House of Commons Hansard #114 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was gba.

Topics

Public AccountsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Lethbridge had asked for unanimous consent, and I know it was denied, but I want to raise some information that I think may cause a reconsideration of that.

The member did, in fact, seek to change her vote because she realized she had made an honest mistake. She did try to change her vote, but was unfortunately prevented from doing so. I think maybe a technical difficulty caused her to run out of time to change it. I would ask you to seek unanimous consent again for that vote to be reconsidered based on the fact that the member did make the effort to change her vote and was unable to do so. I hope that causes government members to reconsider.

Public AccountsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:35 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The hon. member clarified that the member for Lethbridge ran out of time to change her vote. Ten minutes was allotted to change the vote, and the question was posed in the House as to the hon. member receiving unanimous consent to change the vote. Therefore, I will stand by the decision that was made. It is obvious that the vote was asked twice and was rejected.

Public AccountsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that my colleague from Banff—Airdrie was suggesting that the app did not allow a change. We are allowed in the app, during the 10 minutes, to change our vote, and if it is not working, it is a technical difficulty. I wonder if maybe that is a better explanation. The app, within that 10 minutes, was not allowing her to do it and that makes this a technical difficulty.

Public AccountsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:35 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The decision has been made and I am not going to call the question again.

The hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland is rising on a point of order.

Public AccountsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB

Madam Speaker, I had to step out of the House, unfortunately, very quickly for something, and I was alerted by the staff that I should come in here as quickly as possible because my vote might be invalidated. I hope you can clarify that just because I left the House for a moment, my vote has not been invalidated. I would like a ruling from you.

Public AccountsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:35 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I appreciate the hon. member's honesty about leaving the House. Given the fact that the hon. member did leave the House, the vote will not be counted.

The member for Brandon—Souris has a point of order. Is it on the vote?

Public AccountsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Yes. On your comment to my colleague from—

Public AccountsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:35 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

That is a point of debate. I have already ruled, so unless the hon. member has an issue with his vote, the point of order will wait until I am done with the vote.

Public AccountsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Well, it is about the vote, but—

Public AccountsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:35 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The debate is continuing on. I have already ruled on the hon. member's point.

The hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland is rising on a point of order.

Public AccountsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB

Madam Chair, I am not going to debate your ruling. I would like to ask the House for unanimous consent to count my vote. I was here to listen to the entire vote, but we were going through a lot of technical aspects for it and I had to step out momentarily. I am just asking for unanimous consent from the House to count my vote.

Public AccountsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:35 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to have his vote recorded despite the fact that, as he indicated, he stepped out of the chamber for a few seconds?

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

I declare the motion carried.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #137

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:40 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I declare the motion rejected.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:40 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment; the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, Post-Secondary Education; the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore, Airline industry.

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

5:40 p.m.

Oakville Ontario

Liberal

Anita Anand LiberalMinister of Public Services and Procurement

moved:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), commencing on Friday, June 11, 2021, and concluding on Wednesday, June 23, 2021, the House shall continue to sit on Mondays and Wednesdays until midnight, and on Fridays until 4:30 p.m.

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

5:40 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

Madam Speaker, I am very glad that we were able to get to this point. I am concerned and disappointed, even in the last half-hour. I think we need to realize that, although members of the Conservative Party will say they want more debate time, in reality nothing could be further from the truth. I would argue that ultimately the Conservatives have been very much a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. I would like to explain why it is so important that we pass the motion that the minister of procurement has just presented.

The pandemic really challenged all of us. We needed to find new ways to get the job done, the job that Canadians have been very much relying on us to do. We gradually brought in a hybrid Parliament to ensure that MPs could do their job from wherever they are in the country. This was so it would be inclusive, whether they are up north, the west coast, the east coast or in central Canada, like me here in Winnipeg. We found ways for the House to debate and pass legislation that would ultimately help Canadians during the pandemic. Many bills were passed to ensure that millions of Canadians had the funds that they needed to put food on their table, pay the rent, cover mortgages and so on.

We have a number of pieces of legislation before the House in one form or another. I would like to give some examples of the legislation that are in limbo because the Conservatives are more interested in playing political games than they are in serving the best interests of Canadians. I would like to highlight a few of those pieces of legislation and then make a point as to why this particular motion is necessary.

We have seen motions of this nature previously. I have been a parliamentarian for 30 years now, and I have seen it at the provincial level and at the national level. Political parties of all stripes have recognized that there is a time in which we need to be able to bring in extended hours. In the most part it is meant to contribute to additional debate and to allow the government to pass important legislation. That is really what this motion is all about.

Looking at the last vote we just participated in, it would appear as though Bloc members, New Democrats and Greens are in agreement with the members of the Liberal caucus that we need to sit extra hours. My appeal is to the Conservatives to stop playing their political, partisan games and start getting to work.

There is nothing wrong with sitting until midnight two to four times between now and mid-June. Stephen Harper did it. He had no qualms moving motions of this nature. Yes, we will also sit a little extra time on Friday afternoons. I believe Canadians expect nothing less from all members of the House.

When Canadians decided to return the government in a minority format, it was expected that not only we as the governing party would receive a message, but also that all members of the House would receive a message. The Conservative opposition has a role to play that goes beyond what they have been playing and what we have been witnessing since November or December of last year. I would cross the line to say that it is not being a responsible official opposition.

I spent well over 20 years in opposition. The Conservative Party, with its destructive force, is preventing the government of the day and other members, not only government members, from moving the legislation forward. I appeal to the official opposition to not only recognize there is a genuine need to move this legislation forward, but also recognize that, at the end of the day, we extend hours to accommodate additional debate.

My concern is that the Conservatives will continue the political, partisan games, at great expense to Canadians. I will give an example. Bill C-30 is at report stage and third reading. We were supposed to debate that bill today. Chances are that we will not get to that bill today. We have not been able to get to other legislation because of the tactics of the official opposition, the reform Conservative Party, as I often refer to it.

The last budget legislation was Bill C-14. The first female Minister of Finance of Canada presented an economic update to the House back in late November, and the legislation was introduced in December. For days, the Conservatives would not allow it to pass. This was legislation that helped businesses and Canadians in many ways, yet the Conservatives saw fit to filibuster it. Bill C-30 will pass. It is budget legislation. It is not an option for the government.

Bill C-12 is the net-zero emissions legislation. If members canvass their constituents, they will find out that it does not matter where they live in Canada, our constituents are concerned about the environment and are telling all members of the House that we need to do more. Bill C-12, the net-zero emissions bill, is very important legislation. It answers, in good part, the call from Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

To a certain degree, we have seen a change in attitude by some Conservatives with their new leadership. Some in their caucus do not support it, but the leadership agrees that there is a need for a price on pollution. They seem to be coming around, even though they are five, six or seven years late. Surely to goodness, they would recognize the value of the legislation. Bill C-12 is stuck in committee.

What about Bill C-10? Bill C-10 would update very important legislation that has not been updated for 30 years, since 1990 or 1991. Let us think of what the Internet was like back in 1990. I can recall sitting in the Manitoba legislature, hearing the ring, the buzzing and then a dial tone. We can remember how slow it was.

I will tell my Conservative friends that things have changed. Now all sorts of things take place on the Internet. This is important legislation. The NDP, the Greens and the Bloc support the legislation. The Conservatives come up with a false argument, dig their feet in and then say they are not being given enough time, yet they have no problem squandering time.

Thankfully, because of the Bloc, we were able to put some limits on the committee, so we could get it though committee. If the Bloc did not agree with the government and with that concurrence, it would never pass the committee stage. There is absolutely no indication that the Conservatives have any intent of seeing Bill C-10 pass through committee stage.

If members have been listening to the chamber's debates in regard to Bill C-6, they have heard the Conservatives disagree with another piece of legislation. They say they do not support mandatory conversion therapy, and they are using the definition as a scapegoat to justify their behaviour on the legislation. Once again they are the only political entity inside the House of Commons that is preventing this legislation or putting it in jeopardy. The leadership of the Conservative Party might think one thing, but the reality is that the behaviour of the Conservative Party has put Bill C-6 in limbo.

I could talk about Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. Members know that the Conservatives have been using firearms as a tool for many years. Even when I was an MLA in the mid-nineties, I can remember the Conservative Party using firearms as a tool, and nothing has really changed. The bill is still in second reading. There is no indication at all that the Conservatives are willing to see that piece of legislation pass. Members can check with some of the communities and stakeholders that are asking and begging not only the government, but also opposition parties, to let this legislation pass.

That is not to mention Bill C-22, which is about criminal justice reform. That is another piece of legislation that, again, the Conservative Party has given no indication it intends to let see the light of day or go to committee.

Another piece of legislation that is important not only to me, but should be to all members of the House, is Bill C-19. I understand this important piece of legislation is going to committee tomorrow, but if we apply what we have seen at second reading to the committee stage, it is going to be a huge concern. This bill would give Elections Canada additional powers to administer an election in a safer, healthier way for voters and for Elections Canada workers. It is a good piece of legislation. I am somewhat familiar with it because of my role as parliamentary secretary to the minister, who I know has worked very hard on bringing this legislation forward and wants to see it passed. It is a piece of legislation on which the Conservatives have said we should have more debate.

The government attempted to bring this legislation in a long time ago. It tried to get it to committee a long time ago. One day I was ready and primed to address Bill C-19, and the Conservatives' game at that time was to bring in a concurrence motion, because if they did that they could prevent debate on Bill C-19. That is what they did, and it was not the first time. The Conservative Party does not even recognize the value of it. It is a minority situation. We do not know when there is going to be an election. It seems to me that the responsible thing to do is to get Bill C-19 passed. As I say, it is at the committee stage today. I hope that the Conservative Party will see the merits of passing that bill out of the committee stage.

At the beginning of the pandemic, there seemed to be a greater sense of co-operation. From the very beginning, the Prime Minister has been very clear: He and the Government of Canada have had as their first priority minimizing the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and being there in a real and tangible way for Canadians. That is for another speech in which I can expand on the particular argument the Prime Minister put forward.

We can do other things. We have seen that in some of the legislative initiatives that we have taken. As I say, at the very beginning there was a high sense of co-operation and the team Canada approach applied within the House of Commons. The Conservatives started falling off the track last June. One year later, there is no sign that the Conservative Party recognizes the value of working together.

I would remind my Conservative friends that, as we in government realize, it is a minority government. If someone gives me 12 graduates from Sisler High School, or any high school in the north end of Winnipeg, whether it is Maples Collegiate, Children of the Earth High School, R.B. Russell Vocational High School or St. John's High School, I can prevent the government from being able to pass legislation. It does not take a genius to do that.

We need co-operation from the opposition, and the Conservative Party has been found wanting in that. It has not been co-operative in the last number of months. I find that shameful. Obviously, the Conservatives are not listening to what Canadians expect of them. In fact, what we have seen is delay and more delay, to the point that it becomes obstruction.

Conservatives have obstructed the work of the House as it has debated Bill C-14. If I were to draw comparisons, I would compare Bill C-14 and Bill C-3. Bill C-14 is vitally important to all of us. Canadians needed Bill C-14 passed, but look at the amount of debate and filibustering we had from the official opposition.

On the other hand, Bill C-3 was also a very important piece of legislation. All parties supported it. In fact, the initial idea came from the former leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose. Everyone supported it. We spent many hours and days debating that piece of legislation, when we could have been debating other legislation. Not that the other legislation was not important, but we all know there is no time process outside of time allocation to get government legislation through. That is in a normal situation, when we have an opposition party that recognizes the value of actual debate of government agenda items that they should pass through, but they did not. Instead, they would rather debate it.

We have moved motions to have extended sittings in the past to accommodate additional debate. I say, in particular to my Conservative friends, that if they are going to behave in this fashion they should not criticize the government for not affording time to debate bills. What a bunch of garbage. They cannot have it both ways. I appeal to the Conservative Party to recognize true value. They should work for Canadians and let us see if we can make a more positive contribution and start working together for the betterment of all.

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6 p.m.

Liberal

Anita Anand Liberal Oakville, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am tabling the government's responses to Order Paper Questions Nos. 641 to 654.

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, as you know, the NDP members have the reputation of being the worker bees of the House of Commons.

It is in that spirit that we proposed, not a few weeks ago and not in April but on March 7, that we start extended evening sittings because we believed it was important to get to legislation that was important for Canadians. On March 7, we wrote to all the House leaders to say that we should start streamlining, because quite frankly the government's approach on the House agenda has been absolutely inept.

We will be supporting the motion to extend the hours, but the real question is why did the Liberals wait so long? Why, on a key bill such as Bill C-12, which is so fundamentally important but was deeply flawed, did the NDP have to drag the Liberals kicking and screaming to improve the bill? Now, with a few days left in the session, the Liberals are scrambling to get it through.

Why did the Liberals wait so long when the NDP proposed this route on March 7?

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the NDP members are going to be supporting the motion at hand. Also, the NDP did not object when we made the suggestion, on at least three occasions, to sit longer in the evening to accommodate debate on important legislation. I think one time it was on the medical assistance in dying legislation.

At times there is a need to have extended hours. We have attempted it in the past. We required unanimous consent, and unfortunately the Conservatives would not give it. It would be so much better if we could actually see a sense of commitment and could say, “Here is the time we could use on bill X,” then we would be able to pass it on to the committee stage, or get it out of committee in a reasonable fashion so there could be some debate time.

I would suggest this window of opportunity is there to do two things: to facilitate more debate and to pass legislation that we know Canadians want us to move forward.

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

Madam Speaker, the impact of the motion is that committees would be cancelled. The important work of this House extends to what is done in those committees as well. By doing this, resources are challenged. As a result, a number of the committees would be cancelled. That is important work as well.

Does the member not think committee work is important?

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, committee work is very important. I have always recognized the value of committee work. I wish the member who posed the question or the Conservative House leadership would value time, both in committee and in the House, and not only allow for debates to occur but to see things flow through.

Could members imagine if the government used game play to prevent opposition motions or private member's bills from being able to pass? They are all set through a process of time to ensure that they happen. The Conservatives know full well that if they continue to talk or do not commit, it obligates the government to take action. It obligates us to work with another opposition party so that we can have a majority. We are prepared to do that wherever we can.

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

Madam Speaker, we have all been sent here by our constituents, Canadians across the country, to do the work that we promised them we would do through our campaign platforms. That is part of the democratic process.

How does the member think Canadians across the country feel, whether in the western provinces, in the Atlantic provinces or in the agriculture sector, when they see members wasting time in the House, giggling and laughing, and trying to delay more and more as they pretend they are confused about votes and try to delay the important work that we as a minority government have to do together in a co-operative way?

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I think the question is best answered with two specific examples. If we reflect on what took place last Friday, we were supposed to deal with Bill C-10 at committee stage. A majority of members inside the House wanted to see limitations put on the committee so we would be able to get the bill back to the committee. In my opinion, the games that were played crossed the line. We saw the Chair occupant challenged inappropriately and harassed, I would suggest. There were all sorts of issues that took place on Friday. If I was a Conservative, I would be embarrassed by the behaviour.

With respect to the election, the member is right. We knocked on doors telling seniors age 75 and over that we would bring that 10% increase. This budget bill, Bill C-30, which we want to pass, gives that 10% increase to those age 75 and over. It is the fulfillment of a campaign promise. That is why the Liberals are so passionate about getting our legislative agenda through, because in good part, they are commitments that we made in the last election—

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.