Debates of April 10th, 2014

Opposition Motion—Time allocation and closure

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to speak to the motion brought forward by my opposition colleagues.

I note that my colleagues from the Liberal Party were not inclined to take up any of the suggestions made by the government House leader last Thursday. I would also welcome the opportunity to debate how his party would propose to eliminate the budget deficit, a commitment our government made to the Canadian people, which we will deliver on next year.

Today we are debating the motion from the Liberal Party, dealing with the long-standing provisions in the standing orders related to the curtailment of debate. In particular, the motion seeks to amend the standing orders so that one could not use the procedural mechanisms of either closure or time allocation in relation to any bill that seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act or the Parliament of Canada Act.

This limiting of the motion to these two acts obviously comes as no surprise, given that the opposition parties are opposed to our government's fair elections act, which would amend the Canada Elections Act. While the focus of my remarks today will be on Standing Orders 57 and 78 and their histories, evolution, and appropriateness, I would also like to take a minute to make a few observations on this particular aspect of the motion.

I would contend that if it were not for their opposition to the fair elections act, we would not be debating this motion at all today. Previous governments of different partisan stripes have long used these procedural mechanisms to curtail debate when they were in government. Of particular note, there is good reason why my Liberal colleagues did not include in their motion, amendments to the standing orders to change how closure or time allocation is used.

Their real opposition is with a particular bill before Parliament, and I expect most of their comments today will be directed toward that bill, as opposed to the Standing Orders. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to state my support for the fair elections act, and I will quote the Minister of State for Democratic Reform as to why I believe the bill should be passed:

...the fair elections bill would ensure that everyday Canadians are the players in the game, that special interests are pushed to the sidelines of the game, and that rule-breakers are pushed out of the game altogether.

He went on to say:

It would close big-money loopholes, impose new penalties on political impostors who make rogue calls, and empower law enforcement with sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.

As I said, what I would like to focus my remarks on today is the history and evolution of Standing Orders 57 and 78. By highlighting their evolution, I think it will become clear to those following this debate, possibly even to the members opposite, why these procedural mechanisms that curtail debate are necessary and appropriate.

Often in this place, the terms “closure” and “time allocation” are incorrectly switched and misused, especially by the opposition. To be clear, Standing Order 57 provides the government with a procedural mechanism to force a decision by the House on any matter currently under debate. This is referred to as “closure”. Whereas, Standing Order 78 sets out the procedural mechanism for restricting the length of debate on bills through “guillotine motions”; referred to as “time allocation”. The standing order actually has three subsections that set out different kinds of restrictions which apply to the allocation of time, depending on the degree of acceptance among the representatives of all parties.

Before I provide an overview of the evolution of these two standing orders, I would like to quote three sources: the current government House leader; a past government House leader; and Beauchesne’s, which is one of our procedural bibles. Each of these statements address the necessity and appropriateness of using such procedural mechanisms. To begin, on page 162 of Beauchesne’s it reads:

Time allocation is a device for planning the use of time during the various stages of consideration of a bill rather than bringing the debate to an immediate conclusion.

A compelling argument as to the necessity of time allocation motions was made by the former Liberal government House leader when speaking to the report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of Procedures of the House of Commons, the last time the rules regarding time allocation and closure were amended.

On October 4, 2001, as per page 5946 of the Debates, he stated:

Time allocation is necessary, of course, when debating legislation, so that the government can put through its legislative program. The opposition parties are, I am sure, aware of that necessity but they object when the government makes use of it.

I will leave it to the House to decide who has stated this principle more eloquently and effectively, but in keeping with the words of a former Liberal government House leader, our very own government House leader has also tried to convey this principle to our colleagues in opposition. As recently as April 3, 2014, he stated the following with respect to time allocation and Bill C-31:

Of course, time allocation is not used by this government to shut down debate, because here we are debating, which we will be doing tomorrow, Monday, and Tuesday. It is used as a scheduling device so that all members of this House can have certainty and confidence about when the debate will occur, and more importantly, about when the vote will occur and when the decision will ultimately be made. That is very important.

I find it very interesting that this same practice that was used many times by the Liberals when they were in office is now being criticized by that same party. Canadians are not fooled, however. They expect this from the “do as I say, not as I do” Liberal Party.

I would now like to provide an overview of the history and evolution of these two procedural mechanisms, as it is important to note how they came to be established as rules in our Standing Orders and how they have evolved over time.

While neither closure nor time allocation existed as procedural mechanisms at the time of Confederation, it did not take long before it was recognized that complete freedom of debate was impossible and that some restraint would have to be exercised, or some accommodation reached, for the House to conduct its business within a reasonable timeframe.

In the years following the turn of the century, the inability of the House to come to a vote on a question was not infrequent, leading often to long, protracted debates.

This led to the House in 1913 adopting amendments to its rules to add a mechanism to end debate called “closure”—effectively our current Standing Order 57. Other rules then followed that also addressed the issue of lengthy debates, including limiting the length of the speeches of members in 1927 and, in 1955, further limits were imposed on certain debates.

Closure was applied 11 times from 1913 to 1932, but then was not used again until 1956, when the pipeline debate took place. That spring, during the acrimonious debate on the bill, entitled, “An act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipeline Crown Corporation”, closure was invoked at each stage of the legislative process. It was the only mechanism, at the time, that the government could use to advance this legislation.

With respect to legislation, the use of closure was deemed to be somewhat inflexible and inadequate as a tool for conducting the business of the House. Discussions began with a view to looking at ways in which the time of the House could be better managed with respect to the consideration of bills. It was felt, as highlighted by the pipeline debate, that the closure mechanism was not effective in advancing legislation, since the process of giving notice, moving the motion, and voting on it had to be repeated at every stage of a given bill.

In the 1960s, as the business of the House became more complex, the House agreed to establish a number of special committees charged with considering the procedures of the House and, in particular, to make suggestions to expedite public business. It was recognized that the complexity of legislation was increasing and that procedural mechanisms were needed to ensure that business would be dispatched within a reasonable amount of time.

Agreeing upon a mechanism was not easy. In the 10th report of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented to the House in 1964, it was acknowledged that it was difficult to reach an all-party agreement on the proposal to deal with the fundamental question of the allocation of time, and so no recommendation was made at that time.

Following the report, early in the next session, the government moved a resolution that included a time allocation mechanism. It called for the creation of a business committee that would propose an allocation of time for the specific item of business referred to it. If unanimous agreement could not be reached by the committee, consisting of a member from each party, a minister could then give notice during routine proceedings that at the next sitting of the House, he or she would move a motion allocating the time for the item of business or the stage.

The government's resolution was debated for 12 days and amended to provide, in the instance where unanimous agreement could not be reached, for a minimum of two sitting days at the second reading stage, two sitting days at the committee stage, and one sitting day at the third reading stage.

Eventually this proposal was hived off from the resolution and studied by a special committee. The committee proposed a further amendment that would allow the Speaker to extend the sitting on the final day of a time allocation order applying to third reading of a bill. On June 11, 1965, the proposal was adopted as provisional Standing Order 15(a).

In the following Parliament, the House decided not to extend the provisional Standing Order 15(a). Instead, the House referred the matter of time allocation to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.

On June 20, 1969, the House adopted the third report of the committee, which provided for three options under which a time allocation order could be made—effectively the basis for our current Standing Order 78.

The procedure mechanisms for closure and for time allocation have remained, by and large, unchanged since they were established in 1913 and 1969 respectively. There have been a few minor changes, which I will briefly outline

With respect to closure, the mechanism has been modified on only three occasions. In each case, the change related to the time for putting the question. In 1913, the time for putting all questions necessary to dispose of the closure motion was fixed for 2 a.m.

Subsequently, the time was moved back one hour to 1 a.m. in 1955, in order to conform with the change made to the ordinary time of adjournment. The time was then moved back to 11 p.m. in April 1991, and finally to 8 p.m. in October 2001.

Similarly, there have been only a few amendments to the time allocation Standing Order. In June 1987, amendments were adopted to provide that time allocation motions after only oral notice would be moved under government orders rather than under motions during routine proceedings, and that debate on items of business under consideration at the time the motion was moved would be deemed adjourned.

Then in 1991, the House agreed to remove the two-hour debate on the time allocation motion moved pursuant to then Standing Order 78(2) and 78(3). The motion was to be decided forthwith. In addition, the text of the Standing Order was amended to provide that if the time allocation motion were moved and adopted at the beginning of government orders and the bill under question was then called and debated for the remainder of that sitting, that would count as one sitting day for the purpose of the Standing Order.

As is the case with many Standing Orders, practice and Speaker's rulings have also played a role in defining how the procedural mechanism of time allocation is to be used. The following are a sampling of some of the key rulings since the implementation of such a Standing Order in 1969.

In December 1978, Speaker Jerome ruled that a time allocation motion could be moved covering both report and third reading stages, even though third reading had not yet begun. Speaker Sauvé confirmed in 1983 that notice of intention to move a time allocation motion could be given at any time.

Speaker Fraser ruled that an oral notice of a time allocation motion need only be a notice of intention and not notice of the actual text of the motion.

Finally, in 2001 a new Standing Order was adopted, flowing from a recommendation in the report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of Procedures of the House of Commons that I referenced earlier. Standing Order 67(1) was adopted, providing for a 30-minute question and answer period when a closure motion or a time allocation motion, without the agreement of any of the opposition parties, were moved on a bill. During this 30-minute period, questions would be directed to the minister sponsoring the item of business under debate, or to the minister acting on his or her behalf.

From the historical overview I have just provided, I think that it is telling that these procedural mechanisms have not only been longstanding, but that they have also remained largely unchanged since they were implemented.

I would venture to say, therefore, that the reason for this is that they fulfill an important purpose, that is to provide the government of the day with a tool to ensure that legislation can be debated and advanced through the House in a timely fashion. This is a tool that all governments have used to date.

Without such a tool being available to the government of the day, the opposition would be able to indefinitely delay each and every government bill. That would be undemocratic and would not recognize the mandate given to the government by the Canadian people.

In closing, I need only go back to the second session of the 37th Parliament to highlight an example of the use of time allocation on a bill that would violate the conditions set out in the motion that we are debating today. It was the previous government, and the very same government House leader I quoted earlier, that moved a time allocation motion for Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing). Therefore, I question not only the purpose of today's motion, as it is clear that the procedural mechanisms of closure and time allocation serve an important role in this place, but also the sincerity of the party opposite, as those members know full well that without this mechanism, governments would be unable to pass virtually any bill.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the overview of the evolution of the two Standing Orders in question by my colleague, but I think his assumptions at the end that nothing would otherwise get passed are certainly over the top.

In this particular case, we have two fundamental acts that need to be fully debated in the House, and there are reasons of convention as well. It is a matter of tradition that we always achieve consensus on something as fundamental as these two acts. I believe that anyone who wants to be heard in the House certainly has a right to be heard. Again, after there were only three speakers on the last bill, given the amount of opposition to it and the discussion about it, I certainly do feel this is important.

There is such a thing as time allocation for dilatory motions by those who nefariously attempt to hold up the business of Canada. However, there is also the abuse of a tool within our Standing Orders, which we should be treating with the utmost respect. This is why I ask the House to pass this motion to codify the protection of these two acts.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the work that my hon. friend does here in the house. However, we have been debating Bill C-23 now for four hours. We have had 42 speakers on the bill.

As I outlined in my remarks, and as my hon. friend from my own party noted earlier, we need to take into account the limited number of hours that we have in this place and the limited amount of time allotted to each member of Parliament. If we were, in the fullness of time, as my hon. friend indicated, to let every member speak on every piece of legislation, each member would only be allowed to speak on eight bills throughout the life of a current year in Parliament. That is unacceptable. The Canadian people sent us here to engage in the fullness of debate, not only with our own members but also with opposition members.

We on the government side believe in full debate. We believe that this bill has been debated for a robust number of hours. We believe that the fair elections act is a fair bill, and we stand behind it as a government. I know that the Canadian people also do.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his words on this motion that we are debating today.

To be clear, I am going to support the motion, even though it is limited. I wish it covered far more than the two bills it does cover. However, I am delighted that my colleagues at that end of the House of Commons are better late than never, because they also had a propensity to use time allocation and closure motions.

I want to remind my colleague who just finished his speech that 55 time allocation motions and 6 closure motions were moved during this sitting of Parliament. When time allocation is moved even before there are speakers on a motion or notice being given, it really does limit debate.

I will use the budget bill as an example. I did not get an opportunity to speak on that motion because so little time was allocated, and it is a critical bill. However, it is like a telephone book with many issues in it.

Does my colleague not believe there should be a fair amount of time allocated to debate, and that we not have the truncated process we are being bullied through?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to my hon. friend that if she did not have sufficient time or an opportunity to speak to her own bill that she address that to her own party's leadership. Maybe it is more of a reflection on her than on anything else.

The current Standing Orders, as they stand, seem to be fine when the New Democrats put forward private members' bills from a number of their own members. The member for Pontiac and also the Leader of the Opposition have put forward private members' bills that were governed by the same regime of Standing Orders. It seemed to work fine for them then. The Standing Orders work fine for Parliament now.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual that bills of this type attract a lot of attention in Parliament. After all, this is the one occasion when we can be guaranteed that every single decision-maker is both an expert, having been through the electoral process, and a stakeholder, who cares about the electoral process. That is why, through all of Canadian history, these types of bills have attracted a disproportionate amount of attention.

I go back to 1885, with the franchise bill, for example. Sir John A. Macdonald brought forward an electoral reform bill that proposed to extend the vote to women and aboriginals. The Liberals so fiercely opposed those changes, because they thought they were partisan and would aid the Conservatives, that they held up the bill for the better part of two years, because these kinds of devices were not available. Only did the bill pass once Sir John A. and the Conservatives reluctantly removed the provision for votes for women. As a result, it delayed the vote arriving for another quarter-century or more. Of course, the Liberals took away the vote for aboriginals when they won government in 1897, with Laurier's bill on the same subject matter.

Is it not unfortunate that these kinds of good progressive changes were actually blocked by the ability to debate unlimited by the opposition in those cases, and as a result, women were denied the vote?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is absolutely right. Our government was sent here by the Canadian people to get a job done. We made a number of commitments in the 2011 election. We have been fulfilling those commitments, and we intend to fulfill them all. We have respect for the voters of this country, and that is why we are introducing the fair elections act to even improve our own democracy and improve voter turnout in the next election.

I would agree with what my hon. friend has said and what he has indicated. We should maintain the Standing Orders as they are, as they appear today.

I would add that earlier in my remarks I may have indicated that we had only four hours of debate. It was four days of debate. Let me correct that to ensure that it is clear in the record.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what happened 120 years ago, I was wondering if the hon. member could talk specifically about Bill C-23, in this particular case. He talked about the enfranchisement of voters, or really the disenfranchisement. Obviously, the way this bill has been handled, there is no consensus whatsoever.

I want the member to rely upon a third person, outside of this House and outside the structure of party politics, and to quote from that person as to why Bill C-23 is so good.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend were right, I would agree with him, but unfortunately, he is not. The Liberals tend to talk about nothing, because that is what they tend to be expert at.

Going door to door in my riding of York Centre, which I do often, people tell me that they are looking forward to the new fair elections act, because they know that having to vouch for somebody is not a fair way of indicating voters. As our Prime Minister has said, it is important that we have a secret ballot and not secret voters in our elections.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I believe the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert is rising on a point of order.

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very important point of order.

On Tuesday morning, during routine proceedings, the chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food reported Bill C-30 back to the House with amendments. I wish to seek a ruling from the Chair as to whether an amendment to Bill C-30, adopted by the committee, is in order.

I understand that generally, the Chair does not involve itself with the business of committees, given that committees are masters of their own proceedings. However, as Speaker Milliken pointed out on February 27, 2007, at page 7386 of the Debates, ruling on a similar matter:

As the House knows, the Speaker does not intervene on matters upon which committees are competent to take decisions. However, in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, particularly in relation to bills, the Speaker has been called upon to deal with such matters after a report has been presented to the House.

I submit that an amendment moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, and adopted by the committee, is out of order, because the committee has exceeded its authority.

The amendments to the committee-adopted subsection 116(4) seek to add an entirely new and different provision to the Canada Transportation Act that was clearly not envisioned in the original draft of Bill C-30, as tabled and passed by the House at second reading on Friday, March 28, 2014.

The summary of the original Bill C-30 states that:

This enactment amends the Canada Grain Act to permit the regulation of contracts relating to grain and the arbitration of disputes respecting the provisions of those contracts. It also amends the Canada Transportation Act with respect to railway transportation in order to, among other things, (a) require the Canadian National Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to move the minimum amount of grain specified in the Canada Transportation Act or by order of the Governor in Council; and (b) facilitate the movement of grain by rail.

Bill C-30, as originally tabled, was about moving grain. It is much needed. It is a serious problem with respect to farmers getting their grain to market. However, the amendment, tabled at committee by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Foods, and adopted by the committee, seeks an entirely new power:

Subsection 116(4) of the Canada Transportation Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (c):

(c.1) order the company to compensate any person adversely affected for any expenses that they incurred as a result of the company's failure to fulfill its service obligations or, if the company is a party to a confidential contract with a shipper that requires the company to pay an amount of compensation for expenses incurred by the shipper as a result of the company's failure to fulfill its service obligations, order the company pay that amount to the shipper;

The Minister of Agriculture may believe that this is a favourable amendment, and it may very well be. The problem is that it exceeds the authority of the original bill and provides quite an extraordinary remedy in that it gives the regulator the power to award damages in the absence of any procedural fairness, any rule of law, or any discoveries.

In the ruling on the power of a committee to make amendments, Speaker Fraser ruled, on April 28, 1992, at page 9801 of the Debates, stating:

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend, or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting this may be.

It may have been very tempting to amend the bill to provide for compensatory powers within the regulator, but it falls outside the four corners of Bill C-30 as it was adopted by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that in this instance, the amendment to Bill C-30 is both beyond the scope of the bill and also reaches back to make changes to the Canada Transportation Act that were not contemplated by the bill. The amendment passed by the committee has the effect of giving the Canada Transportation Agency the right to award damages, a right that at this point in time has been the sole purview of the courts.

The amendment to subsection 116(4) is out of order, because it does not relate to the original subject matter of Bill C-30 as introduced and passed by the House at second reading and because it introduces new issues that were not part of Bill C-30 as originally introduced. The amendment is therefore beyond the scope of Bill C-30 and should be removed from the bill. I look forward to a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the tradition of this place, when a point is raised and a ruling requested, obviously there has to be representation from all sides so that you can bring back a ruling that takes fully into account the arguments and facts. The government would like to contribute to this particular discussion, and we will be making a timely submission so that you can make that ruling.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point that the Liberal Party may want to come back on this point that has been raised. The member articulated his point and his side of the argument. I would point out, though, that the compensation he is talking about in the amendment would not actually be going to the people who are really hurt, which are the farmers. It would be going to the shipper, which is not the farmer in most cases, unless it is a producer car. Therefore, the compensation in the bill would not get to those who are most injured by this particular problem in terms of the supply chain and the transport of grain.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair appreciates the point of order that was raised by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and the member for Malpeque. The Chair will take this under consideration. I would encourage any member or party that would like to respond to this or make a contribution to do so in a timely fashion, given the nature of the point of order in the first place.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Time allocation and closure

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to support my colleague, the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, on the Liberal opposition day motion.

I will not read the actual motion, which is rather technical. The motion speaks to a very serious flaw in Canada's democracy. That flaw was especially revealed in the way that the Conservative government has operated with respect to Bill C-23, the fair or unfair elections act, whatever members want to call it, depending on their perspective, and how the regime would impose its will to the exclusion of all other views. That is a part of what is forcing this motion today.

I listened closely to the member for York Centre earlier, going back through a lot of history and where closure, time limitation, and debate have been used. There is no question that sometimes it is necessary in regular business as a government, in terms of doing the business of a nation.

However, let us understand what has been happening in recent years. There have been omnibus bills, 400 pages in length, dealing with sometimes as many as 40 different pieces of legislation that have nothing to with the budget. In previous times, most of those pieces of legislation would be broken out so that they could go to the appropriate committee. They would be debated here and would have a full hearing.

It has to be noted that in terms of this motion today that we are only dealing with the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act. What more important business could Parliament have than with those particular acts, which are the underpinnings of our democracy?

We need to ensure, at least on those particular pieces of legislation, that a slight majority government in Canada cannot impose its will in this place. It is one of the flaws in our democracy. The government needs to get things done, but it does not have the majority of the votes in the country.

The Conservative government, in particular, fails to operate for all Canadians; it tends to operate for a certain ideological base. As a result, these laws are not debated and analyzed in a proper, open, and transparent fashion, with the necessary witnesses. As I said, the government is imposing its will on the people and without proper debate.

The rationale behind this motion is that changes to legislation that are fundamental to our democracy should only be made through a consensus-based process. The Conservatives are treating Bill C-23 as another piece of partisan legislation to be rammed through Parliament at their convenience. This needs to be prevented from happening, now and in the future. That is what this particular motion would do. It would ensure that there is the proper debate.

Again, I listened to the member for York Centre, when he said that if we had the opportunity to debate every bill over the course of a term, members would only get to speak on eight bills in the whole term. Nobody is talking about every bill. We are talking about the way that government members continue to operate. They try to misrepresent and mislead the facts by saying something that is spinning it a little, that is a bit close to what the motion is talking about but is not the real thing.

How many hours would it take up in the House of Commons if the committee studying Bill C-23 travelled to every region of the country to hear what Canadians have to say on the bill? Would that not be the proper thing to happen in a democracy, that a committee goes out there to the country with the bill in hand, with all the parties present, and allows witnesses to have their say directly in their own areas, rather than either transporting them to Ottawa or doing a video conference? It should get out in the country where people can be heard, where people from the countryside can come into the meeting, rather than in the kind of bubble that is Ottawa.

Changes to legislation like the Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act, which are fundamental to our democracy, must be achieved by broad consensus and be backed by solid evidence. That is what the proposal by my colleague, and this motion, is all about, that there be proper debate, in a proper forum, with the proper amount of time on these two pieces of legislation. That is why we, as a party, have introduced the motion today that will change the Standing Orders of the House of Commons to prevent any government from using time allocation and closure to shut down debate on changes to the Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act.

As a member of the Liberal Party, I would point out that if the government continues to run roughshod over Canadians by forcing through its bill, our leader has committed that a Liberal government will repeal the Conservatives' undemocratic changes to our country's Elections Act. That is a sure thing.

How serious is this particular bill? There was an article in iPolitics this morning that fairly aggressively states where Canada will be left if this bill is passed. The article in iPolitics is entitled “The Fair Elections Act is a global disgrace”. It is written by Anita Vandenbeld.

Ms. Vandenbeld worked for a number of years internationally, on democratic development with the United Nations Development Programme, the National Democratic Institute, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the Parliamentary Centre. She has considerable experience on viewing democracies around the world.

I will not go through all of our arguments; I will go to some of the witnesses before committee. However, I would encourage people, and especially the Conservative backbenchers, that rather than just accepting the speaking points from the PMO, to read this article. She spells out the serious flaws and how Canada is becoming an embarrassment around the world with the way the current government is operating and how it is trying to seriously undermine the main foundation of our democracy.

The key point she makes, which in stark reality shows what her view is on this particular bill and the way that the government is handling it, is this. She states:

The last time I worked in a country where a government used its majority in Parliament to ram through changes to an election law without public input was in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2011. I never would have expected this in Canada.

That tells us how the people with the experience in looking at democracies around the world are looking at the actions of the government.

I have to say this because I hear some chirping from the backbench over there.

People who are on the back bench have to understand that they are not members of the government. The cabinet is the government. They are members of the governing party. They have the right, if they so desire, to stand up in their own right and represent their constituents and Canadians. They do not need to follow the whipped moves from the PMO.

They can stand up and express their own opinion, and on something as fundamental as Canada's election laws and the Parliament of Canada, I would love to see them tonight, or whenever the vote is held, standing up in support of this motion. We would applaud them for showing that, under this regime, democracy could even work in this place. That would be quite startling, and I would love to see it.

Legislation affecting our democratic institutions is too important to be rammed through in a partisan manner by any government. Such legislation should be able to get support from at least one other party in this place. We are all here representing constituents. We cannot be that far apart on issues such as democracy.

One would think that the government would be able to get at least one party on side in support of its legislation. As a result, though, of its not gaining that support, we are seeing an abuse of processes in this place in situations like those with Bill C-23, which is horrible legislation in my view. It seems there is no support from anyone other than the Conservative Party, but it intends to ram it through Parliament.

As such, I maintain that this is an affront to our democracy. Canada was previously seen as a model for other developing democracies, with Elections Canada, government representatives, and spokesmen being asked to profile how we operate in Parliament, how we run elections in this country.

That is all going to be gone, because we are now seen, such as at the United Nations, very differently from we used to be. We are no longer seen as a global leader in terms of peace and democracy around the world. It is because of the way the government operates.

The member opposite says it is because of Bill C-23. No, it is because of the attitude and the way the government has operated in the last eight years. This is a government that came in talking about accountability and transparency, and we have not seen it be accountable for anything.

The minister certainly does not stand up, apologize, and be accountable for what he said to the Chief Electoral Officer. There is no such thing. The minister was responsible, and if the Prime Minister would show some leadership, he would force that minister to apologize for the way he is treating parliamentary officers in this country.

It is an attitude that has pervaded that whole Conservative Party since it came to government, which is making us disrespected around the world.

We are now witnessing in Canada the undermining of debate on bills. I have heard others say this and I think it may in fact be necessary for us in the next election to ask for United Nations observers to come in to observe the election.

The members are laughing over there. However, when we look at this bill, we can see that we may need United Nations observers in this country of Canada because the government is undermining democracy so much. Moreover, as we will see when the vote comes up, not one of those backbenchers will be willing to stand up for Canadians. They are only willing to stand up for their Prime Minister.

Bill C-23, the so-called fair elections act, is quite literally nothing less than the most comprehensive voter suppression effort in Canadian history.

The bill was designed to exclude, to manipulate, and to undermine the democratic process in Canada, which is the bedrock of our democracy: our election process. The Minister of State for Democratic Reform has performed his task well. He has delivered for his leader the kind of legislation that would only serve to increase the cynicism among Canadians as to the political process, with the result, the Conservatives hope, of driving more voters out of the system, young people in particular.

All one has to do is listen to some of the witnesses who were before committee and listen to what some people are saying in the press. This is a government that views the manner in which Canada conducts federal elections not as something that all parties in the House have an equal share in ensuring works properly but as a system it manipulates to its advantage. That, to the Conservatives, is acceptable.

There are only two kinds of Canadians according to the government party opposite: good Conservatives or bad Canadians. Those who oppose the government are less Canadian, unCanadian, the enemy, subversives. That is the kind of government this legislation is revealing to Canadians that we have in Canada at the moment. There is something suspicious about a government that is attempting to manipulate the democratic system to ensure the disenfranchisement of Canadians, while fearing to allow thorough, open, cross-country public hearings to hear the voices of Canadians. A government with any integrity would have worked with all parties in the House on this legislation and, if not that, would have had the integrity to take the legislation into the country and road test it. It can still do that, if it really wanted to. It could go out and hear from Canadians.

As I said earlier, backbench members over there have the opportunity to stand up and be counted to ensure that there is proper debate, long-term debate, cross-country hearings where everyone can be heard on the Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act.

This legislation, Bill C-23, to which the motion today relates, has to be placed in the wider context. That is the fact that the former auditor general, Sheila Fraser, stated that the government would undermine the credibility of virtually every arm's length agency of the government that performs any kind of oversight. Ms. Fraser said, according to The Globe and Mail of April 9, that the attack on Mr. Mayrand “disturbed” her greatly, was “totally inappropriate”, and that such comments “undermine the credibility of these institutions”. She also warned that the bill would unduly limit the Chief Electoral Officer, threaten Elections Canada's independence, and block people, including her own daughter, from voting with the tightened ID requirements. We all respect Sheila Fraser. She is a former auditor general. When she makes those kinds of serious comments, it is time we listen.

Let me list the bill's critics so far. They include Mr. Mayrand; Commissioner of Canada Elections, Yves Côté; two of their predecessors; Ms. Fraser; former Reform Party leader Preston Manning; provincial chief electoral officers; Harry Neufeld, the author of an authoritative Elections Canada report; law school deans. There was a list on March 11 of well over 100 university professors saying this bill should not go through as is.

I will conclude by saying that this motion would lay down criteria where proper debate has to be held on the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act. I encourage backbench members to stand in their own right to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. As we have already said, the NDP supports this motion.

Why did the Liberals not go even further? The NDP had moved a motion that went much further. It gave more power to the Speaker, in order to prevent the government from using this measure—time allocation—as a guillotine, as his colleague mentioned. A referee, such as the Speaker of the House, could determine when it would be appropriate to use a time allocation motion. Furthermore, this kind of motion should be used only in exceptional cases.

Why are the Liberals afraid to go even further and put an end to this abuse?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is quite a simple one. I mentioned in my remarks that there are some times, in the course of doing business, when governments do have to move legislation through, and that is understandable.

I think we have a serious problem, though, in terms of the way the government is using budget bills, omnibus bills, and tying in other pieces of legislation that do not have anything to do with the budget whatsoever. Those bills should be carved out so they get the proper debate at the proper committee.

In terms of the member's motion, the Liberal Party's opposition motion that is on the floor today, this would deal with two very important fundamental pieces of legislation that are the foundation of our democracy. We looked at what was possible in determining that motion and we see it quite possible that anybody who really believes in the debate, the discussion that is necessary under those fundamental pieces of legislation, that even backbench Conservative members can—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, perhaps the NDP members could bring it up at their next opposition day. They could do quite a large motion if they so desire. That is the beauty of having these opposition days. We can debate certain motions.

My question for my colleague and friend is this. I want to talk specifically about Bill C-23 here. What I find most egregious here--and I understand there are certain circumstances where time allocation would be used for dilatory movements within the House--is that we have a party and a government, as a result, abusing the system that is supposed to help out the daily functions of Parliament.

The government has decided, after only three speakers, to impose time allocation to cut the number of speakers down.

I agree with the member wholeheartedly that, when we vote for this in a few weeks, we need to say to the backbenchers here that they have the chance, a golden opportunity not given to the vast majority of people in this country, to speak in this House. They should exercise that by ensuring that the laws allowing us to speak in this House are as open and flexible as they can be.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I really think the member's words, “golden opportunity”, are right on. There is a golden opportunity for backbench members on the Conservative side to actually stand to support the foundation for our democracy and give it the due respect it deserves.

I hear them heckling me over there.

I know they get up all the time to talk about their government, “my government”, they say. The backbenchers are not members of the government. They are members of the governing party. They do not have to take direction, as cabinet ministers do, and be absolutely whipped into shape.

On this one, as my colleague said, there is a golden opportunity for Conservative backbench members to stand in this place to support proper debate, discussion on the various pieces of legislation that are the foundation for Canada's democracy.

I look forward to watching them stand in the House to take a position as MPs, rather than being whipped into line by the Conservative whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to answer this question.

Why did the Liberals, who supported our motion in 2011, limit their motion here today to just two acts? Are there not other key laws for which the use of time allocation should be limited?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I really did just answer that question, and members will note that the Liberal Party, in introducing this debate, wants to try to do what is achievable.

We know Conservative members on the other side could not support not limiting debate on everything. They could not do that for various reasons; but we wanted to do what was possible, what was achievable.

These two pieces of legislation are fundamental to our democracy. All Canadians know, with Bill C-23, how the regime over there would undermine our democracy, would actually take away the right to vote from some. Experts after experts have talked about their concerns on the bill, so Canadians know this is a bad bill.

This is the opportunity to put a motion that deals with two pieces of legislation, the foundation of our democracy, that any members in this House should be able to stand and support, whether they are government or opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that, when Canadians became aware that my colleague from Malpeque was speaking today, they were suddenly glued to their TVs, hoping he might repeat the little pigeon dance that he did yesterday. He disappointed a lot of Canadians, I am sure.

His leader believes that our budgets will actually balance themselves, that we do not need to balance the books, and that they will all look after themselves, but I am wondering if that is what maybe the hon. member thinks as well in regard to debate in Parliament. We could just debate and debate, never call for an actual decision, and just waste time.

All of us have to plan our lives in a way that we can actually accomplish something. Does my colleague not agree that there comes a time when we need to stand up and vote and make a decision?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to decisions, there is no problem with Liberals making them. We balanced the books and turned over a surplus to this government. We put in place the infrastructure program in the beginning. It was the Liberals in government that brought in the gas tax that went to municipalities. We put in place university scholarships and foundations.

We made lots of decisions—some tough ones—and when we turned the government over to the Conservatives, we gave them a surplus with which to work, but all they did ever since was to bring in deficit budgets.

On March 31, the health accord ended, which Paul Martin signed. All the money that went into health in recent years resulted from the decisions of Paul Martin in 2004, not from that government.

The member was talking about the point I made yesterday that dealing with the Minister of State for Democratic Reform was like playing chess with a pigeon. We were hoping that maybe the minister would fly the coop.