SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of the Board of Internal Economy Chief opposition whip Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of the Board of Internal Economy Chief opposition whip Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees
  • Conservative
  • South Surrey—White Rock
  • British Columbia
  • Voting Attendance: 65%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $130,172.43

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 216 - Jun/19/23
Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC)
  • Jun/19/23 12:26:53 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order with respect to the upcoming opposition day, which is also the final allotted day in the current supply period, the day when we consider the estimates and appropriation bills. Multiple notices of opposition to votes in the main estimates and the supplementary estimates appear on today's Notice Paper, meaning that subparagraph (c)(i) of the special order adopted on November 15, 2022, sometimes referred to as the midnight sitting orders, will need to be applied. It states: (i) during consideration of the estimates on the last allotted day of each supply period, pursuant to Standing Orders 81(17) and 81(18), when the Speaker interrupts the proceedings for the purpose of putting forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the estimates, (A) all remaining motions to concur in the votes for which a notice of opposition was filed shall be deemed to have been moved and seconded, the questions deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested, (B) the Speaker shall have the power to combine the said motions for voting purposes, provided that, in exercising this power, the Speaker be guided by the same principles and practices used at report stage. While the House has, in recent years, adopted special orders with provisions to this effect, it appears that this week's opposition day would be the first time the Chair might be called upon to interpret and apply the unprecedented provisions found in clause (c)(i)(B). I am rising today to make representations in advance of your likely ruling, bearing in mind the words of Mr. Speaker Milliken from March 21, 2001, at page 1991 of the Debates, following an amendment in Standing Order 76.1(5), which state: ...from time to time when the House adopts new procedures, Speakers have seen fit to address the manner in which they will be implemented. Often this occurs when a certain amount of latitude or discretion is given to the Chair. In enforcing new procedures, the Speaker acts as a servant of the House, not as its master. Therefore, in order that these new procedures function properly, I see it as my duty to make a statement on their operation now, before the House is seized with a bill at report stage. In short, I do not believe the principles and practices of the report stage on legislation lend themselves well to the principles and practices necessary for the appropriations process, but allow me to explain. First, I think we ought to put the estimates and opposed items into some context so that the House understands the situation at hand. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition explains, at page 864: The main estimates provide a breakdown by department and program of planned government spending for the upcoming fiscal year. The estimates are expressed as a series of votes, or resolutions, which summarize the estimated financial requirements in a particular expenditure category, such as operations, capital or grants The votes are expressed in dollar amounts, the total of which, once agreed to, should satisfy all the budgetary requirements of a department or agency in that category, with the exception of any expenditures provided for under other statutory authority. Each budgetary item, or vote, has two essential components: an amount of money and a destination (a description of what the money will be used for). Then, continuing at page 881, Bosc and Gagnon explain opposed items: ...any Member may give notice to oppose any item in the estimates before the House; such items are then referred to as opposed items in the estimates....Members give notice of opposed items to express opposition to the total amount of a vote or to a specified portion of that amount. A notice to oppose an item in the estimates is not a motion. Because the government may propose in one motion the concurrence in all the votes in the estimates, the notice to oppose an item is rather a mechanism by which Members force the government to propose a separate motion for the concurrence in each vote that is the subject of total or partial opposition. The wording of the general concurrence motion is then changed to exclude those votes. It is essential for us not to lose sight of the supply process, which is not just some dusty, boring accounting exercise. The control of the purse is rooted in centuries of constitutional evolution dating back to the earliest parliaments and assemblies in England over 800 years ago. These historic origins are best summed up by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. In its sixth report, tabled in June 2012, at page 3, it states: The principles underlying Canadian parliamentary financial procedures go back to the Magna Carta, signed by King John of England in 1215. When the King was not able to finance most public expenses out of his own revenues, he was obliged to seek funds by summoning the common council of the realm, or Parliament, to consider what taxes and tariffs should be supplied to support the Crown. It was generally recognized that, when “aids” or “supplies” were required, the King should seek consent not only to impose a tax, but also for the manner in which the revenues from that tax might be spent. In 1295, the writ of summons for one of these councils proclaimed: “What touches all should be approved by all.” Bosc and Gagnon, at page 824, explain that: The direct control of national finance has been referred to as the “great task of modern parliamentary government”. That control is exercised at two levels. First, Parliament must assent to all legislative measures which implement public policy and the House of Commons authorizes both the amounts and objects or destination of all public expenditures. Josef Redlich offers some further historical context, at page 114 of volume 3 of the The Procedure of the House of Commons: A Study of Its History and Present Form, which states: The whole law of finance, and consequently the whole British constitution, is grounded upon one fundamental principle, laid down at the very outset of English parliamentary history and secured by three hundred years of mingled conflict with the Crown and peaceful growth. All taxes and public burdens imposed upon the nation for purposes of state, whatsoever their nature, must be granted by the representatives of the citizens and taxpayers, i.e., by Parliament. That struggle was not isolated to the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Bosc and Gagnon, at pages 11 and 12, remind us: There was, however, endless conflict between the appointed governors and the elected representatives over who should control public spending (supply) and who should appoint public officials (the Civil List).... Ultimately, discontent led to rebellions in both Upper and Lower Canada during the period 1837–38. With the adoption of responsible government in Canada, the most acute conflicts simmered down, and established practices took root. Bosc and Gagnon note, at pages 826 and 827: The manner in which Canada deals with public finance derives from British parliamentary procedure as practised at the time of Confederation. The financial procedures adopted by the Canadian House of Commons in 1867 were formed by the following principles, [including]... that all legislation sanctioning expenditure or initiating taxation is to be given the fullest possible discussion, both in the House and in committee. Bosc and Gagnon elaborate on this at page 834: The cardinal principle governing Parliament’s treatment of financial measures was that they be given the fullest possible consideration in committee and in the House. This was to ensure that “parliament may not, by sudden and hasty votes, incur any expenses, or be induced to approve of measures, which may entail heavy and lasting burthens upon the country.” They also refer, at page 845, to “the ancient tenet of parliamentary government which held that the Crown should respond to the grievances of the people before the people granted supply.” Turning to an understanding of the report stage for legislation, its essence is explained by Bosc and Gagnon at page 781: In recommending that report stage be restored, the 1968 Special Committee on Procedure believed that stage to be essential in order to provide all Members of the House, and not merely members of the committee, with an opportunity to express their views on bills under consideration and to propose amendments, where appropriate. This point was emphasized by the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, better known as the McGrath committee, in its third report, tabled June 1985, at pages 38 and 39: The report stage was designed to provide opportunities to members not involved in the committee stage of a bill to propose amendments when the committee reported the bill back to the House. Thus, an MP that was not a member of the committee dealing with a bill would not be deprived of the right to propose amendments.... According to Bosc and Gagnon, at page 784, “At report stage, a bill is examined as a whole and not clause by clause as is the case at committee stage.” Reconciling the principles and practices at report stage with those of the ancient process of the business of supply is a greatly unfair task that I think the Liberal-NDP coalition voted, through the November 15, 2022 special order, to give to the Chair. Compounding that difficulty is the matter that much of our jurisprudence on report stage concerns the admissibility and grouping of motions for debate at report stage. This is less so for the establishment of voting patterns. Bosc and Gagnon explain, at page 784, the Chair's role in the selection process, stating, “The Speaker rules not on whether the purport of the amendment or its substance is worthy of debate, but rather on whether the amendment is procedurally acceptable within the framework of the rules established for the admissibility of amendments presented at report stage.” Nonetheless, for the purposes of the November 15 special order, all motions are selected. There is no discretion involved or permitted. All questions on the estimates must be put to the House. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 788, describe the grouping process: The Speaker’s decision on the grouping of motions in amendment at report stage addresses two matters: the grouping for debate; and the voting arrangements. Motions in amendment are grouped for debate according to two criteria: their content; and their position in the bill. Motions which could form the subject of a single debate are grouped according to content if, once adopted, they would have the same effect in different parts of the bill or if they relate to the same provision or similar provisions of the bill. Motions in amendment are combined according to the location at which they are to be inserted in the bill when they relate to the same line or lines. These motions in amendment will then be part of a single scheme for voting purposes. When the Speaker selects and groups motions in amendment, he or she also decides on how they will be grouped for voting, that is, the Speaker determines the order in which the motions in amendment will be called and the effect of one vote on the others. The purpose of the voting scheme is to obviate any requirement for two or more votes on the same issue. Many of these concepts articulated in the approach of the Chair to decisions taken at report stage are hardly applicable to the business of supply. Where does this leave us? I think the words of Bosc and Gagnon at page 317 must be borne in mind. They say, “Despite the considerable authority of the office, the Speaker may exercise only those powers conferred upon him or her by the House, within the limits established by the House itself.” Mr. Speaker, as explained by your predecessor in his November 29, 2012, report stage ruling, at page 12611 of the Debates, “In the absence of any specific guidance from the House with regard to motions to delete and other matters raised in the points of order, the Speaker cannot unilaterally modify the well-established current practice.” In other words, in the absence of any expressed, specific direction from the House about how to interpret the November 15 special order, the Chair should adhere as closely as possible to the established procedures on the business of supply. With that said, I have a few thoughts on how we can reconcile these concepts. If we are to take the premise that the report stage is not meant to be a repetition of the committee stage of a bill, and then import that concept to the consideration of motions to concur in the estimates, I think we should also reflect upon how the report stage practices for private members' bills that are deemed reported back to the House would relate to the estimates that have been deemed reported back to the House. In particular, each of the items in the main estimates that were referred to and deemed reported back from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, the Standing Committee on Finance, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women must be taken up, considered and voted upon separately, reflecting the fact that there was no committee vote on these estimates reported in the House. Additionally, vote 1, under the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was also, by virtue of Standing Order 81(4)(a), deemed reported, and therefore should be similarly treated. Furthermore, as of Friday, only one committee, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, has presented a report on the spring—
2343 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 206 - Jun/5/23
Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay
  • Jun/5/23 12:36:24 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I am trying to get there. To put this in context, when the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader surprised the House with a motion to proceed to orders of the day, a non-debatable motion, the Liberals triggered a vote on short notice, catching many members off guard, and we—
55 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 199 - May/17/23
Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay
  • May/17/23 9:20:16 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, of course the answer to that is no. Orders in council are done for the convenience of the Prime Minister and his cabinet. They are not done to have a transparent or open process. They are not done to subject what is being done or changed to debate and discussion. When this bill was originally tabled, there was so much backlash that the Liberals had to pull it all back and find another way to do what they wanted to do. There was opposition from constituents, Canadians right across the country, from coast to coast to coast, and from the Conservatives. The current way is now less transparent than what we had before.
115 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 152 - Feb/2/23
Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay
  • Feb/2/23 1:20:27 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, as someone who represents a border community with two border crossings, I am well aware of some of the issues at the border and with CBSA. We absolutely need to put, again, time, attention and investment into the training and support for our CBSA officers. They are often dealing with very difficult situations. They come upon them very quickly as people go to cross the border and perhaps are smuggling. We know that the vast majority of violent crime using firearms in Canada is effected with smuggled weapons, normally coming up from the United States. We have tried to bring in even some private members' bills on this, which have been rejected by the House. Again, I agree with a bipartisan approach. Let us get on it. Let us make our borders safe and secure.
137 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border