OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 089 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, May 26, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES May 26, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 089 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 089 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 089 (Version officielle) 147 089 26 05 2014 2014/05/26 11:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 11 a.m. Prayers

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Business (1105) [ English ] Corrections and Conditional Release Act Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) moved that Bill C-483,

An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence) , be read the third time and passed. Bill C-483. Third reading He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at third reading to discuss my private member's bill, Bill C-483 , the escorted temporary absence act. I firmly believe this bill would provide a good balance between the need to reintegrate prisoners into Canadian society and the need to do everything in our power to keep our streets and communities safe.

Even if we have not been personally affected by crime, it is not hard to imagine the trauma that victims or their loved ones may feel when they learn that the criminals who victimized them have been granted an escorted temporary absence. Regardless of the reason, it is my belief that Canadians want assurances that all possible measures are taken to ensure their safety when the prisoners are in the community. We find these measures in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which outlines the decision-making criteria for escorted temporary absences.

As we have heard in these debates, escorted temporary absences, or ETAs, can be divided into two main categories: those that are obligatory or necessary, as for court proceedings or medical treatment, and those that are for correctional purposes. There is no question that there are circumstances when an inmate must leave a penitentiary for obligatory reasons, such as for court proceedings or medical reasons. In these cases, the releasing authority determines and applies the proper security escorts, up to and including the use of physical restraints. These decisions are for the most part straightforward.

Even a high-risk prisoner, for example, must have access to emergency medical treatment when it cannot be provided within penitentiary walls. These types of absence are granted because they are necessary. It is when we get into the non-obligatory absences--in other words, those that are for correctional purposes--that victims become concerned about how decisions are being made to allow the inmate to be absent from a penitentiary.

The decision to send an inmate outside penitentiary walls for non-obligatory reasons is made using greater discretion, taking into consideration among other factors whether the absence would contribute to the goals outlined in the inmate's correctional plan. Today decisions on escorted temporary absences for inmates serving minimum life sentences are authorized by the penitentiary warden. However, some of them require the approval of the Parole Board of Canada, based on the scheme outlined in the Criminal Code.

To be clear, minimum life sentences are imposed for first degree and second degree murder, as well as high treason. The current ETA scheme for inmates convicted of these offences works as follows. For inmates serving minimum life sentences, the Parole Board must approve the ETA from the start of the sentence up until the time of day parole eligibility. Once at day parole eligibility, the Correctional Service of Canada takes over as the sole releasing authority.

For those inmates who committed murder before they turned 18, the Parole Board must approve the ETA from the start of the sentence up until the expiration of all but one-fifth of the specified number of years that the inmate is to serve without parole eligibility. Once at the one-fifth mark, Correctional Service Canada becomes the sole releasing authority. Over the past several years, our government has made a number of legislative changes that give victims a larger role in the corrections and conditional release system.

Of note, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which came into force in 2012, enshrined in law the entitlement of victims to attend parole hearings and to make a statement, and it expanded the definition of who can be considered a victim. Measures like these have contributed to a greater public understanding of the decision-making process surrounding the conditional release of federal offenders. It only stands to reason that victims of crime want every opportunity to make their views known and have their safety considered.

Bill C-483 builds on these efforts, and responds to calls from victims who want the Parole Board to remain the releasing authority for all temporary absences, regardless of when an inmate becomes eligible for parole. Shifting decision-making authority for ETAs to the Parole Board after an inmate reaches day parole eligibility would address victims' concerns.

As members of this House know, the bill has received thorough examination in committee, and, as mentioned earlier, the objective of the bill is to provide the Parole Board with greater decision-making authority for ETAs for inmates serving minimum life sentences. To ensure the bill would meet this goal, amendments were passed in committee so that the Parole Board is explicitly named in the CCRA as the decision-making authority for escorted temporary absences after day parole eligibility.

Through these amendments and existing provisions within the Criminal Code, the Parole Board would be responsible for ETAs for the duration of an inmate's life sentence. At the same time, we have also clarified certain conditions relevant to this authority. For example, if an inmate reaches day parole eligibility and successfully completes a rehabilitative ETA, authority would move to Correctional Service Canada to grant all future escorted temporary absences.

At that point, if an inmate breaches any conditions of a subsequent escorted temporary absence granted by Correctional Service Canada, this decision-making authority would revert back to the Parole Board. Complementary to this, we have moved an amendment to limit the authority of an institutional head of Correctional Service Canada to authorize ETAs to inmates serving life sentences imposed as a minimum punishment.

As a further measure to keep the Canadian public safe, the amended bill now states that Correctional Service Canada has authority to cancel all ETAs, including those authorized by the Parole Board if deemed necessary. This particular amendment would ensure that if an inmate's behaviour changes or if there is an issue within the penitentiary that prevents the ETA from taking place, Correctional Service Canada can make the decision to cancel the ETA. Taken together, these amendments would ensure that the bill meets its intended objective.

I ask all members of the House to support this bill as amended, and ensure its swift passage.

(1110) Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Oxford for bringing this bill forward and for the compromises that were made in committee, which creates a situation that would both protect the rights of victims and is also workable for the Parole Board and the parole system. My question for the member is this. New Democrats had proposed an amendment in committee that on the first escorted temporary absence from prison, those convicted of murder should be accompanied by two correctional staff.

The current regulation says that they can be accompanied by anyone and it only needs to be a single person. Given the serious incidents we have had with those convicted of murder on their first escorted temporary absence, we suggested the requirement that the convict be accompanied by two Correctional Service employees for the first escorted temporary absences. Since the government voted against that motion in committee, I wonder what the member would think about that as an addition to this bill and why the government did not support it. Mr. Dave MacKenzie : Mr.

Speaker, the issue of which he speaks was brought up by the union that represents members of Correctional Service Canada. Most of the incidents date back a few years, when there were very serious incidents. The whole issue about the manning and so on rests with Correctional Service Canada. I believe that if the member wishes to pursue that, he should pursue it through Correctional Service Canada on its staffing issues with respect to absences and other issues that deal with prisoners leaving institutions. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I listened to the remarks by the member for Oxford , and Liberals will certainly be supporting this bill. However, does the member not recognize that this bill is substantially different than what was originally introduced? All of the witnesses who came before the committee actually believed that the Parole Board would be making decisions on all escorted temporary absences. The bill, now, is not anywhere near that. It is not that I disagree with the bill now, as I think the amendments were correct.

However, I have a problem with private members' bills being debated in this place as if that is the reality. After the witnesses left, the justice committee amended the bill substantially and we have a substantially different bill. I wonder if the member could comment. Mr. Dave MacKenzie : Actually, Mr. Speaker, I am very satisfied that the bill meets the requirements that were originally set out in the bill. It is about victims and their rights.

Victims retain those rights in this bill in the same manner, but the bill has been amended so that prisoners will not receive any escorted temporary absences unless the national Parole Board has granted them. In the past, the national Parole Board would turn down an application and then the individual could go to the warden and receive an escorted temporary absence pass. That is the whole problem with what was in the previous legislation. When the member for Malpeque was the solicitor general, I wish he had fixed that problem in his time, and then we would not be dealing with it here today. Ms.

Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Oxford for bringing this important legislation forward. I have two questions. The first one is a very general one. Why did the member choose to bring this type of legislation forward? The second one is a little more specific. Was it brought forward in relation to or in respect of any problems known currently within Correctional Service Canada with regard to the escorted temporary absence process?

(1115) Mr. Dave MacKenzie : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for the support of this bill. In response to her question, the issue was not one of the prison wardens. That was not the issue, ever. It was the legislation that was in place that created this particular issue. I am very satisfied with the response we have received from a number of family members of victims that this was exactly what they were looking for, something that gives them an opportunity to have a voice in the system on releases.

We have taken a government approach and a private members' approach that victims are the people who are important, not the prisoners. We understand that the prisoners have their rights and they are enshrined in many places, but in the past the victims have been the misplaced people. We are just trying to put them back into the equation. Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today in support of the member for Oxford 's private member's bill, Bill C-482 .

On this side of the House, we share the concern of all Canadians for the victims of crime and we support initiatives that will help to better support those victims within the legal process, which for victims can often be bewildering and often forces them, on a repeated basis, to relive the emotional impacts of victimization. Therefore, anything we can do to make that legal process easier for victims, while allowing them to have that input, is certainly something worthy of support.

However, on this side of the House, we are also concerned about assistance to victims of crime in helping put their lives back together. We have some concerns that the private members' bills that have come forward, and even the government's victims bill of rights, neglect that part of treating victims fairly, that assistance to them in getting counselling or whatever else they need to get back to whatever they can of their previous life.

Some of this is in provincial jurisdiction, but I am concerned that most provinces have severely underfunded their victims' compensation funds and in some of the provinces, including all the provinces in the Atlantic, these funds have actually been eliminated. Examples of assistance that people might need, let us say if they had a loved one murdered who was the sole breadwinner, are job training to get back into the workforce or those kinds of assistance that we often forget about in focusing on the legal process, which is important. However. there is another side to this.

On this side of the House, we are also concerned that we take measures to ensure we do not create new victims, and that means both effective crime prevention and rehabilitation programs. We understand the concern that many victims have about escorted temporary absences. We know that to many of them it feels like some kind of early release or privilege to which the perpetrators are not entitled. Therefore, helping victims better understand the process and participate in that is a worthy objective. We clearly understand the need to prevent surprise encounters.

We have had too many instances where families have not known that someone is actually out on escorted temporary absences and they might run into them in the community, which is a great shock to them. I know Correctional Services Canada endeavours to ensure that this does not happen. This bill would actually strengthen the requirements to give notice to victims of those temporary absences.

There is another concern about escorted temporary absences, which I raised just a moment ago in the question for the member for Oxford ; that is the safety of those absences both for the public and for the Correctional Service employees of those who are serving sentences for the most serious crimes. At committee, we urged the government to place in legislation the requirement that those first escorted temporary absences for those serving sentences for murder be accompanied by two fully trained Correctional Service employees, not just one employee.

The most serious problems we have had with escorted temporary absences have always been on early escorted absences for those convicted of murder. Recently in 2011 in Drumheller, we unfortunately had an incident where a convicted murderer was being escorted by a single corrections staff in a non-secured vehicle. The person escaped and took hostages. This creates both a threat to the public and to the corrections staff involved. We were disappointed that the government was not interested in accepting this additional improvement to legislation.

We did support the bill at second reading, but we had some concerns about the original version of the bill. As I said before, I was pleased that the member for Oxford and the government side were prepared to accept a compromise version of the bill that we had suggested. In its main provisions, the bill is substantially different, although not different in principle, than what was originally introduced.

The member for Oxford talked about the current provision for those convicted of serious crimes in which the warden would become the granting authority for escorted temporary absences in the three years immediately prior to parole. The bill would now create a workable situation where the Parole Board would still have the first authority to decide on escorted temporary absences.

(1120) If the bill had remained as in its first version, we were concerned that the Parole Board would conduct all hearings into escorted temporary absences and, frankly, that was not workable. That would have required, in the estimates of officials, an additional 900 hearings at the Parole Board every year, placing a large burden upon the Parole Board and also placing a very large burden upon victims who would have had to submit impact statements at each of those additional 900 hearings.

The compromise that has been adopted will have the Parole Board make that initial decision before escorted temporary absences are granted. Then, if there are no problems, additional escorted temporary absences can be granted by the warden. We think that is quite workable and it guarantees a role in that initial decision for victims. The other provision is that if people fail in their escorted temporary absences, and it does not have to be a hostage taking, then it would go back to the Parole Board, not just to the warden, for a decision on whether they should be granted future escorted temporary absences.

Again, on this side, we think that is a reasonable provision. It will also allow victims to have a say at that time. If people had done something which violated the terms of their temporary absence, then the victims would get to talk about that and make their opinions known. Again, the compromise is important, both in protecting the rights of victims to have input and in not interfering with the role of escorted temporary absences as part of a rehabilitation program.

When we stop to think about it, escorted temporary absences are the first step on that road to recovery for many of those who have been convicted of serious crimes and it is a way of testing whether they are ready to go out into the public. Therefore, is important that they be under supervision the first time they are released.

The second part to rehabilitation is that escorted temporary absences create an incentive to complete rehabilitation programs, an incentive to move along through the correctional plan so when those people return to the community, they are not the same as they were when they originally committed those serious crimes. In ensuring that ETAs still play a role in rehabilitation, we will help to guarantee there will not be future victims by the same perpetrators. I want to stress that we support Bill C-483 in its compromised version.

We thank the government for being willing to consider our ideas on this and adopt that compromise. We look forward to having a further debate on how we can have effective crime prevention and rehabilitation programs to prevent their being future victims. When we get to the government's bill on victims' rights, we look forward to talking about how we can provide additional supports, not just rights, to those families that have been victims of serious crime. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand at third reading to further discuss Bill C-483 .

As I indicated in my question, I listened to the member for Oxford as he spoke on the third reading of this bill. What he did not say, though, was that this was now a substantially different bill than was originally introduced. I personally believe we are seeing a pattern where backbench members introduce private members' bills with all of these quite out there intentions in terms of protecting victims. A set of hearings are held on original bills. Quite a number of witnesses come in and make presentations based on original bills.

After the hearings are done, the Department of Justice comes in and sometimes makes more amendments than there are clauses in the bill, which means it is a substantially different bill at the end of the day. The victims who have come before the committee, at the request of Conservative members, still believe the bill is in its original intent. However, it is not. Justice has come in and changed the bill substantially. In my view, to a great extent victims are being misled on what legislation is being implemented here at the end of the day.

The original intent of Bill C-483 would have required the full participation of the Parole Board of Canada in virtually all escorted temporary absences for those convicted of either first or second degree murder rather than the warden of federal institutions being responsible for that program. The targeting of only those convicted of first and second degree murder in this legislation implies that both the number of offenders involved and the likelihood of their early release represents a threat to the community.

The information by the promoter of the bill identifies a single case of the release of an offender on the authority of the warden of the institution who had been denied a similar request the year prior. No evidence was provided that the offender in question committed any offence while on temporary release. The legislation as it was originally presented to the House was not supported by evidence indicating an abuse of the escorted temporary release program, which would justify such legislative change.

Even in its current form, it remains to be seen as to what degree the legislation is actually addressing an issue or whether it is an example of the Conservatives playing to their base and creating an issue. If the issue was what was stated in the beginning with this legislation, then why the amendments by the Department of Justice? As I said earlier, when victims come before the committee, they base their decisions on the original legislation, which in this case is that the Parole Board would have to review all escorted temporary absences.

That is no longer the case because the bill has been substantially amended by the Department of Justice after the witnesses presented at the hearings. It certainly does not look at the evidence of the witnesses who came before the committee because the witnesses wanted to go a bit further in many cases. What evidence has been produced has indicated that ETA program, or escorted temporary absences, as currently structured, basically has a 99% success rate. That has to be said.

(1125) Escorted temporary absences are granted to allow offenders to obtain treatment that is unavailable in a penitentiary, to be with critically ill family members, to attend funerals, and to prepare for other types of conditional release. During these absences, an offender is escorted by a Correctional Service Canada staff member or a trained citizen escort. Offenders are eligible for an ETA at any time during their sentences. The duration of an ETA varies from an unlimited period for medical reasons to not more than 15 days for any other specified reason. Wardens typically authorize ETAs.

In certain instances, for offenders serving life sentences, Parole Board of Canada approval is required. The category of escorted temporary release, as defined above, in 2011-12, involved 2,675 offenders, and for all categories and all offenders it was granted on 44,182 occasions.

The point was raised by some witnesses that the government should be taking control of its justice agenda and should introduce well-thought-out and carefully drafted legislation, rather than using the private members' bill process, which has required government intervention during the committee process to bring the private members' bills into conformity with Canadian law. As I said, and I really want to emphasize this point at third reading, some 16 private members' bills have been brought forward by backbench members on the government side.

We have seen some challenges in the courts to some of the legislation coming out of this place. When witnesses come before committee on various private members' bills, they look at the original bill and everything that is intended to be done by the original bill. The hearing process is based on that. As I said, there are 16 different bills we have seen or that are yet to come forward. With respect to this particular legislation, the NDP proposed an amendment. That amendment was based on evidence that witnesses had produced before committee.

The Liberal Party also had an amendment, which would have changed the word “may” to “shall”, to make it compulsory for the Department of Justice and the correctional release system to do such and such. The opposition parties had amendments based on the evidence of witnesses who appeared before committee. What happened at the end of the day? The Department of Justice or Public Safety Canada, somewhere on the government side, or someone within the bureaucracy, decided to make a number of amendments.

They are usually made to soften legislation from its original intent and to narrow the focus, so the bill is substantially different. That is the problem I have with the way the government is proceeding with all of these bills, not just this particular bill. On April 1, the government presented its amendments to Bill C-483 at the public safety committee. That is where my concerns arise. The government's amendment, however, has undermined the principle of the legislation. It was presented to the House in the third report of the committee.

I am running out of time, so I will not go into it, but it is available in the committee record. The principle of the bill, as the witnesses who appeared before the committee testified, which was that decisions related to the authority to grant ETAs would be removed from the office of the wardens of the institutions and would be placed under the control of the Parole Board of Canada, has been removed from the bill. The intent that all temporary absences be approved by the Parole Board is no longer there. That changes the bill. We will support Bill C-483 , but it has substantially changed.

(1130) Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Oxford , once again for his demonstrated commitment to supporting victims of crime. Whether it is his great work as a member of Parliament or his numerous years as a law enforcement officer, he has spent his life keeping Canadians safe. It was this member who brought forward the bill we are discussing today, which would further strengthen victims' participation in the corrections and conditional release systems.

As all members of the House know, our Conservative government has taken strong action to support victims of crime. We believe that the criminal justice system must provide victims with an opportunity to have their voices heard. Since 2006, we have established the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime to provide information on victims' rights and services for victims, to receive complaints, and to raise awareness of victims' concerns among policy-makers and in the justice system.

We have also made the rights of victims a priority in our reforms to the justice system and have recently followed through on our commitment in the Speech from the Throne to introduce legislation to create a Canadian victims bill of rights. Our government is determined to do more and will continue to listen to the concerns being raised by victims. Our commitment is that we will act on victims' concerns to ensure that we provide them with the support they need. Simply put, an escorted temporary absence is a short temporary release of an inmate into the community under escort. There are two types of ETAs.

These are rehabilitative and non-rehabilitative. As it stands now, ETAs for inmates serving minimum life sentences must first be approved by the Parole Board of Canada before being authorized by Correctional Service Canada. This scheme is found in the Criminal Code, which states that the Parole Board of Canada has to approve ETAs for inmates serving minimum life sentences from the start of a life sentence up until he or she reaches day parole eligibility.

Once an inmate reaches day parole eligibility, Correctional Service Canada's authorization of ETAs is no longer subject to the Parole Board of Canada's approval. In other words, if an inmate who is serving a life sentence is never granted parole, Correctional Service Canada remains the releasing authority for ETAs for the remainder of the sentence.

The Criminal Code also states that although the Parole Board has the authority to approve ETAs up until day parole eligibility, Correctional Service Canada has the authority to grant temporary absences for medical reasons, court proceedings, or coroners' inquests at any time in an inmate's life sentence. While the current regime works well in that almost all ETAs are successfully completed, we feel that it is important to consider the position of victims.

Prior to the introduction of this bill, we heard from victims that the Parole Board of Canada needed greater decision-making authority over these types of absences. During the study of the bill, committee members were given an opportunity to hear first-hand how the ETA scheme currently operates and what concerns members of the public have about the current system. Among the witnesses who appeared at committee were victims support groups and victims themselves, who shared their concerns about the current system and questioned why ETA releasing authority is transferred to Correctional Service Canada.

We heard from a witness who said that victims are asking for an open, transparent, and accountable system. On the point of accountability, we heard that the current ETA system does not go far enough in terms of adequate checks and balances. Victims believe that the power to grant ETAs more appropriately belongs within the Parole Board of Canada, through which it is felt there is increased rigour and accountability involved in making these types of release decisions. Our government wholeheartedly agrees. Bill C-483 would do just what victims have asked us to do.

It would give the Parole Board of Canada almost exclusive authority to grant ETAs to inmates who are serving minimum life sentences. That is the primary reason we support this proposed legislation. That being said, our government felt it was important to introduce amendments at committee to ensure the sound application of the measures laid out in this proposed legislation. We are pleased that two government motions were adopted at committee stage. These motions would work in tandem to give the Parole Board of Canada greater authority over escorted temporary absences.

The bill, as amended, would ensure that the Parole Board would maintain decision-making authority for ETAs after an inmate reached day parole eligibility. In other words, the amendment would ensure that decision-making authority for ETAs would not continue to be automatically transferred to Correctional Service Canada once an inmate reached his or her day parole eligibility date. We have also ensured that Correctional Service Canada wardens would have limited authority to authorize ETAs for inmates serving minimum life sentences.

Under the proposed scheme, if an inmate was never granted a rehabilitative ETA, or if an inmate was unable to successfully complete this type of ETA, the Parole Board would remain the releasing authority for the entirety of his or her custodial sentence.

(1135) By virtue of our amendments, the only time rehabilitative ETAs would be granted by Correctional Service Canada is if an inmate successfully completed a rehabilitative ETA after day parole eligibility. Only at that time would CSC be able to take over as releasing authority. Although the proposed scheme would allow ETA releasing authority to be transferred to CSC in limited circumstances, we would also ensure that the authority could revert back to the Parole Board as needed. When would this occur?

If an inmate failed to successfully complete an ETA authorized by CSC, releasing authority would go back to the Parole Board. These amendments respect the spirit of the bill, which is to ensure that the ETA decision-making authority stays almost exclusively in the hands of the Parole Board of Canada. In addition to respecting the intended objective of the bill, the amendments would also ensure legislative harmony between the ETA scheme in the Criminal Code and the scheme we are proposing in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The ETA schemes in both pieces of legislation would work together to ensure that the Parole Board had greater authority over escorted temporary absences for inmates serving minimum life sentences. The Criminal Code would continue to give the Parole Board authority to approve ETAs from the start of a life sentence up until day parole eligibility. Once at day parole eligibility, the ETA scheme we are proposing in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act would take over and would state that the Parole Board would continue to have decision-making authority over ETAs.

This bill builds on the strong measures we have taken to support victims of crime and to improve our federal correctional system. I hope that all members will support us in our goal to improve the rights of victims, and I ask for full support to pass this bill as amended.

(1140) Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support from across the House. The member for Malpeque has brought forward an argument he has used several times with respect to the amendments to the bill. He brought a motion before the House that has already been dealt with by the Speaker. The amendments are appropriate and do not change the intent of the legislation. However, I want to move past that part. For anyone serving a minimum life sentence, it is as a result of a very serious crime. In most cases, it is likely the result of the death of an individual.

A particular case I am fully aware of is the death of Detective Constable William Hancox of the metro Toronto police. He was brutally murdered by two individuals. His widow, Kim Hancox, has been very supportive of changes in the legislation so that the victim's families have the opportunity to know what is happening with respect to releases. She is very upset that in many cases, the Parole Board of Canada turned down release applications only to have them granted later by the prison authorities. There is no complaint about the prison authorities. The problem has been the legislation.

This bill attempts to change that legislation to put the real authority back in the hands of the Parole Board of Canada, which it would do. To that end, we are very happy. I will be so pleased to see this bill clear the House on Wednesday of this week, when I believe there will be a vote. We can move forward then. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : 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): Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 28, immediately before the time provided for private members' business. Division on motion deferred

Suspension of Sitting

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The House will now suspend until 12 p.m. (The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:43 a.m.)

Sitting Resumed (The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

(1200) Points of Order Use of House of Commons Resources Points of Order Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and it will not take up too much time. This is a matter that seems pretty straightforward to me, but I rise in the House to address some of the arguments the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons made on May 16, just before we adjourned.

The arguments made by the government House leader were made in response to the point of order I raised regarding the fact that the motion moved under Standing Order 56.1 on March 27 by the Minister of Labour should have been deemed inadmissible. The concerns I raised on May 16 were that with no framework around Standing Order 56.1, this could well mean open season on smaller parties in the House of Commons. The first argument the government House leader put forward is that Standing Order 56.1 does indeed allow motions to be moved under this standing order to “establish the powers” of committees of the House.

He is absolutely right in this regard, which is something I also mentioned during my initial intervention on this point. However, where the government House leader is wrong is in his suggestion that establishing the powers means instructing a committee to undertake a study, as was the case of the March 27 motion. Giving an instruction to a committee in fact goes beyond the scope of Standing Order 56.1. [ Translation ] Standing Order 56.1, concerning the powers of committees, refers to very limited powers, including a committee's ability to travel.

In his response, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons quoted Speaker Milliken, who clearly stated the following in very relevant passage on page 461 of O'Brien and Bosc: ...this rule was meant to be used not to reach into the conduct of standing committee affairs to direct them, but rather in a routine manner, to provide them with powers they do not already possess, such as the power to travel.

We know that the Conservatives like to use quotations from experts out of context, so please allow me to put this one into context as it clearly demonstrates that Standing Order 56.1 cannot be used to instruct a committee. I would like to quote the footnote, also on page 461 of O'Brien and Bosc, that accompanies this quote from Speaker Milliken: The government used this rule to dispose of a motion to apply closure to the debate at committee stage of Bill C-44,

An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. In response to a point of order, the Speaker ruled that using this rule to direct the business of a committee was a new development in the House and one he found out of order. [ English ] As I mentioned at the beginning, this seems to me to be a pretty straightforward case, but for the sake of clarity, let me address the other arguments presented by the government House leader on May 16. He mentioned that Standing Order 56.1 was used on November 8, 2012, to mandate the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to conduct a study required by

section 533.1 of the Criminal Code. He said that this is the same type of motion as the one from March 27, which he therefore believes was also admissible. The problem with this argument is that its premise is totally flawed. The motions from November 8, 2012, and from March 27, 2014, are two completely different motions achieving different aims, the first one being within the acceptable limits of Standing Order 56.1 but the second one reaching far beyond those limits. Indeed, the motion from November 8, 2012, is different, because it concerned a mandatory statutory review of

an act. Let me quote again from House of Commons Procedure and Practice , which governs us all. House of Commons Procedure and Practice , on page 1002, says: A number of Canadian statutes contain provisions that require their review by a committee once they have come into effect. ... Depending on the legislation in question, such a review must normally be done by a committee of the House of Commons or of the Senate, or by a joint committee. It is up to the Houses of Parliament to choose the appropriate committee to carry out the review.

(1205) I may add that it often happens that acts do not specify which committee is to conduct the statutory review to avoid problems caused by name changes of the committees. Subsection 533.1(1) of the Criminal Code says: Within three years after this

section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Part shall be undertaken by any committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established by the Senate or the House of Commons, or by both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, for that purpose. In the case of the motion moved under Standing Order 56.1 in November 2012, the law already provided for a statutory review from a House committee. The committee needed an order of the House to proceed, as set out in the Criminal Code.

This was something the House had to do. It was a routine matter and it fell well within the limits of Standing Order 56.1, which is why we believe that it was right for the Speaker to deem this use of Standing Order 56.1 to be admissible at that time. The same cannot be said about the motion that was adopted on March 27, which requested PROC, the procedure and House affairs committee, to launch a study without any statutory basis whatsoever. The motion to have PROC launch a study was not a routine matter, since it instructed a committee to launch a substantive new study.

It fell well outside the limits of Standing Order 56.1. [ Translation ] In his response to my intervention, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tried to support his arguments with a ruling made by Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie on June 5, 2007. He argued that the March 27 ruling reflected Deputy Speaker Blaikie's ruling. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons did not read Deputy Speaker Blaikie's ruling in its entirety. If he had, he would know that the motion from March 27 should clearly have been deemed out of order.

That is exactly how Deputy Speaker Blaikie ruled on June 5, 2007. He rejected a motion moved under Standing Order 56.1 because the motion went beyond the scope of the Standing Order. His ruling was very clear. I quoted from it when I raised the current point of order. However, since it seems as though the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons did not understand, I will quote the key components of his ruling again: A key element in my ruling today is the fundamental precept that standing committees are masters of their own procedure.

Indeed, so entrenched is that precept that only in a select few Standing Orders does the House make provision for intervening directly into the conduct of standing committee affairs.... Interestingly, the only reference to committees in the Standing Order is one allowing motions for “the establishing of the powers of its committees”, suggesting that the rule was meant to be used not to reach into the conduct of standing committee affairs to direct them, but rather in a routine manner, to provide them powers they do not already possess. A review of the previous uses of Standing Order 56.1 appears to support this.

The only examples dealing with standing committees or standing committee activity the Chair has been able to find have to do with granting standing committees the power to travel. The power to travel is, as all hon. members know, a power standing committees do not possess and so the use of Standing Order 56.1 in that regard falls squarely within the parameters of the rule.

Accordingly, to repeat the words I used when this matter was first raised, the use of Standing Order 56.1 to direct the business of the committee, of any committee, is a new development in the House and one that I find out of order. (1210) [ English ] I will repeat this last sentence in English so that the government House leader can hear it: ...the use of Standing Order 56.1 to direct the business of the committee, of any committee, is a new development in the House and one that I find out of order. That is the end of the quote. It could not be more clear.

The government House leader then continued his remarks on this point of order by going to great lengths to point out that Standing Order 56.1 cannot be used for substantive matters, such as passing laws, but can be used for non-substantive affairs, and that the motion moved on March 27 did not concern a substantive matter. This point may be interesting, but it is irrelevant to the question at hand. The point at hand is that the literature on this issue explicitly prevents the use of Standing Order 56.1 to instruct a committee to conduct a study.

Let me quote again from page 672 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , the guide that guides us all. In discussing the use of Standing Order 56.1, it states: ...its use to give a direction to a standing committee of the House has been deemed contrary to the Standing Orders. This is in line with Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie's ruling, which I also just quoted.

Therefore, whether or not the motion from March 27 is considered to be a substantive one might be an interesting point, but it is one that is completely moot with regard to the point of order I raised on May 16, which is that the motion should have been deemed inadmissible because House of Commons Procedure and Practice expressly prohibits the use of Standing Order 56.1 to give a direction to a standing committee. To sum up, with regard to committees, Standing Order 56.1 can be used to allow committees to travel. It can also be used to determine which committee will conduct a statutory review as mandated by

an act, as this is a routine matter. Other uses are severely limited by the letter and spirit of Standing Order 56.1. This is why Standing Order 56.1 cannot be used to give an instruction to a committee. This point is clearly stated in O'Brien and Bosc and was reiterated by Deputy Speaker Blaikie in 2007 when he deemed a motion to be inadmissible because it did just that. The issue is that the motion of March 27 gave an instruction to a committee and should have been deemed inadmissible by the Chair. This is what I have asked you to rule on.

I have also asked for the Chair to give guidance to the House as to how this provision should and should not be used in the future. Otherwise, it is open season on smaller parties in the House. I look forward to your prompt reply, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I respond briefly to the comments of my friend, who has raised a few points. The first is the nature of what he is asking, the relief that is being sought here.

If I can use an analogy from the judicial side, it is almost in the nature of a reference to whether the government would have the ability to have a reference to the Supreme Court to seek an advisory opinion when there is actually no issue at hand before it. He is seeking your advice, Mr. Speaker, on an issue that is well behind us to give direction for the future, a kind of hypothetical question that he is looking for a response from the Speaker on. Of course, that is not the appropriate role of the Speaker.

The Speaker would adjudicate a particular dispute in order to determine how we go forward in a particular circumstance. However, as you know, Mr. Speaker, you are not in the practice of entertaining academic arguments for the purpose of providing academic answers. I, of course, could come up with very many interesting questions that I could pose as points of order to you, Mr. Speaker, to seek your answers even though they were not matters that had come into dispute before the House, but it is not the practice of the Speaker to do that as in the form of a reference.

With regard to the particular issue, it is behind us now, and the Speaker's practice is quite clear that in such matters the point of order has to be brought at the earliest possible opportunity and certainly at an early enough opportunity to allow the Speaker's decision to be of some consequence and to affect the future deliberations of the House and the process as we go forward. To raise the question at such a late point certainly is not an appropriate fashion in which to do it, and certainly not a point at which you, Mr. Speaker, would deal with it. There are some precedents that clearly refer to that.

If I look at decisions of Mr. Speaker Milliken in Debates at June 12, 2001, page 5031, when such a circumstance arose, Mr. Speaker Milliken said: In so far as today’s proceedings are concerned, the Chair is satisfied that the motion was adopted this morning without 25 members rising in their place and without objection at that time as to the procedural acceptability of the motion. The matter has come before the House at this late hour and, in my view, the motion has been adopted and will apply for tonight’s proceedings, and we will leave it at that.

Clearly, the procedural objection has to be brought at that time, and that is the precedent that has been set there. That is certainly not the case here. That is a higher test than even the one I was putting to you, Mr. Speaker. That was a case where it still could have affected the proceedings going forward that evening, but even then Mr. Speaker Milliken ruled that it was brought late and out of time. Then there was an additional occasion on September 18, 2001, at page 5256 of Debates . Mr.

Milliken said: At that time I ruled that the terms of the motion would stand, having been adopted by the House some eight hours before the hon. member raised his point of order. Then further, two pages later, at page 5258, he said, again on September 18, 2001: As I previously indicated, I allowed the motion adopted on June 12, 2001, to go ahead because there were no objections raised at the time it was moved. By the time hon. members expressed concern to the Chair some eight hours later, the Chair saw no alternative but to proceed with the terms of the motion.

Those are perfectly good precedents in this case for the reason that, first, we do not engage in hypothetical points of order, which is what we have before us; second, in the case of an actual dispute the objection to the process and the procedure, including Standing Order 56(1), a motion has to be brought immediately at that time, which was not the case here; and third, we are being asked to deal with this very much after the train has left the station. The House has proceeded and has rendered it. It has been brought out of time. As such, it should not be dealt with by the House in that fashion.

(1215) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The Chair will take the comments from the two House leaders under advisement and return if needed to the House subsequently.

Government Orders Government Orders [ English ] Extension of Sitting Hours Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) moved: Motion That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014: (

a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place; (

b) subject to paragraph (d), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (

i) before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday; (

c) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1); (

d) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday; (

e) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday; (

f) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b); (

g) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7); (

h) no dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown, after 6:30 p.m.; and (

i) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption. He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the government's motion proposing that we work a little bit of overtime over the next few weeks in the House.

I have the pleasure of serving in my fourth year as the government House leader during the 41st Parliament. That is, of course, on top of another 22 months during a previous Parliament, though some days it feels like I am just getting started since our government continues to implement an ambitious agenda that focuses on the priorities of Canadians. We still have much to do, and that is the basis for Motion No. 10, which we are debating today.

Regardless of what other theories that folks might come up with, our objective is simple: to deliver results for Canadians, results on things Canadians want to see from their government. As government House leader, I have worked to have the House operate in a productive, orderly, and hard-working fashion. Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf. We agree, and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons. However, do not take my word for it. Let us look at the facts.

In the previous session of the 41st Parliament, 61 government bills received royal assent and are now law. In 2013 alone, which was a shorter parliamentary year than normal, the government had a record-breaking year with 40 bills becoming law, more than any other calendar year since we took office, breaking our previous record of 37 new laws in 2007 when I also had the honour to be the leader of the House. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly, and productive Parliament.

With more than a year left in this Parliament, the House has accomplished so much already, handing many bills over to the Senate for the final steps in the legislative process. Just as we had a record year for legislative output, Canadian grain farmers experienced a bumper crop with a record yield in 2013. Understanding the real challenges faced by grain farmers, our government acted quickly on Bill C-30 , the fair rail for grain farmers act, moving the bill through three readings and a committee study before handing it over to the Senate.

This bill would support economic growth by ensuring that grain is able to get to market quickly and efficiently. The House also passed Bill C-23 , the fair elections act, which would ensure that everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, ensuring the integrity of our electoral system and putting rule breakers out of business. (1220) [ Translation ] Two supply bills received royal assent, thereby ensuring that the government has the money it needs to continue providing services to the people.

When we passed Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act , we fulfilled our promise to protect the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation's enrolment process, making it fair and equitable while ensuring that only eligible individuals will be granted membership. Earlier this spring, royal assent was also given to Bill C-16, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act , making the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation the first self-governing nation on the prairies and the 34th aboriginal community in Canada to achieve self-governance.

Next on the agenda is Bill C-34, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act , which will implement the agreement with the Tla'amin Nation. Bill C-34 will give the Tla'amin increased control over their own affairs. They will have ownership of their land and resources and will be able to create new investment opportunities and make decisions determining their economic future.

We considered and passed through all stages of Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act , which will enhance safety standards for workers in Canada’s Atlantic offshore oil and gas industry to protect Canadians and the environment while supporting jobs and growth. [ English ] Bill C-14 , the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, became law just a few weeks ago. This act will ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Also, this spring, our government passed Bill C-15 , the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which honoured our government's commitment to giving northerners greater control over their resources and decision-making and completing devolution all before the agreed-upon implementation date of April 1, as well as Bill C-9 , the First Nations Elections Act, which supports the Government of Canada's commitment to provide all Canadians with strong, accountable, and transparent government.

Bill C-9 provides a robust election framework, improves the capacity of first nations to select leadership, build prosperous communities, and improve economic development in their communities. (1225) [ Translation ] However, despite these many accomplishments, there is more work to be done yet before we return to our constituencies for the summer, let alone before we seek the privilege of representing our constituents in the 42nd Parliament. During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. [ English ] It is worth saying that again.

During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity. That continues. Through three years and four budgets since the 2012 budget, we have passed initiatives that have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians, as part of the one million net new jobs since the global economic downturn. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7 and we are on track to balance the budget in 2015. As part of our efforts to build on this strong track record, our government has put forward this motion today.

Motion No. 10 is simple. It is straightforward. It would extend the hours of the House to sit from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 p.m. or 7 p.m., the House would, instead, sit until midnight. This would give us an additional 20 hours each week to debate important bills. Of course, the hours on Friday would not change. Extended sitting hours is something that happens practically every June. Our government just wants to roll up its sleeves and work a little harder a bit earlier this year. Productivity is not just a function of time invested, but also of efficiency.

To that end, our motion would allow most votes to be deferred, automatically, until the end of question period to allow for all hon. members' schedules to be a bit more orderly. Last year, we saw the New Democrats profess to be willing to work hard. Then, mere hours later, after the sun would go down and people were not watching, what would the NDP do? It would suggest we pack it in early and move adjournment, without any accomplishment to show for it.

In order to keep our focus on delivering results and not gamesmanship, we are suggesting that we use our extra evening hours to get something done, not to play idle, unproductive games. We are interested in working hard and being productive, and doing so in an orderly fashion. That is the extent of what Motion No. 10 would do. Members on this side of the House are willing to work a few extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians. What results are we seeking?

Bills on which we want to see progress, that are of great significance to Canadians, are worth spending a little extra time to see them considered and, ideally, passed. [ Translation ] Of course, we have the important matter of passing Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014, No. 1 . This bill implements our government’s budget—a low-tax plan for jobs, growth and a stronger Canadian economy. It is also an essential tool in placing the government on track to balanced budgets, starting in 2015. We have a number of bills that continue to build on the work we have done in support of victims of crime.

Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act , is another essential piece of legislation that will crack down on cyberbullies and online threats by giving law enforcement officials the tools necessary to investigate and tackle these crimes. We are taking clear action to combat cyberbullying and I ask the opposition to join us in this pursuit. Every day in Canada, our most vulnerable—our children—are the victims of sexual abuse. This is truly unacceptable and as a society we must do our part to better protect our youth.

With Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act , we are doing our part. [ English ] Our government's comprehensive legislation will better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography, while making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on the predators who hurt, abuse, and exploit our children. Therefore, I ask the opposition to work with us, support this important piece of legislation by supporting this motion. It is also important that we move forward with one of the most recent additions to our roster of other tackling crime legislation.

Last month, we introduced Bill C-32 , the victims bill of rights act, which will give victims of crime a more efficient and more effective voice in the criminal justice system. It seeks to create clear statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime, for the first time in Canada's history. The legislation would establish rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution, and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights on the part of victims. It would protect victims, and help to rebalance the justice system to give victims their rightful place.

I hope we can debate this bill tomorrow night. By passing Motion No. 10, we will make that possible. Our efforts to protect families and communities also extend to keeping contraband tobacco off our streets, so that the cheap baggies of illegal cigarettes do not lure children into the dangers of smoking. Bill C-10 , the tackling contraband tobacco act, would combat this by establishing mandatory jail time for repeat offenders trafficking in contraband.

Aside from protecting Canadian children from the health hazards of smoking, it will also address the more general problems with trafficking and contraband tobacco propelled by organized crime roots. With luck, I hope we can pass this bill on Friday. Just before the constituency week, the Prime Minister announced Quanto's law. Bill C-35 , the justice for animals in service act, would pose stiffer penalties on anyone who kills or injures a law enforcement, military, or service animal.

I know that the hon. member for Richmond Hill , having previously introduced a private member's bill on the subject, will be keen to see the extra time used to debate and pass this bill at second reading before we head back to our constituencies. Bill C-12 , the drug-free prisons act, could also have a chance for some debate time if we pass Motion No. 10. This particular bill will tackle drug use and trade in the federal penitentiaries to make the correctional system a safer place, particularly for staff, but also for inmates, while also increasing the potential for success and rehabilitation of those inmates.

As a former public safety minister, I can say that this is indeed an important initiative. Delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week. Our clear and steady focus on the strength of our Canadian economy does not simply apply to our budgets. We will also work hard next week to bring the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement into law. Bill C-20 , the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, would enhance provisions on cross-border trading services, investment, and government procurement between our two countries.

It would also immediately benefit key sectors in the Canadian economy, by providing enhanced market access for beef, pork, potato products, vegetable oils, and grain products. As a former trade minister, I can say first-hand that this government understands that trade and investment are the twin engines of the global economy that lead to more growth, the creation of good jobs, and greater prosperity. Trade is particularly important for a country like Canada, one that is relatively small yet stands tall in terms of its relationship and ability to export and trade with the rest of the world.

If we are to enjoy that prosperity in the future, it is only through expanding free trade and seizing those opportunities that we can look forward to that kind of long-term prosperity. Through Bill C-18 , the agricultural growth act, we are providing further support to Canada's agriculture producers. This bill would modernize nine statues that regulate Canada's agriculture sector to bring them in line with modern science and technology, innovation, and international practices within the agriculture industry.

The act will strengthen and safeguard Canada's agriculture sector by providing farmers with greater access to new crop varieties, enhancing both trade opportunities and the safety of agriculture products, and contributing to Canada's overall economic growth. As the House knows, our government has made the interests of farmers a very important priority. We recognize that since Canada was born, our farmers in our agriculture sector have been key to Canada's economic success. As a result, Bill C-18 will be debated this afternoon.

It would be nice to have the bill passed at second reading before the summer, so that the agriculture committee can harvest stakeholder opinion this autumn. Over the next few weeks, with the co-operation and support of the opposition parties, we will hopefully work to make progress on other important initiatives.

(1230) My good friend, the President of the Treasury Board , will be happy to know that these extra hours would mean that I can find some time to debate Bill C-21 , the red tape reduction act. This important bill should not be underestimated. It would enshrine into law our government's one-for-one rule, a successful system-wide control on regulatory red tape that affects Canadian employers. Treasury Board already takes seriously the practice of opining that rule, but we want to heighten its importance and ensure that it is binding on governments in the future.

We want to ensure that Canadians do not face unreasonable red tape when they are simply trying to make a better living for themselves, and creating jobs and economic growth in their communities. Another important government initiative sets out to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. For the first time in more than 35 years, our government is taking action to update the Citizenship Act.

Through Bill C-24 , the strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, we are proposing stronger rules around access to Canadian citizenship to underline its true value and ensure that new Canadians are better prepared for full participation in Canadian life. This legislation will be called for debate on Wednesday. The health and safety of Canadians is something that our government believes is worthy of some extra time and further hard work in the House of Commons. Tomorrow evening, we will debate Bill C-17 , the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act.

Under Vanessa's law, as we have called it, we are proposing steps to protect Canadian families and children from unsafe medicines. Among other actions, the bill would enable the government to recall unsafe drugs, require stronger surveillance, provide the courts with discretion to impose stronger fines if violations were intentionally caused, and compel drug companies to do further testing on a product. In general, the bill would make sure that the interests of individual Canadians are looked out for and become a major priority when it comes to dealing with new medications and drugs.

Bill C-22 , the energy safety and security act, would modernize safety and security for Canada's offshore and nuclear energy industries, thereby ensuring a world-class regulatory system, and strengthening safety and environmental protections. This legislation, at second reading, will be debated on Thursday. Bill C-3 , the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, could pass at third reading under the extended hours, so that we can secure these important updates and improvements to transportation law in Canada. We could also pass the prohibiting cluster munitions act.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained at committee, the Government of Canada is committed to ridding the world of cluster munitions. Bill C-6 is an important step in that direction, but it is just the beginning of our work. Extending the relevant elements of the Oslo Convention into domestic law would allow Canada to join the growing list of countries that share that same goal. I hope members of all parties will support us in this worthy objective. By supporting today's motion, the opposition would also be showing support for Canada's veterans.

The extra hours would allow us to make progress on Bill C-27 , the veterans hiring act. The measures included in this legislation would create new opportunities for men and women who have served their country to continue working for Canadians through the federal public service. As a nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that veterans have access to a broad range of programs and services to help them achieve new success after their time in uniform is complete. This initiative would do exactly that.

Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. I could go on and on, literally, since I have unlimited time to speak this afternoon, but I will not. Suffice it to say that we have a bold, ambitious, and important legislative agenda to implement. All of these measures are important, and they will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part.

Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, to vote on bills, to make decisions, and to get things done on their behalf. I hope that opposition parties will be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come to a vote. I am sure that members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say that they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer.

I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for adding a few hours to our day to continue the work of our productive, orderly, and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians. (1235) [ Translation ] Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, of course on this side of the House we are always ready to work hard. The problem is that we have a government that does not really listen.

When we look at what has happened in the past few weeks, we see that a number of bills have been rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada, precisely because the Conservatives did not do their job. Of course it is important to have a debate in the House, but the government has to listen to the good advice it keeps getting from the NDP. (1240) [ English ] I am very interested in his comments about hard work, because the government House leader has been in his position for a number of years now. I am new in my position, so I referenced back to June last year.

The government House leader, in good faith, is saying that the Conservatives are here to work. The problem is, and people who are listening to us can go on the House of Commons website and find out for themselves, that last June, 90% of the speakers in the evening sessions were the New Democrats and opposition members. Less than 10% of the speakers were from the Conservative Party. We can see, if we go online, that there was usually only one Conservative MP who would show up to speak in the course of any evening session. There are exceptions, which the member mentioned.

The government House leader referenced the fact that the NDP tried to adjourn the House at one point. The reality was that no Conservatives had shown up to speak that night. Therefore, my question for the government House leader is this. Will the Conservatives finally show up to work and speak in these evening sessions this year? Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, you know, our objective is to ensure that there is an adequate opportunity for debate and to allow bills to pass.

When we were dealing with these matters last spring, we were largely dealing with matters at third reading, after many members on the government side had already had ample opportunity to speak to them. The only folks who were still looking to have more debate, as matters had been debated more than adequately from the perspective of members of the government, were those who were attempting to resist allowing those bills to pass. It was those folks who were attempting to prevent decisions from being taken and who were trying to put off having votes on those matters, and were therefore filibustering.

While I know the hon. member would like to put the best possible face on the fact that the NDP is always willing to filibuster any bill that comes along and is willing to put up speakers to delay decisions being taken, after having had our say and having spoken to bills, we also like to have our say in the fashion of a vote where every member in the House gets a say. The sooner the speeches are finished and the sooner there is ample debate, we can move on to that.

With ongoing filibusters, while they may have some utility to the hon. member, there comes a point when enough has been said, and we believe it is time to make decisions. Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate enough to be the chair of the justice committee. As members know, our government has a fairly extensive justice agenda. We are dealing with Bill C-13 at present. We have a number of other issues coming forward. Could the House leader tell the House the effect that the extended hours would have in helping us proceed with our very important justice agenda? Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr.

Speaker, as I think the House is aware, some of our priorities this spring have included the budget, job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity. They have been the core priority of the government throughout. We have also dealt with the fair elections act , something we know Elections Canada wants us to have in place before the end of June so it is able to prepare for a 2015 election. We are seeking to meet that objective so it can be adequately prepared and ready. As a result, we have not had as much time as we would have liked so far this spring to focus on our very important tackling crime agenda.

The opportunity over the next several weeks, with extended hours, would allow us more opportunity to advance those bills and allow ample debate on them. We are happy to do that, because we know these bills are very important to Canadians. We need to continue to find ways to send a clear message to criminals that the government will not tolerate crime, and that it is looking to rebalance the justice system to give greater rights to victims, as members can see with the victims bill of rights. We are looking to protect those who are vulnerable in our society.

The tackling crime aspects of the agenda are, in fact, a very significant part of what we hope to achieve over the next several weeks. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, I hope that after October 19, 2015, we will be on the government side of the House and the government House leader will be the opposition House leader. We are looking forward to that. I want to come back to his comments because they are worthy of further examination. He said that, at second reading, the Conservatives had their chance to speak, which was why they did not show up to speak at the evening sessions.

He said that was why over 90% of the speakers were New Democrats. However, there is another compelling statistic. Because of the government's abuse of use of time allocation and closure motions, which is as bad as the Liberals, and that is saying a lot as they were a pretty lousy government, on average, 280 members of Parliament are stopped from speaking. There are 308 members in the House, and, on average, 280 MPs are shut down. Those are Conservatives who vote to shut down their riding representation and their ability to speak on behalf of their constituents.

The reality is that Conservatives are not speaking at second reading either because of time allocation and closure. In the vast majority of cases, Conservative MPs have never spoken on these bills. I will go back to my question. Since time allocation means that 280 MPs are prohibited from speaking for their ridings and because, when we get to these evening sessions, Conservative MPs, with the rare exception of one per night, do not show up to speak, will Conservatives actually show up to work in these June sessions? Will they actually speak on behalf of their ridings? That is what Canadians want to know.

(1245) Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, since the opposition House leader is apparently fond of hearing speeches, I know he will want to vote for this motion. It would give him many more opportunities to come to this place during the extra time we would set aside in the evenings to hear many great speeches both from the government and I think from the opposition as well. Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I was here many evenings in the last session and I did hear speeches from the NDP, but they sounded remarkably similar, speech after speech. I really appreciate our government. We have something to say, we have a few people who debate it very effectively, and then we know it is time to move on rather than repeating and repeating. As we would have about 80 hours extra, what would that allow us to accomplish for Canadians? Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, the principal concept is that we would be able to get more done, make more decisions and get more bills passed.

This is what I think Canadians expect of their parliamentarians. They expect them to actually come here and make decisions. This is an opportunity to do so, whether it be on our justice, agricultural or citizenship bills as they are all things that Canadians have spoken to across the country. They have asked for our government to take action on these matters, and I think they are looking for results.

When I am at home in my riding talking to constituents, there are very few people who tell me that they think the problem with the House of Commons is that there are too many decisions made, that we should have more lengthy debates, where 280 more members get to speak and never bother taking decisions. They actually want to see decisions and action taken. When I talk about that approach for a productive hard-working and orderly Parliament, keep in mind what we have been through in the global economy in recent years.

We have seen political paralysis in Europe, which has harmed its economy in a devastating fashion, and a similar kind of political paralysis in the United States, which hurt it for quite some time. Canada came through that downturn in a far better position. Consistently, when we speak to people in the international community, they actually give credit to the Canadian government for taking decisions and getting things done.

That was credited as one of the reasons we were able to respond so well in changing economic circumstances, come through the downturn with some of the strongest job creation, in fact, the strongest job creation among major developed economies and the strongest fiscal position. We are in a position to balance the budget in 2015, something that is generations away in some other countries. They look to us as leaders for competent, capable management with the ability to make decisions and to do so with our political institutions. This is something of which we as a government can be very proud.

It is something we expect to see more of in the weeks ahead. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I saw the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley rising. I am sure he would have pointed out that, according to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in 2013, of the jobs the current government managed to cobble together, 95% were actually part-time, and we have 300,000 more unemployed than we did the year before. Therefore, the Conservative government, I guess in keeping with not showing up to evening sessions, is a part-time government.

The Conservatives are only able to stimulate the economy with part-time jobs, and that is not even going. I know my colleague for Skeena—Bulkley Valley would also mention the fact that tens of thousands of jobs were lost last month. We are talking about a government that right now does not seem to be doing much right. (1250) [ Translation ] It is rather sad that the government is again moving this motion that it is imposing with its majority. The NDP is always willing to work evenings. There is no doubt about that and we have proven it many times.

Every June since 2011, NDP members were always in the House ready to debate bills and provide advice. The problem is that this government does not listen and is not prepared to listen to good advice. I will come back to that in a moment. We are very familiar with the results. We know that bill after bill has been rejected by the court. The government is then often required to make amendments to the botched parts of the previous bill.

The government seems to want to bungle everything, not just services to Canadians, but also the legislative process that leads to the introduction of appropriate bills and proposed amendments to improve bills in order to help Canadians. This process does not seem all that complicated, but it is unfortunately often botched by this government. I am referring to the Conservatives' use of closure and time allocation motions, which is on par with their use by the Liberals when they were in power. It is appalling that this government systematically wants to shut down debate and deprive members of their right to speak.

Each time, 280 members, on average, are deprived of their right to speak. The Conservatives vote for these closure motions. That is ridiculous. In ridings where a Conservative member was elected—I am not so sure they will be re-elected the next time—that member takes away his own opportunity to speak on behalf of his constituents. The Conservatives say they want to shut down debate and therefore they do not want their constituents in Calgary, Red Deer, Lévis or any other riding to be represented in the House of Commons. They want to shut down debate.

Thus, the vast majority of Conservative members seldom talk about the needs of the people in their riding or bills introduced in Parliament. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has just stood up and said that the Conservatives are going to work harder, but that also happened last year. My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley knows what I am talking about. Last year, the Conservatives were not in the House to speak. One evening, there was six hours of debate and only a single Conservative member was in the House to speak. Only one Conservative member spoke in six hours.

The government moves time allocation and closure motions, and the Conservative members remain silent instead of speaking. Members of the NDP, on the other hand, are always in attendance when the sitting hours of the House are extended. We are always there to fight, to improve bills and to solicit comments about bills. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are nowhere to be found. They do not come to the House, or perhaps one of them will show up over the course of the evening. As we said earlier, during the debate on S-12, no Conservative members came to speak about the bill. Not one, and we were there for six hours.

What were they doing? I do not know. It is not as though they were out consulting their constituents. The Conservatives are not here. They are not speaking. I am going to come back to this momentarily, but the result is that we end up with botched legislation because the government does not listen and the Conservative members do not even speak on behalf of their constituents. Honestly. We receive a generous salary from our constituents, the taxpayers. We are here to work to help our ridings move forward. I represent the riding of Burnaby—New Westminster.

It is my duty to be in the House to stand up for the interests of the people of Burnaby—New Westminster. If members decide to stop speaking, to systematically go along with the government's time allocation and closure motions and therefore deprive their ridings of the right to speak and if, on top of that, members do not even show up for the evening sessions in the House of Commons to contribute to the debate and the legislative process, then this approach becomes a complete sham.

I am fairly certain—and I would take a bet with any Conservative member—that this year, we will have the same problem as we did last year and the year before: 90% to 95% of the time, the NDP, or sometimes other opposition members, will be speaking and the Conservatives will not even be here. The reasoning behind this motion does not make sense. The Conservatives are not the ones who will be here working. The Conservatives will not be here representing their constituents. The Conservatives will not be here giving passionate speeches about their ridings. They will not be here.

The proof, as we will soon see, is the way this motion is structured. The way the government decided to structure the motion is evidence of how much it will once again diminish the democratic rights all Canadians value so strongly. Canadians across the country want us to be in the House. They want us to represent them, regardless of where we are from. For example, my colleague from Sherbrooke is an extraordinary young man, and he does a good job representing his riding. He is always in the House and speaks often. He is here; he represents his riding.

He understands how important it is to represent Sherbrooke in the House of Commons. The same goes for my colleague from Hochelaga . Her riding is not the wealthiest riding in Canada. The average family income in her riding is below the average. She is always here representing the people of Hochelaga and talking on their behalf. She gives speeches on the importance of affordable housing. That is because she understands her role as member of Parliament.

Members on the Conservative side, on the other hand, refuse to speak at second reading or at report stage because there is a time allocation motion, and they refuse to show up on evenings when we have extended debates. How can the government expand the scope of its activities when it does not listen and when government members refuse to speak on behalf of their constituents? They refuse to defend government bills, they refuse to take action, they refuse to present amendments and they refuse to offer anything at all when it comes to legislation.

In such circumstances, voting Conservative does not mean a great deal. When people voted for the Conservatives, they voted for members who are controlled by the Prime Minister 's Office, not members who rise in the House, defend their constituents' rights and speak on their behalf.

(1255) I want to speak to the motion now because I know that many of my colleagues are reading it. We want this to be a useful study of an important motion. For those who are watching, I will go step by step. To begin, the majority government, as usual, wants to force a decision on the House. Unfortunately, debate and democracy are foreign concepts for the Conservatives.

They are proposing that commencing upon the adoption of this order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014, on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place. As I said, we do not object to working until midnight. However, what actually happens is that the members opposite rarely show up to speak in the House. Opposition members are the ones who really contribute to the debates, and that is a major problem.

If the government listened to us, it would not be problem, but that is not the case. This has caused many problems with bills in the past. More than once we had to make amendments to botched bills with subsequent legislation, or, again, the Supreme Court clearly indicated that the bills were not in order. Today, the Conservatives are proposing that we adjourn at midnight, or 10 p.m. if a debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1 is to take place. That refers to emergency debates.

My colleagues in the House, including the hon. member for Laval —who works very hard for the people in his riding—and the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord , are always listening to their constituents and are always ready to raise questions that often result in an emergency debate. A few weeks ago, in fact, an emergency debate was held in accordance with Standing Orders 52 and 53.1. That debate on the kidnapping of young Nigerian schoolgirls by the terrorist group Boko Haram was proposed by the member for Ottawa Centre .

Many people from across the country came here to attend the debate, and people were still talking about it when I returned to my riding, Burnaby—New Westminster , last week. Now the government wants to prevent us from holding emergency debates before 10 p.m. If the Chair decides that there is to be an emergency debate, that debate cannot begin before 10 p.m. For working people in eastern Canada, who have families and work hard, that is late. They will be denied their right to tune in.

(1300) It will not be so bad in my riding because of the three-hour time difference. For example, 10 p.m. here is 7 p.m. back home. That is a reasonable time. However, for the vast majority of Canadians, this government motion deprives them of their right to tune in to the emergency debates that will take place in the coming weeks. [ English ] Second, when we look at the second clause of this motion, which deals with recorded divisions, we see that what the Conservatives would now do is put in place a voting system that would have votes occur at the conclusion of oral questions, in the middle of the afternoon.

This proposal reveals the whole intent of the government. The Conservatives say that they want to work harder. We have already ripped up that argument by showing that when they said they wanted to work harder that last year, over 90% of the time it was not Conservatives but New Democrats doing the work. Only one Conservative member would show up every night to speak in the House of Commons, so this idea that somehow the government wants to work harder is simply not true. Paragraph (

b) deals with recorded divisions demanded in respect of any debatable motion before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. In this case the vote would stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on that day, while if a division is demanded after 2 p.m., it would stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the next sitting day. What the Conservatives would do is basically do away with those evening votes. Not only do they not show up to speak, but they also do not even want to show up to vote.

This could be perhaps the laziest motion ever put forward in the House of Commons by the government. It is far from wanting to work harder, as we have shown quite clearly when 90% to 95% of the time it is the New Democrats carrying the heavy load. We are fine with carrying the heavy load. We come from humble roots and we are hard workers. Everybody acknowledges that, and that is why 90% to 95% of the time it is we who do the hard work in the House. However, now the Conservatives want to even do away with evening votes. They are saying, “No, that is too hard. It is too hard voting at 6:00 or 7:00 at night.

We do not want to show up to speak”. This is a licence for laziness. That is what the government has brought forward. The Conservatives want to make sure that motions are voted on around question period time so that folks can show up around question period and then do whatever it is that Conservative MPs do in the evening. I have no idea of that. (1305) [ Translation ] I should also point out that, in this motion, the same goes for private members' business.

Where this motion mentions Wednesdays governed by this order, it says that recorded divisions will be deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday. As for other private members' business, the motion says that this too will be deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday. That is the same thing. This is really a licence for laziness. As we have shown, 90% to 95% of the time, the Conservatives are not the ones showing up to speak in the House. They do not want to vote in the evening, not even on private members' business.

They want to curtail all of these activities and make sure that no votes happen in the evening. What difference will that make? The NDP will still be here working. We work hard. We have a reputation for working hard. We come from humble roots and we represent our ridings well. I know that the members here this afternoon are very hard-working, and we will continue to work hard. Votes, including votes on private members' business, will now be held in the afternoon. That means the Conservative members will have their evenings free.

[ English ] That is really the problem. As we move through this motion, we see time and time again that this is like a giant recess for the Conservatives. They have structured this so that they do not have to have votes in the evening anymore. They do not show up to speak in the evening 90% of the time, depending on the evening. It is New Democrats who actually put in the representation of their ridings. What we are seeing again is the Conservatives, through this motion, giving themselves an evening off.

The real clue to what the Conservatives are doing, this licence for laziness, is that they will not show up to speak or to vote, but they are telling the NDP that we can do our stuff and speak on behalf of our constituents. They have also proved that they are not willing to listen to the good advice we offer them, which is why they got into so much trouble having to amend legislation they brought forward previously and having pieces of legislation rejected by the Supreme Court. If they had listened to us and to Canadians, they would not be in so much trouble.

The key to this is paragraph (h): “No dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown after 6:30 p.m.” The essence of the motion is that Conservatives will not show up to speak in the House of Commons. They will not show up to participate, because they do not do that; they let harder-working members do that. They will also not show up to vote in the evening. They will not show up to vote on private members' legislation, and they will not show up to vote on public legislation. That is why they want the votes after question period, when it is convenient.

That means that the Conservatives are shutting down the rules of the House so that only they can use them. It is incredible. If we had not been through Bill C-23 , in which they were trying to cook the next election campaign, it would be unbelievable that after all the decades, a century and a half and more of Canadian parliamentary democracy, a government would say that the rules will exist, but the government members will be the only ones who can use them. Only Conservatives can use these rules. Only a minister of the crown can use these rules. We will have this period. I know it, because we went through it.

The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley knows it full well, because I think he probably spent more time in this House than any other member. Night after night, there will be no Conservatives here wanting to speak, or maybe one member of Parliament from the Conservative Party will want to speak. However, the Conservatives will not show up to vote, because they are having all the votes deferred to question period, when it is convenient for them, and they are now saying that all the rules of the House apply only to them. Only they can use them.

They are basically putting handcuffs on every single member of the opposition. They are saying that only a Conservative can use the rules that normally function that make this democratic place a democracy. Only the Conservatives can use them. It is unbelievable. If we had not been through the unfair elections act, where the Conservatives were trying to subvert the next election campaign, we would actually think this could not be Canada. These are not Canadian values. That is what they are doing.

They are putting in, and writing it out so that any Canadian can see, “No dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown after 6:30 p.m.” This is not an approach to try to work harder. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was trying to slide that by us a little while ago, and we simply do not believe it. The evidence simply shows that this is not the case. Conservatives will not be showing up to speak in the House. They did not last year. They did not the year before, and 90% to 95% of the time they let the heavy lifting be carried by New Democrats.

We are strong, we are tough, and we do not mind doing it. We will do an even better job in 2015 once we are the government. That is when we will really see changes, when the heavy lifting actually benefits people directly through good governance.

(1310) I can tell members something else we will not be doing. It is what I mentioned half an hour ago. I am enjoying this. I am not sure when I am going to sit down, actually. I think my colleagues from the NDP are appreciating it too. I just want to mention what happens when due diligence is not done. Conservative members should know this, but they are muzzled. They vote for time allocation and muzzle themselves, so they do not actually speak on legislation in the House.

There are 280 MPs, on average, who have their right to speak on legislation ripped away every single time, the dozens and dozens of times, the government has used closure techniques. Sometimes it calls it time allocation, but it amounts to the same thing; it is closure. Every time the government does it, 280 MPs, on average, are denied their right to speak. They do not show up to the evening session to speak. One does, and that is normally it. Then 90% to 95% of the heavy lifting is done by the NDP. What is the result of this? I will give three examples. I could give tons of examples.

I could probably speak for 14 hours on bad, botched Conservative legislation. I could do that, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you and the public would find it interesting, but eventually we are going to have to go to question period. I am going to mention only three examples. The Conservatives rammed Bill C-38 through the House without due care and attention and without showing up for evening sessions. Bill C-38 was one of the omnibus bills. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley raised major concerns about it at the time. The Conservatives botched the bill.

They botched it so badly that the next bill they introduced had to fix the mistakes they made in the first bill. They rammed Bill C-38 through the House with time allocation. It was omnibus legislation, which was quite all right, except it was wrong. It was badly botched in a way only the Conservative government could do it. It was so badly botched, the government had to introduce another piece of legislation, Bill C-45 . Bill C-45 had to fix all the problems in the previous bill. Was that a good use of taxpayers' money? Was it a good, use of this legislative process?

The government rammed through Bill C-38 but botched it so badly that it had to bring another piece of legislation in to fix it. That is like bringing one's car in to get fixed and driving off without the wheels. It is incredible. We went through another process, with Bill C-45, to fix what was wrong with Bill C-38. That is just a snapshot of how the government handles legislation. It is like the guy who has a hammer and thinks everything is a nail. Conservatives think everything is pavement and they can steamroll over all of it, except that when legislation is badly botched, there are consequences.

That brings me to another piece of legislation, Bill C-4 . It is the same kind of thing. The Conservatives tried to throw a whole bunch of things in the bill, a laundry list, except that the Supreme Court rejected part of that legislation. As we know, the Leader of the Opposition has been raising this repeatedly in the House. We have a problem whereby botched legislation leads to more time wasted, because the Conservatives have to introduce other legislation to fix the bad legislation they forced through in the first place without listening to the NDP.

If they had listened to the NDP, they would not have had the badly botched legislation in the first place. If they do get it through the House, then, as we saw with Bill C-4 , the Supreme Court says, “Sorry, you badly botched this legislation and it is not constitutional”. As a result of that, we have to reject part of this legislation. This is the real problem. It is not that the government, as it likes to say, does its job and produces a quantity of legislation, so everyone should give it a pat on the back. It is bad legislation in so many cases. It is legislation that has to be fixed.

New Democrats always offer the amendments and the fixes. We are always there to try to direct the government. We often feel as if we are trying to direct a puppy, because it seems to get distracted often.

(1315) The reality is that the work the government does should be very important. The legislation the government presents in the House should be very important. There should be a proper legislative process. There should be amendments that are considered. There should be a process people can actually respect. That is not what happens under the government. The government just throws legislation out without due respect for parliamentary traditions.

It refuses to listen to the opposition to develop the legislation so that it can actually accomplish what it purports to set out to do when it puts the legislation on the floor of the House. The government will not take amendments, will not listen to debate, actually shuts down the debate, and rams legislation through. This costs Canadians enormously. Every time the government has to provide new legislation to fix the old legislation, and as has happened a number of times in the past few weeks, every time the Supreme Court says that what the government is doing is simply not constitutional, it costs Canadians.

We have this motion that is a licence for laziness. It dismisses Conservatives from voting in the evening. It dismisses Conservatives from having to participate in debates that are actually quite important, because that is how we get legislation fixed, particularly the shoddy legislation the government tends to present in the House.

Now we have a government that has such profound arrogance that it says, quite clearly, “No dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown”, which means that no dilatory motion may be proposed except by a Conservative, except by a minister of the crown, after 6:30 p.m. What the government is doing, at the height of its arrogance, is saying to Canadians, “Hey, we are just going to run this government, this country, exactly how we want, and we do not care about the consequences”. We care about the consequences.

We care when we see shoddy legislation that has to be corrected, and it takes months of work, because the government did not get it right in the first place. We care when the Supreme Court says that what the government is doing is unconstitutional. We care when we see, right across this country, growing concern about the government's arrogance and its attacks on a whole host of institutions, not just in the elections act but in the attack on the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Sheila Fraser. How could anyone attack Sheila Fraser?

The Conservatives have been doing just that. When we see all those attacks, we see a government that has simply done its time. It no longer has any sort of legitimate agenda but just wants to lash out at its perceived enemies and wants to set a perception that is simply not true. With this motion, this licence for laziness, Conservatives get off scot-free. They do not have to vote in the evening. They do not have to show up in the evening. The government has said it is going to handcuff every single member of the opposition to their desks and not let them use any proper parliamentary procedure after 6:30 p.m.

Only the government can. That arrogance is something Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of. That arrogance is something Canadians are saying they have had enough of. In the most recent poll, the Prime Minister had an approval rating of one-third of Canadians. Two-thirds of Canadians disapprove of the work he is doing. The leader of the Liberal Party has falling approval levels, but he did better. It was 50/50. The top approval level in the country is for the Leader of the Opposition . Two-thirds of Canadians see his work in the House of Commons and approve of it.

They see him as strong and as defending Canadian democracy. That is what we are going to continue to do. We are going to ensure that legislation is effective. We are going to continue to speak out and work hard on behalf of our constituents. We are looking forward to that day, October 19, 2015, when we can get rid of the government and start having an NDP government that is going to fully respect our democratic traditions here in the House of Commons and right across the country. (1320) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech on the government's motion, which is essentially a licence for laziness. The government, which is being just as hypocritical as ever, has introduced a motion and is saying that it is going to work hard and that it is hard-working. However, as my colleague pointed out, the motion indicates that the government will allow votes to happen only right after question period.

The government says that it is going to work hard in the evenings, but statistics show that it is usually only opposition members, particularly NDP members, who bother to speak about bills. One has to wonder whether the government really intends to work hard or whether it intends to show up for an hour or an hour and a half a day for question period and voting. We do not know what the Conservatives will do after that. Can my colleague comment on how hypocritical it is of the Conservatives to say that they are hard-working when their motion proves exactly the opposite?

(1325) Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke . He is a wonderful example of a hard-working member of Parliament who is in touch with his constituents. He does great work in the House and I would like to commend him for that. He is a role model for all Conservative members. That is indeed the problem: this motion is a licence for laziness. The motion that the Conservatives just introduced is extremely embarrassing. I do not understand why the Conservatives cannot see that what they are proposing is a mistake.

They are not going to hold any votes or come and speak in the evenings. We know full well that only a single Conservative member shows up whenever we sit for extended hours in June. Only one Conservative member shows up each evening. At some point, after the next election, there will be only a few Conservative members here. Perhaps then one representative will be proportional to their total number of members in the House.

When they have only 25, 20 or 15 members—I do not know how many Conservatives will be voted in, but I know that people in British Columbia want nothing more to do with them—then having a single member at the evening debate will be proportional to their total representation. However, refusing to come and speak and vote in the House now when they have 160 members is a sign of tremendous laziness. The member for Sherbrooke rightly pointed out that the worst

part is that they are now saying that the rules apply only to them and that they do not want the opposition to use the same rules. Come on. Enough is enough. It is shameful that the Conservatives are stooping so low. [ English ] Mr. Jim Hillyer (Lethbridge, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member of Parliament for the past 20 minutes has talked about all the work that the NDP does through talking. In that same 20 minutes, he said “we spend all our work talking”. In the same 20 minutes he said, “we spend all our work talking and in the meantime, we want to get things done”.

My constituents never ask me how much talking I have done, or how many times I have repeated myself in the same hour to convince the inconvincible. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, I have been invited to Lethbridge and I think most of the member's constituents are wondering where he is, because they cannot seem to find him in the riding. The reality is that standing up in the House of Commons for his constituents is part and parcel of the work that he should be doing. He should be standing in the House.

When the government puts forward time allocation or closure, he should be voting against that because he has not spoken on these issues. Time and time again he has not spoken on the bills that are coming forward. I love the community of Lethbridge. His folks want him standing in the House speaking on those issues— Mr. David Anderson : Have you been there? Mr. Peter Julian : I've been there many times and I love it, Mr. Speaker. Actually, last time we came close to winning, and next time there will be an NDP MP in the city of Lethbridge, I am pretty sure.

However, the member needs to stand up for the people of Lethbridge. He needs to say “no” to closure and time allocation and he needs to show up in the evening debates and I hope he will be there. Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I do not usually agree too much with Conservatives, but I must agree that this was a lengthy discourse we just received from the NDP. However, over the course of this long discourse, I was not able to discern whether the NDP is voting for or against the government motion. Are New Democrats voting for this motion, or are they voting against this motion? Mr.

Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, the member will not have much time to wait, of course, because the government is already looking to impose closure and time allocation yet again. We are the ones who have been in the House every June. I wish the Liberals would show up occasionally. They do, but not often. It is New Democrats who are here in the House 90% to 95% of the time, speaking out, representing our constituents. I am certainly hoping that Liberals will be here as part of what the Conservatives are imposing and we will have a vote tomorrow.

We will be looking at all of the various permits that the government has just given itself to basically exempt itself from any evening work. Do we agree with evening work? Absolutely. Do we agree with the government's process of saying “no” to evening votes, saying “no” to showing up, and handcuffing the opposition as far as the House rules are concerned? Well, that is another story. Stay tuned.

(1330) Hon. Shelly Glover (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rose because I too am concerned about hearing from the NDP with regard to the substance of this matter and that is whether or not New Democrats agree to come to work and do the work that is required, as put forward by the Conservatives. I want to thank my colleague from the Liberal benches for agreeing that we need an answer to this. I am rather disappointed in the member from the NDP who continues to sling mud. Canadians watch this and they are, frankly, fed up. That is what I am hearing in my riding.

I am sure many here are hearing the same. The NDP wants to sling mud. Jack Layton was a fine example of a true statesman, a person from the NDP who cared intimately about Canada and about his constituents. The member across the way continues to go against what Jack Layton's dream was, that they be respectful of one another, respectful of other parliamentarians and what their constituents want, and what Canadians want, which is a respectful place here in Parliament. I would encourage him to think about that when he trashes the next member who stands to confront his allegations, which are, frankly, not true. Mr.

Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words of the member for Saint Boniface for Jack Layton. He is someone who is always in our thoughts. Jack Layton would have seen this and would have said exactly the same thing that we are all saying here today, that the idea of working late is something that we are absolutely in favour of.

However, I am concerned with the idea that the Conservatives would put handcuffs on every single member of the opposition and say that the rules only apply to them, that only Conservative Party members who are representatives of ministers of crown can move the motions in the evening, that votes would no longer be held in the evening but in the afternoon. With regard to the track record of the Conservatives, the member for Saint Boniface objects to me raising their record that 90% to 95% of the time last June they were not speaking in the House and New Democrats were.

It was 90% to 95% of the time, depending on the evening. They have done the calculations themselves. They know that. It is certainly not in any way insulting to the Conservatives to point out that fact. It should be motivating for Conservatives. However, after two years of bringing forward these kinds of motions and refusing to show up in the House, we are saying they should start showing up and start speaking on behalf of their constituents. That is what their constituents elected them to do and that is what they should be doing in the House of Commons. Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, it is quite amazing that the New Democrats should go on for such enormous lengths of time without telling us the bottom line as to whether they vote for or against. I do not know what the point of that long discourse was when there is no conclusion to it. In fact, sometimes it is said that in some of the debates here we are living in a bubble, in the sense that not that many Canadians are interested. However, in the case of the member's speech, that is too charitable. At best he is speaking inside a bubble that is inside this bubble. More likely, I would go one step further.

He is speaking inside a bubble that is in a bubble that is inside this big bubble. No one is really listening and no one really cares what he is saying because we are not getting any work done. We are just listening to empty rhetoric and we do not have any resolution to the outcome of this motion. The member complains we do not get enough done in the House. Why do we not get enough done in the House? It is partly because he uses his unlimited time to waste incredible amounts of time in the House. I remember well when he was finance critic and he went on for days and days.

Does he think he got thousands of votes out of that? I do not think he got any votes. All he did was waste the time of the House, prevent the work getting done, which he claims he wants to do. However, given those long speeches leading nowhere, I would surmise that he is the greatest impediment to work getting done.

(1335) Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask my colleague from Markham—Unionville this. First, he is supposed to be speaking to a motion. If he does not have anything to say on the motion, it is more appropriate that he sit down. Second, he is not addressing what is actually before the House and that would be showing respect to Parliament. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The hon. member is correct. All hon. members should make all of their remarks relevant and timely. The hon. member for Markham—Unionville . Hon.

John McCallum : I thought that since the hon. member was contributing so much, at least in terms of time, to this debate that the nature of his remarks was relevant to the topic at hand, but I think he just was, I would say, blowing bubbles anyway, so I think I can move on from that. In the spirit of the Liberal Party wishing not to waste time but to get on with the business of the House, whether or not we, as a third party, agree with the outcomes of that business, and m