Debates of March 6th, 2014

Bill C-25—Time Allocation Motion

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this motion reflects our conviction that a full day to study a bill with four sections is plenty of time to deal with the technical nature of the bill. This is not about whether or not an agreement will be respected. This is about ensuring that the will of that first nation, which concluded this agreement with Canada, is implemented.

I cannot see why we would need weeks or days to discuss a four section bill. I suggest that the NDP get to work and that we get this bill passed.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and ask a question.

I listened very carefully to the minister's comments on what happened this morning and on the possibility that the Chief Electoral Officer's appearance in committee will have to be cancelled. He implied that if the House did not hold a recorded vote, the Chief Electoral Officer could possibly have a chance to testify before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs this morning.

On our side, we accept that recommendation. We have no intention of rising to demand a recorded division. We would accept a decision on division.

Now for my question. We have been discussing this issue for years and we have negotiated. Now, the government has introduced a bill. We only had one opportunity to discuss it last Friday. However, the government has once again decided to issue a gag order, as usual. The official opposition has indicated that it supports this bill. We will not even get a chance to constructively debate this bill before it is passed.

Why did the minister not have the decency to consider referring the bill to committee before second reading stage?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my hon. colleague for his suggestion. I hope it will be shared by our friends in the official opposition.

As for whether we should adopt this motion, I would say that the additional sitting day that will be provided for the consideration of the bill at second reading will allow it to be sent immediately thereafter to the standing committee, which can debate it more thoroughly and examine the four clauses in much greater detail.

I do not believe the bill needs to be sent to committee before that. Let us proceed with second reading of the bill, and the legislative process will then run its course.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always stunned by how little respect all Conservative members seem to have for their duties as members of Parliament and the privilege of representing their constituents. I am always surprised to see that they do not care about representing their constituents.

Here in the House of Commons, it is our duty to represent our constituents and to ensure that we can debate this bill properly.

I would like to ask the minister why he is ignoring his duty and showing no respect for what a privilege it is to be here in the House of Commons.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am always astounded by the NDP members who believe that it is in the interests of Canada, its taxpayers and its workers to have MPs here just for the sake of making sure that government bills are not passed.

As we saw again this week, the NDP members are perfectly happy to waste time in the House. They are perfectly happy to ensure that no progress is made on any bills. We, on this side of the House, we were elected to take measures to help taxpayers, our constituents and people throughout Canada. That is exactly what we are doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is confusing to me when time and again opposition members ask for more time to discuss, debate, and study various bills and then use all of that time either filibustering at committee or wasting time here in the House of Commons talking about process. They do not want to discuss the issues.

I had the honour of serving on the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee when I first arrived here a number of years ago. I am proud of the advancements our government has made on many initiatives that have helped our first nations people address the terrible situations in the lives.

In the last number of years, I have not had the privilege of serving on that committee, so I have not studied this bill as much as I would have liked. I have a question for the minister regarding the liability clause. Would the minister address why it is important to restore the integrity of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation? If he could address that, it would help me a lot.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that we at least have some members who are interested in the substance of the bill.

The inclusion of the liability clause in clause 4 of the bill provides certainty that no compensation or damages would be paid either by Canada, the first nation, or any other party to those individuals who it is determined are not members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation once the enrolment process has been completed. I would add that this clause would not prevent individuals from pursuing whatever other remedy they wanted. However, they would not obtain the benefits of status Indians if they were not status Indians.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would seem as if we have another case of “here we go again”. It is pretty clear that what is going on here is an attempt to disrupt the presentation of the Chief Electoral Officer at 11 o'clock, which already is going to be pushed off as a result of this motion and the vote.

Again, we see the government bringing in not only an unfair election act but also an undemocratic process around it, and that is what is going on right here. We cut an honourable deal with the government, at least I thought it was an honourable deal. It was honourable on my part and it was certainly honourable on the part of the member for Winnipeg Centre when we made a deal with the government about what would happen with the Chief Electoral Officer.

I know the Speaker is going to bring me to relevancy in a moment, and I have some recent experience with that.

My question for the minister is this. Is he not embarrassed that his own government is manipulating his bill and his issue in order to achieve an undemocratic process and deny the Chief Electoral Officer the chance to come in and give 90 minutes of uninterrupted witness testimony? Is he not embarrassed by this?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the record will show that if this does not take place at 11 o'clock, it is simply because the New Democrats will have insisted on a nominal vote. If they want this to go ahead, all they have to do is pass this motion by a voice vote and that will solve the issue.

To the member's question, my answer is no.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us understand this. The government, throughout the history of its unfair election act, has attempted at every point not only to muzzle the Chief Electoral Officer but to deny Canadians even some modicum of consultation and respect. Now, the Conservatives take a first nations agreement and hold that up as a technique to sabotage the Chief Electoral Officer's coming in and testifying, and then attempt to blame all this on the opposition; then attempt to say that this is all of them being victims.

The bill has been in the House for a couple of hours and then the Conservatives introduced time allocation and shut down debate. They then had the audacity to lecture first nations on their lack of respect and accountability. How dare they use an issue as important as first nations' rights and title in this country to then shut down the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and deny Canadians even that small amount of respect after so much disrespect shown to the people who put us here to represent them each and every day?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I see that the conspiracy theory of the member's leader is rampant among the benches of the NDP.

The experienced hon. member has not alluded to the fact that if he wants this absolutely to take place at 11 o'clock, he can simply not insist on a nominal vote. I will again invite the hon. member to agree that a full day of debate will be enough to deal with four sections of a technical bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, here is the promise the government can quickly make. It is that, after this little bit of sabotage work this morning, the Conservatives will not introduce another time allocation motion on a separate piece of legislation. We noticed some strange coincidence last night, that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons got to his feet and said that the Conservatives had two motions in which they would like to shut down debate on two pieces of legislation. By coincidence, the timing would allow them, not once but twice, to interrupt the Chief Electoral Officer's testimony, which as my colleague from Hamilton said, was an agreement worked out between us and the government, in good faith.

Something we need to learn on the NDP side is that good faith between Conservatives and anybody is something we just cannot trust. Do the Conservative members not understand how far they have drifted from the basic tenets of democratic values, how far and how cynical they have become that they are willing to use the House of Commons to block the Chief Electoral Officer and say that this is a proper way to run the country's affairs?

We have had a couple of hours of debate on this thing. Our key critic on this issue has yet to even speak to the bill. We have offered support for the legislation, and the Conservatives are using it, and the member is being used and he must know it. He must know that his government is cynically putting him up. It is much as they did with the member from Mississauga, to perpetrate mistruths in the House, and it is all to justify the unfair election act; all to muzzle the Chief Electoral Officer; and going into the future, all to disenfranchise Canadians from their democratic rights.

That is the game the member is playing a part in today. He should take some ownership of it.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's offensive comments are so unfounded that they do not even warrant a response.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

We have time for one more quick question.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, a short question.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me try it again. He does not deign to have a response to questions we pose to him. I asked him a very specific question, how comfortable he was being used by his own government, presenting some issue of importance, as the Conservatives did the other day, but as a shield to block something that is critical.

The other day it was on a privilege motion where a member had been caught telling mistruths to the House. The government used procedural tactics. The monkey wrench gang of the Conservative Party is back. We all remember the manual it had to shut committees down. This is its new tactic, not just shutting down committees in committee, but using the House of Commons, using first nations rights and title legislation, in order to accomplish the same cynical means.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development now has 25 seconds.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, all the time has been taken by the hon. member to say nothing about the motion before the House. I trust, then, that the hon. member and his colleagues will support this motion to allocate one more day of debate on Bill C-25, so it can be sent to committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Order. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the nays 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 #78