Debates of March 6th, 2014

Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

Bill C-20—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-20, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, the Agreement on Environmental Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, not more than one further sitting day after the day on which this order is adopted shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In accordance with Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I will ask members to keep their questions to around a minute and the responses from the minister to a similar length of time.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am astonished. Just minutes ago, the government said it would not force a vote. Then, again, it flipped. The minister—maybe the House leader was not aware; maybe they do not talk, but I suspect they do—said the government would not force a vote.

Here we are, yet again, with time allocation. Why? It is not about trying to get legislation through; it is about trying to actually muzzle debate on the Chief Electoral Officer.

The current government does not even care anymore. In fact, the Conservatives are all laughing. There are smiles, right across the bench, because they think how great it is that they are going to muzzle the Chief Electoral Officer—and to do what? To present his evidence on his concerns about what? About our democracy.

We have the House leader working with the front bench, including the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, who pretended to think that we were going to buy his argument that he would not force the vote, which the government then did. That is what it did. Why? So that the government could shut down debate on the Chief Electoral Officer. And they smile. They think this is great.

My question for our friend across the way is, is this what we are going to do in our democracy from here on with the current government? Is it going to continue with time allocation on every bill so that not only are we going to shut down debate on important bills but also muzzle people from bearing witness in committee?

Further, my final question is, can we trust the current government on its word when we make a deal with it to have people present at committee? I guess not. What is this—

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please.

The hon. government House leader.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I gather when their poll numbers start plummeting, they see conspiracies everywhere with a desperate effort to seek blame somewhere else than in themselves for the fact they are lacking any appeal among the public.

As the members opposite know, the only time of day I can make this motion is now, when orders of the day are called.

As for the committee, it can schedule its affairs whenever it wants. If it wishes to hear the witness for longer, it can organize its affairs to do that. It has full flexibility.

If the members opposite did not want the last vote to occur, which disrupted the committee business, they could very easily have allowed the motion to pass on division. They chose not to allow the motion to pass on division.

The greatest irony at all is that these are the people who are saying, “Why won't you let Marc Mayrand be heard?”. For a week and a half, the member for Hamilton Centre filibustered that committee, keeping that person from being heard.

The government was trying to get that witness before committee. The opposition were proud of how they spent a week and a half keeping him from appearing. Now he can appear. The committee can arrange its affairs however it wants.

However, for the member opposite to suddenly say that it is our fault that the witness was blocked for a week and a half is preposterous.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the government House leader's comments regarding the issue of division.

What we know for sure is that at the last opportunity we indicated, within the Liberal Party, that we would like to see it on division. We opposed that time allocation. We oppose this time allocation. We want to be able to see it on division, primarily because we, within the Liberal Party, recognize that it is critically important to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to make his presentation.

On Tuesday night, there was a commitment, an agreement made between myself, the NDP, and the Conservatives, that would have guaranteed that 90 minutes.

There is a way we can do this. We have a good sense of what the outcome is going to be after the vote of the next time allocation.

May I suggest that we do a vote on division. The Liberals will be in opposition to that vote. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, and maybe it would be inappropriate to ask this of you, that you canvass the House after I sit down, to see if there is unanimous consent of the House that would allow us to stop asking questions right now and go right to the vote of the time allocation on division so that we could go to the committee and have the Chief Electoral Officer make his presentation.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask for that unanimous consent so that we can get to committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The member for Winnipeg North is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to, in effect, abbreviate the debate and move directly to a vote that would go on division. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent for the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

There is no unanimous consent.

[An hon. member]

Who said no?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I heard noes from both sides of the House. I will put it again. Does the member for Winnipeg North have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I heard at least four noes from this side of the House. I think the issue has been determined.

Does the Minister of International Trade wish to respond to the member for Winnipeg North? The minister has the floor.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it should surprise no one in the House; in fact, it should surprise no Canadian, that the opposition would be opposing this government's trade and investment agenda.

I am going to take the opposition parties down memory lane, back to when we were negotiating the Colombia free trade agreement. When that agreement was tabled in the House, it took two and a half years to get it passed in the House. Why? It was because the opposition parties were filibustering the bill. Those members do not understand trade. They do not like trade. They have opposed virtually every trade agreement Canada has ever signed. For them to now get up in the House and suggest that they want a robust debate on trade belies their underlying anti-trade ideology.

Let me talk about the Honduras trade agreement that is the subject of this time allocation motion. There has already been debate on this. These negotiations started back in 2000, close to 15 years ago. In 2009, we focused on Honduras. It has taken this long to get this agreement into the House. There already has been robust debate. Let us get on with opening up new trade opportunities all around the world.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is simply outrageous. The Minister of International Trade is defending the government's move to curtail debate on a Canada–Honduras trade deal after half a day of debate.

The government talks about opening negotiations in 2009, which is ironic because in 2009 a military coup in Honduras overthrew the government. Every government in the world recognized that the government was illegitimate except the Conservatives, who rushed to sign a trade agreement. They rushed to sign a trade agreement with an undemocratic government that is one of the worst human rights abusers in the world and the most dangerous place for journalists on the planet. There is no freedom of expression in Honduras. There is no freedom of association. Seventy-nine per cent of all cocaine shipments in South America land in Honduras.

The Conservative government is afraid to debate those facts in the House because it knows that the Canadian people would not support an agreement with a country like Honduras that is a human rights—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. I would remind all members on both sides of the House to limit their questions and answers to one minute.

The hon. Minister of International Trade.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the only part of that tirade that I would agree with is that Honduras is coming out of a very troubled past. Canada's record on the international stage is to provide countries like Honduras with a hand up to help them, to walk side-by-side with them, to help them escape from a troubled past.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

But it is all true.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I suggest the member read the human rights reports.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we can hear NDP members heckling in the House. They do not care about Honduras. They do not care about the poor in Honduras. They are so ideologically stuck in a straitjacket that they just cannot escape it. That is why they have opposed virtually every trade agreement Canada has ever signed. In fact, for every new trade agreement they come up with a new excuse not to support it.

In 2009, Honduras expressed an interest in negotiating a trade agreement with Canada, separate and apart from the Central American Four. In good faith, we moved forward with those negotiations and they were concluded.

In November of this past year, over four months ago, that agreement was tabled in the House, and the NDP has had ample opportunity to review it. There has been lots of discussion in public about this agreement. We have had debate in the House and, in fact, we are debating it right now.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the creation of jobs and economic growth for the benefit of Canadian businesses, workers, and families continues to be the focus of our Conservative government. That is why we will continue to deliver pro-export leadership. I find the way hard-working Canadian families are being portrayed by the NDP very unfortunate as they vote against each free trade agreement.

Could the Minister of International Trade please explain how the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would benefit Canadian workers and their families?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, ever since being elected in 2006, our government has focused on the economy and on building prosperity in Canada. A very significant part of that effort is to use trade and investment to drive economic growth in Canada. We do so by opening up new opportunities around the world through free trade agreements, through bilateral investment treaties, and through air transport agreements.

What we do with our trading partners is engage with them. Some of those partners are coming out of very troubled pasts, so what do we do? There are two choices. We can either isolate countries such as Honduras, the way the NDP wants to do, and treat them like pariahs when they ask for help, or we can engage with them. Our choice has been to engage, walk with them through very difficult times, and help them improve their prosperity.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when I arrived here on Monday I did not have voice mail messages about the trade deal with Honduras. I did not have emails. I was not overwhelmed. I did not call my staff together and say, “Quick, put together a briefing, because this is going to be the number one issue that we have to deal with this week.”

What I did have were phone calls and emails about the unfair elections act, to be frank, and a lot about Canada Post. Those were the issues I thought we would be talking about this week. Those are the issues I thought were the most pressing and urgent, the ones I needed to read up on and get up to speed on with everything, not this trade deal.

I cannot believe how transparent the actions of the government are today in trying to disrupt the testimony of the Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, at committee. I know the minister will say, “What committee does is what committee does; I have no control”, but we know that it is all organized centrally. It is like the Borg: “I am Borg, I am Conservative.”

Will the minister agree to bring back the Chief Electoral Officer when we return from our riding weeks to provide testimony again at committee?