House of Commons Hansard #148 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-23.

Topics

Federal Framework on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Act
Private Members' Business

11:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Federal Framework on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Act
Private Members' Business

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton

All those opposed will please say nay.

Federal Framework on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Act
Private Members' Business

11:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Federal Framework on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Act
Private Members' Business

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 8, 2017, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion
Preclearance Act, 2016
Government Orders

Noon

Waterloo
Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That in relation to Bill C-23, An Act respecting the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill; and

That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the 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.

Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion
Preclearance Act, 2016
Government Orders

Noon

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1 there will now be a 30-minute question period. It is at this time that I invite hon. members to rise in their place to give an indication of the number of members who would wish to participate in the 30-minute question period. That will allow an allocation of time and seeing the numbers in the usual form, members should allow approximately one minute for their interventions and the same in response from the government side. We will now proceed with that question period.

The hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka.

Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion
Preclearance Act, 2016
Government Orders

Noon

Conservative

Tony Clement Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. I wonder whether the minister could comment on a quote from May 2, 2013 from the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in this place, where he said:

obviously it is unfortunate when debate in the House is curtailed by the use of time allocation or closure. That impinges upon the democratic right of members of Parliament to adequately consider matters that are before the House.

I wonder whether he can explain why he has changed his mind on this matter.

Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion
Preclearance Act, 2016
Government Orders

Noon

Regina—Wascana
Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, we are moving into what will be the fourth day of debate at second reading on Bill C-23. Including today, there will have been over 10 hours of debate. So far, 18 members of Parliament have delivered speeches on Bill C-23 and obviously there will be more to come today. The point is that the detailed work with respect to Bill C-23 is the work that is done in committee, and members, I am sure, are anxious to get into that work so that they can consider the bill in detail. That will be followed by report stage, which will be followed by third reading. This is all part of a very deliberative process where members of Parliament will certainly have ample time to express their opinions. I note also that the hon. gentleman is generally supportive of the legislation.

Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion
Preclearance Act, 2016
Government Orders

Noon

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton

Before we go to further questions, as a reminder to hon. members, in this 30-minute question period, the preponderance of questions are allotted to the opposition. This does not exclude members from the government side from posing a few questions in the course of the 30 minutes, but generally, it is for opposition members.

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion
Preclearance Act, 2016
Government Orders

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Mr. Speaker, we are starting to lose track of the number of times the Liberals have used this measure to curtail debate. One of the most solemn things that we have as a duty in the House as members of Parliament is to bring forward our constituents' views. By cutting off this debate, the minister is not allowing us to do that. There are very real concerns about this bill. I know that members on that side of the House like to dismiss them, but it is our job to give them voice in the House.

To pre-empt the minister if he wishes to reference our vote on Bill C-37, may I remind him that we did that vote because it was to save Canadian lives, but this bill has been languishing on the docket since June of last year. I do not understand what the rush is.

Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion
Preclearance Act, 2016
Government Orders

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Regina—Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, indeed there has been ample time for public examination and consideration of this bill. The international agreement upon which it is founded was signed in the spring of 2015. It was tabled in the House of Commons at the same time. The legislation to provide legal force to the agreement was tabled in June of last year. It has all been in the public domain for all of that time. The focus generally has only occurred in the last number of weeks, but the fact of the matter is there have been months and months and months of public opportunity to examine this legislation.

Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion
Preclearance Act, 2016
Government Orders

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, even though there may be some agreement on different sides in terms of the bill itself, it still is incredibly important that members of Parliament be allowed to voice their concerns and reflect their constituents' wishes.

It is interesting that back on June 3, 2015, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said:

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.

I would say that we are seeing a real lack of competence on the government side in terms of being able to work together with all sides of the House to get its agenda passed.

What are the plans going forward? Is this what we have to look forward to in the next two and half a years, that every time MPs want to speak, they are going to be shut down by the Liberals?

Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion
Preclearance Act, 2016
Government Orders

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Regina—Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, again, I would remind the member that this subject matter has been in the public domain for detailed discussion and debate going back to the spring of 2015. The legislation has been on the Order Paper since June of last year. Already in the debate there have been four days devoted to second reading. There have been 10 hours of debate. Eighteen members of Parliament have delivered speeches, and more will do so today. This will be followed by the committee stage, report stage, and third reading stage of the bill. There is going to be a lot of opportunity for members to express their opinions.

I want to thank the hon. member for the support that her party has shown for this legislation.

Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion
Preclearance Act, 2016
Government Orders

March 6th, 2017 / 12:05 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, just because a bill has been placed on the Order Paper does not mean that members have had the opportunity to debate it. Given that the government has claimed to want to elevate the role of Parliament, I find it astonishing that the Liberals are now saying that this is no big deal because the bill was introduced in June. We are debating the bill now, and the government wants to limit the time we have for that. That is very disappointing. I know that the previous government liked to use this sort of tactic, but it seems the current government does as well.

That is all the more worrisome when we consider how concerned Canadians are about this bill. It is not just Canadians who are concerned. I think that something major is happening in the world and the government is ignoring it.

A great example of that is the Netherlands which ended negotiations on pre-clearance in light of Trump's policies. Does the minister think that the Netherlands is out to lunch on that, or does he agree that if, as he says, the current system works so well, and we agree, why is it necessary to give so many additional powers to American agents? As people say, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it.”

Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion
Preclearance Act, 2016
Government Orders

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Regina—Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that this whole issue was given a great deal of prominence in March of last year, just about a full year ago, when the Prime Minister and the president of the United States at that time discussed it very much in detail and very positively. At that time, the proposed legislation was fully described. It was tabled in June. I find it very interesting that in that whole period of time, from the spring of 2015 to June 2016, until about two weeks ago, not a single question about this proposed legislation was asked by the official opposition or the NDP, not one question.