John Nater

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, in 1952, my late grandfather came to Canada. He travelled through Quebec and ended up in southern Ontario. Then, almost by accident, he bought our family farm. As family legend has it, he used his Harley-Davidson motorcycle as a deposit on our family farm. Within 48 hours of buying the farm, he was in the field harvesting a crop of wheat.

I say that because now, 65 years later, that family farm is still in our family. My parents still actually run and farm that land. A mile and a quarter north of our family farm is my in-laws' farm. It is a century farm. For over 100 years, their family has farmed that land and passed the farm down through the generations.

I share this because our family and our farm families are not that much different from other farmers and farm families in Perth—Wellington and across Canada. They work hard. They raise their families. They give back to the community. They are the bedrock of the community and the economy in our rural communities. To them, and to our farm families, the farm is more than a business. It is a way of life, but it is also a legacy that survives them. It goes on through the generations.

Unfortunately, some of the tax changes in the proposed legislation from the Liberal government would make it harder and harder for a farm family to pass that farm on to the next generation, for a daughter or son to buy into the corporation, to buy into the farm family, and to preserve that legacy for generations to come.

It is telling that the consultations proposed by the government were only for 75 days. These consultations took place at the height of summer, when farmers and farm families were busy. I know that today alone, many of the farmers in my riding are concerned about harvesting soybeans. They are combining. Yesterday, for example, my own father was combining soybeans at my father-in-law's farm. My wife took our two kids out to the farm to go on a combine ride with grandpa. It is a way of life. It is important to the community. However, here we are with a sham of consultations being done when farmers, farm families, and small businesses were busy.

As members know, Perth—Wellington has a strong agricultural community, but it also has a strong tourist and cultural sector, which of course is much busier during the summer. Many of the small businesses in Stratford and Drayton were busy working hard running their businesses, because summer is when the tourist season happens. The opportunity to provide feedback and to examine a number of these changes was not possible.

That is why to provide the most opportunity possible for the hard-working businesses and farm families to give feedback, we are asking to extend these consultations, as proposed in the opposition day motion.

I find it interesting as well that we had to wait until today, our third week in the fall sitting, to finally have an opposition day motion. The government House leader decided not to extend the courtesy to the official opposition or to the third party to have an opposition day to debate the important issues that matter to our constituents. Instead, it withheld the opportunity until today, a day after the consultations closed. That is unacceptable to so many Canadians who want to have the opportunity to have some input.

Like so many members of the House on all sides, Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats, I have had hundreds of emails and correspondence and phone calls from so many people who are affected. For me, probably the most powerful and moving email came from a farmer in my riding. She was widowed. She lost her husband in a tragic accident. She wrote this to me, and it really reflects the determination of so many farmers.

She writes, “I was left with four teenage children, 55 cows, and 400 acres. I had decisions to make. I decided, along with my children, to keep the family farm and to continue the legacy in memory of my husband and to be able to keep feeding my family along with providing quality food for the world. I have never been so scared during all the struggles I have been through over the past 10 years as I am today. These new changes will affect me and my business greatly. I will not be able to pay the taxes that may be presented to me each year. My son wishes to take over the operation from me, and this will be highly impossible for him to do and be a successful farmer, pay his bills, along with providing mom the necessary living that I should be entitled to. We do not live high on the hog. We do not own fancy homes and don't drive fancy pickup trucks. We do not take vacations to faraway places. We try to make ends meet and pay our fair share. Please stand up for your local family farmers and all the small businesses and let our voices be heard.”

I am proud to stand and support farmers like Linda who work hard for their families and to preserve the legacy of our farm families in rural Canada. However, under these proposed changes it will be more beneficial for a farm family to sell its farm to a large corporation than to a daughter or a son. It will be more beneficial to sell the farm to McCain's than to a daughter or a son. That is wrong. We on this side of the House recognize the importance of preserving that legacy.

It is not just farmers and farm families but small business owners who employ so many people in our country. A small-business owner from Listowel, Ontario, wrote me. He wrote, “As a business owner, I am the one who wakes up in the middle of the night worrying about the future and planning to make sure that I can continue to employ the great people in my organization. If I am successful and able to save funds with my corporation, I will have to pay extremely high tax rates to take the funds out to use personally, and if my business fails, I'm the only one who will lose everything I have worked hard to accumulate.”

That is reflective of the small-business owners in my riding. They are not tax cheats. They work hard. They are up late at night working in their businesses, trying to preserve them, and trying to keep those jobs. They worry about making payroll. They worry about where that next cheque may come from during downturns in the economy. They take the risk. They take the risk without the pension plans, without the health and dental benefits. They do so because they are in it to create a good business and to provide for their own families and the families of their employees. That is who we, on this side, are fighting for. We are fighting to make sure that their voices are heard. We are fighting so that they have the opportunity to have meaningful input on the tax changes being proposed by the Liberal government.

I think as well of the many families in my community who do not currently have a family doctor. I have heard from many hard-working physicians who have expressed concerns about this. One female doctor in my riding wrote, “I have met with headhunters in the United States. I do not want to leave, but if these changes occur I will have to. These tax changes on doctors are equivalent to a 30% wage cut for a salaried employee.”

In an area where we are already having trouble attracting physicians to rural and small town Ontario, putting these changes in place would make it even more difficult to recruit and attract physicians. It would make it more challenging for those families that are already having trouble finding a family doctor to finally find a family doctor. It will affect patient care. We cannot have that happen. We need to fight for all small businesses across our ridings and across Canada.

I know my time is coming to a close, and I want to finish on one important thought. The Liberal government has a spending problem. The Liberals are eager to latch onto any revenue-generating tool they can find. That is exactly what is happening in this case. They are punishing small businesses. They are punishing farm families. They are punishing those who employ our neighbours and those in our community who drive our local economy. They are punishing local businesses because of their spending problems. It must end.

I am proud to rise and support my constituents. I will be voting yes to this extension, and I hope the Liberal Party will finally un-whip their back benches and allow them to vote in favour as well.

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I point out that only the Liberal Party could actually try to raise taxes and actually decrease revenues on the top one per cent by the tune of $1 billion.

Page 30 of the Liberal Party platform says, “We will make free votes in the House of Commons standard practice.” Will tonight's vote be a free vote? If it will not, if it will be a whipped vote, what will be the consequence to Liberal backbenchers for voting in favour of this motion?

[Export and Import Permits Act, September 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Durham for his great question and hard work over the summer. I know he went to many round tables, but I appreciate his coming to my riding.

I think he is probably right, but the interesting challenge with withdrawing from those three UN treaties is that the government simply does not have time to do that in the time period before July 1, 2018, its arbitrary deadline for the introduction of the marijuana legislation, which it promised to do by July 1. It may well want to withdraw, but it has missed the boat in terms of signing on in time. Withdrawing from three and signing on to one is an interesting theory. I just wish it would do that with some of the regulatory burden and red tape that, writ large, is happening. If it could eliminate three barriers to small businesses in favour of one, that is a three-for-one deal that I could really get behind.

[Export and Import Permits Act, September 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we as Canadians and as a Parliament need to overwhelmingly condemn human rights abuses wherever they may be found. It falls to the government in office to take action and make sanctions where appropriate, but as Canadians, parliamentarians, and human beings, we must call out human rights abuses wherever they may be found. I know in my party, and hopefully in all parties, what is happening currently in Myanmar is a good example of where those actions and language must be taken very strongly.

[Export and Import Permits Act, September 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, what I will say is very simple. The rules and mechanisms already in place, from a Canadian perspective, in most cases—and I would dare say in all cases—far exceed what was being proposed in the ATT. For Canada to sign on to the ATT goes against what we have already achieved in this country. I do not want to read anything into the hon. member's comments, but I think what she would be concerned about is the international community and many of the other countries that have not signed on to this deal and will not sign on to this deal but are continuing to participate in activities that are vile and reprehensible. We can all agree that the example of Congo is a terrible situation, absolutely abhorrent, and something that all Canadians oppose. We can think of examples worldwide where there are terrible atrocities, which we, as Canadians and human beings, strongly oppose in the strongest language possible.

[Export and Import Permits Act, September 21st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-47. Before I speak to the bill itself, I want to thank my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn for his learned comments. As he mentioned, he is the dean of our caucus and was first elected to this place on October 2, 1997, when I was in grade 7. I believe he holds the record as the longest serving parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs. It is always a pleasure to speak in his shadow.

I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. I look forward to his comments as well on this important issue.

I find it interesting that we are debating Bill C-47 today because, after all, this legislation was first tabled in the House of Commons on April 13, 2017, more than five months ago. Granted there was a summer recess in-between.

Over the summer, like many colleagues I had the opportunity to travel around my riding, host round tables, speak to constituents, hold stakeholder meetings, go to people's homes and speak about the important issues that are affecting them. I did hear about the ATT on a handful of occasions. I heard from a couple of people who were in favour of it and a couple of dozen who were opposed. That is the joy of democracy; there are people on both sides of the issues.

I find it interesting that we are debating this today when the opposition has yet to be given a single supply day in this period. We have also been told that there will be no supply day next week as well. Here we are debating the government's agenda but have been given zero opportunities to raise a motion in the allotted days we are entitled to as the official opposition. Is the government simply trying to avoid accountability on key issues that it knows it is hiding from? An example is the changes to the tax rules.

As I travelled in my riding this summer, I talked to people about these tax changes. I talked to farmers who want to pass on their farm to their daughters or sons, but these tax changes would potentially prevent them from doing so. I talked to the small business owner who may want to hire one or two more people but may not do so because of uncertainly. Family doctors are concerned because the changes may potentially impact their patients. These are people I am hearing from in my riding but here we are debating Bill C-47.

We are debating this treaty and its implementation today, which is interesting because the mechanisms that we have in place today, the rules that have been in place in Canada for many decades, already achieve what the government purports to want to achieve through Bill C-47.

A perfect case in point is that since the 1940s, through the Export and Import Permits Act, the government has had the ability to exclude and prevent the sale and export of any number of items, including what it is trying to achieve through this legislation. One need only look at the export control list under the auspices of the Export and Import Permits Act to find that much of what the government is trying to achieve is already in place: group 1, dual use; group 2, munitions; group 3, nuclear proliferation; and group 4, nuclear-related dual use.

The government is once again using a symbolic gesture in an area where issues are already addressed through existing mechanisms that previous governments of all stripes have put in place over the years. For it to try to change to a system with no noticeable improvement is unfortunate and, frankly, not a good use of the House's time when there is so much more that we parliamentarians, that we Canadians, can be debating in this place on behalf of our constituents.

The collection of data, the collection of information, is also interesting when the fact of the matter is that under the regimes that are currently in place here in Canada through the Canada Border Services Agency and Statistics Canada, a lot of the information on items that are exported from Canada is already being collected and provided to the appropriate agencies within Canada, and yet the government here today is bringing in yet another bill to collect information that is already being collected.

What is interesting as well is that this is not the only tool at the disposal of the government. The government has many opportunities to restrict the sale of goods to foreign entities. One example is the area control list. Currently the only country that Canada has placed on that list is North Korea, but it is certainly open to the government to place any number of countries on that list if it has sufficient grounds to cut off all exports to that country. I do not think there is anyone in this chamber who would disagree with placing North Korea on that list. I think that would be right and correct, and all Canadians would agree with that.

If the government has concerns about another entity, as it has in the past, for example, with Myanmar and Belarus, which have both been on this list, the government could register those concerns through the area control list and add a certain country to the list to block exports altogether to that country. That is especially the case when we are looking at regimes that may use any number of products against their own citizens or against those in the region, something that we would strongly oppose.

I find it interesting to talk about the measures that are already in place and their strength, but do not always just take our word for it. I would like to quote a government official, from a June 2016 Globe and Mail article. In the article he is quote as saying that he believes we already have sufficient restrictions on arms exports:

“Canada already has some of the strongest export controls in the world which means that we already meet the vast majority of the obligations under the arms trade treaty,” said the senior official in a briefing.

In a real sense, this treaty was designed to bring other countries—many of whom have no export control regimes in place—up to the high standards that Canada and our like-minded allies already apply through our robust export control regimes," the official said.

That brings me to my next point, the other countries that are missing from the ATT, namely Russia, China, India, and the United States, which has signed it but not yet ratified it. Whether or not it will is not a decision for this House to make, but certainly one that is questionable given where it now is.

That is not say that we as Canadians should not act on the world stage. Certainly, we Canadians have always played a leadership role on the world stage. I think of our former government playing that leading role internationally on a number of fronts over the past 10 years.

However, to sign on to this treaty and to bring forward the legislation to ratify it at this point, without the key players having signed on or ratified it, I think is a challenge. Mr. Speaker, I think you would agree that it raises more concerns than it answers.

In preparing a few remarks for today, I came across the press release from Global Affairs Canada when this bill was tabled on April 13, 2017. It states:

To implement necessary changes, in March 2017 Canada announced an investment of $13 million to further strengthen the country’s export control regime.

Granted, I was relatively young in 1995, but I remember another Liberal government promising that a certain long-gun registry would cost $2 million, and yet, over the years, the Auditor General found it cost upwards of a $1 billion.

I find it interesting that the government is proposing a $13 million price tag, but has not yet tabled a coherent plan for how that $13 million will be spent and where the cost overrides may or may not arise if that $13 million is used up relatively quickly.

I have heard members on the other side go as far as saying that claims or concerns of law-abiding gun owners are “bogus”. It is really bringing down the tone and the level of debate in the House to dismiss the concerns of legitimate, law-abiding gun owners as bogus.

I am very proud of my family. My late grandfather came to Canada in 1952. In 1974, he helped co-found the Swiss Rifle Club near my home town of Mitchell. I was proud, as a kid, to have been able to join him and my father at the rifle range to learn about the safety of guns and rifles, and I am proud of the legitimate gun owners in my riding and across Canada.

I know that my time has come to an end, but I look forward to continued debate on this matter and the questions that may come my way.

[Points of Order, September 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in respect of the Chair's statement on May 9, 2017, concerning Bill C-343, an act to establish the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Criminal Acts and to amend certain acts, standing in the name of the hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

Like you, I have spent all summer reflecting on the Speaker's comments at that point, and I am now prepared to offer comments on his provisions at that time.

The Chair drew the attention of the House to the presence of a provision in Bill C-343, namely clause 26 of the bill:

26(1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

(2) No order may be made under subsection (1) unless the appropriation of moneys for the purposes of this Act has been recommended by the Governor General and the moneys have been appropriated by Parliament.

At the heart of the Chair's concern is section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, formerly the British North America Act, 1867, which requires the Governor General's recommendation for appropriations.

That constitutional provision is given procedural effect, and thus, jurisdiction for the Speaker through Standing Order 79(1), which was quoted in the June 20, 2017, intervention by the hon. member for Guelph.

Indeed, as the English constitutional scholar Sir Ivor Jennings once wrote:

In approaching the subject of financial control exercised by the House of Commons, we reach the borders of the realm where law, parliamentary privilege, and parliamentary custom are almost inextricably intertwined.

Over the course of 150 years, a number of procedural precedents concerning the crown's financial prerogatives have been accumulated. This is one area where we can more easily look back over the array of accumulated jurisprudence, because that piece of constitutional law, and the associated procedural rules, have not substantively changed since Confederation.

I draw your attention to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, at citation 611, which provides that:

A bill from the Senate, certain clauses of which would necessitate some public expenditure, is in order if it is provided by a clause of the said bill that no such expenditure shall be made unless previously sanctioned by Parliament.

Reference is then made to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Cockburn, on April 5, 1870. Page 155 of the Journals records the following:

The last Clause in the first section, provides that nothing in this Act shall give authority to the Minister to cause expenditure, until previously sanctioned by Parliament; and this overrides the eighth section referred to by the Honourable Member. No contract could therefore be entered into under that section, which could bind the Government, and necessitate an expenditure of public moneys, unless it had been previously sanctioned by Parliament. He could not therefore sustain the objection of the Honourable Member for Chateauguay.

To be clear, the statutory language referenced was the proviso in section 1 of An Act to amend the Act relating to Lighthouses, Buoys and Beacons, which was quoted by the hon. member for Guelph.

By its own terms, subclause 26(2) of Bill C-343 would not give the Governor in Council, in this case, the authority to pass an order in council to bring the act into force unless and until such authority for expenditure, an appropriation, has been given by Parliament.

Turning back to Beauchesne's, let me quote citation 613:

A bill, which does not involve a direct expenditure but merely confers upon the government a power for the exercise of which public money will have to be voted by Parliament, is not a money bill, and no Royal Recommendation is necessary as a condition precedent to its introduction.

No reference is noted, but looking back to the fourth edition of Beauchesne's, the citation, there numbered as 277(2), refers to a ruling on February 23, 1912, at page 240 of the Journals.

In responding to Sir Wilfrid Laurier's point of order, the prime minister, Mr. Borden, as he then was, forcefully observed:

It does not appropriate any part of the public revenue, it does not appropriate one dollar of the public revenue for any such purpose. It merely does this: It provides that if parliament shall at any future time appropriate a certain sum of money for that particular purpose, then that money shall be expended by the Governor General in Council under the provisions of this Bill, according to the method now laid down in the Bill before the House. The provisions of this Bill are perfectly simple and plain and not to be misunderstood....

Therefore, it is apparent that before one dollar of public money can be expended under the provisions of this Bill, a resolution must be brought down in parliament, assented to by His Royal Highness the Governor-General, considered in Committee of the Whole, and be the foundation of a Bill which will alone justify any expenditure under this Act.

Therefore, to suggest, as the right hon. gentleman has done, that this is a Bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenues, seems to me to be entirely a misstatement of the case. The simple answer to it is, that without this Bill, if an appropriation were presented to this House, passed through Committee of the Whole and embodied in an Act of this parliament, the Governor General in Council would be left without any machinery whatever for the expenditure of that money. This Bill is solely designed to furnish machinery for the expenditure of a certain sum of money which may or may not be voted by parliament for that purpose. There is no question of the appropriation of one dollar of the public revenue of this country for this purpose until an appropriation Bill has been brought in founded upon a resolution which shall conform to section 54 of the British North America Act.

Mr. Speaker Sproule ruled in favour of Mr. Borden's argument. He stated:

My attention was drawn to the fact that when parliament could vote any money for that purpose, the resolution must pass through the usual course required for all money resolutions or Bills...That in my judgment seems to be ample guarantee for the House that it would have the full consideration that all money Bills have, and therefore I thought it unnecessary at the time that it should be introduced by a resolution. That was my opinion then, whether it was correct or not, and I still hold the same opinion.

One further passage from Beauchesne's sixth edition to offer, is citation 614, which reads:

A bill, designed to furnish machinery for the expenditure of a certain sum of public money, to be voted subsequently by Parliament, may be introduced in the House without the recommendation of the Crown.

That citation cross-references to Mr. Speaker Sproule's ruling on January 16, 1912, at page 118 of the Journals, based on an English precedent, which was described as “a motion for leave to bring in a Bill to enable the Government to acquire lands for public purposes, but not providing funds for the same. On objection being taken that the Bill "involved a charge upon the public," answer was made that the Bill only proposed to give the Government power to buy land, but for that power to be of any use an estimate must be voted in committee; that the Bill would not enable the Government to purchase any lands until the House, in Committee, had considered the Estimates and agreed to them; that the Bill did not authorize any public money although the expenditure was contemplated. The Speaker ruled that the object of the Bill was to take ground for certain purposes. It did not give them power to purchase the property.”

What Bill C-343 does is establish a machinery, though one might, more accurately, say that it merely confirms the existing machinery for the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, who currently works under the auspices of the Minister of Justice, whereby some future additional expenditure might, at a later date, be approved and undertaken to this end. The need for a later parliamentary appropriation to be separately enacted is clearly made out in subclause 26(2) of the bill.

Moreover, to safeguard the financial initiative of the crown, Bill C-343, if passed, will not become law until proclaimed by the Governor General in Council, and then only if the condition precedent of necessary appropriations being made is satisfied, which of course follows a recommendation by the same Governor General, acting on the advice of those same constitutional advisers.

As the Chair's statement noted, this condition precedent for a coming into force order is similar to provisions found in Bill S-205 and Bill S-229. Before the summer adjournment, the hon. member for Guelph tendered submissions on the latter bill.

Without commenting on the merits of those two bills, it does not appear, from a cursory search of Senate proceedings, that this coming into force clause is an entirely novel approach in that House, although it may be the first such provision to make its way to the House of Commons in recent years. To that end, it makes sense to explore how the other place has handled this issue.

Through its Rule 10-7, the Senate gives procedural footing to section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867. That rule reads, “The Senate shall not proceed with a bill appropriating public money unless the appropriation has been recommended by the Governor General.”

That rule is more trite than our own Standing Order 79(1), but it still applies the same principle. Therefore, how does that rule-addressing the constitutional principle in section 54 intersect with provisions worded like clause 26 of Bill C-343?

Page 155 of Senate Procedure in Practice informs us that:

In addition to the factors outlined in the above quotation, rulings have noted that a bill that would otherwise require the Royal Recommendation can proceed if it clearly provides that it does not come into effect until funds have been separately appropriated by Parliament.

In support of that proposition, footnote 181 references citation 611 of Beauchesne's, which I earlier quoted, as well as two rulings of Mr. Speaker Kinsella. The first ruling, delivered on May 27, 2008, and recorded at page 1086 of the Senate Journals, lays out the Senate Speaker's logic in working through the question. The hon. member for Guelph quoted a portion of it. Allow me to quote further parts of that ruling, which state:

The key to this issue is, of course, clause 52(2). Under this clause, most of the Bill cannot come into force until funds have been recommended by the Governor General and appropriated by Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. No expenditure whatsoever would thus be incurred by the mere passage of Bill S-234...

When the term “appropriation” is used, it is often used quite loosely. It does, however, have a narrower meaning. An appropriation is a sum of money allocated by Parliament for a specific purpose. As seen with supply bills, appropriations quite often fund entities whose legal framework has been separately established.

One must, therefore, consider whether Bill S-234 actually “appropriates” money within this meaning. As already discussed, funds for the purposes of Bill S-234 will have to be separately appropriated or voted by Parliament, on the Governor General's recommendation, before the Bill can enter into force.

Here comes the kicker:

Bill S-234 thus appears to respect fully the financial initiative of the Crown, since no funds are being or must be appropriated.

Later, Speaker Kinsella said:

Bill S-234 respects the financial initiative of the Crown, while allowing Parliament the opportunity to consider a new proposal. The Bill in no way incurs actual expenditures, it merely sets the stage for such expenditures to be incurred, if the Crown chooses to recommend them, and if Parliament chooses to appropriate these funds.

The second ruling, on May 5, 2009, found at page 564 of the Senate Journals, recalls the analysis in the ruling I just quoted and concluded:

The ruling on Bill S-230 is the same. The bill does not require a Royal Recommendation, since nothing can happen following its adoption until and unless funds have been appropriated”.

This line of logic is also followed by former law clerk and parliamentary counsel, Rob Walsh, in his 1994 Canadian Parliamentary Review article entitled, “Some Thoughts on Section 54 and the Financial Initiative of the Crown”, where he quoted from a former chief legislative counsel of the Department of Justice. He stated:

Sometimes bills are passed during a session for which no appropriation is made. In those cases we will usually put an appropriation clause in the bill because there has been no appropriation. In other cases, we do not have to put appropriations in the bill; we presume that Parliament will appropriate the moneys. If they do not appropriate the moneys, effectively the law will not operate.

Finally, I want to address the 1978 ruling of Deputy Speaker Gérald Laniel, cited by the government House leader's parliamentary secretary in his submission and answered by the hon. member for Guelph. Mr. Walsh offered this critical perspective of the decision, in the article I just referenced. He stated:

It is difficult to see why this should be so when passage of the bill, with a non-appropriation clause, would clearly indicate that an expenditure of public funds under the bill is not authorized.

Later in the article, Mr. Walsh argued the following:

In respect of a private member's bill containing a non-appropriation clause, the Speaker need only ask two questions: (a) would the bill, in the absence of the non-appropriation clause, require a royal recommendation? and (b) if so, is the non-appropriation clause sufficient to dispense with requiring a royal recommendation? In respect of the latter, the test should be whether the non-appropriation clause clearly disclaims authorization by Parliament to expend public funds for purposes of the bill. In the absence of an authorization by Parliament, no public funds may be expended: section 26, Financial Administration Act.

Additionally, Mr. Walsh advanced this thought:

It is also argued that such bills constitute an indirect demand for supply and would, if passed, leave the Crown bound to make a demand for supply for purposes of the bill and the Crown ought not to be put in a position where its financial initiative is compromised. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that the Crown has been known to not proclaim...into force an Act that has been passed by Parliament. If the Crown is not obliged—and evidently does not feel itself obliged—to bring into force an Act that Parliament has seen fit to enact, how can it say that enactment of a private member's bill with a non-appropriation clause leaves it obliged to exercise its financial initiative and to make a demand for supply? In short, this argument lacks credibility.

In conclusion, the authorities are clear that the legislative language used by the hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix is an acceptable manner in which to proceed. It recognizes the government's exclusive rights concerning financial initiatives, while offering something of a turnkey statutory structure for the government to bring into force at a time of its choosing and in a manner entirely respectful of our constitutional rules concerning financial bills.

I may add as a way to sum up, that this is an important bill and if we look at the human side of things, we are looking at an ombudsperson for victims of crime and we need to think of those victims at all times, think of the impact that the legislation like this would have.

I offer this submission to you, Mr. Speaker, to take under advisement when ruling on the royal recommendation of the bill.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 18th, 2017]

With regard to the Prime Minister's nominee for Commissioner of Official Languages, announced on May 15, 2017: (a) on what date did a Cabinet Minister or a representative of a Cabinet Minister inform Madeleine Meilleur that she had been selected as the Prime Minister's likely nominee; (b) how was Madeleine Meilleur informed that she had been selected as the Prime Minister's nominee; (c) who informed Madeleine Meilleur that she had been selected as the Prime Minister's nominee; (d) what communication has the government had with Madeleine Meilleur regarding her appointment to any position within the government since November 4, 2015, including (i) positions discussed, (ii) dates of contact, (iii) methods of communication, (iv) names of Cabinet Ministers and representatives of Cabinet Ministers; and (e) since November 4, 2015, which Cabinet Ministers have put forward Madeleine Meilleur’s name as a potential candidate for a government appointment and what are the details of each such recommendation including (i) date, (ii) recommended position, (iii) other relevant details?

[Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act, June 19th, 2017]

No, Mr. Speaker.

[Points of Order, June 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that in a few moments, the government will be moving motion No. 635 on the Order Paper to appoint, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1, the new Clerk of the House of Commons. I believe you will find, Mr. Speaker, upon review of the evidence, that this motion should be ruled out of order at this time.

As you know, the ancient rule of anticipation is one that is little employed in its application to this body, but nonetheless, it is instructive to the operation of the House. I would suggest that in the matter at hand, the application of this rule is appropriate and necessary.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is presently seized with the proposed nomination and has met for barely 45 minutes on this matter, but it has not yet reported back to the House either in the affirmative or the negative. It is for this reason that the rule of anticipation would apply.

I would note that House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 560, accurately notes:

While the rule of anticipation is part of the Standing Orders in the British House of Commons, it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons. Furthermore, references to past attempts to apply this British rule to Canadian practice are inconclusive.

However, it goes on to note:

The rule is dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session.

In this circumstance, I would submit that going forward with this motion at this time anticipates that the procedure and House affairs committee would not submit a report to the House in the negative.

I draw your attention to Beauchesne's sixth edition, which is instructive on this point. Page 154, citation 514(2), states:

Debate on a government motion effectively blocks debate on a notice of motion for the consideration of the report of a committee which deals with essentially the same subject. Had the motion for consideration of the committee report been moved, it would have had precedence over the government motion and blocked debate on it. Once a motion has been transferred for debate under Government Orders it becomes the government's decision and the government's responsibility to decide whether it will proceed with its motion. It is at that point that the anticipation rule might become operative in the sense that the government motion, if proceeded with, might block consideration of the committee report.

It further states, at page 154, in citation 513(1):

In determining whether a discussion is out of order on the grounds of anticipation, the Speaker must have regard to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable [period of] time.

The circumstances previewed in Beauchesne's are precisely the scenario in which we find ourselves today. The matter is very likely to return to the House in a more appropriate form, that being a report from the procedure and House affairs committee, the committee to which the matter was referred, pursuant to the Standing Orders, and the matter can and will be brought to the House within a reasonable period of time one way or another. Either the matter will be reported back by the committee within 30 days, or the 30 days provided by the Standing Orders will have expired. Either way, the matter will have been dealt with conclusively within a reasonable period of time, as envisioned by the authorities.

Further, last Thursday I filed with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs a certificate to obtain evidence from particular persons, pursuant to Standing Order 122.

Mr. Speaker, you are both the Speaker of this place and a lawyer. The analogy I would use is one of a legal nature. In this case, judgment is being sought prior to the evidence being presented. I know you would not accept this in a court of law, and neither should it be accepted in this place.

I am well aware that the Standing Orders of the House do not explicitly state the rule of anticipation. However, I would draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 1, which states:

In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chair of Committees of the Whole, whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House.

On this matter, I would submit that the rule of anticipation is evident in comparable jurisdictions but has also become a usual practice of the House, particularly in dealing with the subject matter at hand.

Standing Order 28 of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom states:

In determining whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, regard shall be had by the Speaker to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time.

I would draw your attention to Erskine May, 24th edition, at page 390, which states:

In determining whether a discussion is out order on the ground of anticipation, the probability of the matter anticipating being discussed within a reasonable time must be considered...and recent practice has been to interpret the rule so as to not, in the current circumstances, to impose what might risk being unreasonable restrictions on debate.

For greater clarity, I would interpret the 30-day period envisioned by Standing Order 111(1) of this place to be reasonable time. Further, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the proposed motion was put without amendment for debate. Therefore, allowing the motion to go forward at this time would effectively eliminate any potential for further debate, analyses, witnesses, or discussion at the only venue open for such action: the procedure and House affairs committee.

Erskine May goes on to note, at page 398:

...the rule against anticipation...as strictly enforced earlier times, was that a matter must not be anticipated if it were contained in a more effective form of proceeding by which it is sought to be anticipated...

Again, it is the established practice of the House, as noted in Beauchesne's, that a motion on a committee report would have been a more effective means rather than government action.

Further to this, Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to a Canadian authority on the matter. Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, edited by John George Bourinot, is one of the accepted authorities of this place. At page 339 of Bourinot, it is stated:

The old rule of Parliament reads: “That a question being once made, and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again, but stand as the judgment of the house.

This is an echo of Erskine May's 1844 A treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings and usage of Parliament, at page 186, which establishes the same principle.

As both Bourinot and May would foresee, were this motion to go ahead, it would forestall a committee report and concurrence in that report, thereby, the rule of anticipation would be offended.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you that a report from procedure and House affairs committee prior to the question being put on the nomination is clearly the established practice of the House.

I would draw to your attention the 47th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, 38th Parliament, 1st Session, in which the committee recommended to the House that the House ratify the appointment of Ms. Audrey Elizabeth O'Brien to the position of Clerk of the House of Commons.

I would note that the now Clerk Emeritus's appointment was the first made under the provisions now contained in Standing Order 111(1). That report was prior to a vote in the House of Commons.

While the Clerk of the House of Commons has only been appointed once prior pursuant to current rules of this place, it is nonetheless instructive to the process and vision by those who have sat in this place before us.

I well recognize there may be instances in the past where a government has moved in a similar way as the current government is now moving. I know of none off the top of my head. However, the fact that there were no objections in those cases may imply the agreement of the House. This is not the case here. Objection is being stated.

In light of the foregoing evidence presented, I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to rule this motion out of order until such time that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has reported back to the House of Commons or the expiration of the 30 days, as provided for in Standing Order 111(1).

I might add as well, Mr. Speaker, that there are rumours around this precinct that you yourself were not consulted on this proposed nomination. If this is the case, and I hope it is not, it is shameful and an offence to the position that you hold and the great respect in which we hold you in this place, as the defender of the rights and privileges of this place.