House of Commons Hansard #118 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cpp.
Mélanie Joly LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, I must remind the hon. member that we reinvested $675 million in CBC/Radio-Canada because there were important cuts in the past 10 years that really negatively affected our public broadcaster.
I would also advise my colleague in front that we just did public consultations on Canadian content. The reality is that members of the NDP and the Bloc participated in the consultations, but nobody from the Conservative Party participated.
We clearly heard that Canadians love—
Darshan Singh Kang Liberal Calgary Skyview, AB
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government announced several important decisions that will create more good, middle-class jobs while protecting environmentally sensitive areas.
Can the Minister of Natural Resources please inform this House what steps are being taken to create the prosperity we seek while preserving the environment we all cherish?
Kim Rudd LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have clearly told us the environment and the economy must go hand in hand.
That is why our government has done the hard work to price carbon pollution, to protect our oceans and coastlines, and put in place world-leading safety standards for pipelines.
Our announcement yesterday will create thousands of good, middle-class jobs, and generate billions of dollars for our economy. That is money that can be invested in hospitals, roads, schools, and clean energy initiatives, leaving a cleaner, more prosperous country for our children and grandchildren.
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Comeau was charged for buying beer in Quebec and taking it home to New Brunswick, but he won his fight in court.
Yesterday, New Brunswick announced it will appeal this decision in the Supreme Court of Canada. Prosecutors have said this case concerns issues of interprovincial trade with significant consequences. All of us in the House would agree that laws should not restrict Canadians from purchasing and selling goods between provinces.
Will the Liberal government commit to protecting the constitutional right of all Canadians, and ensure we have free trade across Canada?
Greg Fergus LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation
Mr. Speaker, although I cannot comment on the specifics of the appeal to the Supreme Court, I can confirm to all hon. members that this government does support freer trade within Canada.
To that end, the ministers had a great role this year in crafting a Canadian free trade agreement. As part of that agreement, the provinces hopped up to set-up a working group on the interprovincial trade of alcohol, with the goal of creating a more open domestic market.
I am quite pleased that we have decided to do something substantial on this issue. It tastes great, and is less filling.
Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I cannot figure out why the Minister of International Trade is pinning the absence of a softwood lumber agreement on the previous government. Workers do not want to hear about petty politics when their livelihood is at stake. This is an important issue for them. They want to know if plan B is ready now.
The Americans opened fire. They want to tax our softwood lumber more heavily. The Government of Quebec is also asking the feds for answers.
Is plan B ready or not?
Chrystia Freeland LiberalMinister of International Trade
Mr. Speaker, we are vigorously and proudly defending our industry's interests.
Last week, André Tremblay, the president and CEO of the Quebec Forest Industry Council, said that our government was doing "excellent work".
Provincial and territorial premiers also, and I quote, “expressed their appreciation for the work of the federal government in attempting to secure a new softwood lumber deal”.
We are seeking a good deal for Canada, not just any deal.
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, bovine tuberculosis is a serious issue facing beef ranchers in Alberta and Saskatchewan, whose herds have been placed under quarantine while the CFIA conducts necessary testing.
Could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell us what he is doing to help these ranchers with their costs?
Lawrence MacAulay LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's concern. Being a farmer, I fully understand how serious this is for our ranchers who are affected.
I am pleased to announce today that we will provide up to $16.7 million for affected provinces to help these ranchers with their costs, including feed, water, transportation, and interest on their loans.
We are committed to helping these ranchers while we take the appropriate measures to clear the industry of this disease.
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Mr. Speaker, last week, in shocking testimony before a Senate committee, the Chief Electoral Officer said there is no way to restrict or prevent foreigners or foreign organizations from trying to influence Canadian elections.
There are no restrictions on unlimited spending for things like polling, canvassing, phone banking, or election websites. Yet, we see nothing that addresses these concerns in Bill C-33.
Is the democratic institutions minister not concerned about this kind of foreign interference in Canadian elections?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, it has been a while since I received a question from the hon. member. I thank him for the opportunity to talk about Bill C-33 in the House, where we repealed the unfair elements of the Fair Elections Act, and extended the right to vote to those Canadians living and working abroad.
Our Chief Electoral Officer, to whom we are all indebted, has provided a report based on the results of the last election. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will be delivering its report and recommendations, and we will have an opportunity to debate them in the House.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, many British Columbians believed the Liberal election promises last year. I myself did. I believed the Liberal campaign promises that the National Energy Board process was so badly broken that no pipeline could be approved as a result of that process.
No magical process has intervened, no testing of the evidence, there are no facts to justify this decision, and we know that dilbit cannot be cleaned after being spilled.
Will the Prime Minister reconsider and suspend yesterday's decision to find the facts and the evidence that will show that approving Kinder Morgan is not justified?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the interim process we put in place both extended the consultation period with indigenous Canadians and strengthened the applied science.
We understand we made commitments throughout the election campaign and leading up to it. Getting resources to market in smart sustainable ways is a fundamental responsibility of the prime minister and of the Canadian government. One which was failed by the previous government, but one that we have delivered today.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I have the honour to lay upon the table the report to Parliament of the Commissioner of Official Languages on the investigation into the Courts Administration Service under subsection 65(3) of the Official Languages Act.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(f), this report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
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 20 petitions.
While I am on my feet, I would also move:
That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.
Business of the HousePoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
November 30th, 2016 / 3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to challenge our moving to the orders of the day this early in routine proceedings, a procedure that seems to be used habitually by the government when it is poised to close debate on important issues.
In this case, the government has already limited debate on the third reading stage of Bill C-26, which is scheduled today. One day is the minimum number of of days that can be allotted under the Standing Orders, and the government House leader chose as that one day, the shortest day in our calendar. I will not take up more of the House's time on that point before I get back to my procedural intervention, but I do want to say one thing. The House expected more than a minimal effort from this so-called new tone government House leader and we are very disappointed.
Back in the spring, the government moved and adopted motions to proceed to the orders of the day four Wednesdays in a row, skipping over all rubrics of routine proceedings. That was done on April 20, May 4, May 11, and May 18. Most recently, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons moved such a motion on Thursday, November 17, and today the government is proposing to do it again for the sixth time.
I would argue that the government House leader is continuing where her predecessor left off in misusing this procedure. I refer to a Speaker's ruling on April 14, 1987. In his ruling on a similar matter, the Speaker stated:
Routine Proceedings are an essential part of House business and if they are not protected the interests of the House and the public it serves are likely to suffer severely.
He referred to a ruling of November 24, 1986, in which a motion having the effect of superseding a number of items under routine proceedings was inappropriate and excessive and was disallowed. However, the circumstances on April 14, 1987, were dramatically different and the Speaker allowed the government to move its motion.
I will compare those circumstances to today's circumstances and let you, Mr. Speaker, and the House draw its own conclusions. The Speaker observed that the opposition was significantly obstructing the progress of Bill C-22. He noted that seven divisions took place prior to the introduction of the bill, most of them resulting from the moving of dilatory motions under routine proceedings. Fourteen more divisions, with most of them again resulting from the moving of dilatory motions during routine proceedings, took place before the bill reached second reading on December 8, 1986. The bill was referred to committee and reported back to the House on March 16, 1987, after 24 meetings and 82 hours of debate. Numerous amendments were proposed at report stage and the House debated those amendments for four days.
On April 7, the minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs gave notice of time allocation. Unlike the opposition in 1987, we have negotiated openly and honestly with the government. Since this Parliament began, only two dilatory motions have been moved by the opposition. In contrast, five such motions have been advanced by the government. Today will be the sixth. The Speaker in 1987 noted that in the British House of Commons, the Speaker has the power to refuse a dilatory motion if he believes it to be an abuse of the rules of the House. He also noted that the Speaker is empowered to allow them if he believes they are justified.
In comparing Bill C-22 in 1987 and any bill the Liberal government has proposed to the House in this Parliament, the opposition has not given the current government justification to proceed in this manner. The scale of obstruction in 1987 was extreme according to any standard, and only under those circumstances was the government permitted to move its motion. The government should not be allowed to routinely skip over all rubrics during routine proceedings without just cause.
As Speaker Fraser pointed out, routine proceedings are an essential part of House business and they should be protected as a vital component that serves the interests of the House and the public. There is no moral ground or rational reason here for the government to proceed in this manner. Speaker Fraser, in his 1987 ruling, added:
It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view.
Clearly, the 1987 case involving Bill C-22 demonstrated unreasonable delaying tactics. This House has never seen such delaying tactics, and the government has never experienced this sort of sideshow from the opposition. The government's problems are self-inflicted and are not due to the opposition. The government has had the privilege of working with a generally co-operative opposition in this Parliament and has frittered away that goodwill. It has foolishly squandered it through its mismanagement of the House, mean-spirited tactics, and its minimalist efforts to make Parliament work.
While the government house leader was marketed as new, we now discover that we did not get “new and improved”.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you consider my arguments and not allow the government to move its motion to proceed to the orders of the day until it has at least demonstrated that an unreasonable obstruction has taken place.
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I will be very brief.
For the record, the third party speaks in favour of what the opposition House leader has just said.
For those Canadians watching, what does this mean? It means that MPs will not be able to table bills, will not be able to table petitions or to advance those parts of our roles as members of Parliament that we are here to do in representing our community.
I agree with the opposition House leader that there has been a genuine effort to work in good faith, and I find this very disappointing.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. While I agree with the current opposition House leader, I temper my comments by recognizing the irony that in the previous Parliament, it was her government that quite often brought such a motion forward. However, as a representative of the smallest party, our opportunity to speak in routine proceedings, to put forward petitions and so on, is grievously interfered with as this practice becomes more routine.
As I support the comments made by the member for Victoria, and the hon. opposition House leader, I urge that we find a solution so that we can proceed with routine proceedings more—forgive me—routinely.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I have moved a motion to proceed to the orders of the day. This motion is in fact in order.
What the member opposite is attempting to do is debate a non-debatable motion. Consistent with the rules of the House and its practices, the Speaker immediately puts the question to the House.
On page 541 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedures and Practice, it states, “The Chair has ruled that a motion to proceed to Orders of the Day is in order during Routine Proceedings”.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I thank the hon. opposition House leader for her intervention. I thank the member for Victoria, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader for all of their interventions.
I want to refer to page 541 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. In fact, the full sentence states:
The Chair has ruled that a motion to proceed to the Orders of the Day is in order during Routine Proceedings which, in recent practice, is the only time that it has been proposed.
Therefore, today I will allow the motion. However, I will come back to the House with a more detailed ruling.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?