Debates of Nov. 15th, 2022

Government Business No. 22

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thought it was a little much when I heard the member for Winnipeg North lecturing the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles earlier on how to vote when a motion is moved or a bill is introduced. I thought that was a bit over the top.

That being said, we are being criticized and told that opposition members do not want to work. It feels as though insults have been flying this evening during the debate on this motion. When there are debates and members of the opposition ask the government questions, they get either the same old stock answers repeated over and over again or answers that have nothing to do with the question. That is the purpose of debate. If the government would give proper answers to the questions the opposition parties ask, then we likely would not need to extend the sitting hours because the work would get done efficiently.

Earlier, I asked the member for Kingston and the Islands a very easy question. It was not a trick question or a convoluted one. I asked him why Motion No. 22 does not just ask for hours to be extended until the end of the current period, until December 16. Why include the whole session right up until the end of spring, until June? Why include February, March, April and May in this motion? Why is the government side doing things differently? When will it learn how to answer questions properly and work more efficiently?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, whether it is until December or June, the thing to observe is that it provides the option for a majority of members in the House, which means it is more than just the government. It requires at least one other opposition party to say, yes, there is value in sitting in the evening to accommodate additional debate.

The member said maybe December 16 would be better. Why not June? Why do we need to revisit this debate on whether or not to allow for more debate? I appreciate the question—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We will resume debate with the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the NDP-Liberal attack on parliamentary committees in the form of Government Business No. 22.

This undemocratic motion is a crass attempt at frustrating the work of committees by further limiting their resources. On the face of it, the motion allows the government House leader to extend the hours of any sitting of the House to midnight until June 2023. The Liberals say they are simply seeking more time to debate their legislation, but we must look at the broader implications of the adopting this motion.

With the persistence of virtual Parliament, workplace injuries for interpretation staff have increased ninefold. Since 2019, there has been a 25% decline in the number of interpreters employed by the translation bureau and nearly 40% fewer freelance interpreters available to the House. These unionized professionals work each day to ensure that our business is conducted in both official languages.

The Liberals and NDP dismiss the plight of these workers, demanding that our work continue in a hybrid fashion against the objections of interpretation staff. Due to the lack of interpreters, there is a strict limit on how many parliamentary activities the House administration can facilitate in any given sitting week. As a result, every time the hours are extended in the House, two committee meetings must be cancelled. Put simply, more time for the House equals less time for committees.

Let us keep in mind the government is in complete control of the House agenda. It determines the business each and every day, including which of its bills will be debated. It has tools at its disposal to cut off debate as it deems appropriate. It even designates which days will be allotted for opposition days. With the blind support of the hapless NDP, the Liberals have the votes to pass their legislation.

In other words, the Liberals are in complete control of the House, propped up by the NDP. However, they do not control committees in the same way. Conservatives have secured several committee investigations that are holding the Liberals accountable for their failures. For example, the government operations committee is digging into the $54-million ArriveCAN app, including Liberal misinformation reported to the House that contractors were paid millions when they did not receive a dime. That committee is tasked with answering two key questions: Where is the money and who got rich?

The heritage committee is investigating the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion for providing funding to known racist and anti-Semite Laith Marouf. The procedure and House affairs committee is investigating the Prime Minister who has known for over a year about foreign interference in our elections and has yet to act. The public safety committee is investigating allegations made against the Minister of Emergency Preparedness for political interference in the investigation into the mass killings in Nova Scotia. It is shameful.

The veterans affairs committee is looking into allegations that a government employee recommended medically assisted suicide for a veteran struggling with mental health. The declaration of a public order emergency committee has heard considerable testimony that contradicts the Liberal rationale for invoking the Emergencies Act. The transport committee recommended the repeal of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, a Liberal-made organization that has failed to get any infrastructure built. Conservatives on the foreign affairs committee continue to advocate for the listing of the IRGC as a terrorist entity, so that this brutal regime about to execute 15,000 of its own citizens cannot fundraise and organize in Canada anymore.

These are just some examples of how Conservatives are making parliamentary committees work for Canadians. Under Government Business No. 22, this and all work of committees would be restricted and constrained. The motivation for this motion is clear, the Liberals want Parliament to serve only their purposes. To them, Parliament is only useful when they can control it.

Canadians expect Parliament to hold the government to account, and Conservatives will fight to maintain the dignity of this institution.

There was a time, if we can believe it, when Liberals believed that committee work was essential. In the 2015 election, they made the following promise:

We will strengthen Parliamentary committees so that they can better scrutinize legislation.

Better government starts with better ideas. We will ensure that Parliamentary committees are properly resourced to bring in expert witnesses, and are sufficiently staffed to continue to provide reliable, non-partisan research.

The Liberals made that promise when they still believed they were the party of sunny ways, but after seven years of corruption and cover-ups, the mirage of an open, transparent and accountable government has been exposed.

Last week, in mainstream media, the government House leader justified his motion, claiming that Conservatives were employing tactics that amounted to “parliamentary obstruction by stealth.” The irony of this claim is not lost on me. He is the one, under the pretext of expanding debate in the House, who is attacking committees by stealth. I will address his claim directly.

Conservatives do not obstruct for the sake of obstruction. In recent weeks, we have allowed several bills to proceed in a reasonable time frame. We supported the swift passage of Bill C-30, which provided GST tax relief for low-income Canadians. The government did not need to use time allocation to shepherd that legislation through the House.

On September 29, the Conservative member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, with whom I am splitting my time, secured the unanimous consent of the House to pass the national council for reconciliation act at second reading and send it for study at the indigenous and northern affairs committee.

We allowed for Bill C-22, the disability benefit act, to be sent to the human resources committee after just two days of debate. Again, time allocation was not required.

Just before the last constituency week, Conservatives supported Bill S-5, which will strengthen environmental protection in Canada. No time allocation was required.

Conservatives can be counted on when the government brings forward proposals on which common ground can be found. The government House leader's accusation about obstruction is simply not true.

Having said that, Conservatives are openly opposed to the Liberal agenda. There is no “stealth” about it. We use every tool available in the parliamentary tool box to both expose Liberal failure and corruption and propose our ideas for Canadians to consider as an alternative.

If the government House leader had been paying attention, he would know that the new Conservative leader and our Conservative team are putting the people first: their paycheques, their savings, their homes and their country. We are against deficit-driven inflation. Instead, we demand that all new spending be matched with savings found somewhere else. We are opposed to payroll and carbon tax hikes in the middle of this cost of living crisis.

We defend energy workers against the Prime Minister's attacks on their livelihoods. We would repeal anti-energy laws like Bill C-69 and remove other Liberal-made barriers to producing our natural resources. We oppose the failed climate change plan of this government, which has not achieved a single emissions reduction target. We say no to the oppressive carbon tax and yes to technology in the fight against climate change.

We abhor $6,000-a-night hotel stays for the Prime Minister while Canadians are visiting food banks in record numbers, like 1.5 million in one month. We oppose wasteful spending and the $54-million “arrive scam” app that did not work. We did not need it, and it could have been designed over a weekend for about $250,000.

We are vocal when the Prime Minister is silent about foreign actors interfering in our elections. We reject Liberal inaction while shelves that should be stocked with children's medication sit empty. We stand with victims, not criminals, as the rates of violent crime have spiked in our cities under this government's soft-on-crime policies, and we oppose this outrageous attempt at seizing control of parliamentary committees.

There is no “stealth” about our opposition to the NDP-Liberal government. We proudly oppose the costly coalition on all these fronts, in broad daylight, for all to see.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, if the member was to reflect on Bill S-5, which I will use as an example because it was cited earlier, there were well over two dozen members from the Conservative benches who spoke to the legislation. This was legislation that all of us inside the chamber, to the best of my knowledge, supported. If the same number of MPs were to speak at every reading, on all pieces of legislation, and remember that this is legislation Conservatives supported, it would be very difficult to pass anything.

Can the member tell the House why she feels that allowing for additional debate, such as on Bill S-5, is something she would oppose? Why would the Conservatives not support providing additional time for members even to speak on legislation they support?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, this actually is not about more time to debate. The Liberals brought up Bill S-5 several times. They did not like us debating it for so long.

It does not matter whether we oppose or support a bill. Every member in this House is elected to be a voice for their constituents. Every member in this House has the right to stand up and talk about if they support something or they do not support it, and why they support it or why they are against it. It is proper parliamentary procedure and part of our job here to be active in this House during debate and active in committees when we look over legislation. We do reviews. We do reports. This is the work of this House; all of it. We do it here in the House and in committees.

The Liberals want to extend debate on any given evening. Here we are right now talking late at night and voting late at night. It happens without Motion No. 22.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

At first glance, the purpose of the motion is simply to make it easier to extend sitting hours until midnight, not to limit debate. However, as my colleague from Shefford said, children do not have their parents at home with them in the evening when sittings end at midnight. As lawmakers, we work a lot, our hours are fairly irregular, plus we do work until midnight sometimes.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that? What should we do?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am the proud mother of four children. As a working mother, I managed, through perhaps both good fortune and bad parenting, to raise them all, and they made it. They are all working and they all have paycheques. It is a miracle.

This is a hard job for working parents; there is no doubt about it. It requires a lot. It requires time away from home. It requires long hours sometimes. Those long hours sometimes happen without notice.

The concern here with this motion is that the Liberals can trigger late-night sittings until midnight without quorum and without much consultation, other than with the NDP, and then we are stuck in it for as late as it is going to go, which is midnight. That is hard on parents.

When we were talking about hybrid Parliament and debating that, one of the reasons given for it was parenting responsibilities. That is apparently out the window with this.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, right now we are looking at Bill C-22 at committee. That is the bill around the Canada disability benefit. We know that many persons with disabilities and many people in Canada are struggling right now with the price of goods.

Can the member share if her party believes there is time, right now, to be able to get to Bill C-22 before we break for the end of the year?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, frankly, I am worried about all committee work and all committee business. If we are tasked with being in the House until midnight on a given evening, as I said in my speech, it means we lose two committees on that evening. The government has moved of late to not consult us on which committees it will cancel for something else, because resources can only be stretched so far.

We have no confidence that any important bills, important legislation, even those we support, and important investigations, many of which I outlined in my remarks, will be able to finish before the Christmas break.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to speak to yet another attempt by the Liberal government to curtail the rights of Parliament.

Government Business No. 22 includes a proposal to give the Liberals new powers to extend sitting hours in the House through to June 2023, to temporarily remove certain procedural tools from the opposition and for the Prime Minister to adjourn the House early at Christmas and in June without notice or all-party agreement, among other changes.

A few years ago, I stood in this chamber and spoke to the government’s attempt, then through Government Business No. 18, to reduce the opportunity for members to hold the government to account by eliminating Friday sittings and automatically time-allocating bills, and to eliminate the effectiveness of committees by preventing opposition parties from triggering debates on reports and implementing closure changes to committees. That was back in the spring of 2017 when the Liberals were awarded a majority Parliament on the promise of sunnier ways. After five years of failed Liberal leadership, they are back at it, this time under a minority government and with the help of their NDP partner.

Make no mistake: Even after Canadians punished the Liberals with a minority mandate, they still want to rule like they have a majority, completely disregarding the role of the opposition and punishing this side of the House when we dare question their record. Committees play an important role in our democracy. They invest parliamentarians with the responsibility to examine legislation, to undertake studies on departmental spending and to hold the government to account for its actions.

This is really where the real problem lies. Whether it is SNC-Lavalin, the WE scandal, trips to the Aga Khan’s villa in the tropics, the $54-million ArriveCAN scandal or the use of the Emergencies Act, the Liberals just do not want Canadians digging into their business.

Canadians might be wondering what my words here have to do with Government Business No. 22. It is simple. Every time the House sits longer, which the Liberals have the power to do unobstructed by parliamentary tradition and rules, committees get cancelled. Just this morning, the Auditor General released a damning report outlining the complete failure at Indigenous Services Canada to “provide the support First Nations communities needed to manage emergencies such as floods and wildfires, which are happening more often and with greater intensity.”

The Auditor General found, “the department’s actions were more reactive than preventative, despite First Nations communities identifying many infrastructure projects to mitigate the impact of emergencies. The department had a backlog of 112 of these infrastructure projects that it had determined were eligible but that it had not funded.” The Auditor General also found the department is spending 3.5 times more money on responding to and recovering from emergencies, such as floods, than it would if it actually funded those communities to prepare and mitigate those effects. It is spending three and a half times more. It is unbelievable.

The revelations of the Auditor General uncovered exactly the kinds of things committees need to dig into, and it is exactly those kinds of things that the government is trying to avoid answering questions on. They are questions like why it provided funding for approximately 190 full-time or part-time emergency management coordinators without any clue whether that was enough capacity to manage those emergencies; why high-risk first nations communities were ignored and not prioritized for resources; or why Indigenous Services Canada failed to address issues identified after evacuations like “improving access to essential services like mental health supports and health care. The department also did not integrate the impact on marginalized groups, including Indigenous elders, women, and youth, into how emergency services were planned and delivered in First Nations communities.” It is bad enough, but perhaps most damning is how Indigenous Services Canada officials simply passed the buck and blamed first nations for their problems in the name of self-governance.

The Auditor General found that Indigenous Services Canada did not use information about the risks faced by first nations and the capacity of first nations to respond to emergencies, reporting:

The department provides funding for First Nations communities to develop community vulnerability assessments and emergency management plans. These assessments and plans are important because they help First Nations prepare for and mitigate emergencies by identifying risks and outlining how they will be managed. Department officials told [the Auditor General] that, in the spirit of supporting First Nations self-governance, they did not require First Nations to provide this information to the department.

How the heck can the minister find that acceptable? According to the government’s own 2019 emergency management strategy for Canada, for every $1 invested in preparedness and mitigation, $6 can be saved in emergency response and recovery costs, yet Indigenous Services Canada’s total spending on response and recovery activities, at $646 million, was 3.5 times more than its spending on preparedness and mitigation activities, which was $182 million. This is yet another example of the Liberal government’s complete disregard for indigenous people and its complete disregard for managing taxpayers' money.

In budget 2019, Indigenous Services Canada was allocated approximately $1.4 million over three years to support first nations–led management and engagement on multilateral emergency management service agreements between Indigenous Services Canada, first nations communities and provinces or other service providers. Unsurprisingly, the Auditor General found that, as of April 2022, although the department had spent almost $790,000, no multilateral agreements were established. Half the money is gone, and there is nothing to show for it. It really is unbelievable.

It was exactly six months ago when another parliamentary officer released a report on the mismanagement at Indigenous Services Canada. This time, it was the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That was in May. The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report detailed the Liberals’ continued approach of pumping more money into a broken Ottawa-knows-best system that failed indigenous peoples. Rather than working with indigenous leaders to eliminate the inequalities inherent in the bureaucracy, barriers that are holding indigenous people back from achieving prosperity, the government just keeps on pushing its failed policies over and over again. The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report found that, instead of fixing the problem, the Liberals blew through their budget by $863 million, a 48% increase, which only resulted in a significant decline in Indigenous Services Canada’s ability to actually get the job done. They spend more and achieve less.

That is yet another example of a report that may never see the inside of a committee room if Motion No. 22 passes. The Liberals will promise the world. Then they will completely fail to deliver. Again, it is unbelievable.

Even more unbelievable is that Motion No. 22 will pass with the support, probably, of their NDP buddies. The New Democrats have said many times that they are committed to undertaking the work of reconciliation in good faith and in true and equal partnership with indigenous communities across the country. They say they are ready to make investments in indigenous communities to support infrastructure that improves basic emergency services and are against the broken promises and inaction of the Liberal government on those issues. If that sounds familiar to some of my colleagues, it should. It is on the front page of their website, yet they stand prepared to support this government to eliminate the right of parliamentarians to question and hold the government to account on life-threatening issues, such as the ones identified today by the Auditor General.

By supporting the Liberals, the NDP will be condoning their continued “spend more, achieve less” results for Canadian taxpayers and indigenous peoples. In an interview during the last election, when asked if he would support the Liberals in Parliament, the leader of the NDP said, “I think it’s clear with the evidence, another four years of [this Prime Minister] will make things worse. He has made things bad, and it is going to get worse. So people can’t afford another four years of [this Prime Minister].” During that same election campaign, the NDP put out an ad that claimed that the Prime Minister talks and the leader of the NDP delivers. That said, I would like to know exactly exactly what my NDP colleagues are delivering on by supporting Motion No. 22.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I guess I will thank the member for his speech, because I am sure he was up all night writing it word for word, and he delivered it with such conviction.

I was listening attentively and trying to understand if he was in support of this motion or against it, because part of his comments actually do justify the need for more time to debate, and then I listened to some of his comments in regard to committee. I am chairing the procedure and House affairs committee, and we meet every Tuesday and Thursday from 11 o'clock to one o'clock.

As a committee, we have agreed, because I agree we can find consensus and a way forward, that we would work on foreign election interference. We have already had two meetings with witnesses and we are working to find that way forward. However, this week, just coming out of Remembrance Day and Veterans' Week, we actually got a Standing Order 106(4) letter. For anybody listening, that means we had to add a meeting to procedure and House affairs, and the committee that could not have its time was veterans affairs. All parties agreed to that.

I would like to know what the member thinks about actually taking away time from other committees so that some committees can have an emergency meeting on an issue that has already been discussed.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, obviously, we want committees to work in the full capacity they have. They need to sit, and they need to start asking questions and get answers from the government.

As I pointed out, I did not write that speech last night. Believe it or not, I wrote it this morning, The Auditor General's report referred to a whole slew of failures in Indigenous Services, and I will mention three. Number one is that Indigenous Services Canada did not provide the support first nations communities needed to manage emergencies, such as floods and wildfires. Number two is that the department did not identify the first nations communities at the highest risk. Number three is that the department spent 3.5 times higher on responding and recovering than on mitigation and prevention.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech by my Conservative colleague.

Earlier, I made the mistake of asking my colleague from Winnipeg North two questions at once and obviously got a partial answer to one of the questions. I do want to note that he made an effort to answer one question.

I wanted to ask my Conservative colleague the same question I asked the member for Winnipeg North earlier. If the Liberals actually answered the questions they are asked during periods for questions and comments during the debates, would they even need to ask to extend sitting hours in the House of Commons?

I think my colleague is ready to answer before I have even finished, so I will get out of the way. My question is pretty simple.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what that actually looks like or sounds like. I have been here for seven years, and the Liberals have not answered a question yet, so that would be absolutely new to me. We have tons of questions on this side of the House.

We know where the government is failing. The Auditor General came out today with a slew of failures that need to be addressed. We need to be asking questions. We need engagement by the government and to actually get answers to the questions we ask.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are here in this House. This is where the decisions are made: here in the House. I just wanted to ask the member how we can make sure Canadians get the support they need faster in these very uncertain and very expensive times.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, these are very challenging times. I think members on all sides of this House are getting emails and telephone calls from Canadians who are struggling with a multitude of crises right now. This is why we need to be debating in the House. This is why we want more time to debate issues. Even with a simple bill that is proposed, there is always room for change and there is always room for improvement. We need to be able to get our discussion flowing here. This is the place to do it. This is the people's House where we are able to let ideas go back and forth and hopefully, at the end of the day, produce better pieces of legislation.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and participate in this debate. It has been quite a fruitful conversation that has taken place today, and clearly there are a variety of opinions.

Following on the last commentary, I think it is really important that we have more time to debate. I know that when I was elected in the 2015 election, I committed to the constituents of the riding of Waterloo that I would listen to the diversity of their perspectives and have them represented in this place. There are many different ways to do that, and participating in the debate on the floor of the House of Commons is one such way.

In this chamber we have demonstrated time and again that we can work together; we can find ways forward. We saw that when the member for Fundy Royal moved a motion to ban conversion therapy in Canada and we were able to see it pass swiftly through this chamber and send it to the other place.

We saw just recently the advancement of Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which received unanimous support.

Bill C-22 was referred to, an act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities. It establishes a disability tax credit, which has been long fought for, wanted and desired. We were able to get that legislation through second reading, and it is now at committee.

To show goodwill would mean seeing legislation move at a pace that delivers for more Canadians. I know it is important that we get to this vote, so I will not stop this House and this chamber from calling the question and making sure we can vote. However, I think something we have seen time and again is that most parties know where they stand on legislation, and they want to talk about it rather than call the question. This motion will provide them the opportunity to keep talking about it, but also to call the question.

With that, Madam Speaker, I hope you call the question really quickly, and if the opposition members want, they can save us the 30 minutes of bells and maybe see us walk in and get to a vote faster with the voting application, so we can all get to doing our constituency work and so forth. The Conservatives have options, should they wish to use them.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 8 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 Government Business No. 22 now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

The first vote is on the amendment.

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

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Call in the members.

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

Vote #214

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

[Chair read text of motion to House]