Tom Lukiwski

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Government Response to Petitions, April 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 33 petitions.

[Election of the Speaker, April 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is a motion rather than a bill, so it would simply instruct the procedure and House affairs committee to look at the possibility of changing the way we now elect Speakers. As most members in this place know, the election of the Speaker is a relatively new phenomenon, because for the first 80 years or so that Parliament was established, there were no elections for the Speaker of the House. The Speaker was basically appointed based on nominations brought forward by the sitting Prime Minister. However, in 1986, Speaker Bosley changed all that, and the rules of the House in the election of Speakers were changed.

Since that time, elections of Speakers have been done by secret ballot. While that system has worked well for the last 30 years, it is a very cumbersome process, in the minds of many people. If we looked at the voting patterns since 1986, we would find that the average length of time taken to elect a Speaker at the start of each Parliament is over seven hours. Some would suggest perhaps that is not a bad thing; it allows all members at the start of each Parliament to get together to renew acquaintances and basically enjoy the electoral spirit that comes around elections of any kind. However, from my standpoint and in my view, I would like to see perhaps a more efficient use of time. That is why my colleague's Motion No. 489 suggests that a preferential ballot be established to change the existing rules of electing a Speaker.

Most members here understand how a preferential ballot works, but for those who are perhaps a little unsure, let me try to clarify as much as I can how an election would be held using the preferential ballot.

Currently, if there are several members who wish to run for the position of Speaker, all of those names would be included on a ballot, votes would be counted, and only if one member received over 50% of the vote would an election be completed. We have seen over the course of the last 30 years that getting that 50% threshold is not an easy thing to do, and that is why we take such a length of time to elect a Speaker. It has taken several ballots in most cases. Currently, the system is that after the ballots are counted after the first vote, any candidate who receives the least amount of votes cast or, in the event of a tie, two or more members who receive the least amount of votes, or any member who receives less than 5% of the total votes cast, would be eliminated from the ballot. The remaining names would then continue to be placed on the ballot, votes would take place and be counted, and only when one name on the ballot receives over 50% of the vote would a Speaker be considered to be elected.

Starting in 1986, we have seen several ballots occur almost every time there has been an election of a Speaker. Only once in the last 30 years has there been an acclamation, and that is when former Speaker Milliken was elected in the early 2000s, perhaps 2005. However, every other time, there has been a contested election with several members seeking the position of Speaker. Again, with the number of ballots cast and the number of times the table officers had to count the ballots, the amount of time it took to elect a Speaker averaged over seven hours. A preferential ballot would streamline that process quite considerably.

A preferential ballot means that, at the start, all members who have put their names forward to be considered for the Speaker of this House would see their names on one ballot, and instead of just marking an x under a preferred candidate, all those people who would be seeking the position would be ranked as number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and so on. In other words, if there were seven people seeking the position of the Speaker's chair, they would be ranked numbers one through seven. When the ballots are then counted, the same process takes place whereby they would need 50% plus one vote to be elected Speaker. However, if no name or no candidate on that ballot received more than 50% of the votes cast, those who are administering the election would go down the ranking, and the person who received the least number of votes would be stricken from that one ballot.

Members, however, would not be then compelled to vote again. Those who are administering the count would merely look at that one ballot. In the case of seven candidates on the ballot in the example I am using, the seventh place candidate would be eliminated from the ballot. The voters who voted for candidate number seven with their first-place ballots would obviously not see their candidate elected. On the ballot, however, those who marked an x under preference number one would also have marked a second-place preference. Those second-place preferences would then be reapplied to the candidates remaining on the ballot and votes would be counted again.

If one of the members then got over 50% of the vote, he or she would be elected Speaker. If not, the last-place candidate's name would be removed, an examination would take place of where the preferential ballot votes were cast, votes would be reapplied, so on and so forth, until at the end of the count, there would be one name that received more than 50% of the vote.

What this means is that, quite simply, members would only have to vote once. In other words, members of this place would only have to fill out one ballot. It might take several counts within that one ballot to determine a winner, but we would not see the process of having to mark ballots, fill out names as preferred candidates, wait for the officials to recount, and go through that process over and over again. I would suggest that, by doing it this manner, we would see the time spent on electing Speakers cut back from seven hours, on average, to probably less than two. Whether that is a good thing would be up to members of the procedure and House affairs committee to determine, but I certainly think it is worthy of discussion and review, and that is why I will be supporting this when it comes before this place for a vote.

As a last word, I will simply say this. Any time there are changes to the Standing Orders, there should be a note of caution. The wise men and women who developed our Standing Orders well over 100 years ago, did so with great thought, intelligence, and anticipation. I would suggest that many times there are unintended consequences when one starts changing Standing Orders. I mention that only because the procedure and House affairs committee right now has undertaken a review of the Standing Orders and is certainly looking at a number of ways to improve efficiency within this place. This motion may be one of those places.

This is certainly a motion that is worthy of review and consideration, not only by the members of the procedure and House affairs committee but by members throughout the House. With that, I will let people here know that, since I am a member of the procedure and House affairs committee, I am looking forward to conducting this review. In all probability, I will be casting a vote in favour of Motion No. 489.

[Election of the Speaker, April 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me stand in my place today to speak in favour of Motion No. 489, in the name of my colleague, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.

Before I begin my remarks, it would be useful for members of this House to understand a couple of points about the motion. Number one, it is a motion, as opposed to a bill; so it is merely a motion that, if passed, would instruct the procedure and House affairs committee to study the possibility of changing the way in which we now elect Speakers of the House.

I believe that the proposal and suggestions contained in Motion No. 489 are extremely worthwhile and certainly worth a study from the procedure and House affairs committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt my own dissertation, but I noticed my colleague from the Liberal Party who came into the House a little late. I believe he was supposed to be the first speaker on the motion today.

If you wish, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly give leave to my colleague to start—

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Government Response to Petitions, April 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 45 petitions.

[Privilege, April 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as I promised on Monday, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Victoria. The hon. member rose to claim in the House that the House has been intentionally misled. No such thing has happened here.

Ultimately, what we have here is simply a matter of debate. The hon. Minister of State for Finance said that the proposal by New Democrats for Canada pension plan reforms could lead to 70,000 job losses in Canada, a reckless proposal in our current economy.

The finance department's analysis of a proposal to double the so-called replacement rate of the Canada pension plan, which is at the heart of the NDP proposal, would require a 5.45% increase to the contribution rate within the current range of pensionable earnings. The department concluded that such an increase in payroll taxes could see 70,000 Canadians without work.

As I mentioned earlier, it is clear that increased payroll taxes have negative consequences for the Canadian economy. However, members should not take it from me. Let me quote a third-party expert on this. Laura Jones, the executive vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had this to say:

A mandatory CPP increase, however, is a bad idea. An increase in the CPP tax takes more money out of employees' and employers' pockets....

Worse still, small businesses report that a mandatory CPP increase would force many to lower wages and even reduce their workforce.

The hon. member for Victoria was at pains on Monday to point out that the finance department's analysis covered a one-year implementation window, not his seven-year phase-in period. In fact, the Department of Finance uses one year as a simplifying assumption adopted to compare the economic impact of various CPP expansion proposals. Shockingly, the New Democrat plan would see this economic pain spread over seven years as opposed to just one. That is not something that Canadians would appreciate, so it is no wonder the member was up on a question of privilege, trying to distract from the inconvenient truth that his party's pension policy presents.

I should note that a CFIB report on doubling the CPP replacement rate, which reflects the same phase-in period as the NDP proposes, claims that up to 235,000 jobs would be lost. That is a lot more than just 70,000. In this case, the Minister of State for Finance chooses to use the numbers provided by the Department of Finance, not the higher numbers used by the CFIB. We are not only mindful of the expert finance department analysis, but we also share the concerns of small business and the CFIB.

Citation 31(1) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, sixth edition, aptly sums up the situation confronting us here:

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

That principle has been endorsed a number of times by the Chair, including for example, Madam Speaker Sauvé in her ruling of December 3, 1980, at page 5293 of the Debates.

More recently, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, restates this principle at page 510:

In most instances, when a point of order or a question of privilege has been raised in regard to a response to an oral question, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is a disagreement among Members over the facts surrounding the issue. As such, these matters are more a question of debate and do not constitute a breach of the rules or of privilege.

Even more succinct than that is this quotation from Mr. Speaker Fraser's ruling on December 4, 1986 at page 1792 of the Debates:

Differences of opinion with respect to fact and details are not infrequent in the House and do not necessarily constitute a breach of privilege.

In conclusion, this is simply a matter of debate and perspective about the walloping impact on the Canadian economy that would result from the New Democrats proposal for the Canada pension plan.

Whether these consequences for Canadians would be felt in a single year or spread over several does not change the fact that it would create serious discomfort and uncertainty for hard-working Canadians.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you can easily dispense with the complaint of the hon. member for Victoria because there is no prima facie case of privilege here.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23, April 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I saw quite clearly, when you asked for resuming debate, that the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, was standing before the member opposite. Therefore, I move:

That, the Honourable Member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore be now heard.

[Privilege, March 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep my remarks very brief and advise you that the government will be making a more detailed and comprehensive response in the very near future.

However, I want to point out one quick fact that the member opposite conveniently ignores, which is that there have been many studies by many organizations throughout Canada, all agreeing on one thing, that increasing payroll taxes, which this would be—an increase to the CPP is an increase in payroll taxes—for both the employer and the employee could very easily result in job loss.

We heard today in question period that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, in a study and a research paper done of all of its membership, indicated that if CPP increases did take effect that the members themselves said there would very likely be job loss.

I would suggest to the member opposite that in light of the various studies that have been conducted across Canada by various organizations on this particular matter that there would be no firm position on how many jobs may be lost, depending on which organization is conducting the study.

We will be presenting a detailed response to refute the member's allegations in very short order.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you give us at least a few days to prepare our response for presentation in this chamber.