Debates of Dec. 11th, 2018

Access to Information

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will take this matter under advisement and return to the House with our thoughts on it.

Bill C-21—Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That in relation to the Senate amendment to Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Customs Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of said stage of the bill; and That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the Senate amendment of 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 stage of the bill then under consideration 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 places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again the government wants to cut our speaking time short, but we will be questioning the minister this morning to find out why.

Today we are talking about Bill C-21, which was introduced by the Liberals in 2016 but is part of what the Conservatives had started at the time.

We have an important relationship with the United States when it comes to exchanging information. We can all agree on that. This ensures everyone's safety and helps in obtaining important information.

However, there is currently a bit of a trust issue with our partners. Regarding what is currently happening with Huawei, three of the Five Eyes countries have decided that Huawei must be banned from their systems. Here at home we are creating a climate of mistrust, and I know that there are countries, including the United States, that are starting to question Canada.

Can the minister tell us whether Canada is still a trustworthy partner for our Five Eyes partners? Decisions are currently being made that cast doubt on this relationship and may also have an impact on Bill C-21.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt about Canada's status in the Five Eyes and the G7. We are a respected partner, always have been, and that relationship will continue.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, yesterday time allocation was again invoked by the government. The member for Winnipeg North commented on time allocation and talked about when he was in the third party in the last Parliament and sat in this corner. He referred to the fact that he became aware of how important time allocation was. I would remind that member and the Minister of Public Safety, when they invoke time allocation, and they know full well that it limits debate in the House, that the record will show the fervency with which the Liberals argued against it in the House. When they campaigned in the last election, they told Canadians they would do something different.

We find ourselves today in a unique situation. As we reach the end of this session, we find time allocation being used day after day by the government. We could check the Hansard record, which, frankly, I have not, but I could if we determined that to be necessary. How can the Liberals sit as a government and repeatedly use time allocation in good conscience?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, one of the great functions of the Parliament of Canada, particularly the House of Commons of Canada, is to provide members with an opportunity to debate the great questions of public policy that come before the House. In addition to debating, we also have the obligation, on behalf of our constituents, to decide; that is, to listen to all sides of the argument and to then vote to come to a conclusion on a matter.

Bill C-21 has been before this House for a considerable length of time. It was considered at length in the Senate. The Senate made one very technical amendment having to do with the limitation of a time frame. It referred the matter, as amended, back to this House. What we are considering at this stage is that one very narrow question: Do we or do we not accept the time-limit issue raised by the Senate?

I have had the opportunity, as Minister of Public Safety, to present to this House several pieces of legislation dealing with important national security concerns. I would say that Bill C-21 is probably the one measure that has achieved the largest degree of cross-party consensus and the largest degree of support and consensus in both Houses of Parliament.

I listened enthusiastically to the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, who spoke at great length the other day about his fervent support for Bill C-21. Obviously, it is time to vote on the matter upon which, it seems, most members of Parliament agree.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, as there seems to be a consensus, as my colleague claims, why exactly does the government find it necessary to move a time allocation motion to limit debate? With 30 minutes for questions and comments, 30 minutes for the ringing of the bells and 15 minutes for the vote, we lose one hour and 15 minutes.

Why is the minister taking the time to move time allocation if he believes he has the consensus of the House for his bill? What is the urgency and relevance of this kind of motion if he believes that everyone agrees with the bill?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows the procedure by which time allocation comes about. The procedure cannot be introduced to the House on the whim of the government House leader. Consultations have to be undertaken to determine if there is reasonable consensus to proceed in a sensible way. If that consensus cannot be achieved, the government House leader has the option of moving time allocation. The point is that the government House leader asked, and the necessary consent was not forthcoming, necessitating the motion for time allocation.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed my honour to stand up and speak to this very important issue of time allocation. I remember when the hon. member for Abbotsford, who is my mentor, and I stood back from this big House, Centre Block, and both of us said how privileged we have been to be given the very important duty of representing our constituents in making sure that we make good laws for the benefit of all Canadians and that we are able to bring their voices to this great place.

This block will be closed for 10 years, if not more, and we will move to the other place, but the spirit is that we were elected and selected to be the voices of our own people. Limiting our ability to debate such an important issue by cutting off our time is not the right thing to do. I really question why the minister and the Liberal Party keep wanting to be rid of our privilege as the voice of our own people.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, three or four days ago, in House sitting time, the official spokesperson on this legislation for the official opposition, the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, gave a very extensive speech in which he reviewed Bill C-21, including the technical amendment made by the Senate, with which the official opposition is in full agreement. That is what he told the House, and I welcome the position, on the part of the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, that there is no further dispute, argument or debate with respect to this particular matter. It is a technical matter having to do with the time frame specified in the legislation, and it is a subject upon which the official opposition says it is in complete agreement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the other day, on Senate amendments that came back to the House, a Conservative member stood in his place and spoke for two and a half hours on a report on Senate legislation. I have witnessed over the last little while that there seems to be a great desire by members of the Conservative opposition to talk for the sake of talking and not wanting to see bills passed.

If we look at the content and the importance of this legislation in terms of trade and travel and the overwhelming support from all entities in the House, we see that it is important at times to use time allocation to ensure that the government is able to pass legislation. Sometimes it is legislation the opposition does not want to see pass but that it supports. That is the predicament we are in today.

Could the minister explain why this legislation is so important for Canadians and why it should ultimately be passed?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think if we asked most Canadians who travel back and forth across the international border between Canada and the United States, they would say that there is a system in place for checking on security issues about people who come into the country, and equally, there is a system in place for checking the facts and figures when a person leaves the country.

In fact, the former is true but not the latter. We do not have and we have never had a system whereby we record departures from the country. That has been observed by many members in the House as a significant gap in our security architecture, and many members, on all sides of the House, have said that this gap should be filled. That is exactly what Bill C-21 would do.

Recognizing that there are 400,000 people every day who go back and forth across the Canada-U.S. border, and recognizing that there is $2.5 billion in trade that goes back and forth across that border every single day, it is obviously important to expedite that legitimate trade and travel while at the same time making sure that the border is sound and secure.

Bill C-21 would fill an important security gap upon which it would appear every member of the House is in agreement. Therefore, it is time to vote and put a system in place that will serve the best interests of Canadians.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that time allocation is being put in place to try to reduce the amount of time we can debate the pros and cons of the value of this legislation, yet the Liberals themselves are just trying to stifle debate on the bill. They are not speaking to whether they have overused their power to impose time allocation.

If we added up all the time taken up in this place, since the Liberals took power, on reducing the opportunity for debate in the House, it would probably far exceed the opportunity to actually debate bills. Many of us, including me, wish to participate in substantive debate on a lot of bills, which change every day, if not by the hour, which makes it difficult for us to prepare for a constructive debate.

I truly wish the government would reconsider its use of the very undemocratic measures it has been using to end debate in this place.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, all of us wish to have ample time and opportunity to debate those important questions of public policy that come to the floor of the House of Commons. It is the function of House leaders, the government House leader and her counterparts in the other parties, to try to manage the time of the House in such a way as to bring issues forward in an orderly way, provide the opportunities for discussion and debate and ultimately the calling of votes, the divisions and decisions that need to be taken.

The procedure in our rules requires that the House leaders work together to come to reasonable accommodations. When that cannot be done, when consent is not forthcoming, and when people will not agree that the debate will run from A until B and then we will vote, when there is no certainty in that process, the government House leader has no alternative when consent fails but to try to organize the affairs of the House using time allocation.

Those motions invariably provide for further opportunity for debate before votes are ultimately taken. It is a procedure that no House leader likes to use, but it is necessary in certain circumstances to make sure that the House does not just debate eternally, but in fact comes to decisions on issues that matter to Canadians.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this question of time allocation. I am sure the ears of the government members are burning as they realize that Canadians across the country continue to discuss what the Liberals said they would do, what their promises were versus what they have actually done.

In a number of circumstances the Liberals indicated they would be a better government. They promised not to present omnibus bills to the House, and yet we have seen one after another being presented. On the question of consultation, they indicated there would not be just the impression of consultation but true consultation would take place. Being the shadow minister for veterans affairs, I have heard over and over again how veterans feel these consultations have simply been a photo op and an opportunity to appear like the Liberals are consulting when they truly are not listening. Then there is this question of time allocation. This is something the Liberals promised Canadians they would not abuse, and yet they continue to do so, even today.

If the Liberals are concerned about time allocation in this circumstance, what truly is their motivation as the House goes toward another break? The government has not been able to accomplish a great deal, so perhaps this is simply a move to enable them to get some work done.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would note with respect to the points that were raised by the member for Yorkton—Melville, Bill C-21 is not an omnibus bill. Bill C-21 has been subject to extensive consultations, both inside and outside Parliament. Bill C-21 enjoys a large consensus of support, including the support of her party. It is a very technical amendment that is before the House now to be voted upon, one that was originally raised in the committee proceedings, incidentally, by the NDP and subsequently raised again in the Senate.

After all of that work, there is a consensus that this is the right measure to introduce, and since there is no substantive disagreement, it is time to call the vote and settle that question.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, last night we celebrated the 70th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. During that ceremony there was discussion about the migration of people and how it has been increasing over the recent past, climate change being part of that and wars being part of that. It highlights how important it is for us to have a good regime in terms of our border controls and movement of people in the turbulent times we are living in.

How does Bill C-21 fit in terms of our commitments to the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights of people to a country? Could the minister comment on that briefly?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-21 is an important part of our national security architecture. It will provide for records to be kept when people leave the country. Right now those records are kept if one is a foreign national or if one is a permanent resident, but they are not kept if one is a Canadian citizen. The view of security experts is that is an important gap in our national security structures.

However, there are protections in this legislation to make sure that human values and rights are properly respected. For example, all of the advice from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is very thoroughly taken into account to make sure that privacy issues are not violated. In fact, the specific amendment that we are considering right now, which is the subject of the time allocation motion, is an amendment that was put into the bill in the Senate because of the advice of the Privacy Commissioner. What we are doing at this moment, in fact, is we are taking steps to follow good advice from the Privacy Commissioner about how to respect dimensions of human rights.

I would also point out that in terms of the information that is collected and shared under this legislation, it is information that is nothing more or less than what can be found on page 2 of one's passport, which means that there is no intrusion into personal privacy as a result of this matter.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to question the Minister of Public Safety. A few moments ago, he said that most of this issue had been discussed, that Bill C-21 had been debated previously and there is only one amendment coming from the Senate. Why does he not simply let the debate continue as it should in this House so that all members who wish to speak would have the opportunity? If it has been thoroughly discussed, surely no further members would stand to speak to it. Obviously, there are more members who have concerns and want to speak.

The government does not want to hear the concerns from the opposition, so it has imposed time allocation. Why not let the debate unfold and collapse when members have had their chance to speak?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, we sought the consent of other parties to proceed in a reasonable way on a very technical amendment. No consent was being given by the other parties, and therefore, the time allocation procedure was brought forward.

I would point out to the hon. gentleman that his party's official spokesman on this bill is the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, who gave a very eloquent speech in this House three or four days ago saying that this legislation, including the technical amendment put in by the Senate, enjoys the complete support and confidence of the official opposition. Therefore, let us vote.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, we could have continued to debate that. I have a question for the minister.

I am well aware that Canada and the United States exchange information about the people who cross the border in both directions. However, under Bill C-21, would information about illegal migrants be exchanged in the same way given that these people do not arrive at official ports of entry?

Will the Americans be advised of the arrival in Canada of people from the United States? Is there a procedure in place for those people who have a warrant for their arrest in the United States?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, from the very beginning of the circumstances that the hon. gentleman referred to, security and safety have been the paramount concerns of the Government of Canada. I am very happy to report that through all of the difficult challenges of migration over the course of the last couple of years, Canadian officers at the border, whether they be CBSA officers or RCMP officers, have performed in an exemplary fashion. They have, in fact, ensured that every Canadian law is properly enforced and every international obligation of Canada has been properly respected.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, here we are again facing a time allocation motion. Virtually every member in this House remembers the campaign of 2015 when the Liberal candidates would adamantly declare they would end these practices of closure, time allocation and omnibus bills. On and on the promises went about what a Liberal government would do differently, yet here we are again with time allocation on a very technical amendment.

It may be true that we agree with the amendment, but one of the things that would be helpful is that while it is important for us to do all that we can to keep Canadians safe, it would be good to know from some of our other colleagues in this House what their perceptions are as to how other democracies are handling this situation, in terms of exit and entry. Obviously our prime concern is the safety of Canadians and also the safeguarding of their personal information.

Could my colleague comment on how he could stand before his constituents in the last election, and basically promise an end to the use of time allocation, but here we are, dozens of times later, using the same technique?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, the point the hon. gentleman is making is an interesting one.

He says that the Conservatives agree with the technical amendment. They agree with the thrust of Bill C-21. There has been debate here, in the standing committee and in the Senate. That debate has gone on for a considerable length of time, and it does appear, at the end of that discussion, that a consensus has been arrived at and everyone is supportive of the legislation, except the member would like the debate to continue with no specified end point in sight.

That is the problem one constantly faces with this dilemma of time allocation. Do we have debates that go on interminably with no conclusion, or when it appears that a reasonable consensus has been arrived at, do we take the necessary procedures to actually call the vote and take a decision?

The Parliament of Canada is the most important debating society in our country, but it is more than that. It is the most important decision-making body in this country. We have had the debate. It has been reasonable. It has been extensive. Consensus has been arrived at. It is time to vote.