Bill C-20 (Historical)

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

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

This enactment implements the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements on environmental and labour cooperation entered into between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and done at Ottawa on November 5, 2013.
The general provisions of the enactment specify that no recourse may be taken on the basis of the provisions of Part 1 of the enactment or any order made under that Part, or the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement or the related agreements themselves, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 1 of the enactment approves the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements and provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional aspects of the agreements and the power of the Governor in Council to make orders for carrying out the provisions of the enactment.
Part 2 of the enactment amends existing laws in order to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreement on labour cooperation entered into between Canada and the Republic of Honduras.
Part 3 of the enactment contains coordinating amendments and the coming into force provision.

Bill C-20—Time Allocation Motion

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Debate.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I would ask the hon. members across the way to allow me to continue.

This is a point of order. I will thank the finance minister for his comments on the length of the point of order, but the point of order stands. The Conservatives can have their way with the power they have in a majority government, but they cannot simply run roughshod over the rules that have governed all governments in the history of Canada simply because they want to.

The point I raise is that the government earlier introduced time allocation on this trade agreement with Honduras. Previously, on the same morning, cynically, they also introduced time allocation on a previous motion before the House without any consultation with the opposition parties whatsoever, thereby contravening the Standing Orders that exist for all uses of this very extraordinary tool. The government seems, having used time allocation so often, to have gotten lazy with the procedure that is at hand.

The consultation can take any form. It can take the form of a conversation between me and the House leader of the government. It can take the form of an email or a note, anything. It does not take much, but it shows a modicum of respect, not for the opposition parties but for Parliament itself. To bring in time allocation, the government has to at least go through the motions of suggesting that perhaps the opposition party has an extraordinary number or speakers or seeks multiple days on any given legislation.

The government has to at least consult. It did not do that in this case. It did not even bother to show basic respect for Parliament, further driving home the argument and the fact that it holds this place in contempt. There is no basis of democratic values in the legislation the government introduced or how it did it—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. Does the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons wish to respond?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, I do. You, as a former House leader, would certainly be familiar with the fact that we have regular consultations with the other parties. With the House leaders we have weekly House leaders meetings.

I do not want to get into the particulars of what happened on these particular bills. We do not do that. Of course, at those meetings, the government puts forward its proposed legislative agenda. We suggest to the other parties how many days we would like to see it debated. We look for input. We look for a response.

Again, I do not want to discuss details. I am not going to say how much difficulty I have had ever getting from one particular party an answer on its position or an agreement. Without betraying any confidences, I can say that I do not think I can ever remember an agreement with the NDP on timing on any particular bill coming out of those meetings.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the precedents on this are clear. It is not up to the Speaker to inquire into and judge the adequacy or the extent of the consultation. You know that the consultation occurs. I can say to you with good assurance that we have circulated our proposed legislative agenda and the debates we would like to have on these matters.

I still look forward always to responses, but consultation and communication is a two-way street. It requires that sometimes there are answers from the other side. I can assure the House that we have always consulted and will continue to consult on the legislative calendar and will seek whatever agreement we can from other parties on our agenda.

I do not want to get into the specifics of those meetings again. It is not appropriate. However, I can tell the House that such consultation does occur, and we do put what we would like to see as debates to the other parties.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader rightly points out that there is a Tuesday afternoon House leaders meeting, which I attend with him. The government puts forward its government calendar. We recognize the calendar. We often offer up suggestions.

What has happened in this case, as in too many cases, is that the government absolutely did not ask for input on the number of speakers we required. They did not seek any consultative advice whatsoever. There was none on this. I can assure the member of that.

The government House leader can pretend what he would like, but the facts remain the facts. This is the only tool the government has in its toolbox anymore. If it is just a hammer that it has, every problem looks like a nail.

It is Parliament that suffers, not just the Conservatives' reputation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I come to these meetings in good faith every week. I do my best to seek a response. It is up to the opposition, if it wishes these meetings to be made more productive, to participate and make them more productive.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

With regard to the point of order, I am not ruling against it, but I would like to quote from O'Brien and Bosc, page 667, under “Notice”. This is what is required when one of these notices is brought forward:

The notice in question is to state that agreement could not be reached under the other provisions of the rule and that the government therefore intends to propose a motion...

The hon. government House leader, when he rose in the House yesterday, preceded his presentation of the motion with the following words:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2)...

That is all that is required by the Standing Orders. The nature of the consultation, the quality of the consultation, and the quantity of the consultation is not something that the Chair will involve himself in. That has been the tradition of this House for many years. What the Chair would have to do, in effect, is conduct an extensive investigative inquiry into the nature of the consultation. That is not our role, nor do the rules require it. Therefore, I am rejecting the request for the point of order.

The member for Kingston and the Islands is rising. I am anticipating the point he is raising, but we simply do not have time to get a response to his question, if that is the point he is raising.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to finish maybe one or two sentences of what I was saying. Because I was interrupted by a point of order, I thought that maybe after the point of order was resolved there would be—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. I am sorry, but we are out of time for the question and answer period.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.