Debates of Dec. 4th, 2014

Bill C-43—Time Allocation Motion

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the consultation process is one like we have never seen before in Canada, because we are active. We are already consulting on the budget for next year. We go across the country. The Minister of Finance began in Toronto a number of weeks ago. This week I will be in the west, consulting with Canadians in regard to what they want to see in the budget next year. There have been consultations throughout the entire process.

Canadians tell us this. They thank us for allowing them to appear before the Minister of Finance or the minister of state or the finance committee. They thank us for the good work that the member for Edmonton—Leduc is doing. They thank us for giving them a consultation process like they never had when the Liberal Party was in power.

We are listening to Canadians. That is why we see measures being brought forward in budget implementation acts. It is not because some backroom party hack is developing policy. That was the old way. We listen to Canadians and we implement the measures that they want to see implemented.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to rise to talk about a time allocation motion and to tell the House what I think about the Conservatives. I say “Conservatives” because even my colleague spoke about the Conservative Party of Canada rather than the Government of Canada. He spoke as though the Conservative Party was the government when that is not really how the country should be managed.

The Conservatives see Parliament as something useless that gets in the way of their ideology. That is why they are always trying to pass their decisions as quickly as possible in the House without taking Parliament's opinion into consideration. They have been doing this for three and a half years. The Conservatives have no consideration for parliamentarians' opinions; yet, those opinions should be a primary consideration. The executive should take Parliament's opinion into account. These two things should be separate, but with the Conservatives, they have basically become one.

I do not think that is good for our democracy. They should consider and respect Parliament's opinion. In order to do so, they have to give parliamentarians the opportunity to speak and express their opinions. That is not what they do, so I am asking the Conservatives why they do not have any consideration for Parliament.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to the contrary, we are encouraging debate. Members of Parliament have had, at different stages, ample opportunity to stand in this House and debate. They have had ample opportunity to bring this to committee and to debate. The budget was brought down in February, the budget implementation act no. 1 came shortly after that, and then no. 2 came in October.

The member talks about the number of things in the budget. We obviously are bringing forward measures that we have made commitments to in elections and platforms and we are acting on recommendations that have come out of committees.

However, there is other legislation that would be amended by this bill. For example, there is the Auditor General Act. The Auditor General has brought forward certain measures, and we have incorporated some of those into the budget implementation act. There is also the Asia–Pacific Foundation of Canada Act. Different acts would be changed because recommendations come forward that we can implement. There is the Broadcasting Act and the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act. These acts will be amended because of parliamentary recommendations in many cases. In some cases it is as a result of parliamentary reports or because they are just good practices. In fact, we have accepted some measures from the opposition parties as well.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members will know that I have the honour of representing the riding of Kitchener—Conestoga, which is both an urban and a rural riding. I have many farmers in the riding. I am really proud of the work that our government has done in support of farmers. In the past, we have introduced the agricultural flexibility fund, we have offered support to hog farmers to restructure their debt, and we have allowed grain farmers to have marketing freedom. In every one of those cases, the New Democrats and the Liberals have opposed those measures.

This particular bill has a technical amendment in it that would extend the lifetime capital gains exemption of farm property. Basically, this would make it easier for farmers to pass their farms on to the next generation.

I know my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, has done a lot of consultation over this period. I wonder if he has been able to figure out in his consultations why the New Democrats and the Liberals oppose measures that would improve the chances of our farmers to succeed in this country and produce some of the best-quality food in the world.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to applaud our Minister of International Trade for the very good work he has done in enhancing trade agreements around the world.

The budget implementation act deals with issues with respect to the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement, an agreement which we have had for a number of years, but which needs some amendments.

My hon. member brought forward the issue of agriculture. As a member of Parliament representing an agricultural constituency, and being a farmer myself, I recognize that many of these free trade agreements are driven by agriculture. There has never been a government in our country that has done more for agriculture than this government. Whether it be new markets, or giving farmers the freedom to market their grain, one thing has been constant. The New Democratic Party time after time has stood here and voted against farmers. We have defended supply management and agriculture in Canada.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. The government says that it listens to Canadians but the Minister of the Environment does not even want to put down her newspaper to listen to the questions about her riding in question period. What is more, the Minister of Veterans Affairs has completely botched his file.

Next year, in 2015, people should remember the number 15, because the NDP listened to Canadians. We are proposing a minimum wage of $15 an hour and child care that costs a maximum of $15 a day. Meanwhile, this government is proposing to cut taxes for 15% of the richest families in Canada. It is completely ridiculous.

Will the member opposite support the NDP's measures to help Canadian families?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the member list a litany of things that the New Democratic Party has brought forward. I would suggest maybe that this is part of the reason why the New Democratic Party is in the difficulty it is today.

The first measure she brought forward was a minimum wage. Everyone in the House recognizes that as being under provincial jurisdiction.

She also talked about the Canada family tax package. Every family with children under 18 will benefit from our tax breaks. The majority of those benefits go to low and middle-income Canadians with children. The NDP wants to take it away. The average cash into the pockets of most middle and lower-income families Canadian families, only through that one measure of the family tax package, will be $1,100.

We bring these measures to keep money in the pockets of Canadians. The opposition parties would take those away. Families understand that. That is why families are supportive and know that the Conservative Party of Canada is the best bet for them as a government.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the 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, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 #300

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried.

Bill C-40—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-40, An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill; and

That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of 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 would remind hon. members to keep their interventions to around one minute. That goes for the questions as well as the responses. I remind hon. members that this 30-minute question period is predominantly for questions by opposition members, although time will be provided for government members, albeit shorter in length.

Questions, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, next year at this time when the government is history, it will still go into the history books for two sad records. The first will be for having had more pieces of its legislation rejected by the courts than any other government in our nation's history. Half a dozen times now courts have said that its legislation is badly botched work and have thrown it back to the Conservatives. The second, perhaps even more important, is the sad record of having some 84 time allocation and closure motions. That has never been seen before in Canadian history.

There has never been such a lack of respect for parliamentary debate and dialogue, with the results that I have mentioned earlier, of more bills bing rejected than of any other government.

The questions really are why this bill and why now? First, despite the laudable principle in creating the bill, it undermines the National Parks Act. Obviously the government wants to hide that fact from the Canadian public, which is why it is shutting down debate.

Second, why now, why this morning? Of course, we have Bill C-586 that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has brought forward, and there were five witnesses scheduled to speak at the procedure and House affairs committee: Samara Canada, Fair Vote Canada, Friends of the Reform Act, Democracy Act, and Professor Nelson Wiseman, all wanting to speak on reform and to get their message across.

Obviously the House leader disagrees, so the real question is, why are the Conservatives trying to disrupt the procedure and House affairs committee and trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Canadian public on Bill C-40?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start by answering directly a couple of questions.

First, why this bill? It is because this bill would establish Canada's first urban national park, something that is very, very strongly supported, I believe in the last poll I saw, by some 88% of the residents in the affected area, and in fact overwhelming supported, I believe, by residents across the greater Toronto area who will benefit from Rouge Park being in place.

Why now? It is because the opposition has made it clear that it will do everything to stop the establishment of Canada's first urban national park.

Finally, I feel a bit like a broken record because I am always reminding the hon. opposition House leader that time allocation is not a device for limiting debate, but a scheduling device. In fact, compared with the British Parliament, even with our use of this scheduling device, we provide more than double the amount of debate on bills in this Parliament than in Britain on similar respective bills going through the process and becoming law.

With this motion in place, the bill will have, at a very minimum, eight times the amount of debate at third reading stage that a similar bill would have in the British Parliament. There is ample debate. There is a significant amount. The real reason is that the NDP just tries to stop anything being done by this government.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, another day, another time allocation motion. The hon. member said these now total some 84 motions. I am not keeping track because I have lost track.

This must be a record on a record, because it is time allocation on a park bill, for goodness sakes, which started out with a broad-based agreement in the House where it went on a voice vote to committee, and then it just went south.

What is is amusing to me is that we can fix the bill with a very small amendment. However, in its classic governing style, where everyone else is wrong, whether the Queen's Park government, the thousands of petitioners living in and around the area, the environmentalists or even the farmers, the government believes everyone else is wrong and that it is right. As a result, the Conservatives are just jamming the bill down the throats of folks, and they will have a national Swiss cheese park.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood rose to speak to this, but of course the process of this park being jammed down the throats of Canadians was initiated by the Hon. Pauline Browes when she was Minister of State for the Environment. She initiated the idea of having an urban national park back under the Brian Mulroney Conservative government. The hon. member who asked the question was here for 13 long years in government, a long, long time, and had the opportunity to make something happen to advance that process to allow an urban national park to be established, and what happened under that Liberal government? Nothing, not one thing in over a decade was done to advance the process.

Finally, our government is making things happen and bringing this to a conclusion. The hon. member says they are supportive of it, but something happened along the way: they changed their minds. Perhaps it is because their friends at Queen's Park decided there was political hay to be made. Nonetheless, the fact is that even if the Liberals oppose our government establishing Canada's first urban national park in the Rouge because they did not do it and made sure it did not happen for a decade, we will go ahead and get this done and delivered for Canadians, for the people of Scarborough and the people of the greater Toronto area.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, something absolutely did happen, but the government House leader is completely wrong about what happened. What happened was that the government took a process where there was consensus at the beginning and managed to lose two-thirds of the support in the House for the bill because it is inflexible and not willing to listen to some reasoned amendments.

Everyone in Scarborough, some 88%, as the House leader mentioned, want this park created. Every single Scarborough MP in the House wants this park created. This is going to be the first national urban park and a template for future urban parks, whether they be in Montreal, Vancouver, Victoria, Quebec, or the Northwest Territories, wherever there is an urban setting. Of course, 80% of Canada's population lives in an urban setting. The government is losing support because it is not willing to make the necessary changes to improve ecological integrity and the rules that currently exist.

I hope the minister will finally speak to this bill for the first time in the House to show that she has been paying attention to the file. How many times since the September 2 letter from the Ontario minister of the environment has the minister met to discuss problems? How many times have staff met? Have there been any meetings or discussions between the Ontario provincial government and the federal government since that September 2 letter to see if we can come to a reasonable agreement and reach consensus on this issue after the government lost it all?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have noticed the province backpedalling from the position that the provincial minister took initially when he came out against it. His position was that the current protection under Ontario law was what the province preferred. Let us look at what that meant. That meant it would allow hunting on the land, something that our bill would prohibit. Under the provincial law there would be no protection under the Species at Risk Act, but there would be under our bill. There would be no effective way of enforcement against waste dumping under existing provincial law, whereas in our bill we would have enforcement via dedicated officers. There would be no fines for illegal activities, such as poaching or the equivalent, which take place in national parks, whereas in our bill we would have that protection under the law.

One of the most significant differences is where the member talked about the efforts to change this via the notion of ecological integrity by those who are opposed to the bill. This is an urban park. There are over 80 heritage designated buildings and structures that are worthy of protection. They are very important cultural resources. That protection would be lost were those amendments to be made. Should a forest fire occur, we would not be allowed to stop it from burning down that valuable cultural heritage, a critical part of what is there. That is what the opposition is talking about.

Urban national parks reflect not just nature, but important cultural history, archeological history, and the history of economic activity in the form of agriculture. All of those things would be protected by this bill. They are all things that the province wanted to take away. We are not going to put those valuable heritage properties at risk the way the opposition would like us to.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister being here to explain many of these things today. Earlier I heard some comments by a Liberal MP who said this was being pushed down people's throats. It is my understanding that there was extensive consultation before this bill was presented in this place. I would ask the minister to please comment on that extensive consultation with stakeholders so that we could have a bill that I believe all Canadians can support.