Scott Reid

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to encourage, if I could, the member to say something that has some relevance, even a peripheral relevance, to the matter under discussion, just for novelty's sake.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to this it seems to me that between the two arguments the hon. member is making there is a distinction that he has not really clarified. The first point is in regard to his concerns about freedom of speech. He has waxed eloquent on those concerns. The second is the question of casting a vote. There is a distinction there.

We all of course remember a few years ago Chuck Cadman casting a deciding vote on whether or not a government would fall. As well, given the fact that we seem to be in an era of minority governments, we have committee meetings that are decided by one vote. That is one issue. Having the right to vote can very well make a distinction between a successful or an unsuccessful vote in certain cases.

Actually engaging in the freedom of speech, which of course also means the freedom to question, to summon witnesses and so on, seems to me to have a much more aggressive intent or potential for misuse. Yet at the same time it is less likely to be a right which, if constricted, is going to actually affect the business of Parliament.

We have to remember in this context that the privileges of an individual member are actually the member's part of the privileges of the whole House. They are not actually privileges of that member qua individual, but as a person performing a portion of the role of this House, thus the importance of ensuring the entire body can vote without having any of its members taken away. Could the member comment on that?

[Carbon Tax Proposal, May 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents are concerned about the national carbon tax being proposed by the Liberal leader. They are worried about how this new tax would affect their ability to afford gas, to heat their homes and to keep food on the table.

It is not just my constituents who are worried. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty rejects the federal Liberal contention that a national carbon tax is a good idea. Both the premiers of Saskatchewan and Alberta are concerned that a national consumer based carbon tax would reduce Canada's competitiveness and would kneecap our economy. Even the Liberal finance critic once publicly disagreed with the carbon tax because he felt that it would likely harm the living standards of Canadians.

The Liberal plan would severely impact all Canadians, but especially middle and low income earners. Canadians can rest assured that this government rejects the socially regressive and economically damaging Liberal carbon tax.

[Burma, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the situation in Burma continues to deteriorate and Burma's military junta continues to block effective delivery of aid to those in need. For example, we have seen planes on the tarmac being unloaded by the junta, with no guarantees that this international assistance is getting to the people of Burma.

Many countries have offered assistance and are being denied, even as this denial drives up the death toll.

Could the Minister of International Cooperation update the House on what Canada is doing to help the Burmese people?

[Points of Order, May 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the point of order raised on May 8 by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh on the selection of report stage amendments to Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

It will be my contention that the member is, in effect, Mr. Speaker, asking you to allow his party, and especially the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, to act in variation from the principle you laid out for us on March 21, 2001, when you said:

—motions in amendment that could have been presented in committee will not be selected....Accordingly, I would strongly urge all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created...

Let me give you some background, Mr. Speaker.

Bill C-377 was referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on April 25, 2007, in the previous session and was subsequently reinstated in that same committee pursuant to Standing Order 86(1).

The committee began its study on December 11, 2007, and was granted an extension on March 12, 2008, which gave the committee until May 7 to report the bill to the House.

At its April 17 meeting the committee adopted a motion, on division, which had been put forward by the New Democratic member for Windsor—Tecumseh, to put an end to the committee's clause by clause examination of the bill and to report it back to the House with amendments.The committee adopted the motion well in advance of the May 7 deadline imposed by the Standing Orders.

The bill was subsequently reported to the House on April 29. The committee had more time to complete its work than it used, but it chose not to do so. It chose to do so, on division.

Procedural considerations that should be taken into account are the following. The note to Standing Order 76.1(5) states that the purpose of report stage is:

—to provide Members who were not members of the committee, with an opportunity to have the House consider specific amendments they wish to propose. It is not meant to be a reconsideration of the committee stage of a bill.

The committee decided to end its clause by clause examination of the bill prematurely. One of the persons involved in that decision was the member who is now proposing further amendments. The new Democratic Party is putting forward amendments at report stage therefore that ought to have been considered in committee. Thus, the course of action being proposed to you, Mr. Speaker, by the New Democratic Party is inconsistent with the purpose of report stage.

In this vein I would note that the amendments on the notice paper stand in the name of the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, where the bill was considered. He therefore had ample opportunity to introduce the amendments at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the fact that I sound like I am doing a bad imitation of Brian Mulroney, but I have a cold.

Furthermore, the Standing Orders state, at page 270:

Motions which were considered in committee and subsequently withdrawn are also generally not selected.

I would note that the amendments that appear on the notice paper are the same amendments the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley had given notice of during the committee's clause by clause examination of the bill. These amendments therefore were effectively withdrawn when the committee decided to report the bill back to the House.

In his point of order, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh took note of the lengthy debate on the bill during the committee's clause by clause consideration of the bill and stated that this was the committee's rationale for ending its work prematurely.

I would concede that this point might have been relevant if the debate in committee had prevented the committee from reporting the bill before the May 7 deadline, at which time, in accordance with the Standing Orders, the bill would have been deemed reported without amendments, thereby depriving the member of the ability to present those amendments in committee. However, this was not the case as the committee decided, with the support of the relevant member, to end its study of the bill three weeks before it was obliged to report the bill to the House.

We turn now to some precedents.

To support his argument, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh raised two previous rulings where the Speaker selected report stage amendments that could have been moved in committee. However, the circumstances in each case were clearly different from the case before us today.

In the first case, the January 28, 2003 ruling, Mr. Speaker, you selected report stage amendments from the member for Mississauga South on the grounds that the member was not a member of the standing committee and therefore could not propose amendments in committee. This is clearly not the case with the report stage amendments to Bill C-377, as the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

The second example. In a ruling on November 6, 2001, Mr. Speaker, you selected report stage amendments from the member for Windsor—Tecumseh on the grounds that the member sat on two committees that were seized with bills at the same time and therefore it was not possible for the member to be present at the relevant committee at the time when such amendments would have, in the normal course of events, been introduced.

This precedent does not apply to the present case since the committee's minutes of proceeding show that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley was clearly an active participant in the committee's clause by clause study of Bill C-377.

In short, unlike the precedents cited by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley would have been able to move his amendments if the committee had chosen to continue clause by clause consideration. Instead, the committee decided to stop its work and report the bill back to the House, thereby precluding the introduction of the said amendments.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a blatant abuse of the rules of the House. This is clearly an example of the majority on a committee effectively suspending or bypassing the Standing Orders in order to abrogate the protection that these Standing Orders provide to the rights of the minority.

By using such tactics, the opposition majority on any committee could theoretically rush through any bill by deciding to report the bill without any study and then proposing report stage amendments to amend the bill. This would be a dangerous precedent to set for private member's bills as such items are already subject to a significant time allocation and are already fast tracked relative to government bills.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I would like to draw your attention to your statement of March 21, 2001, on the guidelines for the selection of report stage amendments:

—motions in amendment that could have been presented in committee will not be selected....Accordingly, I would strongly urge all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created...

I have emphasized that quote because it is so important.

Clearly the New Democratic Party has chosen to ignore the Speaker's wise advice by not availing itself fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage. NDP members cannot have it both ways. They cannot decide that clause by clause consideration should be terminated prematurely and then expect people to propose its committee amendments at report stage. The NDP is essentially asking that the committee stage of Bill C-377 be continued at report stage, and this is exactly the opposite of what is stated in the Standing Orders and what has been confirmed by the Speaker.

I therefore submit to the House that the amendments to Bill C-377 should not be selected for debate at report stage.

[Burma, May 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, following the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne, the House passed a motion on October 17 conferring honouring Canadian citizenship on Aung San Suu Kyi in recognition of her struggle to bring freedom and democracy to the people of Burma.

Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs update the House on what the government is doing to implement this motion?

[Arthur Royal Brown, April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, April 21 marks the 90th anniversary of the most famous aerial combat of all time, in which the Canadian pilot, Captain Arthur Royal Brown, shot down Manfred von Richthofen, Germany's illustrious Red Baron. By this act, Brown saved the lives of countless allied pilots and brought to an end the career of the deadliest flying ace of the war.

In some ways, Brown and Richthofen were each other's mirrors, handsome, intelligent, athletic and natural leaders. So it was inevitable that this dogfight, which lasted only a moment, would become the stuff of legend, a metaphor for the nobility of aviators of all nations and of the tragedy of war.

However, this legend crowded every other aspect of Roy Brown's remarkable life from the public eye. There is time today to mention only one of his accomplishments. Unlike virtually every other RAF flight commander, Brown never lost a pilot under his command. Indeed, his decisive combat with Richthofen took place because Brown was diving to the defence of another Canadian pilot.

Brave, understated and thoughtful, Roy Brown was the very model of a Canadian hero.

[Tibet, April 9th, 2008]

As the saying goes, Mr. Speaker, I misspoke myself.

Only yesterday, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd urged the government of the People's Republic of China to avoid further violence and to find a solution through dialogue with the Dalai Lama.

Could the foreign affairs minister say whether the Canadian government's policy on Tibet is similar to the one expressed yesterday by Prime Minister Rudd?

[Tibet, April 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there is a growing consensus in the international community on the need for a principled response to the human rights situation in Quebec, or in Tibet.

Only yesterday, Kevin Rudd, the Australian Prime Minister--

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, David Ahenakew was stripped of his Order of Canada for repeatedly making racist anti-immigrant statements and in particular, for stating that Jews are a disease, they currently control the media, and the Holocaust was justified because it was Hitler's way of preventing the Jewish control of Europe.

Notwithstanding these facts, the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations recently decided to reinstate Mr. Ahenakew as a senator within its organization, a position which is considered to be one of honour and leadership.

This is a disturbing decision. I would like to know what actions is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development planning to take in this matter?