Debates of June 16th, 2014

Bill C-6—Time Allocation Motion

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your very thoughtful intervention. Once again, you have distinguished yourself as a wise helmsman of this place.

I am surprised by my friend from Winnipeg on his thoughtful intervention. What we should be able to do is have the different parties in this place sit down and say, “This bill is a really consequential and important bill. We have a lot of members who want to contribute and participate in the debate. Could we have five days of debate on it?”

This bill is not quite as consequential. It is shorter. It had good hearings. The government came forward and amended the bill to make it better when we listened and heard what we did at hearings. However, we do not see that. What we see from the official opposition is it just wants to be able to put one more notch on its desk with another time allocation motion, rather than standing up and entertaining a reasonable discussion about what we can do. That is really unfortunate.

When I was the opposition house leader in the Province of Ontario, we sat down with the government and developed a programming motion with the Liberal government of the day. We said, “Here are our 10 bills that we debated this fall. We will have so much time for all the bills”. Then we could negotiate. “We want five days of debate on this one. This one is inconsequential. We are happy to debate it in two hours”. However, we do not see that from this official opposition.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend, the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs, seems to be mistaken. He seems to think that the official opposition is imposing these closures and taking pleasure in them. Clearly, it is, of course, the Conservative administration that is breaking all records. The reason that the process of speeding bills through and closing debate comes up in debate is that we are now in the half-hour period, during which, Mr. Speaker, you have reminded us, both the content of the legislation and the fact that we are once again being forced to abridge the debate to pass it quickly are relevant points to make.

For a smaller party, such as the Green Party, the Bloc, and for any independent members here, every time that bills are moved to time allocation, and this is the 73rd time, it guarantees that no one in our position will have a chance to speak in debate. This is a small matter for the rest of the House, but it matters consequentially to my constituents because they want to hear what I have to say about the cluster munitions bill. I worked very hard going before committee, without being a member of committee, to put forward multiple amendments that were rejected. We can do better as a country. We can do better and not be one of those countries that is dragged into the cluster munitions treaty with the weakest implementing legislation of any of our allies. We can do better.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her comments, but she had the opportunity to go to committee. She had the opportunity to spend as much time as she wanted at committee presenting amendments, having those amendments debated and then committee members actually had a vote on those amendments. How much time would she like to see us debate the bill in this place: 10 hours, 20 hours, a million hours?

What the official opposition wants to do, and it seems to me that it is a green-orange coalition in this regard, is to drag the debate out over every single piece of legislation and invite the government to bring in a motion to allocate time for further debate. It is 10 more hours of further debate. It is five hours at report stage and five hours at third reading. That is a heck of a lot more than most legislatures and most parliaments would give to report stage.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I thought I was the minister's friend from Winnipeg. If the minister decides that he wants to be friends with the third party, I guess that is his prerogative, although I must object. I feel slighted.

I would like the minister to comment on the process. Why is the opposition delaying our time here with concurrence motions when we could be debating? Why are they filibustering so we cannot debate until midnight and get things done for Canadians? Also, perhaps the minister could also tell us how his portfolio is going in general.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia is not my friend, he is my brother, my brother from another mother. He is my brother in the cause of peace, prosperity, and freedom, my Conservative brother from Winnipeg.

What we have seen is discussions in this place are becoming absurd. The opposition does not want the legislative process. Part of the legislative process is having a vote, standing up and being counted.

If the opposition members disagree or are not thrilled with a piece of legislation, they just do not want a vote to ever happen. They are so convinced that they are right on every issue that they feel that if they can just drag it out, eventually people will see the wisdom of their views.

If opposition members want to debate something consequential, they could say, “Let us work with the government. We will have less debate on this bill and more debate on that bill. This one has had really good committee hearings. It has been robust.” Unfortunately, that is not what we have seen.

I would be very pleased to say to the member from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia that we could talk about other issues after this debate.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my hon. colleague and Conservative friend.

Why does my colleague not want me to express my opinion on this bill? It is especially important that I express my views, considering I represent a riding that has a Canadian Forces base.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to know that debate is welcome.

In the resolution we just presented in the House, we are proposing 10 more hours of debate. I am sure that a member with considerable influence can talk to his whip so that he can speak to the debate at report stage or at third reading.

Since the NDP whip, the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer is here, I would like her to know that our colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord would like to take part in the debate. He represents a riding that has a military base, so I would like to hear his observations and those of his constituents.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I will tell him a little story. I was working on the Sable Island bill about this time last year. I thought that we would do things a little differently. I worked with the parliamentary secretary for environment, and the Liberal House leader. We negotiated. We wanted to get this through, so we suggested having the NDP put up four speakers, the Conservatives four speakers, and the Liberals two speakers. We actually had a plan. We said, “All right, deal”, and we shook on it.

I came in this House, and the government House leader walked in and moved time allocation. We had a situation, maybe because women were involved, where we actually negotiated and did things a little differently.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I am getting heckled by women on the other side of the House. That is odd.

We tried to do something differently. I would not say the government House leader has exactly mastered the fine art of negotiation.

My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Will the minister talk to his House leader and beg him to just negotiate once in a while? We are willing to negotiate on this side.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I totally reject the sexist allegation that the member has attributed to my House leader.

I have known the government House leader for probably 30 years. He is a distinguished parliamentarian, someone who always wants to reach across the party lines, and to work with people for the good of Parliament.

I am astonished, frankly, that a distinguished member of this House would suggest any nefarious attitude that the government House leader might have exercised or demonstrated. I am shocked.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. When he was the government House leader, I gave him credit for being a negotiator and a respectful person. We made deals when I was the party whip for the NDP.

However the government House leader today has a closed door. He is one who has come in with more time allocations than we have ever seen. He just does not care about Parliament.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs knows that. I believe the Minister of Foreign Affairs knows that a debate is not a one-way street. It is not only the opposition that gets up, but the government gets up to present its bills. I would bet that tonight we are probably not going to see even one Conservative getting up to speak on the bill.

Normally the Minister of Foreign Affairs is a very reasonable person, and people kind of like him around here.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to have to compare the former government House leader with the current one is unfair to the member for York—Simcoe, the government House leader. Not everyone is as non-partisan and reasonable as I am.

The member opposite knows that when I was government House leader, we did not bring in time allocation motions. I was always willing to work with the opposition. However, we had a different official opposition in those days, not the crew opposite.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I know there are members on the government side standing. There is a priority in this debate for questions and comments are given to the opposition parties.

The member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find troubling the suggestion by some of the members on the other side that this debate was triggered by this side. It was the government that brought forward the time allocation motion instead of debating a very important bill. Our country signed on to a treaty in 2008 and we have waited this long to have legislation in this place that we can debate.

Yes, this bill merits a lot of time debating. There have been serious concerns raised about the bill by the former prime minister of Australia, by the Red Cross, by the country of Norway. The bill, as put forward by the government, has some deep seated problems that some nations have suggested could completely unseat this convention.

This is a convention that is meant to protect the world's children from being maimed or killed. If ever there were a time when a bill merited hearing the voices of the representatives in our country, I would suggest this is the time. Shame on the government for trying to shut down debate.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our legislation fully implements Canada's commitment to the convention and it is in line with key allies, including Australia and the United Kingdom. We regret that President Obama does not support the convention and the United States will not join.

We are, however, coming forward with legislation that is fully aligned with the convention. We have gone so far as to say that Canada has never used cluster munitions, ever. We will completely destroy the entire stockpile that exists within the Canadian Armed Forces. The Chief of the Defence Staff appeared before the committee and was very clear that his troops, when they were pursuing other missions, would never drop these munitions.

We are hearing an honest difference of opinion in one part, but for the most part there is agreement, we are 99.9%. There is just that one tiny example, which I do not believe will ever happen. That is why the convention was negotiated with this clause and that is why the legislation has been proposed.

I understand the member opposite has a reasonable difference of opinion, but that does not mean we can have a debate forever to try to stop something from going through. The Canadian people have elected representatives and part of a good debate is having a vote.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I seriously think that the Conservatives no longer want to govern. They are all simply fed up because this is the 73rd time they are putting a time limit on debate.

I heard the minister say that this was part of a discussion in committee. How many members are in committee? There may be a dozen or so, five or six from the Conservative side and four or five from the opposition. That is not a lot of MPs discussing this famous bill. We can hardly call that democratic.

What is more, we know how things operate in committee. When it is time to vote, the debate is not adjourned. Instead, the committee goes in camera and the vote is held. Then, since the Conservatives have the majority, we cannot talk about what happened in committee or about the bill in question.

There is a word to describe that type of behaviour, but I will not use it out of respect for Canadian society. However, minimizing interventions is the not the right thing to do; neither is going directly to a vote. We have seen this formula 73 times.

Where does democracy fit into all this?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have good news for my friend, the member opposite. We are not going straight to a vote. There will be five hours of debate at report stage and a further five hours of debate at third reading. That is ten hours of additional debate.

The member opposite said that there were only a few members on the committee who could participate, and that is wrong. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is not on the committee and, as is her right, she showed up at the committee. She participated in it. She presented amendments. Members do not have to be on the committee. If members felt this was important, they could simply show up and participate. There was no time allocation on committee. It could have gone on even longer if people had more amendments.

If the member opposite thought it was important, she could have showed up and participated in committee.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question directly to the details of the bill.

Some of our allies have adopted the exact interoperability language that is found within the convention. Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs advise us why the government has not done this also?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have a different legislative framework in Canada, but our commitment to the prohibition of these terrible weapons of mass destruction is real and strong.

There is one small issue. For example, if a Canadian such as Walt Natynczyk, the former chief of the defence staff, were participating in a foreign mission that somehow might be complicit, or if a Canadian was refuelling a plane in Newfoundland that may or may not contain cluster munitions, for example, from the Obama administration's armed forces, that might be somehow illegal, we wanted to have a small provision, which is allowed for in the convention, to protect members of the Canadian Forces so they would not be brought up for international prosecution.

The bill is fair and reasonable. We listened at committee. I became personally involved. The member for Tobique—Mactaquac, working with some of the opposition members, came forward. He wanted it to be stronger, clearer in language, and the government's response was absolutely. We amended the bill to make it stronger. The member for Tobique—Mactaquac did a tremendous job on this. He made the bill even stronger after listening to witnesses, and we welcomed that.

I worked with the member for Ottawa Centre and the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, putting politics aside, to make the bill better. It is a good thing when the committee process works that way. The bill should not be simply blocked because it is not absolutely perfect in the eyes of the official opposition.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is more important for Canadians to be informed of what is going on in the House than to be informed about how the debate happens. Everyone agrees that cluster munitions are horrible devices. We know that because 113 countries have signed the convention and 84 countries have ratified it.

Canadians would be interested in hearing that some provisions of the bill allow our armed forces to ask our allies in combat to use cluster munitions. There are a lot of little loopholes, so this bill will not permanently ban the use of cluster munitions. On the contrary, it will offer many more opportunities to use them or for our allies to use them in theatres of battle where we are working together.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has never used these despicable weapons of mass destruction. There are some stockpiles of them which, according to this legislation, would be destroyed. The Chief of the Defence Staff has been very clear that he will issue an order to ensure that if there is a Canadian flying a plane on a mission under foreign government, that individual will not be allowed to use cluster munitions.

The member opposite said that everyone agrees. Everyone does not agree. Some of our closest friends and allies have not signed on to this.

[An hon. member]

They shouldn't be our friends.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

They are countries like the United States, Mr. Speaker. President Obama does not support this.

I visited Laos last year. There are some 80 million unexploded ordinances still in that country today. People are being killed every year in Vietnam because of these unexploded weapons. Children are losing their arms or legs, seniors are losing their life.

That is why, in addition to the amendment to the bill, we committed to come forward with additional projects to support countries in dealing with these horrific remnants of war. Long after the conflict ends, they continue to cause huge harm. I think we all agree with that.

I just do not want the Canadian who is working at a military base refuelling an American plane to be called before an international court because he or she did not check and confirm that there were no cluster munitions on board.

Cluster munitions should never have been used in Afghanistan by the Americans. Canada did not support the use of those cluster munitions. Nonetheless, some NATO countries do not support the bill. Let us try to convince them to do the right thing, to join us and ratify this important convention.

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

Mr. Speaker, the foreign affairs minister is always entertaining in his responses, but I know he realizes the importance of the legislation on which we are debating time allocation.

I have also heard him say that there is only one component of the bill on which we have a disagreement. Is he willing to remove clause 11 from the bill so we can proceed expeditiously with the legislation?