Mr. Speaker, once again I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2019, with 71% of the vote.
Questions on the Order Paper October 28th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, once again I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Electronic Petitions October 28th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand today and join this debate on Motion No. 428.
Initially, I would like to congratulate my colleague opposite for bringing forward this motion for debate in this place. I say that because I believe my hon. colleague has brought this forward in an honest attempt to try to have a motion that would increase citizens' engagement in the democratic process. Anyone who brings forward any initiative to try to increase all of our citizens' engagement in the democratic process and parliamentary system should be applauded. However, there are several flaws in this motion that I feel require me to oppose the motion, and I want to articulate that to members in this place this morning.
My primary and overriding concern with Motion No. 428 is that it would require the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to conduct a study with a predetermined outcome. In other words, Motion No. 428 would instruct the procedure and House affairs committee to conduct a study on how to implement a system of electronic petitioning rather than asking the committee to conduct a study as to whether or not a system of electronic petitioning would be beneficial. That is the primary reason why I must oppose the motion.
I believe that a study should be open-minded. A study conducted in any committee on any subject should be to determine the best result rather than predetermine a result. In this case, the member opposite is asking the committee to justify or rationalize the result that the member wants to see. I do not think that is how Parliament works. I do not think that is how Parliament should work.
I believe that if the member is truly convinced that e-petitioning is a proper system for Parliament to adopt, he should then introduce a bill rather than a motion. It could be debated and could be voted upon. A bill would then purport that he has a solution and he would ask Parliament to either ratify it or reject it. However, I do not think it is democratic at all, quite frankly, to suggest that a committee conduct a study with a predetermined outcome. It actually flies in the face of what the member is trying to accomplish.
On that basis alone I would have to oppose this motion, but I think there are some other practical issues that would also prevent me from endorsing and supporting the motion, some of which the member opposite tried to address in his presentation. Before I get into those practical problems, I will just say this.
If the member opposite had suggested that a study be conducted by the procedure and House affairs with an open-ended view as to whether or not e-petitions should be adopted by this place, it would certainly be a motion I could consider supporting. In fact, currently in the procedure and House affairs committee there is an ongoing study on change to the Standing Orders. I think it would take a simple request by the member opposite, in the form of a motion, to ask the procedure and House affairs committee to include a study on petitions in its current study of the Standing Orders. If that were the case, I could mostly certainly consider supporting that motion. Unfortunately, because the member wants to see a predetermined outcome, on principle I simply cannot support it.
I will now turn my attention to some of the practical problems that e-petitions could cause in Parliament.
The member opposite speaks to the systems of e-petitioning that have already been adopted in the United Kingdom and United States. He basically says that all of the charges of frivolous petitions coming forward are really nonsensical or, quite frankly, should be dismissed. I do not see it that way, and I will give a few specific examples of petitions that have reached the threshold of 100,000, which is required in the United Kingdom, and that have been debated in its Parliament.
One of the issues was on surgery in a local hospital. I am sure that is a very real concern to members in that particular area of the United Kingdom, but debating a local issue in the parliament of the United Kingdom, I do not think so. There have also been other debates that have occurred in Britain's parliament, one on a beer duty escalator. What in the world would parliamentarians be doing to enhance democracy for the entire country on a debate such as that?
Then there are petitions brought forward, hoping for debates, by special interest groups. In the United States there have been petitions that have reached the 100,000 signature mark on whether or not Texas should secede from the United States. Another petition that was initiated and received the mandatory 100,000 signature threshold was on whether or not to impeach President Obama. Are those the types of debates we truly think are worthwhile in anyone's parliament? I do not think so.
In today's day and age, it is quite easy for any well-organized special interest group to reach a 50,000 signature online petition threshold. If we adopted the motion, we would find that more and more we would see frivolous motions brought forward for debate. Whether or not it be inside the regular sitting hours or outside, I do not believe, given the context and the wording of the hon. member opposite's motion, that it would actually enhance democracy and parliamentary debate.
If the member opposite thought long and hard about revising his motion and the wording of his motion, it is something that many parliamentarians could support. However, under the current wording it is simply not something that I could support. Frankly, most parliamentarians, if they carefully read the motion and carefully thought about the arguments I am presenting and many others will present, will have a similar view.
As I mentioned earlier in my comments, if the member opposite truly believes that e-petitioning is a correct route, and he is certainly entitled to his opinion and I applaud him again for his motivation, bring it forward not as a motion but rather as a bill. We could still have the required debate in Parliament but it would at least stand to a vote. That is the proper way in which to bring this forward, rather than instructing the committee to conduct a study, but here is the result that I want.
That is not what studies are about. That is not how parliamentary committees engage in studies. Committees are not here to engage in a study for which the result is already known. That is an affront, frankly, to the intelligence and to the independence of all members, whether they be on that side or our side of the House. I cannot for the life me think why any parliamentarian would agree to engage in a study with the caveat that regardless of what the study finds, this is the result that must be recommended.
That is not democracy. That is not how Parliament works. That is not how Parliament should work. For those reasons, I must oppose Motion No. 428.
Questions on the Order Paper October 25th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Committees of the House October 25th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That report states:
The Committee advises that, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business met to consider the items added to the Order of Precedence as a result of the replenishment of Wednesday, June 5, 2013, and recommended that the items listed herein, which it has determined should not be designated non-votable, be considered by the House...
Questions on the Order Paper October 24th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Motions for Papers October 23rd, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
Questions on the Order Paper October 23rd, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions on the Order Paper October 22nd, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE AND ITS COMMITTEES October 21st, 2013
Mr. Speaker, we have to love the Dippers when they come and try to make a rational argument.
The fact is that if he were embarrassed about this prorogation, thank goodness he has not been a parliamentarian for too long. There have been well over 100 prorogations by political parties of all stripes over the last century. This is a common part of government procedure. We go back to a new throne speech mid-term of a four year mandate to try to set the new agenda for the last two years. This has happened with every government in Canada well over 100 times since the early 1900s.
He said, “Why in the world would you because we lost valuable time?” He seems to be complaining that by losing this valuable time, we as parliamentarians and the Canadian public are being disenfranchised somehow. That is why we want to bring the initiatives back to their same state so we do not have to start over.
If the member opposite is truly concerned, he should vote in favour of our initiative to bring back the bills so we do not have to start all over. If he is truly concerned about losing valuable parliamentary debate time, then he should vote in favour of Motion No. 2 so we will not have to have the same debate again.
Sometimes I just do not understand the rationale or the thinking behind some of those Dippers.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE AND ITS COMMITTEES October 21st, 2013
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is a little confused on this one. NDP members always say that they want to do work on behalf of all Canadians, that they want to get the job done for Canadians, yet when that party has an opportunity to bring a bill forward that could pass or at least continue debate on it until the time it finally gets to royal assent, it says no. Those members say the work that has been done previously by all parties, members of their party included, shall now be discarded. Why? I guess they are saying that technically prorogation means all bills die on the Order Paper and we should respect that. They should use their heads for goodness sake.
Through this motion, we have the ability to do what other parliaments have done for the past number of years. We have the ability to pass a motion that would bring back those bills to the state they were in before we recessed for the summer. That is all this says. It does not mean the NDP has to agree with all the government initiatives. For example, if a bill has already passed third reading and is ready to go to the Senate for royal assent, why in the world would the NDP want to start that debate all over again to get to the same conclusion that we reached last spring? Talk about a waste of parliamentary resources and time, but apparently that is the approach the NDP favours. I do not see it.