Marc Garneau

[Standing Orders and Procedure, February 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. He is right. Clearly, there is already a great deal of cynicism in this country with regard to the behaviour of parliamentarians in this House. We must change our behaviour and we can do so in two ways. We can play with the rules. That is the discussion we are having today. It is a valid exercise to try to improve the rules so that they might indirectly help us to achieve mutual respect. Sometimes we can do this with the help of the rules.

However, the best way to improve our collective behaviour in this House is for each one of us to do some soul-searching and resolve to behave in a more respectful way in this great House of Commons, in this great democratic Parliament.

[Standing Orders and Procedure, February 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I admit that I am mortal and I occasionally will say certain things, but I would also say that the Liberal Party is alive and well and we do not intend to stay silent when we hear some of the absolutely despicable nonsense that comes from across the way.

However, the member has a good point. We all have to watch our tongues on occasion. We are all prey to our emotions in the House. However, to suggest that we should not be able to voice some of our indignation on occasion in a polite and respectful manner, of course, is to run against human nature.

[Standing Orders and Procedure, February 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to participate in the discussion about our Standing Orders and to debate the rules regulating our proceedings and committees.

The debates that are held in the House can often get very heated. This statement surely comes as no surprise to my colleagues because when intelligent, hard-working and passionate people debate issues and tackle difficult questions, emotions sometimes run high. I admit that my emotions occasionally run high when I speak, even though I consider myself emotionally a controlled person, but this is to be expected. However, we are not here today to discuss the substance of the issues that we debate, but rather the way in which they are discussed, debated, examined and ultimately decided upon.

Yes, this debate provides an excellent opportunity for members to share their ideas and proposals on how to modernize and improve House procedures, but I have to wonder about this government's willingness to accept any suggestions in that regard. I hope they will.

Even though we may sit on opposite sides of the House, I think it is safe to say that we are all in the same boat. We must work together, and yes, even though we might disagree on how to carry out our work, we should all agree on one thing: every member has the right to be heard and to take part in the process. I hope this debate will allow us to come up with some constructive ideas that will help members do their job to the best of their abilities.

I say this because I feel as though the reasons for this debate are twofold. One would be to streamline or improve the rules, so to speak. The other would be to give due respect to the spirit of the rules.

Several areas need to be considered and come to mind, from the broadest subjects, such as the operations of standing committees and the conduct of question period, right down to the weekly, dare I say, colourful Thursday statement. I ask myself sometimes, as I am sure many Canadians do, why this place often seems to grind to a complete halt. Is it because of the rules, or is it brought about by an abuse of the rules? I do not mean to sound cynical, but the hyper-partisan nature of this place in recent years makes me wonder sometimes what really needs to be changed.

In today's debate we will hear a lot of talk about committee proceedings, specifically in camera meetings. Why is that? Because the Conservative Party has begun to stifle any kind of debate in committee by using its majority to shut down every proposal put forward by the opposition. I find it very regrettable that the Conservatives have decided to go this route because it undermines our democratic institution as a whole.

We in the Liberal Party have taken it upon ourselves to propose some possible wording that describes a specific list of exceptional circumstances when in camera meetings are appropriate, thus enabling committees to maximize public access to their activities rather than excluding citizens and the media unnecessarily.

I will describe what we proposed earlier this week. We believe that as a principle all meetings of standing, special, or legislative committees should be held in public and after public notice, with only a few very specific exceptions. Examples would be situations where we are discussing specific things such as wages, salaries and other employee benefits; contract negotiations, labour relations and other personnel matters; information that cannot be disclosed publicly without demonstrably putting national security at risk; an item of business that cannot be discussed in public without disclosing information supplied in confidence, such as legal advice supplied in confidence; and/or consideration of any draft report of the committee. We hope that this will be viewed as a constructive start. We think that we do need to maximize the openness of our committees and we are putting forward the first specific suggestions on this subject.

That I have to stand here today to make suggestions on how to advocate for greater democracy is somewhat ironic. Here is the same party, the Conservative Party, that cried foul every time time allocation was used when it was in opposition, and is setting new records as soon as it got enough seats to steamroll its legislative agenda through the House. To remind members, the last time we in the Liberal Party had a majority, from 2000 to 2004, in those four years with over 150 bills there were 10 calls for time allocation. The Conservative government has been in power for eight or nine months and has already passed that limit with 16 calls for time allocation on about 20 bills.

It is the same party that wasted so much time in the House, for example during the Nisga'a debate, that we actually had to tighten up the rules on what was acceptable in terms of proposing amendments. It is the only party to be found in contempt of the House of Commons in the history of Canada.

I could go on for some time about the symptomatic problems of the House. If someone were to ask me what other changes I would like to see and what changes I think Canadians would like to see, I would say that, for one thing, we should examine the way question period operates.

The problem with question period is not one-dimensional, but rather it is full of nuances when taken as a whole. There are questions of procedure, such as rotation and the length of questions and answers. There is also the question of decorum, including exclamations and shouting, which often cut short members' time, and parliamentary language, which often becomes the source of further debate.

It is true that we do not have an official list of terms that are deemed unparliamentary, but quite frankly, I am not convinced that we need such a list, because I think all hon. members in this House should refrain from using provocative language and resorting to personal attacks, the most recent examples of which include shameful comparisons to Hitler, pedophiles and terrorists.

My colleague from Mount Royal spoke quite eloquently in this place last week on a point of order regarding this matter. As he outlined in his speech, Speaker Milliken paraphrased Speaker Fraser's ruling of December 11, 1991 that offensive remarks can linger and “have a suffocating effect on the fair exchange of ideas and points of view. Anything said in this place receives wide and instant dissemination and leaves a lasting impression. Offending words may be withdrawn, denied, explained away, or apologized for, but the impression created is not always as easily erased”.

When an incident such as this does take place, it is a source of embarrassment as it denigrates the dignity of us all as members of Parliament and of the House as a whole, but I digress.

Let me get back to the point concerning question period. Something else which I know is not in the Speaker's purview or a matter for Standing Orders but which we could also talk about is the substance of the answers in question period. As I just stated, I know that the substance of a minister's answer is not something on which the Speaker can rule. The Speaker cannot make a minister answer a question. However, there is something I would like to see and that is ministerial accountability. To be more specific, when a minister is asked a question, I would like the minister responsible to answer the question.

Also, the idea of having Wednesday's question period directed uniquely at the Prime Minister, as is the practice in the U.K., is an interesting proposal, which in my opinion merits further consideration.

In preparing for my intervention today I looked at the past two instances where we have had a debate such as this in the House. I would like to conclude by quoting the Hon. Jay Hill, a former colleague who knew the dynamics of this place and held the positions of whip and House leader during his tenure. In a speech on April 11, 2005, he said:

I would argue that the concentration of power in the Office of the Prime Minister, which is at the root of much of our democratic deficit, has grown not lessened under this Prime Minister's watch.

The multitudes of government powers that ultimately rest with the Prime Minister are staggering.

I am afraid he was right. However, in the past six years I could not agree with him more that things have not changed. Anything we can do to ensure greater democracy within the House and in the many parliamentary committee rooms will be welcomed, whether it be by resorting as little as possible to secret in camera sessions in committees, restricting the excessive use of time allocation when debating government bills, insisting that ministers answer questions directed at them—

[Standing Orders and Procedure, February 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, in listening to my colleague from across the aisle, it is clear that he is quite passionate about the subject of the Standing Orders, which I think puts him in an exclusive club here in the House of Commons. I know from working with him in committee that he is very knowledgeable about these things and he did give us a good historical review of it.

I was hoping, however, that he would be a little more specific about what his party intends to do in the next little while in terms of suggesting changes to the Standing Orders. I was also wondering, like my colleague from the NDP, whether he could shine a little more light on what the Conservative Party feels might be worth looking at in terms of changes to the current Standing Orders.

[Public Safety, February 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this week, the government has created a new registry: a registry of our private communications. This registry could contain the following information about each of us: who we call, when we call them, who we send emails to and when we send them. And all this without a warrant. Of course we want to protect our children and the other people of this country, but we must also protect a fundamental right: Canadians' privacy.

[Copyright Modernization Act, February 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I am not mistaken, I believe the Minister of National Defence rose to vote in this particular vote. I know that the Chief Government Whip is usually very meticulous and conscientious about these kinds of things. I trust he will ensure that the vote count is corrected accordingly.

[Copyright Modernization Act, February 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the identical bill that the House leader refers to is Bill C-32. I was involved on the legislative committee. Of course, after hearing about 150 witnesses and receiving untold written submissions, when it appeared in its new form as Bill C-11 under the new Parliament, not a single comma had been changed. This leads us to the conclusion that there was no intention to do anything with all that testimony that occurred before the committee.

The House leader mentioned that he invited the opposition to tell him how many speakers it would like to put up at second reading. We came forward, in the Liberal Party, and said we would like to have eight speakers. We were hoping that perhaps he was turning over a new leaf and was going to allow some proper debate. Then we find out today the time allocation is two days. We will be lucky if we get two or three speakers.

Is this an indication of the goodwill that the government is showing toward democracy?

[Search and Rescue, February 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on the famous airlift out of the fishing camp, the minister's office told us that the invitation came unexpectedly at the last minute without any warning and, therefore, that he had to take a search and rescue helicopter.

Yet a response to a question on the order paper shows that an invitation was made two weeks before for him to go to this announcement in London, Ontario.

Will the minister please explain to Canadians why he felt the need to use the search and rescue helicopter at the last minute, and why, with two-weeks' notice, he could not have found alternative transportation?

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, January 31st, 2012]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has given me hope. He said of the pooled registered pension plan that it is an imperfect tool, but one tool among many. With the Canada pension plan, the Quebec pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, all of which provide a safety net for Canadians, I wonder if he truly believes that there is something else that we should be doing. I have already asked the question twice, but I will do so again. Is the status quo enough, or are there other things that should be done to ensure that retired Canadians receive an adequate pension?

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, January 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask a question that I asked of the member's colleague a little while ago but did not get an answer.

If we make the assumption that the PRPP is made into law along with the other federal programs, CPP, OAS and GIS, does the member feel that the needs of Canadians with respect to their pensions for the foreseeable future, meaning in the next few decades, will have been entirely addressed or is there more to come?