House of Commons Hansard #109 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was women.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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 10 petitions.
While I am on my feet, I would also like to at this point in time move a motion.
I move:
That the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
In my opinion the nays have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Call in the members.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, I just wanted a clarification. Normally in the morning is the opportunity for individual members to raise issues, for example, petitions from Sault Ste. Marie by people who feel their voices are not being heard in this Parliament.
Is this procedural game by the Liberals erasing our right as parliamentarians to speak on behalf of the people who sent us here?
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Order, order. I think the hon. member is familiar with the situation. I am not sure this is a point of order as much as a point of debate. I think he has made the point he wished to make.
Bill C-26—Time Allocation MotionCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders
Waterloo Ontario
Liberal
Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism
moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill;
and
That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second 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 said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.
I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their place so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.
Bill C-26—Time Allocation MotionCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders
November 17th, 2016 / 10:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I rise to ask this question today. On this piece of legislation, the Minister of Finance has obviously abdicated his role and his duty to be in this place to speak up and defend his own legislation. We have seen these time allocation motions before, where the Liberals do not give any compelling reason. I am looking for a compelling reason why the bill needs to be pushed at this time in this way. I do not want platitudes. I want to hear how pushing the bill forward is going to help anyone except the government in pushing its agenda through.
Bill C-26—Time Allocation MotionCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders
Québec Québec
Liberal
Jean-Yves Duclos LiberalMinister of Families
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for giving me the opportunity to start off with two congratulatory statements.
First, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Finance, who worked very hard with the provinces and territories over the past few months to wrap up a long and serious conversation about issues related to income security for seniors.
The discussion was so focused that in June, after a few weeks of work, all of the provinces affected by the enhancement of the Canada pension plan reached an agreement with the Canadian government to enhance it. As we all know, this will have a major impact on income security for seniors and the opportunity for all current and future workers to be fully integrated into the labour market.
Second, I would like to congratulate the many members of the House who took the opportunity to express their views on this issue. Sixty of our colleagues worked very hard to speak to this matter at second reading.
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, we heard the outrage expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons yesterday. As he said, he wanted to work. One of the most important components of our work here happens in parliamentary committees.
Time allocation is inherently undemocratic. The government is currently preventing parliamentary committees from doing their job. This affects more than just parliamentarians; we also have to think about the witnesses who have been invited.
I will give some examples of witnesses who have come to Ottawa, who have come to committees to testify, who now either will not be able to testify or will testify for a shorter period of time because of this kind of action. At the agriculture committee, we have the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, Soy Canada, Food and Beverage Ontario, and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. At the health committee, we have Alzheimer's Disease International, the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians, and the Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations of British Columbia.
If the Liberals are not going to respect Parliament, can they at least respect those witnesses?
Jean-Yves Duclos Liberal Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out how important it is that we hear not only from the members of this House, but also from the witnesses who are to appear before the parliamentary committee to share their views on this important bill.
Not only does the bill make significant changes in terms of reducing income insecurity for our seniors, but it also increases opportunities for workers to integrate the labour market, particularly those most vulnerable, because it gives them better, easier access to a sound public pension plan, now and for many years to come.
May I also suggest that we have had, in this House, six days of full discussion at second reading of this bill and six additional days for Bill C-29. That means that we have allocated 27% of the total available time for government business, between September and December, for only these two bills at second reading.
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to say that the government is actually misleading Canadians by saying that we have debated this for six days, but the truth is the truth. The government has misled Canadians in terms of the $10-billion deficit it is willing to put forth. Again, what we are seeing from the government is that if it does not like what it is hearing from the other side, or from Canadians, it is going to ram it through.
There are 338 members of Parliament who have been elected to be the voices of Canadians. The government is muzzling those members of Parliament. We have not had a chance to actually represent our ridings in a speech or talk about how the government is effectively neglecting rural Canada. This is shameful. How is this being open and transparent?
Jean-Yves Duclos Liberal Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, may I also signal that our Conservative friends have been very active on this bill. I congratulate and welcome their input. They have had 35 members of their party, which is more than a third of their caucus, contribute actively to this important debate. We, of course, look forward to hearing their views later on in committee as well as at third reading of the bill.
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Mr. Speaker, my question, actually, is for the government House leader.
Since I became House leader in September, and it was a new position for her, we have been working together in good faith. There have been many bills on which our members did not want to speak. They said that they did not have a lot to say on specific bills, and bills have been able to get through and the government has been able to accomplish things. We negotiated those things in good faith. However, we asked that our members be able to speak on these really important fiscal bills, the budget bill and the CPP bill.
Just over a third of our members have been able to speak to this bill. The government did not say that it was going to give us four or five days. It just sprung this on us, twice in one week. It has absolutely wrecked any goodwill we had. It has changed the tone, and it is not a good tone that is going on right now.
Jean-Yves Duclos Liberal Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the opportunity to provide further details on the important responsibility we, as parliamentarians, have, not only to members of this House but to Canadians.
We want to have an open and constructive debate on the important issues my colleague has signalled. We also want to fulfill our responsibilities and the expectations of Canadians. That means that when it is time to allocate the important days we have for discussions in this House, we need to do it in a very responsible manner.
As I mentioned earlier, at only second reading of two important bills, we are allocating more than 25% of the total time available for government business between September and December.
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. For the second time this week, the Liberal government has invoked time allocation. It is not as bad, I concede, as it was under the Harper government, where over 100 times it resorted to it. However, the sledgehammer of time allocation is simply not the only tool available. There are other tools. Whatever happened to the co-operative, collaborative approach promised by the Prime Minister?
Here is what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said not that long ago:
The government, by once again relying on a time allocation motion to get its agenda passed, speaks of incompetence. It speaks of a genuine lack of respect for parliamentary procedure and ultimately for Canadians.
This bill with which we are seized, Bill C-26, despite the excellent work of my colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain, is deeply flawed in discriminating against women and disabled people.
Why are we rushing a flawed bill through by imposing time allocation?
Jean-Yves Duclos Liberal Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, I know that some of us in the House have not had the misfortune, or good fortune, depending on one's point of view, of going through time allocation under the previous government, when it was a bit more complicated. I am a new member in the House so I cannot fully appreciate my colleague's take on how things were done before, under the previous government.
In this new government we are trying to be respectful of the numerous points of view in this House and also of the important social and economic development objectives that Canadians want us to meet. For this bill in particular, that means reducing the financial insecurity of 300,000 seniors in Canada in the long term; raising the income of 6,000 low-income workers, starting in 2019; and reducing the economic vulnerability rate of our seniors from 24% to 18%. These are ambitious goals and we must move forward to achieve them.