Debates of Nov. 15th, 2022

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, when I reflect on the games that are being played in the House, the first thing that pops into my mind is with respect to Bill S-5. Bill S-5, ultimately, was unanimously adopted in the House, and in the process of getting to the point where we could finally vote on it, there were six Liberal members, four NDP members, five Bloc members and one Green member who spoke to the bill. How many Conservatives spoke to it? There were 27 Conservatives.

The best part about it for those who were in the House listening to what they were talking about on that legislation regarding environmental protection was that none of them even spoke to the bill. It was clear that what they were doing, on something they ultimately supported, was just to slow down the government agenda. Would the House leader not agree with me that the sole objective of the Conservatives is to slow down everything at any cost?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I go to the government House leader, I want to remind members of the opposition to hold onto their thoughts. The hon. parliamentary secretary does not have a low voice, and I had a hard time hearing him, so I would ask members to please hold onto their thoughts until they are recognized.

The hon. government House leader.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member, my colleague and friend, is 100% right. In fact, I can recall in the last session, when we had a bill that was being voted on unanimously, the Conservatives directly said to me that there was no way they were going to let it go through, and they were moving motions to hear themselves so they could force votes in the middle of the night. That meant that people who were trying to testify at the MAID committee about medical assistance in dying, who had flown from all over the country to speak and tell their stories, were displaced so they could play a game.

The reality is that, in each and every instance, they have a smirk on their face when they refuse to tell us how many speakers they have. They continue to tell us they have a bill, but that is the first number I have ever heard. They finally have one, and maybe that is proof that this motion is working. Maybe it is proof that now they will actually give us numbers because this is the first time I am hearing them and the House can adjudicate its business and do it.

They do not have the ability, as a single party in this place, to interrupt the business of everyone else and try to do obstruction by stealth, which is what they are doing. They are upset because they have been called on it. Now they have an opportunity. If they have speakers, they can go on into the night and talk. That does not limit debate. It expands it. They can make their points and they can do their speeches, and that means the House can still do its business.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have a very serious question. I believe our colleague across the way is an hon. member of the House. It is a very serious question, and I would like a serious answer. It has to do with the Constitution of Canada, and I know the Liberals get very upset when they see other levels of government tinkering around the edges of the Constitution, yet the motion before us would take away the constitutionally required law that there be 20 members in the House at all times.

Why is the Liberal government so cavalier about simply ignoring the Constitution when it is convenient for them, but so adamant that it is a terrible thing when other orders of government see it the same way?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the member has had an opportunity to consider the application of constitutional law on this matter, but I can certainly say that the House is in absolutely no way, in its normal conduct of business, being interfered with. As is the normal procedure when we are talking about after 6:30 p.m., this motion would mean that there cannot be the opportunity to play all sorts of different procedural games.

The motion would allow, after 6:30 p.m., and after the normal conduct of business, for debate to continue and for that debate not to be interrupted with procedural tricks. I understand the Conservatives are disappointed about that. I understand they would like the opportunity to be able, in the wee hours of the night, to play games and do different things because it is not their objective to actually give speeches or to have speakers put up. Their objective is to block legislation and block the other parties from being able to do the critical work that the government, and not just the government but also the House and every party in it, needs to do, which is to focus on the priorities of Canadians and make sure we adopt legislation.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is really unfortunate when members opposite suggest that somehow we are trying to be absolute obstructionists and that somehow members do not have the right to address pieces of legislation.

There are issues on which, when I go back home to home to my riding on a weekend, I will hear from constituents. They will say it is a really important piece that they hope I can signal in a bill, and that they would really like to have my voice on it. It may be something another one of my colleagues has brought up, but does that make it any less important that I bring it up on behalf of my constituents who have asked me to do so and who sent me here to be their voice in this chamber?

This is not me being here to be a spokesperson and a parrot of talking points and everything else. I am sent here to be a spokesperson for my constituents. I am here to bring their voices to this chamber, and the motion before us is absolutely hurting democracy. We deserve to have quorum. This is absolutely atrocious.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have to confess that in all the time since I was elected in 2014, I have never heard such a passionate plea for quorum. I am very glad the member opposite is so passionate about quorum. It is available every single day in the normal operating hours of the House. It is available every single operating day.

The second point she made is a very important point, which is that every member in the House is elected to represent their constituents and to be able to voice their concerns, which is why I am also puzzled as to why she would be against extending the hours so she can do the thing she just said she wanted to do.

Moreover, if we want to talk about our constituents, let us take a bill like Bill S-5. My hon. colleague spoke to it earlier. We spent six days on a bill that has unanimous support. Every day, we would ask how much more time the Conservatives would need, and they would say, “Oh, we do not know. We will see.”

The next day, we would ask how much more time they would need.

“We do not know. We will see.”

The next day, we would ask how much time they would need.

“We do not know. We will see.”

Then we have to go to committee. Then we have third reading. We have report stage. This is done at every single stage, and this is for a bill they support.

I would ask the hon. member opposite how she goes back and explains to her constituents that she is wasting days and days of House time.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting when the Conservatives talk so much about efficiency and the resources of the House.

Maybe we could talk about how that balance is created, in terms of what we are trying to do today, in terms of passing some legislation and having that meaningful discussion, not hurting democracy but expanding democracy, having the conversations that are needed and doing so in a balanced way to ensure that we can be as efficient as possible and financially efficient as well.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that the resources of the House have to be brought to bear on that which is most important, which is adopting legislation to help Canadians and to make sure their needs are being met. The supremacy of the House must be recognized in that regard. It must be recognized that in terms of the legislation that is put in front of the House, Canadians have an expectation, and rightfully so, that the House will give it the appropriate attention and move it expeditiously, and that every member will be heard.

The bill does exactly that. There are 31 committees. The idea that all 31 committees can sit on top of the House and block it from conducting its business is simply inappropriate.

What is appropriate is that when we look at committees and their work, we make sure the resources of the House are managed in such a way that all the business of the House is conducted and done.

There are 31 committees. That means we need to have conversations about the matters that are most important, if there is any influence because of the fact that we are waiting for more translators and additional resources, so that we never face these kinds of issues and so that we can ensure that the House, which has the principal responsibility of adopting legislation, is not interfered with in that process.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I am astounded at what I am hearing here. Committees are integral to what we do here. What I am hearing from the government House leader is that democracy is just too inconvenient right now for them.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Then you are not listening.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am listening. It is true. That is exactly what they are saying—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We cannot have cross debates. If the hon. member can get to his question, he will get his answer.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, democracy, for the Liberal government, is proving just too inconvenient. That is what we are debating here today.

Why can we not have committees? Why can we not do things during the normal allotted sitting hours in a constitutionally compliant manner? It is the Liberals who are the first to complain about the use of section 33 of the charter, yet here they are now, taking these actions.

It is a shame that they are suppressing the very right to democracy that we were all elected to uphold.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, the reason we cannot conduct our business in normal hours is that the party opposite refuses to allow that to occur. That is a tactic. It is called obstruction, and its objective is to block not only the government but also the House from conducting—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, I just want to remind members that they had an opportunity to ask a question, and they were not disrupted in doing so. Well, they were a little, because I had to bring order, but I want to remind members that if they want to listen to the question so we can get to the answer and then to more questions, that would be great.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, when one spends six days debating legislation one supports and has no amendments for, it is very clear one's objective is to slow down the government's agenda. It is not just the government's agenda. It is the agenda of the House and the responsibility of the House to adopt legislation, and the idea that it would not be responded to is foolhardy.

If the idea that we have added time so there can be additional debate, so we can do less allocation of time and fewer motions that program, is somehow offensive, it goes against against the very point the Conservatives are making. We are trying to find a way to give them additional time to speak.

Yes, absolutely, committees have incredible prominence and importance in our process. They feed our legislative process. However, when one uses committees to go trolling for partisan purposes and make newspaper headlines that have nothing to do with helping Canadians, and when one demonstrates that interest in trying to advance one's own partisan interest and troll for things one can put in newspapers, this has absolutely nothing to do with helping Canadians who need help right now. The idea that their partisan games should take supremacy over the needs and demands of this country is not responsible.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, in short, we are debating a closure motion about a gag order. That is how I see it.

Most of the arguments that I am hearing are as follows: that democracy takes time, that there will be procedures in place and that we need to move forward quickly at all costs. However, I think that we need to take the time to do things right. That takes time.

In times of crisis, like the one we just experienced with COVID-19, decisions were made in one day. That is normal in a time of crisis. However, we often noticed that there were a lot of negative effects because we did not follow the proper procedure.

We must not skip over the committee work. We must not speed up debate at all costs. We are capable of functioning and doing things properly.

Why do indirectly here what the government is not able to get done directly?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I would also like to thank the hon. whip of the Bloc Québécois, who is very responsible. At each stage, she clearly announces the number of speakers who will be rising and the amount of time the Bloc Québécois will need to pass a bill. I appreciate that.

Unfortunately, that is not the case with the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party is always filibustering.

This motion is so simple. We want to extend the hours of debate into the evening. This would give the Conservative Party, which is the only party in the House that has a problem with this, the opportunity to have more members speak. I find it odd that they would have a problem with that.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am confused. I am hearing Conservatives talk about democracy and say they want to have an opportunity to speak. The whole premise of this is to ensure we sit later, so they all get a chance to get up and speak on a bill. We want to work later.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

That's not true.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is true. That is exactly what we are doing here. We are trying to ensure that everybody gets an opportunity, by sitting to midnight. We want to work hard. We came here to work. I came 11 hours to get here from my door, from a riding that has 31 communities and is three time zones away. I am willing to sit here until midnight. I am willing to get the work done.

Maybe the government House leader can speak about how ludicrous it is that we would not be sitting until midnight, when we need to get business done. I came far, from Vancouver Island, to get work done here.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to thank all members for the sacrifices they make in their personal lives to represent their constituents.

Yes, it does strike me as bizarre. In every meeting I have with the Conservatives I am told they need more speakers and do not have enough time for speakers, so we create a mechanism whereby they can have more speakers, and then it is undemocratic and they say it is terrible that we are giving them more time to have speakers. It is a terrible affront to democracy that they are being given what they asked for. It is very strange to me.

What it cuts to, and what somebody who is reasonable might presume, is that the underlying issue is not how many speakers the Conservatives might have, but that we are taking away from them the ability to block every other party in the House from doing the business of this place. We are taking away their toy, which is obstruction. We are taking away their ability to not tell us how many speakers there are, and we are taking away their ability to block this House from doing its business.