Scott Brison

[Finance, November 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance promised to balance the books by 2013. Then it was 2014 and then 2015. In his November 2012 fall update, he is saying 2016 to 2017. Adding to the confusion, the day after that, the Prime Minister promised that the books would be balanced by the next election.

Does the Prime Minister intend to follow his own law and hold the election in 2015 or is his timing for the next election as flexible as his minister's promise to balance the books?

[Points of Order, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is offended, or if anyone is offended by the use of the term “handmaiden”, I would certainly withdraw it. Perhaps ardent supporter of the Conservatives' position at committee would be more appropriate. Perhaps enthusiastic supporter of the Conservatives' anti-democratic process at committee. I would refer to the NDP as—

[Points of Order, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, for the majority of the governing members of the committee to have the capacity to effectively make up the rules as we go and to change the rules at any given time is unacceptable. For the official opposition to support them in those efforts is more unacceptable and wrong and a failure to do their jobs in opposition.

Beyond that, the preposterous idea of an interpretation of the words “without amendment” meaning with amendment speaks to the farce that was the finance committee last week. The very fair chairman of the finance committee said that in his own words. He said, “I will say though it is still my view, and it's the view based on advice from our clerks that the section you“, the member for Fort McMurray, “quote, section f”, which the government House leader quoted, “it says: “The Chair shall put without further debate or amendment each and every question necessary to dispose of” but it says without further debate or amendment so that is my view”.

It states “without further debate or amendment”, so it is my view that the chair himself, in his interpretation, was entirely inconsistent with the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca's motion, and the ultimate decision by the committee.

Further, the government House leader said that he finds it funny. I do not think that abuse of power, whether at committee or in the House, and a disrespect for Parliament is something that is laughable.

The point is that if any committee chooses to behave in this way as a common practice, it will effectively be rendering the committee process completely useless, disrespectful and would render committees inert in terms of their capacity to do their job.

As well, the reality is that any notice of motion or notice of amendment is simply a notice that one intends to propose an amendment. It does not require one to. Rather, it gives one the capacity to either move or not move. That is fundamental to an individual member's rights on a committee. To say that this is one of the most egregious abuses of committee that I have seen in 15 years, I stand by that. I have not seen such a ludicrous and farcical interpretation of the rules to that extent of the English language.

The member said that it was Kafkaesque and it is perhaps Orwellian to interpret without amendments to somehow mean with amendments. If we are to have any respect or support for the committee process, it is important that you consider this carefully, Mr. Speaker.

It is also important to recognize that the practical reality is that at every committee the Conservatives have the majority. Therefore, if they want to run roughshod over the proceedings of every committee, they have the capacity to do that.

That is where you do have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to protect and defend the sanctity of committees on a broader scale than simply what happened at the finance committee last week. If you do not take some action on this, it sends a terrible message as to what the Conservatives, who hold the majority on these committees, will do in the future at committees.

I do believe, and can say this for the benefit of the doubt of the New Democrat Party, that what happened in terms of that one vote was an error. I think the New Democrats are just as concerned about what is happening at committee as we are. However, I do not understand why on every vote throughout that process they were there supporting the Conservatives and aiding and abetting the passage of this omnibus bill. If they are opposed to the omnibus legislation of the Conservatives and the railroading of Parliament in the passage of it, it is incumbent upon them to do everything they can to stand up and stop it. That is where I do have concerns.

I like the hon. member from the New Democrats as well, but I do not understand why the New Democrats did not take a more aggressive role last week at committee and stand up to the Conservatives.

[Points of Order, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a separate point of order regarding the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Finance. I will endeavour to be succinct in my remarks.

I do think it is important to make you, Mr. Speaker, and other members of the House aware of serious and grave irregularities that took place during the finance committee's study of Bill C-45.

On October 31, 2012, the committee adopted a motion to limit debate at committee during its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45, what was effectively a time allocation motion. I would like to draw the Speaker's attention to paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of that motion, which read:

(d) the Committee shall proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45 no later than Wednesday, November 21, 2012, provided that the Chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party per clause before the clause is brought to a vote;

(e) amendments to Bill C-45, other than the amendments deemed to be proposed pursuant to paragraph (c), be submitted to the Clerk of the Committee 48 hours prior to clause-by-clause consideration and distributed to members in both official languages; and

(f) if the Committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45 by 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, November 21, 2012, the Chair shall put, forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, to report the Bill to the House, and to order the Chair to report the Bill to the House on or before Thursday, November 22, 2012.

Of particular importance is the phrase “without further debate or amendment”. The chair of the committee, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, correctly interpreted that motion as follows. He said, as indicated in the blues, that “First of all, with respect to the timing in section D of the motion adopted by the committee, it states that 'the Chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party, per clause, before the clause is brought to a vote'. So it's five minutes per clause, this is prior to 11:59pm, not for amendments”.

The member for Edmonton—Leduc, the chairman of the finance committee, continued by saying, “The second is with respect to the end of debate; section F of the motion adopted by the committee states: 'if the committee has not completed a clause by clause consideration of Bill C-45 by 11:59pm on Wednesday, November 21st 2012, the Chair put, forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, each and every question necessary to dispose of clause by clause consideration of the Bill'. So at that point I will deal with all of the clauses that are left if we have not completed our work by 11:59pm.”

The chair further emphasized his point by saying, “To explain this so that everyone understands, if we go past 11:59pm, at that point I will just be putting the votes on the clauses. If we have amendments left to deal with, I will not be putting forward votes on those amendments”.

The member for Edmonton—Leduc correctly interpreted the phrase “without further debate or amendment” as meaning that no amendments could be moved after 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, November 21, 2012.

However, the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca disagreed with the chair. He argued that all amendments for which notice had been given should be put to a vote. In effect he argued that “without further...amendment” actually means “with further amendment”.

The chair emphasized his interpretation by stating, “I will say though it is still my view, and it's the view based on advice from our clerks that the section you quote, section F, it says: 'The Chair shall put without further debate or amendment each and every question necessary to dispose of' but it says without further debate or amendment so that is my view...”.

Simply put, the interpretation of the motion by the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca was inconsistent not only with any proper understanding of parliamentary procedure but also with any proper understanding of the English language. The phrase “without further...amendment” cannot be interpreted as meaning “with further amendment”. Further, by adopting the motion of October 31, 2012, the committee showed a clear intent to prevent amendments from being moved after 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, November 21, 2012.

The motion adopted by the committee on October 31, 2012 was silent on when amendments proposed pursuant to paragraph (e) would be moved. As such, that would fall to the normal practice of committee.

Under the normal practice of committee, it is a member's choice to move or not move amendments for which proper notice has been given. When a member provides notice for an amendment at committee, it simply preserves the member's right to move that amendment. It does not require the member to move that amendment. Instead, it provides the member with a choice to move or, upon further reflection, not to move that amendment in the end. At committee, it is the member's choice.

If the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca had wanted to change the committee's rules while following due process, perhaps he ought to have tried to amend the motion that was adopted by the committee on October 31, 2012, or perhaps he ought to have moved a new motion to replace the motion that was adopted by the committee on October 31, 2012. However, the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca did neither of these things. Instead, he challenged the ruling of the Chair, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, in order to give the motion a meaning that was entirely inconsistent with its stated intent. As members know, a motion to challenge the Chair at committee is not debatable. As George Orwell noted, the ability to change the meaning of language is a very dangerous power, but that is precisely what the majority of the members of the finance committee did when they challenged the Chair and overturned his decision.

I provided notice for 3,090 amendments to Bill C-45, pursuant to the rules of this House, to committee and, in particular, pursuant to paragraph (e) of the motion that was adopted by the committee on October 31, 2012. By redefining “without further...amendment” to mean “with amendment”, all of the amendments that I had given notice for were retroactively deemed to have been moved without my consent. That choice was taken away from me, and was done so in a manner that falls well outside the rules and traditions of committee.

I am extremely troubled by the precedent that was set at the Standing Committee on Finance meeting on November 21, 2012.

I am concerned that the majority of members can now challenge a chair and change the meaning of words without any debate. I am concerned that the tyranny of the majority can be used to give a rule its opposite intent, effectively leaving individual members without the protection of any rules at committee whatsoever.

Under the rules governing the House and its committees, decisions are to be made by the majority of members. However, the rules also protect the right of the minority to take part in and influence the debate.

At the finance committee, the majority of members representing the Conservatives and the New Democratic Party conspired to overturn a fair and legitimate ruling by the Chair, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, in a manner that was entirely inconsistent with a proper understanding of the English language and without any respect for the traditions or rules of the House.

The result was to retroactively deny my rights as a member of the committee, without any proper debate. The result was also to help the government speed through passage at committee. This is entirely consistent with the government's view of how Parliament ought to be handled or mishandled, but what I have difficulty understanding is why the official opposition would act as the handmaiden for the government at committee and effectively support the government and aid and abet the government running roughshod over Parliament at committee.

I will raise a point of order about the acceptability of the motion for concurrence at report stage at the appropriate time but I am thankful for the time today. What happened at committee last week was probably the worst abuse of the committee process that I have seen in 15 years in this place. To see the official opposition being complicit with the Conservatives on this perhaps reflects a misunderstanding of the rules at that time, in which case, the New Democrats should simply say that they did not understand what was going on and that they did not intend to support the government on this. That would be entirely acceptable. In fact, given the confusion at the committee at the time of some of the New Democrats, perhaps that is what happened, but it would better if they simply acknowledged that and then joined with us in opposing the government's continued disrespect for Parliament and committee.

[Points of Order, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the hon. member's point of order and I have a separate point of order of which I have notified the clerk.

On this point of order, I think NDP members have to acknowledge that, in fact, they served in the House of Commons as the government's handmaiden. They effectively aided and abetted governing members and supported every effort to steamroll over the committee, including the committee chair, to challenge his interpretation of the rules and to overturn the ruling of the chair, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, who is universally respected as a fair and competent committee chair.

It was with the NDP's support that the Conservatives were able to speed up the process to the extent that the NDP finance critic actually agreed to give up one of the votes on the NDP side, as part of this role, to become chair of the committee to make it go faster, to actually help aid and abet the Conservatives in their efforts to move this along.

The reason this has to be raised is that one cannot talk the talk, as the NDP do, about trying to throw a wrench in the spokes of the Conservatives' wheel on this type of legislation and trying to teach them that they have to respect Parliament, but then fail to utilize every tool of Parliament that we have in our capacity to slow down the process when the Conservatives are so intent on a counter-democratic agenda of running roughshod over Parliament and the committee process.

In fact, the member said that the NDP is against time allocation. I have minutes of the proceedings from meeting 86 of the committee where the question was put on the motion. It was agreed to by a show of hands with nine yeas and one nay, which was yours truly, Mr. Speaker. The NDP actually voted for time allocation and supported the government back on October 31.

The reality is that last week at committee the NDP joined with the Conservatives to form a tyranny of the majority to effectively throw out all the rules of the House of Commons finance committee and make up new ones that suited the Conservatives. I think it is passing strange for NDP members today to pretend that they have been up to the job of official opposition on this piece of legislation when, in fact, through a combination of incompetence and neglect, they aided and abetted the Conservatives in railroading the committee.

When the hon. member referred to the Conservatives using the finance committee, or subcontracting the government's work to the finance committee, I would argue that the NDP were part of that subcontracting effort and were part of that outsourcing. I would agree with much of the member's point of order today, but the reality is that much of his argument is not consistent with what NDP members of the House of Commons finance committee actually did.

I will give the benefit of the doubt to the member as perhaps he has not been fully informed of what actually happened on the finance committee, but I would argue that the NDP members of the House of Commons failed to stand up to the government. They failed to legitimately fight for the rights of Parliament, the committee, the members of Parliament and the people we represent at committee.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 19th, 2012]

With respect to expenditure review: (a) what are the dates and file numbers of all contracts, agreements or statements of work between Deloitte Inc. and the government since January 1, 2010; and (b) what are the dates, file numbers and titles of any reports, documents or other work submitted to the government by Deloitte Inc. in association with expenditure review?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 19th, 2012]

With respect to government advertising mentioning the 2012 Summer Olympics and the 2012 Summer Paralympics, or licensing official Olympic or Canadian Olympic Committee marks: (a) what was the overall budget for advertising (i) in print, (ii) on radio, (iii) on television, (iv) on the internet, (v) any other medium, broken down by department, agency or crown corporation; and (b) what are the (i) dates, (ii) medium, (iii) cost, (iv) subject matter, broken down by individual advertisement?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 19th, 2012]

With respect to government advertising at the 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics, including the opening and closing ceremonies: (a) what was the overall budget for advertising in (i) print, (ii) radio, (iii) television, (iv) internet, (v) other medium, broken down by department, agency, or crown corporation during any television broadcast; and (b) what are the (i) dates, (ii) medium, (iii) cost, (iv) subject matter of each individual advertisement?

[Garth Vaughan, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Garth Vaughan, the historian, author, artist and surgeon recently passed away.

Following his 1990 retirement from a long career as a surgeon, Dr. Vaughan spent five years researching the origin of ice hockey. His best selling book, The Puck Starts Here, chronicles the origin of Canada's national pastime in Windsor, the Nova Scotia town where Dr. Vaughan was born and where he organized the Windsor Hockey Heritage Society and established the Windsor Hockey Heritage Centre.

In addition to his passion for hockey and history, Dr. Vaughan was an accomplished artist. He worked his way through Acadia University and Dalhousie Medical School as a sign painter and illustrator. His paintings of Nova Scotia are held in many private collections, and he often donated his works for community fundraisers.

It was through Dr. Vaughan's work that Total Hockey: The Official Encyclopedia of the National Hockey League recognized Windsor's place in the history of Canada's national game.

To his wife, Lauren, and to his children, Alex, Kate, Lisa, Nicola and Holly, I extend sincere sympathy on their loss. Dr. Garth Vaughan was a great Canadian.

[Firefighters, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to and in support of Motion No. 388 from the hon. member for Wascana.

I want to preface my remarks by saying that all members of the House recognize the remarkable service to Canadians that our firefighters and emergency service workers provide on an ongoing basis. We recognize the sacrifice they make on our behalf and the risk they take on an ongoing basis, not only in terms of immediate risk but with respect to the long-term health risks and damage to their health as a result of their work in what is a very dangerous vocation and public service.

I want to also say that the Liberal Party views the support of our firefighters and emergency service workers as absolutely essential. In fact, on page 57 of our platform for the last election, we proposed a community heroes fund. Representatives of police and firefighters have long called for a national fund to recognize the service and sacrifice of officers killed in the line of duty. A Liberal government would establish a community heroes fund that would pay a benefit of $300,000 to the family of fallen officers, not only helping to secure their financial future but also demonstrating the respect and gratitude of their communities and their country.

Furthermore, we also proposed a volunteer firefighters tax credit in the platform, which was a refundable tax credit that is quite different from the non-refundable tax credit proposed subsequently by the Conservative government. From a fairness perspective, a refundable tax credit would benefit all volunteer firefighters, whereas a non-refundable would perversely not benefit the lowest income volunteer firefighters. Therefore, I wanted to lay out a couple of concrete examples of our historic support for both our professional and volunteer firefighters.

I will read the specific motion to set the context.

It states:

That the House hereby affirm its support for the following measures to support Canada's firefighters which, in the opinion of the House, the government should act upon promptly: (a) the creation of a national Public Safety Officer Compensation Benefit in the amount of $300,000, indexed annually, to help address the financial security of the families of firefighters and other public safety officers who are killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty; (b) the recognition of firefighters, in their vital role as “first responders”, as an integral part of Canada’s “critical infrastructure”, and as “health care workers” under the Canada Influenza Pandemic Plan, entitled to priority access to vaccines and other drugs in cases of pandemics and other public health emergencies; (c) the specification of firefighter safety as an objective of the National Building Code of Canada; and (d) a review of the National Building Code of Canada, in conjunction with the International Association of Firefighters, to identify the most urgent safety issues impacting firefighters and the best means to address them.

As well, the International Association of Fire Fighters does an exceptional job in representing these professionals and these great Canadians in their work with members of Parliament and their representations to members of Parliament. I am sure all members would agree that they play an important role in bringing to light some of these important issues and priorities.

To begin with, it is absolutely essential and completely reasonable that we establish this public safety officer compensation benefit in the amount of $300,000.

I referenced the last Liberal platform having called for a similar community heroes fund. I would hope that members of Parliament from all parties would support the establishment of this fund for firefighters either killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty or for the families of those firefighters. I find it hard to imagine how there could be any opposition to something as reasonable as this.

Second, in terms of the recognition of firefighters and their vital role as first responders, this is something that has evolved in recent years, in that we see firefighters becoming more highly trained as medical professionals as well as traditional firefighting. Firefighters are often the first responders in a medical emergency. This change would recognize firefighters as health care workers, which they are. It would be difficult to argue that firefighters trained to perform emergency medical procedures are not medical workers. This change would simply recognize a fact that is unarguable. As such, the material change would be that, under the Canada influenza pandemic plan, the recognition of firefighters as health care workers would entitle them to priority access to vaccines and other drugs in cases of pandemics and other public health emergencies.

This is a recognition of two things: first of all, as I said, the material change in the training and education of firefighters and their performance of emergency medical procedures on an ongoing basis; but also the increased risk we face in Canada of pandemics and other public health emergencies. I find it hard to believe that anyone would disagree with this simple recommendation that came forward from the International Association of Fire Fighters.

The specification of firefighter safety is an objective of the national building code. This is key, and it is one of those recommendations that make us wonder why it was not done previously. We do have, as part of our national building code, certain provisions on issues related to protecting families and that sort of thing, but the reality is that the design of buildings can have a significant effect on the risk posed to firefighters in the event of an emergency. We ought to be aware of what those risks are, take them into account and incorporate them into the national building code. I suspect we could make some changes that would be relatively inconsequential to the functionality of buildings on an ongoing basis or even the cost of construction, but the changes could contribute significantly to the protection of the lives and wellbeing and the minimization of the risks to firefighters. This makes a great deal of sense.

Those three broad areas are ones we support wholeheartedly. We commend the hon. member for Wascana for putting this forward.

I would add that, on the volunteer firefighter's issue, I represent rural and small town communities in Nova Scotia where the lion's share of our fire protection is from volunteers. We would also call on the government to make fully refundable the volunteer firefighter's tax credit such that it would benefit all firefighters, particularly those low-income firefighters who do not benefit from the current tax credit because it is non-refundable.

I want to again commend the hon. member for Wascana for his commitment to firefighters and for putting Motion No. 388 forward.