Debates of May 22nd, 2013

Employment Insurance

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in the House earlier today, we are consolidating EI processing to ensure the system is more effective and efficient for all Canadians. Third party groups will continue to be able to advocate on behalf of clients and we are looking at ways to ensure they have opportunities to do this in a timely fashion. Canadians will continue to receive the service they have received in the past and that they should expect from Service Canada.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Jim Reiter, Minister of Government Relations and Minister Responsible for First Nations, Metis and Northern Affairs for Saskatchewan and the Hon. Russ Marchuk, Minister of Education for Saskatchewan.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Extension of Sitting Hours—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on May 21, 2013 by the hon. House leader of the official opposition regarding the admissibility of Government Business No. 17, a motion to provide for the extension of sitting hours and the conduct of extended proceedings.

I would like to thank the opposition House leader for having raised this issue and the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his intervention.

The opposition House leader claimed that this motion was “contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament”, including Standing Order 27(1), which specifically allows for extended sittings during the last 10 sitting days in June, and therefore that the Speaker should, pursuant to Standing Order 13, find this motion out of order.

In response, the government House leader cited pages 257 and 258 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, to demonstrate that the House may deviate from the Standing Orders for a limited period of time by adopting special orders, which can be done by way of a government motion decided by a majority vote.

As Members know, the House frequently extends its sitting hours in the month of June, prior to its summer recess. The opposition House leader is correct in stating that, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), the House can extend its sitting hours for the last 10 sitting days in June, prior to its summer recess. This has been done on a number of occasions. However, it is also true that that particular Standing Order does not limit the ability of the House to alter its sitting hours on days other than those in June prescribed by Standing Order 27(1). Should the House wish to extend its sittings at times outside that specific period, it would need to do so either by way of a motion decided by a majority vote of the House, or by unanimous consent.

Both of these methods have been used from time to time. I would refer members to footnote 113 on page 404 of O’Brien and Bosc for examples of this type of motion that have been adopted in the past.

A review of past examples also shows that, while motions related to sittings and proceedings are frequently moved under the rubric “Motions” during routine proceedings, such motions have also been moved under government orders. As cited in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 454:

The Chair has consistently ruled that the Government House Leader should be the one to introduce any motion pertaining to the arrangement of House business, and that the motion may be considered under “Motions” or under Government Orders, depending on where the Minister giving notice has decided to place it.

Therefore, the Chair can find no evidence that either the rules or the privileges of the House have been breached and so I find Government Motion No. 17 to be in order.

I thank all members for their attention in this matter.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty, pursuant to section 23(2) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to lay upon the table a report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Alberta with an addendum dated April 6, 2013, which disposes of the objections raised by members of the House of Commons.

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.

While I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now 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 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 #686

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is rising on a point.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

moved:

That, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 17, the debate not be further adjourned.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I would invite hon. members who wish to ask questions during the 30-minute period to rise in their places at this moment so I can determine how much time needs to be appropriated for members during this period.

As has been the practice, we ask hon. members to keep their interventions to no more than one minute, and similarly the responses to around a minute. We will try to get as many members in the period as possible. As has been the case in the past, members will know that preference is given to opposition members to put questions to the government.

The hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, as you can see from the response from New Democrats, when democracy is being undermined by the government, when the House continues to be abused by the government with more and more closure motions, many of my colleagues join the voices of Canadians who actually want a Parliament and a democracy that functions, unlike the vision and aspirations of the Conservatives who seek to not only muzzle this place but their own members of Parliament.

When asked direct question after direct question on issues that are important to Canadians, such as the potential for fraud that has gone deep into the Prime Minister's own office, and the potential criminal activities that have gone deep into the Prime Minister's own office, we will seek time and again to allow the voices of Canadians to be expressed, to make sure that Parliament functions on behalf of those we seek to represent. The adding of insult to injury to Canada's Parliament that has been done by the Conservative government will be resisted by New Democrats from morning until night.

The government House leader has chosen to add closure to a motion that has already been abusing the parliamentary protocols and precincts of this place. My only question for the government is this. One would think that with its majority and ability to pass legislation that using normal rules would work, but not with these guys. With a complete lack of agenda or any kind of vision, they must force down their agenda, whatever it is, on Canadians and Parliament. When is this going to stop? When are Canadians going to get the kind of Parliament they deserve?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve a Parliament that is willing to work hard. Canadians deserve a Parliament that is focused on job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity. Canadians want their Parliament to be focused on making the streets safe for their families and children. Most importantly, they want the members they have sent here to be willing to work hard.

I heard much bluster from the opposition leader. It was very cute. Let us keep in mind that this is a motion that he says is undemocratic because we are seeking to allow debate to continue until midnight every night so we can get more done, have more debate, have more democracy, have more votes on more bills, and get more things done for Canadians. That is the picture of Parliament that Canadians want: one that is hard-working, productive and orderly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Liberal Party do not take a back seat to any member in the House. We are committed to working hard for Canadians. At the end of the day, we will do whatever it takes to ensure that Canadians are first and foremost at the top of the House of Commons agenda. That is where Canadians can count on the Liberal Party being. If that means working extended hours, we are prepared to work the extended hours.

The concern we have is the government's attitude. From becoming a Reform-Conservative minority government, we now have a massive Reform-Conservative majority government. It is a change in attitude that is a slap in the face for democracy. We have seen the Conservative government, more than any other government in the history of our country, bring in time allocation after time allocation on a wide variety of bills. The Liberal Party is committed to working hard.

My question to the member is this. Is the government prepared to also work hard, which includes allowing for the necessary time on each and every piece of legislation? One of the ways to do that is not by bringing in time allocation in the manner which the Conservative government has brought in time allocation—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must correct the member. The way in which we have used time allocation has actually been to ensure that there is adequate debate and that bills come to a vote. This is our duty as parliamentarians. Our duty is to debate matters. We have ensured very extensive debates on bills, but we have also ensured that they come to a vote. That is our obligation to our constituents. They elected us and sent us here to do that work, but they also sent us here to make decisions. Making decisions means more than just obstruction.

I know there is probably no member as fond as that member of speaking in the House. Talk and debate have their value, but so does making decisions. We are going to be focused on doing that in the weeks until we rise for the summer, by staying here until midnight, working to get bills passed. We look forward to continuing to work in a productive fashion as, I might add, we have been able to do with his party in coming to agreements on how we can move legislation forward that matters to Canadians.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit torn about the motion.

I am more than happy to stay here until midnight tonight and other nights. The vote has not been held yet, but knowing how democracy works in a majority situation, I know that the motion will be adopted. Despite being a member of the NDP, my math skills are sharp enough for that. I am torn because sitting until midnight will give us more time to further illustrate how contradictory this government is and how, since 2006, it has been doing exactly the opposite of what it got elected to do, but that comes as no surprise.

The thing I am torn about has to do with the answer I have been trying to get from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons since yesterday. Sitting until midnight is all well and good. We on this side of the House certainly have no objection to that. However, the Conservatives cannot guarantee that we will be here until the originally scheduled date for summer adjournment. If we sit until midnight until June 21, then I might be tempted to vote with the government because it seems to me that we could get some good work done for the country in that time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the objective of this motion is very simple and very clear. It is to sit additional hours to have more debate so more things can get done. That is why the government has moved this motion.

I am pleased to hear the member from the NDP say that the NDP members are content to work late and to work hard. Thus, I anticipate their support for this motion after her intervention.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that the government continue to support tangible achievements to keep our streets and our communities safe, in Orléans and across the country.

Since the last election two years ago, our government has taken action to protect children from sex offenders and put an end to house arrest for violent offenders who have committed serious crimes. We have targeted organized crime groups that make and possess illicit substances for the purpose of trafficking.

With the additional time provided for in the motion, will we have the opportunity to debate new initiatives to keep our streets and our communities safe in Blackburn Hamlet, Beacon Hill and Convent Glen and from coast to coast to coast?