Debates of Nov. 6th, 2013

Motions for Papers

[The Acting Speaker, Mr. Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statements, government orders will be extended by 25 minutes.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the Bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at the 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 said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite all hon. members who wish to participate in the 30-minute question period to rise, and from that point we will decide how much time we will allot to the period.

That being the case, we will look to those putting questions to perhaps guard their interventions to around one minute and we will have sufficient time to get each of the people participating.

Questions.

The hon. House leader for the opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the 57th time since the election that the Conservatives have done this. Incredibly, that is roughly the number of senators appointed by the Prime Minister. I think he broke his promise with 59 senators.

There are so many quotations from current Conservative ministers and from the Prime Minister, when the Conservatives were in opposition, railing against this very tactic, that my challenge is to choose which one is most appropriate. Let us take one from the Prime Minister. He said:

We have closure today precisely because there is no deadline and there are no plans. Instead of having deadlines, plans and goals, we must insist on moving forward because the government is simply increasingly embarrassed by the state of the debate and it needs to move on.

Does that sound at all familiar, given the situation that we have here today? The Prime Minister was then complaining about the governing Liberals.

We have the Conservatives moving time allocation as if they hope to normalize the situation of shutting down debate in Canada's Parliament, that it would somehow be a good and normal practice, which it is not. The Conservatives shut down debate on the bill previously before they prorogued. Now they have to do it again because they prorogued and killed the legislation in the last Parliament.

Enough is enough. When are the Conservatives going to realize that a little democracy is a good thing? It would look good on them if they actually allowed the House of Commons, Canada's Parliament, to do its job and hold the government to account.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have risen as a new minister, and I would like to thank all my colleagues who will be working with me to ensure that we honour our museums, arts and culture and everyone in Canada who works so hard to make Canada the best country in the world.

Now, to respond to some of the questions put to me by my colleague from the NDP.

Time allotment has been something that the member continues to harp about. However, we must remember that this is a bill that was introduced in the spring. It is a bill that is widely supported by many people in this industry. It is also supported by many Canadians. I want to put on the record, for those who happen to be watching, that the bill has received significant consultation and attention, including approximately 15 hours of debate, and there have been approximately 52 speakers. That is not all. There have been consultations done by the museum officials, which were very important. I am hoping that I might actually get another question from my colleague in the NDP because I know he wants to know what Canadians had to say to the museum officials when responding to this consultation. Therefore, I will sit down and hope that he asks that all-important question.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader. It is important that we recognize that never in the history of our country have we seen a majority government of any sort here in Ottawa bring in time allocation as often and frequently as the current government. We need to recognize that when they bring in time allocation or this form of closure, they are preventing debate inside the House of Commons, limiting individuals' ability to share their ideas and thoughts, whether criticisms or whatever they might be.

The issue is that the government members continue, well over 50 times since they formed this reform/Conservative majority government, to feel that the only way they can pass legislation is through time allocation.

When is the government House leader going to start negotiating in good faith with all opposition House leaders and the House leadership team so we can bring some normalcy back to the House of Commons? This is not the way to be dealing with legislation. Canadians would not approve.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, also from Winnipeg where I am from, for that question. However, he has probably asked that question three or four dozen times. I am not entirely sure why he does not want to talk about Canadian history, about the fact that we would create a museum that would talk about our identity.

Winnipeggers strongly support the bill. They strongly support this government. That is why we have a majority of Manitoba members coming from the Conservative side of the House. In fact, he is the only Liberal member in Manitoba. I appreciate working with the member, but I would appreciate hearing what his constituents want to hear, which is how this museum would help them.

The way it would help the people of Manitoba is that we would have the ability to share exhibits. Thanks to this new bill, we would be able to see the Manitoba Museum bring exhibits from the museum of history to Manitoba so that all of his constituents and all of my constituents might be able to enjoy them. We would also be able to allow the Manitoba Museum and others to exchange exhibits and bring them to the national capital.

In respect of those Manitobans who are watching, I am very excited to have the bill before the House today. I hope my hon. colleague will support it so that Manitobans in his riding, my riding and all ridings of Manitoba would be able to enjoy these artifacts that make us who we are, the proudest of all Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would like to remind the hon. members that during this period, most of the questions on the motion will be asked by the opposition, but from time to time a question from the government side will also be accepted.

The hon. member for Gatineau now has the floor.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to question my colleague, who is accusing us of not wanting to take a closer look at Bill C-7.

It is important to understand that we are working under a time allocation motion. In the little time we will be allotted a few minutes from now, we will have the opportunity to deal “at length” with the bill. Being from the Outaouais, I can say that the unanimity the minister seems to be talking about is non-existent.

That said, this 57th time allocation motion bothers me since there is virtually nothing on the House's legislative agenda. It is not as if we have 26 bills to examine. To paraphrase the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, this is nothing but a time- and schedule-management tool. There is next to nothing before the House.

I find it unfortunate and I do not understand why the government introduced a bill about a museum and then limited the discussion with a new minister who would do well to listen to what people have to say on the subject.

I would like the Minister to answer this question, in particular: why call for a time allocation motion for such a topic as the museum's new mandate?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

The answer is very simple: we are listening to Canadians. Canadians want to use this museum, which will be dedicated to our Canadian history and identity. This is important to them.

I would urge my colleague, whom I consider a friend, to listen to Canadians, too. Canadians paid attention to what we did last summer. Furthermore, we have already had several hours of debate on this bill.

The museums held consultations. A large number of Canadians responded and were excited by the prospect of having a museum that would celebrate our country's history.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, there are two points to this question.

The first is that it is fascinating that we have spent over 20 hours debating the bill over the last number of months, with countless hours in committee and the research that was done. Over 20,000 Canadians filed online responses to the question of what they thought the museum should be about and whether they were supportive of it. I am shocked that instead of coming into the House of Commons to talk about Bill C-7, whether it is second or third reading, the opposition does not even ask about the museum. Thousands and thousands of Canadians have already stated what they believe the museum should be and what it should do.

The second point is that when opposition members finally spend a bit of time speaking about the bill, all they do is misinterpret what the bill says, try to take folks down a completely wrong road that does not exist and actually misrepresent what the bill says and what is going to happen at the museum. I say today that we should give the minister the opportunity to tell Canadians exactly what the truth is about the museum of history.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know very well that this government supports the history of this country with tremendous passion and dedication. This museum is going to allow Canadians from coast to coast to coast to celebrate with us all of the historic moments that we are missing. Right now, the museum is in need of renovations and updating. The bill would allow this museum to actually live again, be in the present, and celebrate the past with Canadians from coast to coast.

There was one thing that happened yesterday that we have not been able to mention. If the House would indulge me, I want to take a moment to do that. I am very pleased to congratulate Lynn Coady, this year's winner of the Scotiabank Giller Prize for her short story collection Hellgoing, who one day may be part of our Canadian history museum.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Since this is about shutting down debate on a motion, I do not think it is right that we have people filling up time with all other manner of things, avoiding the fundamental debate at hand, which is the shutdown of our ability to speak in the House. This is what we need to be speaking about. I ask you to keep that in mind, because this is about our democratic rights as members.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention.

We have been down this path before in these types of debates where these time allocation motions have been debated. I remind hon. members that the actual subject, the bill the time allocation motion is the subject of, invariably does become part of the debate, because members use the elements in the bill to argue their points either in favour of or opposed to the very motion before the House.

It is very difficult to separate the two, but I am cognizant of the member for Timmins—James Bay's intervention in this regard and will listen carefully to make sure that we keep the questions in front of the House pertinent to the question at hand.

The hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, the government is using an exceptional measure, namely time allocation. This use of time allocation is designed to give us fewer opportunities to talk about an important bill. Usually, this measure would be used by a government in exceptional circumstances. By using this measure for the 57th time, the government is once again flouting democracy and is seeking to ensure that parliamentarians are not able to debate a topic that is fundamental to and important for democracy.

Earlier, a member asked why the government is once again using time allocation. The answer is simple. It wants to make history and put this type of rhetoric and abusive process on display in its own propaganda museum. The minister was very open about the fact that they are going to create a new museum. It makes me wonder though, since the museum already exists. Why create a new museum when there is one that already fulfills the role it was created for? Renovations are all well and good, but we are worried that the minister and the government are once again trying to influence history by creating a propaganda museum.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his remarks.

I disagree entirely with what he said about democracy. The government continues to bring forward and propose legislation that is in the best interest of Canadians and Quebeckers. With this bill, we are going ahead with a change to the museum's name and mandate, thereby creating a new museum.

Our museum of history will explore Canadian identity, Canadian history and the events that make us proud to be Canadian. I would like to invite my hon. colleague to celebrate with us and to stop saying that 20 hours of debate in committee and in the House is not enough. No one can say that there was not enough consultation when 20,000 people took part in the consultations held on museums. The time has come to move this bill forward and create a good museum of history.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister began by saying that this was her first time rising in the House to speak as the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and I wish I could congratulate her on that. What an inauspicious start to begin this discussion and have to rise to defend the 57th motion to restrict debate in the House. That means that 40% of the government's legislation has been shut down with time allocation motions.

As my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley mentioned earlier, there was a time when the government seemed to respect the principles of debate and democracy in this place and held those values and that practice high. They left quite a trail of words in the official records of this place.

I would like to quote from the minister's predecessor as Minister of Canadian Heritage, when he was in opposition.

He said, “Mr. Speaker, here we go again”. I would editorialize to say that he said “here we go again” long before it was 57 times. He carries on: “This is a very important public policy question that is very complex and we have the arrogance of the government”, that being the Liberal Party at the time, “in invoking closure again. When we look at the Liberal Party on arrogance it is like looking at the Grand Canyon. It is this big fact of nature that we cannot help but stare at”.

The NDP is not prepared to just stand and stare at these things. We will pursue a compelling reason for the minister to shut debate down on this issue once again.

Is there some compelling reason to have to shut debate down and violate the principles of democracy in this place once again?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that democracy exists thanks to the government that is standing before him here today. There is democracy and also protection of our citizens.

This is the government that continues to listen to the concerns of Canadians. When I talk about protection, I am glad that this government has moved forward to ensure that our streets and our communities are safer, thanks to some of the bills we saw in the last Parliament. They were moved forward to ensure that our children are protected, that our women are protected, and that our aboriginal people are protected. Were it not for this government reacting to our democratic rights in a way that would protect our communities, those groups would today still be at risk.

The NDP wants to stand in the way of protecting those people. I will not. I will continue to push forward, as Canadians have asked, to make sure that this museum of Canadian history is put in place so that they can celebrate who we are, what we are, and what we will always be: proud Canadians.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague on her new appointment as Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages.

I am quite sure that she probably did not intend to suggest that it is due to the current administration that we have democracy in Canada. We have democracy in Canada thanks to centuries of Westminster parliamentary tradition, to the basic principle that government exists and is legitimate only by the consent of the governed, that Parliament is supreme, and that in Westminster parliamentary democracy, all members of Parliament are equal.

That is why motions like this are so egregious. I do not blame her, in particular, for this. It has become, as we have heard from other colleagues, a constant pattern to shut down debate. I think it is wrong. I think we do need to re-examine it. I wish that those members on the opposite side of this House would say to the political master sitting inside the PMO, “Enough. We want full debates. We want to respect members of Parliament on all sides of the House”.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for those kind words of encouragement.

I want to agree with her as well. We have a long history here in Canada of parliamentary procedures that have evolved from exactly what she said. That includes democratic principles such as time allotment. That includes what we are doing here today, listening to Canadians and pushing forward what Canadians want to see us push forward. They do not want to see delay for the sake of delay, which, unfortunately, is the opposition's plan and strategy every time we try to bring forward something Canadians have asked for. I will not allow delay for the sake of delay to interfere with what Canadians want. I will continue to push forward and hope that they will join us in celebrating Canada's history with this new museum name.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin with a quote from November 27, 2001.

For the government to bring in closure and time allocation is wrong. It sends out the wrong message to the people of Canada. It tells the people of Canada that the government is afraid of debate, afraid of discussion and afraid of publicly justifying the steps it has taken.

That statement was made, at that time, by one of the minister's former colleagues, Vic Toews.

There is something I do not understand about what the minister is saying. Is she saying that what the museum is doing now is no good, that it is not doing the right thing? She seems to be blaming the current authorities and the work they are doing and saying that they really have not been going in the right direction.

My question is this: is the minister blaming the work that the museum curators are currently doing?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, not at all. In fact, we have a great deal of respect for what the museum curators are doing.

I would also like to respond with a quote from the president and CEO of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. He said:

We are also pleased that this government recognizes that preserving our nation’s history is vitally important to national life and to our national sense of self.

That means that the president, Mark O'Neill, agrees with our proposal to breathe new life into this museum. He works very hard and I want to thank him for that. His team also works very hard. I want to thank them on behalf of the Government of Canada. I am eager to work with him on the proposal that is before us today: the creation of the museum of history.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today is the fact that we have a government that shows absolute contempt for the role of the Westminster tradition. We heard it from the minister herself, because she was not going to allow what she called debate for debate's sake.

I know that my Conservative colleagues do not understand or perhaps are not interested in the Westminster tradition, but we are called here to debate. We have a mandate from people who vote for us.

The Conservatives have contempt for the people who vote for us, because they say that they know what is good for Canadians, and so they do not waste time debating. If they do not want to waste time debating, they should leave the Westminster tradition.