Peter Van Loan

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, October 19th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As is apparent from the two motions in just an hour and a half to attempt to block debate on this issue, I would like to advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-18, An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts.

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 proceedings at the said stage.

For the benefit--

[Privilege, October 19th, 2011]

I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be brief, and what I say may be obvious.

The issue in question was a question of whether the Speaker should be making decisions on the constitutionality or legality of proposed legislation before the Speaker. We cited numerous decisions of Speakers' previously, precedents that indicate that should not be the practice of the Speaker. Rulings should not go in that territory.

My friend said that he would cite some precedents but then produced absolutely no precedents whatsoever that contradict that. In fact, the argument that he made was that you, Mr. Speaker, should rely on the principle that you can make new rulings, that you can carve new law or write new law on how Parliament should work.

However, he then said that that should be done under the principles of natural justice that prevail in this Parliament. If we were to follow his route, there are two fundamental principles of natural justice that would be offended. The first of those is the fettering of the discretion of this Parliament. The member is suggesting that this Parliament is now free to legislate on issues because a previous Parliament has legislated on them and, therefore, we are prohibited from legislating the same questions or, if I may, changing the laws that were made in the past. That would be fettering the discretion of this Parliament in a way that totally would offend the principles of natural justice.

The second is that his approach would result in a delegation of the ability of this Parliament to make decisions to individuals outside of this Parliament, effectively giving them the power to legislate the law of this land rather than Parliament doing so. That kind of discretion would not be legal. It would offend the principles of natural justice.

For those reasons, even on the arguments that the member put forward to you, Mr. Speaker, for why you should carve new law, the fundamental basis for them is lacking and you should not do so.

[Committees of the House, October 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I would ask for unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development be the committee for the purposes of the Statues of Canada, 2003, Chapter 9, section 32.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, we have made it clear throughout that, whether it comes to issues like NATO accession or any other issues of international relationships or their standing, no country should have a veto over the choices that the people make to choose freedom. We have said that with regard to NATO accession for Ukraine and for Georgia and indeed we will say that in every forum.

The member for Scarborough—Agincourt brings to mind the ages when we used to protest against the Soviet Union for freedom of these captive peoples. I myself come from an Estonian background. I am part of a community that did exactly that. In fact, the reason I am here in the House of Commons today as a Conservative. I remember seeing, as we were fighting for freedom for those captive people, the prime minister of the day, Pierre Trudeau, palling it up with Kosygin and Brezhnev, the Soviet leaders. He did not have that commitment to freedom and human rights that we believed we were fighting for so strongly.

That is why we have to be vigilant that the era of Kosygin, Brezhnev or Stalin or any of those Soviet leaders that kept those people in prison. Crimes against humanity that were not sufficiently condemned by those in the other parties always will be on this side and we will fight for freedom and stand for it four-square. That is why we are proud to be doing what we are doing today for freedom in Ukraine.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to see some interest in the idea of a trade agreement with Ukraine from the opposition NDP. Traditionally it does not support trade agreements.

When we undertook those trade negotiations, and I was minister of international trade at that time, we consulted broadly in the Ukrainian community. It indicated its strong support for this kind of economic engagement. It believed that a free trade agreement would help further enhance the freedom and the prosperity of the people of the Ukraine, creating greater economic opportunities for them, as well as for the Ukrainian community in Canada, which would be best positioned to take advantage of the trading opportunities in that relationship.

We have continued to consult closely with the Ukrainian community to ensure that they are supportive of the ongoing process of negotiating free trade. We share many of the same concerns they have, hence the communications we have made in terms of our concerns with the erosion of democracy.

Needless to say, progress toward a free trade agreement has not been as rapid under the current regime in Ukraine as we had hoped it would, and as it was previously, but we will continue to move carefully forward in a fashion that will enhance freedom for people in both countries and economic opportunities in both countries.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Madam Chair, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Edmonton East.

It is my pleasure to rise today to speak to this important and timely debate regarding the recent erosion of democracy in Ukraine. I know that I am not alone in being deeply troubled by recent events. If the recent conviction of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko was not cause enough for concern, the fact that it is just the latest in a series of anti-democratic actions taken by the current Ukrainian administration certainly is.

When I look at these mounting attacks on democracy and human rights, it is difficult not to conclude that the current government is on a course that will suffocate democracy and subvert legitimate opposition in Ukraine.

In 1991 Canada was able to support Ukrainian freedom in a dramatic and concrete way. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, we were the first western country to recognize Ukrainian independence and freedom. We did so on December 2, just one day after Ukraine had itself affirmed its independence.

Since then, Canada has worked closely at the governmental level and informally through community and citizen organizations to help Ukraine rebuild after 70 long years of Soviet socialist tyranny. This has been no easy task.

Ukrainians have demonstrated time and again their courage and determination to turn their back on their communist past and to be part of the western spirit of democracy and freedom in which human rights are respected and the rule of law prevails. For that reason, the recent developments in Ukraine are that much more distressing.

There is a bitter irony in these recent developments, for the current president and his administration were brought to power in 2010 in what were agreed at the time to be mostly free and fair elections. However, only six years after the Orange Revolution which saw Ukrainian people rise up in the face of political corruption demanding the right to have their say in who governs and how, only six years after these momentous events which gave Ukrainians, indeed, people around the world such hope, their hopes are being dashed by an administration that appears to be prepared to subvert justice and the rule of law.

In every international rating of freedom, Ukraine is sliding today. Journalists increasingly practice self-censorship to avoid persecution. Those who do not practice self-censorship may face serious threats to their lives, threats that are often downplayed or ignored by the authorities. One has to ask how free and independent a press can be when one of its largest media magnets also just happens to be head of Ukraine's security service.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Canada so clearly stated in his recent address to the United Nations General Assembly, Canada is a vigorous defender of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Standing for what is principled and just is a Canadian tradition”.

This principled approach forms the cornerstone of our country's foreign policy and of our response to the development in Ukraine. Canada has spoken strongly over the past two years as conditions have worsened in Ukraine. In August of this year, the minister publicly expressed the Government of Canada's concern over Ms. Tymoshenko's arrest and the potential negative impact this action would have on democratic development in Ukraine.

In September both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote to President Yanukovych, expressing the government's deep concerns about recent developments, in particular the apparent political motivation behind the trial of former Prime Minister Tymoshenko. There are clear signs that Tymoshenko's case has failed to follow a fair judicial process, like many other such politically motivated charges and trials being brought against former members of the opposition.

This is a glaring example in the Tymoshenko case. The prosecution requested the appearance of 32 witnesses and experts. The prosecution was granted all 32. The defence, on the other hand, asked for 30 witnesses and experts. The defence was only granted two.

A second example is that Ms. Tymoshenko has been charged under article 365 of the criminal code. This article is a remnant from the Soviet socialist penal code covering offences of excess of authority of official powers. This article is being used in a subjective way to criminalize the act of making a political decision, and in this case, reaching an international agreement.

Canada is deeply concerned about the appearance of reaching back to the laws of a Soviet socialist communist occupation that starved its people and executed political opponents. There can be no question that the political motivation and bias in the prosecution of this and other cases, as well as the court proceedings, undermines the neutrality of the court and therefore the strength of the rule of law in Ukraine.

While Ukraine's future is obviously in the hands of the Ukrainian people themselves, Canada cannot stand idly by while the very rights the Ukrainian people so bravely fought for and won are being eroded.

As the Prime Minister recently stated in his address to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, “Canada will support Ukraine whenever it moves towards freedom, democracy and justice”.

Throughout some of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries, enormous progress toward free, democratic and open societies has been made. In fact, some of the greatest champions of freedom and individual liberty are now among those countries. From low taxes and high economic freedoms to a commitment to shoulder international obligations to fight for democracy where it is at risk, countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and more have been at the forefront.

For a time, Ukraine appeared to be following that same path of leadership in the cause of freedom. We know it can return to that path. We urge Ukrainian authorities to do so.

In the meantime the Ukrainian people must know that we will continue to support them and seek ways to work with them to strengthen their democratic institutions and to broaden their opportunities.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

It is different.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

moved:

That this Committee take note of concerns regarding the ongoing erosion of democracy in Ukraine, including most recently the politically motivated and arbitrary prosecution and conviction of former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko by Ukrainian authorities.

[Privilege, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, responding narrowly to the point that my friend has raised, what he is saying logically is that Parliament has in effect delegated its decision-making power to another party and can never resume that power.

That of course would be an inappropriate delegation. Parliament cannot delegate its legislative or statutory powers. Those are powers that are held only by this body. They are not powers that can be delegated to any other group of individuals in the country. Therefore, the kind of delegation that he purports has happened here simply cannot be held to be a reasonable approach. Were it to be the case, we would have a situation in which Parliament would effectively become unable to govern the country, as powers could be delegated to other bodies by a previous Parliament, and this Parliament could never be able to legislate.

The arguments I have made are only further reinforced, I believe, by the logical outcome of my friend's position.

[Privilege, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak a little further on the points that were raised earlier today related to section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act and the question of privilege on the potential contempt allegation that was raised by the member opposite. It was the hon. member for Malpeque who raised those questions.

Our government, of course, considers the bill, which would restore freedom to Canadian farmers, to be of great importance. We returned to office after the last election and after a broad consultation with Canadians, I hasten to add, with a clear set of issues that we promised Canadians we would tackle. Establishing marketing freedom for Canadian farmers was one of those critically important issues.

At the core of my friend's submissions, the hon. gentleman asserts that there would be a breach of section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act if that act is amended or repealed by Bill C-18 without a vote of producers. In short, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking you to interpret the provisions of the statute.

As noted earlier by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, it is well established that questions of law are beyond the jurisdiction of the Chair. In addition to that straightforward argument, which I believe is correct and directly on point here, it may be of some benefit to have some precedents for reference. I would observe that none of the hon. members for Malpeque, Guelph or Winnipeg North referred to any Standing Orders or Speakers' rulings, and of course those rulings are much closer to coming within the Chair's jurisdiction to consider.

I would refer the House to page 261 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which reads as follows:

—numerous Speakers have explained that it is not up to the Speaker to rule on the “constitutionality” or “legality” of measures before the House.

Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, on July 8, 1969, at page 1319 of Journals, ruled on that point. He stated:

I have had occasion in the past to indicate that it is not the responsibility of the Chair to rule on questions of law or on constitutional questions. This ruling has been made in many instances by previous Speakers.

On May 2, 1989, a ruling by Mr. Speaker Fraser articulated at page 1175 of Debates some rationale for this perspective. He stated:

The Speaker should not sit in judgment on constitutional or legal matters. That role belongs more properly to the courts and to the administration of justice. Previous Speakers have been very careful in strictly addressing themselves to matters of a parliamentary or procedural nature while avoiding dealing with constitutional or legal matters.

Another ruling by Mr. Speaker Fraser on April 9, 1991, at page 19233 of Debates, offers a comment which I would suggest is analogous to the situation raised by the hon. member. In that case, the Chair was asked to rule whether a motion to make certain amendments to the Standing Orders contravened the Constitution and the Parliament of Canada Act. Mr. Speaker Fraser observed the following:

The Chair must avoid interpreting in any way, even indirectly, the limits set in the Constitution or the Parliament of Canada Act.

In these circumstances, I would argue that the Canadian Wheat Board Act is no different. Your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, has also made similar rulings, including those found at page 6123 of Debates on May 13, 2003, as well as page 4498 of Debates on March 23, 2005.

I would go further than that. If one is to accept the logic that has been set out by the members opposite, what they are suggesting is that one can, by passing a statute in the House, effectively fetter the future discretion of the House in passing future laws. In effect, by simply stating it is a law, they are saying that some laws stand above others and they essentially become constitutional provisions that cannot be amended by the House. Clearly, that would not be appropriate.

The precedent set by that approach would potentially create a very difficult situation to manage in the future, in the sense that any government could ensure that none of its measures could ever be repealed by a subsequent government through our democratic process simply by providing measures such as those that are referred to in section 47.1, barriers that stand in the way of modification of a statute. The fact is that Parliament reigns supreme on the question of passing statutes, and that includes amending statutes that are already in existence. The only law that stands above that is, of course, constitutional law.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest for that reason also--that is, the practical, logical problems that would result were Parliament able to fetter the subsequent discretion of all future Parliaments in this fashion--that our democratic system would indeed be paralyzed and held back by the heavy hand of history.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to find that the claim raised by the hon. member is beyond the jurisdiction of the Chair and that therefore no prima facia question of privilege can be found here.