House of Commons Hansard #98 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was election.

Topics

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK

Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate on Bill C-19, I have heard countless Liberals say that they do not want an election and no one in the House wants one. The Liberals have continuously said that throughout this debate. If no one wants the election, why are they pushing this bill through so fast? Why did the Liberals bring in time allocation? Why are they pushing if they do not see an election on the horizon? If the Liberals do not want an election and no one else in the House wants one, we should take time to examine this bill and ensure we get it right for our democracy and for the sake of all Canadians.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

Emmanuella Lambropoulos Liberal Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is really important that during a minority Parliament, we are ready for this type of thing at any moment, because we never know when the government could fall. I think everybody in the House agrees with that. If we were a majority, we would not need to be looking at this as quickly as we are. However, because we are a minority Parliament and can fall at any moment, it is important that we take these things into consideration and do so quickly just in case.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

Green

Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we do not have a pandemic election. I was hoping we would see some other changes to the Canada Elections Act, given the promise in 2015 that it would be the last first past the post election.

Does the hon. member think it is fair that a party that received 1.3 million votes got three seats, while a party that got five times as many votes, the Liberal Party, got 50 times more seats? Each Liberal represents about 37,000 constituents or voters and each Green Party member represents 380,000 voters. Does the member think that is a fair representation of democracy and should we have a fair vote system—

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The hon. member for Saint-Laurent.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Liberal

Emmanuella Lambropoulos Liberal Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is fair and I do not think the system is perfect. I definitely think that different changes could be made and that it should be studied further to ensure we move forward in the right way and in the best way for Canadians.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Resuming debate.

The member for La Prairie has four minutes remaining.

The hon. member for La Prairie.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Bloc

Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, shutting down debate on Bill C-19 hinders our democratic institutions in two ways.

There should be consensus in this place for any changes that affect our democracy and the right to vote. The government is using time allocation to shove Bill C-19 down our throats. That is shameful. If I were in government, I would be ashamed—

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is no English translation and I would like to hear what the member is saying.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Is the interpretation working? It is working in the House.

It seems to be working now.

The hon. member for La Prairie.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Bloc

Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, our institutions are being undermined first by the closure motion and second by the fact that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs worked on this issue as of October 22 and presented a report entitled “Final Report: Protecting Public Health and Democracy during a Possible Pandemic Election”.

Committee members worked for 24 hours, heard from at least a dozen witnesses and rushed to table a preliminary report to enlighten the government, which needs all the help it can get because it is short-sighted. Committee members submitted their report as soon as possible, in other words on December 11, 2020, but this bunch of Liberals introduced its bill on December 10, 2020. It is an affront to the institutions. I would be embarrassed if I were them. I would make like an ostrich and bury my head in the sand.

The Liberals did not wait for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to be done before introducing their bill on December 11, 2020. They did not bring it up again in the House until March 8. Why not wait for the results of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, since the committee members had called professional witnesses, studied the issue, taken the time to do the work and were only too happy to advise the government?

The pandemic is being used as an excuse. It seems to be making the members opposite do all sorts of foolish things. They claim that since we are in a pandemic, they can play with democratic rights. No, that is not how it works.

Here is a clear example of the lack of ethics in this government. Everything this government does is the opposite of what Midas did. Everything Midas touched turned to gold, but the Liberals are Sadim. Midas spelled backwards is Sadim. Everything this government touches turns to dirt.

The Liberals tried to close the borders, but they never managed to. The third wave is their fault. That is a fact. When the rail crisis happened, the government sat on its hands. It took the Liberals 30 days to wake up. While travelling abroad for a week and a half, the Prime Minister said it was the responsibility of the provinces and Quebec. When he returned home after 10 days, he finally got it and said that the Bloc Québécois's idea was a good solution.

This same government, which is incapable of making a decision, is shutting down democracy, thanks in part to the NDP's help. How can I possibly describe what the NDP is doing and still be polite?

The NDP is happy to gag itself. NDP members are stuffing rags in their mouths and saying nothing. They are propping up a government that is trampling on voters' basic rights.

Voters have the right to vote intelligently, and members of Parliament have the right to govern the right to vote through discussion and consensus-building. The Liberals are violating democracy, and they are proud of it. What a government.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

It being 7:04 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a recorded division.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Accordingly, pursuant to an order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 11, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

7:05 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to speak to this report. It was certainly exciting—

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

I apologize for the interruption. I was under the impression that I had adjourned debate the other day, but that does not prevent me from being able to continue with my speech.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I thank the hon. member parliamentary secretary for his intervention. We are going to check on the time he has available.

Indeed, the adjournment motion was adopted. The parliamentary secretary, should he wish, does have some time remaining, and we will get that to him.

I appreciate the patience of the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. I will give him the floor next and he will be able to give his speech.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader had 17 minutes remaining in the time for his remarks on the motion before the House at that time. We will go to him now.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

7:05 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, my apologies for the interruption to my friend from the Bloc.

There is no doubt that foreign direct investment does play an absolutely critical role to Canada as a developing nation, as we want to encourage ongoing economic activities, and in many ways it is because of foreign investment that we get to see them realized.

I want to provide a number of thoughts on the concurrence report. First, I would like to be able to pick up where I left off prior to the adjournment, which is kind of a fitting place, with the member from the Bloc who has just finished speaking prior to us going back into this report.

My friend and colleague from Kingston and the Islands did a fabulous job of explaining the process and what we are being asked to concur in. It is very interesting. The member for Kingston and the Islands pointed out, for example, on the issue of Bill C-19, what the debate was supposed to be about. There are a lot of similarities between what the member for Kingston and the Islands said and what I said on this report back on April 27.

Back on April 27, I expressed my disappointment. I talked about how the Conservative opposition party was playing that destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. That was much like earlier today: When I got the chance to speak or when the member for Kingston and the Islands spoke, we talked about that destructive force in terms of process and what we are ultimately being asked to vote on.

The last speaker provided comments about how shameful it is that we are trying to limit debate on Bill C-19 and bringing in time allocation. In the back of our minds, I want members of the House to reflect on those comments, because that is in essence what took place back on April 27, when a concurrence report was brought in because the Conservative Party wanted to debate an issue, as opposed to debating what the government needed to see debated.

It is important to recognize this, because if we were to do a concurrence motion on all the different reports coming in, we would not have government days. We would not even have opposition days to the degree we have them today. There are many reports out there. It is easy to pick a report and move concurrence, and there go three hours of debate on the floor of the House.

We could argue that it is an important issue. Let us look at the issue of this particular concurrence debate. It is about those valuable resources that we have. We could talk about natural resources or our health sector, and I will get more into that. There is no doubt that is important.

However, what we were supposed to be debating on that particular day was the net zero legislation, important legislation that Canadians want and expect their government to act upon. For whatever reasons, the Conservatives moved a motion to ultimately say that we want to debate foreign direct investment as opposed to the net zero legislation. One could say that happened once or maybe twice, but it has happened more than that.

The Bloc member just criticized us in the Liberal Party, and to a certain degree even my friends the New Democrats, by asking how we can limit debate on Bill C-19. The member for Kingston and the Islands pointed out that because of the concurrence motion, much like this concurrence motion, instead of debating Bill C-19, we were actually debating another issue, one we just finished having an emergency debate on last Thursday.

Members should look at April 27, when the Conservatives were playing political games in the chamber. Because of their dislike for allowing the government to pass legislation, they brought in another motion to prevent debate on yet another piece of legislation so that we can be criticized again for not allowing enough debate, just as the Bloc member criticized us for not allowing enough debate on Bill C-19.

What I did not reference was the fact that we had attempted to bring n Bill C-19 before today, and the Conservatives introduced another concurrence motion back then, just like today.

Is there any reason the Conservatives are behaving in such a pattern? They adjourn debates. They want to take time off. They bring in concurrence. They look for ways to attempt to frustrate the government when it is trying to do the things it needs to do as government. It is not as though it only happens two or three times; this destructive force has been playing its games for quite a while now. There is a substantial cost to it.

I would suggest this to my friends in the Bloc: Maybe they should look at some of the comments that came from my New Democratic friends and maybe not be as quick to take the side of the Conservative Party. Many would suggest to us that either the Conservatives are conning the Bloc into supporting their legislative abuse or that the Bloc does not know any better. Maybe it is that the Bloc wants to participate in this destructive force as much as the Conservative Party wants to play its political games.

Is it any wonder, when we see the things that are happening inside the chamber, that the Prime Minister and Liberal members of Parliament are consistently saying some of the same things, such as that we will continue to remain focused on the priority of all Canadians, which is the pandemic? From the very beginning we have been saying that, led by the Prime Minister of Canada.

The Conservative official opposition, throughout this last number of months, with what I would suggest is its irresponsible behaviour, has been focused on the two things I referenced earlier today. It has moved another concurrence motion to try to kill the time allotted for government legislation. The first agenda for the Conservative Party is the character assassination of government members, and it will go out of its way to do that.

The second thing Conservative members do is cause as much detailed frustration as they can on the floor of the House of Commons so that, as we just heard before we got into this report, the opposition members can say something to the effect that the Liberal government is not being respectful of democracy because of time allocation.

Maybe we could have an indication of co-operation, at least to a certain degree. I am not saying that the Conservative Party has to agree with everything we are saying, but there is some onus, especially in a minority government, to be a little more responsible in terms of the legislative agenda.

Unlike opposition members, the government does not have timing processed on government bills. For example, the Conservatives had a choice and could have concurred in this report, and no doubt many others. They could say that foreign direct investment is so vitally important to our nation that they were going to bring the topic in on an opposition day, when they can highlight what they believe.

After all, if we take a look at the report, I believe we would see that there was a dissenting report that came from the Liberals. However, the Conservatives, as opposed to bringing in a motion to concur in a report, could have highlighted some of their concerns in the form of an opposition day motion and then asked for support from the Bloc and NDP. They could have just as easily have done that, just as they could have done for the report on Line 5 earlier today.

Unlike government legislation, at the end of the day—

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Order. If I could just interrupt the parliamentary secretary because the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean is rising on a point of order.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

7:20 p.m.

Bloc

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has been trying to get his point across and put the opposition on trial since the beginning. He forgets that the people elected a minority government.

Right now, he is off topic. Since the beginning of his speech, he has been off topic and has not said a word about the report. He has talked about nothing but time allocation. I think we understand where he is going with this, but could he talk about the report?

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The hon. parliamentary secretary wishes to respond.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I trust that the clock has been stopped.

However, throughout my comments, I have been talking about and referencing the report and the process whereby we are debating these issues. In fact, just before I was interrupted, I was talking about how the Conservatives could take part of the minority report and incorporate it into an opposition day.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Indeed, the clock has been stopped.

I have taken note of the point of order raised by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. Members have a certain latitude in speaking and giving arguments in favour or against a motion, but they also understand that they need to keep their comments on topic. Therefore, I will let the hon. parliamentary secretary continue his speech, while asking him to ensure his comments are relevant. He has about four minutes left.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, as I was indicating, the official opposition members had an option and they chose not to use it.

For example, with respect to foreign investment, certain areas are of great national interest. I could talk about food and medical supply lines. There are some very good examples that I could cite today. We can think about PPE and how much was being manufactured in Canada prior to the pandemic and contrast that to what is happening today.

Let us take a look at the importance of our natural resources and recognize the issue of ownership and how important it is that we ensure the national interest is served. We could talk about media and culture. There are many other areas where there is a national interest. Therefore, foreign investment matters.

I would have welcomed a debate on that issue, but, as I indicated prior, the Conservatives' focus does not facilitate that sort of a debate per se. Rather, they would enter into a debate of that nature by a concurrence motion, which then prevents the government from ensuring more hours of debate on important legislation or they will often use their days to look at ministers or staff of ministers through what I have always referred to as character assassination. We see that played out in the House a lot more than we need to.

There is no doubt about the fact that there are important issues in these concurrence motions. However, I do not see members in the Conservative Party saying that maybe we should have concurrence in report on an opposition day. As I indicated, on the opposition days, those matters before the House are actually voted on. The net-zero bill was supposed to be debated longer than it was, but because of this report, it was not. It was the same with Bill C-19 earlier today. The Conservatives do that because they are more interested in the partisan politics than they are in seeing a chamber that can be productive and supportive of Canadians through some very challenging times.

Yes, we are in a minority government and the government is very much aware of that. I would remind some within the opposition that in a minority government, opposition parties also have a responsibility to live up to, and I am afraid not all are doing that.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseOrders of the Day

May 10th, 2021 / 7:25 p.m.

Conservative

Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting listening to the member opposite. He speaks of character assassination of government members. I would like to remind him of the $16 orange juice incident and the main lead on that, which was his leader.

When we talk about behaviour, adjourning debate and his concern about the concurrence motion, the member perhaps forgets about prorogation. He perhaps forgets about the filibusters that we see in so many different committees to protect various ministers or staff. I guess those are other things that seem to go past him today.

The question was on supply days. Why do we not deal with that? I would like to point out for the member that of the recommendations that we had, and there were nine of them, six of those were rejected by the Liberals in their dissenting report. If the Liberals did not listen to the experts on the subject in committee, what would make us think that if we were speaking to that here, as an opposition day, there would be any more attention given?