was hollering out across the way Calamity Jane, personally attacking a colleague by calling her the name “Calamity Jane”.

I do not remember anything my colleague said during his comments that personally attacked an individual member. They might dispute what has been said, and that is their right as members of Parliament to dispute in lively debate what is said, but it really does damage to my colleague from the Bloc's argument that he rose about insults when he, in turn, in the middle of his point of order, called my colleague Calamity Jane, a personal insult.

I rise to point out that we want to always remember to temper our remarks because what is viewed as insults by some obviously is viewed as debate by others.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance that I rise to advise you that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-9, the jobs and economic growth act.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, Canadians are expecting this bill to pass before we rise for the summer. Some of the consequences of our not adopting Bill C-9 by the summer are that payments will not be authorized for over $500 million in transfer protection to the provinces. Bill C-9 also authorizes appropriation of $75 million for Genome Canada, $20 million for Pathways to Education Canada to provide support to disadvantaged youth, $10 million for the Canadian Youth Business Foundation and $13.5 million for the Rick Hansen Foundation. These payments and many others cannot be made until Bill C-9 receives royal assent.

Therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the proceedings at the said stages.

[Points of Order, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the fact that the NDP is at the far end of the chamber, I know sometimes it is difficult for you to hear. However, very clearly, during an exchange in question period, when the member for Outremont asked the Minister of the Environment a question, he was heard to yell, at least twice, “liar”.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, that type of language is unparliamentary and is not allowed. Because of your distance from the NDP, if you wanted to consult with our chamber's top cop, the Sergeant-at-Arms, he was sitting right there. I am sure he heard what was said and he can authenticate that the member for Outremont should stand in his place and apologize sincerely to the Minister of the Environment and to the government for using such unparliamentary language.

[Commission of Inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber Dealings, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am tabling, in both official languages, the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Allegations Respecting Business and Financial Dealings Between Karlheinz Schreiber and the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney.

[Business of the House, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am also well aware of the rules, and the rules for the Thursday question require a very succinct question about the upcoming agenda of the government, and the government House leader is supposed to be bound by those same rules as I understand them. On this side of the House at least, we always want to respect the rules of the House of Commons.

To be very brief in my response, I think I have answered that question repeatedly. We will not allow our political staff to be dragged before standing committees where the opposition coalition holds a majority of members and be subjected to the type of abuse we have seen. On behalf of those staff, I would point out that anyone who wants to research this issue can find it in the Hansard of the standing committees. Many of those meetings were televised. Members can see the type of abuse that opposition members of Parliament subjected those staff members to. Many of these staff members are very young people, oftentimes in their mid to late twenties. To be subjected to that type of abuse is completely shameful. It is intolerable and unacceptable. Our ministers will assume their responsibilities yet again and will be appearing at committees when there are questions to be asked of their departments and their staff. So I hope I have put that to rest.

On another issue I have raised a couple of times in question period, when it has come up, is the absolute hypocrisy of the Liberal Party in asking these types of questions of staff members and yet filibustering the government operations committee to prevent their own member of Parliament, the MP for Scarborough—Rouge River, from testifying and answering valid questions about his connection with a law firm that advertised on its website that the member could make “valuable contributions to [its] clients includ[ing] acting for foreign and offshore organizations in obtaining operating licenses, securing regulatory and governmental approvals for mergers and acquisitions, reviewing policies and conduct of Canadian Security Intelligence Services”—I repeat, “Security Intelligence Services”, Mr. Speaker—[and] advising bodies on international issues regarding cross border tax collection”. And it goes on and on about the services the member could provide in the form of lobbying. Yet the member was prevented from testifying today by the Liberal members on that committee, who wanted to filibuster.

This is a member of Parliament and it is the same standing committee that is supposedly looking into the alleged lobbying issues of a former member of Parliament, who has appeared at that committee and testified. At least he had the courage to do that, which is more than the member for Scarborough—Rouge River has done.

On the issue we are supposed to be discussing, the agenda looking forward to the next week of the House of Commons, today we will resume the debate on the report stage motions on Bill C-9, Jobs and Economic Growth Act. As we heard in question period, that is the much anticipated budget bill of the government.

This evening in committee of the whole, we will consider the estimates for the Department of National Defence.

Tomorrow will be an allotted day.

Next week, if necessary, we will continue the debate on Bill C-9, followed by debate on Bill C-23, Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act. We will have as backup bills, Bill C-10, Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate term limits) and Bill S-2, Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act.

As I mentioned in reply to the Thursday question last week, Monday, May 31 has been designated as the day to consider the main estimates of the Department of Natural Resources in committee of the whole.

Finally, Tuesday, June 1, shall be an allotted day.

[Business of the House, May 27th, 2010]

My first question, Mr. Speaker, would be to the Chair.

I am just wondering whether I would have equal time with the member.

[Committees of the House, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite the opposite. In fact I would think that the opposition would be applauding our ministers' attempts to testify in committee at every opportunity. We believe in ministerial responsibility. We believe in ministerial accountability.

As I was saying before I was so rudely cut off by the 35-second rule, the ultimate double standard was conducted today at the government operations committee when the Liberals filibustered that committee to prevent the member for Scarborough—Rouge River from testifying against the accusations that he was committing lobbying as a member of Parliament.