Debates of May 22nd, 2013

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans has been a very strong spokesman for law and order issues and for tackling crime, particularly in his community. I thank him for the question.

I should add that as House leader, I was pleased to work with members like the member for Ottawa—Orléans from the Conservative caucus to keep the commitment we made to Canadians to pass, within our first 100 sitting days, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which bundled together numerous pieces of legislation that had been obstructed for many years by opposition members. We were finally able to deliver it as a result of having a majority government.

Over the coming weeks, we will continue to build on this record by moving forward to deliver real accomplishments to keep our streets and communities safe. We will make improvements to the witness protection program, which is very important. We will move forward with the not criminally responsible reform act. We will also move forward with changes to protect women and children on reserves by granting them rights equal to those that women living off reserve have enjoyed in Canada for decades.

I would also like to move forward with our government's plan to get tough on those who traffic in contraband tobacco, if that is sent to us by the other place.

We will continue to take action to keep our streets and communities safe, and we will take advantage of the additional working time this motion proposes to do just that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand what this time allocation motion is really on. It is really on the motion to extend the hours of Parliament. This is coming much earlier than normal.

We do not mind working late hours, but we are incensed that the government is always invoking closure and limiting debate on real issues.

The government is trying everything it can do to avoid the PMO-Duffy scandal. We know that the Prime Minister is out of the country. Is this really an approach to try to get what government business it can get done now so that it can prorogue Parliament earlier and get out of town and not have to answer questions in this House? Is that really the game being played here? This is an extension of hours way ahead of the normal time. It is about three weeks ahead. Is there a scheme at play, coming right out of the Prime Minister's office, to avoid the scandal the government is caught up in?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, there are many who like to ascribe motives for why Conservatives want to work hard. Conservatives understand that we like to work hard. I know that a Liberal would find it surprising, perhaps, that we want to work hard. Certainly, the hon. member seems to be mystified that we would do this earlier than has occasionally been done in the past. We are doing it because we want to get things done for Canadians, because they have sent us here to work hard. That is exactly and simply the motive behind our effort to have the House sit late and work hard. It is to deliver results on those important things Canadians sent us to do, such as create jobs, ensure economic growth for Canada, ensure our long-term prosperity, and build safer streets and communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, instead of trying to enact laws for our neighbourhoods, perhaps it would be better if the Conservatives started making laws and having the Senate comply with them. I think that is the priority.

The government is being cynical once again. It does not know what democracy means. It is showing unprecedented contempt for our parliamentary bodies and for Canadians. Fortunately, Canadians are not fools. They understand the political game the Conservatives are constantly playing.

When will the government act respectfully and ethically toward democracy and Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, we always conduct ourselves with very high ethical standards. In this case, there is one very important ethic. It is called the work ethic. We on the Conservative side of the House believe very strongly in the work ethic. That is what we are seeking to advance here.

Let us talk about some of the important bills we are looking to have debated in advance as a result of the motion to extend hours here.

There is the technical tax amendments act, Bill C-48. This bill has been around for years. There is uncertainty in our economy and uncertainty among those who are functioning, because these changes have been put in place structurally but need to actually be cemented legislatively. It is about time we got on and did that.

There is the Canadian museum of history act. The bill would help us create relevant history for Canadians and respect for our Canadian national identity in a proper and full way. This is something that is very much overdue.

There is the safer witnesses act, Bill C-51. It is very important for us to provide changes to the Witness Protection Program Act if we want to have safer streets and communities. Why would anyone from any party want to resist having a bill like that debated? Why would they want to limit the amount of debate in this House so as to keep bills like that and the others from moving forward.

I will continue going down this list as we discuss this. These are very important priorities for Canadians, and that is why we are bringing in this motion to work a bit harder.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons wants to make darn sure we all know how hard he plans to work now. Am I to infer that his government has been slacking off since the beginning of the session?

Like all other parliamentarians in the House, I have no problem extending sitting hours to debate real issues, as long as we show respect for Parliament, democracy, elected representatives and, above all, the people. There are some important issues we should be debating.

However, unlike the member for Gatineau, I am worried that, by forcing this superclosure on us, the government is once again trying to push its ideological agenda and bills through with no regard for democracy or Parliament, never mind the wishes, needs and priorities of the people of Quebec and the other provinces.

I would like to hear from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. I believe that is the government's plan, and I would like him to say so clearly.

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

Mr. Speaker, one way to respect the rights and powers of members of Parliament is to give them opportunities to vote on bills that matter to their constituents.

Our record and today's motion prove that we intend to create that opportunity so that we can all work a little harder and deliver results for Canadians, the economy and safer communities.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt and no wonder there is uncertainty in the economy. Last week's scandal was that the government had misplaced $3.1 billion. No wonder Canadians have concern about the economy. It is the government's inability to manage the economy that has created the uncertainty.

Furthermore, there is all the talk about safe streets the government likes to prattle on about. Every time it mentions that, we get reports in the media about more and more guns coming over the border onto our streets in Toronto. Not only are they coming over and being sold, contraband, they are now being rented. The government has no response to that. The Conservatives go on and on about us on this side of the House, when they are not accountable at all to the people of Canada.

With respect to what we are discussing here today, I would like to ask the government House leader if this working until midnight is a one-off. We are happy to work. Everyone knows that New Democrats are the hardest working people in the House of Commons. Is this a one-off, or are we going to run out the calendar? We are happy to work until midnight to the end of the calendar. Will the member let us know if we are going to the end of the calendar?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is some great irony to me in folks proclaiming how hard-working they are while they vote and oppose motions to work harder. That is what this motion is for.

The member raised the issue of economic certainty. Some of the things we hope to deal with are important for economic certainty. They are things that he and the NDP have already voted against. They are things like extending for two years the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new investment in machinery and equipment. This makes our manufacturers and our workers more competitive, more productive and more able to compete in global markets. This is something the NDP opposes. Indexing the gas fund payment to municipalities to better support their job-creating infrastructure is, again, something they voted against. However, we are determined that it should get through, notwithstanding the NDP's opposition.

There are reforms to the temporary foreign worker program so that the priorities of Canadian workers come first. New Democrats claim to be a workers' party, but they are opposing those measures and our economic action plan, Bill C-60.

I could go on and on, but these are the kinds of measures we are proposing to help ensure that Canada's focus is on job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents want to make sure that our government is focused on the economy, and they want to make sure that their representatives here in Ottawa are focused on the economy. Could the House leader assure our constituents that with this important motion being put forward in the House today, we are going to use the extra time we are asking for to focus on what matters to Canadians, which is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is indeed the case, because it is the number one priority of our government. One can see it in our legislative agenda.

I just went through some of the elements of Bill C-60. There are others, such as support for genomics research for Genome Canada and support for the Canada Youth Business Foundation to encourage an entrepreneurial ethic in the future for future generations. I know that an entrepreneurial ethic is something that is foreign to the NDP, but it is something we believe in and that we believe deserves support.

There is also funding for Indspire, for post-secondary scholarships and bursaries for first nations and Inuit students. This is something we are going to have an opportunity to debate and vote in favour of. Perhaps the NDP members will change their votes from the past, when they opposed it.

Enhancing the adoption expense tax credit is another item. Introducing a new, temporary, first-time donor super-credit for first-time claimants for charitable donations is another. These and many other measures are, of course, included in our budget and in Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 bill, which is focused on economic growth, job creation and long-term prosperity.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if the House leader is aware that tonight we are going to be voting on a motion to extend the sitting hours, which means extra debate. Right now, the House leader has tabled a motion to stop debate. Could the House leader please reconcile the two?

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

Mr. Speaker, the debate we are talking about moving forward with is actually one about how long we should sit. We could have lengthy philosophical discussions about how hard we should work. I am hearing everyone say that they have already made up their minds. They are willing to work hard. I believe that is the position I heard from the Liberals and from the NDP.

If the members are not prepared to vote on that now, if they still want to continue debate and extend it, if they want to oppose bringing that to a vote, that suggests to me that there is a gap between their words and their deeds on the other side of the House. It is that gap between words and deeds that breeds cynicism about politics.

Here, on this side, we are straightforward. We want to work hard, deliver results, get bills passed and do this in a constructive, productive, hard-working and orderly fashion. We invite the opposition parties to join us in that quest to deliver results for Canadians.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleague that he did not answer the NDP's question. Will we be going to the end of the calendar? That is what we want to know. We have no problem working until midnight, or even for the entire time allocated to the House of Commons if necessary. We can even extend the motion. The problem is that what we have before us now is another time allocation motion. The House of Commons has been muzzled over 30 times.

The sitting hours of the House should be extended to ensure a democratic process and democratic discourse, not to impose endless gag orders. The Conservative government has set an all-time record in this regard, even managing to beat the Liberals. Something must be done to protect the democratic process and make the Conservative members answer our questions. When asked whether we will be going to the end of the calendar, the Conservatives should tell us. When asked whether they will act on the scandal involving the senators, they should tell us. That issue does not make sense either. It is outrageous. We will rise in the House and we will keep fighting.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I was impressed to watch President Obama deliver the state of the union address in the United States. I was impressed because one of his major themes was that certain elements of American society who cared about particular issues deserved at least a vote on those issues.

What he was addressing were the problems that have gripped the United States because of legislative gridlock. Legislative gridlock is not helpful to their economy and is not helpful to their democratic process, because an important part of the democratic process in a legislature is not just the talking but also the voting, the making of decisions, such as is done here in this House.

This is what I say to the hon. member who is complaining that we brought in measures to ensure that we actually vote as MPs on bills that are before us. I do not apologize for that; I am proud of it. I am proud to give the opportunity to all members of this House to vote on the legislative proposals in this House, to be accountable to their constituents for how they vote on those bills and to be able to make real, meaningful changes to the law in this country. We should all be proud to have the opportunity to do that here in this House.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again we are looking at a time allocation motion. With respect to the bills that the minister says that the Conservatives need to push forward, as we have indicated, we have no problem working until midnight.

Last year, we worked through Saint-Jean Baptiste Day, right up until the following morning. We have no problem with working.

Can my colleague tell me how much time will be allocated for our speeches or if he will limit debate on all of the bills the government puts forward? The government is somewhat lacking in the ethics department. Whether it is Mr. Penashue, Ms. Oda or the senators, we can see that this government is not making a difference for Canadians. I will repeat the question.

How many more time allocation motions are the Conservatives planning to move on the bills that they are putting forward, and how long do they think they are going to keep this charade going?

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

Mr. Speaker, first I will help out the member. She started her question by saying that what we have before us is a time allocation motion. That is not the case. We are not going to be voting here on a time allocation motion. That is not what is before the House. The member should familiarize herself with it, and I am sure she will do that before we have the opportunity to vote.

I will repeat what I said. The purpose of time allocation in this House has been to allow for debate to occur and to allow for votes to happen, to create certainty for Canadians and for members of Parliament that we will actually get to vote and make decisions in this Parliament. For those who think that there should never be an opportunity to vote and prefer that there just be debate without decisions made, that is a legitimate perspective. If they wish to obstruct and if they think that legislative gridlock is good for the country, then I invite them to encourage that approach.

We on this side do not believe that legislative gridlock is good for the country or good for economic certainty. We believe that actually taking decisions, voting on the bills before us and doing the work we were sent here by our constituents to do are important parts of our job, and we are pleased to continue to do that so that the proposals before the House can be debated, be decided upon and become law when appropriate.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in continuation of my question, we are going to be voting on extending our sitting hours so that we can continue and increase the hours of debate. Meanwhile we have closure, whereby the House leader, as he just indicated, is going to pick and choose the items we are going to be debating and what we are allowed to say.

In the meantime, we have not even been able to debate what is before the House right now, so why does he not allow the debate to go on and forget about this closure motion?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to confess I found that question a little bit confusing, so I will simply say that the purpose of our motion is to allow for late sittings of the House. It will allow us to sit to midnight so that we can get work done by debating bills and ultimately voting on those bills. There are very many important ones for Canadians, and I will continue going down the list of things I thought were important priorities.

One of those is the not criminally responsible reform act. This is a bill that really needs to get to committee so that we can hear from witnesses. There are people who have concerns about the bill. People think it is very important to see these changes take place to make their communities safer. We owe it to them to have a vote on this bill, to have it go to committee, to allow witnesses to appear and present their views so that we can ensure that we strike the right balance.

I think we strike the right balance in the bill, but we need to at least let it go to committee, and that is something the House can do with a vote. With these late hours, we will have an opportunity to make that happen. I hope we will have the support of the hon. member to do just that.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the House leader just mentioned the not criminally responsible reform act, which has been before the House but has not been allowed to come to a vote. He also mentioned items before the House being able to come to a vote. Back home we are told many times as parliamentarians that we seem to discuss the same items a lot. People say that every time they turn on the TV, parliamentarians are discussing the same thing over and over again.

Could the minister please tell us again how important it is that we finally get to a vote on the many pieces of legislation before the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, who serves his community with tremendous distinction. He is an accomplished local community leader and business leader, and he really has a sense of what is important to people in his community. I think that is why the not criminally responsible reform act, Bill C-54, is important to him. This bill will that ensure public safety should be the paramount consideration in decision-making affecting high-risk offenders who are found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

This is an important value question in our justice system, including for those who are found not criminally responsible because of a mental disorder. Are we going to make community safety the first and foremost consideration in all decisions? That is what the bill proposes to do. This issue has affected absolutely every region of this country and has affected many people in a very deep and personal way. The very least we can do is let the bill come to a vote and send it to a committee where, as I said, witnesses can testify about it. With the extra hours we propose, that can happen.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, democracy is a political system that must be nurtured with good governance.

Democracy is not a given. It must be protected and fostered on a daily basis. I have no problem working hours on end. I fought for years against a dictator in another country.

My only problem is that our constituents already feel disillusioned because of these scandals involving politicians who break the law.

Will this government give us some real answers and protect us from these delinquents who are attacking democracy within the Canadian Parliament? I hope that we will get some real answers during the long hours we will be working.

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

Mr. Speaker, one way we can earn respect as parliamentarians is by working hard. We can earn respect as parliamentarians by dealing with legislation that proposes to deliver a number of measures that the government is proposing.

One is investing in the Nature Conservancy of Canada so that it can continue to conserve ecologically sensitive land. I know this is very important to constituents in my community.

Another is providing support to the Pallium Foundation of Canada to support training in palliative care for front-line health care providers. Another is supporting the Canadian National Institute for the Blind to expand library services for the blind and partially sighted. These community organizations are very important.

Also important for families in my community is removing tariffs on imports of baby clothing and certain sports and athletic equipment. If we sit late and we all agree here to work hard, these are important measures that we can actually get into law.

I know the NDP and the Liberals have voted against those measures. Perhaps after we have more debate in the House as a result of sitting late, they will come to their senses and see why those measures are good for Canadians and good for the Canadian economy.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on 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.