Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to Standing Order 18 which indicates that no member shall speak disrespectfully of another member of this place when he or she is speaking. When the hon. member for Ahuntsic was asking her question, I heard a member, who I will not identify because I do not know who said it but it was said obviously to the member herself, clearly say the words “traitor in the House”.

All members of the House, no matter how much we may disagree with another member’s agenda, are duly elected and all equal in the House. I would like to remind members that that kind of language is incendiary and unacceptable in the House.

The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for raising the point. I echo her statements that inflammatory comments should not be made. In fact, no comments should be made when members are putting a question or answering a question, but especially those comments that could incite further unfestive activities that sometimes take place. It is certainly unparliamentary, that is for sure.

The post Point of Order appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I trespass on this very tentatively, but recall that the history of the length between these benches was to be two sword lengths. We would like the notion to be figurative. We do not like the notion that someone from one side of the House would march across to the other side.

I can only conclude the hon. government House leader is a sore winner. I hope we will never see this sort of thing again.

The post Points of Order – Decorum in the House appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The Acting Speaker Mr. Bruce Stanton: Order, please. There are a lot of conversations going on. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism has the floor and I would ask members who wish to carry on other conversations to perhaps depart to their respective lobbies.

The post Point of Order appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The Acting Speaker Mr. Barry Devolin: In response to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, it is my understanding that the minister was merely tabling a document. This is not the answer that is being tabled. Ministers may rise at any time in the House to simply table a document. The answer that will be required will have to be tabled in the appropriate procedure at some point in the future.

The post Point of Order appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[tCAD2RnRpzE]

The Acting Speaker (Bruce Stanton): The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands will know that members, in the course of their comments, can explore any number of ideas with which they can refer or relate to their comments in the course of their speech. I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary will be well into summarizing toward the end of her comments, in any case, and I am sure she will get around to the question that is in front of the House.

The post Point of Order – Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 (Bill C-45) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Mr. Speaker, you mentioned at the time that you might give us a ruling. I hate to ask if it is forthcoming, but the S. O. 31 period is becoming increasingly rancorous and the problem is that we are failing to abide by Speaker Sauvé’s guidance. With respect, I wanted to make this submission.

[k_mWw4mI14E]

Hon. Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time the leader of the Green Party has risen when I have been here on this matter. What I find curious is her suggestion that somehow it is inappropriate for members of the House to stand up for the views of their constituents. Certainly, speaking for the Conservative Party, our platform has consistently been one of opposition to new taxes, to carbon taxes and to higher taxes, and I can think of nothing more representative for a member of our party, certainly in my case when I talk to my constituents, than to come to this place and let my views be known on taxes, including the inappropriateness of the NDP proposed carbon tax.

I find it very unusual that a member like her, who is always fighting to have her voice heard, rises repeatedly to try and suppress the voice of others in this House. Both of these seem paradoxical to me, especially when we are talking about members’ statements under Standing Order 31, one which has been the greatest tradition in this House of allowing members the utmost freedom to speak their mind. However, the member of the Green Party seems to want to keep them from speaking their mind when it is not an issue that she disagrees with, the carbon tax, and I find that quite disturbing.

The Speaker: I thank both members for their comments on this.

The post Points of Order – Statements by Members appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[canYszyRkqE]

Elizabeth May:  Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I had assumed that my hon. colleague and friend from Burnaby—New Westminster would object to the current content of the parliamentary secretary’s speech because it has no relevance to the issue before the House today, and this I believe is a proper point of order.

The Deputy Speaker: With regard to the point of order, the debate over relevance will go on forever in the House. As to what is relevant and what is not, this one certainly is close enough to the topic of the day to fall within the general scope of what is relevant.

The post Opposition Motion — Nexen appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[ILwrQLoOIJI]

Hon. Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to offer some supplementary comments to the point of order raised on Monday by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and further to the submissions that were just advanced by the House leader for the Liberal Party.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands in her arguments went on to cite at some length some academics and some press clippings, but not really zeroing in on the full content of Speakers’ rulings.

She did reference a few Speakers’ rulings and did the odd selected quotation from them, but I think it would be useful for the House to hear some more complete citations or quotations from those decisions of the Chair that actually capture the essence of those decisions on how a bill such as Bill C-38 should be dealt with.

In the ruling on the 1982 energy bill, Madam Speaker Sauvé said, at page 15532 of Debates:

It may be that the House should accept rules or guidelines as to the form and content of omnibus bills, but in that case the House, and not the Speaker, must make those rules.

Therefore, having heard argument and having examined Bill C-94, I must now rule on the basis of existing precedents, which do not support the proposition that the bill should be divided or struck down.

I emphasize “or struck down” because that is what she is asking you to do in this case.

Madam Speaker Sauvé also ruled on June 20, 1983, at page 26538 of Debates, on the western grain transportation bill, as follows:

—although some occupants of the Chair have expressed concern about the practice of incorporating several distinct principles into a single bill, they have consistently found that such bills are procedurally in order and properly before the House.

This bill does not even meet that test of distinct principles. It is all one principle, the implementation of our budget.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands also quoted some decisions of Mr. Speaker Fraser, including one reference which even she acknowledged was “at best obiter dicta”.

In his June 8, 1988 ruling on the Canada-U.S. Free-Trade Agreement, he cited the 1982 ruling of Madam Speaker Sauvé, who called it, at page 16257 of Debates, “the Chair’s traditional position”. That led Mr. Speaker Fraser to say:

Until the House adopts specific rules relating to omnibus Bills, the Chair’s role is very limited and the Speaker should remain on the sidelines as debate proceeds and the House resolves the issue.

He cited himself in his later rulings on April 1, 1992, at page 9149 of Debates, and December 7, 1992, at page 14735 of Debates.

Underpinning her submissions were what the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands described as Mr. Speaker Lamoureux’s so-called misgivings in a January 26, 1971, ruling.

Let me add to the record the paragraph she left out on page 284 of the Journals, which immediately followed the one quoted by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

The Speaker went on to say:

At the time, having now reached second reading and having had this bill before us for some time, I doubt whether we should take the very drastic and extreme position, as I suggest to hon. members it would be, of saying that this bill is not acceptable to the House, that it should not be put by the government and that it should not be considered by hon. members. In my view it should be the responsibility of the Chair, when such bill is introduced and given first reading, to take the initiative and raise the matter for the consideration of the House by way of a point of order.

Indeed, as the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands opined in her opening remarks, at page 8719 of Monday’s Hansard:

—I still think there is a compelling case that the House must act to set limits around omnibus legislation.

Later, at page 8720, she conceded that:

It is clear that the Speaker is not, at present and in absence of rules from the House to limit the length and complexities of omnibus bills, entitled to rule that an omnibus bill is too long, too complex or too broad in scope. 

What she is seeking to do, through a point of order, is try to have the Speaker in fact implement new rules, effectively new Standing Orders. That is, of course, not the proper way of proceeding. Moreover, it is worth noting that over the decades of the prevailing status quo, the House has not availed itself of any opportunities to vary the status quo with regard to the Standing Orders in this matter.

I will not repeat myself from Monday afternoon when I articulated the consistent theme of Bill C-38, as it related to the implementation of this year’s budget, economic action plan 2012. It is a comprehensive suite of measures designed to ensure jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity, a package which, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, was endorsed by a vote of the House on April 4.

Therefore, in conclusion, Bill C-38 is not only built around a consistent theme, but its construction is not, as noted by your predecessors, for the Chair to veto.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond briefly to my hon. friend the government House leader.

I am aware of the fact that the official opposition has requested time to present its view on this extremely important point of order. I say that not out of any personal hubris but because I think it is a matter that should occupy, and has occupied previous Parliaments, but not in the form in which the House leader misconstrued my argument.

I was not selective in quotes. When I quoted Speaker Lamoureux, it was to point out that what he referred to was the problem of omnibus bills—

Hon. Peter Van Loan: Nice try.

Elizabeth May: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak without the hon. gentleman trying to interrupt me.

What I was speaking to was that if it is a proper omnibus bill, in other words if it has a theme, if it has a single purpose or relevancy, then it is not for the Speaker to intervene. However, it is clear on the precedents I cited, particularly Speaker Fraser’s ruling from 1988 on the free trade agreement, that a bill must first be accepted as a proper omnibus bill. That is the first test. It does not require a rewrite of the standing rules. It is a matter of precedent. If it is not a proper omnibus bill, it violates Standing Order 68(3).

I will not replace my arguments at this time or repeat them. I want to merely distinguish for you, Mr. Speaker, that every thing the government House leader has said misses the entire legal point that I made.

A Speaker will not intervene to change the complexity, length or number of bills within an omnibus bill if it is properly an omnibus bill. This one fails that test. It is not derived from items solely found in the budget. It is not derived solely from anything that can be called one theme. There is no excuse for putting in sections that have to do with changing the oversight of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, altering fish habitat legislation or changing the role of Parks Canada wardens.

The number and scope of the changes that were never mentioned in the budget itself, combined with the number of things that hon. members from Privy Council believe to actually be in the bill, which clearly are not there, suggests the bill, as the French version of the rules says is, incomplète, or the English version, imperfect. It is imperfect in shape and form. It is not a proper omnibus bill.

I would invite you, Mr. Speaker, to await arguments from the official opposition. I look forward to what I hope and trust will be an impartial, fair judgment in the interest of protecting Westminster parliamentary democracy and the institution of this Parliament itself.

The post Points of Order – Bill C-38 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. That is all the time provided for the business of supply.

It being 5:15, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

Hon. Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, just as a matter of clarity on that last vote. Is it fair to say that the motion was carried unanimously?

The Acting Speaker: I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Wascana. The Journals will show that the motion was adopted. Generally it does not add the additional language that it was unanimous but certainly hon. members present will understand that to be the case.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I found a precedent that occurred when a previous Speaker, John Fraser, was in the Chair in 1987. All members present conceded that the motion as adopted was in fact unanimous and should be recorded as such. The Speaker at the time said that the House was the master of its own proceedings and should all members unanimously consent that the motion that was carried unanimously should be recorded as such, the Speaker would record it as such.

I ask if all members think that is a good idea?

The Acting Speaker: Is the hon. member for Saanich–Gulf Islands seeking unanimous consent that the motion be declared adopted unanimously?

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly how I wish I had put it.

The Acting Speaker: Does the hon. member for Saanich–Gulf Islands have the consent of the House for her proposal?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The post Points of Order – Business of Supply appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Almost a year ago in the House I presented a motion calling on the government to improve guaranteed income supplement benefits so that seniors could be lifted out of poverty. Here we are a year later, and the government has done nothing but give us bogus pension plans and a threat to reduce the old age security–

The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. Chief Government Whip is rising on a point of order.

Hon. Gordon O’Connor: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. People presenting petitions are not supposed to advocate for them and they are not supposed to comment on them. They are just supposed to read them.

The Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands rising on the same point of order?

Elizabeth May: Yes, Madam Speaker. I just want to make sure I understand the rules clearly and what the hon. government whip has said.

I understand that we are not supposed to read petitions and that we are supposed to summarize them. I agree we are not supposed to make long speeches about them. I do not believe it is appropriate to read petitions.

The Deputy Speaker: I thank hon. members for their comments. Just to clarify, it is quite accurate that petitions should not be read verbatim. They should be summarized. The exercise is not to indicate either support or opposition, but simply to represent petitioners’ ideas.

I would ask the hon. member for London—Fanshawe to complete her petition so that others can speak.

Irene Mathyssen: Madam Speaker, I will summarize the wishes of the people of Canada.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to make the appropriate investments in guaranteed income supplement to lift every senior out of poverty.

The post Question of Privilege – Pensions appeared first on Elizabeth May.