House of Commons Hansard #89 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was debate.

Topics

The EnvironmentRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

North Vancouver B.C.

Liberal

Jonathan Wilkinson LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, I have two documents to present to the House today. Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 2016-2019 federal sustainable development strategy.

Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

North Vancouver B.C.

Liberal

Jonathan Wilkinson LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109 and Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the government's response to the second and unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

Canada Pension PlanRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Jean-Yves Duclos Liberal Québec, QC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

October 6th, 2016 / 10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development entitled “An Opportunity for Global Leadership: Canada and the Women, Peace and Security Agenda”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code (offences in relation to conveyances) and the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The committee has studied the bill and, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), requests a 30-day extension to consider it.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1 (3)(a), a motion to concur in the report is deemed moved, the question deemed put, and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred to Wednesday, October 19, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

Impaired DrivingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions on behalf of Canadians regarding impaired driving causing death. Families for Justice is a group of Canadians who have had a loved one killed by an impaired driver. They believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient and want the crime to be called what it is, vehicular homicide. Canadians are calling for mandatory sentencing for vehicular homicide and for Parliament to support Bill C-226, the impaired driving act.

HealthPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to present this petition from northern Ontarians about the shortage of federal health and safety inspectors in northern Ontario. Canada cut the number of inspectors from 151 in 2006 to fewer than 67 now. Northern Ontario has a single officer covering the whole region. That person's work can be held up by just one injury, illness, or absence.

We are asking the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour to increase the number of federal health and safety inspectors in northern Ontario so that this important work can be carried out at all times without interruption.

Falun GongPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of signatures on a petition with respect to the Falun Gong issue.

Since July 1999, the Chinese Communist Party has launched an intensive, nationwide persecution campaign to eradicate the Falun Gong. Hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained in forced labour camps, brainwashing centres, and prisons, where torture and abuse are routine, and thousands have died as a result.

The petitioners are looking to the House of Commons and parliamentarians to call for the end of the persecution of the Falun Gong, in a public way.

JusticePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, I present petitions, again today, in support of Cassie and Molly's law.

A Statistics Canada study shows that more than 60,000 pregnant women were victims of domestic violence between 2004 and 2009 in Canada.

The Native Women's Association of Canada is fully endorsing Bill C-225, which would protect pregnant women and their preborn children, indicating that at least 18 of the missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls were pregnant.

Canadians know that a national strategy combatting violence against women will need a law like this included to be comprehensive in addressing violence against women.

Democratic ReformPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from the constituents of Calgary Rocky Ridge, regarding the government's plan on electoral reform. Given that peer countries of Canada, such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom, as well as Canadian provinces, have all consulted the voters directly through a referendum on the question of proposed changes to the electoral system, the constituents of Calgary Rocky Ridge are concerned about this and believe that if changes to the voting system are to be made, they can only be done with the consent of Canadians through a national referendum.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders Of The Day

10:10 a.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

moved:

That this House take note of the Standing Orders and procedure of the House and its committees.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders Of The Day

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to start out by explaining to the public watching TV, members here, the journalists, etc. what today's debate is all about.

Basically, all the mystifying procedures that happen here, the various votes, who is on committee, and all this stuff, are handled by 159 standing orders that we as MPs create. The huge number of new MPs—probably the highest number in history, in this Parliament—may find some of these procedures very mystifying, strange, or even bizarre. Some of those come from England's House of Commons and were established before Canada was even created. Today is those members' chance to change the rules of the House. Are they most effective for doing the business of the nation?

One of the 159 standing orders is number 51, which mandates today's debate. The Right Hon. Paul Martin wanted to give backbenchers and all MPs a chance to have a kick at the can in these procedures, so he put in the standing order that says that between the 60th and 90th days of a new Parliament, everyone gets a chance to have a take-note debate on the Standing Orders, which is what we're doing today. After this debate, all this information will go to the procedure and House affairs committee of the House to do with what it will, and it can make recommendations to the government on changes to the Standing Orders.

An example is that the last time we had this debate, on February 17, 2012, one of the suggestions was electronic petitions, which are now a reality; so members can make a difference.

On this side of the House, the present Prime Minister has the same philosophy as the Right Hon. Paul Martin: that this is not for the government. Today, this is for backbenchers, for all MPs to express their ideas, so the government is not providing any input. The government has no idea what we as individual backbenchers are going to say. I think it is going to be a very fun, non-partisan, creative brainstorming day to improve Canada's house of democracy for the benefit of all Canadians.

I'm going to have to talk very quickly to get through about 14 points, just for further discussion. I am not necessarily in favour of or against them, but they are points we might discuss further. I apologize to the translators for talking quickly, but really it is just a warm-up. If they think I am bad, wait until the member for Laurentides—Labelle gets up.

A lot of members will talk about decorum in the House. They have certain concerns, and members will hear that later today.

The first of my 14 points is that the shape of Parliament can actually determine attitudes. If we were in a semi-circle like in Sweden or in Congress, we would be all focused toward the Speaker, a common problem for Canada, and we are all trying to solve it together. It is the same in the committees. Why do we have to have it as adversarial, across the board from each other?

My second point is first nations, recognizing that we are on the traditional land of the Algonquin First Nation. First nations have run successful governments in Canada for centuries, for generations. Maybe we should look at some of their successes. Some members might be interested in reading how the Six Nations Confederacy was instrumental for the designers of the American constitution and Congress.

My third point is this. If an MP of today were given another job to add to all his or her other jobs, not only the MP work but another 28 hours of work that he or she had to do, would the MP find that frustrating? For 10 years, I have had to spend 28 hours every week commuting to my riding. When members revamp the Standing Orders, I ask them to please be sensitive and gentle for those of us who have to travel a long way.

My fourth point is that it is incumbent on all of us today to think of the procedures of the House and Senate and committees as being structured in such a way that the amount of legislation that Canadians need, regardless of who is in Parliament, can be dealt with without any draconian measures by the opposition or the government to get this work done.

My fifth point is that in Congress, if members watch it, at times there are two podiums and there is a person from each party at a podium, and they are debating back and forth for a few minutes. In this Parliament, we really get no chance to debate with each other. We get a 10-minute speech, we only get to speak once, and except for a question, there is really no ongoing debate. Ten minutes may be enough or not enough. One of the greatest speeches in history, the Gettysburg address, just took barely more than two minutes. So are the speaking limits too long or too short?

My sixth point is that the situation is totally different in committee. There members have unlimited chances to speak, instead of just once as in the House. Members can speak 1,000 times or for 10 hours each time they speak, as long as they maintain relevancy and avoid redundancy and repetition.

Seventh, not long ago in this place, MPs were not allowed to have papers or read a speech. There are some who would like to go back to that. I remember being here many years ago when all the MPs from one party were reading almost identical speeches, which was not very productive. I am not doing very well today because I have lots of paper here, but that is an idea some people had.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders Of The Day

10:15 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Don't look down.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders Of The Day

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Don't look down, yes.

Eighth, why not have electronic voting for some of the more repetitious votes, or votes whose outcome we know. In Sweden, members are in a semi-circle and get five seconds to vote. They push a red or green button, and there is a big board with green and red buttons and the total is displayed automatically. Then there is another five seconds to do the next vote. They could do 300 amendments in 10 minutes, whereas it would take us a day.

The ninth point is interesting. I am a simple backbench MP. Quite often, I only leave this building by two or three o'clock in the morning. Can anyone imagine if another full-time job were added to an MP's work? That is what happens when someone becomes a minister. Obviously, there is not appropriate time to do both of those jobs. One of them will not be done well. In Sweden, ministers do not sit in the house. They are given brand new MPs to do their MP jobs, to take care of their constituencies and to give their speeches, and ministers can devote all of their time to their ministerial work.

Tenth, I want to make a point for those of us who travel. Having Fridays alone off would not give me more time in my constituency. There would have to be no votes after noon on Thursday; otherwise, I would spend all day Friday travelling and still would not get time in my constituency, because it is a 14-hour trip. I have to take three airlines.

As for my eleventh point, to be fair to all Canadians, I personally think there should be playground equipment at the new Centre Block, both inside and outside, for families.

Twelfth, senators are often assigned to delegations on trips on joint committees with the House of Commons based on their parties, but soon there will be a Senate where most of the senators will not belong to a party. I think that whole system has to be looked at.

Thirteenth, I think private members' business needs to be looked at. It could be really abused at both ends of the spectrum. I have a slot now for the first time in 11 years, and I could propose some crazy thing that could seriously affect 30 million Canadians. That could happen if MPs were allowed to do whatever they wanted. On the other hand, I have heard that in the past, a government could go to an MP and say that it did not like his or her speech, that it had a speech it wanted read, and the MP was told to read it.

With any private member's bill, whether it comes from the Senate, the House of Commons, or members, the end result is the same. It becomes the law of the land. A bill is a bill is a bill. Any of these bills should go through two screenings, one from the factual, technical, scientific, professional, knowledge-based input of technical experts who have spent their lives on a certain topic in the bureaucracy, and the second is from the point of view of the social licence of the people, which we provide as politicians.

Last, I do not know what it is like in the other ridings, but in my riding, May and June are my busiest months. It might work better for me if we were to come back earlier in September and leave earlier in the spring, so I could get to all the graduations, etc.

For those who are really excited about this topic and scintillating debate on procedure, there is an excellent paper people might want to read, called “The Good Parliament”, by Professor Sarah Childs. She was commissioned to do it for Britain. That report contains 43 recommendations to ensure the diverse and inclusive equality of participation in an effectively organized House of Commons in Westminster, England.

I have three final points from members who could not participate in this debate. First, they suggest there be a maximum time in the Standing Orders for each different category of bill, a different amount of time, but with a limit. Second, they recommend that members who are not on a committee could get mailings from the clerk on important issues if their input were needed. Third, they call for MPs to have comparable staff to civil servants and the ability to pay for at least four.

I am prepared now to answer any questions on my 14 points. Members should remember that if they could not get into the debate, there are questions and comments. They do not have to ask questions. If they could not get on the speaking list today, they could make their comments in the questions and comments period.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders Of The Day

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the thought that the member has put into this.

One of the things about being an older guy is that I understand what you are saying about decorum in the House. What used to happen, for example, is that there were no meals in the lobbies but these were provided for all MPs in the room next door. That specific activity allowed much greater socializing amongst the MPs from all parties. They knew where the food was and they went there. It provided for much better social interaction. I believe that when we are talking about the behaviour and decorum in the House, losing that simple thing has decreased our sociability.

I appreciate what the member is talking about. When we are sitting in this style here and in committees, it does not provide for better decorum because we are set up in opposition. Improving the social function with this piece alone would be a better solution for us.

I thank the member for bringing up those points.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders Of The Day

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Before we go back to the hon. member for Yukon, it is clear from the outset that there will be a lot of interesting questions and comments with each of the speeches today. We are going to do our best to try to limit those interventions to no more than one minute. The hon. member for Yukon.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders Of The Day

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, that is a great point.

I would just like to say that former Speaker Peter Milliken agrees, exactly, with the member, that the more social interaction we can get, the more collegiality and understanding of each other we will have.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders Of The Day

10:20 a.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, really quickly, with regard to the debate today, it is about the efficient use of time for me. Having raised two children since being here in Parliament, with one now becoming a teenager, it is the issue of having time well used.

Could the member expand on how electronic voting could maybe help? If we miss flights because of our inefficient voting system, it can leave us stranded in airports for two, four, six, or eight hours at a time, or even sometimes the next day. That situation could potentially be improved so we could actually get home to our constituents and our loved ones.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders Of The Day

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I will be really quick so as not to take up other people's time.

As I said, in Sweden, they can do in 10 seconds what we do in 10 minutes, just by pushing a button. Secondly, they also only have votes on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, so for those who have to travel, they could structure their week around that. Then they would not get stuck there and miss a plane.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders Of The Day

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was one of those people who was not able to get on the list today to speak, and that is what I am interested in exploring a little and hearing my colleagues' comments on.

It was not until only about two decades ago, to my understanding, that the whips of the individual parties started to provide lists of when MPs would speak. That has created a situation wherein if I know I will be speaking at roughly 10:20 a.m., I will walk in here at 10:15 a.m., and I still know I can get to a meeting by 10:50 a.m.

It creates an environment where I am not pushed to be involved in the actual debate. I just come to the House to deliver a speech and then I leave. It is not even written anywhere that the Speaker needs to take that list, but I wonder if my colleague could expand a little on the idea of going back to the old way of doing things, where if a member wanted to speak, they rose and the Speaker would randomly go through the room and select people.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders Of The Day

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I will leave that as a comment, and let more people speak.