House of Commons Hansard #2 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was jobs.

Topics

EthicsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

The EconomyOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC

Mr. Speaker, our government has delivered on its promises to Canadians. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, Canada has sailed through the troubled waters of the global economic recession and come out better than any other G7 country.

Yesterday's Speech from the Throne was an opportunity to inform Canadians that we intend to keep delivering results. Could the Minister of Immigration inform the House of our next step?

The EconomyOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Ajax—Pickering Ontario

Conservative

Chris Alexander ConservativeMinister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the hard-working and fast-running member of Parliament for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for his excellent question.

Anyone who read yesterday's Speech from the Throne or who heard it can conclude that this is a government focused on the priorities that matter to Canadians, on creating jobs and opportunities, on supporting and protecting Canadian families and on putting Canada first.

We plan to introduce new legislation to ensure that our streets and communities are safe, to protect Canadian consumers, to ensure a balanced budget and to—

The EconomyOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

Rail TransportationOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Mr. Speaker, 80 cars from MMA are at a standstill on tracks in Farnham, unmonitored, close to a main road, a park and homes. These cars carry the same type of oil that was involved in the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. The Conservatives talked about targeted measures for railway safety. DOT-111 cars in Farnham, now that is quite the target.

What is preventing the Minister of Transport from having these cars moved quickly and safely?

Rail TransportationOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Halton Ontario

Conservative

Lisa Raitt ConservativeMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the member opposite with respect to this matter. The reality is these cars have to be moved safely. Transport Canada has indicated these cars cannot move at this point in time. We want to ensure they can be safely moved. It is working with MMA with respect to obtaining the appropriate permissions needed for them to be moved. When it has those, we expect MMA will move them out.

Intergovernmental RelationsOral Questions

October 17th, 2013 / 3:05 p.m.

Bloc

Louis Plamondon Bloc Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Speech from the Throne does nothing to address Quebec's expectations. The federal government would rather pursue its headstrong approach and refuse to consider Quebec's requests. It is also continuing with its disastrous employment insurance and manpower training reforms, which will hit Quebec families hard.

How can the government justify ignoring Quebec's legitimate requests and persist in stirring up pointless squabbles?

Intergovernmental RelationsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean Québec

Conservative

Denis Lebel ConservativeMinister of Infrastructure

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Speech from the Throne includes initiatives for the whole country. Of course, the Bloc member wants to take Quebec out of Canada, but we do not. The sovereignty proposed by this member has nothing to do with what I want for Quebec. I want a very strong province of Quebec in a united Canada. With the Speech from the Throne, we are going to continue to ensure that Quebec becomes stronger in this great country called Canada.

Intergovernmental RelationsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

That concludes question period for today.

Pursuant to an order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to statements by ministers.

Lac-MéganticRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Mégantic—L'Érable Québec

Conservative

Christian Paradis ConservativeMinister of International Development and Minister for La Francophonie

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the members of the House to reflect on what happened in Lac-Mégantic.

Those who are familiar with Lac-Mégantic will agree that it is a magnificent and unique part of the country, where lakes and mountains meet. As they do whenever a situation arises that requires them to pull together, the people who live there—people I know very well—have shown extraordinary courage since the terrible ordeal of July 6, when a train destroyed Lac-Mégantic's downtown and took the lives of 47 residents.

The resilience that the people of Lac-Mégantic have shown since this tragic event will certainly serve as an example to the country for generations to come. Nevertheless, they are still mourning their lost loved ones. That is why we must remember and support Lac-Mégantic.

I am therefore asking all my colleagues in the House to remember the people of Lac-Mégantic who lost their lives and keep the families and loved ones of those who died in their thoughts and prayers.

Lac-MéganticRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the work of the Minister of International Development and member for Mégantic—L'Érable and commend him for his presence and his support for his constituents. I was there. I saw him. He was there. I commend him and thank him once again.

I too would like to join with the millions of Canadians who, on the morning of July 6, 2013, quickly learned about the great tragedy that was occurring in downtown Lac-Mégantic. The people of Quebec and Canada joined in solidarity to express their shock at the magnitude of the tragedy and to demonstrate their generosity and compassion for this community.

We lost brothers and sisters, and nothing we can do will bring them back. It is our duty as elected members at the local, provincial, or federal level to make sure that this will never happen again.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the premier of Quebec and all the local elected officials for their dignity and the active role they played in providing support in the days following the disaster.

I would also like to commend all the groups and people who gave of their time and money to offer sympathy and support to the individuals and families who suffered such great hardship. I would like to make particular mention of the great contribution of Mayor Colette Roy-Laroche, who took on the role of mother of the town, gathering and protecting her children in order to make sure that no one else was lost.

The short-, medium- and long-term impact and collateral damage will have to be monitored for many years to come. With the loss of its downtown, Lac-Mégantic lost its soul and all of its history and its roots. It is now time to build, to look toward the future and take action for the common good.

Lac-MéganticRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, three months ago a railway explosion and fire devastated Lac-Mégantic. Many people are still in shock over this tragic event. I went to Lac-Mégantic twice after the catastrophe and my heart goes out to the many families who had to deal with the loss of loved ones and the resulting distress. The entire country is in mourning with you.

The very soul of this town, known for its beauty and liveliness, was shattered. For that reason, we continue to feel profound sadness. Forty-seven Canadians were taken from us and as many families were devastated. Thousands of people had their lives turned upside down by this tragic event. I know very well that it is difficult to put into words the anguish and grief that accompany the loss of a loved one. The pain that many people still feel today will always be a part of our history.

What we must continue to do now is help the families, friends, and neighbours. The healing and rebuilding must go on, and we must aid in their efforts to find renewal in this senseless tragedy. We must bring hope to those who continue on. We must help those who are grappling with loss. Their courage has been truly inspirational, as has been the valiant efforts of all those emergency personnel who responded to this disaster.

It is incumbent upon all of us to guarantee the present and future safety of our communities. It is a collective responsibility that we all must share. We can never let a tragedy such as this happen again.

The federal government must be proactive in reaching out to the provincial and municipal governments. We must ensure that they get all the help they need, and we cannot let them shoulder this burden alone.

I would like all the people of Lac-Mégantic to know that, from coast to coast, Canadians are with them. We are thinking of you. We stand in solidarity with you in these difficult times. We will continue to do so, day after day.

Lac-MéganticRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I understand there is agreement among all parties to give the floor to the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

Lac-MéganticRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-François Fortin Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I rise to pay tribute to the 47 victims of the Lac-Mégantic disaster. I would also like to extend our condolences to their families and loved ones, and to the entire community left suffering because of this human, social, economic and environmental tragedy.

This rail disaster affected the entire Lac-Mégantic community, and in one night, we saw the entire Quebec population stand behind and rally around that community, whether it was through the outstanding work of the first responders, fire departments and health and safety workers; the work of all the volunteers who joined local authorities to help those affected by this disaster; or the thousands of people, all the municipalities and the many organizations that donated to offer some support. Their dedication deserves our recognition.

That night of July 5 to 6, the date of this terrible tragedy that is beyond comprehension, will remain etched in our memories forever. While it is important to commemorate such a traumatic event, it is even more important to take action to ensure that such a disaster never happens again and to provide assistance to those who were affected. We urge the federal government to do everything it can to help the entire Lac-Mégantic community.

Lac-MéganticRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I now invite hon. members to rise and observe a moment of silence.

[A moment of silence observed]

Lac-MéganticRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

It being Thursday, I understand that the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley would like to ask the traditional Thursday question.

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, before I get to my question, I want to congratulate the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. We have been here for almost a full day, and he has not used once one of his favourite standing orders, Standing Order 78(3), the motion to invoke closure on a debate, so hope springs eternal that time allocation may be a thing of the past.

I have three simple questions for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

When will we see the long-awaited bill regarding the Canada Elections Act? This legislation promises to tighten regulations to keep other Conservatives from cheating to win a seat in the House of Commons. There is already a long list of Conservatives who are facing or have faced charges from Elections Canada. Are they just ragging the puck so they can do whatever they want during the next election? That is an important question for the opposition.

We heard yesterday in the throne speech that, “The Senate must be reformed or, as with its provincial counterparts, vanish”.

Reform has been an abject failure for the current government so far. It could have done better with a “do no harm” policy when it comes to the Senate. We, along with most Canadians, are ready for that vanishing act. Is there a cut-off for the government's patience when it comes to the Senate, or will there be more rhetoric from the government? When will we see the legislation to actually make this thing a reality?

Finally, on government Motion No. 2, on which there has been some debate in this House, the government leader asked for some suggestions at the end of his intervention. This is the motion in which we are seeking to divide it into its coherent parts. I am prepared to move all of the necessary motions to pass the component parts of the government's motion to allow the MPs in this place to vote with a free and fair conscience, if my colleague across the way believes what he says and was looking for actual recommendations.

Those are my three questions for him today. To all members, welcome back from the extended summer recess.

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, with regard to election reform legislation, I think it is clear that there has been a continuing stream of submissions from important panels, including the Chief Electoral Officer. I know the minister is taking all of this into account and wants to make sure that all the considerations are taken into account so we have the best possible legislation in place for the next election. I look forward to that being introduced in the House and hopefully being supported by all sides of the House.

Second, on the question of the Senate, we are awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court on the reference on our legislation, which has been in the House and which was opposed by the opposition parties, to allow for Canadians to have a say in who represents them in the Senate and to establish term limits. All Canadians who have been elected to the Senate have been appointed by the Prime Minister thus far. There have been a number of them and we hope there will be more in the future. We look forward to the Supreme Court's decision on the Senate, at which time we will act in that regard.

It is great to see you and all other members of Parliament here today. I know that the Conservatives had a hard-working and productive summer in their ridings and are anxious to get back to work here in Ottawa.

As we begin a new parliamentary session, I take pride in the fact that already this year—between January and June—we have passed 37 new laws, already matching our government's most productive year in office.

In fact, since we formed a majority government in the past session of Parliament, 61 government bills have reached royal assent. It is a very productive and orderly approach. I plan to continue what has been a productive, orderly and hard-working Parliament and to build upon this success through the many exciting initiatives that have been outlined in the throne speech.

In a moment the House will start debating government Motion No. 2, about which my friend asked, a motion to facilitate business here in the House this fall, including our principle-based proposal for reinstating all business where it left off in June.

Tomorrow, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which was introduced this morning.

On Monday, before question period, we will start second reading on a bill to be introduced tomorrow. Hon. members will note that the long title as printed on today's order paper is identical to the one borne by the previous session's Bill C-57.

Monday afternoon the House will consider a ways and means motion, notice of which will be tabled, related to budget measures. Following that, the House will resume consideration of government Motion No. 2, should debate not continue today.

On Wednesday, the House will first consider a ways and means motion, the notice of which will also be tabled, in relation to certain housekeeping amendments found in last session's Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act. After that vote we will debate the budget implementation legislation flowing from Monday's ways and means vote. That debate will continue for the balance of the week.

Finally, Tuesday, October 22, shall be the first allotted day.

Motion No. 2—Speaker's RulingPoint of OrderRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition regarding Government Motion No. 2 that is standing on the order paper in the name of the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

I would like to thank the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition for raising this matter and the hon. government House leader for his contribution to the discussion.

The opposition House leader argued that the motion, in calling for the House to reinstate government bills and re-adopt several orders of reference, with or without changes, from the previous session, and in calling for the adoption of new orders of reference with regard to the management of business in the current session, both in the House and in committee, constitutes a series of distinct proposals that require separate debates and separate votes. He then asked the Chair to divide the motion to allow for this.

For his part, the government House leader stated that in his view the motion represented a balanced attempt to ensure that everyone's business from the last session could be preserved. But he stressed that the motion's broad purpose was also to more generally arrange business in the House and its committees this autumn.

As has been alluded to, this is not the first time the House is confronted with a situation of this kind.

O’Brien and Bosc, at pages 562-3, explains that:

When a complicated motion comes before the House (for example, a motion containing two or more parts each capable of standing on its own), the Speaker has the authority to modify it in order to facilitate decision-making in the House. When any member objects to a motion containing two or more distinct propositions, he or she may request that the motion be divided and that each proposition be debated and voted on separately. The final decision, however, rests with the Chair.

While previous speakers have been faced with similar requests to divide motions, they have seldom done so, something Speaker Milliken, on October 4, 2002, at page 299 of Debates, remarked upon when he stated that “the Chair must exercise every caution before intervening in the deliberations of the House”. In that instance, Speaker Milliken did in fact determine that a motion contained three different proposals. In that case, the broad purpose of the motion was the “resumption and continuation of the business of the House begun in the previous Session of Parliament”. Accordingly, Speaker Milliken took the view that the first two proposals, which dealt with the reinstatement of business from a previous session, should be debated together but each get a separate vote. The third proposal, which concerned travel by the Standing Committee on Finance and was not found to be “strictly speaking, a matter of reinstating unfinished business”, became a separate motion. In making this decision to allow a separate debate, Speaker Milliken also stated, “Our usual practice is to adopt travel motions on a case-by-case basis.”

While government Motion No. 2 is similar to the 2002 motion, it is not identical. In adjudicating cases of this kind, the Chair must always be mindful to approach each new case with a fresh eye, taking into account the particular circumstances of the situation at hand. Often, there is little in the way of guidance for the speaker and a strict compliance with precedent is not always appropriate.

In this case, the Chair is acutely aware, as is stated at page 562 of O’Brien and Bosc, that to divide a motion is rare and that “only in exceptional circumstances should the Chair make this decision on its own initiative.”

At the same time, the Chair has listened very carefully to the interventions made on the nature of government Motion No. 2 and on the particular parts of it that have given rise to objections on the part of the opposition House leader. I have noted that he reserved his strongest objections for part (a) of the motion, which deals with the reinstatement of government bills, and indeed indicated that his party “supports” the other aspects of the motion.

In view of this unique set of circumstances, the Chair does not feel the very high threshold required for dividing the motion has been met and accordingly, I will allow the motion to be debated as a whole. However, the Chair understands the arguments raised by the opposition House leader as they relate to the very broad blanket provisions contained in part (a) of the motion. In that regard, I am directing that a separate vote be held on that part of government Motion No. 2. In proceeding in this manner, I trust that members will have satisfactory and practical means to express their views through debate, amendment and voting on the propositions contained in government Motion No. 2.

I thank all members for their attention.

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, government orders will be extended by nine minutes.

The Chair has notice of a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

Elections CanadaPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I am rising on this question of privilege at the earliest opportunity.

Shortly before the summer adjournment this past June, you, Mr. Speaker, had been asked to rule on whether or not a prima facie breach of privilege existed surrounding the finding by Elections Canada that members of the House had contravened certain sections of the Canada Elections Act. This finding had been followed by a letter from Elections Canada asserting that members in question should therefore be suspended from the House and prevented from sitting and voting until the matter was resolved.

I and a number of colleagues made submissions on this matter. On June 18, 2013, you, Mr. Speaker, noted a serious gap in our procedures in the House in cases where an impasse of this sort is reached in a dispute between a member and Elections Canada. You thereupon ruled that the situation did warrant further study and allowed for the House to be seized with a motion that would refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The House adjourned for the summer recess later that day, and the motion unfortunately died with prorogation of the session.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you today take as given the arguments that were made in June, as well as the ruling that you rendered then. Accordingly, in order to save time, I adopt by reference the exact words of my own intervention on the question of privilege found in Hansard for the first session of the 41st Parliament, on June 10, 2013, pages 17994-18001.

If I could be indulged for about a minute, I would like to reference key passages from the Speaker's ruling of June 18, 2013.

The current situation—and the various interventions on the matter—points to a serious gap in our procedures here in the House in cases where an impasse is reached in a dispute between a member and Elections Canada....

Therefore, in the absence of statutory guidance, should a Standing Order mechanism be developed to guide the Chair in such cases?

To answer that question, I believe it would be helpful to the whole House, and to me as Speaker, if the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs were to examine the issue with a view to incorporating in our Standing Orders provisions on how the Chair and the House ought to deal with such matters in the future.

Then you went on to say:

For his part, in remarking that he had a certain appreciation of the Speaker’s position in the absence of any guidance at all, either from the statute or from the Standing Orders, as to how to execute the provisions of subsection 463(2) of the act, the member for Toronto—Danforth came to a conclusion with which I can entirely agree, namely:

“this honourable House cannot function without the Speaker and the House as a whole working in concert...”.

It seems evident to me that the lack of a clear process is not satisfying the needs of the House nor indeed of the individual members concerned....

However, the Chair is faced with the fact that some have argued that it is just and prudent to continue to await the conclusion of legal proceedings, while others have maintained that the two members ought, even now, not to be sitting in the House.

I believe that the House must have an opportunity to consider these complex issues. This approach is founded on an ancient practice summarized in a section of Bourinot's, fourth edition, found at pages 161 and 162 of that work, where it states:

“In the Canadian as in the English House of Commons, 'whenever any question is raised affecting the seat of a member, and involving matters of doubt, either in law or fact, it is customary to refer it to the consideration of a committee'.”

Accordingly, the Chair has concluded that there is a prima facie case of privilege here....

In summary, then, to bring clarity to the situation at hand and to give the House a voice on the matter and to seek its guidance, the Chair has concluded that immediate consideration of the matter by the House is warranted.

I am prepared to move that this matter be dealt with by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and will move a motion to that effect upon your invitation should you, Mr. Speaker, rule again that there has been a prima facie breach of privilege in this case.

Elections CanadaPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, in the time that has passed since the events originally spoken of, much has changed. For example, the situation of the member for Saint Boniface with respect to Elections Canada is entirely resolved and is now behind us, so there is no issue there that remains. I think that is a matter of public record and of which everyone is aware.

Of course, there has been significant further information provided to Elections Canada by the member for Selkirk—Interlake, all of which I think renders the matters that were not procedurally fulfilled, which was the issue at the time, procedurally fulfilled at this time. I do think the circumstances are very different than what they were in June, but I would be prepared to return it to you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this more fully.

Elections CanadaPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I would like to thank the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth and the government House leader for their interventions on this.

The Chair has not been officially contacted or been made aware of a resolution of the matter with regard to the member for Selkirk—Interlake. When the hon. member for Avalon raised this matter in the previous session, in a ruling I delivered on June 18, as the member for Toronto—Danforth cited, I did find it to be a prima facie question of privilege.

Accordingly, a motion was moved to have the matter referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and the House began to debate that motion. As hon. members know, that debate was adjourned, and later that day, the House was adjourned for the summer recess. There has since been a prorogation, which put an end to all proceedings on the question before the House. For the same reasons given in my ruling last session, in my view, the matter remains a prima facie question of privilege, and accordingly, I now invite the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth to move his motion.

Elections CanadaPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, based on your ruling of a prima facie case of privilege, I move:

That the matter of the question of privilege related to the dispute between Elections Canada and the member for Selkirk—Interlake be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Elections CanadaPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is the House ready for the question?

Elections CanadaPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.