Debates of Feb. 6th, 2014

Committees of the House

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand that particular reaction.

However, the point is that it was the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada who ultimately brought in proactive disclosure. Proactive disclosure makes a difference. I find it ironic that the NDP continues to say “no” to proactive disclosure.

My question to the government—or rather, the NDP—House leader is this: what is it that the NDP members of Parliament have to hide that they do not want to share with Canadians? Why do they oppose sharing transparency and accountability with Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not the government House leader yet. Let us let Canadians vote on that first.

As to the question from my friend, I do not think he actually understands the definition of the word “irony”, in the sense that his leader made grandiose statements about a new ethical standard and all the rest, and swore on a stack of Bibles that he did not take any public money while going to these paid speaking engagements as a member of Parliament.

Again, I do not accuse the Liberal leader of knowingly telling a lie, but in fact that is what ended up happening, because the system in place that my friend thinks is so wonderful and accountable to Canadians, failed. It failed the Liberal leader, actually. That is a shame, because he stood in front of Canadians and said he never took any public money, ever, for these paid public speaking engagements.

One could debate the idea the members of Parliament get paid to speak to the public. I think that is a healthy debate we should have in this place. New Democrats think we are already paid to speak to the public, but that is a different discussion.

More importantly, my point is that our efforts to put through this motion were to have accountability, transparency, and the end of self-policing, which the Liberals are so fond of and which got them in trouble when they ran the sponsorship program. They thought self-policing was enough.

We need good policing. The Auditor General agrees with what the NDP has proposed. I have no idea why the Liberals would rather agree with the Conservative Party than the Auditor General of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask a question of my colleague, who clearly explained the Conservatives' position.

In his speech, he showed just how poorly the Conservative government treats Parliament's independent bodies. Just think of the former parliamentary budget officer, Mr. Page, and the vendetta this government pursued against him. I have to wonder if this is also why the government refuses to accept our request to create an independent body to audit MPs' and senators' expenses.

I have a feeling that the Conservatives want to block that proposal because they are against any kind of independent body, such as the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. When those kinds of bodies conduct independent audits, the Conservatives oppose them and will even take them to court to avoid giving them certain documents. This just shows how little respect the Conservatives have for Parliament's independent bodies.

I have to wonder if that is why the Conservatives and the Liberals opposed our proposal to create an independent body to review senators' and MPs' expenses.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a really good question. It is strange, because the Conservatives and the Liberals voted in favour of this motion. However, when the time comes to do the work, to improve the situation and to put an end to the current system of self-policing in order to set up a good policing system, as proposed by the NDP, the Liberals and the Conservatives agree to say no.

Similarly, the Liberals voted against our motion to put an end to partisanship in the Senate. Then, a few months later, they say that it is impossible and that what the NDP is proposing is ridiculous. However, when the idea comes from the Liberals, it is a very good idea. That is completely different.

In reality, the goal of any party should be to improve the situation. After all these scandals, we should tell Canadians that we have a chance to improve things and allow them to hope that Parliament and its politicians can have a better system.

The Auditor General of Canada says that the NDP's proposal is excellent. I do not understand why the Liberals are asking what the NDP is hiding. I find that strange. Given their party's history, it is interesting to hear the Liberals talk about hidden money and scandals.

The proposal is simple. It is an opportunity for us to improve things. We can finally work together for the benefit of Canadians.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas is rising on a point of order.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when you called resuming debate, I believe I saw my good friend and colleague from Churchill trying to catch your attention. Perhaps she is too close to your chair to get that attention. I do not know how it looks from up there, but I would like to move a motion.

Seconded by my colleague from Saint-Lambert, I would like to move that the hon. member for Churchill be heard now.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

As members know, in order for a motion that a member be now heard to be successful, the person who has just been granted the floor must not have started his or her speech. I did hear the hon. parliamentary secretary start speaking before the member for Chambly—Borduas rose.

I see the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to clarify the precedents on this issue because we had a previous incident much more in contravention. I watched the two members rise and begin their comments simultaneously, so I am seeking clarification from you, Mr. Speaker.

We had a debate on December 7, 2012, in which the then parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage rose in the midst of a speech being given by our MP for Ottawa Centre and applied the same intervention. It was explicitly that the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering be now heard. The Acting Speaker spoke on this point. I will quote from Hansard of December 7, 2012, what he declared:

The hon. parliamentary secretary has moved a motion that is non-debatable and as such, other members cannot rise on this point of order until it has been dispensed with.

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

The Acting Speaker then put the motion to the House.

It was clear that a member had actually begun speaking. The Conservative member rose to interject. He felt that the member for Ajax—Pickering should be speaking. The Deputy Speaker at the time then brought that motion forward so that it could be heard and debated on in the House.

We are just trying to understand the precedents in how this works. It was clear that the member for Ottawa Centre was five minutes into his speech, and the Speaker at the time felt that it was a question that needed to be placed before the House.

I think my colleague from Quebec is raising a stronger motion. Two members rose simultaneously. The Speaker identified one member, but there is a question as to who was to be identified next. Based upon what happened in December 2012, we are led to believe, as the Acting Speaker did then, that the motion then had to be debated.

If it grieves my friends across the way that the House of Commons actually has rules that are applied consistently, then I feel for them and their loss of the minute that I have used to speak.

I would suggest that all Canadians who like to do such things as vote are also interested in what takes place in Canada's Parliament today, because the Conservative government treats Canadian voters, particularly the marginalized ones, with complete disdain.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will read from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, page 597, dealing with this very issue. I will start with the second paragraph:

When two Members rise simultaneously to “catch the Speaker's eye”, the Speaker will recognize one of them to speak. By rising on a point of order, another Member may move that the Member who had not been recognized be given the floor. The motion “that a Member be now heard” is an exception to the rule that a motion cannot be moved on a point of order. The motion may not be moved if the Member first recognized by the Speaker has already begun to speak.

I will take a look at the reference that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has cited and see what the circumstances were around that, as it has just been brought to my attention.

I will give the floor now to the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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 #55

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

The House will now resume with the remaining business under Routine Proceedings.

Navigable Waters Protection Act

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from several people in my region. They are calling on the government to change the reckless changes it has made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, because they believe that it is gutting environmental protection for waterways in southern Ontario and right across Canada.

The petitioners ask the House to please pass and enact my private member's Bill C-498, which would amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act to provide heritage protection to the North Thames, the Middle Thames, and the Thames River.

Public Transit

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to table. The petitioners are calling for a national public strategy. It is estimated that in the next five years, there will be an $18-billion gap in infrastructure needs. Canadians are calling for this national strategy for the environment, the economy, and sustainable development. It is important to connect all three pieces. Without a federal pillar for that, we are going to have challenges.

The petitioners want to make sure that the federal government is not staying at the wayside and that it contributes to public transit in the future.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition in the House today. The petition calls on Canada to adopt a national transit strategy. Right now, Canada is the only OECD country without a national transit strategy.

The petition also calls on the government to make permanent investments to support public transit and to establish federal funding mechanisms, while working with provincial governments to implement this national strategy.

I hope the government will respond favourably to my constituents.

VIA Rail

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition signed by the people of Madawaska-Restigouche and Acadie—Bathurst, in my area. The petitioners urge the Government of Canada to take all necessary measures to reinstate daily round-trip VIA Rail service between Montreal, Quebec City and Halifax, Nova Scotia, through the city of Campbellton, New Brunswick, Bathurst and Miramichi.

The petitioners urge the Government of Canada to take all measures to reinstate daily round-trip VIA Rail passenger service between Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, through the city of Campbellton, New Brunswick, Bathurst, Miramichi, Matapédia Valley, Amqui, Rimouski, and Rogersville, most of which are located in the ridings of the Conservative Party.

Genetically Modified Alfalfa

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present this morning.

The first petition calls for a moratorium on genetically modified alfalfa in order to allow a proper review of its impact on farmers in Canada. This petition contains names of dozens of people from across the province of British Columbia.

Public Transit

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls upon the House to provide a permanent investment plan to support public transit, to establish federal funding mechanisms for that purpose, and to work with all levels of government to ensure a sustainable, predictable, and long-term source of funding for such a vital service.