Debates of May 30th, 2017

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member on Motion No. 14, which is the motion to extend sitting hours until midnight until the end of June. I note the government House leader's mandate letter from the Prime Minister last fall reads, “Work with Opposition House Leaders to examine ways to make the House of Commons more family-friendly for Members of Parliament.”

Also, on the New Democrat side, we are concerned that this workplace on the Hill be family friendly for staffers as well. Therefore, my question is this: how does the member feel that extending sitting hours for four weeks to midnight is family friendly for either members of Parliament or staffers with young families?

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that not so long ago, last year, we had the exact same thing in Parliament. We had extended hours. This is not new. I agree that it is not family friendly, but that is also part of what we want to do. We want to make this place more productive and family friendly. That is why we are here today having to extend the hours to pass legislation that Canadians are counting on us to pass. It is something to get our country moving again.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I really believe that the member has hit the nail on the head. He is right on. We need to have extended hours. We within the Liberal caucus are not scared to put in some overtime. I look forward to how my colleagues across the way will ultimately vote. If they were listening on that side of the House perhaps they will vote in favour of what the government House leader has put forward.

My colleague made reference to and put a lot of emphasis on the cannabis legislation. He also referenced the budget legislation. There are a number of pieces of legislation. We have a fairly aggressive legislative agenda, which includes both legislation dealing with budgetary and non-budgetary issues. I wonder if my colleague would not agree, and possibly provide some further comment, that Canadians have an expectation that when we come to Ottawa we will be productive and look at ways we can improve our communities as a whole.

One of the best things we can do is to work a little extra. Stephen Harper did the same thing. In the last 10 years we have seen it happen seven times. There is nothing new here. Why would the opposition not vote in favour of this extension? Let us work a little harder and be a little more productive. Would the member not agree?

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I certainly want to finish this session by going back to my riding and telling Canadians that we have moved this agenda, that we have passed legislation, and that we have passed good measures for Canadians.

What better way to celebrate Canada Day than to go back and say that we have been productive, even with all the difficulties we have had? I respect the opposition's right to question, but we have to make it serious. We have to make sure that what we are working on is for the benefit of the whole country.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member opposite might agree that the reason we have seen such a paralysis in the legislative process is due to the conduct of the government House leader and the House leadership team.

I want to share a quick quote from that notorious Conservative right-wing newspaper, the Toronto Star. Robin Sears writes:

The Liberals have installed one incompetent house leader after another, inflicting serious wounds on their own credibility. Perhaps a seasoned veteran will remind the newbies that exceptionally deft and silk smooth house management was always part of the Liberal DNA. From Alan MacEachern, through Herb Gray, to [the member for Regina—Wascana], and Don Boudria, Liberal house leaders were the gold standard.

Those veterans must wince at the mess [the government House leader] has made for this government of parliamentary reform, let alone any cross-bench goodwill.

Would the member agree that the incompetence and the mismanagement by his own party's House leadership team has put us in the state we are now, where we are seeing a trickle of government legislation actually being passed through this place and sent to the other place and then having it sent back here again?

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing but respect for our House leader. She has worked tremendously hard to work with the other side. We have seen all kinds of delay tactics. We have seen guests from all over the country being denied the right to speak at committee. Even with that, we are sitting here today with the potential to pass very productive legislation, including the bill that I partially described and I am hoping will come back again.

I have nothing but respect and I think we have a very good House leader. I, for one, am ready to work until this session is ended in order to have a productive record to bring back to my riding. I hope everyone on the other side feels the same.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one of the key questions in this debate is whether extending sitting hours until midnight is the best way to facilitate a focused and attentive discussion on legislation before the House. I wonder if my colleague across the way is concerned that it might instead result in members becoming fatigued and reading the wrong speech by mistake.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member wishes I can finish the speech right now. It is the speech that I intended to read, but I do agree that working until midnight is going to be very tough and very tiring but I am ready to do it. We are in this situation because of the delay tactics that happened over the session. I will drink 10 cups of coffee if I have to, but I am ready to work and tell my constituents that I have worked hard and we have moved this agenda forward.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the great privilege to work with members on all sides of the House on a book called Turning Parliament Inside Out, about how we could improve decorum in this place. One of the problems that we now see ourselves facing, it is very much in front of us, is the prospect of sitting until midnight through every day of June. It is one thing to work hard, but I have been through this before, every June of the 41st Parliament we sat until midnight every night, and unlike other members who had parties where they could trade on and off, I sat until midnight every night. I can swear to members it was not all that productive. I am not allowed to speak of the absence of members, but let us say there was lots of room in here.

The difficulty we face is that it is absolutely right, as the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake says, that the House leaders on the opposition side decided to run a campaign of dilatory motions, that this House now adjourn, that this member now be heard, that we lost lots of time, and it is as if the punishment for that is sitting until midnight until we get through an agenda.

I do not know the solution, but I can say that I can identify the problem. The problem is allowing backroom political strategists to decide what we do in this place for the benefit of the next election instead of, as members of Parliament, standing in our places on our own two feet and deciding what we should do for our constituents to make them proud.

It is a sad moment when one side of the House decides to monkeywrench and the other side of the House decides to punish. It is not what our constituents want to see. It is not productive. It is not the best solution, but I do understand how the government House leader feels forced into this by the loss of time through the tactics of the last few weeks. I do not support any side in this. I just think it is a bloody shame that we cannot work together more effectively and more collaboratively.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I have lots of respect for my colleague, the leader of the Green Party, because at times I cannot even hear, and I know my hearing is going down.

I have a lot of respect for her stand on how to make the House work better and more efficiently. If we had done that, we probably would not have to sit until midnight. However, I am ready to work. I am hoping that everyone else is.

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Science]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the motion to extend the sitting hours in the House.

Our government believes that good, corporate governance is one of the mechanisms that help support economic efficiency and growth. We recognize that our country is at its most prosperous when everyone has a fair chance at success. That is why, in September 2016, we introduced Bill C-25, enhancing business frameworks and promoting inclusive economic growth.

Bill C-25 makes important adjustments to the framework laws that govern the Canadian marketplace. It would increase shareholder democracy and participation, increase women's representation, as well as diversity, on corporate boards and in senior management, improve corporate transparency, reduce regulatory burden, and increase business certainty.

Both official opposition parties have expressed support for this legislation, as have many stakeholder groups. However, the bill has been stuck at report stage since early April. I would like to take this opportunity to share with the House some of the key elements of this important piece of legislation. Specifically, I would like to focus on competitiveness in our economy.

Bill C-25 makes a number of targeted amendments to our economic framework laws in an effort to bring them up to date for our modern economy. Keeping our laws relevant is beneficial in a number of ways. It allows us to embrace best practices, remove ambiguity and minimize regulatory burden, just to name a few.

Competitiveness is a word that we hear a lot when discussing the economy, but it is also one of those words whose meaning may change a fair amount, depending on the context. When Red Wilson's competition policy review panel undertook an examination of Canada's competition and investment policies in 2007 and 2008, it set out to provide recommendations to the government on how to enhance Canadian product—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can anticipate already what the parliamentary secretary will say. Once again we have a reprinted speech on another bill so that they can argue about how they are pushing their legislative agenda. The member is specifically referencing Bill C-25.

We were looking at who the next speakers would be, and some, including me, I dare say, actually have things to say about Motion No. 14, which is before the House.

I understand the leeway you give, Mr. Speaker. I have tried to benefit from that leeway myself, as we all have, but unfortunately, I think, we have talked so much in the last few months about the way this place works, that at the very least, if we are to invoke closure, it would be nice if we could actually deal with the motion in the limited time that we have.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I have been sitting here listening for the last, at least, half an hour while the Liberals have been completely off topic on an issue that they brought forward. They are giving us lectures about how the House should work effectively. They refuse to even stay on target, on the motion that we are supposed to be talking about.

They have wasted a number of minutes of time. The parliamentary secretary runs back and forth giving speeches out to people on the other side so that they have something to say. Why do they not let some folks over here who want to speak to this issue get up and speak to it?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I will allow the hon. parliamentary secretary to continue, and I am sure she will bring it around to the topic at hand.

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, this is the topic at hand. I mentioned that Bill C-25 has been stuck at report stage since early April. That is the point. We want to continue to make sure that we get through our agenda. The fact of the matter is that we have not been able to do so because of the opposition's tactics, so in fact we are here.

It is eight o'clock, and I am quite proud to be here and will continue to be here until midnight tonight, and again midnight tomorrow night if necessary, because I agree that it is important to continue to talk about the government's agenda and what we have to accomplish.

Of course, the budget is so important. There is so much that we have to get through so that we can, in fact, do what Canadians voted us in to do. It is so important that we continue the amount of work that we have. We have talked about the budget. We have talked about tax fairness and historic investments in infrastructure that we must move forward. If we do not, we will not be able to complete our agenda. That is what Canadians expect of us and that is what we will continue to do.

In fact, I will continue to read this. I know it is a speech that has been prepared, but it has important information that I think we all need to hear. I will pick up from where I left off, talking about Red Wilson's competition policy review panel.

I could possibly continue on, if you would like me to, Mr. Speaker.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure if the only objective of the Liberals this evening is to mock the opposition members on this side. As mentioned, it is the motion that we are talking about, since we talked about the last point of relevance here. Obviously she is not going to discuss it. Maybe it would be better if she did and her House leader would allow people on this side to speak directly to Motion No. 14. We are running out of time, people have some things they would like to say, and we would appreciate that opportunity. It is almost as if the Liberals are mocking members on the other side of the House by the way they are handling this issue.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am not quite sure how to answer that. I will repeat what I have said before. It is up to individual members to debate their own way and bring forward what they believe is relevant. I have to leave it with the hon. parliamentary secretary, with the understanding that I am sure she will bring it back to the topic at hand tonight, which is Motion No. 14.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it does make for a long evening—I understand that—but we are all here for the right reasons. Certainly, this whole notion of extended hours is something that we are forced to deal with. It is important that all of us have a chance to talk about it and have a say in whether extended hours are necessary. I certainly believe they are.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 8:05 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Government Business No. 14 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 Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.