Debates of May 6th, 2014

Consumer Protection

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, of course, this government has done extraordinary work with respect to our telecom policy. In fact, competition has increased. At the same time, wireless rates have come down by 20% while employment in this sector has actually increased by some 25%. That is good news for all Canadians. It is something that has been a priority for us.

Putting more money back in the pockets of hard-working Canadians will remain a priority of this government, and we are proud of that.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives spent $9 million on promoting a code that they are now refusing to defend.

The court ruling in favour of the big three telecommunications companies is a total failure for consumer protection. The government spent millions of dollars on ads to try to reassure consumers. Today, those same Conservatives will pay the price for this ruling.

Why is the government refusing to stand up for consumers in court against wireless service providers?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, again, it is just the opposite.

This government, of course, has made it a policy to make sure that we do everything we can to actually bring down the cost of wireless to Canadian consumers. We have done that since we have been elected. Unfortunately, the opposition is constantly voting against those measures.

As I just said, it is our government's policies that have brought down the wireless rates for Canadian consumers, while at the same time employment in that sector has increased by 25%. That is good news.

We will continue to do that and we will continue to put the focus on putting more money back in the pockets of hard-working Canadians.

Multiculturalism

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today on Parliament Hill we celebrate Vaisakhi, one of the most important observances in Sikhism. Vaisakhi marks the founding of the Khalsa in 1699 by Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji, the 10th Sikh guru.

As Canada is home to over half a million Sikhs, one of the largest Sikh population outside of India, would the Minister of State for Multiculturalism please inform this House as to how our government is honouring Vaisakhi?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Minister of State (Multiculturalism)]

Mr. Speaker, May is Asian Heritage Month, and as part of this, today our Conservative government is celebrating Vaisakhi on the Hill.

For over 100 years, Sikh Canadians have contributed significantly to Canada in all areas of endeavour, whether it is business, as professionals, in the public service, or in our Canadian Armed Forces. Sikh Canadians have played a large part in building and strengthening our country's economy, heritage, and our rich diversity.

On behalf of the Government of Canada, I extend my best wishes to everyone celebrating Vaisakhi.

Vaisakhi diyan lakh lakh Vadhaiyan.

Canadian Heritage

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage about the financial crunch that CBC/Radio-Canada is facing, she claimed that she had nothing to do with it: “CBC/Radio-Canada's cuts have nothing to do with government measures”.

Could CBC/Radio-Canada really have undergone cuts of $350 million since 2009, as budget allocations have dropped, the Canada media fund has been reduced and the local programming improvement fund has been eliminated, all without the knowledge of the minister?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague clearly said, it was not the government's decision. CBC/Radio-Canada made the recent decisions itself.

Let us talk about the local programming improvement fund for a minute. Once again, it was CRTC that created and eliminated the fund. Once again, I suggest that my colleague check who is really responsible for those decisions before asking such questions in the House of Commons.

Transport

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the new Windsor-Detroit border process is a perfect example of the Conservatives' mismanagement and incompetence. They signed a one-sided agreement with no commitment for the U.S. to ante up. On February 13, the member for Essex stated, “We're not building a U.S. inspection plaza”, yet yesterday the Minister of Transport suggested the exact opposite.

Could the minister explain how her government failed to secure even a single nickel from the U.S. on a multibillion-dollar bilateral project?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, what the government has done is ensure that there is going to be growth in trade, there is going to be growth in jobs, and there is going to be growth in economic prosperity in the member's region. He should be grateful to the government for doing what we are doing in order to ensure that our trade continues to foster.

We have not only talked about, specifically, what we plan to do, we have committed to that in the budget this year. We will continue to move forward on this project and we will get it done.

International Development

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, like many Canadians, I have read with concern the World Health Organization's recent warning with respect to the devastating illness polio. My constituents are concerned about this epidemic and would appreciate an update on Canada's action.

I have noted recently that Bill Gates offered that, “Canada has been a long-time leader in achieving a polio-free world and making sure children get the vaccines they need no matter where they live. The impact of its leadership is a powerful example...”.

Could the parliamentary secretary please tell the House what the government is doing to help address the issue of polio?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, Canada remains concerned about the recent polio outbreaks and will continue to monitor the situation. However, we remain confident that they will be contained.

Vaccinations are a key element of Canada's leadership on maternal, newborn, and child health, and Canada, through the Prime Minister's Muskoka initiative, works to ensure every child is reached. Later this month, Canada will host a high-level summit on maternal, newborn, and child health, at which the Prime Minister will seek to accelerate efforts on critical health issues that affect mothers and children.

Working with our partners, Canada will lead the way to eradicate polio.

Air Transportation

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week, a Boeing owned by Pratt & Whitney was forced to dump 20,000 litres of fuel over La Macaza region before making an emergency landing.

Obviously, I am happy that the plane was able to land without incident, and I understand that standard procedures were followed. However, the effects of this fuel drop are still unknown.

Can the Minister of Transport tell us if this has had an impact on the environment or on public health?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, on the topic of airline safety, I am glad the member brought up the fact that our Canadian pilots and airlines do follow all the rules that they are supposed to be following. They are there to protect the safety of the passengers, as well as the communities underneath them.

I will find out the information for the hon. member and I will refer back to him when I have that from my department.

The Environment

[Dean Del Mastro, Independent, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, flood waters along the Trent-Severn Waterway are now receding, but not before many communities and residents along its banks were threatened or flooded. Many of my constituents have questions about how Parks Canada responded to the spring thaw and whether all necessary actions were undertaken.

Could the Minister of the Environment please indicate if she has discussed this matter with officials and if so, what has she been able to determine in this regard?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we have gone above and beyond the call of duty to respond quickly to the flooding this year along the canals. Extra staff from Parks Canada assisted in dam operations, inspections, and communications with emergency services units, public, media, and elected officials.

Last year, an independent study was conducted on Parks Canada's management of the floodings. It stated, “The management staff at the Trent–Severn Waterway did an exemplary job”.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable David Alward, Premier of New Brunswick.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

National Day of Honour

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties, keeping in mind that this Friday, May 9, will be the National Day of Honour. To facilitate the attendance of members at events across the country and to facilitate the observations of that day here on Parliament Hill, the following motion, I believe, shall receive unanimous consent from the House.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, when the House adjourns on Thursday, May 8, 2014, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, May 12, 2014, provided that, for the purposes of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to have sat on Friday, May 9, 2014.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

(Motion agreed to)

Report Stage Amendments

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time on a point of order to address and advance my rights at report stage under Bill C-23, the fair elections act.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall this is a narrative that has come up a few times in terms of the rights of members of Parliament in positions like mine, members of Parliament of a smaller party that does not yet have 12 members and has not yet become recognized in that sense, and the rights of independent members of Parliament. We know the principles here: that in theory all members of Parliament are equal and that we are here as members of Parliament, as many of your rulings have attested, Mr. Speaker, with the right and responsibility to turn our attention to every single piece of legislation that goes through this place and to have a meaningful opportunity to present amendments to improve legislation.

My intention with this point of order is not to draw it out. I will be as succinct as I possibly can be. I would like to review the factual situation in which I find myself and then distinguish for you the current situation from the normal situation within committees.

The situation in which I find myself is that owing to the rules of parliamentary procedure, members of Parliament in my position—either members of smaller parties or independents—on the face of it have a right to present substantive amendments at report stage because we are not allowed to be full members, or members at all, of parliamentary committees.

Mr. Speaker, since you will recall it, I will not drag out with precedents and reminders of citations the occasion on which the hon. government House leader attempted in November 2012 to suggest that persons such as me—and in fact he referred to the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands as the impetus for his efforts—should not be allowed to present substantive amendments at report stage but should put forward a test amendment, and if that one failed, none of the rest of the amendments would be heard at all.

Mr. Speaker, you ruled in December 2012 that this would not be sufficient. You cited with approval the words of former Speaker John Fraser, who on October 10, 1989, said that “...we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy.”

You went on to say, Mr. Speaker, that since I did not have the right to present any amendments at committee, I must have the right to present them at report stage. Then your ruling went on to create something of a crack in the door that said that if a “satisfactory mechanism” can be found for a member in a position such as mine to have amendments considered at committee, then I would not have a double ability to come back at report stage.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives in the House used that crack in the door from your December 2012 ruling to great effect. They created identical motions that were presented by Conservative members of Parliament in every committee right after the Speech from the Throne in the fall of 2013, and I have been living under that new set of rules.

Since my point of order at the moment deals specifically with the House committee on procedure and House affairs, I can refer to its motion, although in point of fact all the motions passed by every committee were identical. This was a motion put forward and approved by the committee on October 29, 2013. I will not read all of it. I will just summarize it.

If I and other members in my position want to have amendments considered for legislation, we must present them to the committee 48 hours ahead of when the committee begins clause-by-clause study, and the committee process will deem that the motions were moved, because not being a member of the committee, I of course cannot move them. As well, I cannot debate them and I cannot participate fully before the committee during testimony of witnesses.

I do not believe that this process is satisfactory at all. Mr. Speaker, the intent of your decision in the fall of 2012 was clear: that the process should be satisfactory to both the committee and to members in my situation.

However, I have lived with this set of rules. I am doing my best to live with this set of rules. I have endeavoured to present amendments 48 hours ahead of clause by clause and to participate, even within the very tight strictures of the rules.

However, here is the key one. At paragraph (c):

(c) during the clause-by-clause consideration of a Bill, the Chair shall allow a Member who filed suggested amendments, pursuant to paragraph (a), an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.

Forgive me for taking a moment to say the following. The chair of the procedure and House affairs committee dealing with Bill C-23 did an exemplary job. He was fair to a fault and did an extraordinary job in terms of his personal efforts to maintain an amicable atmosphere among all parties in a very controversial and highly charged bill. I do not for one moment blame the chair for the fact that he was prevented from fulfilling a condition, a condition precedent to anything that then occurred with my involvement in committee.

I presented my amendments. They were deemed to be put forward, but I was denied in the case of the surviving 11 amendments, which were past the point of 5:00 p.m. last Thursday. There was no debate allowed on my amendments, and I was prevented from making any representation, brief or otherwise, on my amendments.

I want to go back for a moment to the normal situation. I think that many in this place, particularly some who want to deny me my rights at this point, will go back to the default position that a committee is the master of its own affairs. A committee made the decision; the committee decided it had to finish its work by five o'clock by debate so that by midnight all the clause by clause could be through. It really does not matter that democracy in this place is diminished by such a rule. The idea is that the committee made the rule and the Speaker cannot interfere.

This condition, this situation, is remarkably different. It is completely distinguished from and different from the ruling that, for instance, you gave in relation to the member for Kings—Hants, who complained of a similar process. Your ruling of November 29, 2012, deals with that particular set of parameters, a committee process in which the Speaker is not engaged. The Speaker, as I know is the usual wisdom, has no business interfering with the business of committee, because the committees are the masters of their own affairs—except in this instance.

It is only owing to your ruling that my rights at report stage can be infringed, my rights at report stage can be reduced, my rights at report stage can be essentially eliminated if a process, pursuant to your ruling, is found to be satisfactory. Only due to your ruling was this new process invented. The new process states unequivocally that the chair shall allow a member with diminished rights, no ability to participate fully, no ability to vote, no ability to even move my own amendments, no ability to ask the witnesses questions. It is a very circumscribed, limited, and I think in some ways fraudulent opportunity.

However, there is a minimum thing that this motion passed in every committee insists upon for every amendment that I have put forward for clause-by-clause consideration as a member of Parliament, with rights equal to everyone in this place. The same applies for the other independents, whether Edmonton—St. Albert, Peterborough, the members who represent the Bloc Québécois, other members within the Green Party, or the member for Ahuntsic: we have the right to work on every bill in this place, whether we are members of committee or not.

This new construct has been created. We have put ourselves within it. Many of us, not just myself, have worked very hard to present amendments during clause by clause, knowing that we will have at a minimum 60 seconds per amendment to describe our amendments and argue for them.

In this instance, I submit to you that the Conservative majority is hoist by its own petard. It cannot shut down debate at five o'clock on a Thursday and gavel through everything, thus precluding independents and smaller parties from presenting their amendments later at report stage. It can have one or the other; it cannot have both.

It forced us into this process of running from committee to committee for clause-by-clause study. At a minimum we must be allowed to present our amendments in the committee. If that right is removed unilaterally, then I submit to you that there is no question but that we revert to the general rules of parliamentary procedure, those found in O'Brien and Bosc, which are very clear that members of Parliament in my position and others in smaller parties and independents have a right to present substantive amendments at report stage. That is what I intend to do tomorrow.

I urge and I hope that you will rule that because the committee failed to live up to its own motion, it is no longer a situation of the committee making its own rules.

The committee has constructed this fake opportunity and herded members of Parliament from smaller parties and independents. We are exhorted—not just encouraged and invited, but in a sense coerced—into a process not of our choosing.

Mr. Speaker, since it was owing to your ruling that this fake process was invented, at a minimum they have to live up to it. If they fail to, then it reverts to our normal rule that we have the right to present amendments at report stage in clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-23.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I am rising to say that I personally support the intervention and that we could reserve the right to speak a little further to this tomorrow in greater detail. Allow me to simply say that I believe the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has a point. The motion of Tuesday, October 29, 2013, is very specific in its wording. It says:

During the clause-by-clause consideration of a Bill, the Chair shall allow a Member who filed suggested amendments, pursuant to paragraph (a), an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.

Now it may be the case that the committee was shut down from debate after 5:00 p.m. on Thursday. That affected all of us: the NDP and the Liberals in opposition and if there had been any, Conservative members who wanted to debate and move further amendments. We simply were voting on amendments. That was already a problematic process, but in the specific situation of members who are not represented on the committee, what goes on at committee is intended to be a full substitute for their right to come to the House and present amendments.

As such, I think that clause has to be read in their favour, to mean that even after a cut-off such as occurred at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, they and they alone have the right to make brief representations for one-minute periods in order to make sure their amendments are at least considered to that extent. If that did not happen, I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that you should kindly give consideration to the request from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to be allowed to table those amendments that occurred after 5:00 p.m. for the reasons that she gave.

Given the kind of bargain, although bargain is the wrong word, after your ruling and then what happened at the various committees, I think the motions in each committee have to be read as much as possible in favour of the rights of the members whose rights are affected because they do not have regular membership on the committees. Reading clause (c) where it says “an opportunity to make brief representations” in favour of the members who otherwise will not be able to fully present amendments would be in order.