Debates of May 26th, 2020

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for over a month now, the Conservatives have been calling for greater accountability from the government.

I would like to ask the government House leader to tell us the consequences of the motion, Government Business No. 7, which we have put forward, and of the content and certainly the duration of that question period.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question.

In normal sittings, we have the equivalent of five question periods, which is five times 45 minutes. With this motion, we would come here four days a week physically. We would be here meeting and having fun, but our colleagues would also be able to participate from across the country. That is democracy. It is not just because someone who lives near Ottawa can ask a question, but anybody who has been elected should be able to ask a question. This is what we are doing.

I wonder why the opposition members have a problem if we are giving them more time than before to ask questions. I still do not know.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is not with the format, and Canadians are figuring this out. Perhaps that is the reason those members want to shut down debate. The problem is not the format. The problem is that we are dealing with a committee instead of Parliament itself sitting in this House, and Canadians have figured that out. They are not happy, because this is not what they were asking for and continue to ask the House for.

There is no reason, if there are four days that we are here, and we travel back and forth, that we cannot sit as a proper Parliament during those four days. The member's explanation is not acceptable.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague says that Canadians are not happy. I would say Conservatives are not happy.

Overall, MPs should be happy with the fact that there is more time to ask questions, because it is fundamental. We want that. We want to have more time for the opposition to ask important questions.

I was in the opposition for many years. I know how important the role of the opposition is, and the members are playing that role very well. We are giving them more time for more questions. They will be sitting this summer, with more hours a week with colleagues and big screens, being able to ask questions from across the country. It is a fair and balanced approach.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons say a few moments ago how well parliamentarians on both sides of the House had managed to collaborate so far, to the benefit of Canadians and Quebeckers. I think we can all agree. However, what we are witnessing right now is downright embarrassing. I am not sure that Parliament is earning any dignity and credibility with what has been going on for the past two days.

It seems to me that it should have been easy to come to an agreement. The Conservatives want Parliament to keep working in a more regular fashion. The government wants a hybrid Parliament. What is stopping us from doing both? No, the government decided that it did not have enough ideas for introducing new bills.

How come the government no longer wants to make legislation? Usually a government is elected to make legislation. This government does not want to make legislation. This government just wants to be asked questions behind closed doors here and allow the Prime Minister to keep putting on his daily sideshow in front of his cottage in Ottawa. What we are seeing is not particularly impressive.

It is also not particularly impressive that, in order to get what it wanted, the government negotiated with the NDP behind closed doors about something that is not even a federal matter. They tinkered with a provincial matter, without even talking to the provinces, just so that the Liberals could do what they want with Parliament. That is frankly embarrassing.

I will leave it there. The leader was saying that the Bloc did not participate in the negotiations. As we have said, we have been collaborating from the beginning, but when someone gives their word around a table, we expect them to keep their word. As soon as one party fails to keep its word, there is not enough trust to sit back down at the table. What we have seen over the past two days shows that we were right not to trust the Liberal government and sit down at the table with them.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

Sometimes we have our differences and disagreements, but nobody goes and sulks in the corner if they do not agree. We sit at the table, engage in dialogue and talk it out.

The Bloc is again saying the reason it comes here is to make gains for Quebec. The way to make gains on any subject is to sit down at the table, not to stay away from the table and refuse to talk.

Once again, getting back to this motion, it strikes an important balance. There are many questions that remain unanswered. For instance, how will we vote on all the decisions a Parliament makes? How do we make sure that our colleagues who are not here can vote? They have a fundamental right to vote.

That is why, with this motion, we are asking the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine how this can be done, because it is one of the most important things a member does in the House. We need answers to this question and others, but in the meantime, we are increasing the number of hours for questions. In fact, questions on just about any subject are allowed. The members will decide what questions they want to ask.

We are going to come back here this summer. The members will get to make members' statements, speak on behalf of their ridings and so on. I think that is a good balance, because we are in a pandemic and there is a serious crisis under way. Public health officials are issuing directives, and we need to follow them.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what the government House leader has to say about two issues.

First, I find it disturbing that people living in poverty in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, in Montreal and elsewhere, have to force themselves to go to work when they are ill because they have no access to sick leave. Socially, that is disturbing. The crisis has shown us all these vulnerabilities, all the people living in privation, all the humble workers who have no means.

Here, we are setting ourselves an objective to make progress. As a true defender of workers, as a true social democrat, I find that it moves things forward. I find that it is a worthwhile objective to set for ourselves and I am convinced that the workers in Quebec will be very pleased with it.

Second, as for the hybrid Parliament formula that we are going to have and that works well—as we have seen in London, in Great Britain—I would like to hear what the government House leader has to say about the fact that it is much more helpful for the opposition to have five minutes to have discussions with ministers and ask them questions rather than to be limited to 35 seconds. Personally, I feel that the quantity and the quality of the accountability will be greatly improved by this new measure.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The fact that the opposition will have five-minute question periods where there is an exchange is obviously much more difficult for the government. That is human nature. We will be a bit more destabilized.

In reality, the NDP made gains for the other opposition parties. It ensured that there will be more question periods where the government can be questioned about almost anything, any subject the opposition chooses. That is a measure that ensures the proper functioning of our democracy since it forces the government to stay on its toes and to fully respond to a number of questions. I think that is very good for our democracy. It is extremely positive. What is more, the fact that we will be meeting four times this summer is very positive. This type of questioning makes an enormous contribution to our democracy and we are happy to participate in it.

With regard to sick leave, my colleague is absolutely right. It does not make any sense for workers to have to choose between staying at home and hiding their illness and symptoms and going to work because they do not have enough money to put food on the table.

I want to come back to what the Bloc Québécois was saying. Obviously, this is being done in partnership with the provinces. Discussions have been initiated and will continue because we put people at the centre of everything we do. The opposition should do the same.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I expected this closure to happen earlier this morning, but here we are today. My question has to do with convention and precedents of the House. It seems that once we do something it becomes a rule of the House, which means that in the future we can go forward and continue to do it.

When September rolls around, when things get back to whatever the normal is going to be, is this going to be continued because it has now become a convention? We all know, and have been told that from a political standpoint, there are no votes for us in Ottawa. We should stay in our constituencies and meet with our folks.

We should be able to come back here. Will this be continued in September?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all want this place filled with MPs. I would like to see 338 men and women in this place representing their ridings and the people they were elected by, but it is another reality. My colleague talked about a precedent. What precedent does a pandemic have? How did we know? This is a new order for everybody, for all of us. These are not normal circumstances.

Of course, we are working toward coming back to Parliament. That is what everyone wants, but we need to strike that fine balance between the capacity of the opposition to ask important, tough questions, as they should do and as they are doing, and also respecting the advice of Health Canada. It is fundamental. This is why the motion is good and it represents that balance.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard other parliaments being cited as going virtual. The government is saying how wonderful it is because we can ask them questions, just like people outside. I completely agree with that.

On the other hand, other hybrid parliaments are not necessarily limited to question period. In fact, they have tested electronic voting. They are going much further.

Why should we limit ourselves to question period? Why should we not proceed with the legislative agenda? Why should we not have opposition days?

Why should we not go further and play the role of a real parliament, which we can do in a hybrid manner?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

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

We all agree that Parliament's role is important. That is why we asked the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study the possibility of voting remotely, which is not currently possible. If remote voting were possible and if the Conservatives were interested, we would do it. My understanding is that the Conservatives do not want to do it. At some point, we may have to do it in order to carry out all our duties. We do not know how long the pandemic will last. We do not know what the future holds.

One thing is clear: The government will always act in accordance with the basic principles that define our country and will always debate issues and decisions. The opposition plays an important role that we respect, and we want it to carry on doing so.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just now a member mentioned London's hybrid Parliament experiment. Actually, the idea was scrapped because it was not working well enough. Let's make sure this debate is based on facts.

The Conservatives have always said that there is no way we can bring all 338 members together in the House. Everyone knows that. During a press conference, the Prime Minister said things that were not true. He said that was what we were doing. Other members have made statements suggesting that is what we wanted to do. That is not true.

Parliament has been sitting for two days. We have had member statements and question period. The government needs to be held to account. Members of the House are debating motions. Parliament is doing its work. We are prepared to make certain revisions and adjustments, including with regard to parliamentary committees.

The tragedy involving Ms. Levesque took place in Quebec City a few months ago. A report was released on the weekend. As the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said so clearly in interviews with the media, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security must do its job. Unfortunately, it cannot do so at this time.

Why is the government so determined to do things its way, according to its vision?

Despite the friendship, esteem and respect that I have for my colleague, I am asking him not to seek our sympathy by saying that having to answer five-minute questions is hard for the government. They must give real answers. What is the real answer to the question about the current deficit?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too have regard for my Conservative colleague. That said, these are vital questions and it is just as vital that the government answer them, which it is doing. We may not agree on the answers, but we will answer openly, sincerely and with transparency.

My colleague referred to the committee. I thank him for that as it allows me to say that despite all the difficulties caused by the pandemic—people are dying, people are losing their jobs, some people are ill—we have managed to accomplish several things here in the House. For example, eight committees have held meetings. In total, there have been 74 meetings. We heard from 580 witnesses and 23 ministers appeared before committees.

The motion would have us add the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and I am certain that my colleague is happy about that.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since March 13 the House of Commons has met on multiple occasions with reduced numbers of MPs in order to respect the advice from public health officials. A quick look at the Hansard makes one realize that it is often the same MPs who take part in the House proceedings.

What is the government's suggestion to allow more MPs to take part in the parliamentary proceedings?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in a very objective way, that is an excellent question, because we want the participation of MPs from everywhere. In an ideal world, we would be 338 people here, men and women, representing their constituents. Because of the pandemic and the measures that have been put in place, and we respect those measures on both sides of the aisle, there is an option. It is this hybrid committee we can have here, with members on both sides, and MPs from everywhere across the country, so that MPs who are elected in Vancouver, Halifax, Côte-Nord or wherever can ask their questions on screen.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the words “Côte-Nord”, because it just so happens the Côte-Nord expects more from me.

The government House leader talked about people who are sick, who have lost their jobs and who do not know what tomorrow will bring. What I am being told is that, as an MP, I should work less and stay away from Parliament. We are getting a math lesson, being told that six is more than two and more than four.

Recognizing that we normally spend 30-some odd hours discussing things here in Parliament, that is going to be replaced by committee meetings that do not always go so well, because we have less time to ask questions and we are constantly cut off. I think there is something the government would have us believe, but I would not call it a lesson in democracy.

We should do more for our constituents. We are considered essential workers. I consider it my duty to drive 10 or 12 hours to be here and participate in the committee meetings. It is my duty to stand up for my constituents.

I find it unacceptable that a minority government should decide to shut down the House. It is a denial of democracy, even if the government would have us believe that we are going to be able to ask more questions. I expect more from this government. I do not expect it to shut down the House. It is a minority government and it needs to remember that. The government needs to bring us together here so that we can ask it the right questions, and it must answer them. There are suggested questions, but they are not at all worthwhile and do not address the needs of our constituents. Our constituents want us to work. If we are asking them to make an effort, then we need to make an even greater one.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the importance of the work that is done by each member, in this case by my colleague and by all of the other members of the House.

This gives me an opportunity to point out something else, and that is the fundamental work that MPs do when they are in their own ridings. Some members told us that it was time to get back to work. I heard the opposition say that several times. However, we are working every day when we are in our ridings, when we lend a hand to community organizations, when we call seniors who live alone. All of the activities that members do are essential. I am sure that each member does just as good of a job of this, and I do not think that this type of work is done any better by a Liberal, a Conservative or a Bloc member.

Every member does this type of work. We must continue to recognize that, just as we just continue to recognize the work we do here.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us do a quick run-through of our favourite moments of shutting down democracy. Do I say Stephen Harper, Stephen Harper, Stephen Harper? I will probably have to say that about 150 times, for every single time he shut it down. Then there were all the committees, where everything had to go in camera no matter what it was so there was no accountability. Then there was the crisis of 2008, the biggest economic crisis up to that point, when Stephen Harper came into the House and they all puffed up and were going to massively push through this austerity budget. The New Democrats said no. Then what did Stephen Harper do? He panicked and shut Parliament down. Do members remember that? He had to shut Parliament down.

It is pretty rich, when we are here to talk about keeping Parliament accountable until the end of June, plus sessions this summer, and we will continue in the fall, to see the howling at the moon and the abuse of the privileges of the most privileged people in Canada, when, in fact, if we remember the Stephen Harper years, the doors were locked in the Parliament of the people because he was afraid to meet a minority government.

We have a minority government, and we have work to get done. I want to get to that work tomorrow so we can start to drill down and ask serious questions of ministers, where we have a good period of time to actually go through the issues, push, find out and insist on responses. Let us just get down to it.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.