Peter Julian

[Points of Order, May 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order regarding the usage of Standing Order 56.1. As you know, Mr. Speaker, on March 27, under Standing Order 56.1, the government passed a motion ordering the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study allegations of inappropriate use of House of Commons resources, allegations that were found, after less than two hours of questions yesterday at the committee, to be baseless, as it turns out.

I believe that the motion in question was incorrectly accepted by the Chair in the heat of the moment as being in order. I will be asking that the Chair spell out the limits of Standing Order 56.1 for the sake of clarity in the future. The reason this is so important is to prevent the abuse of an extraordinarily powerful tool for the government, which it must be said already has a disproportionate number of procedural levers at its disposal.

To oppose such a tactic, 25 members must rise to prevent the motions from being imposed without notice or debate.

The number of 25 MPs may seem reasonable at first glance. However, when you consider that the third, fourth and fifth parties sometimes have 20, 15 or 10 members—or, as we saw this morning, 4 or 5 members—in the House, and that small political parties have just two, three or four members, if we leave Standing Order 56.1 as it is, the government can instruct the committees to do whatever it wants. We know that that could cause a lot of problems for the future in the House.

It is becoming ever more clear that following the next election, if the Conservative Party continues the way it is going, it may have difficulty getting the 25 members in the House in the next Parliament that would allow it to stop this procedural strategy.

Regardless of the specifics, I believe it is crucial to underline that this rule was always meant to be used for the more mundane daily routine business of the House and not as a way to circumvent the democratic process, which is meant to be followed by substantive matters. While the rules surrounding the use of Standing Order 56.1 have often been the subject of difficult rulings from the Chair, I believe the motion of March 27 should have been deemed to be out of order.

I will ask the Chair to clarify, with the obvious benefit of hindsight, whether or not this motion was admissible, and will also seek your guidance as to what should be done in the future when members of this place are faced with a similar situation. As the Chair knows, as part of the study the committee was ordered to conduct by the motion of March 27, the hon. Leader of the Opposition appeared as a witness before PROC yesterday for nearly two hours, until the chair basically said that all the questions had been answered and called a premature end to the committee.

As I am sure the Chair is also aware, the opposition leader clearly explained to the members of the Conservative Party and the Liberal members on PROC, that the NDP satellite offices were set up in consultation with and approval from the House of Commons and that the NDP was proud to be working outside of the Ottawa bubble to reach out to Canadians in the communities where they work and live.

My issue is not with the fact that PROC considered the matter of these satellite offices, which I actually believe provided the official opposition and the leader of the official opposition a wonderful opportunity to clarify the facts of the matter, not to mention it also provided a wonderful sneak preview of what it might look like to have a prime minister who actually would be willing to, and capable of, answering tough questions.

It is not the political issue I am talking about; my issue is procedural and concerns the use of Standing Order 56.1 on matters for which it was never intended.

Let me read what Standing Order 56.1 (1) says specifically, for your review, Mr. Speaker. It states:

(a) In relation to any routine motion for the presentation of which unanimous consent is required and has been denied, a Minister of the Crown may request during Routine Proceedings that the Speaker propose the said question to the House.

(b) For the purposes of this Standing Order, "routine motion" shall be understood to mean any motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, which may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.

When Standing Order 56.1 was created, the members tried to set some limits, as set out above. Unfortunately, a lot of things were left unsaid in Standing Order 56.1, which explains how the kind of motion that could be acceptable under this Standing Order has been the subject of a point of order on a number of occasions.

Nevertheless, what is written in Standing Order 56.1 is very clear. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the only part of that Standing Order that has to do with committees. It clearly states that only motions to establish the powers of its committees are in order. This means that this Standing Order could be used to authorize committees to travel, for example, which has been done in the past.

However, Standing Order 56.1 makes it clear that giving an instruction to a committee does not fall within the limits of this Standing Order. Therefore, the Minister of Labour's motion must be ruled out of order by the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, on page 672, of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, by O'Brien and Bosc, which you know backward and forward, we can read the following, “...its use...to give a direction to a standing committee of the House has been deemed contrary to the Standing Orders”.

Indeed, there has been only one other time when Standing Order 56.1 was used in this matter, and the Speaker at the time ruled the motion to be out of order.

On May 31, 2007, the government House leader moved the following motion under Standing Order 56.1:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, when the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development convenes a meeting, it shall not be adjourned or suspended until it completes the committee stage of Bill C-44, except pursuant to a motion by a parliamentary secretary and, provided the bill is adopted by the committee, agrees to report the bill to the House within two sitting days following the completion of the committee stage.

With less than 25 members having risen to oppose the motion, it was adopted. However, the member for Wascana, realizing the mistake of the Chair, then rose on a point of order asking that the Chair deem the motion to be inadmissible. The Chair immediately ruled the motion to be out of order and said:

I think that use of Standing Order 56.1 to direct the business of the committee, of any committee, is a new development in the House and one that I find out of order.

He added to his ruling, on June 5, 2007:

A key element in my ruling today is the fundamental precept that standing committees are masters of their own procedure. Indeed, so entrenched is that precept that only in a select few Standing Orders does the House make provision for intervening directly into the conduct of standing committee affairs.

He added at that time:

...the only reference to committees in the Standing Order is one allowing motions for “the establishing of the powers of its committees”, suggesting that the rule was meant to be used not to reach into the conduct of standing committee affairs to direct them, but rather in a routine manner, to provide them powers they do not already possess.[...] The only examples dealing with standing committees or standing committee activity the Chair has been able to find have to do with granting standing committees the power to travel. [...] the use of Standing Order 56.1 in that regard falls squarely within the parameters of the rule.

Outside of these very specific and very clear cases, Speakers of the House have occasionally had to rule on the use of Standing Order 56.1.

In 1991, in response to concerns raised when Standing Order 56.1 was adopted, Speaker Fraser provided the following clarification:

...this "over-ride" provision can operate, as the Chair understands it, only with respect to a certain very limited range of motions offered at a specific time in our daily agenda by a minister of the Crown....

On September 18, 2001, Speaker Milliken also pointed out that:

It should be emphasized that at the time of its adoption it was envisioned that the standing order would be used for only so-called routine motions as defined in Standing Order 56.1(1)(b).

I could provide more examples, but I do not want to go on about this any longer because I think that this case is very clear. With respect to committees, Standing Order 56.1 can be used only to give them powers they do not already have, such as the power to travel. The use of Standing Order 56.1 to direct a committee to study a particular subject or to hear certain witnesses is definitely outside the scope of Standing Order 56.1. Consequently, the Chair should have indicated that the motion was not in order.

The motion moved by the Minister of Status of Women on March 27 represents a new use of Standing Order 56.1, one that does not respect practice or rulings of previous Speakers on this order. The government had a normal mechanism for asking a committee for a study. The mechanism that we have for this is to table a motion and, following the normal notice period, call it for debate and a decision from the House. There was nothing preventing the government from proceeding in this way. There were no extraordinary circumstances justifying the use of the extreme measure of Standing Order 56.1 in a way for which it was never intended.

I must say that I worry. I am noticing a trend with the current government, which tends to completely disregard the spirit of the practices and procedures that guide our work here in the House of Commons. Of course, we would all like the procedure and House affairs committee to proactively review and clarify the standing order in question, but, as members know, the committee has been very busy fulfilling the order of the House as part of a kangaroo court routine.

This use of Standing Order 56.1 cannot be allowed to stand without clarification from the Chair. Our party will have 25 members from here to the election, but for the smaller parties in this Parliament that do not have 25 members who can stand, and for the Conservative Party in future Parliaments, which will not have 25 members to stand, the precedent would put all of those MPs at risk of further abuse by majority governments like this one that have lost all reverence for this institution and its foundational importance to our democracy.

In conclusion, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reflect on the Chair's decision to allow the government's motion of March 27 to be presented pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, and to also provide any further guidance to the House as to how this provision should and should not be used in the future.

[Privilege, May 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as you have ruled on a number of occasions, when we have had serious differences of opinion with the government's often flamboyant misuse of facts, the reality is you have judged in the past that the Conservative government has had the right to throw whatever facts they want out. Often they are unable to back them up.

In the case of The Hill Times article, the member for Kitchener Centre:

....had to repay the Commons for $326 worth of telephone and printing services he used for his own election campaign that year, Elections Canada records show.

That is what the article indicates, and nothing that the member for Scarborough Southwest has said contradicts those facts. There may be a difference of opinion, but the reality is the Elections Canada records are pretty clear. The member for Kitchener Centre is protesting just a bit too much.

[Privilege, May 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, The Hill Times article came out after the meeting yesterday. I am going to quote from that article. It stated that the Conservative member of Parliament for Kitchener Centre—

[Employment, May 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is quite clear that this program is in crisis because of Conservative mismanagement.

We have heard stories of temporary foreign workers whose wages are heavily docked or withheld altogether, like indentured servants in the 19th century. We have heard stories of temporary foreign workers facing egregious working conditions and even threatened with deportation.

This minister has shown gross incompetence. Will the minister agree to a complete audit? Will he work to include a formal path to citizenship for those brought in under this program?

[Employment, May 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, “some” complaints?

The reality is that Conservative changes have made this program worse and more open to abuse. That is the record of the government.

Too many Canadians are seeing their jobs taken away and too many temporary foreign workers are facing mistreatment and abuse. These issues are national and they are program-wide. The minister's failure to fix the program earlier has left it wide open to these abuses. Canadians know that they just cannot trust Conservatives.

Why will the minister not agree to an independent review of his gross mismanagement of this program?

[Business of the House, May 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we were able to see today how question period will unfold when we form the government in 2015. The question and answer period in committee lasted almost two hours with the leader of the official opposition answering the questions properly.

However, it did not last two full hours, because the Conservative chair shut down the committee saying that the leader of the official opposition had answered all the questions. I think Canadians would rather have a government that answers the questions and is ready for them.

This Thursday, I have two questions. For weeks, we have been asking the Prime Minister to come to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to explain his involvement in the controversial database and robocall scandals.

I now hope that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons will say that the Prime Minister will finally come to answer the questions. He does not need to come for two hours. I know that the Conservatives get tired after 40 or 45 minutes. However, it would be nice if he at least came to answer the questions in committee.

I hope he will answer my last question in perfect French. Will he join the NDP caucus in wishing the Canadiens hockey team good luck in their next round of playoffs? Will he join us in saying, “Go Habs, go”?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 14th, 2014]

With regard to government studies of Canada's oil and gas sector and renewable energy: for each study from 2006 to the present, what is (i) the title, (ii) the date of release, (iii) the cost, (iv) name of outside firms hired, (v) names of consultants hired?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 14th, 2014]

With regard to the tax revenues that the government receives from the oil and gas industry (“the industry“), from 2006 to the most recent figures available: (a) broken down by fiscal year, what is the total amount of the government's corporate income tax revenue received from the industry; and (b) what is the total amount of the government's royalty tax revenues from the industry?

[Points of Order, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today on a point of order arising out of the impending report stage votes on Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to certain acts.

In particular, I want to address the groupings of motions for debate at this stage. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the NDP has already raised points of order on this topic in the House, for example with respect to the report stage of Bill C-45 in November 2012.

In light of the Chair's decision then to group many amendments together for single votes, I feel obligated to rise today to speak on this subject once again. In part what I want to affirm today is the Chair's role to protect members' rights to exercise their duties as members of Parliament, including the right to vote freely on questions that are put to the House.

I would like to quote House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the second edition, O'Brien and Bosc, which states on page 307 that:

It is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.

On the same page it reads that:

Freedom of speech may be the most important of the privileges accorded to Members of Parliament....

O'Brien and Bosc, a bit later in the same chapter on page 316, note that voting in the House according to a member's conscience is a freedom that all members enjoy in this House, including the Speaker on rare occasions, as you know, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that when I finish speaking, you will agree to let members vote separately on all the motions in amendment at report stage of Bill C-23.

The principle of a free vote is a simple one, Mr. Speaker, one with which everyone in our democracy should be familiar. I am sure that the majority of Canadians who are watching us right now are surprised to see that I must rise today in the House to ask you to ensure that this right is respected when we vote on the motions in amendment at report stage of Bill C-23.

Because this particular bill is of foundational importance to our democracy, this question becomes all the more crucial. Bill C-23 would make significant changes to our electoral laws, and as they currently stand, in many cases these changes damage the letter and spirit of the Elections Act. As well, as we learned after weeks of scrutiny, a majority of Canadians and virtually all electoral experts are opposed to the bill.

With this much on the line, I believe that it is more important than ever to safeguard members' rights to vote separately on all of the motions in amendment that will affect the bill.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 76.1(5) states that:

The Speaker shall have the power to select or combine amendments or clauses to be proposed at the report stage...

The note following the Standing Order adds that:

...the Speaker will not select for debate a motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage...

It is therefore clear that when you select a motion for debate at report stage, this means that it is not of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature, contrary to what the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons likes to say again and again.

However, nothing in the Standing Orders provides that the Speaker must group the motions at report stage for votes on very different issues. There is nothing about the Chair grouping amendments in an effort to spare the government from lengthy votes.

In the annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons on page 264, the commentary on Standing Order 76(5) does note that the Speaker has a role in limiting duplication when it states:

When the Speaker selects and groups report stage motions for debate, he or she also decides on how they will be grouped for voting.

A further comment is made that this avoids the House having to vote twice on the same issue. The same explanation is given in House of Commons Procedure and Practice on page 784:

When the Speaker selects and groups motions in amendment, he or she also decides on how they will be grouped for voting....

I underscore that it is to avoid the House having to vote twice on the same issue.

It seems to me that these explanations are very clear. The selected scheme must ensure that the House does not vote twice on the same issue.

However, I would submit that the voting scheme that has been selected for report stage motions on Bill C-23 goes much further than this very clear instruction. While it is critical that the Speaker not allow the House's time to be wasted, the Speaker must also fulfill his duty to ensure that the right of members to free speech is protected and exercised to the fullest possible extent.

Specifically, when it comes to the report stage motions for Bill C-23, NDP MPs put 110 motions on the notice paper to delete the worst clauses of the bill, in our consideration, and to also delete the clauses that the committee did not have a chance to debate before the government's motion cut off committee proceedings during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Of those 110 motions, the Liberal Party submitted motions to delete 46 of the same clauses of the bill as our MPs. However, with regard to 54 of the clauses that we moved to delete, Liberals did not. I think it is reasonable to assume that the Liberal MPs would want to vote in favour of the motions that they also submitted, but would likely want to vote against the motions that they chose not to submit. It is the groupings for voting that puts them in this dilemma of choosing a single vote for all 110 motions; those that they submitted and those that they may not be in favour of.

The same problem exists for the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. She put 13 motions on notice, which were identical to our motions, but 97 of our motions that are grouped along with them were not submitted by the member. It seems logical to me that she too will be put in conflict by having to choose one vote for both parts of this enormous equation; those that she submitted and those that she did not.

What is essentially happening is that the Chair is taking clear, valid, individual questions, and putting them to the House as double-barrelled questions, or, in some cases, questions with many more barrels than two. Looking online, a quick Google search reminds us of what a double-barrelled question is, why it is a breach of the rules of logic, and what kind of absurd results it can yield.

The opening line of the Wikipedia entry for “double-barreled question”, and we could go to any other dictionary as well, tells us that, “A double-barreled question is an informal fallacy. It is committed when someone asks a question that touches upon more than one issue, yet allows only for one answer”. One asks two separate questions, but only allows for one answer. That sounds a lot like the situation we are facing here.

The next line tells us, “This may result in inaccuracies in the attitudes being measured for the question, as the respondent can answer only one of the two questions, and cannot indicate which one is being answered”. Again, for report stage on Bill C-23, this sounds very familiar.

These are very basic rules of logical reasoning that are being breached, rules that are necessary to avoid inaccuracies.

Mr. Speaker, on December 12, 2012, in your ruling on the point of order regarding the report stage of Bill C-45, you said that your decisions were not based exclusively on written rules, but also on the evolutionary nature of procedure and precedents.

At that point, you cited a ruling by Speaker Milliken, delivered on April 27, 2010:

...the Chair is always mindful of the established precedents, usages, traditions and practices of the House and of the role of the Chair in their ongoing evolution.

To this, you added:

This not only confirms that it is not just written rules from which the Speaker’s authority is legitimately derived, as suggested by the opposition House leader, but that the evolutionary nature of procedure must be taken into account. It was on this basis of the House’s longstanding acceptance, and in fact expectations, of the practices at report stage, in conjunction with the need for adaptation to the current context, that the amendments for Bill C-45 were grouped for debate and voting purposes in the manner that they were.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this matter and your decision on it are of fundamental importance to our democracy and its cornerstone, this House of Commons. I look forward to your ruling.

[Supreme Court of Canada, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the law societies and deans of law departments across the country have all condemned the Prime Minister's unprecedented attack on the Chief Justice, and this weekend retired Justice John Gomery added his voice to those condemning the Prime Minister. He said, “I think it's appalling that the judiciary should be used for political purposes in this way and I'm puzzled as to the motivation of the Prime Minister and his office....”

Justice Gomery is best known as the person who got to the root of Liberal corruption in the sponsorship scandal and now, no doubt, he will be attacked by the Conservatives, just as they attacked Sheila Fraser and so many others. In 2006, they included clips of Justice Gomery in their TV ads. This year, he is just another name on the Conservative government's ever-growing enemies list.

Canadians deserve better. They deserve a government that respects Canadians and respects Canadian heroes like Justice Gomery and Sheila Fraser, and next year that is what they will get with an NDP government.