House of Commons Hansard #158 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was report.

Topics

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, my friend is very clearly comparing apples to oranges here. A proposal to change the process by which a Speaker is elected is a relatively minor change in the scheme of things. It was discussed and debated on, and there was a great diversity of opinions within individual parties. At the time, there were differences of opinion in every party. It would be very different from a majority government unilaterally trying to impose substantial changes to the legislative process without any kind of opposition buy-in.

I think there is a clear difference, especially in terms of the scale of the kind of changes we are talking about. From now on, automatically every piece of legislation would have the government dictating the amount of time that was spent discussing that, not only in the House but also in committee. That would be a revolutionary change, and it would completely undermine the role of the opposition.

I think the change with respect to the Speaker election was whether we have successive rounds of balloting or an instant run-off vote. With all due respect, whether we have an instant run-off or multiple rounds of balloting is a minor change compared to whether the government dictates how much time a committee can spend discussing legislation.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:50 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

This is absolutely pathetic. Insufferable in the righteous belief that it is the natural governing party, the government would have us believe it can force us to accept something by giving us the impression that it is our choice. The Liberals must think we are children.

The two people who just spoke are new MPs. I happen know this gentleman has children. I would like to ask my colleague a question.

Does he see why we would feel like children who are being given the choice of going to Boston Pizza or Tim Hortons by someone who already knows we are going to Boston Pizza even though we would rather go for a doughnut at Tim Hortons?

They say that we can make choices and that they want to hear from us, but in truth, the Liberals know they are the ones calling the shots. They put it in their bill, and they are going to force things on us, but it cannot actually look like that is what is happening because they are so smooth.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, as the parent of young children, I will say that my daughter insists on unanimity in the decisions we make in our house as well.

Certainly I think the member's point is quite an important one. Every member of Parliament here is elected by their constituents and obviously has a slightly different role, whether they are in government or opposition, but is an equal member of this House. They need to be actively involved in the decision-making, on an equal footing, when we talk about things that are fundamental to our institution. Within this place, there are tiers of members. All members need to be engaged in this discussion. It would be very concerning if the government were able to go ahead with its plan unilaterally imposed on the opposition. It could talk about discussion all it wants, but when the decisions are clearly made in advance and point in the direction of working to the government's advantage, that is obvious to Canadians. We are seeing in terms of the outcry from Canadians that they do not believe that the government is not personally interested in the outcome. Clearly, it is, and we need to move in a way that is collaborative.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Jean-Yves Duclos Liberal Québec, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to table the government's answers to Questions Nos. 580, 763, and 841 to 876.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Brampton North.

I came to this place to serve. I have had two previous occupations. I served as a lawyer for six years, and following that, I had the privilege of serving as a chaplain to a community for 20 years. I love the idea of serving. I felt that there were greater challenges ahead of me, and I wanted to use my gifts to the best of my ability. That is really what brought me to this place.

I know it sounds idealistic, but that is exactly why I stand in this place today. It is really to serve. I do not say that to brag. I know there are many members in this House who have come to this place for the same reason. Those members and I share the belief that we do not need any credit because we get our fulfillment in seeing the difference that we can make for Canadians.

I have to admit that there are parts of this job that take me out of my comfort zone. When I first came to this House and stood up in the House to speak, it was not something that I would say I was immediately comfortable with, but the greater interest for me is serving the people who put me here, and so, I have become accustomed to it, and I stand up when I know that I am standing up for the right thing.

I need to stand up today as a member of the procedure and House affairs committee. I am happy that I have this opportunity. I am honoured to have this opportunity, because I want Canadians to know about what the government is putting forward.

There is no question that everyone in this House works hard. Although I have been involved in politics all my life working in the background, I have never truly known and appreciated how hard members work. However, the topic today is not about working harder. It is not about that at all. We all work hard. It is about how to work better. The analogy I think of is a mouse on a treadmill, working hard, running on that treadmill, going all day long, not really going anywhere but working hard at it. That is not what we want.

We want our efforts to be used so that we can serve Canadians to the best of our ability. That is what we are trying to do with the motion. What we are trying to do is get a discussion going about how we can better serve Canadians. Let us be more efficient. Let us do it better. I think we all share that. However, we have to get to the discussion before we can embark on the ideas of how to get there.

Let me give an example of committee work. This was new to me. What happens in the House currently is we are called to committees. We go to those committees where very important work is done. It is probably the most important work. Witnesses come to those committees to testify. Those witnesses are flying in from all over the country to testify. With all due respect, it is the taxpayers who are paying for the witnesses to get here, but that is money well spent. To get those witnesses in front of committees is money that is very well spent.

I will tell the House what is not well done. The bells ring and all of a sudden we jump up from committee. We jump into shuttle buses. We come over here. It is a 30-minute bell. Thirty minutes pass, and then we get up and vote. We are lucky if we get back to committee. Usually we do not get back to the committee. What happens? All those people who came to present at the committee go home. They fly home. That time cannot be made up.

We have to do better. Those witnesses want to give testimony. We want to hear their testimony. How are we going to do that? We are going to do that by having this discussion, which everyone in this House can contribute to.

I want to read from the discussion paper, because it is very important we set straight a lot of the things that are being misconstrued.

Let me start with Friday. One of the members mentioned that there was nothing in the paper about Friday. Let me read from the government House leader 's discussion paper what it says about Friday:

Should Friday sittings be reapportioned, it would be important to reallocate any lost time to the remaining four days, including time lost for Question Period and Private Members’ Business. This could be accomplished by having the House meet earlier on certain days. Alternatively, if Friday sittings are retained they should look like any other sitting day...

What does that mean? That means a full day.

I am going to tell the House something about my own experience and I am speaking completely honestly. I want Canadians at home to know. If I need a rest because I am exhausted, I am better here on Friday. Why? Because I put in a half day here and the rest of the day I travel home. That travel home is a rest for me. However, if I am not here on Friday, I leave here late Thursday night. I am getting home late on Thursday night and Friday morning at 7 o'clock I am at my constituency office. Friday is the day we currently sit. It is one or the other. We either make Friday a full day or we do what is in the discussion paper, and that is reapportion the hours.

This discussion paper is the start of the discussion, not the end. This business of ramming through legislation is not the way it is. This is a discussion. This is where we start.

Let me go to electronic voting, which is in the discussion paper too. There has been talk about it for 32 years. We are not saying that it is going to happen. We are asking to have a discussion on it. Why is a discussion timely? Because the West Block is being reconstructed. Therefore, if we are to have electronic voting, it might be a good idea to have the discussion now in order to accommodate it so we can follow through with electronic voting. This is not a done deal. Nothing has been decided. It is to be talked about.

Let me move to the House calendar. Everybody is talking about the Liberals wanting to make life easier, that they want to work less. If we want to work less, then why do we say in this discussion paper “having the House sit earlier in January”, which is more days, “later in June”, which is more days, not less, “and earlier in September”. We are talking about what to do to get the work done, to follow through on our commitments to get legislation passed. How do we use the time in the House more effectively?

Let me now talk about time allocation, which has been mentioned in the House many times. In the 41st Parliament, time allocation was used 100 times. Do members know the time that took for time allocation votes? It was used 100 times. If that happened now, it would 338 x 100 x an hour for each time, or whatever it would take. Is that the best use of our time?

The British House of Commons has used programming motions to allocate time. Some have said that this is a terrible thing. The British House has made it permanent now and the opposition, which first was against it, is now in favour of it.

I have a hard time listening to this question. The suggestion is that we want to limit the Prime Minister's questions. We have a Prime Minister who goes across the country answering questions from Canadians at an open mic. This is not about less accountability but rather about more. This is about giving more time in addition to the questions that the Prime Minister already answers.

To be honest, I am tired of it. This is about using our time to the best of our ability. This is about using taxpayer money, taxpayers who are paying our salaries. This is about better serving them.

I am going to suggest a fourth option for the hon. member who had three options, and that is to approve the motion that we put through at PROC.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Madam Speaker, the problem is that we are making too many demands on the Prime Minister, who has important questions to answer across the country. I actually feel it would be selfish of us to ask him to come here once a week. I am going to propose that if Liberals are willing to consider having him once a year, that would be more than enough for us. Clearly, there is no relevance to having an official opposition, a government in waiting, a loyal opposition, loyal to the Constitution, providing an alternative way of looking at things. Clearly, hundreds of years of practice have no bearing on the way Canada should run.

Let me ask the member this question. Conservatives do not object to the discussion paper, which has mutually contradictory proposals in it, some of which might be good and some of which might be bad. We object to the fact that there is a June 2 deadline for getting all those changes made.

We are hearing that this needs to be dragged into the 21st century. Number one, why were we not trying to drag it into the 21st century for the first year and a half of the Liberal government's mandate? Why, number two, did the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons decide to have, and is so adamant about having, a deadline that means we have to get this whole thing done before the summer?

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Madam Speaker, on the first point about the Prime Minister, I would say that I am proud of our Prime Minister for going across the country for open mics. Those open mics are not supplementary. They are in addition to what the Prime Minister does in this House. They are in addition to the questions he is being asked and is responding to in this House.

With our proposal, we are looking at how everyone in this House can ask questions of the Prime Minister or how backbenchers can present questions to him. He wants to answer those questions. He does a brilliant job of answering questions. This is about more accountability not only of the Prime Minister but also of cabinet ministers. That is what we want to embark upon. That is the discussion we want to have.

With respect to the second issue, we want to start this discussion. We will not come up with recommendations until we have had a robust discussion. If the filibuster continues until the end of June, then of course, the date has to be extended. We are committed to ensuring that we make evidence-based decisions on the great information we are going to receive at committee.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague. She has used the phrases that we are here to get the work done and that we are here to become more efficient many times. One would think we were talking about a meat packing plant or an auto assembly manufacturing plant instead of the cradle of democracy of Canada.

We are talking about democracy here, and democracy's highest principles are, unfortunately, not efficiency or getting the job done. Democracy's highest principles are debate, probing, holding the government to account, and expressing our constituents' views. That is why we are sent to this place. I am sorry if my hon. colleague finds that inefficient or inconvenient, but that is what we are sent here to do.

My question is this. If it is so important to have the Prime Minister answer the questions of backbenchers, why does the Prime Minister not do that every Wednesday from here on in? There is nothing to stop him from standing this Wednesday and answering every question from any member of this House. In fact, he could do it four days a week. Why does he not do that?

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Madam Speaker, there are a number of things the member has raised.

Let me first say that, unfortunately, debate cannot take place when the bells are ringing, and that occupies a lot of time. We are talking about 30 minutes for the bells. Second, with respect to the Prime Minister answering questions, the whole point of this motion is to have a discussion to determine how we can efficiently use our time.

The third thing I want to say is this. I said this to my constituents, whose doors I knocked on. When some of my constituents found out I was a politician, they wanted to throw me off the porch. Why? It is because they wanted us to do better in this place. That is why. The commitment I made to them was that I would work hard so that the time we have in this place is totally and completely used to best serve them and their needs. That is what brought me here, and that is why I stand in this House today.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

Madam Speaker, we have been having some wonderful discussions here. I like the ideas that are coming from the opposition and from the government benches. This is exactly the discussion that we want to have at the procedure and House affairs committee. This is why the discussion paper was put forward by the government House leader.

As was mentioned by one of the NDP members on the committee, the previous government House leader also once came to this committee and asked us to discuss how we could be a more effective, more modernized Parliament. The motion that we started this debate on today was from the interim report that the procedure and House affairs committee had put out at that time.

There are some disingenuous remarks being made in this chamber about how we as a committee had decided to proceed at that time. At that time, we had decided that we would talk about the low-hanging fruit, some of the difficult issues, some of the easier issues, and what we thought needed to be changed. At the end of it, we decided that for the sake of efficiency we would put out an interim report on the things that we could agree on at that moment, and then come back at a later date to revisit some of those hard-to-debate issues.

In that interim report, we had, I believe, four recommendations. Those recommendations were things that we were already doing in this House. I respect the work that I and my colleagues do in committee, but when we look at that report and read that interim report, one of the things that was recommended was to move the votes, if possible, up to after question period, which was an idea that the government had already been implementing with the help of the opposition.

Everyone realized what a difference that made. We did not have to run back to our offices, come back to the chamber, and waste a whole bunch of hours in the day, when we could be having effective debate in this chamber. We could be holding stakeholder meetings in our office. We could be in our committee meetings. We thought that was a great idea. Those are the things that we want to carry on with and continue discussing.

What happened at that time, though, was that there were a lot of difficult things that we wanted to discuss but could not agree on and could not get to. Those are some of the things mentioned in this discussion paper. I thank the hon. government House leader for bringing this discussion paper back to our committee and raising this debate again.

I really urge the opposition members to engage in this debate within the committee process and to examine these things with witnesses present so that we can get the scientific evidence that we need to make the decisions to move forward.

I agreed with my colleague when she was talking about campaigning door to door. Something people do not like about Parliament is that things take a very long time. Now, I understand the need to debate things. I understand the balance that we need to strike, that we need to probe and make sure that the laws we pass in this chamber are laws that will be good for all Canadians and I understand that we need to strike that balance, but let us have a conversation. There are so many ways we could more efficient with our time.

Once again, I need to reiterate that the misinformation that the opposition is trying to put out there about the accountability of our Prime Minister is just wrong. The discussion paper does not say that the Prime Minister would only come once a week. It is in addition to all the other days that the Prime Minister does come.

Quite frankly, the opposition is correct: there is nothing that stops the Prime Minister from not coming every day right now. There is nothing that stops the Prime Minister from not coming at all. This is actually putting into effect something concrete that requires the Prime Minister to show up, and requires him, in addition to the regular days, to come for another 45 minutes.

What is wrong with the backbench MPs being able to ask questions as well? This would be an effective way of modernizing our Parliament and making some changes.

No one is talking about taking Fridays off. Let us make it a full day, or let us apportion those hours to other days. A lot of companies have been doing this. Canadians understand that we can increase productivity by making some of these simple changes in the House.

Not allowing this discussion to even occur is blocking the very thing we are sent here to do. We are sent here to work in committees. We are sent here to produce reports and to study issues that are not just easy, but are also hard. We are sent here to have the hard and difficult conversations. That is what we want to have. Those are the conversations we want to have at the procedure and House affairs committee. Let us get on with it. Let us have those discussions. Let us bring in witnesses. Nothing stops any member from asking the questions that they desire of those witnesses.

I know we had many witnesses before us before we put this interim report out and, quite frankly, some of those witnesses were disappointed that the recommended changes in this interim report were not as they would have liked to see. I urge the members of the House to allow us to now get back to that study and not just make it an interim report but to finalize it. Let us bring in some of those witnesses again, let us bring in others, and let us finally change some things.

Just last week, we saw a very inefficient use of time. We had a vote called to see if we should adjourn the House for the day. What happened? The opposition had called that vote, we came in and then it voted against its very own motion. These are the types of tactics that are used day in and day out in the House to slow things down, to ensure we do not pass the legislation we are sent here to pass and—

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order. It being 6:16 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

All those opposed will please say nay.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

Madam Speaker, I ask that the vote be deferred to tomorrow at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Accordingly, the recorded division stands deferred until tomorrow, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

Palliative CarePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

April 3rd, 2017 / 6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Madam Speaker, I have a great petition here from 100 or so members of my constituency, from Battlefords and North Battleford.

The petitioners call on the government to take palliative care seriously, to actually follow through on some of the promises it has made, and to ensure that this is covered under the Canada Health Act so the provincial and territorial governments will be entitled to the funding that is required for it.

Organ DonationPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

Madam Speaker, I rise today with a petition signed by residents of my constituency, mainly from Airdrie and Crossfield.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to support my colleague's bill, Bill C-316, by the member for Calgary Confederation, so Canadians are able to indicate their desire to donate their organs and tissues through their annual tax return. They ask that this information be shared with their provincial or territorial government for the purpose of being added to existing donor registries.

Multiple SclerosisPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today. The first is from constituents and people across Canada who have signed an e-petition to the Minister of Health calling for further research and testing of various controversial treatments. Members of the public want to see testing for jugular, vertebral, and azygos veins for people with multiple sclerosis and want the data from patients who have obtained this treatment to be collected to establish baselines and follow up on the collection of data. The data collected would be going to Health Canada for dissemination.

Vascular treatments for multiple sclerosis need research, and the petition asks for that.

Falun GongPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I have received hundreds of signatures from people in the Toronto area on a petition that calls for the Government of Canada to press the People's Republic of China to stop discrimination against the practitioners of Falun Dafa and Falun Gong.

Small Business TaxationPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by campers who say that Blue Heron Resort in Spanish, Ontario, is great for fishing and family fun in the riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. The petitioners call on the government to ensure that campgrounds with fewer than five full-time year-round employees continue to be recognized and taxed as small businesses.

Canada PostPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

David Sweet Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON

Madam Speaker, I have a petition from Canadians across Ontario who call upon the Government of Canada to instruct Canada Post to add postal banking with a mandate for financial inclusion and to release the secret study it conducted on postal banking.