House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 58% of the vote.
Campaign Financing October 7th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I wish that the member opposite would not smear reputations without checking his facts.
Here are the facts. My colleague reimbursed campaign expenses for two mail drops and paid the rent for his campaign office, as per the law, and reported it, as per the law.
The member opposite is essentially accusing my colleague of following the law. Does he not feel a bit ridiculous?
Gasoline Prices October 6th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, as the President of the Treasury Board has said, the matter for public servants has been referred back to the joint council.
As far as the Board of Internal Economy is concerned, as a member of it and as the spokesman for it, this matter will be brought to the board. It has not been because the board tied itself automatically to the joint council decisions back in 1984, I believe, but this matter will be considered because we will bring it forward at the next Board of Internal Economy meeting.
Chief Electoral Officer September 30th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the recommendation that the member is talking about is one of 48 or 58 recommendations which will be looked at by the appropriate committee of the House. The government will comment on that in due course. As far as the national register of electors is concerned, let us be clear. Its use and non-use is set by law. It is up to Parliament to set law. There is no one above the law including and particularly agents of Parliament.
Point of Order September 29th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your ruling.
I will point out to my honourable colleague opposite that the government only raised the fact that the amendment could not broaden the scope of the main motion, that it could only narrow it. There was no mention of the length. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that you talked about the length in your ruling. This is about broadening or narrowing the scope of the initial motion.
We thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your decision.
Point of Order September 29th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, given the item on today's Order Paper for private members' business, I ask to raise an objection concerning the amendment proposed to this item by the member for Joliette. We believe this amendment is out of order.
Motion No. 164 reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should establish, in compliance with international agreements, a policy of assistance to the textile and clothing industries in order to enable the industries to compete throughout the world, particularly by broadening the TPC program to include these two sectors.
At the conclusion of the first hour of debate, the member for Joliette proposed the following motion, and I quote:
That Motion M-164 be amended by inserting the following after the words “in particular”:
by maintaining the tariffs on imported clothing and the types of textiles produced in Canada;
by establishing, as required, quotas on Chinese imports under the protocol on China's accession to the WTO;
as well as ten other proposed requirements.
This amendment was proposed at the end of the first hour of debate and this is the first opportunity to seek your ruling on whether this amendment is in order.
According to the authorities, it is clearly not acceptable for an amendment to a substantive motion to expand the scope of the motion to deal with a new question or proposition.
Erskine May states at page 343 in the 22nd edition that:
The effect of moving an amendment is to restrict the field of debate which would otherwise be open on a question.
Marleau and Montpetit states at page 453 that:
An amendment is out of order procedurally if:
it is not relevant to the main motion (i.e. it deals with a matter foreign to the main motion or exceeds the scope of the motion, or introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a substantive motion with notice).
Beauchesne's at paragraph 579 states that:
(2) An amendment may not raise a new question which can only be considered as a distinct motion after proper notice. (Journals, October 16, 1970, p. 28).
Private members's motions are “substantive motions” and the precedents on substantive motions are clear.
Speaker Fraser ruled on December 17, 1987 that an amendment to an opposition day motion which puts a new proposition to the House should be put forward as an independent motion on notice.
On January 16, 1991 Speaker Fraser ruled that a subamendment to a government motion on the middle-east conflict was out of order since it went far beyond the terms of the motion by introducing “a variety of entirely new concepts.”
Speaker Fraser noted that while the concepts involved were “perhaps germane” to the issue, they were nonetheless new and therefore not in order.
On March 26, 1992, the Speaker ruled out of order an amendment to an opposition day motion on health care, since the intent of the amendment was to expand the scope of the debate.
That is also the case here. The main motion deals with the issue of assistance to textile and apparel industries.
The amendment lists a whole series of issues which are broader than assistance to the textile and apparel industries, including assistance to elderly workers, the increased transfer of training programs to Quebec, restrictions and quotas on international trade, and foreign policy such as labour standards and environmental policy.
The government has sought to be cooperative with the member on this important issue and is prepared to support the initial motion.
However, it appears that the Bloc now wants to try to widen the scope of the motion to include many new and complex issues which require much more analysis and consultation.
These matters may be considered by the House at another time, but they expand the scope of Motion No. 164, and are not in order.
Privilege September 29th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table this document at this time.
Canada Elections Act September 28th, 2005
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-63, an act to amend an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Electoral Reform September 28th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I can understand the eagerness of some members of the House to proceed with electoral reform.
Let me say that when the question came up in June about this matter, I had given assurances to the member that the government would take the report very seriously. The government will table its response to that report on or before October 20, as per House rules, and I believe members will see that the government indeed is treating it very seriously.
Official Languages Act September 28th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is true to itself. When problems arise in applying the Official Languages Act—and they do arise and we do address them—they blow them out of proportion.
Nevertheless, when the Commissioner of Official Languages says that progress has been made over the past 35 years in every area affecting the country's linguistic communities, we do not hear a peep from the Bloc.
As far as the Quebec anglophone community is concerned let me say this. As far as this government is concerned the linguistic minority of Quebec will always be covered by the Official Languages Act.
Business of the House September 26th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, let me wish you and all my hon. colleagues a good session.
Consultations have taken place with all the parties and, if you were to seek it, I believe that you would find unanimous consent for the following motion.
That on Tuesday, September 27, 2005, the hours of sitting and order of business shall be those of a Wednesday.