Parliamentary Speeches

I am now, colleagues, ready to rule on the point of order raised on October 20 by the member for Calgary Shepard concerning an alleged use of unparliamentary language by the member for Whitby. In his intervention, the member for Calgary Shepard stated that the member for Whitby accused the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes of making false claims in his oral question. The member for Calgary Shepard asserted that this was akin to claiming a member had deliberately mislead the House, had lied and that it was a breach of privilege to do so. The Deputy House leader of the government countered that it did not appear clear that the exchange was in fact problematic. The member for Timmins—James Bay made the point that there was nothing wrong in stating that another member had “falsely claimed” a given assertion, noting that the expression has been used in the House frequently. In reaching a conclusion, I am guided by precedents from my predecessors. On October 13, 1966, Speaker Lucien Lamoureux, at page 8599 of Debates, made the following point: ...is not, per se, unparliamentary to say of another Member that the statement he makes is false, untrue, wrong, incorrect or even spurious, unless there is an improper motive imputed or unless the Member making the charge claims the untruth was stated to the knowledge of the person stating any such alleged untruth. I have also reviewed past Debates when similar occasions occurred. I note this expression being used with a certain regularity from all sides in the House. Members may disagree about facts or argue that certain assertions are false. What is unparliamentary is to suggest that a member has deliberately stated something that is false or misleading, as it implies a dishonest intent. In examining the exchange from last Friday and in considering past precedents, given the frequent use of similar expressions, I cannot find that the language itself was unparliamentary or that it constituted any sort of breach of privilege. That being said, it is incumbent upon the member for Whitby and all members to stay as far away as possible from imputing intent or motives to their colleagues and to not look for ways to do indirectly what they cannot do directly. Mindful of my recent statement on decorum of October 18, members may find themselves looking to the Chair, from time to time, for guidance in how to interpret these new guidelines. I would ask all members to show mutual respect and good faith toward each other during the course of debate or in asking or responding to questions, and to abide by the spirit of Speaker Lamoureux's wise words. While I cannot find anything unparliamentary in this instance, I would like to reiterate a point made in last Wednesday's statement, on page 17593 of Debates, “too frequently our ideas and thoughts are expressed in provocative terms leading to tense exchanges that harm the necessary collegiality for our work.” I implore members to take this message to heart when interacting with one another here in the House. Being judicious with our choice of words will, I think, reduce the frequency of disputes that arise between us and will lead to a more collegial environment for all. I thank all members for their attention.

I thank the hon. member for raising this point, but there was a unanimous consent request and a member clearly said no. This reminds me of how important it is for all House leaders and whips to coordinate when a request for unanimous consent is made, to ensure that there is in fact unanimous consent. A number of Speakers have already ruled on the matter and offered members some sound advice, namely that when they say there is unanimous consent, they should make sure there really is unanimous consent, because it is important not to waste the House's time. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby on a point of order.

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on Thursday, September 21, by the member for Bay of Quinte concerning Bill C-339 and Bill C-56. Bill C-339, an act to amend the Competition Act (efficiencies defence), standing in the name of the member for Bay of Quinte, received first reading on June 8 and was added to the order of precedence on September 20. Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, received first reading on Thursday, September 21, and is currently being debated in the House at second reading. In his intervention, the member for Bay of Quinte noted that the government had presented a bill which contains the same provisions as his private member's bill. The member sought assurance from the Chair that, if required, he would have recourse to replace his bill with another item according to the provisions of the Standing Orders. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that it would be premature to consider the matter until the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had completed their work pursuant to Standing Order 91.1 and presented a report to the House. Bill C‑339 contains only two clauses, which are identical to clauses 9 and 10 of Bill C‑56. Bill C-339 seeks to repeal the provision of the Competition Act setting out the “efficiencies defence”, which prevents the Competition Tribunal from making an order if it finds that the likely gains in efficiency will be greater than the effects of any lessening of competition resulting from a merger. Bill C-56 aims to repeal the exception brought about by mergers involving efficiency gains, while also establishing a framework to conduct an inquiry, permitting the Competition Tribunal to make certain orders, as well as amending the Excise Tax Act. It is my understanding that the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business held a meeting on Thursday, October 5, to determine whether the bills added to the order of precedence on September 20 should remain votable or not. While the subcommittee and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs have not yet made a final recommendation to the House concerning Bill C-339, the official process has not yet run its course. It would therefore be premature for the Chair to make any determination on this matter at this time. There is an opportunity to resolve the concern raised through the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which are the designated bodies for considering items added to the order of precedence. I trust that the usual process will be followed in accordance with the rules and practices of the House. If a procedural issue remains after that process is complete, the Chair is open to considering the matter. I thank all members for their patience and attention.

The Chair would also like to make a statement on the management of Private Members' Business. The consideration of legislative measures involves certain procedural issues of a constitutional nature that impose constraints that the Speaker and the members must address. As a consequence, every time the order of precedence is replenished, the Chair reviews the bills added to draw the House's attention to those that appear, at first glance, to infringe the financial prerogative of the Crown. This enables members to rise in a timely manner to present their views on whether these bills require a royal recommendation. Accordingly, following the addition of 15 new items to the order of precedence on Wednesday, September 20, two items concern the Chair. First, Bill C-353, an act to provide for the imposition of restrictive measures against foreign hostage takers and those who practice arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations and to make related amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, standing in the name of the member for Thornhill. Also: Bill C‑356, an act respecting payments by Canada and requirements in respect of housing and to amend certain other acts, standing in the name of the member for Carleton. In the Chair's view, these bills may require a royal recommendation. Members who wish to make arguments regarding the need for bills C‑353 and C‑356 to be accompanied by a royal recommendation should do so as early as possible. I thank all members for their attention.

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House. The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.