House of Commons Hansard #412 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was animals.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I certainly did not call for the question. I asked for debate. We do not really have a procedure whereby we call for the question in that sense, but at any rate I did not hear it. The point is that I am told the motion is in order. We are now on the motion.
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when you called for motions, there was a motion on instructions to the committee to travel. What happened to that motion that was on the floor? There was no call for, “Is the House ready for the question?” There was no debate. There was nothing. There was simply a point of order and a subsequent motion. I would assume that we would have to dispense with the motion before the House before a subsequent motion could be put. Perhaps you could clarify whether that is the question.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
The hon. members will know that I called for debate. The hon. government House leader rose after I called for debate. She could have waited until the end of a 20-minute speech and made a motion. Instead, she made a motion right away. That is in fact in order. Therefore, we are on that motion now.
This is a non-debatable question. It supersedes the previous motion, and clearly it seeks to know the will of the House. If it is the will of the House to go to orders of the day rather than go back to the previous motion, that is what we will do.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Instruction to the Standing Committee on FinanceRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
Instruction to the Standing Committee on FinanceRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Yea.
Instruction to the Standing Committee on FinanceRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Nay.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
In my opinion the nays have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Call in the members.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I declare the motion carried.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon West, Transportation; the hon. member for Drummond, The Environment.
Bill C-84—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders
Waterloo Ontario
Liberal
Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting), not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third 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 third 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 places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.
The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, frankly, this is a bill that the government should have dealt with on the front end of this Parliament. There has been a lot of bipartisan support for this bill. I am just really disappointed that the government had to invoke time allocation, when I think there has been discussion among all parties with a view to having this bill pass expeditiously.
The government is going to allow a speaker, and other opposition parties were not going to have a speaker, and I do not understand why we are doing this. The government could have just put no speakers up. This is one of those situations where I know we have stakeholders in Ottawa who are watching this.
The government could have just managed this situation so much better. If one is going to build trust in this place, putting forward time allocation for something like this just seems a little heavy-handed and ridiculous. Why did the government have to quash bipartisan support for a bill that was probably just going to go on a voice vote anyway today?
Bill C-84—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders
LaSalle—Émard—Verdun Québec
Liberal
David Lametti LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her engagement on this issue in her private member's bill, Bill C-388, which took up one of the central issues of this bill.
It is unfortunate that we are going to time allocation. I cannot speak to the negotiations that went on, but I can say that we would like to see this bill through. As the hon. member has pointed out, there is a great deal of support on all sides of the House for this bill. The work that was done in committee was exemplary in terms of bringing forward amendments that were accepted, and we feel this bill needs to move forward, so we are using time allocation because we have to.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, the justice minister just stated something that is factually not true. This is the 70th time in this Parliament that the Liberals have used time allocation and closure, and he is saying that they are using it because they need to. The point is that they absolutely did not need to use the sledgehammer.
The government seems completely unwilling to work with opposition parties on anything, even on a bill that has a fairly broad level of consensus. I agree with the member for Calgary Nose Hill that it probably would have passed on a voice vote. Instead of bringing it to the House and working it through, it imposed closure for the 70th time.
This is in complete disregard for all the commitments I remember from back in 2015 when the Prime Minister said things would be different. He said this government would approach Parliament in a co-operative way and make sure parliamentarians can work together. Instead, we have had closure or time allocation 70 times. It is completely unacceptable and completely unnecessary.
Why is the government imposing closure on this Parliament for the 70th time?
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak to negotiations that went on with this bill or any other bill. That is not one of my functions in this House. What I can say is that there is a wide degree of support for it, not just in this House but also across Canada. We have managed to unify the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the Chicken Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Pork Council, the Egg Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Hatching Egg Producers, the Turkey Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Bison Association, the Canada Mink Breeders Association and the Canadian Sheep Federation.
My name gets tagged on a lot of social media, with people asking where this bill is, why it is not happening and why the opposition is stalling. I have to respond to that in some personal way. We are moving forward with this bill because it is something that has a great deal of support, and we intend to get it through.
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate that the Minister of Justice has not been the Minister of Justice throughout this Parliament, so he is taking on some legislation he had no role in crafting. However, he is the representative of the government today, and he needs to stand and answer and be accountable to the people and their representatives.
Why such a different approach? On this piece of legislation, we have a stand-alone piece of legislation that has gone through committee process and whatnot, and through debate, yet shamefully, in Bill C-74, an omnibus piece of legislation, the Liberals pushed through a provision for deferred prosecution agreements. They did not have a single witness from the academic community or bar association come for a thorough discussion about that particular regime, which is unlike any that has been used in the Criminal Code before. Why did they do that while giving a stand-alone bill to this, when they could easily have taken that DPA section from division 20 of Bill C-74 and put it in Bill C-75, another piece of omnibus legislation? Why is there such a mismatch in how they present to this place and with where their priorities are?
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Speaker, we felt these two issues were fairly well agreed upon on all sides of this House, therefore we could get it through. We also felt that the committee work that would be done on this, specifically in front of the justice committee, would build a better bill. That is precisely what happened. The three recommendations made by the justice committee helped a great deal to improve the bill.
With respect to this particular bill, which is what we are talking about today, we felt this was the best way to move forward.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange to hear what is coming from the Minister of Justice today.
I am one of those people who has wanted to speak to this bill. I have some things to say about its limitations and its failure in terms of being a missed opportunity to do a more comprehensive reform.
That said, I have been waiting to speak for a month. I have been waiting for the government to bring this bill forward. We have a limited number of people who want to speak. We are prepared to move forward with it. We have always been prepared to move forward.
He is the Minister of Justice. It is your bill now, and your answers do not make a lot of sense to me. Why are you even wasting this half-hour and the time it takes to vote? We probably could have finished dealing with this bill in this time.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
I just want to remind the hon. members to speak through the Speaker, not to the Speaker.
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will respond to part of the question. Certainly my commitment as Minister of Justice, moving forward, is to undertake a more comprehensive review of the question of animal rights more generally. I have done that publicly now on a number of occasions, both in front of the committee and in front of a round table hosted by my colleague, the member for Parkdale—High Park, with a number of leading animal rights advocates in Toronto.
I understand the importance, and I recognize, as the member has intimated, that this is a rather narrow bill. It is very narrow in scope. We need to do a lot more.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is quite right that there is widespread consensus, and he is also right that a lot of good work was done at committee.
However, I have to say I was a little surprised by his assertion that there are stakeholders out there who are alleging that it is the opposition that is holding up or stalling the bill. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is the government that has been holding up this bill. It is why the D.L.W. decision was issued in June 2016. It is now May 2019, and the government has still not responded. It is why the member for Calgary Nose Hill felt the need to introduce a private member's bill more than a year ago, a private member's bill that the government essentially copied and pasted into this legislation.
What was the minister talking about?
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on the committee. It brought valuable improvements to the bill, and I certainly enjoy my interactions with the hon. member, both in the House and at committee.
It is true that we incorporated a private member's bill from the member for Calgary Nose Hill. I thanked her for that contribution previously in answer to her question. However, we added another important element to the bill, which was animal fighting. That was also something we felt we could target quite clearly, and for which there was a great deal of support. It would also help us indirectly combat organized crime, which is often part of the animal fighting context.
I would say to the hon. member that we are doing our best to get this through the House as best we can, given the negotiations that happened. As I have just said, I am not privy to those negotiations. We feel this is the best way to move forward to get this done.
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely bizarre that we have this motion before us today.
We have heard from all sides of this House that there is support for this bill, yet instead of allowing some time for people to express their opinions on it, the government has taken a sledgehammer to it. Certainly the previous government used time allocation on occasion, but it was when there was no consensus.
Again, I would like the minister to tell us why Liberals feel they need to use a sledgehammer, when the parties just wanted an opportunity to put up a speaker and were willing to let this bill move forward.