Debates of Nov. 15th, 2022

Government Business No. 22—Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc member for her question.

Mothers work very hard and it is unacceptable to ask them to sit until midnight to give speeches. I believe we should look to other countries that have achieved work-life balance. It is the right thing to do, and that is what we should be striving for in this place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask my colleague a question. I think she made some excellent points.

I wonder if the member would agree with this. The bottom line here is that the government's coalition partner does not like voting for time allocation or closure, so this is the draconian measure they are left with, and they are doing it under the guise of giving members more time to speak.

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely I would agree with the member. I think the NDP has no credibility left whatsoever, because its position has always been that it is opposed to time allocation but it supports the government on time allocation. Its members try to call the government out for driving up the cost of home heating and gasoline, but on the other hand, they are supporting the government's tripling of the carbon tax.

There is nothing but hypocrisy there, and I think the people who were supporting the NDP are asking why they would ever vote NDP again, because they are going to get the Liberals anyway. I think that is a real conundrum for them, and I would certainly say it is a problem.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the constituents of Saskatoon West.

Of course, we are debating a motion tonight, which is the latest attempt by the NDP-Liberal coalition to change the rules of Parliament to make up for its incredible incompetence when it comes to moving legislation through this House. As Jodi Taylor said, “Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.” An even better quote comes from Peter Green, who said the marvellous thing about lack of planning is that failure comes as a complete and utter surprise. The Liberals constantly fail with the current parliamentary rules, so now they think that changing the rules will somehow make it better for them.

I could talk about this motion’s effect on resources such as our interpreters, who do such a great job, and the great strain this will add to them. I could talk about this motion’s effect on our committees and the likelihood that many meetings will be cancelled. However, rather than doing that, I think my time is better spent reminding the Liberals of the true priorities of Canadians, the things that they wish the Prime Minister was focused on instead of arcane parliamentary procedures.

All Canadians are aware of the carbon tax. The Prime Minister has imposed it on Canadians against their wishes. Yes, for some, those who cycle their bikes through the Toronto skyscrapers of Bay Street or have huge mansions in the Rosedale district, taxing people who drive cars seems like mana from heaven. For the people who live in the Liberal finance minister’s riding, it is a curiosity to them that people in places like Saskatoon need to drive to work every day and struggle to pay their bills. That is because it is the people in Saskatoon who are paying the carbon tax that the finance minister gives to people living in downtown Toronto. It is therefore no wonder that she never meets a carbon tax that she does not embrace and impose on Canadians.

The newest version is the Liberals' so-called clean fuel standard. I say “so-called” because it is simply a second carbon tax in disguise. Just as Shakespeare wrote “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”, to the finance minister it is a nationwide carbon tax under another name that smells very sweet to her. Unfortunately, it is actually the stench of the carbon tax being tripled on all Canadians.

Between the planned tripling of the existing, federally imposed carbon tax in my province of Saskatchewan and the additional second carbon tax, residents of Saskatoon will be pushed to the breaking point. The odour of these carbon taxes is so overwhelming that it wafts all over the House from the finance minister. Not only does she promote it, but she wears it like a perfume. It is not a pleasant smell to the people in Saskatoon. They want the government to get rid of this carbon tax rather than wasting time on arcane parliamentary procedures like this motion does.

The Conservatives will continue holding the NDP-Liberal coalition to account for its endless tax increases on fuel and home heating. We welcome the opportunity to debate in this House because Canadians want us to fight for the things that matter to them, like the rising cost of living.

Christmas is not going to be a merry time of year for many Canadians. Record Liberal inflation has forced people to buckle down on their spending. This year, 30% of Canadians are expecting to cut down on gifts and dinner with their families to cope. Is it no surprise why. Thanks to the government’s inflationary policies, the price of everything continues to skyrocket. Printing money to pay for excessive spending has gotten us to where we are today. More money chasing fewer goods equals higher prices. During Thanksgiving, we saw the impact of this when holiday staples like turkey were up 15%, and when bread was up 13% and potatoes were up 22%. These price increases were on top of the Liberals' plan to triple the carbon tax on everyday essentials such as groceries, gasoline and home heating.

The finance minister’s solution of simply cancelling Disney+ subscriptions is not going to cut it this Christmas season for families barely scraping by. She does not get it. Canadians want action on the inflation crisis, not changes to the House of Commons procedures. One really has to wonder how much humbug the finance minister really has as Christmas approaches. Disney+ is about to launch the new Santa Claus franchise based on the beloved Tim Allen movies of a while back. Does she really want to strip Canadians of the joy that Tim Allen delivers, or is it because Tim Allen is a self-described conservative that she wants Disney+ cancelled?

Is it any wonder the Liberals have three Internet censorship bills they are trying to ram through Parliament? Canadians are getting clobbered by 40-year inflation highs and massive interest rate hikes while the Prime Minister tries to find more ways to skirt accountability. Today’s motion comes as no shock. The Liberals are once again trying to avoid transparency. They want to ram through their plans to triple the carbon tax on fuel, groceries and home heating and limit the ability of committees to investigate the $54-million arrive scam scandal and how Liberal friends got rich during the pandemic.

We have seen this before. When things do not go the Prime Minister’s way, he tries to run down anything in his path. Remember the WE Charity scandal, where the Liberals tried to give half a billion dollars to the Prime Minister’s friends? When they were caught, they shut down Parliament for more than five weeks. That cancelled all the work of Parliament, causing it to start again at square one. It was a huge waste of parliamentary resources.

What about the SNC-Lavalin scandal, where the Prime Minister fired Canada's first indigenous justice minister and attorney general because she would not give in to his demands?

Canadians remember and will not be fooled by Liberal corruption. They know that today's motion is an attempt by the Prime Minister to give himself a majority by stealth, and they know this motion is nothing more than a power grab that will limit the opposition's ability to hold the government to account. Conservatives will continue to demand accountability from this government and fight its inflation-causing agenda.

I have to say that it is not an easy task to stand up to the Liberals day in and day out. Take this motion that we are debating today, for instance. We are only here because the Liberals have a lap dog in the NDP who does their every bidding. The government knows that it can bring forward any outrageous measure, skirt any ethical law, break any democratic norm and NDP members will wag their tails and bark on command. People used to have this mythical image of the NDP, the so-called conscience of Parliament. What a sorry lot these current NDP members are compared to Tommy Douglas, Ed Broadbent, Jack Layton and Tom Mulcair.

Canadians are frightened by the anticipated increases in home heating costs, which are expected to rise anywhere from 30% to 100% this winter. Some may count on the NDP to deliver more than time on Twitter in such a crisis. Sadly, all they are getting are retweets of Liberal policy.

In October, the Conservatives moved a motion to remove the carbon tax on home heating. What did NDP members do? They voted alongside their costly Liberal coalition partner to make heating even more expensive. Unfortunately, this pattern is all too familiar. We are seeing it first-hand today with the NDP's support of the government's motion to end accountability and fast-track its legislation without scrutiny. They may pretend to be opposed on Twitter, but when it is time to face the music, they vote to prop up this corrupt government at every turn. Canadians simply cannot afford more inaction from the NDP.

While the NDP continues to increase the cost of living, Conservatives will hold this government to account for their cruel tax hikes and wasteful spending. When we form government, we will axe the carbon tax and cap government spending so Canadians can finally get ahead. The NDP members are the Liberal government's enablers, as it is their complicity in the drive-by corruption, ethical lapses and general war on the Canadian taxpayer that is hurting people in this country. This is the real world, and the NDP-Liberals are hurting Canadians.

The finance minister seems to live in a fairy tale, in a land where Canadians do not need to drive their cars to work in the morning and can afford to live in million-dollar mansions in Toronto. To her, the carbon tax is actually helping us, never mind the millions of Canadians struggling to choose between putting three meals on the table or heating their homes. The finance minister and the Liberals believe their plan to triple the carbon tax is going to help us get ahead. They believe that printing more money to pay for their reckless spending and raising interest rates will be good for us. Unfortunately for them, they are in for a rude awakening. Canadians are on the brink.

While the Prime Minister stays in $6,000-per-night hotels and jet-sets across the world, the carbon tax combined with NDP-Liberal money printing deficits has turned Canada into a country where mothers are putting water in their children’s milk because they cannot afford the increases in food prices, where 1.5 million people are turning to food banks and thousands are skipping meals just to get by. This is not a fantasy either. These are real people across the country hurting, because of this government’s refusal to listen to anyone besides the downtown elite class.

As we debate this motion, we see a stark contrast with the NDP-Liberals on one side of this Parliament. Theirs is a vision of high taxes, high gas and food prices, rampant corruption and no accountability. They are ramming this very motion through the House to allow for more opportunities to impose their vision of carnage on the Canadian public. On this side of Parliament stands the Conservative Party led by our new leader.

Our new leader is a man who is singularly focused on delivering solutions to fix the cost of living crisis. He will cut taxes. He will allow newcomers to work in the jobs they were trained in, and he will make life more affordable for average, working Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member spent a lot of his time talking about budgetary measures, and I will pick up on that in the form of a question. The first major economic policy statement that really came out of the current leader of the Conservative Party was to recommend to Canadians that they should invest in cryptocurrency as a way to combat inflation. We all know that turned into a dud.

Now we hear again and again from members of the Conservative Party that they will abolish the price on pollution. However, the price on pollution that Ottawa has implemented does not cover the entire country as there are provinces that have their own price on pollution. Ours is a backstop. Is it the Conservative Party's position that it will mandate all provinces to get rid of any form of a price on pollution?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the parliamentary secretary is not paying a lot of attention to the Conservative leader, and I guess I can understand that. Our party leader has a very clear, very simple message. He is concerned about the cost of living for Canadians. He is going to work very hard to undo some of the terrible Liberal policies that have caused inflation to go out of control and interest rates to go so high, and that are causing all the problems I mentioned in my speech. People are not able to afford the daily necessities of life, and that is directly because of policies instituted by the government.

That is the message that my leader is talking about every single day and that is his singular focus.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that I heard the hon. member talk about our time on social media. I want to welcome him to TikTok. Many of his comments in the House are very similar to his rhetoric online. He talks about the dumpster fire that is the economy, but he does not have the guts to talk about the arsonist.

While the Conservatives bemoan over and over about the cost of living and the high cost of food, why do they not have the courage to take on the fact that companies like Loblaws take in $1 million a day in profit? Why do the Conservatives not have the courage to go after the arsonists of this economy so that people in his constituency can afford to eat? The ultrawealthy in this country keep cashing in on this disgusting use of price gouging and corporate greed.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that gives me a great opportunity to point out something I mentioned in my speech, and that is the fact that NDP members, whether it is on Twitter or even in the House, talk as if they oppose the government, as if they are unhappy with the government, yet they support the government when they vote every single time, regardless of what they say.

What is really important to remember is that it does not matter what people say; what matters is what they do. What the NDP members do every single day in this House is vote to support the corrupt Liberal government, every single time.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a lot to be said in regard to what we have been witnessing over the last number of hours. We can contrast that to what we have seen from the official opposition over the last couple of years. For those who are following the debate, I am going to try to use the experience I have accumulated over the last 30 years as a parliamentarian to try to shed some light on what the Conservative Party is actually doing.

I do not come to this lightly. I served just over 20 years in opposition, so I understand what it is the opposition is attempting to do. I have also now had the privilege of being on the government benches for a number of years. When I reflect on what I have been witnessing over the last couple of years, the first thing that comes to my mind is the political agenda of the Conservative Party when it comes to the legislative process in the House of Commons. It is actually fairly simple and straightforward for them. It is to, if at all possible, prevent any type of legislation from passing through the House of Commons.

The only time we will see legislation pass through the House of Commons is if the Conservative Party is shamed into supporting the legislation, if it accidentally slips through because its members were not necessarily paying attention or if it is something they really want to see pass, and that is very rare. They use delay tactics to try to frustrate the government, because what they want to be able to say is that the government has no legislative agenda and that it was not able to get things passed. I suspect that, with very little research, we could find quotes where the Conservatives are critical of us for not being able to pass a legislative agenda.

It is almost like sitting on the sidewalk, watching people walk by and extending a leg to trip a person and then saying, “How come you fell?” The Conservatives are intentionally trying to prevent the government's legislative agenda from passing, and they come up with a wide variety of tools to do just that. Then, they get upset when the government says it is going to continue to push through legislation in the best way it can.

Today it is a minority government. That requires us to get at least one opposition party to assist us in passing legislation. If we cannot get the assistance of at least one political party, given the Conservative Party's approach to legislation, we would not be able to pass a legislative agenda. We have a very aggressive number of pieces of legislation that are so important for us to—

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

The hon. member for Carleton Trail—Eagle Creek is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not believe we have quorum.

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

I will count the members present.

And the count having been taken:

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

We have 21 people in the House and we have one online, so we do have quorum.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order myself. My concern is that, if the Conservatives continue to stand up and call for quorum, I do not want that to take away from my cumulative time. I believe I am given 20 minutes, so whether members stand up on a point of order or they continue to want to call for quorum, they should be aware that it does not take away from my time. Am I not correct in that assessment?

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

The parliamentary secretary is correct. No time is taken.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, for the Conservative Party it is a game. The best way I can illustrate that game is to talk about the motion that is before the House. The Conservatives say they want to have more debate, and that is why they get all upset when the government is forced to bring in time allocation. If we bring in time allocation on a piece of legislation, they will stand up and scream and holler from their seats, saying they have more members who want to speak and how dare we bring in time allocation. That is what they will do. Then the government works with an opposition party in order to try to get legislation passed, and we bring in time allocation. The Conservative Party will then almost collapse with its debate on that legislation.

If we want to get something through the House of Commons, we have to bring in time allocation, unless of course the Conservative Party is feeling very merciful or has been shamed into supporting something that does not require the government to bring in time allocation.

The Conservatives' excuse is that they have more people who want to speak to the legislation. What does the motion do? If the motion were to pass today, it would enable the government, not on its own but working with any other opposition party to form a majority inside the House, to say that it wants to sit an extended number of hours. In other words, it would allow for more time to debate legislation.

One would think that if the Conservative Party was so preoccupied about ensuring that more of its members get to speak on legislation, it would support that initiative. However, that is not the case. This is not the first time it has been done. Is it that the Conservative Party does not believe it should work late into the evening? Millions of Canadians work past six o'clock in the evening. Hundreds of thousands work past midnight.

Liberal and New Democrat members of this House are not scared to work. If it means we can pass legislation by working the extra hours, we will do that, because the legislation we are passing is of substance. It is there to support Canadians through the pandemic. It is there to provide national programs, such as the dental care program. It is budgetary measures that enable the government to do all sorts of wonderful things for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

There is a limited number of days for us to pass through all the measures that need to be passed, whether they be budgetary measures, legislative measures, or all different types or forms of debate that the government is ultimately responsible for bringing before the House. It does not take an incredible effort to prevent any piece of legislation from being passed if there is no time allocation. I could take 10 high school students from Sisler High School, Maples, R. B. Russell Vocational High School, Children of the Earth High School or St. John's High School, and I could prevent legislation from passing under the current rules.

If the Conservative Party genuinely wants to contribute to debate on legislation, that is being accommodated through this motion.

However, that is not the Conservatives' real reason. Their real reason is demonstrated by their behaviour. Imagine that members are working during the day and the Conservatives stand up and move to adjourn or shut down the House and our debate. They have done that on many occasions.

Imagine they have two Conservatives who want to speak to a bill; they both stand up and one moves that the other be heard. Why? It is to cause the bells to ring, not to facilitate debate. Why, whenever there is a concurrence motion from the opposition benches, is it always, without exception, during government business? It is to prevent debate on government bills.

These are all tactics that the opposition, the Conservatives, are so focused on. These are not normal times. We are going through a pandemic and there is extra legislation that is necessary. The government has been so focused on ensuring that we have an economy that works for all Canadians. We are a government that is focused on ensuring we have the backs of Canadians during a worldwide pandemic.

We now have worldwide inflation that is hitting Canadians too, even though our inflation rate is less than the inflation in the U.S.A. and many other countries in Europe. We are bringing forward legislation to provide real, tangible relief at a time when Canadians need that relief, but we have a Conservative Party that is more focused on political games and preventing legislation from passing. If only Canadians knew how the Conservative Party is behaving on the floor of the House of Commons. I do not say that lightly.

As I indicated at the beginning, I spent over 20 years in opposition. We do not have to be a destructive force. There are many positive ways to contribute and still be a strong official opposition. Members on this side of the House and other members are frustrated with the leadership of the Conservative Party, because we want to be there for Canadians in a real and tangible way, and the games that are being played indicate that it is not democratic.

That is a weird statement to make, when we are offering more time for debate. We are being accused of being anti-democratic because we want to give more time for debate. It is something they have been asking for, but it does not fit their agenda, because when they say they want more time for debate, what they are really talking about is that they do not want to work beyond the normal hours. If we work beyond the normal hours, that means they have to work a little harder to filibuster debate. It means they might have to sit past seven o'clock in the evening. They might have to go to midnight to continue to filibuster legislation.

The member for Kingston and the Islands, the government House leader and others in the House used Bill S-5 as an example. It is a wonderful example. Bill S-5 states that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment. Do members remember the debate on it? Every member of the House supported that legislation. Everyone wanted to see it go to committee.

The Conservative Party could not get enough of debating that piece of legislation, even though they played some games. I have not done the research, but I suspect that if I did, I would find that they probably moved concurrence and they probably did what they could to kill time, even on legislation they supported and that was universally well accepted.

All we wanted to do was get it through committee and yet, they put up speaker after speaker after speaker. If we had approached them and suggested that in order for them to accommodate all their speakers, why not continue it on into the evening, no, they would not want to do that.

Our microphones work after eight o'clock in the evening. It is now seven o'clock. If we sit until midnight, the wonderful thing about the House of Commons is we have a civil service, a wonderful group of people. We have our security, our Hansard and the Clerk and his officers, and the administration. They allow this House to operate. It is truly amazing. They do a fantastic job. They respond to the needs of this House so that when the Speaker allows an emergency debate, we are able to sit and have that emergency debate. When the government proposes a take-note debate, they are there to support us into the evening. When there is a need for us to sit later in the evening to facilitate more debate, they will be there for us in order to ensure that it takes place, as well it should. This is Canada's focal point on our democracy.

I do not need a lesson on democracy from the Conservative opposition. Believe me, there are opportunities for opposition parties to abuse the rules. We have been witnessing that. I sat in opposition when Stephen Harper brought in time allocation after time allocation well over 100 times when he was in a majority government situation. I even stood up and defended him on more than one occasion, saying that at times there is a need to bring in time allocation.

Unlike opposition parties, we do not have programmed legislation. On an opposition day, opposition members know that they bring in a motion and within 10 days there is going to be a vote on it and it moves on. The government does not have that. There is no programming. Some jurisdictions do have programming. Maybe that is what we need to be looking into.

I supported programming when I was in opposition in the Manitoba legislature. It is not an advantage to the government or a disadvantage to the opposition. There are all sorts of checks and balances that can be put into place. As I say, if they give me 10 students and never bring in time allocation or any sort of a closure, I could prevent anything from passing. The issue is that when there is a majority of the House that in essence says it is time to move on to some other debate and it is time that a piece of legislation went to committee, there is a need to recognize that fact and allow it to go to committee.

With respect to the legislative process, first reading does not really consume the time of the House, but second reading does, as does report stage, as does third reading. Often, there will be amendments that come from the Senate, which require more time. That is on one piece of legislation. Let us look at the substantial legislation that we have brought forward. I have a list, but because of limited time, I will not go through its entirety.

We are talking about dozens of pieces of legislation of substance. It is legislation that is putting money in people's pockets, that is protecting small businesses and that is modernizing legislation that has not been modernized for decades. It is a substantial legislative agenda. Is it any wonder that a majority of the House, not just the Liberals but a majority of the members of Parliament, are saying that one of the ways we can try to get some of this legislation through and allow for more debate opportunities is by extending the hours. Then we get the Conservatives. I am going to wait and see what the Bloc members actually do on this. At the end of the day, I would like to think the Bloc members would support the need.

It is nothing new. It is not like parliaments in democracies, whether at the provincial level or national level, have not brought in motions of this nature in the past. It is not uncommon.

The core issue of this motion is to say that, if there is a majority of members of Parliament on the floor of the House of Commons who want to see extended sitting hours, that can take place. We can sit more hours to accommodate debate. To me, that is a strong positive. I do not believe for a moment that members can say no to this and then criticize the government for not allowing debate on legislation.

That is how I would conclude my remarks to my Conservative friends. If they vote no to this motion, they are really saying that they do not need additional time to debate legislation. If they are not saying that, then they are really saying they do not want to sit extra hours. It has to be one of the two, unless it is because they do not want to pass any legislation whatsoever and want to continue playing games and frustrating the House. I will let the individuals who follow the debate determine which one they think it is. I am hoping the Conservatives will turn the page, realize its benefits and pass this motion.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I cannot imagine, should this bill pass, Canadians being subjected to the member speaking over and again in the House. He clearly has a very dysfunctional relationship with the truth about late sittings. One of the biggest problems we have with late sittings is a lack of resources. We do not have enough interpreters. We run the risk of losing our committees.

Right now, at the operations committee, we are studying the ineptness and possible corruption of the government with respect to the ArriveCAN app. At public accounts just today we heard the Auditor General noting that the billions spent on the homeless is not helping, yet we see the government selfishly trying to push through midnight sittings and falsely saying it is because we do not want to work. We need to work on these issues at committee as well.

Can the member guarantee that his government will ensure that every single committee would sit and that not a single minute at committee would be missed because of its shameful action to limit debate in the House?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that, if this motion passes, there will be more hours of debate to be able to cover a wide spectrum of different issues. I see that as a positive thing. In my history here on the Hill, and even when I was an MLA, there has never been a shortfall of supports to ensure the chamber is able to fulfill the mandates of the fundamental democratic principles here on the floor of the House of Commons.

I have confidence in those individuals to ensure that. Whether they are those in security, the Hansard, the TV or at the table, or the Speaker or the translators, who do a fantastic job I must say, they will be here to support us. After all, this is the centre of democracy in Canada, and the member should not be concerned about the chamber not being able to have the proper resources in order for us sit.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again I am struggling with my colleague's arguments. Why?

First, he is not providing substantive arguments to justify the Liberal Party's position. Second, and most important, I find it disrespectful to call members and certain political parties lazy because they do not want to move forward with this plan.

That said, may I remind our very dear colleague that it was his government that decided to prorogue Parliament not so long ago? May I remind him that it was his government that called an election not so long ago?

All that time was wasted and now, suddenly, it is urgent that we pass these bills. Does the opposition not have cause to be a little suspicious of this supposed emergency?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member does not need to be suspicious. The motion is very straightforward. The question the member has to ask himself is whether he believes there might be a need for additional debate time on a wide spectrum of potential issues. If he believes the answer is yes and if a majority of MPs in the House of Commons today agree, then there will be additional time for members to debate.

That is what this motion does. Whether the member supports that, it is really not that much more complicated than what I just finished stating. If the member supports additional potential time for members to debate legislation, he should be supporting this motion.

Whatever the House leadership team of his political party is telling him, I can assure him that this is, in fact, the essence of what we are voting on.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could talk about hybrid Parliament and the opportunity to be able to actually engage in those debates. I find that, many times when I have been speaking in the House, it is an opportunity for more folks to be involved, because a lot of the time with what is happening right now with COVID, people are not able to attend the House every day.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is right. When we look at the hybrid system, are there things we could do to modernize our Parliament that would, in fact, make it a better and friendlier environment, particularly for our constituents? If there are ways in which we could allow members of Parliament to serve their constituents, whether they are in British Columbia, Nova Scotia or my home province of Manitoba, by, for example, giving a speech through a hybrid system or being able to vote while they are in their constituency, I see that as a positive thing. I am very much open to that.

I anxiously await the report that is going to be coming from the procedure and House affairs committee, which is chaired by a very dear friend of mine. I am hoping that we will see certain aspects of what we have been able to put into place over the last couple of years put into our Standing Orders permanently, such as voting applications, which are wonderful things. There are other things we could look at.

I anxiously await the report coming from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was so nice to hear the member refer to the work that the procedure and House affairs committee is doing in order to ensure that more members can actually participate and also do the important work that we do within our constituencies.

I listened to the member with great interest. In a response he gave not too long ago, he said that the motion is about the potential of extending hours. It is about ensuring that if members want to participate in debate, that we actually have the hours available for them to do so.

Currently, tactics are used sometimes, such as a motion that a specific member be now heard. This way, if we have the ability to extend the hours until midnight, it would actually more allow more members to represent their constituencies.

Does this government motion mean that we have to extend hours every night? What is implied by the passage of such a motion?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a good question. Let me give a very specific answer.

Bill S-5 had many hours of debate. If this motion had passed before we sent Bill S-5 to committee, we would have been able to say to the Conservative opposition or to any other political party, “Let us have an extra sitting in the evening so that more members are able to participate in the debate.”

All that this motion does, if there is a desire from a majority of members in the House, is facilitate additional hours so that more debate can be had on a piece of legislation or another item that might be before the House. It is to accommodate more contributions.

It takes nothing away from a member's ability to contribute. That is why, as I say, it is something that every member of the House should be voting in favour of.

[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?