Peter Van Loan

[Afghanistan, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we have arrangements in place and are satisfied that they are working.

I invite the Leader of the Opposition to read this agreement.

[Afghanistan, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the confusion, as always, continues to come from the opposition benches. We have been consistent.

The December 2005 arrangement on detainees remains in place. We have said that we would work with the Afghan government to clarify its responsibilities for the treatment of Taliban prisoners, as we have told the House previously. Working with the Afghan government, we have made explicit its responsibilities and we have identified and implemented these improvements to the existing 2005 arrangement, as we said we would do.

[Afghanistan, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the December 2005 arrangement on detainees remains in place.

We have said that we would work with the Afghan government to clarify its responsibilities for the treatment of Taliban prisoners. Working with the Afghan government, we have made explicit their responsibilities and we have identified and implemented these improvements to the existing 2005 arrangement, as we said we would do.

We are ready to table the agreement in the House.

[Foreign Affairs, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have given my copy of the motion to the Speaker. However, this is a motion that I think is agreed upon by all the parties in the House of Commons. It expresses clearly our concern and seeks to have the Chinese government provide consular access for Canadian consular officials to see him as a Canadian citizen. I think that is the clear intention. We also would like to see him returned to Canada and I think that is part of the intent of that motion. I think all parties are in agreement with it.

[Foreign Affairs, May 2nd, 2007]

, seconded by the hon. member for Wascana, moved:

Whereas Huseyin Celil is a Canadian citizen who was travelling in Uzbekistan on a Canadian passport, and was extradited to China;

Whereas the Chinese government has refused to recognize Mr. Celil's Canadian citizenship;

Whereas the Chinese government has refused to grant Canadian officials consular access to Mr. Celil, as per the 1999 Canada China Consular agreement; and

Whereas there are serious allegations that Mr. Celil was mistreated and possibly subjected to torture while in Chinese custody, which would constitute a serious breach of the UN Convention Against Torture, to which both Canada and China are parties;

This House calls upon the Government of China to grant consular access to Mr. Celil and investigate the claims of mistreatment and torture both promptly and impartially, and to ensure that Mr. Celil's rights are fully protected; and to review the allegations against Mr. Celil with a view to returning him to Canada; and this House calls upon the Government of Uzbekistan to explain why Mr. Celil was extradited to China instead of Canada since he was traveling with a Canadian passport.

[Foreign Affairs, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of moving this along, I will make my best effort to move this motion and seek the assistance of the opposition House leader in ensuring that I have it right. I move:

Whereas Huseyin Celil is a Canadian citizen who was travelling in Uzbekistan on a Canadian passport, and was extradited to China;

Whereas the Chinese government has refused to recognize Mr. Celil's Canadian citizenship;

Whereas the Chinese government has refused to grant Canadian officials consular access to Mr. Celil, as per the 1999 Canada China consular agreement; and

Whereas there are serious allegations that Mr. Celil was mistreated and possibly subjected to torture while in Chinese custody, which would constitute a serious breach of the UN Convention against Torture, to which both Canada and China are parties;

This House calls upon the Government of China to grant consular access to Mr. Celil and investigate the claims of mistreatment and torture both promptly and impartially, and to ensure that Mr. Celil's rights are fully protected; to review the allegations against Mr. Celil with a view to returning him to Canada; and this House calls upon the government of Uzbekistan to explain why Mr. Celil was extradited to China instead of Canada, since he was travelling with a Canadian passport.

I would seek the support of the House for the motion.

[Democratic Reform, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as Liberal senator David Smith has often told me, “the devil finds work for idle hands to do”. Well, it seems there are idle hands in the Liberal Senate and they are creatively finding new ways to avoid doing their jobs.

Top constitutional scholars testified that the term limit in the bill is constitutional. Even a Liberal Senate committee found that it was constitutional. Apparently, they do not even believe themselves.

Why will the Liberal senators not listen to their own leader and go ahead and pass term limits? Maybe it is because they do not like this Faustian pact with the unrepentant Green Party leader.

[Income Trusts, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, what the member should worry about is the double standard, not just the question of the double standard that he is worried about, but the double standard that he speaks about.

He said in 2006, “I think anybody who crosses the floor should go back to the people for ratification”. He has not yet, but then again that is the same member who said at the government operations committee last month, “no one cares what I campaigned on”.

We care. There are some byelections coming up. I think we can fit him in.

[Privilege, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on some of the procedural aspects of the question of privilege that were raised by the member for Mississauga South on April 26, 2007.

I believe the Minister of National Defence has answered in terms of the factual issues and set those clearly on the record. In terms of the question of timeliness, I think that matter is now entirely clear.

There are still some other procedural issues that I would like to pursue further. I submit that this is not a valid question of privilege. At most the member may have a grievance. However, he has not demonstrated that the information provided by the minister has in any way impeded or obstructed any member of the House in the performance of their duties.

In order for there to be a valid question of privilege, there must be evidence that the minister intended to mislead the House.

Page 234 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada states that before the House will be permitted by the Speaker to embark on a debate on a question of privilege, there must be:

—an admission by someone in authority, such as a Minister of the Crown...either that a Member of the House of Commons was intentionally misled or an admission of facts that leads naturally to the conclusion that a Member was intentionally misled...

I submit that the member has not provided any evidence to this effect. There is no evidence that any minister has misled or misinformed the House at all, whether deliberately or not.

In fact, what we hear from the statement by the Minister of National Defence is that his facts are entirely accurately.

Citation 31 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's provides a lengthy list of issues that are not questions of privilege. Some of these include:

A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege.

Further:

The failure of a Minister to answer a question may not be raised as a question of privilege.

And Beauchesne's cites a Speaker's ruling from October 30, 1969, which states:

The question has often been raised whether parliamentary privilege imposes on ministers an obligation to deliver ministerial statements and to make announcements and communications to the public through the House of Commons or to make these announcements or statements in the House rather than outside the chamber. The question has been asked whether Hon. Members are entitled, as part of their parliamentary privilege, to receive such information ahead of the general public. I can find no precedent to justify this suggestion.

Those are three elements that are relevant.

I would also note that Marleau and Montpetit state, at page 433:

The Speaker, however, is not responsible for the quality or content of replies to questions. In most instances, when a point of order or a question of privilege has been raised in regard to a response to an oral question, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is a disagreement among Members over the facts surrounding the issue.

I would go further and add that the Speaker is not responsible for the quality of the questions either. In this case it is the question and the point of order from which the problems arise.

To conclude, I submit that the member has provided no evidence that the Minister of National Defence or any other minister has infringed the privileges of the House.

Mr. Speaker, as you can judge from question period last week, members may be in a debate over facts. None of this would constitute a basis for a prima facie question of privilege.

[Points of order, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is a point of order regarding Bill C-415, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).

I would first like to point out that bills to ban the use of replacement workers have been introduced six previous times since 2004, and defeated twice. In this Parliament alone, it is the third attempt at similar legislation, and the House has already voted against this idea.

Given that this bill is virtually identical to Bill C-257, with only one new clause and one new subsection, I would ask that you, Mr. Speaker, clarify two points.

First, I would ask for you to clarify whether it is in order for Bill C-415 to have been introduced. Standing Order 86(4) provides that the Speaker is responsible for determining whether two or more items that are similar can be placed on notice.

Mr. Speaker Fraser stated, on November 2, 1989, that a bill would not be placed on notice if it had the same purpose as another private member's bill before the House and if it met this purpose by the same means as that other bill.

Bill C-257 and Bill C-415 clearly have the same purpose, namely to ban the use of replacement workers. They also seek to meet this purpose by virtually the same means. They both amend the Canada Labour Code and are identical apart from one clause and one subsection. They contain the identical paragraph in their summaries, stating that their purpose:

—is to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out.

Since Standing Order 86(4) does not specify that bills must be identical but they must “so similar as to be substantially the same”, I submit that Bill C-415 is so similar as to be substantially the same as Bill C-257, and I would ask that you, Mr. Speaker, clarify this issue for the House.

The second issue on which I request your ruling is whether this bill can be called for debate and vote. Marleau and Montpetit indicate at page 495:

A decision once made cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgement of the House. Thus, for example, if a bill or motion is rejected, it cannot be revived in the same session.

Allowing Bill C-415 to proceed to a vote would be inconsistent with this rule and with the rule of anticipation. As Marleau and Montpetit note, at page 476:

—two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If the first bill is withdrawn, the second may be proceeded with. If a decision is taken on the first bill, the other may not be proceeded with.

On November 7, 2006, respecting Bill C-257 and Bill C-295, you ruled that the second bill could not proceed because:

—a careful examination of both bills reveals that they have exactly the same objective, that is, to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out.

There we were dealing with a question of similar legislation. Bill C-295, Bill C-257 and Bill C-415 are aimed at the same objective on replacement workers.

I would argue to you, Mr. Speaker, and suggest to you with respect, that your ruling on November 7, 2006, applies equally in this case to Bill C-415. You indicated that you were at the time ruling on the issue bearing in mind Mr. Speaker Fraser's ruling of November 2, 1989.

I reiterate that Bill C-415 has exactly the same objective as Bill C-257, which the House rejected at report stage on March 21. As a result, allowing Bill C-415 to proceed would mean that the House would reconsider its decision with respect to Bill C-257.

The purpose of Bill C-415 is exactly the same as that of Bill C-257, namely to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees during a strike or lockout.

Bill C-415 seeks to do so by the same means as Bill C-257, namely by amending subsection 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code.

Members opposite may suggest that the bills are not similar and that Bill C-415 differs because it refers to the preservation of essential services during a strike. However, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that is not the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to ban replacement workers.

The apparent difference from Bill C-257 is not in fact a material one. Bill C-415 would not create a new category of essential services. Nor would it designate a group of workers to perform this work. Rather, it simply recasts as “essential services” existing provisions in the Canada Labour Code, which obliges services to be maintained during a strike or lockout in order to “prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public”.

Since Bill C-257 would not have affected these existing protections in the code, simply adding a provision about essential services to Bill C-415 does make it substantively any different than Bill C-257.

Therefore, the purpose of both these bills is simply to ban the use of replacement workers. As I have already indicated, Bill C-415 does not alter the means to use to achieve this purpose which is primarily by amending section 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code.

By allowing Bill C-415 to proceed, Mr. Speaker, you will be asking the House to revisit its decision on Bill C-257, which is not permitted. I submit that it should not be called for debate or for a vote and would ask that you rule on that question.