Bill C-306 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (political affiliation)

This enactment provides that a member’s seat in the House of Commons will be vacated and a by-election called for that seat if the member, having been elected to the House as a member of a political party or as an independent, changes parties or becomes a member of a party, as the case may be. A member’s seat will not be vacated if the member, having been elected as a member of a political party, chooses to sit as an independent.

Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, greetings to all my colleagues.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to and debate Motion No. 9, which seeks to make changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons now that the Liberal Party has the majority of the seats in the House of Commons because some members changed their party affiliation and because of the three victories our party secured in the by-elections.

The Westminster parliamentary tradition is absolutely clear. The composition of parliamentary committees must reflect the number of seats that the different parties hold in the House of Commons. Therefore, with 174 seats, the Liberal Party now holds a clear majority. We have four more seats than all the opposition parties combined.

It is important to recognize that there is a long-standing parliamentary tradition, which is what Motion No. 9 put forward by the government House leader seeks to accomplish: to change the Standing Orders.

How did we get here? I think that is important. Right now, the Prime Minister is governing the country in a very difficult and uncertain world.

When I talk with my constituents, I find that they have many concerns about world events: the war in the Middle East, issues related to free trade between Canada and the United States and the relationship between our two countries in general, as well as the importance of fostering economic growth here in Canada.

However, for most of my constituents, and I say this to all my colleagues, the Prime Minister and his government are positioned in the centre of the ideological spectrum, and Canadians, in general, are encouraged by the government's current performance.

The proof is in the pudding. We have talked about the fact there is a long-standing tradition that in Canada, and frankly in any jurisdiction where there is a Westminster style of government or Parliament, voters elect members of Parliament. I have heard a lot of narrative from the Conservatives about how Canadians elected a minority Parliament. Yes, with the 343 members of Parliament at the time, that was the case. However, members of Parliament have always had the ability to determine where they are best placed in the composition of the House. I think that is important.

We have had a lot of conversations about the role of party leaders and party discipline in the country. If we are going to get into a situation where we are going to take away the inherent right for members of Parliament to choose their party affiliation, we are consolidating even more a leader's prerogative with particular political parties. I think MPs should have the ability to make their own judgment and their own calculation.

These decisions do not come easily, and they are relatively rare. In fact, with respect to what we have seen in Canadian history, this is quite unique, but it is a moment when I think the Prime Minister is governing a big-tent coalition. That is evidenced by the fact that members of Parliament who have previously been affiliated with the NDP or with the Conservative Party have made the choice to join the Liberal Party under his leadership.

There were three by-elections: in Terrebonne, University—Rosedale and Scarborough Southwest. All three resulted in the election of new members of the House, who are here with us today. They were sworn in this morning. This is a positive result for us, and I would like to welcome my new colleagues.

The government has outlined the privileges available to the Liberal caucus for amending the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

It is instructive as well that the government whip took us down a bit of a path of history about Bill C-306. At the time, it would have been a bill before the 42nd Parliament, I believe, where a number of members of Parliament, some of whom still sit in the House, made their decision about whether to support that bill, which was around putting an automatic by-election if a member of Parliament were to cross the floor. The government whip I thought did a great job highlighting the fact that former prime minister Stephen Harper felt at that time it was not necessary, that this was not a major public policy concern in our system.

I would agree to this day that this still, as I have already asserted, should be the role of a member of Parliament, and I know no one takes those decisions lightly. The Conservatives have kind of talked about this idea of backroom deals. I can be a prime example. It started with a conversation at Shooters Bar & Grill with the hon. member for Acadie—Annapolis. There have been a number of disparate conversations that Liberal members have had. Again, I think it is a reflection of when members of Parliament go back into their ridings and the Prime Minister and his government have an approval—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this very important motion. I would like to focus primarily on two parts. The first is this idea that somehow the governing party, which now has a majority, does not deserve to have a majority on committees. Then, I would also like to speak to some of what I have been hearing in the House throughout this debate as it relates to floor crossings and their legitimacy, more generally speaking.

The reality of the situation is, if we had just had an election and it produced the numbers that are in the House right now in each party, we would naturally assume that the governing party, which has a majority in the House, would have a majority on committees. That is not a stretch. I think everybody would agree with that.

Let us look at where we are today with the fact that we have recently had some by-elections. We have had some floor crossings. We now have a majority on this side of the House. To suggest that we somehow should not have a majority in committees is, I think, extremely inaccurate and does not honour and pay tribute to the Westminster parliamentary system that we operate within.

The reality is this: We do not get a majority on committees just because we got a majority at the election. We get a majority on committees because a majority of the people who sit in this place, a majority of the members of Parliament, sit in this place on and with the governing party. That is Westminster democracy. That is how it works. That is how it has worked not just since the Confederation of our country, but indeed since Westminster Parliaments, going even further back.

I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants.

I really reject that notion. I feel that the majority of Conservatives understand this too. To be honest, I feel as though a lot of what we are seeing right now is performative. It is almost as though there is this idea they have to perform in this way, even though they would have done the exact same thing. I asked the member for Dufferin—Caledon moments ago if he could look the Speaker in the eye and tell him that they would not do the exact same thing. That was the closest I have ever gotten to a truthful answer from that member whenever I have asked him one. He was not even able to do that.

All he was able to say was that their motion would have been different. How would it have been different? The mover and the seconder would have been different, perhaps, but that is probably the extent of it. Maybe they would have done something more draconian, like actually remove a Liberal member. They could have done that. We could have done that.

That is not what ended up happening. We are proposing to add two Liberal members. They will say we added two members, so it is an overreach. Well, how do we achieve the majority on committees? We can either add one member and then have a tie, which is not a majority, or we could take away a Conservative and add one Liberal, and that would give us a majority. However, we can imagine the outrage that would occur if we tried to remove a Conservative.

Let us just imagine the Leader of the Opposition having to make 30 or 35 phone calls to people telling them they are not on committee anymore. That would probably completely seal the deal of the inevitable that is coming to the Leader of the Opposition, which is that he will not be the Leader of the Opposition anymore. This idea that somehow two is an overreach, I think, is extremely disingenuous if we take the time to sit down and look at the math.

I want to shift to the other thing that I want to talk about, and that is more specifically the idea of floor crossings and the idea that these floor crossings are not legitimate. I will read the quote that I read earlier. This is a quote from Stephen Harper when he sat in this seat right in front of me as prime minister. He was asked a question in question period about Bill C-306, which I will reference in a second, and whether or not the Conservatives would support it. This was a bill that would have forced a by-election if somebody crossed the floor.

Stephen Harper said:

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, I believe members of Parliament should have that freedom and be accountable to their constituents for their decisions at the next election. However, in my observation, the only parties that really have this as an obsession are the parties that no one ever crosses to.

The irony about this, because it is a lot richer than just that, is that when it came time to vote for Bill C-306, which was put forward by the NDP, almost all of the Conservative bench voted against it, including the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, who now claims that is what should happen.

Members will remember that in a press conference not long ago, the Leader of the Opposition said that if somebody crosses the floor, there should be a by-election. Well, if that is such a principled stand of his, why did he not vote for Bill C-306? He did not. By the way, there were a couple of Conservative members who did vote for Bill C-306, such as the member from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, who still sits in the House. However, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, who was the member for Carleton before, and I know it is a lot to keep track of, voted against it, but now he is suddenly taking a principled stand.

That is because it is not about the principle of the issue. It is about when the principle is convenient, and the principle is convenient to the Leader of the Opposition right now because it suits his desires. However, 10 years ago or 15 years ago, when he had to vote on Bill C-306, it was not a principle of his because he was not in that position. That is the reality of what we are facing right now.

Nobody really believes that floor crossings are illegitimate. It is performative to say that. The Conservatives are getting up here and talking about it as though it were the first time it has ever happened, not only in Canadian democracy but in Westminster Parliaments writ large. It is very common. As a matter of fact, people have crossed to the Conservatives before. In Stephen Harper's own words that I read out, the only people who are obsessed with preventing floor crossings are members of the parties that people are leaving.

It is time for the Conservatives to pause and to do some self-reflection, to focus not on attacking the people who are leaving them but on asking themselves why they are leaving. If the Conservatives were to go through that very simply exercise of trying to figure that out, I am sure they would come to some conclusions that would position them to be a better opposition and a better Conservative Party.

As much as I like to debate and to challenge Conservatives, and I also receive it from them, I also value in the Westminster parliamentary system a strong opposition, because I know that a strong opposition does hold the government to account and challenges the government, directly and indirectly, to do better, to be better, to make better laws and policies and to make the lives of Canadians better. That is why it is so important that we have a strong opposition.

Unfortunately, we do not have that now. The member for Dufferin—Caledon spoke before me, and his entire speech, yet again, and I have been hearing it for 10 years, was about some person doing something and some other person being in breach of something else. The Conservatives should stop focusing on people and focus on the issues. This is what matters to Canadians.

Members would remember that the Conservatives focused on Justin Trudeau relentlessly for 10 years. What did they accomplish by that? The minute he left, they became irrelevant, and they are still sitting in the exact same place they were back then. They can yell and say that they accomplished their goal and did what they set out to do, but at the end of the day, they are still sitting over there because they had nothing to offer.

The only thing the Conservatives offered was criticism of individuals, calling the former prime minister a “trust fund baby” and making up every name they could possibly come up with. They used cheesy slogans, which we heard day after day, rather than coming to the House and giving S. O. 31s on important stuff that was going on in their communities and that they could share with their communities. The Conservatives spent the whole time just attacking people, such as Justin Trudeau and Bill Morneau, rather than discussing the issues.

I mean this as honestly as I can: Canadians deserve an opposition that holds the government accountable to what makes the lives of Canadians better. If we get that, the Conservatives will actually challenge the government, and it will change things.

Opposition Motion—Fuel Taxes

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, now his members are yelling, “Bring it back.” I thank those members for segueing perfectly into the next part of my point.

My point is this. It is not about the principle of the matter for the Leader of the Opposition. It is not about the principle that one should not cross the floor. It is about when that principle is convenient, and the principle is convenient for the Leader of the Opposition now because it serves his purpose, which is why his members are yelling, “Bring it back.” Yeah, sure, they want it now. They would love to vote on that now because it is convenient and it suits their purposes. The reality of the situation is that when the Leader of the Opposition had an opportunity to vote on Bill C-306, which would have banned floor crossing, he voted against it. I find it very rich that he would come in here this morning and accuse the Prime Minister of doing something that he voted to maintain.

By the way, it is something that is entrenched in Westminster democracy. I know the Speaker is personally very educated on Westminster democracy, the ins and the outs of it. He is being coy, in my opinion, but I believe he is.

The reality is that this has been going on for years. Our system, the institution of members being elected, is based on the principle that we elect individuals, individuals who belong to political parties. If we elect an individual who then uses their conscience, after 10 years of speaking in the House, like the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, and they get up and say they think their principles line up better with another political party, then she or any member has the right to move around the room.

The Leader of the Opposition can try to say that is not the case. He can try to say it is backroom deals and everything else, but that is the reality of our Westminster parliamentary system, and it is why the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, voted against Bill C-306 when he had the opportunity.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the motion the Conservatives have put forward. I want to speak to the content of the motion for a few minutes, and then I would like to talk a bit about some of the comments I heard from the Leader of the Opposition today, when he was speaking an hour or so ago.

I think it is important to reflect on something my colleague for Whitby basically said. Conservatives seem to have devised this plan and what we see in this motion on the back of a napkin. There was not a lot of thought put into it, in terms of actually trying to use data to determine what the best result would be, in line with what that additional income would be, with respect to the gas tax.

What the Prime Minister proposed today was something that is data driven, something that does actually look at the data. Rather than trying to predict what the price of gas and oil is going to be by the end of the year, which the Conservatives are trying to do, our approach is to say, “Let us take this on an incremental basis. Let us do this for four months, and then we can assess where we are at that point.” That is, I think, the data driven, realistic, pragmatic approach that should be taken.

I must admit that I got a bit of a kick out of it when I was sitting here today listening to the debate and Conservatives got up to say, “Well, you just stole our idea. That was our idea.” I would like to think we come here with ideas and try to put them forward to make the lives of Canadians better. Quite frankly, as far as I am concerned, if the Conservatives want to say this was their idea, they can have all the credit for it. At the end of the day, the most important thing is that we make the lives of Canadians better. If they can agree that this is going to do that, perhaps not as much as they would have liked or as much as they would have thought it should, I guess I should say, then that is an issue to discuss.

As the parliamentary secretary who spoke before me said, the government has done a lot to make life more affordable for Canadians, with a suite of different things that have been brought in throughout the weeks and months leading up to today. To name some of them, we introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, and we cut taxes for 22 million Canadians pretty much on day one after this government was elected. We eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers to help people who are renting and just about to purchase a house to get into the affordability of home ownership. We cancelled the federal consumer carbon tax, as was discussed. We made the national school food program permanent, introduced automatic federal benefits, and lowered costs and strengthened competition in essential services. We expanded and entrenched the Canada child benefit and lowered the costs of child care and kid essentials, including $10-a-day child care and interest-free student loans. We introduced the Canada dental plan, pharmacare, the $500 Canada housing benefit top-up for low-income renters, tax-free first home savings accounts and the Canada disability benefit. The list goes on and on.

Yes, these things have one thing in common. The commonality is that they are intended to make the lives of Canadians more affordable, to increase affordability. They also, unfortunately, have something else in common. The other thing that these things have in common is that the Conservatives voted against all of them. It becomes very difficult to accept the word of Conservatives when they come in here trying to suggest they are here to make the lives of Canadians better, when everything I just read off, they voted against.

I am in opposition to today's Conservative motion because I think the plan that the government laid out this morning is a much better approach to this.

I also want to touch on something that the Leader of the Opposition said this morning. I will be honest with you, Mr. Speaker; I would not have brought this up had he not said it in the House. He actually said it both in English and in French. I want to pre-empt my colleagues across the way from trying to call a point of order and saying I am not speaking to something that is going on. I assure you that I will be speaking to exactly what I heard the Leader of the Opposition say this morning in this debate.

He started off his speech by saying that the Prime Minister had cobbled together a majority, that there were “backroom deals”. He said politicians had “betrayed” their constituents. This was all in the discussion about members who are crossing the floor to this side. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that there actually was a bill, Bill C-306, and that bill would have banned floor crossing. The Leader of the Opposition voted against it. He could have voted his conscience. As a matter of fact, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and the member for Airdrie—Cochrane did vote in favour of it. It was not a whipped vote on that side of the House back in the day. The Leader of the Opposition had the ability to vote to ban floor crossing. He did not do that.

Clarity Act

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to debate Bill C-457, An Act to repeal the Clarity Act.

I should say at the outset that we will not be supporting this bill. In May 2011, 4.5 million Canadians voted for a more inclusive, greener and more prosperous Canada. Some of those Canadians live in Quebec. For the first time since 1988, Quebeckers elected a majority of federalist MPs to the House of Commons, thanks to the NDP.

Quebeckers placed their confidence in our progressive, federalist vision. They voted for a party that believes there is a place for Quebec in the federation. The message Quebec voters sent to the Bloc Québécois was very clear: we want to go in another direction; we want to work together to build a better Canada; we want to look towards the future, not the past. The Bloc does not seem to have understood the message, however.

In tabling its Bill C-457, the Bloc is clearly demonstrating its limitations. It obviously has little to offer Quebeckers. Rather than talk about the economy, combatting poverty, the social housing crisis or job creation, Bill C-457 talks about referenda.

In 2013, Quebeckers and many Canadians expect their elected representatives to work tirelessly to find solutions to such problems as the rising cost of living. They want their representatives to pressure this government to put more money into health, abandon its employment insurance reforms, ensure security in retirement for our seniors, and stop cutting the services for which they pay taxes. They also want the government to step up and ensure that big corporations pay their fair share of taxes. They do not want to hear any more talk of secession.

As our fellow citizens watch the Conservative government perform, they wonder how the next government will manage to clean up the mess it leaves behind. The NDP has practical solutions to improve the lives of all citizens.

We are fighting every day to establish a balanced 21st-century economy based on sustainable development, an economy that generates wealth, not just for a handful of industries and regions, but for every part of this country.

The NDP champions respect for democracy and for voters. On this subject, at the beginning of this Parliament my colleague from Pontiac tabled Bill C-306, the main purpose of which was to require members wishing to change sides in the middle of a legislature to run in a byelection. Unfortunately, the bill was rejected by the Conservatives. This is nevertheless the kind of commitment to respect for democracy that Canadians expect. They no longer want members of Parliament who get elected under one banner, and then change sides.

As we prepare to form the next government in 2015, the Bloc is limited to talking about referenda. Our goal is to get the Conservative government out of power, instead of trying to get Quebec out of Canada. An NDP government will implement the progressive policies that millions of Canadians supported in the last election.

With regard to federalism, our position on Quebec’s place in Canada is clearly set out in the Sherbrooke Declaration we adopted in 2006. Our approach has the merit of being firmly positive and inclusive. We want to build bridges between people, not divide them. Unlike some, we refuse to believe that secession is the only solution available to Quebeckers.

Anyone reading Bill C-457 will realize at once that it disregards the opinion of the Supreme Court, as set out in its opinion in the Quebec Secession Reference. The Supreme Court was very clear in formulating its opinion: if a majority of Quebeckers chose secession in a referendum, both parties would be obligated to negotiate.

The federal government would thus be obliged to negotiate, but so would Quebec. Now, in order to trigger an obligation to negotiate, there must be a clear question and a clear result.

Bill C-470, An Act respecting democratic constitutional change, sponsored by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth, responds to the Supreme Court opinion and the federal government’s obligation to negotiate if a majority of Quebeckers answer a clear question in a referendum.

Bill C-470 does not deal with secession, but opens the door to any question about constitutional change, because the NDP believes that Quebec’s right to decide its future may also be exercised within Canada.

Among other things, the Bill refers to the integration of Quebec into the Canadian constitutional framework, the limitation of federal spending power in Quebec, and the Government of Quebec’s opting out with full compensation from any programs if the Government of Canada intervenes in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Bill C-470 is designed not to prevent negotiation between the federal government and the Quebec government, but to provide genuine clarification of the conditions that trigger the obligation to negotiate referred to by the Supreme Court. It also provides examples of clear questions, while recognizing the right of the National Assembly to draft its own question.

My colleague from Toronto—Danforth has introduced an excellent bill, and I wish to congratulate him on it. I should add that the entire NDP caucus is behind him in the introduction of his bill.

Unlike Bill C-470, Bill C-457 has the merit of proposing a constructive solution that moves us forward, rather than back. That is what Canadians expect: that we propose solutions for the future, rather than be content to live in the past.

We should be looking towards the future, and that is what Bill C-470 proposes.