Debates of April 28th, 2022

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one never knows. It might be the member who just stood. He is right.

Often, when someone rises on a point of order, it interrupts our train of thought. Here, we are talking about the Conservatives wanting to be able to have that additional debate on bills. Motion No. 11 would do just that.

The House would normally adjourn today at 6:30. Once this motion passes, all it would take is any opposition House leader, even the Conservative opposition House leader, and a government minister to come to an agreement before 6:30 to say that we would like to be able to continue on until midnight. What is wrong with that?

The legislation is there. When I look at some of the legislation, on some of it I suspect there is going to be a great deal of interest. The one that comes to my mind is the budget implementation act. I suspect that there will be a good number of people who want to be able to speak to the budget implementation act. If members want to contribute to that debate, I would like to see them contribute to that debate, if it is possible, on that piece of legislation.

The House is now saying that, if there is an agreement between any opposition House leader and a minister, they could then bring it forward so we can sit until midnight, but we have to do that before 6:30 of that day. Let us think in terms of the time opportunities and the splitting of speeches. For example, more often than not we see members split a speech, so it is then a 10-minute speech with five minutes for questions and answers. That gives the opportunity for four other people to speak to a bill or, in the case as I mentioned, to the budget implementation act.

In extending from 6:30 until midnight, one can quickly do the math, and we are talking about 20-plus additional speakers. Those are the individuals who have the full 10 minutes. That does not include the individuals who will stand up and have the opportunity, indirectly, to ask those questions on issues they might have about a piece of legislation or a budget. That is what Motion No. 11 is all about. It is about enabling those 20-plus other members of Parliament to be able to contribute if the need or the desire is there. As I say, if we factor in those three questions per speech on four speeches, there are 12 per hour. We are looking at over five hours. That is a lot of opportunity for members on all sides of the House, if they choose, to get up and provide comments, ask questions and do whatever else they might have to do. That is why I believe it is important.

Bill C-8 is the legislation that has been debated now on 10 separate occasions in the House. If we applied that same principle to the rest of the government legislation, it would not be possible. We would not be able to get it done. We would have to bring in a time allocation motion that is very wholesome in its approach. We would have to look at ways to try to pass the legislative agenda in a very, very tight timeframe.

We know, and we can anticipate, that the official opposition will bring in concurrence reports. It has demonstrated this and shown it. We know the Conservatives will bring in adjournment motions and other activities to frustrate the legislative process. That does not serve Canadians well.

The Prime Minister was very clear yesterday. The message he gave yesterday is something I would like to emphasize today. My take on the message the Prime Minister gave yesterday is that the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition, has its own agenda, whatever that agenda might be. More often than not, it is one of personal attack. We saw that yesterday in question period. We saw today before this motion. That is the issue it wants to talk about.

On character assassination, one of the colleagues from across the way stood up and talked about Bill Morneau. He was talking about the French villa the then minister of finance had, trying to make it impressive by saying it was in located in France and highlighting this morning that he did not declare it to the commission. The first thing that came across my mind as the member was talking about that was that, a few days after the election, when the minister of finance was elected, the cottage in France was reported in the newspaper. I do not believe the minister of finance was trying to hide anything from his constituents, let alone Canadians. It was actually in the newspaper days after he was elected.

However, it does not prevent the Conservatives from focusing their attention on character assassinations. Yesterday the Prime Minister gave a very clear message. The message was very simple. Opposition parties will do what they do, but from the Government of Canada's perspective, the Prime Minister, cabinet and Liberal caucus, at times with the support of the New Democratic Party and, even at times, members from the Bloc, the focus is on Canadians first and foremost.

We have seen that in the many different budgetary actions that have been brought forward, whether it is actions to support seniors, which there are many of, or whether it is actions that have been ongoing to support small businesses in Canada. For example, there is Bill C-8, which is the one we have not been able to pass. These are the types of things Canadians want us to get through the House of Commons.

Canadians want to see a House of Commons that is much more productive on the issues of the day. That is what I believe we, as a government, will continue to focus on. I am concerned about the cost of housing, inflation, health care and long-term care. I am concerned about the dental plan and making sure we can put that into place. I am concerned about pharmacare and the cost of pharmaceuticals.

I am concerned about our environment, and I am looking at initiatives such as the greener home build program and zero-emissions incentives, such as the incentives for electric cars and purchasing. The other day, one of the Speaker's colleagues raised that the Province of Quebec is providing an incentive for people to buy electric vehicles.

Now, Ottawa is doing the same, which is an additional incentive. Back then, I had put forward that this was the type of debate that I would love to see all members participate in. We all come from provinces and territories, and can all contribute to that. I take what the province of Quebec is doing as a very strong positive. My challenge to Heather Stefanson, the Premier of Manitoba, would be to do something of a likewise nature. Those are the types of debates that we could be having.

At times, we see that debate taking place. That is all a part of allowing for the extension that we are requesting through this particular motion. How many speeches have been given here in this place where we talk a great deal about Ukraine and the war that is taking place in Europe? We have already had take-note debates on it this year. I believe we have also had an emergency debate, but it could have been two take-note debates. The point is that those were debates about a matter that Canadians are generally concerned about, as they are about a multitude of different economic issues.

Canadians want to know what the government is actually doing going forward. If there is a silver lining, in terms of the line of questioning that the Conservatives have been putting forward to the government, I would suggest it is that they do not really have much to say about the budget itself, which tells me—

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question.

I am trying to figure this out now. Is the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader actually trying to filibuster his own motion here? I just need to know because I am hungry. I could go for lunch and then come back later.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

That is a point of debate. The parliamentary secretary can take as much time as he wants, and there will be a 10-minute question period following his speech.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's comment and I will do my very best to keep my comments shorter than the House leader of the official opposition's. We will have to wait and see. I guess at the end of the day, we will see who actually talked more.

All I am trying to do is convince the member opposite, his colleagues, my friends in the Bloc and the NDP, why it is so important that we recognize that this is a motion that every one of us should be supporting. By supporting this motion, what we are saying to Canadians is that we are prepared to work the extra hours.

Who in here does not want to work the extra hours? I am prepared to work the extra hours. Who in here does not want to enable more debate time on legislation and budgetary matters? Members can put their hands up if they do not want to. I believe that all members in the House are open to it.

Having said that, why would someone not support the legislation? It was raised in the form of a point of order earlier, in regard to the issue of quorum calls and dilatory motions. We have seen these types of things on the floor of the House of Commons on many occasions, whether it is one day or extended periods of time.

Even to be able to initiate the extension of the number of hours in a day takes more than the government. We have to go back to an opposition party. It could even be the House leader of the official opposition. These are the types of things that are built into the motion.

I mentioned that there are two aspects to the motion. We have the special joint committee dealing with medical assistance in dying. I know my friends in the Bloc have been following that discussion very closely, and understandably so. I believe my friends in the Bloc initially wanted to see this put off until October or to not recess before the summer.

There are opportunities for us to ensure that the report comes back to Parliament. We are now setting a date within this motion that it be October 17, 2022, in terms of getting that final report. Given the nature of that special committee, and the requests and comments coming from members on all sides of the House regarding it, it seems to me that is also something that could be supported in the motion.

If we continue to go through the motion, there are some simple, straightforward things. When members choose to stand up, they should tell me specifically, even in the question and answer session, what would cause someone to vote against the motion. When that is done, keep in mind and reflect on the fact that these types of motions have been introduced by different levels of government and by different prime ministers, including Stephen Harper. If they could do that, it would be very helpful.

Some things that might be somewhat new are that the motion also proposes that we extend the deadline for the special joint committee and amend the Standing Orders so that the House does not meet on New Year's Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, Canada Day, Labour Day, the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, Thanksgiving Day, Remembrance Day or Christmas Day.

I think making that amendment to the Standing Orders is a very good thing. Are there members in the chamber who would oppose that? I suspect members would actually support that aspect of the motion.

It amends the Standing Orders so that the House would not meet the preceding day if Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, Canada Day or the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation fell on a Tuesday, and would not meet the following day when those days fall on a Thursday. I would suggest that is something all members of the House would support.

I suspect that some members might have some concerns with respect to the clause that allows a minister to move a motion to adjourn the House until Monday, September 19, 2022. The motion does not require notice and has to be voted on immediately. There could be some concerns in regard to that. It is interesting that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has made it clear that a motion like this would not be moved before the last week the House sits in June.

We have no intentions of that. The House leader has made that indication. I have full intentions of being here on June 23. I plan to participate and be engaged until the very end. Whether it is myself or the member for Kingston and the Islands, I suspect one of us will always be inside the chamber because we want to ensure, as much as possible, that people are engaged in the debates that are taking place. However, that cannot happen without the support of at least one other recognized party in the House. The opposition House leader is speculating as to who that might be. I will make a suggestion. There is nothing wrong with the member opposite deciding to become engaged.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Or it could be by the unholy alliance.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when the member makes reference to the “unholy alliance”, he is referring to the Conservatives and the Bloc, the alliance—

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot is rising on a point of order.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I would not want my hon. colleague across the way to mislead the House, did he just suggest that part (c)(iv) of this motion would require another House leader from another party to be included in that? I have read government Motion No. 11 and spent great time and care examining it. I would certainly not want the member, through what I hope is an innocent error, to mislead the House in his comments with respect to the motion, which as he has pointed out many of us have serious concerns about, specifically regarding this. Therefore, I would ask you to clarify if in fact he is or is not misleading the House so that members in this place can very clearly debate with accuracy the motion we have before us.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I thank the hon. member for his point of order, but I think it is really a matter of debate.

I will ask the parliamentary secretary to continue his speech and to clarify his thoughts on that part of the motion.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to provide some clarity on the issue. I think the government House leader was fairly clear when he indicated that the motion for adjournment would not be taking place before the last week, which would be the week of June 20. At the end of the day, it is a government minister who would be moving such a motion. I will leave it at that, if that answers the member's question, or would he like me to be more specific?

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot has another point of order.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, correct me if I heard the parliamentary secretary incorrectly, but he did reference the involvement of other opposition House leaders in that process, which is not specified in the motion. I would encourage him, through you, to apologize and withdraw those remarks.

However, if he is moving an amendment to his government's motion, I am sure the House would be happy to entertain that, but I would not want the issue to be confused as we debate this very important motion, which has a significant impact on the way this place, the centrepiece of Canadian democracy, is able to do business. I hope we can get absolute clarity on this issue before we continue with the debate.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I know I enjoy hearing from the hon. member, but this back and forth is debate. The Conservatives will have an opportunity to respond, and I look forward to hearing that, but all of this back and forth is truly just debate.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to respond to the parliamentary secretary's response to my point of order.

When it comes to the content of the motion to which the other member has alleged, that is not us debating the substance. That clearly has to do with whether the House is able to accurately debate the substance of this motion, so it has nothing to do with the perspectives of different parties. It has nothing to do with the debate on the motion itself, but truly the substance at the heart of what creates the foundation for any debate within this place.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I thank the hon. member for his point of order, but that is another point of debate. The motion is in written form. The hon. parliamentary secretary on debate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I attempted to provide a bit of an answer. It is not necessarily questions and answers at this point in time. I can attempt to provide a more detailed answer during the questions and answers, but maybe he can review what I have said.

At the end of the day, there is a motion that has to be moved by the government. That motion does not require other members or opposition parties to sign off on it before it is actually introduced. The member needs to be aware that if the government moves a motion to adjourn for September 19, at the end of the day a vote takes place once it is moved. I suspect that getting that motion passed is going to require more than the government of the day. It is going to require at least one other opposition party.

Hopefully that provides clarity, but the member can seek more clarity during questions and answers. I made a commitment to the opposition House leader in terms of the length of my comments. I said we would have to take a look at who speaks longer. My commitment was to speak less than the official opposition House leader. I know he was concerned about that, so this is really important to me. I want to be able to speak less than the opposition House leader. I am going to wind up my comments.

In an appeal to all members, but specifically members of the Conservative caucus, I want you to think in terms of what it is that is within the motion. The motion does two things, in essence. One thing is that it extends the special standing committee to deal with MAID, and I trust no one is opposing that. If you are, please stand and let me know or come over and tell me that you oppose that. To the best of my knowledge, that is not the case. I am going to believe that is not a reason why someone would vote against this.

The other thing that the motion does is it extends the number of hours in which members on all sides of the House will be able to debate. That is something that historically and traditionally has taken place in provincial legislatures and here in Ottawa. Why would someone not allow for more time for debate, unless there is of course a hidden agenda behind it? I think there is a responsibility to tell us why it is. As opposed to just being critical, tell us why it is specifically that you feel you do not think we should be working a few extra hours in the evening. Tell us why it is that we should not be allowing more members to be able to participate in debate.

If you vote against this legislation, I suspect that any future argument you have, asking for more time to debate on legislation the government brings forward, will lack credibility. As members will know, I hang out in this place a lot. I will be sure to remind members of the way in which they voted on this motion if they end up criticizing the government because we are not allowing more time for debate. We are doing what other governments have done. Let us put Canadians and the people of Canada first. Let us allow the motion to pass. Let us put in a little more effort working in the evenings, allow for more debate, and allow for that special committee being dealt with.

Always remember it is a minority government, and Canadians expect us all to work co-operatively. Working co-operatively ensures there is a lot of accountability and transparency. It does not mean that you have to vote with us all the time, but it does mean that there has to be recognition that there is a legislative agenda. I did not even go through the details of all the legislation, but I can assure you there is a lot of good stuff that we are waiting for.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Before we go to questions and comments, I would remind the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons that all comments must be addressed to the Chair.

The hon. House leader of the official opposition.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a space where people are either accountable or they justify. I heard very little in the way of accountability with the member's speech, and a lot of justification.

I want to make a couple of points. He spoke specifically about Bill C-8. The bill was first introduced on December 15, 2021. It got approval at second reading on February 10, went to committee and got committee approval on March 1, and now it is at report stage. We have had four weeks off in that time, yet the government suggests that somehow the opposition is obstructing.

The other thing is that on April 4, the government put on notice a motion of time allocation. It was the NDP that refused to support that notice of time allocation. In fact, the government has mismanaged its legislative agenda, and that is why we are seeing the hammer fall as it is with Motion No. 11.

The member spoke about specific examples of other governments. The Standing Orders are very clear that there is a specific timeline in which we can extend debate. Those are in the Standing Orders, and the schedule was agreed to by all of the parties.

Can the member give examples, specifically, of where other levels of government, as he says, actually did this: extending hours at this point in time? I would be very curious and interested to hear about that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my first-hand experience of dealing with and seeing these types of motions in the past is that often they are reflected in the negotiations that take place. They will sit an hour and then we will often see that even before that hour is achieved, the debate will collapse, the bill will pass and the House will move on.

In order to have a legislative agenda get through, we need that sense of co-operation. I hope that helps the member better understand the importance of working collaboratively. It does not mean colleagues must listen to everything we say and obey everything we say. No, there is give-and-take. I suspect that if there was more give-and-take between the government and the official opposition there would probably be a higher sense of gratification on all sides of the House, as we want to try to do what is right for the people of Canada.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, medical assistance in dying is an important issue to the Bloc Québécois and to Quebec.

We have worked hard at parliamentary committee and saw that we would not have enough time to do all the work that such a sensitive topic demands. That is why the Bloc Québécois wanted to move the deadline for tabling the report to October 17. The other parties, some of which were not convinced, dragged their feet.

The government decided to include this in a motion that muzzles the opposition, when it was unnecessary to do that since Standing Order 27 allows sitting hours to be extended. It has brought out the heavy artillery, complete with a gift to the Bloc Québécois that would extend the deadline for the report on medical assistance in dying to October 17.

That is like the government asking us if we like honey and us saying yes, but then the government adds arsenic to the honey and tells us to eat up.

Why did the government choose to muzzle the opposition when it could have simply used Standing Order 27?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is where I have to disagree with the member. It is quite the opposite. The member makes reference to the Bloc's desire to have the MAID committee continue on through the summer. If anything, it shows that the government was listening, instead of trying to pass it through. It shows a sense of co-operation. We recognize the importance of the issue, not only for the province of Quebec but for all of Canada. That is the reason why it is in there, on October 17. I do not quite make the connection. The member seems to be in opposition to the fact that we are giving many hours of debate into the evening.

I do not understand. For the life of me, I believe that a vast majority of Canadians would not object to Parliament sitting until midnight. While I was in the Manitoba legislature, I would sit until two o'clock in the morning at times. Sometimes there is a need to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the types of debates that are not happening right now and that we would like to talk about, whether it be the fall fiscal update or the budget.

I think about today being a very important day, the National Day of Mourning. Today, on April 28, we know that workers, families, employers and people in our communities gather together at events, including in my riding, in Courtenay and in Port Alberni. They are held across the country, so that we remember those who have lost their lives on the job or who have been injured on the job, and we renew our commitment to creating safer workplaces.

The government, in terms of hiring people with disabilities, is the worst for any equity group in the federal public service. I have to raise this today, that with the federal accessibility legislation now in place and employment for persons with disabilities identified as a key priority, recognizing the explicit interface between disability, poverty and employment, I need to know this: What are the federal government's key strategies in accommodating employees who acquire a mental or physical health impairment and who are unable to carry on their duties?

Maybe the member could speak to that and the importance of that, because I have not seen enough on the action that needs to happen.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very important issue, especially on the National Day of Mourning. I represent Winnipeg North, and the 1919 Winnipeg General Strike weighs heavily on my mind. I have attempted to bring unanimous consent through the House to recognize the historic 100th anniversary and the sacrifices that workers have made over the years. We could never give true recognition to it, or enough recognition to it. The contributions that our unions have made in the past, make today and will make into the future are incredible.

On the issue of people with disabilities, our minister has been very proactive in trying to bring forward progressive legislation to deal with some of these issues. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. I am sorry, but I just do not have the details to provide to my friend that I know he was hoping for.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on this question. As the member for Winnipeg North may be aware, over a hundred MPs from all parties in this place have already shared their support for the government introducing substantial legislation with respect to a guaranteed income for people with disabilities: the Canada disability benefit. This is actually legislation that the governing party promised in the previous election.

Can the member for Winnipeg North share, should this motion pass, whether this would allow time for critical legislation like the Canada disability benefit act to be introduced and debated?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things it does not do is prevent, for example, emergency debates from occurring, or potential other types of debates, during the day, such as private members' hour. I know there is a private member's bill that deals with this particular issue, at least in good part. I believe there is at least one of them. Everything depends on when it gets called.

Unlike government legislation, there is programming that takes place with private members' bills, which will ultimately see it brought to the floor, debated and voted upon. I do not know where that particular issue is at, in regard to Private Members' Business, but I do hope to see a healthy discussion on the guaranteed annual income, because I know there is a great deal of interest out there.