Debates of May 2nd, 2022

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

Madam Speaker, what is baffling is having the justice minister actually stand in this place and talk in the way he is. Bill C-8 was not introduced until December 16, so he is playing around a bit with the facts here. It went to committee February 1 and came back from committee on March 1. After December 16, the House was not sitting for six weeks, so there was no obstruction going on.

Nobody on this side of the House is afraid to work. These are multi-billion dollar bills that the government for some reason expects the official opposition and the third party just to simply rubber-stamp without questioning, without proposing and without amending.

How can the Liberals contribute to the further decline in our democracy? People in this country are looking at this place as its symbol, yet the government continues to contribute to the decline in democracy. I do not understand how the justice minister can stand here and defend this action by his government.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I dispute the hon. member's narrative of events. I have been here since 2015, and I have watched the Conservatives' systematic obstruction time and time again. I have seen it on my own bills as minister, and now we are seeing it again. I welcome the day when cameras show all the members of the House of Commons at the same time, so that Canadians can actually see the kinds of things that are happening when there is somebody speaking.

It is critically important that we get our legislative agenda through. It is what the vast majority of Canadians elected us to do, and it is what we are going to do. We are using measures that have been used in the past by governments of all political stripes. The measures are going to allow for debate to happen. They will incentivize members of Parliament to use their time better, and we will get our progressive agenda through, working with other members of Parliament in good faith.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, we just had the opposition House leader admit to the Conservatives' blocking these bills for two months. He just stood up, went through the timeline and admitted to everybody that for two months, Conservatives blocked the bills, despite the fact that Canadian teachers have been writing to them wanting to get the tax credit that is in Bill C-8 and Canadian farmers have been writing to them.

The Conservatives have thrown aside any kind of public input. They are just running rogue. They are renegades, yet they reference democracy. This is the same party that had members of its caucus endorsing the so-called “freedom convoy”, whose vowed objective was the overthrow of constitutional government. We then have Conservatives standing up in this House and trying to say that somehow they actually support democracy, with that as their track record. What a joke.

What happened to the Conservative Party that in December endorsed the ban on conversion therapy, that was productive and working well in this minority Parliament? What has happened to the Conservatives over the last few months that they will even refuse to sit late and refuse to pass legislation that Canadians are asking for? What is it about the Conservative Party that has turned?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member indeed reminds me that Conservatives, whether inside or outside the House, seem to have fallen in love with blocking and blockades.

We are here because we have many other pieces of legislation, including a budget. There is not just Bill C-8, which, as we have mentioned, has had 12 days of debate and obstruction and concurrence motions and everything else that the Conservatives can throw up in order to delay it, but also Bill C-7, which we have not debated yet, and Bill C-9, which we have not debated yet. There is Bill C-18 and there is Bill C-19.

There are all kinds of things that we have yet to debate, as well as the budget, and that is because the official opposition simply wants to run out the clock; delay, delay, delay; and use every tactic at its disposal to throw this government off its agenda. Canadians do not want that. They want us to work together.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was here from 2011 to 2015. The most shocking thing I have seen today is the member for New Westminster—Burnaby swallow himself whole. He routinely raged against any motion for closure and routinely raged against any motion for time allocation. It was as if the sky were falling. Now he is in the Liberals' back pocket, saying this is a great thing.

Growing up, my parents always told me that when someone shows us who they are, we should believe them. Let us look at some things. Who would bring forward this kind of a time allocation on this motion? Perhaps it would be someone whose leader said he admired China's basic dictatorship and a justice minister who said that debate is obstruction. We see where these people are going.

If this is all about debate and we want more time for debate, why does the motion include the ability for a cabinet minister to move to adjourn the House for the summer? If it is about debate, why do the Liberals not take that out and prove it is about debate? I can tell members that they will not.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I found the hon. member's intervention quite amusing, and I am sure he meant it that way.

The House leadership, and our government House leader, have made it clear that particular provision is a common motion that is used at the end of every parliamentary session. We have put it in now with the engagement to not use it until the very last week when it is commonly used. It is there as part of this package in order to get more pieces of legislation through, and get us through to the end of June. It is there to be used at the end of the session, when it is traditionally used, on consent by all the parties, working together. That is how it will be used again.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, this debate is an embarrassment.

I have listened to the debate on Motion No. 11. I listened to the very lengthy speech my colleague from Winnipeg North gave on this motion last week.

Everything in the rhetoric we hear from the Liberals and NDP seems to suggest that there are good democrats, in other words, those who support Motion No. 11, on one side of the House, and then there are bad democrats, basically the Conservative and Bloc Québécois members who oppose the motion, on the other side.

Motion No. 11 is not just about extending our sitting time. It also contains a number of measures to muzzle the opposition.

The funny thing is, when I think about the Liberals and democracy, I remember the Prime Minister, with his hand on his heart during the election campaign, talking about electoral reform, saying he was going to do this and that. Is that what democracy is? When are those things going to happen?

Who prorogued Parliament in the summer of 2020? Who sent the country into an election when there were lots of bills close to being voted on that were important to Canada?

The Liberals called an election and wiped the slate clean, killing bills like the one on the Official Languages Act, which is an important piece of legislation. There was also the bill to reform the CRTC, which was very important, but it too was killed.

Are those folks over there really the democrats they claim to be?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation.

Obviously we must never forget that the Bloc Québécois is the master of obstruction. That is their whole purpose.

We know that we must work together to advance legislation and reforms that are supported throughout Canada.

We want to ensure that we have enough time to hold real debates on real issues without obstruction. We are here precisely to set out a process on how to proceed until the end of the session in June, one that will give all parliamentarians the opportunity to have their say and help to pass good bills.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to give the justice minister an opportunity, because I believe he did misspeak. Perhaps he did not understand that there is a constitutional obligation for quorum to be held in this place.

He said that this has happened before, but it only happens in take-note debates. It also happens in emergency debates when no vote on government legislation is held. In fact, this has never been held before. I would give the justice minister an opportunity to correct himself and not mislead the House.

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

If I may, hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil, it was the ruling of the Speaker. It was not the Minister of Justice who made the case.

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

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice just said that this has happened before when in fact it has not happened before, with the exception of emergency debates and take-note debates. That is what I am seeking clarification on.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, in responding to the hon. member's point of order and the question, to the extent that that is what it was, the Speaker has just made a ruling on this. These kinds of proceedings happen routinely at the ends of sessions.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have not been in the House for that long, since January 2019—

[An hon. member]

Or that often.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Or that often, madam Speaker, because of the rules put forward by the Liberal government. I would say that one thing here is very different from where I grew up: When I had a job to do, generally it was my priority to get that job done. I did not have to blame someone else for not getting my work done. Right now, we are having this debate on Motion No. 11 because the Liberals cannot get their work done, and they are trying to blame Conservatives for standing up for people and debating on what the House puts forward. It is interesting that we are talking about billions of dollars going forward that would be going out to the people of Canada, and they do not want to debate it. Where I grew up, if I had to get a job done, it was my responsibility to do that job. How can this government be blaming the opposition for doing our job because it cannot get its legislative agenda forward? It does not make any sense.

I would ask the minister this. When he does extend sitting hours, will he let the people who are doing the fine work in interpretation know so that they have time to do their schedules and have forewarning if the Liberals are going to extend the schedule until midnight? That would be the proper thing to do, because we know that the staff here is overworked, and they should have some notice if they are going to have to be here until 12 o'clock or not.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his two questions. I will answer the second one first, as it is a critically important question, and I am glad he asked it.

The leadership in this place is going to make sure that interpreters and others have advance warning of when sessions will be extended. We are very mindful of their rights, their health and safety, and their working environment. It is an engagement that I know my House leader in this place has made. I thank the hon. member for that question.

We are here to work, and we are proposing this motion precisely because obstruction is not work. I worked on construction sites, and my friend has probably worked a fair bit in his day too and is proud of it, as am I. However, it is working together. It is rolling up our sleeves and getting the job done. If one person on that job site is obstructing, we have to help that person to move somewhere else, and this is what we are doing here. Obstruction is not work. Obstruction is not debate. Debate is about the exchange of ideas, and that is what we are facilitating here.

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

Madam Speaker, I came to this House to get something done for my constituents and to help them in any way, shape or form that I could, and I am proud to be able to do that work here in the House.

Before I was elected to the House, I worked for many members of Parliament. During a Conservative majority government, I watched the then hon. House leader, Peter Van Loan, argue that the government needed those long hours to sit until midnight. Those extended hours were not just on an as-needed basis: It was constant, night after night, that I had to send my member in to get that work done. That was under a majority Conservative government.

I would like to hear from the hon. minister why it is important to note, in the debate on this motion, that it is on an as-needed basis.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I send my regards to the members for whom the hon. member worked.

It is a critical point that the member raised. This is “as necessary”. It is going to happen when we need it and only when we need it, as necessary. It is not meant to be every night. It is only meant to be there for the amount of debate that is necessary for any particular bill. Again, it is there precisely to eliminate the ability to simply obstruct for no good, substantive reason.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is really interesting to hear members from both the NDP and the government side talk about how this is all about debate, and that it is all about making sure that we get all the time that we need to discuss these bills so that we can have extended hours. We can work harder and we can work longer, yet they put a provision in there that they do not actually have to show up after 6:30 p.m. They have made sure that they can do whatever they can to be away from here and not be here to participate.

Based on the assertions that we are hearing from the justice minister and the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, my question is to make sure that they are going to be true to their word: Will they be here until midnight, in person, every single time they use this measure to have debate until midnight? That way they will not be seen as not being true to their word.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are proposing this piece of legislation to facilitate debate, not to give other opportunities for the silly kinds of obstructionist motions that we have seen in spades over the last number of weeks and months. We are here to give members on all sides the ability to say what they feel they need to say in the context of the House. That is precisely why we are here, and that is precisely why we are proposing the motion we are proposing.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is something illogical about my colleague's argument. He is being asked why the Liberals included in this motion the possibility for the minister to adjourn for the summer without agreement from the other parties. He is telling us that this is done routinely at the end of every season and that is why they included this measure in the motion.

If this measure is preventing people from being in favour of the motion, why not simply remove it since, in any event, adjournment is usually done with no problem, with the agreement of all parties? Why not proceed as usual?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, we added the possibility of adjourning the House because this is very common and is typically done in cases like this. We are being efficient.

In any way, this motion will have to be put to the House for a vote before it will apply, and some safeguards have already been included in the motion.

We are all here to advance the debate. This does not prevent opposition members from having their say during their speaking time.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I find the Conservatives' comments on this unbelievable, because I can remember back in 2014 when the Harper government, during its dismal decade in power, put in place similar measures without any agreement from any other party, and Conservatives systematically, night after night, did not show up when it was their turn to speak. We had a chalkboard in the lobby. There were 200 times when Conservatives did not show up to work. There were 200 times when Conservative MPs were out doing I do not know what, but they were not in the House standing up as members of Parliament for their constituents. It was 200 times, so when a Conservative MP asks if New Democrats are going to show up to work, of course the answer is yes, because we always do.

We have the track record to prove it; the Conservatives do not. They have failed their constituents so many times in the past, and now they are objecting to having us work harder, having us work longer and having us move around their systematic blocking of the House of Commons, so that teachers can get their tax credits, farmers can get the supports they need and all Canadians can get the supports that are in Bill C-8. The Conservatives say they support it, but are blocking it now, as the official opposition House leader has admitted, for two months and running.

Why are the Conservatives doing this, and why do they not recognize the hypocrisy of trying to condemn the behaviour they participated in so willingly in the past?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby for his long view of these various kinds of questions. I would add that, as he has mentioned, there are 24,000 farmers potentially waiting for a credit on the price on pollution they have had to pay, and there are 45,000 teachers waiting for that improvement of the supply credit they are going to get, as well as other very proactive measures that are contained in Bill C-8 and other pieces of legislation that are meant—

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

The member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies is rising on a point of order.