OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 043 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, February 6, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 6, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 043 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 043 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 043 (Version officielle) 147 043 06 02 2014 2014/02/06 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Citizenship Act Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Bill C-24. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-24,

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ Translation ] Committees of the House Status of Women Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in relation to the study on sexual harassment in the federal workplace. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[ English ] Foreign Affairs and International Development Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development in relation to Bill C-6,

An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions . The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[ Translation ] Department of Public Works and Government Services Act Mr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ) Bill C-574. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-574,

An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood) . He said: Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill that would amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act. This bill requires the federal government to give preference to projects that promote the use of wood in federal buildings. Our bill will allow us to provide immediate assistance to forestry companies and would also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The use of wood in federal buildings will help our businesses develop new secondary and tertiary processing products and find new markets for our products. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ English ] Committees of the House Procedure and House Affairs Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) moved that the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented on Monday, December 2, 2013, be concurred in. Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my good friend, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley , who will be speaking in the second half of the debate that starts today on the committee report from the procedure and House affairs committee.

I would like to start by underscoring what is nothing less than a betrayal of the Canadian public by Conservative and Liberal members of that committee. Members will recall that back in June, the NDP brought forward a motion that was adopted unanimously. Members from all sides of the supported the following motion: That...in order to bring full transparency and accountability to the House of Commons spending, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to: (

i) conduct open and public hearings with a view to replace the Board of Internal Economy with an independent oversight body; (ii) invite the Auditor General, the Clerk and the Chief Financial Officer of the House of Commons to participate fully in these hearings; (iii) study the practices of provincial and territorial legislatures, as well as other jurisdictions and Westminster-style Parliaments in order to compare and contrast their administrative oversight; (iv) propose modifications to the Parliament of Canada Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Auditor General Act and any other acts, as deemed necessary; (

v) propose any necessary modifications to the administrative policies and practices of the House of Commons; The committee was to report its findings to the House no later than December 2, 2013, in order to have any proposed changes to expensed disclosure and reporting in place for the beginning of the next fiscal year. The intent was very clear. At that time, back in June—members will recall it is the work of the NDP for generations, pushing for more transparency and more disclosure—we finally got members of the government and the other parties to agree to that motion. What happened?

I will say that the Conservatives kept their word to bring the Auditor General forward. I would like to cite what the Auditor General said at the procedure and House affairs committee when asked the question about doing away with this secretive Board of Internal Economy. Of course, what Canadians want to see is more transparency around expenses. The NDP offered that, with the motion. What did the Auditor General say?

The Auditor General, who I think has the respect of all Canadians, said the following in testimony to the procedure and House affairs committee: In my opinion, governance can be strengthened by having an independent body that would either advise the Board of Internal Economy or be given the responsibility for all matters related to members' expenses and entitlements. [...] it is important that Canadians are confident that its membership is independent and that the members have been chosen in a non-partisan manner. The Auditor General could not have been more clear.

The Auditor General said that the NDP motion regarding doing away with the secretive Board of Internal Economy and putting in place independent monitoring of MPs' expenses was a good idea. If we asked Canadians, they would say that the Auditor General makes sense. The Auditor General defends the public interest, often with some difficulty. As we well know, under the current government the Conservatives have hacked and slashed his budget, while they have increased ministerial funding, with their limousines, the Prime Minister flying around the world, and spending a lot of money on their own pet projects.

I would mention the $40 billion that I think they want to spend for the F-35s. At the same time that they have been spending a lot of money on their pet projects, because Conservatives love being big spenders on themselves, they have been hacking and slashing the Auditor General's department. The Auditor General is still doing tremendous work. On this side of the House, the NDP supports the work of the Auditor General. An NDP government would fully fund the Auditor General's operations so that Canadians would be confident that money is being spent on the public interest.

That is something we have been saying all along. We have a unanimous adoption of an NDP motion in this House. Following that, we have the Auditor General saying, “Gosh, the NDP is right. The NDP has been right along. We need an independent body. We need to do away with that secretive bureau of Internal economy”.

(1010) What would one think, then, that the report from the procedure and House affairs committee would say as its first recommendation? What would it say? It should say to do away with this secretive non-transparent Board of Internal Economy. However, tragically, that is not what this report says. We also had other witnesses, like the Information Commissioner, who said very clearly that MPs' expenses should be subject to the Access to Information Act to enhance public trust. Witnesses coming before the committee said very clearly that the NDP's approach was the right one.

Initially, in June at least, Conservative and Liberal members agreed that doing away with the Board of Internal Economy was the right approach. Now we arrive at the actual report itself, and it basically says to have the status quo, that the status quo is all right, that not having access to information on parliamentary expenses is okay, that having a secretive Board of Internal Economy with no transparency is somehow all right.

In fact, if we sum up, the title of the report of the procedure and House affairs committee should be “Business as Usual Say Conservatives and Liberals: we want to keep doing things the old way”. Canadians disagree profoundly with that. They see the old way as leading to this myriad of Senate scandals of Conservative and Liberal senators tied up with illegal spending. They see the old way as involving the RCMP in trying to sort out where these illegal expenses occurred and following up with charges, as we are now starting to see. The old way is the way that Canadians are rejecting.

In fact, I recall Conservatives saying, back in 2011, that they reject the old way, that they would make things transparent in Ottawa and would move to do away with the secrecy. Ms. Peggy Nash: Accountability. Mr. Peter Julian: Mr. Speakr, yes, to be accountable. We remember that word. The member for Parkdale—High Park is absolutely right. We remember that the Conservatives used to talk about accountability. Conservatives do not talk about accountability anymore. The only party that is talking about accountability in a consistent and forthright way is the NDP. That is part of what we are all about.

I know that Conservatives roll their eyes and say we should not believe in accountability and independent monitoring. However, we believe that democracy is enhanced when we have independent bodies in place that monitor what elected officials do. We believe that a system of checks and balances is the only way it works effectively so that public trust is enhanced and maintained, and that no government can go overboard, as with these big-spending Conservatives who just love to spend on themselves like there is no tomorrow. They get their luxury hotel rooms, as they did in London.

They get the limousine and these cabinet offices across the country. Big-spending Conservatives just love to spend money on themselves. What we have been saying all along is that we need that protection. We need the Auditor General's department, the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We need that system of checks and balances. What we have seen from these Conservatives is gutting that system of checks and balances. We brought forward, for procedure and House affairs, the proposal that parliamentary expenses be subject to the Access to Information Act.

We brought forward that we do away with the self-policing and the secretive Board of Internal Economy and establish independent monitoring, as has been done in Manitoba, which has an NDP government, of course, and in places like the United Kingdom. This is to ensure public trust and ensure that we have disclosure of expenses that are uniform, consistent, and approved. We do not want stunts, but rather a fundamental reporting mechanism that would be overseen by an independent, non-partial body and that, at the same, would be subject to the transparency that Canadians expect. That is what we have put forward.

That is what we believe is fundamental to enhancing Canadian democracy. I can tell members right now that New Democrats are going to continue to fight for transparency. We are going to continue to fight to do away with the secretive Board of Internal Economy, and we are going to continue to fight for Canadians' right to know what Parliament is doing and what MPs are doing.

(1015) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, when I think of transparency and accountability and affiliate them to the acronym NDP, the first word that comes to my mind is “not”. I do not know where the member was with regard to the whole process we went through last year. Let me remind the member that it was the leader of the Liberal Party who engaged Canadians by saying Liberals were going to get involved in proactive disclosure. We responded to what Canadians wanted by having proactive disclosure. How did the NDP respond to that, which deals with transparency and accountability?

The NDP said no. It denied the opportunity to provide it for all Canadians. It was all about accountability, all about transparency, and the NDP was the furthest political party from it in the chamber; it refused that sort of accountability and transparency. The question I have for the member is this. What is it that the NDP members of Parliament have to hide? They are hiding something. What are they hiding and— The Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster . Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not need a sound system to enhance the member's voice.

He comes across loud and clear. He is defending the Conservative government yet again, which Liberals seem to do. He should be asking the question of his own leader. His own leader, as a member of Parliament, was going to speaking engagements and demanding money in return for them from private organizations and, at the same time, as we found out later on, filing his expense claims for the House of Commons. That is something New Democrats do not do. When we go out, we are speaking as members of Parliament; we are not trying to hit up organizations for money.

We believe that the Canadian public is entitled to have us speak for free as members of Parliament. That is something that every single New Democrat member of Parliament believes in. The real question is why Conservatives and Liberals are defending each other here and in the Senate. Why do they want the status quo? Why do they want to hide the secretive Board of Internal Economy from Canadians? That is a question he has to answer. (1020) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask my colleague a question.

In his presentation he explained how the Conservatives and the Liberals adopt half measures that in reality last only three days. They promise transparency, but it is just a media stunt. When I went to the Conservatives' and Liberals' websites to see their so-called transparency, I saw nothing more than half measures. They have done a half-baked job. The expenses are practically impossible to follow. It is ridiculous. It would be good to have an independent body present MPs' expenses to Canadians, as the NDP is proposing. This would also promote public confidence.

The public would know that this was done properly and not by Conservative and Liberal MPs who always have partisanship in mind. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank the hon. member for Sherbrooke . He is young, but he is an extraordinary member of Parliament. He contributes greatly to the debates in the House with persistence and intelligence. He asked a good question. In June 2013, in the House, there was talk of doing away with self-policing by MPs. The public was on board with the idea. The Conservatives were on board.

Even the Liberals, who are outraged by the Senate scandal, said they were on board. They publicly agreed, but during the meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the Conservatives and the Liberals said no to access to information and doing away with self-policing. I think that if people want transparency, then they should vote for the NDP in 2015. There is no question. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend. I find this very interesting. Canadians have considerable fears about this government.

Clearly, our political system as it exists now is broken. That is the report we are talking about right now. I wish the Conservatives would also contribute to this debate, but I doubt they will. This report, prepared by the NDP, outlines a system that would work very well for Canadians.

This system would preserve the responsibilities to and the respect for Canadian taxpayers. [ English ] As my colleague alluded to, we New Democrats thought—and perhaps naively, I now reflect—somehow when we passed a motion in Canada's Parliament, unanimously, with Conservatives and Liberals voting for that motion to improve things for Canadians, that they actually wanted to do what was in the motion. There was a plan and an idea in the text of that motion to improve transparency and accountability for all Canadians.

One would think that this would be a non-partisan issue, that there is not really a wedge to drive here, that it is not a left versus right, but it is just right versus wrong, and that all parliamentarians would agree that, due to the series of Conservative and Liberal scandals, the only good thing that might come out of it is some true and honest reform of the way we do business in Parliament. No one has made the case for Senate abolition better than the current Prime Minister with his appointing of the nefarious characters who are now under investigation by the RCMP.

No one has made a better case that we need improved systems for accountability at the very highest level than the Prime Minister has, as the RCMP continues to investigate members of his office, his inner sanctum, his most trusted advisors. For generations now, New Democrats have been making the case for Senate abolition, but it took the Prime Minister and his incredible inability to find talent.

One would think that if he had to appoint 59 senators and break his promise to Canadians—the promise he made time and again that he would not appoint unelected senators—that he could have found some better characters to choose from. I guess Brazeau, Wallin, and Mike Duffy were the best of the Conservative lot. It was thought that these folks would go out and do what was most important for the government, which was raise money for the Conservative Party of Canada. They were good at that, but being accountable and honest with taxpayers, not so much.

For years we have seen the Board of Internal Economy conduct itself entirely behind closed doors. Up until recently I sat on the Board of Internal Economy, and I watched how the system worked and how it did not work. We, as New Democrats, realize that the best disinfectant is sunlight. If we want to really expose what is going on, we have to bring it out into the light of day.

Canadians are properly concerned with the way the Conservatives are handling not just the money they collect from taxpayers but also the various so-called watchdogs that we have instituted over generations to protect the public from power that goes unchecked. We have the Auditor General, who has done incredible work and who helped expose the Liberal sponsorship scandal, which went to the very heart and top and through the Liberal Party of Canada and showed that corruption was rife. People properly went to jail. Thank goodness Sheila Fraser was there.

If she had not been, would we ever have had exposure of the corruption that had been going on in the Liberal Party of Canada? It is unlikely. Jean Chrétien was not about to tell us about it. Paul Martin was not about to admit to anything. It took a good Auditor General, digging, finding, and calling people to testify. We have seen the government take the Auditor General's office and cut its ability to do its job on behalf of Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Office was a function created by the current government to help bring truth to government.

That was the whole reason for the institution, to find out what the actual numbers were for things like expenditures and whether the government was telling the truth about what things actually cost. As soon as that Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, did his work, the government made him an enemy of the state. It threatened his budget, threatened him personally, and attacked his credibility, time and again, and not with facts, of course, because that is not how Conservatives do these things. No, it was all personal.

(1025) It was a vendetta against all the poor Conservative victims, again, one of the conspiracy theories that they derive about themselves, that everyone is out to get the poor Conservative Party of Canada. That is what it is. It must be a conspiracy of all these bureaucrats out there trying to do something so awful as to hold them to account. We have also seen this with Elections Canada. Elections Canada was moving a pilot project forward that would allow Canadians to vote electronically online, which the younger demographic in particular, which has a voting rate south of 40%, was very keen to engage in.

This is something other democracies around the world are looking for. That pilot project got cut by Elections Canada, not because it wanted to but because the Conservative government cut its funds. I shy away from conspiracy theories, but that is a direct link. Elections Canada said that is what it wanted to do: engage more young people. Perhaps they would vote Conservative, or perhaps not. One hopes they have not grown that cynical by the age of 25 or 35. The fact is that it would help improve democracy, something the government is obviously not interested in.

We see that in its, ironically, cynically entitled new election act with respect to fair voting. This motion was concrete and specific. It was backed up by the Auditor General. One would think that the Conservatives and Liberals would have listened to what the Auditor General had to say. The fundamental principle that self-policing does not work is one we should all agree with. Self-policing is inherently fraught with problems because inevitably someone will not tell the truth.

I do not accuse the Liberal leader of knowingly lying when he said that he had not taken any money from taxpayers while he was out earning speaking fees. However, the fact was that there was a self-policing and self-reporting procedure that the Liberals had adopted, which proved not to work. What he said was not true. He had taken money and used public money to go and get speaking gigs and fees. That is a problem. The Conservatives said they would put all of their expenses online to self-report and self-police.

When we went through the Conservatives' websites to find the reports, we found there was no information at all. They do not tell us what the trip was for or what they were doing. They do not tell us most of the trips they go on. They do not report their budgets. They pretend they do and hope the media and public take the headline only and ignore what actually goes on. We need something better. The New Democrats propose that we would not be self-policed.

Rather, we would have the Auditor General or an external body make sure that every dollar that members of Parliament spend on their budgets is reported and accounted for properly. We also said that the very concept of the Board of Internal Economy in 2014, where members of Parliament secretly meet and decide on what is a very large budget that governs all of Parliament, is something from a bygone era. Of course we made conditions that some things need to be taken into camera, such as security measures and the security of the Prime Minister .

Any of those sensitive issues would be done in private, as is appropriate and as is done in the public and private sectors. However, let us apply some normal standards and rules, because that is what Canadians expect of us. The Conservative government came into power essentially based on a previous government scandal. It came into power promising great things around accountability. It must feel some regret with respect to those promises, because they are being shown right now not to have been true.

When it comes to government accountability, the Ethics Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer have been unanimous in describing the government as the most secretive in Canadian history. They cannot get basic information to report back to Canadians. I thought those used to be Conservative values. I thought the Conservatives used to talk about those kinds of things and that they would be different. They said they would be different from the Liberals. Then we look at their record.

Therefore, because of the extenuating circumstances the government has put before us, I move: Motion That the House do now adjourn.

(1030) The Deputy Speaker : The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some hon. members: Yea. The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it. And five or more members having risen: The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

(1120) (The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 54) YEAS Members Allen (Welland) Angus Ashton Atamanenko Ayala Bellavance Benskin Bevington Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brosseau Cash Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Comartin Cullen Davies (Vancouver East) Day Donnelly Dubé Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Fortin Freeman Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hassainia Hughes Jacob Julian Lapointe Larose Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Mai Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mulcair Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Patry Péclet Perreault Pilon Plamondon Rankin Ravignat Raynault Rousseau Scott Sellah Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan Stewart Thibeault Toone -- 80 NAYS Members Ablonczy Adams Adler Aglukkaq Albas Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Andrews Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Bateman Bélanger Bennett Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Butt Byrne Calandra Calkins Carmichael Carrie Casey Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Cotler Crockatt Cuzner Davidson Dechert Devolin Dion Dreeshen Dubourg Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Duncan (Etobicoke North) Dykstra Easter Eyking Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Flaherty Fry Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Goodale Gourde Grewal Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hoback Holder Hsu James Jones Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Karygiannis Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lamoureux Lauzon Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacAulay MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McCallum McColeman McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Murray Norlock Obhrai O'Connor Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Payne Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Regan Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Scarpaleggia Schellenberger Seeback Sgro Shea Shipley Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sopuck Sorenson Stanton St-Denis Storseth Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer -- 165 PAIRED Nil Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have a follow-up question. I find it most ironic that we have the New Democrats on the other hand who are ultimately saying “no” to proactive disclosure. It is very important to recognize that it was the leader of the Liberal Party who brought to this House the whole idea of proactive disclosure. We have challenged— The Speaker : Order. I hear several members yelling out “debate”. We are not on debate yet; we are on questions and comments to the previous speech.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North is asking a question of the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, and the Chair would like to hear it. The hon. member for Winnipeg North. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand that particular reaction. However, the point is that it was the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada who ultimately brought in proactive disclosure. Proactive disclosure makes a difference. I find it ironic that the NDP continues to say “no” to proactive disclosure.

My question to the government—or rather, the NDP—House leader is this: what is it that the NDP members of Parliament have to hide that they do not want to share with Canadians? Why do they oppose sharing transparency and accountability with Canadians? Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, I am not the government House leader yet. Let us let Canadians vote on that first.

As to the question from my friend, I do not think he actually understands the definition of the word “irony”, in the sense that his leader made grandiose statements about a new ethical standard and all the rest, and swore on a stack of Bibles that he did not take any public money while going to these paid speaking engagements as a member of Parliament. Again, I do not accuse the Liberal leader of knowingly telling a lie, but in fact that is what ended up happening, because the system in place that my friend thinks is so wonderful and accountable to Canadians, failed. It failed the Liberal leader, actually.

That is a shame, because he stood in front of Canadians and said he never took any public money, ever, for these paid public speaking engagements. One could debate the idea the members of Parliament get paid to speak to the public. I think that is a healthy debate we should have in this place. New Democrats think we are already paid to speak to the public, but that is a different discussion.

More importantly, my point is that our efforts to put through this motion were to have accountability, transparency, and the end of self-policing, which the Liberals are so fond of and which got them in trouble when they ran the sponsorship program. They thought self-policing was enough. We need good policing. The Auditor General agrees with what the NDP has proposed. I have no idea why the Liberals would rather agree with the Conservative Party than the Auditor General of Canada. [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to ask a question of my colleague, who clearly explained the Conservatives' position. In his speech, he showed just how poorly the Conservative government treats Parliament's independent bodies. Just think of the former parliamentary budget officer, Mr. Page, and the vendetta this government pursued against him. I have to wonder if this is also why the government refuses to accept our request to create an independent body to audit MPs' and senators' expenses.

I have a feeling that the Conservatives want to block that proposal because they are against any kind of independent body, such as the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. When those kinds of bodies conduct independent audits, the Conservatives oppose them and will even take them to court to avoid giving them certain documents. This just shows how little respect the Conservatives have for Parliament's independent bodies. I have to wonder if that is why the Conservatives and the Liberals opposed our proposal to create an independent body to review senators' and MPs' expenses.

(1125) Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, that is a really good question. It is strange, because the Conservatives and the Liberals voted in favour of this motion. However, when the time comes to do the work, to improve the situation and to put an end to the current system of self-policing in order to set up a good policing system, as proposed by the NDP, the Liberals and the Conservatives agree to say no. Similarly, the Liberals voted against our motion to put an end to partisanship in the Senate. Then, a few months later, they say that it is impossible and that what the NDP is proposing is ridiculous.

However, when the idea comes from the Liberals, it is a very good idea. That is completely different. In reality, the goal of any party should be to improve the situation. After all these scandals, we should tell Canadians that we have a chance to improve things and allow them to hope that Parliament and its politicians can have a better system. The Auditor General of Canada says that the NDP's proposal is excellent. I do not understand why the Liberals are asking what the NDP is hiding. I find that strange. Given their party's history, it is interesting to hear the Liberals talk about hidden money and scandals.

The proposal is simple. It is an opportunity for us to improve things. We can finally work together for the benefit of Canadians. [ English ] The Speaker : Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker-- The Speaker: The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas is rising on a point of order. Mr. Matthew Dubé : Mr. Speaker, when you called resuming debate, I believe I saw my good friend and colleague from Churchill trying to catch your attention.

Perhaps she is too close to your chair to get that attention. I do not know how it looks from up there, but I would like to move a motion. [ Translation ] Seconded by my colleague from Saint-Lambert , I would like to move that the hon. member for Churchill be heard now. [ English ] The Speaker : As members know, in order for a motion that a member be now heard to be successful, the person who has just been granted the floor must not have started his or her speech. I did hear the hon. parliamentary secretary start speaking before the member for Chambly—Borduas rose.

I see the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley rising on a point of order. Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to clarify the precedents on this issue because we had a previous incident much more in contravention. I watched the two members rise and begin their comments simultaneously, so I am seeking clarification from you, Mr. Speaker. We had a debate on December 7, 2012, in which the then parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage rose in the midst of a speech being given by our MP for Ottawa Centre and applied the same intervention.

It was explicitly that the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering be now heard. The Acting Speaker spoke on this point. I will quote from Hansard of December 7, 2012, what he declared: The hon. parliamentary secretary has moved a motion that is non-debatable and as such, other members cannot rise on this point of order until it has been dispensed with. The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? The Acting Speaker then put the motion to the House. It was clear that a member had actually begun speaking. The Conservative member rose to interject.

He felt that the member for Ajax—Pickering should be speaking. The Deputy Speaker at the time then brought that motion forward so that it could be heard and debated on in the House. We are just trying to understand the precedents in how this works. It was clear that the member for Ottawa Centre was five minutes into his speech, and the Speaker at the time felt that it was a question that needed to be placed before the House. I think my colleague from Quebec is raising a stronger motion. Two members rose simultaneously. The Speaker identified one member, but there is a question as to who was to be identified next.

Based upon what happened in December 2012, we are led to believe, as the Acting Speaker did then, that the motion then had to be debated. If it grieves my friends across the way that the House of Commons actually has rules that are applied consistently, then I feel for them and their loss of the minute that I have used to speak. I would suggest that all Canadians who like to do such things as vote are also interested in what takes place in Canada's Parliament today, because the Conservative government treats Canadian voters, particularly the marginalized ones, with complete disdain.

(1130) The Speaker : I will read from House of Commons Procedure and Practice , second edition, page 597, dealing with this very issue. I will start with the second paragraph: When two Members rise simultaneously to “catch the Speaker's eye”, the Speaker will recognize one of them to speak. By rising on a point of order, another Member may move that the Member who had not been recognized be given the floor. The motion “that a Member be now heard” is an exception to the rule that a motion cannot be moved on a point of order.

The motion may not be moved if the Member first recognized by the Speaker has already begun to speak. I will take a look at the reference that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has cited and see what the circumstances were around that, as it has just been brought to my attention. I will give the floor now to the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Once again, Mr. Speaker, I move: Motion That the debate be now adjourned.

The Speaker : Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some hon. members: Yea. The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Speaker: Call in the members.

(1220) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 55) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adams Adler Aglukkaq Albas Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Andrews Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Bateman Bélanger Bennett Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Butt Calandra Calkins Carmichael Carrie Casey Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Cotler Crockatt Cuzner Davidson Dechert Devolin Dion Dreeshen Dubourg Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Duncan (Etobicoke North) Dykstra Easter Eyking Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Flaherty Fry Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Goodale Gourde Grewal Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hoback Holder Hsu James Jones Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Karygiannis Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lamoureux Lauzon Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacAulay MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McCallum McColeman McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Murray Norlock Obhrai O'Connor Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Payne Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Regan Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Scarpaleggia Schellenberger Seeback Sgro Shea Shipley Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sopuck Sorenson Stanton St-Denis Storseth Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer -- 165 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Angus Ashton Ayala Bellavance Benskin Bevington Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brosseau Cash Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Comartin Cullen Davies (Vancouver East) Day Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Fortin Freeman Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hughes Jacob Julian Lapointe Larose Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Mai Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mourani Mulcair Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Patry Péclet Perreault Pilon Plamondon Rankin Ravignat Raynault Rousseau Scott Sellah Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan Stewart Sullivan Toone Turmel -- 81 PAIRED Nil The Speaker : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.

The House will now resume with the remaining business under Routine Proceedings.

Petitions Navigable Waters Protection Act Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from several people in my region. They are calling on the government to change the reckless changes it has made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, because they believe that it is gutting environmental protection for waterways in southern Ontario and right across Canada. The petitioners ask the House to please pass and enact my private member's Bill C-498 , which would amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act to provide heritage protection to the North Thames, the Middle Thames, and the Thames River.

(1225) Public Transit Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to table. The petitioners are calling for a national public strategy. It is estimated that in the next five years, there will be an $18-billion gap in infrastructure needs. Canadians are calling for this national strategy for the environment, the economy, and sustainable development. It is important to connect all three pieces. Without a federal pillar for that, we are going to have challenges.

The petitioners want to make sure that the federal government is not staying at the wayside and that it contributes to public transit in the future. [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition in the House today. The petition calls on Canada to adopt a national transit strategy. Right now, Canada is the only OECD country without a national transit strategy.

The petition also calls on the government to make permanent investments to support public transit and to establish federal funding mechanisms, while working with provincial governments to implement this national strategy. I hope the government will respond favourably to my constituents. VIA Rail Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition signed by the people of Madawaska-Restigouche and Acadie—Bathurst, in my area.

The petitioners urge the Government of Canada to take all necessary measures to reinstate daily round-trip VIA Rail service between Montreal, Quebec City and Halifax, Nova Scotia, through the city of Campbellton, New Brunswick, Bathurst and Miramichi. [ English ] The petitioners urge the Government of Canada to take all measures to reinstate daily round-trip VIA Rail passenger service between Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, through the city of Campbellton, New Brunswick, Bathurst, Miramichi, Matapédia Valley, Amqui, Rimouski, and Rogersville, most of which are located in the ridings of the Conservative Party.

Genetically Modified Alfalfa Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present this morning. The first petition calls for a moratorium on genetically modified alfalfa in order to allow a proper review of its impact on farmers in Canada. This petition contains names of dozens of people from across the province of British Columbia.

Public Transit Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls upon the House to provide a permanent investment plan to support public transit, to establish federal funding mechanisms for that purpose, and to work with all levels of government to ensure a sustainable, predictable, and long-term source of funding for such a vital service.

[ Translation ] Sherbrooke Airport Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke, even though not every single one of them has signed the petition. However, several dozen people did sign the petition regarding the airport in Sherbrooke, which is a very important issue. As we know, Sherbrooke is the sixth-largest city in Quebec and has the largest population in southeastern Quebec. Sherbrooke needs to modernize its airport to sustain the economic development in the Eastern Townships over the long term.

This project has the support of all the socio-economic and political stakeholders in the Sherbrooke region. This petition calls on the government to do what is necessary to make the Sherbrooke airport project possible. I hope the government responds positively to this petition, because the economic development of my region is at stake. I hope that the Conservatives will take this into consideration. Quebec as a whole could benefit from this project because it would have considerable economic impact, especially in the riding of Compton—Stanstead.

Furthermore, everything around the airport could develop at lightning speed if this project were to move forward. That is exactly what the people of Sherbrooke who signed this petition would like to see. I truly hope to get a quick response from the government in support of this petition.

(1230) Mining Industry Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition with over 650 signatures. It is important to note that, because over 75% of the extractive sector companies in the world are Canadian, because of the serious violations uncovered over the past few years, and because Canada is a country that promotes respect for human rights, it is our duty to implement better mechanisms to protect all people from these violations.

This petition calls on the government to create a legislated ombudsman mechanism for Canada's mining sector who would have the power to investigate complaints, assess compliance with international corporate accountability standards, make public its findings, and most importantly, recommend remedial actions for companies that violate basic human rights.

[ English ] Public Transit Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition calling on the Government of Canada to provide long-term, predictable, and non-partisan funding for public transit. This is a huge issue across the country, but especially in the city of Toronto, where my riding of Parkdale—High Park is located. The GTA loses about $6 billion a year from lost productivity, with daily commutes averaging about 80 minutes. It is estimated overall that we have a $32-billion investment gap in needed transit infrastructure across the country.

Transit infrastructure was missing in the 2013 budget and it is hugely felt in the city of Toronto and right across the country. We are in fact the only G8 country that does not have a national transit strategy. I know that in my community people line up, sometimes for close to an hour, waiting for adequate transit. The transit infrastructure in place in the city of Toronto was established in the 1960s and is certainly much out of date and needs tremendous upgrading and expansion throughout the city. That is just one part of our national infrastructure.

I would urge all members to support the inclusion of a national transit strategy and funding by our government in its budget. [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, great minds must be thinking alike across Canada, because I have petitions to present on the same subject. The Conservative government is the only one that does not seem to understand the importance of creating a national transit strategy, which is extremely important to the people of Gatineau.

We have just inaugurated our new transit service, Rapibus, but there is still a lot to do in terms of transportation and infrastructure. I hope that the government will pay attention to all of these petitions signed by Canadians across the country who see the light. The government is refusing to open its eyes. It cares more about time allocation motions than taking action that would be practical and useful for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I urge the government to respond swiftly to these petitions signed by Canadians from across the country. Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am presenting a petition in favour of a national public transit strategy, which is very important to my constituents. Canada is the only G8 country that does not have such a strategy. Our municipalities and provinces are working miracles with the minimal resources they have. It is time for the federal government to show some leadership. The City of Chambly is currently the only city in Quebec that provides free municipal transit. That is the kind of leadership we expect from our federal government. Unfortunately, it is not meeting our expectations.

The people who signed this petition and all of the petitions presented by my colleagues are calling on the government to take positive steps toward implementing a national public transit strategy. This is essential. It is good for the economy too, which is the only justification the government seems to understand. If the Conservatives came to our ridings and met with the chambers of commerce, they would know that it is a big priority for us.

(1235) [ English ] Mining Industry Mr. Peter Braid (Kitchener—Waterloo, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many of my constituents in my riding of Kitchener—Waterloo . The petition relates to the issue of the importance of responsible mining overseas.

Animal Welfare Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have presented these petitions many times before, so I am pleased to rise today to present about a hundred pages of petitions collected by the Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals. I would like to thank the organization for the tremendous work it has done across the country, including its volunteers.

Today we have petitions from Vancouver, Prince George, Calgary, Edmonton, Grande Prairie, Peace River, Toronto, and Burnaby, just a whole variety of communities, from people who point out to us that every year hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats are brutally slaughtered for their fur in a number of Asian regions. The petitioners point out that Canada should join the USA, Australia, and the European Union in banning the import and sale of dog and cat fur.

They call upon the government to introduce and support legislation, specifically a private member's bill that is before the House, to ensure proper labelling and a ban. Again, I would like to thank the organization for the tremendous work it does in bringing this to our attention. I hope I will be presenting more petitions on this in the future, as I am sure other members will, because it is an issue that we need to be aware of and that people in the community are very concerned about animal welfare and want us to take action.

Public Transit Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have here a petition about the lack of investment in infrastructure for public transit. I come from a riding where this is a huge issue, and the lack of public of transit and a national strategy is resulting in huge pressure on my community. The petitioners are calling for additional investment and for the government to develop and implement a national strategy, because it is not just an issue in my riding but one right across the country.

Environmentally, it is the right thing to do because we know that it will not only improve the quality of life but also lead to the sustainability of our planet. The Environment Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to deposit two petitions. The first is on behalf of many environmental enthusiasts in the community in support this week of celebrating World Wetlands Day. The petitioners are calling on the federal government to respect a 100 square kilometre public land assembly surrounding the Rouge River and Duffins Creek Watershed in Toronto, Markham, and Pickering.

They are saying that publicly owned land, whether federal, municipal, or provincial, is predominantly designated to the provincial greenbelt and natural heritage system. So they are asking the Government of Canada to protect the irreplaceable 100 square kilometres of public land assembly within a healthy and sustainable Rouge national park. The petitioners are also asking the government to protect and restore the 600-metre-wide wooded main ecological corridor linking Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine in the future Rouge national park. They are very concerned about the future of this national park.

Public Transit Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am depositing today is on behalf of the residents of Scarborough. Members know that I proudly represent the northeast corner of the city of Toronto and Scarborough, where public transit is a very real concern. We only have buses. There is no LRT and no subway, or any other means of public transportation. The people of Scarborough deserve a fast, reliable, and affordable public transit system. Wait times of the average commute there are currently over two hours. The petitioners are asking the government for long-term, predictable, and non-partisan funding for public transit now.

(1240) Questions on the Order Paper Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all question be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

[ Translation ] Privilege Bilingualism in Canada's Legislative Process Privilege Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have risen on a question of privilege, and I am somewhat saddened to have to do so. I care deeply about official languages. I rise today in the House to follow up on a recent incident by raising a question of privilege that warrants an official response. I believe that the Speaker is best equipped to deal with this matter.

Questions of privilege are of paramount importance to the democratic institution of Parliament, and the Speaker has ruled on these questions many times. I will try to explain what happened last Tuesday. I believe that the delay in raising this question of privilege is reasonable as this incident occurred just recently. Members and senators were invited to a technical briefing on Bill C-23,

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts , organized by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform , who is also the member for Nepean—Carleton . As we know, debate on this bill began yesterday and will undoubtedly continue today. I will try to explain what happened last Tuesday and attempt to convince you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege. I am referring to the privilege of receiving, in both official languages, information about bills introduced in the House when they are drafted and debated.

Briefings are crucial. They help members to prepare before debating and voting on a bill as complex as the one in question, which is 242 pages long. It goes without saying that technical briefings are very important for such massive bills that contain so many elements. It is not mandatory that ministers provide these briefings. However, this one was offered, and we noticed many issues with the

interpretation during the briefing. It seems that no one contacted the

interpretation service in advance. The interpreter who arrived had not received the documents he needed to do his job. The

interpretation was often inadequate, whether it was from English to French or vice versa. The

interpretation from English to French was particularly poor. At times, there was little or no

interpretation or it was of poor quality. Many of the issues with the

interpretation surfaced when the members were asking questions. Some of my colleagues were there. When members and senators used the microphone in the middle of the room to ask questions, the interpreter could not hear them. Obviously, he was not able to translate the questions. That said, the Speaker will have to ascertain the facts to determine, based on the information he obtains or he receives from other members, whether there was a prima facie breach of privilege. I would like to remind everyone of the classic definition of parliamentary privilege. I am sure you know it, Mr. Speaker.

However, I will repeat it for the benefit of my colleagues. I am quoting from Erskine May: Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively...and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions. This is a fundamental principle of our institution, as I mentioned at the start of my speech. The privileges of each individual parliamentarian as well as the collective privileges of the House of Commons must be respected at all times.

(1245) Today, the question of privilege is very important because it is entrenched in the Constitution Act,

Section 133 sets out certain legislative guarantees for parliamentarians when it comes to the use of Canada's official languages. These include the right to use either language in legislative debates, the use of both languages in the official records and minutes of Parliament, and the use of English and French in printing and publishing acts. While departmental briefings are not specifically covered by the Constitution Act, University of Ottawa law professor André Braën notes that the purpose of

section 133 is to grant “equal access for anglophones and francophones to the law in their language” and to guarantee “equal participation in the debates and proceedings of Parliament”. This leads me to conclude that this protection of official languages in the House is fundamental to ensure equality among all members. It means that those who do not understand French or English can be on the same level as other members. For example, if we give a technical overview of a bill in English to a member who only understands French without providing

interpretation, this member is at a disadvantage in the legislative process compared to others who understand English perfectly. He or she is not getting the same quality of information. I think that is a fundamental issue in Canada's legislative process. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will conclude this is a prima facie violation of privilege. This Latin expression, which means “on the face of it”, is of course commonly used. To summarize the events, members attended a briefing on Tuesday morning, at 10 a.m. The session included paper documents that, I must admit, were properly translated.

Members had been promised a briefing session to help them better understand this legislation before debating it here. However, they barely had 24 hours to review 240 pages. That is not a lot of time. However, as I said earlier, there is no requirement to provide such briefings. The officials from the Privy Council Office who were present acted in good faith. They tried several times to correct the situation and accommodate the participants in both official languages, but they failed to do so.

Even my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles , who could perhaps elaborate on her own experience, had to leave during the information session because there was simply no

interpretation service. Accordingly, she did not have the same rights as other MPs who understand English, like myself, since I understand it pretty well. Although there was no

interpretation service, I understood what was being said in English. I can understand it pretty well, but not as well as I would have understood the French. This has been examined in various cases, including Att. Gen. of Quebec v. Blaikie et al. Chief Justice Deschênes of the Superior Court of Quebec upheld the obligation to use English and French at the same time throughout the legislative process. Any disruption of that practice violates both the letter and the spirit of

section 133. This substantiates my comments. In October 2013, my hon. colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley also raised this question regarding Bill C-4 , the budget implementation bill, for which a similar information session was held for the members. Unfortunately, the

interpretation services were inadequate. If I remember correctly, there was no

interpretation at all. As a result, the meeting was cancelled and held the next day. In that case, the breach of privilege was avoided.

(1250) In this particular case, which is very similar, there was a major difference that might prove there was a breach of parliamentary privilege. The meeting continued despite the fact that the

interpretation service was having a lot of trouble. As I said earlier, one MP even had to leave because of the poor quality of the service. I am not saying that the people there were not acting in good faith; they tried to make the situation better, but it did not work. The bill in question deals with electoral reform, and it is very important to Canadians. The least the government could have done was to provide a technical briefing in both official languages to ensure all the members of the House are on a level playing field when they have to debate the issue. That was obviously not done.

I think a situation like that is unacceptable because it prevents parliamentarians from doing their jobs and fully participating in debate. Mr. Speaker, I would like you to make a ruling confirming that this is in fact a breach of the privileges of members of Parliament. I would be willing to move an appropriate motion if you ask me to do so. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to your decision on the prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege that may have taken place last Tuesday. Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sherbrooke for raising this question of privilege, because it is very important. It is not just about being put at a disadvantage; it is about a lack of respect for my rights as an MP, Canada's Constitution and the Official Languages Act. I want to support the member's question of privilege by adding two or three arguments.

First of all, I believe that the Speaker is responsible for ensuring respect for Canada's Constitution, the Official Languages Act, the customs of our country and the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, as they apply to Canada's Parliament and the House of Commons. I would like to speak about something that happened to me last Monday. It was not the first time this has happened, Mr. Speaker, and I have written to you two or three times about this matter. On Monday, at the end of the day, I was returning here for a vote. The person manning the RCMP post who checked my ID could not speak French.

When addressed by the authorities, francophones prefer to be spoken to in our mother tongue. French is my mother tongue. This is the third or fourth time this has happened. It is another breach of my parliamentary privileges to not be served in my mother tongue, an official language that Parliament and the House of Commons must respect and that you, Mr. Speaker, must ensure is respected. Our colleague has raised a question about a technical briefing on a very important bill. At that session, the information was not provided in a fair and equal manner in both official languages.

I believe that this constitutes a question of privilege. I want to add one more thing. If it is indeed acknowledged that this privilege was not respected, then should that not prevent the government from using a time allocation motion to rush the bill through, when francophone MPs may not have had the chance to get as much technical information as anglophone MPs? This is a very serious issue that cannot be summarily dismissed. This has major repercussions for the entire country. Mr. Speaker, you may be a bit surprised to see a member from the third party take the floor. I am not here to kill time.

I am here because the question raised by the hon. member for Sherbrooke is extremely important. I thought it was important that you take note of that because this is a very serious matter.

(1255) Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, during the briefing sessions, we provided information to the members in English and French. The Privy Council officials came to provide that information in both official languages. I can assure you that some of the officials who were there to provide the information were not only bilingual, but also francophones. They were available to answer all the questions in both official languages and to provide all that information in both official languages.

I never received a single complaint from anyone in the House of Commons about that briefing. No one approached me to indicate that they did not receive the information in both official languages. Now the members are suddenly trying to create a controversy. Nonetheless, if the hon. members want more information, we are prepared to provide it to them in either official language. The officials will be available to provide a briefing in English or French.

I have received no such request from the opposition MPs, but if they change their minds and want to have that information in English or French, we will provide it to them. Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on February 4, I went to 2 Rideau St. for the recommended technical briefing that had been set up by the Privy Council. This was not their first time. These are people who are supposed to be well prepared and have a well-equipped translation service. We have it all the time in committee. We should be entitled to it.

Bill C-23 is very important and showed up out of nowhere. It is also very long. I need the technical information in my first language, which is French. When someone recommends that we go to these meetings, they should automatically ensure that there is simultaneous English and French

interpretation. We do not want people beside us or at the front to try to translate the information for us. MPs and senators were invited to this meeting. The briefing was organized by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, the member for Nepean—Carleton . There were a number of

interpretation problems, from the very beginning of the session. Several times, there was no

interpretation at all. This is not a criticism of the public servants who were there and who did their best. As a French-speaking member of Parliament, it is absolutely necessary for me to receive technical information on a bill as important as Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act in my mother tongue, as this is something that affects every one of our ridings. As the member for Sherbrooke said, it is very serious when MPs are prevented from doing their job because one of the official languages is treated as a secondary language.

In conclusion, I would like to share a quote from O'Brien and Bosc's House of Commons Procedure and Practice . On page 61 of the 2009 edition, they state, “The privileges of Members of the House of Commons provide the absolute immunity they require to perform their parliamentary work...”. A technical briefing must be given in both official languages in a way that is not just so-so, but perfect. [ English ] The Speaker : I have heard several arguments now, so I hope the hon. member for York South—Weston has something pertinent to add to the discussion.

I will give him the floor if he feels he has something to add to the points.

(1300) Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : I do, Mr. Speaker. As an anglophone, I too did not receive simultaneous translation of the technical briefing session; so it was not a matter merely of francophone members who have now put the issue squarely before you that they could not understand in their language, but as an anglophone, portions of the technical briefing session were not in my language— Hon. Pierre Poilievre : If it wasn't in English or in French, then what language was it in? Mr. Mike Sullivan : --in English that is, Mr. Speaker, because there were problems with the

interpretation. I did raise with the officials the problems with the

interpretation. I did ask the officials if another briefing session would be held. The officials told me there would be no more briefing sessions. The officials were well aware of the problems with the

interpretation. The government has on a number of occasions said to parliamentarians that, if we wish to ask questions or to enter into a debate, we should attend the technical briefing sessions, which I did in good faith. However, portions of that technical briefing session were not available to me in my mother tongue, and it is a parliamentary right of mine that it should be provided. [ Translation ] The Speaker : I thank the hon. member for Sherbrooke for raising that issue, and I will get back to the House in due course. [ English ] The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is rising on a point of order.

Points of Order Fair Elections Act Points of Order Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is on a separate matter but connected also to this very troubled piece of legislation, which has probably had one of the most rocky starts of any government Conservative bill. That is saying something, because it has had some terrible bills, bills it has had to fix, bills it has had to correct. Allow me to address specifically the point, which follows in suit to some rulings you have made in the past about the form of the bill.

Upon reading the legislation as it was tabled by the government yesterday, we found a significant error in the tabling and the drafting of the bill between the French and English. In fact, each says the opposite thing to the other in an important

section of the bill. I would think that the government, when trying to get at something as important as reforming our election laws and trying to keep the scandalous robocalls and corrupt practices that we have seen from some parties across the way, would actually write the legislation properly. It may not be in the correct form, and this is a serious consequence. Speakers in the past have drawn to the attention of the government that when that is the case, the bill cannot be read at second reading.

Let me reference a point of order that was brought to the House previously by the member for Kings—Hants when debating a previous piece of legislation. This was Bill C-38 . We remember that old gem, where the government in the production of the bill to Parliament made mistakes in how the bill was actually drafted, so that members following in French had a different version from the one members were following in English. I will point out the

section that my colleague from Kings--Hants pointed out. On page 728 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , second edition, it states: In the past, the Speaker has directed that the order for second reading of certain bills be discharged, when it was discovered that they were not in their final form and were therefore not ready to be introduced. Let me be specific with the problems that the government has created with its terrible design of the bill.

I will not speak to the actual flaws in the ideas that the minister has presented, but rather, just in the actual text as he has given it to Canadians in the official form introduced to Parliament yesterday. The Conservatives did not take long to screw it up. It is on the very second page, in the

summary, in (k). I will read the English first, Mr. Speaker, and you will see the significance of why it is different when you move over to the French. It says in (k): exempts from what constitutes an election expense the commercial value of services provided to a registered party for the purpose of soliciting monetary contributions only from individuals who have made at least one contribution of $20 or more to the registered party or to one of its registered associations, nomination contestants or candidates in the last five years. The key to focus in on here is the very beginning, because it says it “exempts from what constitutes an election expense...”. That is key. That is what (

k) is for and that is what the government is seeking to introduce to Canadian law to change our electoral act, the act that we govern ourselves by in seeking election to this place. (1305) [ Translation ] In French,

section (

k) states:

k) que la valeur commerciale des services fournis à un parti enregistré pour permettre à ce dernier de solliciter des contributions monétaires uniquement auprès de particuliers qui ont apporté au parti ou aux associations enregistrées, aux candidats à l’investiture ou aux candidats du parti au moins une contribution monétaire de 20 $ ou plus au cours des cinq dernières années. That is it. [ English ] The whole point of (

k) is—I assume, but I do not know—to exempt those contributions, which is what I believe it says in the English. I do not know if the drafters or the minister, if he was involved in this

section of the

summary, meant it to read to exempt these following things, which it then delineates. In the French there is no exemption. It says this seems fine, which is the opposite, which is the point to why legislation must be drafted properly, thoughtfully, and maybe, dare I suggest, in consultation with those who know what they are talking about like, let us say, Elections Canada and maybe even a committee. We suggested that to the government just this week as a good way to proceed, because reforming the Elections Act should be a non-partisan activity. It is in the interests of all political parties.

We suggested that we move this forward before second reading, so it would allow the committee to make corrections like this, to get at the fundamentals, the DNA, of this piece of legislation and correct what is wrong, both philosophically and technically. The minister did not provide a briefing in both official languages of any coherence to anybody involved and now suggests that, since the bill has been introduced, anyone who wants to organize information can start now.

Not only are we likely to see the government move to shut down debate on a bill that is to allow us, supposedly, to improve our democracy—and it is rich with irony to watch the government do this—but the form tabled officially in the House of Commons was an imperfect form. Previous Speakers, when faced with this predicament not of the opposition's making and certainly not of the Speaker's making, have not allowed bills to go ahead because they are not correct. I found this on page 2. There are 240-odd pages in this bill. Who knows what else is wrong? This is not a typo.

This is a fundamental piece of the bill that the government got wrong. There is a way Parliament guides itself. I have in my hand the official copy, as tabled yesterday, which all parliamentarians have read. If members go to the second page and go back and forth between the two versions, they will see that the government has made a fundamental error in the design of this bill. We have rules that guide us in this place for public bills, in

Chapter IX of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. I will quote Standing Order 68(3), which states, “No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape”. The guidance of that is very important. That asks the government, when tabling public bills, to take them seriously. This bill, as introduced to parliamentarians, is not in its perfect form, is not in its perfect shape, and is not to be understood by parliamentarians one way or the other. It depends on which version one reads.

If francophone members were to read the French version, they would think this is what is being debated and what is going to be voted on, but if only the English version is read, one thinks the exact opposite on an important

section of the bill, which I assume is important to the minister and the government because they put it in there, but not important enough to get right. The Standing Orders that guide us are absolutely clear. The precedent that was raised by the member for Kings—Hants was a different situation, which we all acknowledged and debated. I would seek your direction in this, Mr. Speaker, because the government has had too many mulligans. A mulligan is when someone is playing golf, screws up, and takes another shot. Some call it cheating, but we are all sympathetic figures here. This is a fundamental mistake.

It is a mistake that has made this bill incorrect. We would think the government thought this was important, but obviously not so much. We seek your direction on this, Mr. Speaker. We have been quite clear on where the problem is. What a start for a bill that is so important to the health of our democracy and this important institution.

(1310) Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I think you would be hard pressed to find a single member of the House who has served on a committee and has not spent time going clause by clause through legislation, working out actual disagreements among people on what the particular clauses mean in French or in English and reworking the translations of them so that they are, indeed, consistent. I think every single one of us who has ever sat on a parliamentary committee has had that experience. That is normal.

With regard to the point of order raised by my friend, he says the bill is not in the proper form. The portion he has quoted is actually not part of the bill. It is part of the

summary of the bill. O'Brien and Bosc, page 733, reads as follows, in reference to explanatory notes: When the purpose of a bill is to amend an existing Act,— That is the case with this bill. —the drafters will insert notes to explain the amendments made.... It goes on to say: They are not considered to be part of the bill.... I will say that again for the benefit of my friend, “They are not considered to be part of the bill...”. Therefore, he cannot stand in front of you, Mr.

Speaker, and then complain about those notes, saying it then means that the bill is not in the proper form, because they are not part of the bill and, in fact, they disappear from subsequent reprints of the bill. There is simply no merit to the point he has raised, which is a transparent delay tactic, and we will come back to speak to this with some further submissions. [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would just like to point out to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons that, whenever I was on a committee studying bills that had French errors, the government party rejected my amendments to correct those errors. What is more, they were anglophone MPs. My colleague is saying that we can make the corrections, but, in committee, the government rejects even those amendments that deal with language. I find that a little hypocritical. [ English ] Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr.

Speaker, on my friend's point that there have been subsequent reprints, he absolutely knows full well that is not a condition that gets them off the hook. He knows that the bill as presented to the House of Commons yesterday is the bill that we work with. Correcting it on a website or correcting it in further reprints or in all of that does not actually satisfy the trigger that we have talked about here in this bill. There are points to the

summary and the execution of this bill. First of all, it is up to parliamentarians now to go into a debate on a bill for which briefings happened incorrectly, against the practices of this place, for French and English speakers. Second is to go through a bill that they could not get right in the

summary and the main points, in the Coles Notes , as my hon. friend has said. I thought the idea of the Coles Notes was to clarify, not confuse. I thought we were hoping to improve the election system, not sow confusion among those seeking to enter electoral politics. He should not aid and abet those parties, of which of course he is a member, that have sought to corrupt to the point of breaking the election laws that guide us. They declared Elections Canada to be “wearing the wrong jersey”, was it? Is Elections Canada the enemy now? It seems to me that the minister would be extremely careful in presenting this piece of legislation, in the main body, in the

summary, in the title, and throughout. He could have gotten the title right at least, which he did not do either. However, we will deal with that one in debate. This is serious. These folks cannot seem to get things right. Competency is not something we are going to easily accuse the Conservatives of, but we will ensure that this place maintains the rules that guide us and allow us to do our work on behalf of Canadians with legislation that is written properly. Would that not be at least the bare minimum of recommendations and requirements for any government?

Government Orders Government Orders [ Translation ] Fair Elections Act Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) moved: Motion That, in relation to Bill C-23,

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts , not more than three further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the third day allotted to the consideration at second 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. (1315) [ English ] The Speaker : There will now be a 30-minute question period pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), and I would ask members putting the questions to keep their remarks to about a minute, and the government response to be of a similar length.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, is it not an irony that the Conservatives find that when they are talking about democratic reform and about bringing in an electoral system that Canadians can trust, their natural tendency is to shut down debate in Canada's Parliament in order to do it? That is exactly what was done. This was the plan as of yesterday. This was the Conservatives' plan as they were drafting the bill. They decided, “Here is what we are going to do.

We are going to put 242 pages in front of Parliament; we are going to invoke closure and shut down debate about something like our electoral system”. I will ask the minister this point directly. He is in such a rush for this that one would think he would have at least written the bill properly, and that he would have actually told the truth in consulting with Elections Canada. Now we have a question in front of us. He said that he consulted the Elections Canada officials who are experts in this, which he is not.

He may be an expert in other regards to the Elections Act, and his party certainly is with its in-and-out and robocalls scandals; and appointments to the Senate are a whole other story. However, the current government has shown its tendency to anti-democratic behaviour. Why invoke closure? Why shut down debate on something so important? Why not allow Parliament to deal with the DNA of this bill properly and get it right, and actually truly consult with Canadians instead of marginalizing them from our democracy? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his helpful suggestions with regard to the bill. I look forward to working with him and his colleagues as the bill proceeds to committee. That is where bills receive an opportunity to be heard and viewed by not only parliamentarians but also by expert witnesses. What they will find when they review the contents of the bill is that the fair elections bill would ensure that everyday Canadians are the players in the game, that special interests are pushed to the sidelines of the game, and that rule-breakers are pushed out of the game altogether.

The bill would make it harder to break the law. It would close big-money loopholes, impose new penalties on political impostors who make rogue calls, and empower law enforcement with sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, invoking closure on this bill really is the height of hypocrisy. Here we are, talking about a bill on so-called “democratic reform”, and some of the people we are hearing from are clearly thinking of a way to not get us into debating the bill.

Some of the designs of this bill—and we know the government does not like Elections Canada, which has investigated them on many fronts—may be to create less pressure on the government in all the other wrongdoings it has done in every election since 2006. How can the government invoke closure on a bill about democratic reform? This place is supposed to be about debate and good discussion. The minister is shutting that debate down and, I believe, putting democracy at risk. Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, we are having debate and discussion right now, are we not?

We will have more debate when the bill goes to committee after it is voted on in this place, should it pass on second reading. Further, it will have more debate when it returns here after that. As we debate it, we will see that the fair elections bill would protect voters from robocalls, from rogue calls by political impostors, with a new mandatory public registry for mass calling, prison time for impersonating elections officials, and increased penalties for deceiving people out of their votes. It would give law enforcement, the watchdog of elections law, sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.

Sharper teeth means allowing the commissioner to seek tougher penalties for existing offences. A longer reach means empowering him with dozens of new offences to crack down on big money, fraudulent voting, and rogue calls. A free hand means making the commissioner independent, with control of his own staff and investigations, and a fixed term so that he cannot be fired without cause. (1320) [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am really confused.

Often, when the Conservatives moved their time allocation motions, they said it was because the bills had already been debated at length and there had already been numerous studies. This bill is 242 pages long, and it touches on basic rights such as free expression and the right of constituents in every one of our ridings to vote, yet the government has moved a time allocation motion to limit debate. The minister has been feeding us all kinds of lines about how great this bill is, but I would like him to explain why he wants to limit debate even though not all members of the House have had a chance to speak.

Having the opportunity to express ourselves and share the perspectives of our constituencies is part of the democratic process. What is the real reason for this time allocation motion to limit debate? Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, we are having a debate now. I would ask the hon. member to make a suggestion or a substantive argument regarding the bill. In fact, the hon. member talks about all sorts of things, except what is in the legislation. Therefore, I am going to help her with the details of this bill, which addresses electoral fraud by preventing fraudulent votes. [ English ] Mr. Wayne Marston : Mr.

Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I find it strange that I am listening to a debate on the bill when we are supposed to be debating the motion on closure. In fact, we would be thrilled to have a full debate on this, spread out over time so that I can confer with the hundred thousand people in my community who are poor and who may be disenfranchised by the bill. However, to have it coming through when we should be debating the motion before us is just strange. The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin) : The hon. member is correct in that this debate is on the motion before the House rather than the bill itself. Obviously, there are times when members asking or answering questions must refer to the contents of the bill, but he is correct; that is the substance. The hon. minister of state. Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, I am having a lot of difficulty understanding the NDP's position on debate. First New Democrats said they did not need any debate on the fair elections act.

Their critic walked right out in front of the media within about five minutes of the bill's introduction, claiming that he did not need to read its 200-plus pages before announcing that he opposed it, so the first position of the New Democrats was that they did not need any debate at all. Then they said they wanted lots more debate, so we should send it immediately to committee. We said that was great; let us do that. How do we do that?

We hold a vote at second reading, and the bill will automatically go there, where opposition MPs and expert witnesses can have their say, amendments can occur, and the fruits of all that labour can be enjoyed by Canadians. Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, there is another way of sending a bill to committee, and the government has chosen never to use that method. It is called “reference to committee before second reading”.

After five hours of debate, the bill would have been referred to the appropriate committee for consideration, but with a huge difference, because once we have had second reading, we lock in what the committee can do. If we refer the bill to a committee before second reading, the committee has a much broader scope of work ahead of itself and can amend and correct the bill. There are good things in the bill. I recognize that, but there are things that are not appropriate as well.

However, forcing second reading through time allocation means the committee will not be able to address positively the things that are not accurate and not good in the bill. Why has the government not, for once, considered to rise above its partisanship approach and refer the bill to committee before second reading?

(1325) Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, first the hon. member wants to change the normal course of how bills are studied by Parliament. The normal practice is for a bill to be considered at second reading in the House of Commons, then go off to committee for study, review, and amendment, and then come back for yet another debate prior to the third and final reading of the bill in the House of Commons. That is the normal practice. He also said that somehow the committee's work would be constrained by the bill’s going to that body after having been voted at second reading. There is no such rule.

The basic rule of committees is that they are their own masters. The committees can therefore look at this bill in its entire scope. We will welcome many witnesses, all the witnesses necessary to ensure that it gets a fair review and that the necessary changes and improvements are included. Then the bill, the fair elections act, will go from great to fantastic. [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House whenever the government uses time allocation. That is the case today.

Not only does the government introduce bills riddled with flaws, it also prevents us from carrying out the duty for which we were elected by thousands of Canadians, who want to debate issues that affect them directly. Today, the government is once again using time allocation, long before the end of second reading. I would like to know whether this government wants to muzzle all members and work alone according to its ideology, or whether it wants to work for Canadians. Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has the floor. This shows that people in this country can express their views.

Perhaps we could discuss the bill now. I would like to hear substantive arguments regarding this legislation, but I am hearing nothing of the sort. Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, once again, the minister responds by accusing those who dare ask him a question on the time allocation motion now before the House. He says we do not want to talk about the substance of the bill while we are debating time allocation. At some point, he will have to realize that the purpose of those 30 minutes is to understand why the government wants to end a debate on a substantive bill that is 242 pages long.

Perhaps the minister should be reminded of the purpose of those 30 minutes and be told to stop saying we do not want to have a debate. That is precisely what we want. We want the 308 members of this House to have the opportunity to express their views in this substantive debate. After these 30 minutes, we do not want them to be stuck with some time allocation to debate this bill. [ English ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Once again I would remind all hon. members that all members are to speak to the matter that is before the House.

Having said that, I think it is clearly the precedent in this place that when there are procedural motions before this place that deal with a matter of substance, members who are asking and answering questions have the right to refer to the substance of the initial piece of business. Having said that, I would again remind all hon. members that the matter before the House is the issue of time allocation on the bill, rather than the bill itself. I will go back to the minister and ask if he could quickly finish his answer. Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate that the opposition is trying to control what other members are allowed to say in this place. I am merely responding to the verbatim of the member across, who brought up the issue of ideology. In fact, the fair elections act is based on evidence-based policy-making. For example, we have looked at Elections Canada's own reports, which show that there are irregularities 25% of the time that vouching is used to identify a voter. A 25% rate of irregularities is too high.

The Supreme Court has recognized that the irregularities are too high, as did the Neufeld report commissioned by Elections Canada. As a result, the fair elections act would protect the integrity of the vote by ending the practice of vouching as a form of identification.

(1330) Ms. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I really believe that if the Conservatives wanted to be transparent and sincere in looking at the best interests of Canadians and Parliament, they would be allowing for a full debate on election reform. However, I think the problem here is that they do not want a full debate on election reform because the reform is coming in as a result of what they have done with robocalls and election fraud. They do not want to be reminded of how they have abused the confidence that Canadians have put in them.

That, I suggest to the minister, is the reason the Conservatives do not want to have a full debate on this bill in Parliament. Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we do want a full debate. That is why we would like to see this bill go to committee, where not only parliamentarians but Canadians from coast to coast can be invited to testify on the substance of the bill. They could testify on issues such as allowing small donations in while keeping big money out.

The bill would keep big money from special interests out of the process by banning the use of loans, unpaid loans, to evade donation limits. At the same time, it would allow parties to better fund their democratic outreach with small increases in spending limits while imposing tougher audits and penalties to enforce those limits. In other words, the bill would let small donors in to contribute more to democracy through the front door and block illegal big money from sneaking in the back door. Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am always fascinated by the minister of state's defence of time allocation. He tells us what the bill is about and then says that we are debating the bill. Well, no, we are not. Mr. Speaker, you actually said that we are not. Through you to the minister of state, I say that clearly we cannot debate the bill; we can only debate time allocation. I find it fascinating that the minister of state is saying that we can debate the bill at committee. I actually do not sit on that committee, and the vast majority of us do not.

Is the minister of state now telling us that he will allow this committee, which has its own rules and is the master of its destiny, to give all of us enough time on that committee to actually have an opportunity to debate, or are there really no teeth in the bill that he is saying has sharper teeth? The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please. Before I go to the minister, I would like to remind all members that when it is time for a question or comment, at that point the members or ministers can stand.

However, while one member is speaking, other members should be in their seats, including the person expecting to answer the question. Further, members who stand for several minutes hoping to be recognized to ask the next question will not be recognized. When we call for questions and comments, it is at that time that people are to stand. That is a habit that I have seen slipping into this place in the last few days. The hon. minister of state. Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, I feel that the member has turned on himself.

In the very same sentence he asked if the minister would make the committee open its membership up to all parliamentarians; then, in the same breath, he said that the committee is the master of its own rules. If a committee is the master of its own rules, the minister cannot make the committee do anything at all. Therefore, no, I cannot force the committee to change its rules to his liking, or to mine or anyone else's. It will be its own master in studying the bill. Second, he attacks me for not allowing enough debate on the bill, but then his colleagues raise points of order when I try to debate the bill.

I have a hard time following the logic of the NDP, not only on the substance of the bill but also in its procedural response to it. Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the member for Nepean—Carleton is as much a fan of history as I am. He should know that for the first 89 years of Confederation, closure was used only two times. However, in the past 58 years, the increasing use of closure has been a nuisance to our democracy, beginning in 1956 with the use of closure by Louis St. Laurent's Liberal government. That government had grown arrogant from being in power for years and years.

Does this member also agree with this use of closure? Has the government become so arrogant that it has broken the rules, given the number of times that closure has been used in this House? Canadians are witness to the use of closure by the current government, and they are not satisfied. I am sure the member's constituents would be upset to know that we are doing nuisance to our democracy. Does he love closure so much that he is going to trumpet the use of closure for his own bill?

(1335) Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, the member does correctly point out that I am a lover of history, as is he. Two Christmases ago, he shared with me a terrific book on the 1911 election. I want to thank him for that. It was an excellent read. I hope to commend to him some historical readings as well as we continue our working relationship in the House of Commons.

On the subject of building our parliamentary institutions, the best way that we can study legislation is to have a debate in the House, which we have had, and then send it to committee, and then return it to the House with the recommended changes for yet another extensive debate by all parliamentarians prior to the third and final reading in the House of Commons. I would remind the member, who is knowledgeable on the subject of parliamentary procedure, that the debate is only now beginning.

After the committee has had a chance to review the fair elections act, it will return the bill to the House of Commons, where he and all parliamentarians will have their voices heard not just through speeches but through excellent questions and answers. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about being a historian; well, this is one for the history books. There is very little doubt that the current Conservative majority government has implemented more time allocation than any other government in the history of Canada. It is an assault on democracy.

We now have the government bringing in time allocation on a bill that deals with Elections Canada. On the one hand, we have the irresponsible nature of the Conservatives trying to ram it through and limit debate in second reading, which is disgraceful. On the other hand, we have the New Democrats voting slowly. When I watched that slow vote, I had a flashback to when the NDP spoke through an entire budget period, denying any other member of the House an opportunity to stand and speak on the budget. We need to debate this legislation.

The longer it is prolonged, the more the government continues to push time allocation. We are allowing for less and less debate inside the chamber. Will the minister— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please. The hon. minister of state. Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, I think the member has just touched upon two very interesting points. One is free speech; the other is democracy. The fair elections bill deals with these issues. For example, the Supreme Court has unanimously found that the ban on premature transmission of election results infringes upon freedom of expression.

In other words, there is currently a ban on reporting election results from eastern Canada in western Canada before the polls have closed there. I understand the purpose of this original ban, but it is unconstitutional and, in an era of social media, impractical. As a result, the fair elections act would repeal the ban and uphold free speech. It would also ensure that election results are respected.

Right now, when there is a disagreement over a campaign expense return of an MP between that MP and the CEO, the CEO has the ability to ask the Speaker to remove the MP from his seat and from voting in the House of Commons. Let us remember that when we remove a member of Parliament from the House of Commons, we are reversing the decision of tens of thousands of constituents who have voted to elect that individual, so the fair elections act would give the MP the opportunity to present the case before a court in order to secure a very quick judgment from the judiciary before an election result could be overturned.

It is about free speech. It is about democracy. Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, when I was in the House yesterday, the first NDP speaker moved a motion that would see the bill moved directly to committee, thereby ending any opportunity for us to speak on the bill and circumventing some of the good speeches that we have heard over the last day and a half in this place and are going to hear over the next little bit.

I wonder if the minister would assure this House and Canadians who are watching that he would be prepared to appear in front of committee, that he is prepared to continue to answer questions, and that the bill would come back before the House after we have heard from Canadians, after we have heard from the committee, and after the opposition and government members have had an opportunity for a full debate at committee, and that the debate would continue in further readings in this House.

(1340) Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, to answer directly the parliamentary secretary, yes, I would be prepared to appear at committee and answer questions on the fair elections act from all parliamentarians present. One of the areas that I hope the committee will focus on is how we provide better customer service to voters. The fair elections act would do this by adding an extra voting day. In the last election, two million Canadians voted in the advance ballot. Often people who work very long hours, students, and others find it difficult to cast their ballot on election day.

By allowing an additional day of voting, we could potentially increase voter turnout. Also included in the fair elections act is a requirement for Elections Canada to inform all Canadians of all of the opportunities for voting, so not only would there be this extra day, but Elections Canada would also have a legal requirement to ensure that voters would know about it. Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am really confused by what the minister of state is saying, because we know that the motion before the House right now is yet another time allocation motion and yet another opportunity for the government to stop debate or to attempt to stop it. The bill was presented very recently. It is over 240 pages long, and we have had less than 48 hours to study it. There have been just two speeches.

Two people of the 308 members elected to represent their constituents across the country had an opportunity to speak on the bill before us, which is 240-something pages long, yet the minister of state wants to shut down debate in the House. As the representative of almost 140,000 people who live in the community Scarborough—Rouge River , I would have loved the opportunity to participate in the debate. I know the minister of state will say that we can debate it and that we are now doing that.

Maybe he does not understand, because he keeps saying that over and over again, but right now we are not debating the bill itself but the fact that he wants to end debate on it. Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the debate has only begun. This bill will go to committee, and it will be thoroughly studied by members of Parliament after the testimony of expert witnesses from across the country who are invited to participate in the debate. I guarantee the member, and all members of the House, that the expert witnesses will have the full opportunity to speak freely about this bill.

As I said in my earlier answer, one of the areas I hope we will focus on is better customer service for voters. The most important services we can provide are to those who have disabilities. I would like to quote the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. Diane Bergeron, the national director of government relations and advocacy, said: Voting is a democratic right for all Canadians. We are happy to have the opportunity to work hand in hand with the Government representatives to increase accessibility and awareness of elections amongst the blind and partially sighted community.

We need to empower all Canadians to participate in the democratic process and make choices about their leadership so we're pleased to see this dedicated effort to break down barriers among Canadians with disabilities. Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I know our time is running short, so I will make this very quick. First of all, for the record, we are disappointed to see this time allocation measure coming in following the third speech.

We were talking back and forth in the debate last night about the fact that we go through the process of debate, second reading, and then committee. I just want a straight up answer, yes or no, as to whether the minister is willing to entertain reasoned amendments to this bill. We think that we have one. I wonder if he is willing to look at this sincerely, as a way of improving this bill.

(1345) Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, of course, I would be willing to approach his amendment with an open mind. I have not seen the particular amendment to which he refers, but I invite him to bring it over. We will all have a look at it and consider it with an open mind. Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have been in election campaigns since 1974, and I appreciate the efforts of the minister to try to make change. We do see some positive things within the bill, but the time allocation presents a problem that the member for Welland spoke to a few moments ago.

We have just received this bill. We can do our due diligence. However, Canadian citizens, not customers, are just seeing this bill and learning about it for the first time. They will have their input for us to bring back to this place, but that has been compressed with this time allocation. We find that to be an affront. Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member acknowledges there are some positive aspects to the fair elections act , and I look forward to working with him, or whichever delegates the NDP sends to the committee, to ensure that the fair elections act is even better.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the business before the House. The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Call in the members.

(1430) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 56) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adams Adler Aglukkaq Albas Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Bateman Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Butt Calandra Calkins Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Davidson Dechert Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Gourde Grewal Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Obhrai O'Connor Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Payne Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Storseth Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Wallace Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer -- 136 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Andrews Ashton Atamanenko Ayala Bélanger Bellavance Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brosseau Casey Cash Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Chow Christopherson Cotler Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Eyking Fortin Freeman Fry Garneau Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hsu Hughes Jacob Jones Julian Karygiannis Lamoureux Lapointe Larose Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) MacAulay Mai Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mourani Mulcair Murray Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Patry Péclet Perreault Pilon Plamondon Rankin Ravignat Regan Rousseau Scarpaleggia Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Stoffer Sullivan Thibeault Toone Turmel -- 111 PAIRED Nil The Speaker : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.

The Chair is under the impression that there is agreement among members to proceed with a full session of statements and question period. Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Speaker: In order to have statements, there must be agreement on when statements would take place. I am hearing some members saying after question period and some saying before. Is there agreement to have them before question period? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Speaker: Is there agreement to have them after question period? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No.

The Speaker: There is no agreement. Oral Questions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Oral Questions Oral Questions [ Translation ] Aboriginal Affairs Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the NDP first sounded the alarm a long time ago about the chronic under-funding of schools for first nations kids. Children in these schools receive 30% less funding than other children in Canada. Will the government close this gap in its 2014 budget and provide equal funding for all first nations kids? [ English ] Will the government finally take action to close the education funding gap for first nations kids? Hon.

Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the government remains committed to continuing to work in partnership with first nations to ensure that we can provide first nations students on reserve with an education system that will bring about results. As I indicated before Christmas, of course funding will not replace reform, but it will accompany it when we have an agreement with first nations as to a legislative framework that can meet both our objectives. Public Service of Canada Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, that was clear. The President of the Treasury Board has made some alarming claims about rampant abuse of sick days in the public service. The minister has painted the public servants as scammers claiming 20% more sick days than they are allowed. The only problem is, it is not true. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has run the numbers and confirms that the minister misled Canadians and misled the House. Does the minister have the courage to simply stand in the House and apologize to the thousands of public servants he has smeared? Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, what I can tell the member, if he actually reads the report, is that the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirms that when we look at paid plus unpaid sick leave, it is 18.2 days, on average, for the public service, far and away above the absenteeism rate in the private sector, which was my original point. Indeed, I have another point to make as well. It is that we have to make sure that for new hires of public servants, we have a fair system in place for them as well, which is not currently the case. The hon. member talks about courage. I have the courage to stand in my place and stand for taxpayers.

When will the NDP do the same? Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, coming from the minister of gazebos, it is easy to believe that he does not actually know the difference. (1435) [ Translation ] The President of the Treasury Board made a very serious and false accusation. He said that public servants were abusing their sick leave. He claimed that they took 18 sick days a year, but he was comparing completely different things. It was a fabrication on his part. He was incorrect because he exaggerated and played with the figures, overstating them by almost 50%.

Why did he drag honest public servants through the mud? [ English ] The Speaker : I would remind all hon. members to refer to one another by our proper titles or ridings. The hon. President of the Treasury Board. [ Translation ] Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe it is important to protect taxpayers. The rate of absenteeism is unacceptable. We must make changes to better protect taxpayers and employees.

The system needs to work for both parties. [ English ] On our side of the House, we are willing to come up with a system to work with our employees, have a better system for them, and to also protect the taxpayers. The union bosses the NDP deals with, they do not want to meet with me, but I am going to go-- The Speaker : The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Democratic Reform Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker,

section 18 of the Conservatives' so-called fair elections act gives veto power over new voting methods to, wait for it, the Senate—yes, the unelected, unaccountable Conservative and Liberal Senate. Maybe that is why the Liberals were voting with the Conservatives today. Using closure to give a veto power to the unelected Senate: Is that the Conservatives' real idea of a democracy? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, what the amendments to

section 18 actually do is require that before the CEO of Elections Canada experiments with new methods of voting, those methods are approved by Parliament. One of the methods that has been discussed is online electronic voting. Now, the NDP tried electronic voting at its very convention and could not m