Debates of Oct. 21st, 2013

MOTION THAT DEBATE BE NOT FURTHER ADJOURNED

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although I appreciate the comments from the government House leader, I wonder what he means by the opposition not wanting to just go ahead with starting things over. When prorogation is invoked, the entire government program is supposed to be reset. It hits the restart button and starts over from zero, from scratch.

On the other hand, the House leader is now saying that Conservatives want to start over with a new throne speech and want the opportunity to make it seem that the government is shiny and new, when in fact they are taking all of their old bills that they could not have passed when we were all working very hard last summer, as he correctly pointed out; all of us together working very hard could not get them passed because they were so faulty. We had a lot of problems with those bills. They were just not ready for prime time.

Instead of saying we should work through the month that just went by and see what we can do about improving those bills, the Conservatives set prorogation in place so that we could not work on those bills. Instead the Conservatives are telling us that we are ones who are trying to delay Parliament, the ones who are obstructionists for their bills, but they pushed the reset button themselves.

They should be consequential. They wanted prorogation so that they could have a throne speech, which, by the way, was highly criticized for being devoid of content, with many words but very little content. They wanted to go ahead with the throne speech and make it seem as though the government had something new to offer, which to all intents and purposes does not seem to be the case, but it has to be consequential.

Prorogation means the reset button. The government does not have the right to redefine the work.

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

Mr. Speaker, what my friend failed to mention was that the motion before you, at least the portion of it that would restore government bills, is actually a fairly standard motion at the time of a new throne speech and follows thereafter. In fact, we had such motions in 1991, in 1996, in 1999, in 2002, in 2004, and in 2007. It is not unusual; in fact, it is almost what we might call standard operating procedure. That is why it is normally done as a unanimous consent motion.

However, there were a couple of things that changed here.

One is that in drafting the motion, on the government side we decided to not just deal with government bills but to try to be fair to everyone. We decided to look at all the other things that were going on in Parliament in which other people had an interest.

We knew that the member for St. Paul's had expressed an interest in seeing the committee on murdered and missing aboriginal women continue. We thought that made sense as something members wanted to see. There were other committee mandates out there; an example is the study that the procedure and House affairs committee is going to do into members' expenses. That was requested toward the end of when we were sitting in June, and we thought it would be silly to extinguish it. That is something that had been asked for by the opposition, and the independent members actually had standing on that committee protected, so we wanted to ensure that they could have their interests protected as well.

Therefore, we went beyond just dealing with government bills and looked for everyone's interests to be protected. We looked at anything that anyone had proposed and at all committee mandates that were in place. It was a balanced approach that ensured nobody suffered a disadvantage. It was not just the usual approach of only pursuing the government bills; it was to reflect everybody's interests.

Instead we hear from members of the NDP almost a different kind of approach, which is that not only do they not want a fair and balanced approach, but they want to cherry-pick only the stuff they care about and then allow everything else to be dropped.

That may be one approach to doing business. I am not sure it is productive. I am not sure it is constructive. It certainly does not respect the hard work that was put in by parliamentarians on advancing those bills last spring.

We want to see the work of parliamentarians and the interests of all parties respected. We think that this is a balanced motion that does exactly that.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons did not really answer my question earlier.

I really do not understand why Parliament resumed in mid-October rather than mid-September. Clearly, it was not to give the government more time to produce a better throne speech, given that the one we heard was pretty awful.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons did not answer my question regarding the fact that his party's members just wanted an extra week of vacation. I had to wonder what was going on from mid-September to mid-October. It was hunting season.

Was it because the Conservative members wanted to go hunting rather than return to the House of Commons?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not one of my pastimes, but maybe my hon. friend will be interested in enlightening or educating me.

In any event, the reason we broke and had a throne speech is that it is actually a pretty normal thing to do. We had worked pretty hard, and there were only a few substantive bills left on the order paper. We have done a tremendous job in getting through our work, so it was a natural time for it, as happens in many parliaments. In fact, there have been well over 100 prorogations since Confederation, and it is a normal pacing to do that to allow for a refocus of the agenda. We have done that. We have seen it. It ensures that our focus on job creation and economic growth remains. It also ensures that we are looking out for ordinary Canadians with an agenda to help consumers, from unbundling TV channels that are offered to cable subscribers to tackling unfair roaming rates.

All of these things reflect what Canadians want. They are the product of our discussions. At the same time, there is a very important commitment to balance the budget in 2015, and on top of that, to bring in reasonable balanced-budget legislation. It would not be a straitjacket type of legislation but rather legislation that would ensure that when a government does respond to a crisis, which it needs to be able to do economically, it would then place a priority, after the fact, on getting the budget back into balance, paying down the debt, and getting the deficit reduced. It would be much as our Minister of Finance has done in ensuring not only that Canada has done well recovering from the 2008 economic downturn but that our deficit has already been more than cut in half.

As was said in the throne speech, the Minister of Finance is on track to deliver that balanced budget in 2015 to ensure that Canada maintains the strongest fiscal position of any of the major developed economies, something that we have enjoyed throughout this time, thanks to the leadership of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. These are all things that were reflected in our throne speech. They are things that he may regard as a failure but are things that we on this side of the House regard as the successes that are most important to Canadians.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is trying to show that a + b equals something new when, paradoxically, that is not the case. It is the same old thing because there is time allocation with respect to an omnibus motion. Whether we like it or not, we are dealing with the same old thing, with proposals brought forward before prorogation. Unfortunately, they are still with us after prorogation because the throne speech obviously had nothing new and no significant advances for Canadians.

How can the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons justify and help us better understand this type of anti-democratic decision?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very puzzled by my friend, because she seems to be objecting to the notion of doing the same thing all over again. Her posture is to let us do the same thing all over again.

Never mind that we made some decisions on the combatting contraband products act. Let us go back to the start and debate it all over again. Never mind that we had votes and advanced the prohibiting cluster munitions act to implement that international treaty. She says to go back and do it all over again. She is the one who wants to do it all over again. Notwithstanding that the not criminally responsible reform act is in great demand by victims and their families, notwithstanding that it advanced with the support of other parties, including the opposition, she wants to go back and do it all over again. The member wants to debate the tackling contraband tobacco act all over again and toss out the hard work of members of Parliament in advancing the process. It is the same with the Canadian Museum of History act and the same with the first nations election act.

If they are concerned and do not want to do the same thing all over again, they should do what we are proposing here. The members of the opposition should support this motion to allow those bills to be restored at the stage they were at when this House rose in June so that the work is not lost, so that the bills people care about can continue to advance, and so that Canadians' interests can be respected and the work of parliamentarians on these important bills can be respected.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 3:55 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas 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 #1

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE AND ITS COMMITTEES

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed from October 17 consideration of the motion.

Motion No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my opposition colleagues for the warm applause.

Let me start by making a few comments on the motion and what it means. Although many words have been spoken in previous days about government Motion No. 2, particularly by my colleague, the hon. government House leader, I think it is important for those people who may be watching for the first time that I try to explain what government Motion No. 2 is actually about.

Quite simply, government Motion No. 2 purports that all unfinished parliamentary business, which we left when we rose for the summer recess back in June, would return in the same state in which it was before we recessed. In other words, to use the vernacular, we simply want to pick up where we left off.

That in itself is not unusual. Many times before governments have, after prorogation, brought forward similar motions that allowed unfinished legislative initiatives, in other words government bills, to be brought back to Parliament in the same state that they were pre-prorogation. That is what we are doing with approximately seven bills that were still being debated when we rose for the summer and prior to prorogation.

However, we go far beyond that, because although it is normal for governments, previously, to bring back similar motions to try to start the debate on these important bills, we decided not only to just have government legislation brought back but all parliamentary work should be brought back in the same state that it was before we adjourned.

Why is that important? It is important because in committee work there are two, in particular, very important parliamentary studies being conducted by committees. These two studies, I should add, are supported wholeheartedly by members of the opposition.

We appointed a special legislative committee to study the issue of missing aboriginal women. Now, opposition members have been calling for such a study to be enacted for many months, in fact, I think over the course of the last two or three parliamentary sessions. We have agreed to that. We installed a special legislative committee that would allow for such a study to occur. However, if we do not pass Motion No. 2, that committee would be disbanded. That study would be halted.

We think it is incumbent upon us as a government to observe the hard work that parliamentarians did on all sides of the House on that committee, and bring the study to fruition. The only way we can do that is to pass Motion No. 2.

Failing that, what would happen is that there would have to be another legislative committee struck, membership presented and the committee would basically go back to square one on the analysis and study of that very important issue. Why do that? Why should we waste the valuable time that has already been spent on that very important issue? Motion No. 2 would take care of that.

The other study that is ongoing and quite frankly has just started is the study being conducted by the procedure and House affairs committee on members' expenses. I will speak about that in a little more detail in a few moments.

Let me now turn my attention to why the opposition apparently has a problem with Motion No. 2. What the official opposition has stated in its opposition to government Motion No. 2 is that it feels by lumping together government bills and committee studies somehow we are prejudicing the entire motion. They are saying we are somehow playing politics with the facts, because if the opposition wants to approve the continuation of committee studies, it is forced to vote in favour of the motion, which includes government bills.

Not only is that nonsensical, it really defies description to believe that we would even attempt to play politics with such important issues as the study on missing aboriginal women and children. I think any opposition it has to our attempt to pass government Motion No. 2 has now been allayed, because the Speaker's ruling of last Friday said we will now have two votes on the same motion.

The first vote will deal with government legislation. We will vote on whether or not to bring back all government bills in the same state they were in prior to prorogation. We are talking about bills such as the not criminally responsible reform act, the tackling contraband tobacco act, bills that had reached various stages of progression in this Parliament. Some had reached and gone through second reading. Some had reached report stage. Some had even passed third reading. Many of the government bills that we want to bring back had the full support of the entire Parliament. Yet the NDP, primarily, wants to see us refuse to bring these bills back, and in effect, reintroduce them and start the debate all over again.

I ask if there is any sensibly thinking Canadian who would look at this opposition and say that this is the way we should go. Rather than continuing on and getting these bills passed, which all parliamentarians support, would anyone say they want to start all over again, have the same debate again, waste Parliament's time and waste taxpayers' time? No. No one would agree to that, except, it appears, the opposition.

Because of the ruling of the chair, we are now going to be dealing with government bills in a separate vote. If members of the opposition vote in favour of our motion, that is not to say that they are voting in favour of each individual bill. It would merely be to say that they are voting in favour of bringing these bills back to Parliament in the same state that they were before we adjourned in June. To me, it seems like a common sense approach because most of the bills, as I said before, have been approved. Some of them have passed second reading debate. Some of them have passed third reading debate. Many have the approval of the entire Parliament. Why in the world would we want to discard all of that hard work and start over again? It does not make sense.

However, if the opposition was only concerned with the lumping of the committee studies and the government bills, now they should not have a problem with it, because we will have a second vote. That vote will be to bring back other parliamentarian work, specifically committee studies, and restore them to the same state they were in before. Clearly, it gives the opposition an opportunity to make their views known on government legislation and on committee work. If the opposition wants to vote against Motion No. 2 with respect to government bills, it can do so. If it wants to vote in favour of bringing back committee studies, it can do so. However, it will be government Motion No. 2 that we are voting on. Even though it is split into two votes, the motion, I predict, will carry, hopefully with the support of all parliamentarians.

Again, on the legislative initiatives, on the government bills, it does not mean that if the opposition members vote in favour of it, they are voting in favour of each of those seven bills. It just means that we return those bills to the order paper at the same point they were before we recessed for the summer. It is a common sense approach. It saves parliamentary time. It rewards the hard efforts of all the parliamentarians who debated these very important bills for several hours last spring. That seems to be a common sense approach.

Let me spend a few moments on one of the other committee studies. I want to point out what appears to me to be an apparent contradiction and the blatant hypocrisy of the NDP when it comes to the second study that I mentioned, which is the procedure and House affairs' study into MP expenses.

Only a couple of months ago, we had a special meeting. It was held in the summer, when most parliamentarians were not in Ottawa, and initiated by the NDP for the sole purpose of trying to initiate some rules, practices and procedures surrounding this ongoing study into MP expenses, trying to increase transparency so that all Canadians would feel assured that their taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely and appropriately. At the time, the NDP went to great lengths to talk to the media and try to convince the media that it was the only party that truly wanted a transparent approach to member of Parliament expenses. New Democrats talked for many days and many hours, trying to convince the media that the other parties in the House, the Liberals and the Conservatives, really did not want transparency, while the NDP, of course, did.

Since that time, interestingly enough, there are only two parties in the House that have voluntarily agreed to post their MP expenses online: the Liberal Party and our party. We are doing this voluntarily.

Our position, quite clearly, is that we would like to see a procedure and a system set up, hopefully approved through the Board of Internal Economy, that all parties could agree to. In other words, we would have a common approach to posting our expenses. However, in the interim, because that may take some time to develop, our party has agreed to have our MPs post hospitality and travel expenses voluntarily on a go-forward basis. The Liberals have also agreed to that. There is only party that has not agreed: the NDP.

On one hand, the NDP is trying to convince the media and Canadians that it is the only party in favour of transparency. On the other hand, it is the only party that does not want to post its expenses online. Let us think about that for moment. Think about the hypocrisy of the NDP. All of this time when its members were talking about their attempts and desire for transparency, it was nothing more than a political stunt.

There is a saying where I come from, and many Canadians share it. It is “put your money where your mouth is”. If NDP members truly believe in transparency, I challenge them to stand up today in questions and comments following my presentation and agree that their MPs should post their expenses online. It is a simple thing. One can do it voluntarily. Some members may be doing it individually, and I applaud them for doing that, but as a party they have refused to make their MPs accountable to Canadians. They have refused, as a party, to agree to posting MP expenses online. Let them stand up today and say that they will. I would be the first to applaud them and say they have taken a positive step. However, I cannot sit here, and I certainly cannot stand here during this presentation, and admit that they are in favour of transparency when they have not proven it.

Let us vote in favour of government Motion No. 2 this evening so that we can bring back all of the legislative initiatives of this government to the same state in which they were in order to allow further debate and allow those bills to go to a vote. Some may pass and some may be defeated, but at least we should bring them back without any undue delay.

Also, let us vote in favour of bringing other parliamentary business back in the same state it was, specifically committee studies. Let the committees continue their hard valuable work, the work that Canadians have been asking for.

Finally, let the NDP members today stand in their places and say they will join us in posting MP expenses online. If they do not, it only says one thing: that they are not interested in transparency. They are not interested in allowing Canadians to see their expenses but only in political stunts, and that is something we cannot abide.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would really like to know if my colleague opposite has looked at my Internet site, because, like the sites of all my colleagues, mine has a link to our expenses. Everyone does. I do not know where he gets his information from, but I wonder if we should correct the record of what is said here, because my colleague is misleading people.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, if individual MPs are posting their expenses online, I applaud them. However, that is a link to general information. As all MPs know, those are summary expenses and are already posted online. We have reports every year. Merely to say we have a link to our website that provides the same information that Canadians have been receiving for the last 50 or 60 years is not good enough.

We are talking about detailed expenses being posted online so that Canadians can see exactly where we travel to and why, and who is receiving the benefit of our hospitality expenses and why. That is what I am talking about. That is not being conducted by the NDP. Please, will they stand in their places and say they will do that? Shine a light on the expenses of the NDP.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I continue with questions and comments, I would like to remind all hon. members that the matter before the House is government Motion No. 2. While members in their speeches may stray from that, I would urge all hon. members when making questions or comments to make them relevant to the matter that is before the House.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that part of Motion No. 2 incorporates what the leader of the Liberal Party talked about last June, and that was the whole idea of more transparency and accountability for individual MPs. We are glad that we are moving forward on this. We are pleased the Conservative Party has come onside with us. It took those members a little while, but we are pleased they have taken the time to come onside with us.

We are the type of people who look at the glass as being half full. We are hopeful the NDP will some day see the light and see the value of being a bit more accountable and transparent and will join the Liberal initiative, which has been endorsed by the Conservatives. Let us get together and pass it. We do not have to wait for PROC to deal with it. We could pass it with the unanimous support of this chamber and make it happen today.

The member has shown enthusiasm with regard to this idea of being transparent to Canadians. Back in June the Conservatives seemed to be open to allowing expedited unanimous support for the leader of the Liberal Party's motion. Would he prepared to show that support so once again it would be in the New Democratic Party's court as to whether we could make it happen before the end of this month? Would he support that?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of points.

First, I would point out that the member opposite should know the motion he refers to was supported by our government when it was introduced. The only party that refused to vote in favour of the motion brought forward by the member for Papineau was the NDP. However, the point I want to correct for my hon. colleague and my friend from Winnipeg is the fact that the Liberals were actually following our lead on transparency.

I think all parliamentarians understand the fact that our government has been posting ministers and senior bureaucratic travel and hospitality expenses for the last several years. We were the first government to come up with a system whereby ministers would be required to post travel and hospitality expenses. It was not a grand idea from the Liberals. Frankly, they were following a system that we had in place for several years. We are happy they are finally seeing the light and coming onboard with us.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by pointing out to our colleague that the NDP called for greater transparency and accountability, argued very strongly in favour of that, in fact.

We are not criticizing an idea that the NDP put forward weeks, even months, ago. What we are talking about is the government's new tactic: moving a motion to simply undo the consequences of prorogation and the fact that it summarily put an end to the work of parliamentarians.

Our colleague says that it is important to respect the work of parliamentarians. However, the current government is showing no such respect by its actions.

Can my colleague justify any of this at all?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is a little confused on this one. NDP members always say that they want to do work on behalf of all Canadians, that they want to get the job done for Canadians. Yet when that party has an opportunity to bring a bill forward that could pass or at least continue debate on it until the time it finally gets to royal assent, it says no. Those members say the work that has been done previously by all parties, members of their party included, shall now be discarded. Why? I guess they are saying that technically prorogation means all bills die on the order paper and we should respect that. They should use their heads for goodness sake.

Through this motion, we have the ability to do what other parliaments have done for the past number of years. We have the ability to pass a motion that would bring back those bills to the state they were in before we recessed for the summer. That is all this says. It does not mean the NDP has to agree with all the government initiatives. For example, if a bill has already passed third reading and is ready to go to the Senate for royal assent, why in the world would the NDP want to start that debate all over again to get to the same conclusion that we reached last spring? Talk about a waste of parliamentary resources and time, but apparently that is the approach the NDP favours. I do not see it.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way seems loath to discuss one thing in particular: why Parliament was prorogued.

Apparently it was to calm things down and change the channel. Unfortunately, that move was utterly futile except for the fact that we lost a month's worth of time when we could have been getting things done here.

I was embarrassed as I travelled throughout my riding because I was meeting people who work every day and who asked me whether I was working. I told them the truth: I could not work because the Prime Minister had closed up shop.

Now the Conservatives are using their majority government status to “de-prorogue”. Since that cannot happen, they found another way to do it by using their majority. People will see exactly what a strong, majority Conservative government is all about: a month off and an ad hoc parliamentary process in the hopes that people will forget.

In the end, the Prime Minister looks as ridiculous now as he did in June in the midst of the Senate scandal.