Debates of May 22nd, 2013

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have to laugh. We hear the same argument from members opposite as we just heard now. The reality is quite different from what the member opposite is reporting.

The reality is that members opposite are not really interested in meaningful debate. They are simply trying to delay and defeat any legislation our government brings forward.

If it were merely a case of wanting to debate a bill thoroughly, I would have no problem with that. However, the reason our government has been forced—and I say forced—to bring time allocation in on many bills is that the members opposite have proven that they will use any procedural tactic available to them to continue delaying the passage of bills, time and time again.

Now, I get that. That is the opposition's right. Opposition members can delay legislative items as much as they possibly can, because they have procedural tactics at their disposal. However, so do we. Our priority is to get bills passed. We were given a majority government by the people of this country to get things done, to pass legislation, and we are doing so. We are doing so in as efficient a manner as possible.

However, to suggest for a moment that we are preventing debate from occurring, whether it be in the House or in committee, and then to oppose a motion that extends sitting hours to give them the additional hours for debate makes absolutely no sense. It is the height of hypocrisy.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have to laugh at the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, because he talks about the mandate the Conservatives were given. The problem is that the way they are utilizing the mandate they were given is not to represent all Canadians; it is to represent just a certain base. Legislation does require more debate.

Certainly, 20 hours per week sounds lovely, does it not? However, let us look at the history. This is coming from a government that does not really listen to any debate. We can talk forever in this place. Does it ever change anything on the government side of the House? No, it does not. This is coming from a government that seldom allows amendments in the chamber and certainly does not allow amendments at committee. This is coming from a government that even shuts down committees when debating motions. It puts committees in camera, in secret, so that they are not transparent when debating motions. That is simply how the government operates.

I worry about this extension of sitting hours. As my colleague in the NDP asked a moment ago, is the government really going to go until June 21, or is this another strategy? We know that the Prime Minister has left Dodge, with a scandal on his desk. Is this really a strategy to have an extension of sitting hours, get through a couple of bills, and allow him to prorogue Parliament? Will the member guarantee—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I know we have 10 minutes for questions and comments, but we still need to be judicious with our time.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of Canadians who may be paying attention to this debate, let me point out one very important fact, which members opposite, in the NDP and Liberals, have failed to realize, or have at least failed to mention, in their comments. Over the last few legislative sessions, we have adjourned a day or two early. However, here is the thing. It took unanimous consent to do that. We have opposition members asking if we can guarantee that we will sit, when they, in fact, agreed unanimously to rise early in the last few sessions. Talk about hypocritical; it is beyond belief. They are trying to suggest that they are the only ones who want to sit here and debate until the legislative session ends on the calendar, when they, in fact, have given unanimous consent to rise early.

Again, their arguments are that hollow, and I think Canadians can see right through those arguments.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Speaking of hollow arguments, Mr. Speaker, this one is echoing like the largest reverb chamber I have ever heard.

On the one hand, the member opposite is saying that the underpinning of democracy is strong debate, and that is what we should be doing in the House. On the other hand, he is giving justifications for the record the government has on time allocation. If there is any hypocrisy going on right now, and if Canadians are paying attention, they understand from what side of the House that hypocrisy is coming from.

Can the member opposite clarify this? On the one hand, you are saying that you want debate, but on the other hand, your government is closing down debate time and time again. If you want debate, you should cross over to this side of the House, where this is what we want, this is what we stand for, and this is what we fight for every single day in the House of Commons.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind hon. members to direct their questions to the Chair and not to other hon. members directly.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, again, this is quite amusing. It is quite clear the members opposite do not want to engage in meaningful debate. They are just trying to delay and prevent government bills from being passed. That is their sole purpose.

We have proven time and time again that we have a legislative agenda. We want to see it fulfilled. We want to pass bills. We want to get things done on behalf of Canadians. The opposition simply wants to derail and prevent any government bills from being passed in this place. There is a huge difference between meaningful debate and unnecessary and unwarranted delay. That is what members opposite do.

I would also point out that as opposed to closure, and a lot of members get closure and time allocation confused, when we have brought forward time allocation, we have allowed for sufficient debate. Some bills have been debated over 70 times before we brought forward time allocation. To suggest that we are trying to curtail debate just does not cut the mustard.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my speaking time with my colleague, the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

I have been given time to speak to this motion. Once again this week, the government is moving to extend our evening sitting hours significantly. It wants Parliament to sit until midnight.

We have to take a close look at this motion because similar motions in the past have often resulted in a shorter parliamentary calendar.

Since the beginning of this discussion, the Conservatives have continually surprised us with messages utterly at odds with what we are used to hearing.

Just like that, the government wants to extend the time we spend in the House. It claims this approach will enable members to debate bills on the order paper in detail and work hard for Canadians.

How ironic. After constantly curtailing debate ever since the last election, the government now says it wants to extend sitting hours to provide opportunities for debate.

Also ironic is the fact that the government has so much to say about democracy despite its unrelenting and unprecedented contempt for our parliamentary bodies.

Such principles were conspicuous by their absence when the government prorogued Parliament for purely partisan reasons, a move that was bad for Canadians.

Let us not forget that the Prime Minister had absolutely no compunction about letting dozens of bills die on the order paper when he wanted to save his government's hide. How can he say that he wants to let bills move through the normal legislative process when his political agenda has been given top priority in the current legislative cycle?

When a government constantly uses adjournment motions as a tactic to limit participation in and duration of debates, that is not democracy. It is exactly the opposite of what has been moved today.

May 8 was the 33rd time the government brought a vote on a time allocation motion that effectively limits the number of MPs who can speak to a given bill.

It sure looks like the Conservatives have been hell-bent on beating their own record for shutting down debate ever since the beginning of this Parliament.

How can the government say that it wants to promote free debate when it holds the record for cutting debate short? Are we supposed to believe that the government really wants to have it both ways?

Nor is it very democratic when the Prime Minister's Office muzzles its own members in their statements in the House.

Personally, neither I nor my colleagues in the official opposition have to get our speeches approved or adjusted to go with the soup of the day. We speak freely, without constraint from our party, but the government members cannot say the same.

How can the Conservatives stand here today and say that they defend democracy when they put gag orders on their own party's statements and speeches in the House?

Working for Canadians does not mean introducing three mammoth bills like Bills C-38, C-45 and C-60, and then watering down debate, limiting discussion and preventing parliamentarians from learning about what is happening in parliamentary committee, as is the case with a typical bill.

How can the Conservatives claim that they want to let the parliamentary process follow its course when they are the first to short-circuit it by forcing the vote on hundreds of measures without allowing representatives to do their work properly?

Never in the history of this country has a government shown such contempt for our institutions. That is why it is becoming difficult today to understand and believe the lines the Conservatives are trying to feed us.

You cannot on the one hand advocate for extending our sitting time to encourage debate, and on the other hand interfere constantly, as the Conservatives have done with complete impunity.

Therefore, we must question the motives behind the government's desire to extend the sitting hours.

If we look at what has happened in the past, we see that, in general, extending the sitting hours allows the party in power to make the parliamentary calendar shorter. Right now, the Conservatives clearly do not have enough credibility for us to believe their intentions and trust them.

We have to wonder whether the government simply wants to be forgotten as quickly as possible over the summer and to have people forget about all the problems that its wilful blindness caused with the temporary foreign worker program.

Yesterday, the government House leader said that he wanted to accelerate his government's economic measures. If he really cares about the economy, how could he let senators make such extravagant expenditures on the backs of taxpayers? The fact is that the government would rather shirk its responsibilities than face any challenges, answer the official opposition's questions and allow a real debate on issues that are of concern to Canadians. That is the real problem.

If the government wants to fully debate the bills on the order paper, then it should allow the House to sit until June 21, as set out on the calendar. The NDP is prepared to debate. The NDP is prepared to sit until June 21, as scheduled.

We have demonstrated our commitment and dedication to Parliament on numerous occasions. One of our members once even sat for 22 consecutive hours. When the government wanted to lock out Canada Post employees, we were there to debate and to stand up for Canadians.

Every day, we are here to stand up for the interests of Canadians. We routinely propose amendments in order move forward on bills that have sometimes been introduced over a year and a half ago, but these amendments are rejected by a government that wants to promote a political agenda rather than work for Canadians.

First and foremost, we oppose the government's motivations for wanting to impose extended sitting hours. Canadians will not be fooled. They understand the political game that the Conservatives are constantly playing. Canadians know that they cannot trust the Conservatives.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague speak some more about other times when sitting hours have been extended this early in the session. It is a possibility, according to the parliamentary calendar, but not just yet. This has come much earlier than expected.

Can she speak about those precedents? Does she know how things turned out when this approach was used in the past?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question.

Obviously, this has happened before, and it is clear that the only reason for extending sitting hours until midnight is to cut debate short and end the parliamentary session before the scheduled date of June 21.

The government is not telling us that; it is trying to hide that part. However, as I said, Canadians are not stupid and neither is the official opposition.

That is why we keep saying that this government is not living up to its responsibilities. It is being hypocritical, shutting down democracy and dismissing the House's role.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was a parliamentarian for 19 years at the provincial level, and 17 of those years were during majority governments. I must say that when there was a majority government, there was a sense that to get a legislative agenda through, there was an obligation on the government to work with opposition House leaders. Whether it was Liberals, New Democrats or Conservatives at the time, there was a sense of co-operation as we got closer to June. The government would give the legislative agenda that it wanted to get passed through, and it was done in a timely and efficient fashion. Votes would occur, and so forth.

Does the member feel that since the government's majority has come into play, it has given up on working with opposition parties to try to accomplish more work through the House of Commons?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

The government is being very cynical. If there is one word that describes the Conservatives perfectly, it is hypocrisy. They are hypocrites. They are calling the official opposition hypocrites, but they are the real hypocrites. Once again, they are moving time allocation motions to cut debate short or, as is the case today with Motion No. 17, to extend sitting hours.

We are dealing with a majority government, yes, but a majority government that is excluding opposition members, Canadians, from parliamentary debate. That is truly unacceptable.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is a strange thing that we are hearing today. NDP members have said in most of their speeches that when a bill is too long, let us say over 10 pages, that it is too much for them to read, and now they are being asked, God forbid, to stay here until midnight to debate.

Do those members honestly think that the people of Canada, who pay us $160,000 a year to be in this place and to debate issues of importance to them, think that we should be going home early at a time when we have so much on our agenda, including Canada's economic action plan and a whole host of bills?

Those members talk about debate. A bill was brought forward by a Liberal member of Parliament with respect to philanthropy day, and NDP members decided to filibuster that bill. They wanted all of their members to speak to it because it was such a controversial bill. Is that the type of debate they are talking about? They cannot even pass a bill that would see us thank Canadians who give so much of their time and their money to help make our communities better. Is that the type of debate they are talking about?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, right from the beginning and at every turn, the government has not been democratic in the least. It has been controlling on every level, especially when it comes to debates, which it has either extended or imposed closure on. The results are the same. Parliamentarians are muzzled and Canadians do not get straight answers.

I repeat, that is unacceptable. Coming from a majority government, that is even more unacceptable.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is rather bizarre. As many members have said before me, it is quite surprising that the government is using the excuse of urgency.

The government has imposed closure a record 33 times, as well as restrictions on the time allowed to study bills in committee. With Bill C-60, this same government gave notice of a time allocation motion after only one hour of debate. I did say only one hour of debate. This is the same government that introduced monster omnibus bills because it did not want the committees and parliamentarians to properly study their legislative proposals in good faith.

I am not afraid of hard work. I am a doctor by training and I am used to 12-hour and even 24-hour shifts. It is not pleasant, but you get used to it.

My colleagues and I have not hesitated to stand up to the government and to do our jobs, as was the case with legislation to force Canada Post employees back to work and regarding their working conditions. We stood our ground when necessary.

It is obvious that the Conservatives do not have any respect for democratic institutions. I just mentioned the 33 time allocation motions they have imposed since May 2, 2011. What a sorry record.

The omnibus bills, such as Bills C-38 and C-45, are perfect examples of this. The Conservatives have steamrolled their way through adopting measures that Canadians and parliamentarians did not have the chance to scrutinize.

As everyone knows, the appropriate committees were unable to properly study Bill C-38 because it was not split up. That is disrespectful. With Bill C-45, the Conservatives used a different approach in order to curry favour with the public.

However, I can speak from my experience with the Standing Committee on Health. What a joke. The committee's meeting on Bill C-45 started late because of yet another time allocation motion. We then heard from witnesses and had just one round of questions. It is clear to me that the government did not really want the committees to study the impact of the measures. It just wanted to look better without having to do better. That too shows a lack of respect for our democratic institutions.

I also think that what is happening in committee is not right. Many witnesses take the time to come here to speak to subjects or bills that are important to them. Most of the time, however, their contributions are ignored. It is as though the committees were a waste of time. In any event, the outcome is prepared in advance by the Prime Minister's Office and so are many of the Conservative members' statements.

Yesterday, the House Leader of the Official Opposition said that 99.3% of all amendments proposed by the opposition have been rejected by the government.

This implies that every single one of the bills the government introduces is practically perfect.

In 99.3% of the cases, the government outright rejected all of the testimony from witnesses and experts, all of the comments from the public and all of the amendments proposed during the study of the bill. That is simply impossible.

Based on what we heard from witnesses, and after studying some bills in the Standing Committee on Health, I know that some of these bills could have benefited from the proposed amendments.

The NDP is not afraid of work. The problem is that I am not sure the government wants to extend our hours in order to get more work done. It has not guaranteed that we will be here until the summer recess.

I belong to a party that has the word “democratic” in its name, and I take these issues very seriously. The people of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert put their trust in me on May 2, 2011, and I am doing my best to represent them.

Canadians sent us here to ask the necessary questions and to implement the best policies and public practices. We think that the government should take action so that we can do our job properly. The Prime Minister is now playing the victim over what happened in the Senate with senators he himself appointed solely to raise money for the Conservative Party of Canada. The Prime Minister is now playing the victim and wondering how this could have happened.

How could his chief of staff give a $90,000 cheque to a senator the Prime Minister himself appointed? How could his chief of staff—who sat right next to him every single day, who knows the government's deepest, darkest secrets and who the Prime Minister put in charge of major trade files and negotiations with other countries—do that?

Of course, the Prime Minister's hands are clean, and he has nothing to say about this. He believes that his hands are so clean that he is not going to answer any questions about it. He is going to South America for trade talks with countries we already have trade deals with.

Parliament should become less irrelevant. We think it is wrong that it ever became irrelevant. When the government is wrong in its treatment and abuse of Canada's Parliament, that affects all Canadians, whatever their political persuasion. We think what the government is doing is fundamentally wrong and that it needs a little adult supervision from time to time to take some of those suggestions and put a little, as we say, water in its wine. The government needs that more than anything.

It has the majority. This is the irony of what the government is doing. In moving more time allocation than any government in history, shutting down debate more than any government in history and relying on the tactics it is using today, it is showing weakness, not strength.

The Conservatives have the numbers to move legislation through if they saw fit, but they do not. They move legislation, they say it is an agenda and they hold up a raft of bills.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the beginning of my colleague's speech.

She spoke about the fact that the Conservatives' sense of urgency is driving them to extend the sitting hours of the House of Commons. I believe she is aware that there are costs associated with extending the sitting hours and that, in the end, Canadians foot the bill.

Personally, dealing with the Senate is the only urgent issue I can see. I believe there is some urgency in that case. People have cheated and really shown a lack of goodwill.

Is that why the government wants to extend the sitting hours?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her brilliant question.

She is quite right. We do not understand this urgency. As she so aptly put it, what is urgent is that we look into what senators are doing with taxpayers' money.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 8:01 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #690