Debates of May 29th, 2018

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the obviously more experienced member's question. That is what he just said. On Thursday of last week I telegraphed that we would be bringing forward a motion, and what did the opposition members choose to do? They chose to ensure that the government could do no business.

The member asked about fear of debate. Members on this side do not fear debate; we welcome debate. That is exactly why we brought forward a motion to say, let us debate more, let us extend the hours so that more members can be part of the debate and represent their constituents in this place.

We committed to Canadians that we would work hard for them. We committed to Canadians that their voices would be heard in this place, and this is just another way to ensure that every member of Parliament who wants to debate the important legislation this government is advancing has an opportunity to do so. I look forward to hearing—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw upon the earlier comments by the House leader. We come to this place to be able to debate legislation and have an opportunity to bring the voices of our constituents here and to do the good work that Canadians have elected us for.

One of the members talked about family obligations. I do have family obligations as well, and I try to balance these as much as possible while I am here, but we also know that while we are here, there is opportunity for us to engage not only with our own members, but also with members of the opposition who ask good questions, to hear debate and to be able to challenge each other.

I would like the House leader to further explain to Canadians why this motion in particular is so important.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by commending the member and the level of discourse she brings to this place. I have seen her on numerous occasions represent the voices of her constituents. When it comes to the depth of policy knowledge she brings to this place, it has raised the level of debate. I encourage more members to study the bills that we are putting forward so they can ensure that their constituents' voices are heard here. That is exactly why we would like to extend the hours.

We know that at this time of the year most governments have extended hours so that members can do more to represent Canadians and advance good bills. This will provide an opportunity for more members to be part of an important debate to ensure that the voices of their constituents are heard right here, because it is the House of the people.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, I would like her to elaborate. We have had many opportunities to ask for more debate and have always been turned down. Today, she is asking us to take part in debates, and we will take part in them because on this side of the House, the opposition side, we like to have our say on behalf of our constituents.

Is this charade the government's way of muzzling us on bills that should have been passed a long time ago?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. This is an opportunity to have more hours of debate in order to allow a greater number of hon. members to participate.

If we want to talk about this place and being cute, let us talk about last week.

We returned to this House on Tuesday after the constituency week. What did the opposition members do? They started by moving concurrence. What did they do all week long? They moved concurrence rather than debate the legislation before the House.

The opposition members talk about the importance of knowing what is taking place. This government committed to openness and transparency. I have been telegraphing what the business of the days will be so that members can be part of meaningful debate. What have the opposition members chosen to do? They have chosen to play games. They have chosen to use tactics rather than be here representing the voices of their constituents. They have chosen to put the voice of their party before the voices of Canadians.

On this side of the House, we will put Canadians first.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Just as a reminder to all hon. members, and in this case the hon. government House leader, in this 30-minute period for questions, the questions are generally reserved for opposition members. We will have time for the two other members of the government side who are standing. We will get those two in, and probably not much more than that.

Going to questions now, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with a brief remark. I have to say that I do take exception to the implication by the government House leader that there is something wrong with the House's debating and voting concurrence on committee reports. That is in fact why committees report back to the House, so that those reports can be considered. If the House decides it wants to concur in a report by a committee, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Therefore, for her to somehow suggest that there is something untoward going on, that there is something wrong in principle, or that it is a bad thing for members to be concerned about the good work they do in committee that has come before the House to be discussed at large and then voted on by the House is just ridiculous. It would be nice to have a government House leader who actually understood this place well enough to know that there is nothing wrong with moving concurrence in a committee report.

I will digress from that point and move to my main point. The government moved time allocation on Bill C-76. My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley proposed to the minister a way forward that would include the right amount of debate and consultation with Canadians. The minister said no and moved time allocation. Therefore, the demand for extra sitting time is odd coming from a government that is refusing to respond to proposals by the opposition on how to effectively study bills.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we do not talk about committee business in this place. However, now that the member opposite has welcomed the opportunity, I do so as well.

I believe that my colleagues on this side, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, has more than welcomed opportunities. However, rather than debate the important legislation that would allow more Canadians to vote in the next election, what are the opposition members doing? They are currently in committee right now filibustering rather than getting to important government legislation. That legislation is Bill C-76, which brings forward 85% of the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer. It is the right thing to do for Canadians after what the previous government did to vandalize the opportunities for Canadians to vote. We are changing that so that many Canadians can vote. The NDP, rather than stand for Canadians, is today standing with the Conservatives to take away the right of Canadians to vote. That is disappointing—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would ask all hon. members to keep their interventions to around one minute.

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is certainly a lot of arrogance in the implication that the opposition members are just a problem here.

I want to point out that the Liberals claim they want debate. We are here today and are talking about a pipeline purchase by the government. However, the government will not give us the information on how much it will pay for it and what it will cost in the future. We have asked questions about the carbon tax. The government will not give us any information on those issues as well. Therefore, on many of these issues, we're left without any information at all, yet the government tells us that it wants us to come here to debate these issues. When is the government going to open up and be a lot more transparent with Canadians and us?

The Liberals claim they are representing Canadians. However, they are not doing that, but representing themselves. We need more information and more accountability. When is the government going to open up and give us the information we need to do our job here as well?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, whether in or outside this House, I have stated that every member of Parliament, regardless of the side they sit, serves a very important purpose. For months we have seen this place able to function when we work together. We are able to advance legislation. Members are able to represent their constituents, or their parties, as the Conservatives choose to do, and advance and vote on legislation as they choose. What is important is that the voices of Canadians be heard in this place. For a few months now, we have demonstrated that we can work together to ensure that we know how much time is needed for debate, and we can continue advancing legislation through the process, including in the other place.

What has transpired all of a sudden is that when we returned from the constituency week, the official opposition definitely chose not to continue with that gesture of good will. I continue to keep my door open and hope that we can return to the days when we were all able to work for and represent our constituents.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to come to the House and have the opportunity to debate. I enjoyed hearing that we are going to have extended hours, because I think it is extremely important that people from Winnipeg Centre ensure that their representative does have the opportunity to speak.

I know that sometimes debate does not go long enough, and there are more members than there were. Before, there were only 308 members of Parliament, and now there are 338 in the House of Commons.

I appreciate the opportunity. I believe the opposition should take this opportunity to debate longer into the future, until 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. even. We should run this place 24 hours a day so that every member who wishes to speak has that opportunity.

I am prepared to stay here, and I hope the opposition is, as well.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his commitment to represent Canadians in this place, and I agree.

A point that does not get raised often is that there are more members of Parliament in this place. Many members of Parliament have issues of concern, whether to them personally or to their constituents, ridings, or regions, and they want to be part of a meaningful debate. That is the way to advance good legislation for all Canadians. We need to hear the diversity of views.

When the Prime Minister says that diversity is our strength, he is not talking only about the shells that we occupy; he is talking about the diversity of regions, genders, experiences, and perspectives. We need to hear all of them, and this motion would allow us to debate more, to have more voices heard, and to continue advancing important legislation that will benefit Canadians.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, please do not accept those soothing words from the government House leader at face value. When we look at the actions of the Liberal government, it is very clear that it has no intention of allowing free and open debate in the House.

Members may recall that when the Prime Minister was first elected, he provided mandate letters to all of his ministers. Every one of them received a letter. In it, the Prime Minister said the following:

I made a personal commitment to bring new leadership and a new tone to Ottawa. We made a commitment to Canadians to pursue our goals with a renewed sense of collaboration.

The letter went on with all these promises about doing things differently, allowing open debate, and collaborating with colleagues in the House. However, nothing of the like has happened. In fact, it has gotten worse and worse: invoking closure on a regular basis, interfering at committees, and cutting off debate at committees. There were 100 amendments in our own committee that went through without debate because the government House leader instructed the Liberal chair of that committee to cut off debate.

This is a shameful performance on the part of the Liberal government, which promised to do things differently but is actually much worse than any government we have seen before.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Abbotsford would stand up in this place, because he was at the committee when it was debating Bill C-57, and he chose to advance an amendment that members on this side of the House worked hard to find a way to support. They actually fought for that amendment. Not only did they fight for that amendment, but they supported it. When that legislation returned to the House, the very same member, the member for Abbotsford, who moved the amendment and got support from the Liberal government at committee, chose to come to this place and exactly undo that amendment.

My parents always told me when I was growing up that one has to look at where it is coming from. When I hear comments from that member, I am reminded of the Harper government and the nonsense the Conservatives played in the House to take away from democracy.

We will not take lessons from the Conservatives.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the government House leader just said, we have to look at where the issue is coming from.

It was not so long ago that the Liberals formed a majority government in this place and said they would do things differently. They promised Canadians that they would not bring in closure on the Elections Act. However, this is what they are doing. They are doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.

I think every single member in the House deserves the opportunity to have full debate on this, because it matters. Democracy matters to Canadians, and how we do this matters. Following up on one's word and commitment matters. In politics, there is only one thing for all of us that defines who we are, and that is our word.

When the government continues to do what it does, and the House leader gets up to defend the government breaking its promise to Canadians, I would ask whether this is how she wants to be defined.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as all of us know, on Thursdays the government House leader is able to put forward the business of the House for the rest of that week and the week after. On Thursday, we telegraphed that we would be bringing forward this motion, and that is part of our commitment to openness and transparency.

I listened to the words of the member, and I really feel that she should be supporting this motion, because obviously she would like more time to debate. That is what we are trying to say: Let us extend the hours and have more time to debate so that more members can have their voices heard and we can advance more legislation. It sounds like a win-win-win situation.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the comments made by my colleague from Abbotsford.

The common theme that we are hearing from all members on the opposition side is that the government is not listening. It is playing games, bringing in closure, and passing motions and bills in committee, ignoring the input from the opposition.

The government promised that this would not happen. It promised to work with the opposition, but that is not happening. The same thing happened in the HUMA committee, where ministers came to answer questions on the main estimates and we were forbidden to ask any questions of any minister. The government brought in closure after the ministers made their speeches.

The government has no trouble bringing forward wonderful statements with lots of confetti, but it does not listen and it does not work. The government talks the talk but does not walk the walk. Why is that a common theme with the Liberal government?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is projecting. He is reminded of a time when a previous government was in this place for 10 years. I would like to give him some good news and remind him that a new government has come. We have been here for two and a half years. Our government has been listening, engaging, and consulting with Canadians, not only with party members, as the Conservatives did. We are engaging with Canadians. Members of our communities, whether they have been engaged with government or not, are being welcomed to the table. We want to hear from them. We want to ensure that legislation works for them.

Under this government, we have seen more witnesses appear at committee. Under this government, we have seen more resources for committees to do the important work they do. Under this government, we have seen more amendments accepted at committee than we surely did under the Harper Conservatives.

The member is mistaken. He needs to come into the 21st century. He needs to see that there is a new government in town, a government that not only talks about the importance of openness and transparency but is acting on it. The member can continue to project, but it is important that he open his eyes and embrace the new ways, because it will benefit all Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the comment made by the member for Langley—Aldergrove about the Liberals being open to ideas that come forward in committee. I would like to share an idea with him.

When I was on the environment committee, the member for Abbotsford brought forward a motion. All committee members had the opportunity to review the motion in good faith, and we came to the conclusion that his recommendation, his amendment, was a good idea. We voted unanimously in favour of it and sent it back to the House. Guess what happened when it got to the House. The member for Abbotsford stood up and basically put forward an amendment to delete it.

The whole objective of the opposition is to put roadblocks in front of the government to stop it from getting its work done. Would the government House leader not agree with that?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend the member for the great work he has been doing. The level of discourse he has been bringing to debate in this place on behalf of his constituents has been overwhelming. He does such a fabulous job.

I would entirely agree with the member that the tactics the Harper Conservatives used on the government benches, and the reason why they were put on the opposition benches, are the same tactics they are using today. Instead of encouraging the government to get work done, they will do anything they can to obstruct democracy. We saw it in their legislation. We see it in their actions. Day after day they continue to do just that.

Today, the Conservatives actually have an opportunity, as does the NDP, to support a motion that would extend the hours, provide more hours for debate, and provide for more legislation to get through that would benefit Canadians. They should continue voting however they think is important, but what we know is that the system works and they should support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way speaks a lot, but I do not think she is speaking with sincerity. She spent half her time attacking my colleague on her government's motion to extend the hours here.

I want to point out one other thing that does not seem to be apparent to Canadians, and that the Liberals are not telling them. The government has set this thing up so that nobody can make any change or do anything that would impact any legislation or activity in the House for most of the evening. The House goes on autopilot, which is just another way for cabinet ministers to go home and watch TV all evening while opposition members are required to be in the House to keep the debate going.

If Canadians watch closely enough, they will see who is here in the evenings, keeping the debate going, and who is not here. They should make note of that when it comes to the next election.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member of the opposition talks about somebody being attacked and then does quite the attack himself. We always have to look at where it is coming from. That is advice I received when I was little. It is advice I will continue to move forward with.

In the House, I have seen two committees of the whole in the last week. I saw the number of members on this side of the House, and I am sure there were not many other members. Perhaps they were doing other work. Work for all members continues, whether in this place, in their offices, or at different meetings and so forth. I think it is important that we note how many members will be here.

We are the government. We know that we need to advance important legislation. What we also recognize is the important work of the opposition. This motion does exactly that. It extends the hours and permits more time for debate for all members, on both sides of the House, which would benefit all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the House leader knows full well how this place works, so it is important that she not get mixed up. She keeps talking about the motion to extend our sitting hours and the hours of the House of Commons.

However, the motion we are asking questions about right now is a closure motion. The leader says it is fine because the opposition members are going to get more time, yet just one day ago, she gave three time allocation notices, or maybe more. This happens so often that I have lost count.

I would like the leader to explain something to me. We are debating a closure motion one day after the Liberals tabled multiple time allocation notices.

Is there any conclusion we can draw other than that we should just be calling them Stephen Harper's Liberals?