Debates of Nov. 22nd, 2012

Order in Council Appointment

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 110(1), I have the honour to table the appointment of Kevin S. MacLeod, CVO, to the position of special adviser to the Prime Minister, to be known as the Canadian Secretary to the Queen.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I move:

That this House proceed to orders of the day.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #504

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

Bill C-27—Notice of time allocation motion

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third 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 stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There will now be a 30-minute question period pursuant to Standing Order 67.1. We will try to keep questions and comments to about a minute and responses to a similar length to accommodate as many members as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat ironic that the 29th closure motion introduced by the government since the last Parliament, breaking the record set by any government in Canadian history for its pace of shutting down debate, is now happening on a bill that is meant to enforce accountability with Canada's first nations.

The government is invoking closure and walking away from accountability while telling first nation governments around the country that they should do something that the Conservative government is not willing to do, which is to be accountable to the Canadian people.

Time and again, the government has reverted to this tactic. We have had one day of debate at this stage of the bill. Why does the government so often find it necessary, 29 times since the last election, to shut down the work of members of Parliament, to shut down basic accountability and democratic values and rights in this country? Why does it so often resort to this measure?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to that question. We have a very important piece of legislation here. We are going to the very heart of what elected officials and government should do, which is to be transparent and accountable with their financials and with disclosing salaries, honorariums, per diems and expenses.

We have been talking about this for the last three years in various formats, and we also have some real deadlines from the standpoint that we have now had committees look at this. We had quite a number of witnesses, about 21 witnesses from 13 different organizations. If we do not have this legislation in place before the next fiscal year, we are going to go another year without this kind of reporting for which first nation members are calling.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize that the government House leader is collecting an additional salary, and yet he is not doing his job as the House leader. The primary responsibility for a House leader is to work with opposition parties and work through a legislative agenda that allows for the timely passage of legislation. Some legislation is much more complicated than others and therefore will require more time. Some pieces of legislation are a little bit easier and could pass through. If we had a government House leader who had the ability to negotiate, we would have a much more productive House of Commons.

My question is for the government House leader, and I would appreciate it if the government House leader would stand and answer the question. Why does the government House leader not negotiate in good faith with opposition parties so there would be more timely proceedings—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the views and concerns regarding the bill have had ample time to be debated and discussed. The bill was introduced on November 23, 2011. Second reading debate occurred on June 20, with the vote occurring June 21, and it featured almost six hours of debate in this chamber before being referred to committee. The standing committee met seven times between October 15 and November 5 to study and discuss Bill C-27. We also heard from 21 witnesses from 13 organizations.

During the report stage debate yesterday, the House spent over six hours of debate on the bill. The NDP had no less than 20 speakers. We heard no new opposition issues in all this time. On two occasions the Speaker had to intervene to ask members to keep their comments focused on the subject under debate. All this was for a relatively simple bill with only 13 clauses.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's leadership on this issue. Two days ago, the narrative across the floor finally came to a point where we all agree about something, for once. If my memory serves me correctly, the member for Laval said there ought to be one rule for everyone. I would like the minister to comment on the issue of fairness, that sense of one rule for everyone and what the bill does to take us there. It did not come from this side. It came from that side. I thank the member for saying that.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, federal, provincial and municipal governments have obligations and responsibilities to report to their constituencies. We believe that those same obligations and responsibilities should apply to the other governments in Canada, the first nation governments. We also believe that elected officials have an obligation and a legal responsibility in most cases to disclose their salaries, honorariums, per diems and expenses.

This legislation accomplishes those objectives for the first nation governments across the country that are operating under the Indian Act. We think that is appropriate in all circumstances.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have some questions for the minister. It is interesting to hear both the parliamentary secretary and the minister talk about financial accountability when we have a situation in the House right now where we cannot get information from the government.

My question to the minister is straightforward. Why is he imposing a double standard?

On the one hand, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has to go to the courts, and on the other hand, the government continually says it wants to be transparent and accountable and yet does not provide documents with respect to staffing cuts, comparability around education, legal costs. This department spends millions of dollars on legal costs.

My question to the minister is this. Why does he think a double standard is acceptable in this country and this day and age?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I responded to this question yesterday during the press conference. We have responded to the questions from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We think we have fully responded to his questions.

I am puzzled by the question from the opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, could the minister detail for us exactly what consultations were undertaken with first nations and first nations groups before bringing this legislation?

We have to make the connection. First nations feel as if this legislation has actually not come forward with their support. There is a reason for that. It ties into general problems of democracy in this Parliament.

I would like to know if the minister feels that adequate consultation did occur with first nations and first nations groups and, if so, if he could outline what that consultation was.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, we had quite a lot of public dialogue on the issue of salaries and financial disclosure. We had a resolution from the Assembly of First Nations that basically endorsed the fact that first nation communities should be practising accountability and transparency. We have had the same kind of resolution passed at the United Nations in respect to aboriginal governments.

We do not think that democracy, accountability and transparency are negotiable items in a country such as ours. That is why we are moving forward with this legislation. We have had multiple requests annually, virtually every day of the week, from band members and first nations communities wanting this measure to be put in place.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this has become so routine for the government that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons will no longer even answer questions about government bills.

The minister is trying to justify invoking closure—for about the 30th time since the beginning of this Parliament—by telling us that 20 or so witnesses were heard from, that witnesses were called 13 times, and that he is not happy with the opposition's speeches on this bill in the House. Quite frankly, the fact that the minister is not happy with the opposition's speeches and that he thinks testimony from 20 or so witnesses is enough simply does not constitute justification.

Like my colleagues, I would like to ask the minister the following question: why is the situation so urgent, when no meaningful consultation took place?

As for the 20 or so witnesses, they testified during three committee meetings that were dedicated primarily to trivial, mundane motions. The debate on this issue is far from over. First nations deserve more respect than what this government is giving them.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have had considerable debate on this 13-clause bill. It is simple and straightforward. We believe there has been more than adequate consideration. We want to proceed, and the justifications are all there.