Peter Van Loan

[First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act, April 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-33, An Act to establish a framework to enable First Nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other 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 the proceedings at the said stage.

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

moved:

That this Committee take note of the situation in the Republic of South Sudan.

[Privilege, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. This started as a question of privilege raised by my friend suggesting that the Minister of State for Democratic Reform had misled the House by citing that there were such cases and there was no basis to that. The Minister of State for Democratic Reform provided seven such examples that are publicly available on the Elections Canada website, without even going beyond that to what other cases may exist and be reported by people individually or in the media over the years; but just those.

Now his response is that it was only a very few cases. Before it was that there were none. Now it is only a very few. Then he wants to debate the merits of it, and then he wants to debate the grammar of the Minister of State for Democratic Reform in so doing and to try to parse words. Clearly, we have gone far away from the question of privilege about misleading the House and we are entirely, 100%, foursquare in arguing the merits of the issue that is before the House in the legislation. All his comments could be best put in the category of debate, and they have no business being a question of privilege on misleading the House, and his points today make that abundantly clear.

[Points of Order, April 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to supplement my comments made in an initial response to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Malpeque on Wednesday, April 9, respecting the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security concerning Bill C-483.

I will tackle two matters in these submissions. The first is to address the subsequent response made by the hon. House leader of the official opposition. The other is to offer some citations in support of my argument.

On April 9, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster intervened and said, “I found the point of order raised by the member for Malpeque to be very compelling. I did not find the intervention from the government House leader very convincing at all”.

I found something that the member just might find convincing: his own party's position at committee. On page 2 of the evidence of the April 1 meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the public safety critic, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, spoke to a question of the scope of the bill and whether the amendments proposed were within the scope of the bill. He said:

...I would have to say in this case, having spent a lot of time looking at the bill, I believe that the amendments by the government make changes that really amend the same sections of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and they do it by the same means. So to me it would technically seem to meet the scope requirement. It has not moved beyond what was originally suggested.

I will repeat that: “...seemed to meet the scope requirement. It has not moved beyond what was originally suggested”.

The member went on to say:

Now I have to say I'm very happy because we raised some concerns in the questioning of witnesses and the vast majority of those concerns have been accommodated in these amendments. So I would also be in a very strange position if I said the government actually listened and then I don't think procedurally they can do that.

If the NDP House leader will not find my arguments convincing, I do hope he will at least find his own colleague's arguments persuasive. I do find the arguments from his colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, quite convincing on this point.

It does bear an interesting question for you, Mr. Speaker, of who actually does speak for the NDP: the House leader or its critic. In this case, I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to listen to their critic. However, I digress.

The second part of my submission relates to the assertion of the hon. member for Malpeque, that the amendments adopted by the committee go beyond the scope of the bill. This morning, on another matter, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons read from page 564 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 24th edition, on the definition of the scope of the bill. It states:

Any amendment (or new clause or new schedule) proposed to a bill must be within its scope. The scope of a bill represents the reasonable limits of its collective purposes, as defined by its existing clauses and schedules. In particular cases difficult cases of judgment may arise. The scope of a bill, particularly of a bill with several purposes, may be wider than its long title, although the long title may help to determine its scope.

I would supplement that by reading from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, at paragraph 698(2):

An amendment must not be inconsistent with, or contradictory to, the bill as so far agreed to by the committee, nor must it be inconsistent with a decision which the committee has given upon a former amendment.

Paragraph 5 of that Beauchesne's citation states:

An amendment which is equivalent to a negative of the bill, or which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to at the second reading stage is not admissible.

Despite these amendments, the bill's proposal to enable victims to participate in the hearings to be held by the Parole Board of Canada on certain applications for an escorted temporary absence is preserved. As I mentioned on April 9, the committee's amendments may in fact narrow the extent to which the escorted temporary absence regime in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act would be changed, and thereby arguably narrow the scope of the bill, not broaden the scope of the bill or not go beyond it. It would narrow it.

What has changed is that these Parole Board hearings would not be required in every instance. If an offender is approved for an escorted temporary absence by the Parole Board, a warden could approve subsequent temporary absences, so long as the offender did not breach a condition of an earlier temporary absence. If anything, these amendments would actually strengthen the spirit of the bill, to respect victims. With these amendments, victims would have an opportunity to participate in this process, but they would need not fear being revictimized by receiving invitations to many repetitive and redundant hearings.

Nevertheless, while the scope or extent of the bill may be narrowed here, the amendments do not negate, do not overturn, and do not offend the principle of the bill. Therefore, the public safety committee's report is in order.

[Points of Order, April 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will have a brief initial response and reserve the right to come back further with more details.

I would like to touch on four points.

First, the tabling of treaty policies is not a product of the Standing Orders of the House or any rules of practice of the House. It is indeed a government policy, which can be found on the Government of Canada, Department of Foreign Affairs website. That is where it exists. That is its origin. It is a policy that applies not to the House but rather to the activities of the government. From that perspective, it is not an appropriate point for you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on, that is the question of whether or not the government is complying with its policy. It is not a question of whether the rules of the House are being followed.

First, Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that there is no jurisdiction for you to deal with it.

Second, the policy itself in substance does provide, as the hon. member indicated, opportunity for exemptions for the policy including, for example, for urgency and for other bases. In this case, the fact is that the government, the cabinet, actually did grant such an exemption to the tabling policy. As such, the very words of the policy, the requirements of the policy, have been followed. The processes for obtaining the exemption were obtained. As a result, the requirement that it be tabled in the House 21 days in advance of the legislation being introduced is not necessary and the policy is fully complied with. From that perspective, the point the member raises is interesting but moot as the policy has been complied with.

The third point I would raise is actually the purpose behind the policy, or the objective of the tabling policy. I think this goes to the heart of why an exemption is also appropriate here.

The purpose of the policy is to give an opportunity for the House, if it wishes, to express its views on a proposed treaty and to give an opportunity for a debate and a vote to be had on that matter. In this case, because it is actually being implemented through legislation, the House does have exactly such an opportunity to assess the policy, to vote on it, to deliberate, decide and make the determination on whether or not to proceed forward with the treaty and therefore then allow the government to ratify it. Ratification, as you know Mr. Speaker, is a separate process that is done by the Governor in Council, by cabinet.

The purpose of the policy is to allow the opportunity for the House, for the opposition or anybody else who wishes to identify it for debate and to allow that to happen. Because there is actual legislation going forward, there will be an opportunity for the House to pass judgment on it as it has done at second reading and as it will have an opportunity to do presumably at report stage and third reading. From that perspective, the policy purpose behind the tabling policy is also respected, as well as the actual words of the policy itself.

Finally, it seems particularly ironic that such a point of order would come out of the Liberal Party, whose members for years resisted any such policy and never had it as one of their practices. Liberals maintained full jurisdiction within the Prime Minister and the cabinet to deal with treaties and their ratification without ever bringing them to the House of Commons, without ever requiring an opportunity for members of Parliament to see them before they became law and before they were ratified. From that perspective, I am surprised the Liberals would have the chutzpah to bring forward this argument after years of behaving in an entirely different fashion, but then I am not surprised because that does tend to be the way they do things.

Therefore, I do not think there is any merit to the point of order that has been raised both on the facts and interpretation of the rules and on the jurisdiction that you have, Mr. Speaker, as well as the irony of the Liberals bringing this point of order forward themselves. However, I will reserve the opportunity, since I had no notice of this point of order, to come back with further arguments if that is necessary.

[The Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the second motion is the following:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, a debate on the subject of the situation in the Republic of South Sudan take place, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Tuesday, April 29, 2014; that during the debate, no quorum calls, requests for unanimous consent or dilatory motions be received by the Chair; and that any member rising to speak during debate may indicate to the Chair that he or she will be dividing his or her time with another member.

[Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, April 28th, 2014]

(Bill C-34. On the Order: Government Orders)

April 9, 2014--Second reading of Bill C-34, An Act to give effect to the Tla'amin Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties on two motions, which I would like to propose, for which I anticipate you will receive unanimous consent. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, Bill C-34, An Act to give effect to the Tla'amin Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at the report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed.

[April 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to order paper Questions Nos. 309 and 310, responses to which are due today, I wish to table, in both official languages, documents containing the government's responses to those questions.

Mr. Speaker, as a mark of this chamber's honour for the memory of the late member for Whitby—Oshawa, a man who was a distinguished public servant for two decades and a beloved friend and colleague of us all, I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

[Business of Supply, April 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual that bills of this type attract a lot of attention in Parliament. After all, this is the one occasion when we can be guaranteed that every single decision-maker is both an expert, having been through the electoral process, and a stakeholder, who cares about the electoral process. That is why, through all of Canadian history, these types of bills have attracted a disproportionate amount of attention.

I go back to 1885, with the franchise bill, for example. Sir John A. Macdonald brought forward an electoral reform bill that proposed to extend the vote to women and aboriginals. The Liberals so fiercely opposed those changes, because they thought they were partisan and would aid the Conservatives, that they held up the bill for the better part of two years, because these kinds of devices were not available. Only did the bill pass once Sir John A. and the Conservatives reluctantly removed the provision for votes for women. As a result, it delayed the vote arriving for another quarter-century or more. Of course, the Liberals took away the vote for aboriginals when they won government in 1897, with Laurier's bill on the same subject matter.

Is it not unfortunate that these kinds of good progressive changes were actually blocked by the ability to debate unlimited by the opposition in those cases, and as a result, women were denied the vote?

[Points of Order, April 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be a little more brief than my friend, but hopefully I will be able to respond fairly conclusively to the concerns he raised.

At first, the member said that the opposition, who are usually in the position of complaining that they do not see enough amendments made to bills, are now complaining that there are too many amendments made to a bill. That is a bit ironic.

I should also say I am not surprised to hear, once again, that a bill that is designed to protect our communities, to give victims a say, and to make our communities safer, is being obstructed by the Liberals. Their language is one thing but their actions are always the same. They vote against these bills, standing in their way and obstructing them, because the Liberals really do not stand on the side of victims of crime.

That being said, the particular question, on the scope of this bill and whether amendments to it were within that scope, is one that was actually raised by the hon. member at committee. He did that on Tuesday, April 1. It was discussed before the committee, which was the proper place for that to be done.

Not only did the chair of the committee allow the amendments in his initial approach to it, but in actually turning the chair's mind to the specific question, the specific arguments raised and are being raised here again today, the chair also ruled that the amendments were in order. In fact, I will read what the chair said to the hon. member at the end, on April 1, at committee:

....thank you for bringing the issue up. I think if the situation were such that the bill were dramatically changed and/or the perspective of the entire bill was changed to such an extent that it would actually reflect something that is different from what was originally proposed, certainly the chair would agree with you. On this particular group of amendments that have come forward, it's the chair's opinion that the principles and the perspective of the original intent of the bill are respected at this point, so I would overrule your objection at this point and I thank you for your interjection.

Then they proceeded to a further study of the bill.

I think that is conclusive. That is where the matter was settled. Our process is such that a question like that can be determined at committee. It was determined at committee, and that was where it was properly and finally settled.

I know the member is seeking to re-litigate it here. I am not sure that is appropriate.

Second, the member makes an argument about the number of amendments and that perhaps there were more amendments than there were original clauses of the bill. Of course that is not how one determines these questions. That is irrelevant to the exercise.

The question is on what these things do, regardless of how many words it takes to give them effect. That is not a factor or a basis on which amendments would be considered to have gone beyond the scope of the original bill.

As I understand it, in the simplest of terms, the purpose of the bill, or what the bill sought to do, was to give victims an opportunity to participate in a parole board process in decisions in which they did not have that opportunity to participate under the existing law, these last three years of terms of certain convicted offenders. That is what the bill sought to do.

What the amendments did was say that the first time it is up, they will have the opportunity to do that, and should the parole board make its decision, they do not have to come back every single time to the parole board for subsequent decisions essentially on the same issue, same circumstances. That is what the amendments did.

Certainly, the purpose remains the same with the amendments; to give those individuals, those victims, and the parole board an opportunity to have a say where they did not have one before. On the question of the intent or the purpose, it remains exactly the same.

On the other question, on the scope, which I think is the more relevant one, the existing law says there is no opportunity for them to participate. The proposed amendments change that significantly, to the extent the amendments came along, they reduced the extent of the change.

It is not a question of going beyond the scope of the original bill. In fact, the amendments are very much within the scope of the original bill. They reduce the extent to which the existing statute is being amended. They do not expand it; they reduce it within the context and the framework of the original private member's bill they were studying.

To that extent, I would say there is actually no issue of the amendments being beyond the scope of the bill. They are certainly very much within the scope of the bill, while at the same time respecting and honouring the purpose, overall, of that private member's bill.

As such, I really see no merit in the point of order raised by my friend.