Peter Van Loan

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, you know, our objective is to ensure that there is an adequate opportunity for debate and to allow bills to pass. When we were dealing with these matters last spring, we were largely dealing with matters at third reading, after many members on the government side had already had ample opportunity to speak to them.

The only folks who were still looking to have more debate, as matters had been debated more than adequately from the perspective of members of the government, were those who were attempting to resist allowing those bills to pass. It was those folks who were attempting to prevent decisions from being taken and who were trying to put off having votes on those matters, and were therefore filibustering.

While I know the hon. member would like to put the best possible face on the fact that the NDP is always willing to filibuster any bill that comes along and is willing to put up speakers to delay decisions being taken, after having had our say and having spoken to bills, we also like to have our say in the fashion of a vote where every member in the House gets a say. The sooner the speeches are finished and the sooner there is ample debate, we can move on to that.

With ongoing filibusters, while they may have some utility to the hon. member, there comes a point when enough has been said, and we believe it is time to make decisions.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 26th, 2014]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (d), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(c) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1);

(d) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(e) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(g) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(h) no dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown, after 6:30 p.m.; and

(i) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the government's motion proposing that we work a little bit of overtime over the next few weeks in the House.

I have the pleasure of serving in my fourth year as the government House leader during the 41st Parliament. That is, of course, on top of another 22 months during a previous Parliament, though some days it feels like I am just getting started since our government continues to implement an ambitious agenda that focuses on the priorities of Canadians. We still have much to do, and that is the basis for Motion No. 10, which we are debating today. Regardless of what other theories that folks might come up with, our objective is simple: to deliver results for Canadians, results on things Canadians want to see from their government.

As government House leader, I have worked to have the House operate in a productive, orderly, and hard-working fashion. Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf. We agree, and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons. However, do not take my word for it. Let us look at the facts.

In the previous session of the 41st Parliament, 61 government bills received royal assent and are now law. In 2013 alone, which was a shorter parliamentary year than normal, the government had a record-breaking year with 40 bills becoming law, more than any other calendar year since we took office, breaking our previous record of 37 new laws in 2007 when I also had the honour to be the leader of the House. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly, and productive Parliament. With more than a year left in this Parliament, the House has accomplished so much already, handing many bills over to the Senate for the final steps in the legislative process.

Just as we had a record year for legislative output, Canadian grain farmers experienced a bumper crop with a record yield in 2013. Understanding the real challenges faced by grain farmers, our government acted quickly on Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, moving the bill through three readings and a committee study before handing it over to the Senate. This bill would support economic growth by ensuring that grain is able to get to market quickly and efficiently. The House also passed Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which would ensure that everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, ensuring the integrity of our electoral system and putting rule breakers out of business.

Two supply bills received royal assent, thereby ensuring that the government has the money it needs to continue providing services to the people.

When we passed Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, we fulfilled our promise to protect the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation's enrolment process, making it fair and equitable while ensuring that only eligible individuals will be granted membership.

Earlier this spring, royal assent was also given to Bill C-16, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act, making the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation the first self-governing nation on the prairies and the 34th aboriginal community in Canada to achieve self-governance.

Next on the agenda is Bill C-34, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, which will implement the agreement with the Tla'amin Nation. Bill C-34 will give the Tla'amin increased control over their own affairs. They will have ownership of their land and resources and will be able to create new investment opportunities and make decisions determining their economic future.

We considered and passed through all stages of Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act, which will enhance safety standards for workers in Canada’s Atlantic offshore oil and gas industry to protect Canadians and the environment while supporting jobs and growth.

Bill C-14, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, became law just a few weeks ago. This act will ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Also, this spring, our government passed Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which honoured our government's commitment to giving northerners greater control over their resources and decision-making and completing devolution all before the agreed-upon implementation date of April 1, as well as Bill C-9, the First Nations Elections Act, which supports the Government of Canada's commitment to provide all Canadians with strong, accountable, and transparent government. Bill C-9 provides a robust election framework, improves the capacity of first nations to select leadership, build prosperous communities, and improve economic development in their communities.

However, despite these many accomplishments, there is more work to be done yet before we return to our constituencies for the summer, let alone before we seek the privilege of representing our constituents in the 42nd Parliament.

During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity.

It is worth saying that again. During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity. That continues. Through three years and four budgets since the 2012 budget, we have passed initiatives that have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians, as part of the one million net new jobs since the global economic downturn. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7 and we are on track to balance the budget in 2015.

As part of our efforts to build on this strong track record, our government has put forward this motion today. Motion No. 10 is simple. It is straightforward. It would extend the hours of the House to sit from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 p.m. or 7 p.m., the House would, instead, sit until midnight. This would give us an additional 20 hours each week to debate important bills. Of course, the hours on Friday would not change.

Extended sitting hours is something that happens practically every June. Our government just wants to roll up its sleeves and work a little harder a bit earlier this year.

Productivity is not just a function of time invested, but also of efficiency. To that end, our motion would allow most votes to be deferred, automatically, until the end of question period to allow for all hon. members' schedules to be a bit more orderly.

Last year, we saw the New Democrats profess to be willing to work hard. Then, mere hours later, after the sun would go down and people were not watching, what would the NDP do? It would suggest we pack it in early and move adjournment, without any accomplishment to show for it.

In order to keep our focus on delivering results and not gamesmanship, we are suggesting that we use our extra evening hours to get something done, not to play idle, unproductive games. We are interested in working hard and being productive, and doing so in an orderly fashion. That is the extent of what Motion No. 10 would do. Members on this side of the House are willing to work a few extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians. What results are we seeking? Bills on which we want to see progress, that are of great significance to Canadians, are worth spending a little extra time to see them considered and, ideally, passed.

Of course, we have the important matter of passing Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014, No. 1. This bill implements our government’s budget—a low-tax plan for jobs, growth and a stronger Canadian economy. It is also an essential tool in placing the government on track to balanced budgets, starting in 2015.

We have a number of bills that continue to build on the work we have done in support of victims of crime. Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, is another essential piece of legislation that will crack down on cyberbullies and online threats by giving law enforcement officials the tools necessary to investigate and tackle these crimes. We are taking clear action to combat cyberbullying and I ask the opposition to join us in this pursuit.

Every day in Canada, our most vulnerable—our children—are the victims of sexual abuse. This is truly unacceptable and as a society we must do our part to better protect our youth. With Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, we are doing our part.

Our government's comprehensive legislation will better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography, while making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on the predators who hurt, abuse, and exploit our children.

Therefore, I ask the opposition to work with us, support this important piece of legislation by supporting this motion.

It is also important that we move forward with one of the most recent additions to our roster of other tackling crime legislation. Last month, we introduced Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which will give victims of crime a more efficient and more effective voice in the criminal justice system. It seeks to create clear statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime, for the first time in Canada's history. The legislation would establish rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution, and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights on the part of victims. It would protect victims, and help to rebalance the justice system to give victims their rightful place. I hope we can debate this bill tomorrow night. By passing Motion No. 10, we will make that possible.

Our efforts to protect families and communities also extend to keeping contraband tobacco off our streets, so that the cheap baggies of illegal cigarettes do not lure children into the dangers of smoking. Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, would combat this by establishing mandatory jail time for repeat offenders trafficking in contraband. Aside from protecting Canadian children from the health hazards of smoking, it will also address the more general problems with trafficking and contraband tobacco propelled by organized crime roots. With luck, I hope we can pass this bill on Friday.

Just before the constituency week, the Prime Minister announced Quanto's law. Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, would pose stiffer penalties on anyone who kills or injures a law enforcement, military, or service animal. I know that the hon. member for Richmond Hill, having previously introduced a private member's bill on the subject, will be keen to see the extra time used to debate and pass this bill at second reading before we head back to our constituencies.

Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act, could also have a chance for some debate time if we pass Motion No. 10. This particular bill will tackle drug use and trade in the federal penitentiaries to make the correctional system a safer place, particularly for staff, but also for inmates, while also increasing the potential for success and rehabilitation of those inmates. As a former public safety minister, I can say that this is indeed an important initiative.

Delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week. Our clear and steady focus on the strength of our Canadian economy does not simply apply to our budgets. We will also work hard next week to bring the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement into law. Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, would enhance provisions on cross-border trading services, investment, and government procurement between our two countries. It would also immediately benefit key sectors in the Canadian economy, by providing enhanced market access for beef, pork, potato products, vegetable oils, and grain products.

As a former trade minister, I can say first-hand that this government understands that trade and investment are the twin engines of the global economy that lead to more growth, the creation of good jobs, and greater prosperity. Trade is particularly important for a country like Canada, one that is relatively small yet stands tall in terms of its relationship and ability to export and trade with the rest of the world. If we are to enjoy that prosperity in the future, it is only through expanding free trade and seizing those opportunities that we can look forward to that kind of long-term prosperity.

Through Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, we are providing further support to Canada's agriculture producers. This bill would modernize nine statues that regulate Canada's agriculture sector to bring them in line with modern science and technology, innovation, and international practices within the agriculture industry. The act will strengthen and safeguard Canada's agriculture sector by providing farmers with greater access to new crop varieties, enhancing both trade opportunities and the safety of agriculture products, and contributing to Canada's overall economic growth.

As the House knows, our government has made the interests of farmers a very important priority. We recognize that since Canada was born, our farmers in our agriculture sector have been key to Canada's economic success. As a result, Bill C-18 will be debated this afternoon. It would be nice to have the bill passed at second reading before the summer, so that the agriculture committee can harvest stakeholder opinion this autumn.

Over the next few weeks, with the co-operation and support of the opposition parties, we will hopefully work to make progress on other important initiatives.

My good friend, the President of the Treasury Board, will be happy to know that these extra hours would mean that I can find some time to debate Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act. This important bill should not be underestimated. It would enshrine into law our government's one-for-one rule, a successful system-wide control on regulatory red tape that affects Canadian employers. Treasury Board already takes seriously the practice of opining that rule, but we want to heighten its importance and ensure that it is binding on governments in the future. We want to ensure that Canadians do not face unreasonable red tape when they are simply trying to make a better living for themselves, and creating jobs and economic growth in their communities.

Another important government initiative sets out to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. For the first time in more than 35 years, our government is taking action to update the Citizenship Act. Through Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, we are proposing stronger rules around access to Canadian citizenship to underline its true value and ensure that new Canadians are better prepared for full participation in Canadian life. This legislation will be called for debate on Wednesday.

The health and safety of Canadians is something that our government believes is worthy of some extra time and further hard work in the House of Commons.

Tomorrow evening, we will debate Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act. Under Vanessa's law, as we have called it, we are proposing steps to protect Canadian families and children from unsafe medicines. Among other actions, the bill would enable the government to recall unsafe drugs, require stronger surveillance, provide the courts with discretion to impose stronger fines if violations were intentionally caused, and compel drug companies to do further testing on a product. In general, the bill would make sure that the interests of individual Canadians are looked out for and become a major priority when it comes to dealing with new medications and drugs.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, would modernize safety and security for Canada's offshore and nuclear energy industries, thereby ensuring a world-class regulatory system, and strengthening safety and environmental protections. This legislation, at second reading, will be debated on Thursday.

Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, could pass at third reading under the extended hours, so that we can secure these important updates and improvements to transportation law in Canada.

We could also pass the prohibiting cluster munitions act. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained at committee, the Government of Canada is committed to ridding the world of cluster munitions. Bill C-6 is an important step in that direction, but it is just the beginning of our work. Extending the relevant elements of the Oslo Convention into domestic law would allow Canada to join the growing list of countries that share that same goal. I hope members of all parties will support us in this worthy objective.

By supporting today's motion, the opposition would also be showing support for Canada's veterans. The extra hours would allow us to make progress on Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act. The measures included in this legislation would create new opportunities for men and women who have served their country to continue working for Canadians through the federal public service. As a nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that veterans have access to a broad range of programs and services to help them achieve new success after their time in uniform is complete. This initiative would do exactly that.

Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. I could go on and on, literally, since I have unlimited time to speak this afternoon, but I will not. Suffice it to say that we have a bold, ambitious, and important legislative agenda to implement. All of these measures are important, and they will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part. Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, to vote on bills, to make decisions, and to get things done on their behalf.

I hope that opposition parties will be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come to a vote. I am sure that members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say that they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer.

I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for adding a few hours to our day to continue the work of our productive, orderly, and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

[Points of Order, May 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I respond briefly to the comments of my friend, who has raised a few points.

The first is the nature of what he is asking, the relief that is being sought here. If I can use an analogy from the judicial side, it is almost in the nature of a reference to whether the government would have the ability to have a reference to the Supreme Court to seek an advisory opinion when there is actually no issue at hand before it. He is seeking your advice, Mr. Speaker, on an issue that is well behind us to give direction for the future, a kind of hypothetical question that he is looking for a response from the Speaker on.

Of course, that is not the appropriate role of the Speaker. The Speaker would adjudicate a particular dispute in order to determine how we go forward in a particular circumstance. However, as you know, Mr. Speaker, you are not in the practice of entertaining academic arguments for the purpose of providing academic answers. I, of course, could come up with very many interesting questions that I could pose as points of order to you, Mr. Speaker, to seek your answers even though they were not matters that had come into dispute before the House, but it is not the practice of the Speaker to do that as in the form of a reference.

With regard to the particular issue, it is behind us now, and the Speaker's practice is quite clear that in such matters the point of order has to be brought at the earliest possible opportunity and certainly at an early enough opportunity to allow the Speaker's decision to be of some consequence and to affect the future deliberations of the House and the process as we go forward. To raise the question at such a late point certainly is not an appropriate fashion in which to do it, and certainly not a point at which you, Mr. Speaker, would deal with it.

There are some precedents that clearly refer to that. If I look at decisions of Mr. Speaker Milliken in Debates at June 12, 2001, page 5031, when such a circumstance arose, Mr. Speaker Milliken said:

In so far as today’s proceedings are concerned, the Chair is satisfied that the motion was adopted this morning without 25 members rising in their place and without objection at that time as to the procedural acceptability of the motion. The matter has come before the House at this late hour and, in my view, the motion has been adopted and will apply for tonight’s proceedings, and we will leave it at that.

Clearly, the procedural objection has to be brought at that time, and that is the precedent that has been set there. That is certainly not the case here. That is a higher test than even the one I was putting to you, Mr. Speaker. That was a case where it still could have affected the proceedings going forward that evening, but even then Mr. Speaker Milliken ruled that it was brought late and out of time.

Then there was an additional occasion on September 18, 2001, at page 5256 of Debates. Mr. Milliken said:

At that time I ruled that the terms of the motion would stand, having been adopted by the House some eight hours before the hon. member raised his point of order.

Then further, two pages later, at page 5258, he said, again on September 18, 2001:

As I previously indicated, I allowed the motion adopted on June 12, 2001, to go ahead because there were no objections raised at the time it was moved. By the time hon. members expressed concern to the Chair some eight hours later, the Chair saw no alternative but to proceed with the terms of the motion.

Those are perfectly good precedents in this case for the reason that, first, we do not engage in hypothetical points of order, which is what we have before us; second, in the case of an actual dispute the objection to the process and the procedure, including Standing Order 56(1), a motion has to be brought immediately at that time, which was not the case here; and third, we are being asked to deal with this very much after the train has left the station.

The House has proceeded and has rendered it. It has been brought out of time. As such, it should not be dealt with by the House in that fashion.

[Points of Order, May 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in response to this point. The issue is what an eligible motion is under Standing Order 56.1.

Standing Order 56.1(1)(b) provides:

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.

I will emphasize again that key phrase: that it is for the purpose of “establishing of the powers of its committees”. That is part of its authority.

Quite clearly, the primary thrust of the motion from the hon. Minister of Labour, the motion that gave rise to the occurrence of the Leader of the Opposition before the committee dealing with the question of the improper use of taxpayers' funds by the NDP, was to give the procedure and House affairs committee an order of reference, or to use the words of the Standing Order, “establishing of the powers of its committees”.

Indeed, the last time that this Standing Order was invoked was to provide a committee with an order of reference. Page 2289 of the Journals, for November 8, 2012, shows that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was mandated for a motion proposed under Standing Order 56.1, to conduct the study required by section 533.1 of the Criminal Code.

As members can see, there was an order of reference given to the committee, exactly the same as happened in this case, on a matter that otherwise needed to be given the authority, including the authority to hear that witness in particular.

Prior to the adoption of Standing Order 56.2, we also saw a number of instances when Standing Order 56.1 was used to authorize committee travel. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 461, informs us that Speaker Milliken:

...also suggested that this 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 with powers they do not already possess, such as the power to travel.

The latter portion of that quote is important to bear in mind. It echoes the ruling of Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie at page 10124 of the Debates for June 5, 2007.

It is important to recall that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is exempted from the general and broad sweeping order of reference which Standing Order 108(2) confers upon most of our standing committees. That particular committee's permanent mandate derives largely from Standing Order 108(3)(a). It is buttressed by numerous specific orders of reference which this House adopts.

In that sense, the motion of the hon. Minister of Labour sought to empower the committee, or at the very least to remove any doubts whatsoever that it is indeed empowered to study the matter of the troubling allegations about how the official opposition has been using the resources provided to it by the House of Commons.

Beyond that particular element of the motion, committees generally have the power to send for persons. Pages 136 and 137 of O’Brien and Bosc remind us, “Committees are not empowered to compel the attendance of the Queen, the Governor General, Members, Senators, officers of another legislature or persons outside of Canada”.

To that end, the latter half of the motion empowered the committee by doing something which it itself could not do. Thus, it was necessary to resort to a motion of this House in order to provide it with those powers, if you will, establishing the powers of committee as it is contemplated in Standing Order 56.1(1)(b), and to provide that order of reference.

Clearly, the motion of the hon. Minister of Labour met the test of establishing the powers for committee, as the Standing Order states, and as Speaker Milliken and Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie have ruled in the past.

I note that there was some reference made to substantive matters. I will note that on the member's reference to the restriction against using this Standing Order on substantive matters, that is somewhat defined by previous decisions, and we do have guidance.

I would quote Mr. Speaker Milliken's ruling at page 5974 of the Debates on May 13, 2005, where he stated:

It is quite clear that the use of Standing Order 56.1, while allowing the House then to determine things in relation to its affairs that are not substantive matters, that is passing laws, may be done by using this technique.

Clearly, in that decision, he has equated the passing of laws through the parliamentary process as the substantive matters that are not covered by Standing Order 56.1. That is, the House could not, through Standing Order 56.1, attempt to substitute any element of the statutory process for passing laws, but that is what Speaker Milliken said is meant by substantive matters.

Clearly what we were talking about, or what the committee was dealing with in this matter, was not the question of a substantive matter in passing a law but was rather a very separate matter about the administration of the House. It was a matter under the authority of the procedure and House affairs committee, normally part of its jurisdiction, specifically the misspending of taxpayers' funds by the NDP for partisan purposes in partisan NDP offices.

Again, that aspect of the ruling of Mr. Milliken related to the interaction between Standing Order 56.1 and the requirement of section 49 of the Constitution Act, 1867 for decisions here to be taken by a majority. Your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, clearly distinguished between questions of substance and “matters of internal procedure, which the House can decide on its own initiative”. The motion of the hon. Minister of Labour did not relate to the passage of any bill or the creation of any law, and therefore, it should not have been ruled out of order and was properly ruled to be in order and accepted by the Speaker at that time.

Finally, I would conclude by referring to pages 672 and 673 of O'Brien and Bosc, where the authors conclude their treatment of Standing Order 56.1 with the following:

...Speakers Parent and Milliken both urged the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examined the appropriate use of this Standing Order. Having received no feedback from the Committee to the House, the Speaker stated he did not feel it was for the Chair to rule out of order a motion that appeared to be in compliance with the Standing Order, despite any reservations he may have expressed about it.

Though in the present case the motion more than appears to be in compliance with Standing Order 56.1, it is in compliance, I would submit, and in fact, I think the above example shows that despite an invitation to somehow further restrict the application of it, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the House have declined to do so, leaving all those powers I discussed earlier in this argument in place.

Finally, I would like to make one further point, which actually relates to the earlier point of order as well as to this discussion of the appearance of the NDP leader on the matter of the misuse of parliamentary resources for partisan purposes. That is that the earlier question of privilege raised by the member for Kitchener Centre dealt with the fact that the NDP was suggesting that he had misused parliamentary resources when he had, in fact, as he said here, gone the extra step of asking the House of Commons to ensure that no parliamentary resources were ever misused by him. He asked permission to pay for resources that would have been spent for a partisan purpose, something on his own initiative, to ensure that they were not, and he ensured that those monies were paid back.

That is a very notable precedent and one the NDP might wish to reflect on in dealing with this point of order. Perhaps that is the way situations like the one they find themselves in right now are properly dealt with. Perhaps they should now go to the administration of the House of Commons and offer to pay back the funds they have spent inappropriately on partisan purposes.

[Privilege, May 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to rise on this point, but the nature of the response from the opposition House leader is so below what we expect for the conduct of members of Parliament in dealing with each other in the House that I must respond.

I understand the members could have made an error by relying on a media report. However, now the facts have been laid on the table by the member, before the House, that have make it clear that he was not, in the words of the opposition House leader, “required to repay”, but rather he took the initiative to repay, not at the request of House administration but on his own initiative, to ensure the rules were scrupulously followed.

That having been put in front of us now, and our being aware of the facts, and as hon. members of course accepting what we say, the appropriate response is not to continue. This is not a matter of debate on political rhetoric. This is a question of the member's conduct in the use of resources of the House.

The response of the opposition House leader is shocking to me. I am getting a little emotional because it is upsetting.

The appropriate response at this point is in fact to apologize, to accept what has been laid on the table by the member for Kitchener Centre rather than persist, having been acquainted with the facts and ignoring them.

For that reason, I would ask that it go beyond a simple request for an apology, and rather that we have the appropriate motion placed, after a prima facie finding of contempt, that the member's privileges have indeed been impugned inappropriately.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start by sharing a couple of sentiments with my friend.

First, on this side of the House—speaking for myself at least, and many others, including the Prime Minister—we congratulate the Montreal Canadiens on their success and wish them all the best in the next round, where I am optimistic Canadians will have much to look forward to.

Second, I have to agree with the member about the fact that what we saw today was a preview of what we would see if the NDP were ever to win government. We saw a grilling where the highlight was the question of NDP corruption and abuse of taxpayers' dollars. That is what we could expect to see if the NDP were ever to become government, and because Canadians know that, we will never have to fear it happening.

That abuse of taxpayers' funds goes beyond the question of breaking rules and not following rules. It goes to the whole NDP philosophy that taxpayers' money is there for them, they should get more of it, and they should spend it in every way possible. That is what the NDP is all about.

We in the Conservative Party, on the other hand, have an approach that is focused on a productive, hard-working, and orderly Parliament that respects taxpayers' dollars. As a result, we will continue with our agenda.

I will note the highlight today from the NDP. The NDP was defending itself on charges of improper spending and improperly using taxpayers' dollars for partisan activity. The member did not point out that the NDP's positive agenda was what they were proposing today in the House of Commons on one of the rare days when NDP members actually get to put forward their own policy proposals. It is funny how he says, “That is not the highlight”. I agree with him, because when they do get in power, they will have very little to advocate for.

That said, we on this side do follow the rules, and the rules require that we continue with the NDP opposition day motion for the balance of the day.

Tomorrow we will start the second reading debate of Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, before we return to our constituencies for a week.

Upon our return we will roll up our sleeves and work hard for Canadians in the final sittings until the summer.

On Monday, May 26, we will consider Bill C-18, which is the agricultural growth act.

On Tuesday, May 27, we will resume the second reading debate on Vanessa's law, Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act.

That will be followed by Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act at second reading.

The next day will see us continue our productive, hard-working, and orderly agenda by returning to the second reading debate on Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship act. As hon. members might recall, the New Democrats proposed a second reading amendment to block the passage of this important bill.

On Thursday, May 29, we will continue the second reading debate on Bill C-22, the Energy Safety and Security Act. After that debate concludes, we will consider Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at report stage. Finally, we will consider Bill C-10, the Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, at report stage and third reading on Friday, May 30.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, we still have a lot of work ahead of us this spring.

[Government Priorities, May 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of that question is entirely wrong. The approach of this government has been to implement legislation, particularly our budget legislation, that delivers on our commitment to create jobs, economic growth, and prosperity. In the same fashion as it has been done for many years, we introduce budget implementation bills that implement the elements of our budget, and the results are clear in the strongest economic growth among any of the major developed economies and over one million net new jobs.

That is the approach the opposition rejects. It is an approach we are delivering on for Canadians for growth and prosperity for the future.

[Points of Order, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, you have obviously undertaken your responsibilities under the Standing Orders to select grouping for the purposes of debate and voting and applied the usual rules. The usual rule is that the purpose of the voting scheme is to obviate any requirement for two or more votes on the same issue.

I have a lot of sympathy for you, Mr. Speaker, in trying to respond to the complaint made by my friend opposite, in that he actually did not point to a single example in your grouping of where that had not been done properly. The member did not go to a single item or a single vote. He did not make any individual suggestion on where a grouping of yours should be split into two separate votes.

As such, Mr. Speaker, that leaves you with nothing more than what I could call a bit of complaining or whinging, but no real prescription. It also leaves me in the very difficult position of having nothing really to respond to, other than to say that you, Mr. Speaker, have done your duty as required and followed the general practice.

Following in previous decisions, Mr. Speaker, you have indicated that report stage motions are not and have never been selected for debate or grouped for voting on the basis of who the Chair thinks might vote on them and that you had in the past been asked to consider. This is another decision, a ruling from November 29, 2012, at page 12611. In that ruling, the Speaker said:

The Chair is being asked to consider the suggestion that every motion to delete a clause should be voted on separately. This would diverge from our practice where, for voting purposes where appropriate, a long series of motions to delete are grouped for a vote. Since the effect of deleting a clause at report stage is, for all practical purposes, the same as negativing a clause in committee, to change our practice to a one deletion, one vote approach could be seen as a repetition of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee, something which the House is specifically enjoined against in the notes to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5), which state that the report stage is not meant to be a reconsideration of the committee stage. That said, though, it has been a long-standing practice for the Chair to select motions to delete clauses at report stage. I reminded the House of our practices in that regard in my ruling in relation to Bill C-38 when I stated, “motions to delete clauses have always been found to be in order and it must also be noted have been selected at report stage”.

You have done that here again, Mr. Speaker. It is difficult for me to see in the arguments made by my friend where the flaw is in your grouping for votes.

[Points of Order, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, we have had questions about government documents, processes, briefings, and so on being in both official languages. Our government values the importance of providing documents and services in both official languages, both national languages for all members of the House.

What we are hearing about in this case is a particular document that a member had prepared for his constituents in the language he normally uses to communicate with his constituents. It is quite normal for many members to communicate in French if they have a predominantly francophone constituency or in English with a predominantly anglophone one.

However, the appropriate remedy for this situation, and we heard that the necessary, usual channels for approving the distribution of documents were not necessarily followed here, is that we ask the whips to take this matter up with each other and with the member in question, and perhaps remind all members of their caucuses of the appropriate rules and practices that we have in place governing the distribution of documents. This is best dealt with by the whips in that fashion.

[Business of the House, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I think it is appropriate that perhaps it shall be nominated for a fiction award, perhaps for the Governor General's award under the category of fantasy. It bore little relation to anything I have heard or seen anywhere around here in the past week.

However, I am prepared to provide some factual responses on what we will be doing in the week ahead.

This afternoon we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act. If we wrap that up before 6:30, we will resume this morning’s third reading debate on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act.

Tomorrow, the House will not sit in order to accommodate the events of the National Day of honour. Hon. members will recognize those Canadians who served in Afghanistan and, particularly, those who made the ultimate sacrifice. Those ceremonies on Parliament Hill will be the cornerstone of the nation's commemorations. There will be significant events all across Canada, in which all Canadians are welcome to participate.

Next week, on Monday, we will conclude the report stage of Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act. Tuesday will see third reading and final passage of the bill. Wednesday and Thursday shall be the sixth and seventh allotted days. On both occasions, we will debate New Democratic motions.

Friday, May 16 will see Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, debated at second reading.

Finally, Wednesday, May 14 shall be the day appointed, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), for the consideration of the main estimates related to Finance for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015.