Debates of Feb. 28th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Additional Allotted Days

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, given the member was a speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature, I am sure he can appreciate more than most how important it is to make a major change to a Standing Order or change a rule substantially.

My colleague raises the issue that virtually all opposition members can be cited. I can recall so many incidents in the House where the Conservative members were jumping out of their seats when we tried to make changes to the Standing Orders. The argument then was that if we were going to make substantial changes, we should have a consensus from all the parties.

Given his role as a speaker before, would he not agree that having a consensus on a rule change of this nature should be something achievable, and if it is not achievable, then maybe it is not a good rule change or there needs to be a compromise of some sort?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am new here.

I am not sure how many terms you have served, sir, but—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member has been in a legislature and should know that he is to address his questions and comments to the Chair.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member should know that this does not change the Standing Orders at all.

This member, who has been here for many terms, does not realize that this does not change the Standing Order whatsoever.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, in British Columbia, we have a forestry crisis. We also have deep-seated issues with money laundering. There are many things that I would like to see us debate that are not getting any attention from the government.

I am sure that there are other examples this member could give right now. Could he please share some of these examples?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will give a brief answer. “What went wrong with the Roughriders last year?” would be one of the debate questions I would like to put forward in the future. It was a terrible second half and I believe the Roughriders should have been playing better in the western final.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a very short point of order, but an important one.

The member made a comment on heckling, which is a comment on a point of order. I would like to ask, it is a very important thing these days, if the Speaker could get back at a later time, not to shorten this, to their position on that suggested change to a point of order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would consider that more of a debate than a point of order, and I think that all members know fully well that it is very difficult to hear members when there is heckling, and it is a form of disrespect. I would hope that members will respect other members when they are speaking, whether it is through debates or questions and comments or question period.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, generally speaking, whenever I have the opportunity to share some thoughts with members of the chamber, I am quite delighted to do so.

I am very disappointed in the Conservatives and their approach to what they wanted to debate today. There are all sorts of misrepresentations and false impressions that I believe they are trying to give to Canadians.

Let us bring it back to the last federal election. It was very clear that Canadians from coast to coast to coast wanted to see political parties work better together in order to deliver more for Canadians. That was the request of Canadians, and we have taken that request very seriously.

It is not just the governing party that has a responsibility to listen to what Canadians said back in the last federal election; so does the official opposition. However, I have not witnessed that reformed behaviour coming from the Conservative Party. What I have seen is Conservatives doing whatever they can, such as a filibuster, to disrupt the House of Commons from things that are taking place in the chamber. They know what sort of spin to put on different issues to try to come across as if they are doing it for so-called good reasons.

I have served many years as a parliamentarian and I have been involved in minority governments at both the national level and the provincial level. At the end of the day, yes, there is a responsibility for the government, and we take that responsibility seriously, but there is also a particular responsibility for the official opposition, and I wish they would take that role seriously.

Let us take a flashback to last Friday. The Conservative opposition always says that we never provide enough debate on important legislation, and we have indeed had very important legislation, including medical assistance in dying; a trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico; and changes to the Canada Border Services Agency, as well as throne speech debates. There have been all sorts of debates of real consequence to Canadians throughout our nation, and time and time again we have seen the Conservatives say that they want more time to debate things. They want to have more time to debate on anything and everything.

Last Friday, we were debating legislation to make changes to the Canada Border Services Agency. From what I understand, every member in this House actually supports this legislation and is going to be voting in favour of it.

Last Friday, what did the Conservatives do? They actually moved to adjourn the House for the day, saying to Canadians that they did not want to have debate that day and they wanted to shut it down. The Liberal caucus was here in numbers and wanted to continue debating government bills, but the Conservatives wanted to take the afternoon off. Then they realized that the Liberals were not the only ones who were prepared to work; so were the Bloc and the NDP, and that is the reason they lost that vote.

What did the Conservatives do next? They moved to adjourn debate, not so we could move on to debate another bill but because they wanted to force another vote in order to prevent debate on a bill.

On the one hand, the Conservatives say they want to debate government bills. On the other hand, they say they want to take time off. The Conservative mentality is to say, “Let us be as disruptive as we can for the House of Commons, and then what we will do is blame the Liberals for not having enough time to debate legislation. We are going to say that the Liberals cannot pass legislation.”

Give me a class of grade 6 students in any community in Canada, and I could prevent a government from being able to debate legislation to a final end. Anyone can do that. They do not have to be a genius in order to prevent government legislation from passing. Unlike private members' bills, unless we are prepared to bring in time allocation, we will not be able to get things done because the Conservatives, time and time again will persist in filibustering any government initiative.

The Conservatives do not want a government that is functional. They will do anything to prevent things from happening inside the House of Commons. That is what I have witnessed as a minority government, and that is why I say shame on them. It is not a message that was just sent to the governing party: There is an expectation from the public that the official opposition has to behave in a responsible manner.

Let us think about the motion they have brought forward today. They say they want to have more opposition days. They want to have four more opposition days. If we look up the word hypocrisy in the dictionary, we might find a lot of similarities between how that is defined and the behaviour, comments and direction that are coming from the Conservative Party.

This is a substantial change or deviation from the rules. The Conservatives would have argued endlessly that we should never do that. I remember the thumping of the desks, the endless questions of privilege and points of order. When I say endless, we are talking about hours and hours. What about the filibuster from the critic of finance, when he consumed virtually the entire budget debate? They are proud of that. They did all of this because the Liberal government attempted to make some changes to the rules, which were nowhere near as profound as what they are trying to do for this session.

The Conservatives now say that they would give the Bloc one of those opposition days, and give the NDP one of those opposition days. Why not give everyone an opposition day, and they will all vote in favour of it.

How does that make our system any better? Why did they not approach the government and ask if there were some things they could do to accommodate the government also? If the Conservatives genuinely believe that they want to see an additional number of opposition days, I am open to that.

I spent most of my years as a parliamentarian in opposition. I see the value of that, but I also see the value of having debate on government legislation. What they are saying is that opposition days are only good on Mondays, Tuesdays and maybe Thursdays. That is what they are saying, because Wednesdays and Fridays are short days. They are saying that on the government agenda, the short days are for debate. By the way, they are complaining because they are not getting enough time to debate. It is hypocrisy.

It is truly amazing. I think of the Standing Orders and the important role that the Standing Orders play for the chamber. I like to consider myself as a parliamentarian first and foremost. It is disrespectful, the type of motion that has been brought forward, with not one word of negotiation taking place with the government members.

I have personal opinions of how we can make this chamber more effective and more functional so that Canadians would benefit. I have even made the offer that I would love to sit down with government members and opposition members in all political parties to talk about some of those rules. I will continue that effort because I believe in that, but what we are witnessing today is wrong. I hope that Canadians will see through what the Conservatives are really trying to do here. It is not in the best interests of Canadians. If there is a Conservative who has the bravado and is prepared to go to a university and debate this with me, I would welcome that debate.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Let's do it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have one member who says he is prepared to do it.

I look forward to it. Maybe we could do something in Ottawa or something in Winnipeg, ideally. I would be open to possibly doing something in another location, anywhere.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Carleton.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Carleton? Let us see if we can make that happen. The point is I look forward to that debate. I really do.

I believe in Parliament. I believe in the Standing Orders. I also believe what the opposition is doing today is childish and inappropriate, and of great disservice to Canadians.

Parliamentarians who believe in the importance of our rules should listen and read some of the statements the Conservative Party made two or three years ago. Conservative members should reflect on their behaviour from two or three years ago. They should take a look at what took place in the procedure and House affairs committee. I could cite many examples to demonstrate the amount of hypocrisy we are seeing from the other side.

Ultimately, I hope the motion is defeated. I really do. If it is defeated, I am open to looking at ways we can improve the functionality of this chamber. I believe in this chamber. I think that each and every one of us is blessed in many ways by having a seat here. I am very grateful to the residents of Winnipeg North for entrusting me to be their representative.

I will continue, as much as I possibly can, to ensure that this chamber remains effective in meeting the needs of Canadians in all regions of our country. That allows for debates on private members' business, opposition day motions, government bills and everything else that comes to the floor of the House of Commons.

I am prepared, as the Prime Minister has clearly indicated, to listen to what Canadians want. Canadians want opposition parties and government to work together on the important issues that our country is facing today. We will stand up for that on this side of the House, day in and day out.

With respect to why the Conservatives brought this motion today, I have heard members say that it is a punishment issue. They thought we were absolutely fixated on making today an opposition day. Again, that is just not true. I stood right here in my place yesterday and made the suggestion that we use today to debate the Canada-United States-Mexico trade agreement. I asked the House for support to do that. The opposition chose not to have that debate today.

Now the Conservatives are criticizing us because we are having this debate, because Friday is the opposition day. Again, there is a word that comes to mind. I think they need to reflect on their behaviour and understand the important role that all of us have been asked to fill.

Let us look at the rules with regard to private members' business and government business.

There was a time when time allocation was not used all that often. A number of years ago, time allocation started to become an effective tool for House management. When I sat in opposition, I did not like the use of time allocation. As I said when I was in opposition, unfortunately if there is no sense of co-operation in the passing of government bills, time allocation is needed.

For those following the debate, the reason for this is that it is virtually unlimited. The House of Commons could spend a full year of the chamber's debate time on one bill. The Conservatives could force the government to bring in time allocation by choosing to put up speakers endlessly on pieces of legislation, and they know that.

We have seen in recent years that even when the Conservatives support a piece of legislation they will continue to put up speakers, challenging and baiting the government to bring in time allocation. There have been situations where the NDP has supported the government in bringing in time allocation because it recognized some of the pieces of legislation the members wanted to see passed. The only way they were going to be passed was with time allocation.

Were Conservatives thinking about Canadians then? No. Are they thinking about Canadians today with this motion? I do not believe it for a moment. I look forward to the debate with the member opposite who offered to have that debate. The Conservatives want to talk about private members. The nice thing about private members is that members from all political parties get to bring forward legislation, and sometimes it is very substantial. Other times it is still important and good legislation, and it passes quite easily. Often there are many members who want to speak to a private member's bill, but they cannot speak because it is a very well-defined amount of time.

If a member brings in a private member's bill, there are two hours of debate at second reading. Then it goes to committee and it has a maximum amount of time there. Then it comes back to the House at report stage and third reading for a combined two hours.

That means a very small number of MPs can contribute to the debate. It is one of the ways in which private members' business is allowed to get through. I believe that we need to start looking at how we can ensure that not only private members' business gets through the House, but also how government bills get through the House.

I am an advocate of those types of reforms because I believe there are many issues that we could debate. If we could figure it out, maybe we could have more opposition days, but we need to realize that legislation is important, whether it is from private members or the government. We need to come up with a way. I challenge the opposition Bloc, NDP, the Greens and even my Conservative friends to work with the government. Let us work on behalf of Canadians and come up with ways to ensure that legislation, whether it is private members' business or government bills, has a way to proceed through the chamber.

I have ideas I will be happy to share when I have more time to speak. If we can come up with the answer to that in a productive way, then it allows us to have additional debates on some of the issues that members want to talk about. I think coronavirus is a critically important issue for Canadians. There is a legitimate amount of concern that needs to be addressed, whether by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Health. We are doing as much as we can, but maybe we could have more debate if we can nail down the rule changes that are necessary. If we cannot, there are still ways.

In the last two weeks, we have had two emergency debates in the House of Commons. Those were brought forward by opposition members. There are many ways we can deal with the important issues that Canadians face. They are expecting the national government to provide leadership.

I would appeal to all members of the House to look at ways to change our Standing Orders, and work together trying to come up with ways to improve this chamber. That is what is in the best interests of Canadians. That is the reason why my recommendation is that we vote against the motion. My commitment is to work with all members of the House to ensure that we have a more functional House so that all Canadians will benefit from rule changes.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about having a debate off campus about important issues of parliamentary procedure. He also talked about the importance of being willing to work on Friday afternoons.

I took the member up on the challenge of wanting to have a debate. I would love to debate the hon. member on parliamentary procedure in Ottawa at my alma mater of Carleton University and in Winnipeg. I suggest we do the Winnipeg debate closer to the summer, with all due respect, but we can do the one at Carleton right away. My staff has already called the member's staff. Unfortunately, nobody was answering the phone on a Friday afternoon, but we will continue to make those calls and hopefully we will be able to get through and schedule that.

The member made a choice of denying unanimous consent in the House when a proposal was put forward by our party to debate Bill C-4 today, which would have been a show of good faith and allowed us to move forward more quickly. Conservatives at no point rejected moving forward with that. That is what we wanted to be debating today. The government chose to stall the ratification of the new NAFTA instead, because it wanted to give this narrow time slot to the opposition day.

Why is the government stalling NAFTA?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, first, I would ask my friend to call my constituency office at 204-984-1767. I have between 400 to 600 case files a month and, as a result, my staffing is in my constituency. This is where I put my financial resources to serve the constituents of Winnipeg North, and so I do not have staff in Ottawa. If he has some extra money, I would be happy to use some of it to have some staff here.

In regard to the motion that the member made reference to, what I can tell him is that I stood in this very spot yesterday and I asked for the House to support us to be able to debate the free trade agreement today for Canada, Mexico and the United States. Unfortunately, members of the opposition said no.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, our colleague from Winnipeg North is telling us with a great deal of conviction that choosing Friday as an allotted day for the Conservative Party was not intended as a punishment. However, on this side of the House, we have yet to hear the reason why this Friday was chosen when that is not common practice.

I will ask the question directly to my colleague: If this is not punishment, then what is it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as members know, there are five days in a week here in the House of Commons. If we take a look, traditionally we will see that there are times when the House has had opposition days on Wednesdays and Fridays. There is a great deal of legislation on it.

However, if the member were right, why then would I have stood up yesterday and asked for us to debate the trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico? That is really what we wanted to be debating today. Maybe some in the opposition are giving misinformation. If it was about punishment, why would I have stood up yesterday asking for debate on trade?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to take up the challenge of having a real debate on how Parliament could function. I know that my colleagues from other parties want to engage in that as well. I look forward to hearing from the member for Winnipeg North in this regard.

The member for Winnipeg North is very eloquent, but in this case he is actually using his eloquence to convince people to vote for the opposition motion, because by belittling members of the opposition and by insulting them, what he is doing is showing that the government has not yet understood that it is a minority government and it needs to be respectful of all members of Parliament.

When we look at all the issues that opposition days have raised in the past that have led to changes in government policy, it is obvious that this will be a benefit. Having this motion adopted would mean more issues get discussed on the floor of the House of Commons.

The history of this government, sadly, in the last Parliament, was not good when it came to respecting Parliament. I remember the days of Motion No. 6, which was brought forward by the Liberals. It sought, in the most draconian way, going even further than even Mr. Harper would have imagined, to shut down opposition MPs and their rights and privileges in the House of Commons.

Does the member now regret the Liberal government moving forward with Motion No. 6 and seeking to eliminate the rights of opposition MPs?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I reflected a great deal about the last election, recognizing the fact that all of us have an important role, whether in government or in opposition, to be responsible and accountable for the behaviours inside the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has been very clear on this. Canadians from coast to coast to coast want us to co-operate. If a high sense of co-operation takes place on the floor of the House of Commons, we can accomplish a great deal for all Canadians.

We have demonstrated this, and there are several examples that I can refer to, whether it was working with the Bloc on the throne speech, working on the trade agreement where we appeared to have the support of all members or working on Canada border control. There are many examples, and we are committed to continue to doing that. I even indicated that, if this motion is defeated, I am happy to work on how we can change the rules so that Canadians will have a more functional House of Commons.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague and his incredible staff, who are, I am sure, doing wonderful work for the citizens of Winnipeg North this Friday afternoon.

The hon. member is a veteran of the House and the provincial legislature in Manitoba. Given the experience he has had, could the member elaborate on the lessons he has learned about the government's role in advancing our agenda and the constructive role the opposition needs to play in ensuring that we advance the important issues that Canadians want us to advance?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I learned very quickly when I was first elected back in 1988, because it was a minority government and I was part of the House leadership team even back then. Reg Alcock, who might be known to some individuals, became a member of Parliament and was House leader. One thing we took very seriously, because we were in a minority situation, is that we had to be responsible in recognizing that the government is the government and that when we could support legislation, even if we opposed it, it was important to allow it to go through the process.

Here in Ottawa, after a bill goes through second reading it goes to a standing committee. Standing committees allow Canadians from across the country to participate in what is being put together. Not every member has to speak on every piece of legislation. If we were to do that, we would only be able to pass two or three pieces of legislation maximum in one year.

It takes nothing to prevent legislation from passing. However, It takes a responsible House to ensure that private members' business and government business are properly dealt with for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think Liberal members still do not realize they do not have a majority government. I feel the pain they are going through now in their not understanding they are in a minority government.

There is a phrase that goes, “sow the wind and reap the whirlwind”. That is what today's motion is all about, and I hope the member realizes and understands that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, virtually from day one, we have recognized what Canadians' expectations of this government are. It was not that long into the session that we lost a vote because opposition parties came together. I suspect that we will continue at times to lose votes. There is nothing wrong with that. It is part of what has taken place as a direct result of the last federal election.

I challenge members to recognize that not only the government was provided that message. All of us were told there is an expectation that we work together for the betterment of Canadians. That is what I am committed to doing, as is the Prime Minister.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I heard the member say several things, among them the word “force”. He believes that the opposition would force the government to bring in time allocation.

How does he define doing politics differently? The motion before him changes how things are done. Collaboration is a two-way street.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, “differently” would mean, for example, debating this motion today without even attempting to talk to anyone in government or sitting down with government members.

I am making myself available. We can look at how to make rule changes, from which all Canadians would benefit, in dealing with the important issues that Canadians face day in and day out.