House of Commons Hansard #83 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was oil.
Mark Strahl ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a copy of the following documents:
Final Agreement Annual Report of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement Implementation Coordinating Committee, 2009-10; the Annual Report of the Implementation Committee on the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, 2009-10; and Annual Report of the Tlicho Implementation Committee, 2009-10.
Canada Account Annual ReportRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of International Trade, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Canada Account Annual Report, 2012-13, prepared by Export Canada.
Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 42 petitions.
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
In my opinion the nays have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Call in the members.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I declare the motion carried.
The hon. member for Ottawa Centre is rising on a point of order.
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have submitted a letter to you, pursuant to Standing Order 52(2), in order to make an emergency debate request on the increasingly disturbing situation in Nigeria. As members know, in the last couple of days we have heard reports from Nigeria about the missing girls.
I did want to bring this forward to you, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, because of the motions we have had, both today and yesterday, I have not been able to provide that motion to you. I am asking for unanimous consent from the House to put my request forward to you, Mr. Speaker, to have an emergency debate on Nigeria.
Therefore my request would be the following.
I move:
That this House do revert to the rubric of requests for emergency debates.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, all members of this House, in fact citizens of this country, have been seized with the disturbing reports coming out of Nigeria, where over 270 girls have been abducted. In fact, just two days ago, eight more girls were abducted by the terrorist group in Nigeria.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking you, and I have submitted a letter to you asking that we have an emergency debate as soon as possible. I will end with this. Since we have come to know of the situation a couple of weeks ago, the world has been seized with the issue. We need to have an emergency debate on what Canada can do. We have heard from the government that there are some initial steps that have been taken.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to acknowledge that this House should be seized with this issue, and to have an emergency debate as soon as possible. If we can do this, we can have a debate that will please the Canadian population as to what they are looking for from their Parliament; that is, to be seized with this issue. It is an emergency. It is something that people want to see members of Parliament speak to.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the request I have put to you be agreed upon as soon as possible.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I thank the hon. member for Ottawa Centre for raising this issue. As a father of two young girls myself, I can certainly understand the impact this would have on concerned Canadians and members of the House.
I am inclined to grant the emergency debate. However, given the changes to the House calendar that the House has just adopted, I think it would perhaps serve the House better and allow for better participation if I exercise my discretion under the Standing Orders and direct that the debate be held Monday evening so that there can be better participation of members at that time.
Therefore, I will direct that the emergency debate be granted and be held Monday evening.
Bill C-23—Time Allocation MotionFair Elections ActGovernment Orders
York—Simcoe Ontario
Conservative
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at 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 stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
There will now be a 30-minute question period and I will ask members who wish to participate to keep their questions to around a minute and responses to a similar length so that we can accommodate as many members as possible.
The hon. opposition House leader.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely disgusting. This is the 63rd time they have used time allocation or closure to shut down debate. As we know, the government cannot seem to come up with bills that hold water.
In the past six weeks, the Supreme Court has rejected four government bills. I think that we are heading the same way with Bill C-23. I think the people will reject it, and so will the judicial system.
We are talking about 130 amendments that have been tabled to this bad bill, 130 amendments that were supposed to be considered by Parliament, and we got notice of time allocation after 10 minutes of debate for 130 amendments.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the result of this closure, this steamroller that the government is putting in, because it realizes now just what the reaction has been from the public across the country, is that 290 members of Parliament will not be permitted to speak on the bill. For those who choose to vote for this motion, Conservative MPs are muzzling themselves. They are muzzling 290 ridings across this country.
My question is very simple. What kind of disdain comes from a government that invokes closure after 10 minutes of debate and why is the government muzzling 290 members of Parliament on this bill?
Bill C-23—Time Allocation MotionFair Elections ActGovernment Orders
Nepean—Carleton Ontario
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of State (Democratic Reform)
Mr. Speaker, there has been more than enough debate in this House of Commons on the fair elections act. It has been subject to dozens if not hundreds of questions posed on the floor of the House of Commons. We have had dozens of witnesses and detailed testimony. The committee sat extra hours in order to consider the matter before it. It voted on dozens of amendments to the bill.
Here we are with a bill that started off very strong in common sense. It was widely supported by the Canadian public and improved by some amendments. The bill received roughly 87% support for its key measures, in particular the requirement that people provide ID when they vote. The opposition lost that debate entirely. Through the amendments we have further ensured that these bolstered ID requirements will not only protect the integrity of the vote but maintain its accessibility to all Canadians.
I would conclude my answer to this question by quoting the CEO of Elections Canada. These are his words. He stated:
As I conclude, it is my hope that any amendments to the legislation will be adopted by spring 2014, in order for my Office to implement changes and secure additional resources in time for...October 2015....
In the past, the position of the CEO has been that this bill needed to be adopted by the spring of this year. That is the timeframe that we have established with today's action.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is shameful for the government to use time allocation well over 60 times now. What is most offensive is that it is doing it on the Elections Act. Traditionally, government would have sought a consensus when making changes to the Elections Act.
Let there be no doubt that my question is not for the minister responsible for democratic reform, because he has been a failure on this issue. Rather, my question is specifically for the government House leader.
This bill is nothing more than a Conservative bill when in fact the government had a responsibility to work with the different stakeholders, in particular, the Chief Electoral Officer. There is no possible Conservative spin that the government could possibly put on this to try to give the impression that our election law would be healthier today than it was yesterday based on this legislation. Without the ability to compel witnesses, what we saw in 2011 is not going to improve. I do not care what the minister responsible for democratic reform tells Canadians, which are mistruths or untruths.
At the end of the day, this legislation will weaken. The question I have for the government House leader is this. Why invoke time allocation on a fundamental, principle bill that affects our basic democracy in Canada? I pose that question to the government House leader.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member claims that there is an unbroken precedent that all amendments to the Canada Elections Act must be passed unanimously by the House of Commons. The Liberal government passed two major reforms to the Canada Elections Act under the previous regime. It did not have a consensus in the House of Commons in either case. It was met with total opposition from the parties on the other side of the aisle. Therefore, for the member to suggest that the Liberal Party needs to support a bill for it to be passed when Canadians only gave 30 seats to that party runs contrary to Liberal history with respect to amending the Canada Elections Act, and it has nothing to do with democracy.
The Canadian people elected 155-plus members of Parliament who are supporting this bill. The Canadian people widely support this bill. It is a very popular piece of legislation. We won the debate on it and now we will pass it into law.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin
Order, please. I would remind the House of two things.
First, I have allowed the first two questions from the two recognized official parties to be longer and the answers to be longer. Henceforth I will be limiting the questions and answers to one minute.
Second, I would remind particularly the members on the government side that priority is given to the opposition parties in terms of questions for this half hour.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth has one minute.