Debates of May 2nd, 2022

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was first elected 11 years ago, and I was here for the 41st Parliament when the Harper majority government used time allocation 92 times to move business through the House, so when the Conservatives talk about how this violates democracy, I would ask them to look back on their own majority government.

As to my question for the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, when he says the NDP is bought off, what is he actually trying to imply? We are co-operating with the Liberals in order to get things done for Canadians, such as dental care, the restoration of employment insurance and other benefits that are about to run out under the emergency benefits plan. If I am being bought off by doing things for Canadians, then I am happy to be bought.

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

Madam Speaker, as my father has suggested often, there is a problem that ends up happening in this country after the Liberals have had a chance to govern: They demonstrate that they are not interested in fulfilling their promises. My advice to the member is to be careful, because the Liberals are good at politics but are not so good at governing. They are willing to throw anybody, whether they are in their own party or the signatories to a confidence and supply agreement, under the bus to benefit themselves politically.

I heard from a constituent a number of weeks ago, shortly after this confidence and supply agreement was signed, and this constituent said they had never voted for me and they were a regular NDP voter. They did not agree with me on most things, but they will never vote for the NDP again because it was bought off by the Liberals.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am showing up here tonight, as I usually do, trying to understand how this place can best function to get things done in the interests of folks in Kitchener Centre and across the country.

I hear the member for Battle River—Crowfoot is quite upset with Motion No. 11, and I wonder if he could share with me specifically what in Motion No. 11 he feels is particularly anti-democratic. What about this motion is he most concerned with?

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

Madam Speaker, I note that the hon. member from the Green Party has a great deal of care for democracy and our institutions.

I did outline a number of the specific challenges I had when the motion was in front of me, but the most egregious of them, I would suggest, is the fact that the Prime Minister or any minister of the Crown could, on a whim, decide to shut down this place. That could be tomorrow, although I hope that is not the case. I hope the NDP would have the spine to vote against this. No Prime Minister should be given that carte-blanche authority, which I believe is a serious threat to democracy within our country.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here this evening as we enter week two of the four weeks in this part of our sittings. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today to the government's proposal to extend the proceedings in the House of Commons for the remainder of the session.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

This Parliament was elected to get things done. As we have seen over the previous months, our government has an ambitious legislative agenda and we have a lot to accomplish in the weeks ahead.

In the last election, the wonderful residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge elected me for the third time because I ran on a platform that promised to grow the economy, fight climate change, make housing more affordable and protect our country's most vulnerable. Now that we are here today, Canadians expect their parliamentarians to deliver on those promises. This means the House of Commons needs to find a way to continue its important work and drive legislation in a timely and judicious manner. That is what the proposal we are discussing today sets out to do.

Over the last few months, we have seen an ambitious legislative agenda put forward by our government, but we have also seen a concerted effort by the Conservatives to obstruct the work of other MPs in the House of Commons. The Conservatives have shown a pattern of obstruction of legislation, including on Bill C-8. They have debated it for 10 days in the House of Commons and continue to block it, denying Canadians the support they need as our economy continues to recover as we exit the COVID pandemic and as we continue to fight to create good middle-class jobs from coast to coast to coast, which we are doing. We need to get Bill C-8 across the finish line and get it done.

Bill C-8 implements critical components of the fall economic and fiscal update tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance on December 14, 2021. The bill includes critical supports for workers and businesses needed to help tackle COVID-19, and support for territorial and provincial health care systems on vaccines, ventilation in schools and rapid tests. It also implements several tax measures, including tax credits for businesses purchasing ventilation supplies and for teachers who purchase school supplies to assist with virtual learning.

Since the start of the pandemic, our government has put in place unprecedented measures to support people and businesses across the country, to support our friends, our neighbours and our family members. Since day one, our government has had the backs of Canadians.

In Bill C-8, our government has outlined our plan to procure millions of rapid tests free to provinces, territories and indigenous communities. Bill C-8 includes support for workers and businesses, with changes to CEBA and El. We have proposed to create a host of tax credits, which would benefit Canadians, including a ventilation improvement tax credit for small businesses, tax deductions for residents of northern Canada, supporting our rural communities from coast to coast to coast, and support for farmers by returning fuel charges in involuntary backstop jurisdictions. Bill C-8 also proposes to implement a national tax on the value of non-resident, non-Canadian-owned residential real estate in Canada that is considered to be vacant or underutilized.

Here is the thing: Our plan is working. We have now surpassed our target of creating a million jobs. By delivering significant fiscal support to the economy and avoiding the harmful Conservative austerity policies that followed 2008, our Liberal government has supported a rapid and resilient recovery. We know that there are challenges ahead and the future remains uncertain, but we also know that we need to reinforce the importance of passing this legislation so that we can focus our attention on the future.

As we finish the fight against COVID-19, we will turn our resolve toward fighting climate change, addressing housing affordability, advancing reconciliation with indigenous people and building an economy that is stronger, fairer, more competitive and more prosperous for all Canadians. If the Conservatives are opposed to those measures to support Canadians, that is their prerogative; that is their choice. However, one party should not get to obstruct the work of other MPs in the House of Commons.

That is not the only bill that I would like to see moved forward before the end of the session. We know that the budget implementation act will be debated soon. On April 7, 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance introduced “Budget 2022: A Plan to Grow Our Economy and Make Life More Affordable”. It is a plan that invests in Canadians and a plan that will help build a Canada where no one is left behind. The BIA will put those priorities into action.

Budget 2022 invests in three main things: people, economic growth and a clean future for everyone. Through targeted and responsible investments, our government will help make life more affordable, create jobs and prosperity today, and build a stronger economic future for all Canadians tomorrow.

We know from the budget that we are making it easier for Canadians to buy a home. We are moving forward on dental care. We are investing to help businesses scale up and grow. In the budget, we are making wealthy corporations pay their fair share. We are investing in a clean future and helping Canada become a world leader in producing electric vehicles. I know that everyone in the House and all Canadians are very happy to see the $3.6-billion investment that was made by Stellantis, in partnership and collaboration with the federal government and the provincial government. It means, here in Ontario, thousands of direct jobs and tens of thousands of jobs indirectly. It is a great day for the auto sector, a great day for this province and a great day for hard-working middle-class Canadians.

We have all seen the recent statistics. Canada has the strongest jobs recovery in the G7, having recouped 112%, and I think up to 150%, of jobs lost since the peak of the pandemic. Our unemployment rate is down to just 5.5%, close to the 5.4% low in 2019, the lowest rate on record for five decades. Also, throughout the pandemic, we maintained a strong fiscal anchor and fiscal footprint, with the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio relative to our G7 peers.

Now, as we emerge from the pandemic, our government is focused on the priorities that Canadians expect us to deliver on: making life more affordable, creating jobs, growing the economy and ensuring a clean future for everyone. We need a healthy environment.

We will also need to move forward with Bill C-11, on online streaming. For decades, our system has guaranteed the creation of Canadian movies, TV shows and music that make us proud to be Canadian. Today, streaming platforms benefit from access to the Canadian market but have zero responsibility toward Canadian artists and creators. With our online streaming bill, we are asking online streamers to showcase and contribute to the creation of Canadian culture. Canadian broadcasters play by one set of rules and streaming platforms play by another. There should be one set of rules for everyone. We have been clear since the beginning: Those who benefit from the system should contribute to it. That is exactly what we need to see, so we need Bill C-11 to move forward.

To come back to our discussion about the motion for a moment, the motion would allow for extended time to debate bills, which is a good thing. We have heard from members of the opposition that they want more time to debate significant legislation. This motion allows for that to happen in the evenings when the government and one other party, which represent a majority in the House, request it. We believe that it is important for MPs to have the opportunity to debate legislation, and the motion facilitates this.

Let us think of the other pieces of legislation that could benefit from the additional time for debate.

I think of, for example, Bill C-18. We all know that a free and independent press is essential to Canadian democracy, and the work of our journalists has value. That is why we introduced Bill C-18, the online news act. It would require the tech giants to fairly compensate publishers and journalists for the content shared on their platforms. We are creating a framework to ensure that Canadian publishers, big and small, can negotiate fair deals on more equal terms with the tech giants, the most powerful companies in the world. The Europeans are doing it. We are going to do it as well. We will always support quality, fact-based and local Canadian journalism in a fair digital marketplace. I think all members of the House would agree with that, and that is why we should see this bill passed.

We also have Bill C-5, which deals with mandatory minimum sentences. A justice system that jails too many indigenous people, Black people and marginalized Canadians is not effective. That does not keep us safe and it must be changed.

With Bill C-5, we are turning the page on the failed policies of the Harper Conservatives. We are removing mandatory minimum penalties that target lower-risk and first-time offenders that have been shown to increase the over-incarceration of racialized and marginalized groups. We will also provide police and prosecutors with the tools and guidance they need to treat addiction and simple drug possession as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue. My brother is a first responder in the police force so I know he appreciates this.

Bill C-5 represents an important step forward. These changes will ensure that our criminal justice system is fair and effective and will keep Canadians from all communities safe.

To finish, these extended sittings will allow us to debate these bills and will provide more time for MPs to share their thoughts with constituents back home, be their strong local voice here in Ottawa and represent their constituents' views.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Vaughan—Woodbridge for his thoughts. I would just counter by saying that I believe there is a bit more to this motion than the government is letting on. Obviously, it has been making the argument that having longer sittings, more sittings and more time to debate legislation is good. I would certainly agree with that, but this motion allows for the House to not meet quorum and not have an adequate number of members present for those debates, potentially opening the door for members of the government or other parties not to attend and take part in that important discussion.

I wonder if the member could speak to that contradiction in the motion and why that would be the case.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I count on the hon. member for Kenora as a friend here in the House of Commons.

My understanding of this motion is that all members will be able to participate in debate if they wish to do so. Obviously, they must speak to their representative House leaders as to the determination of when they would like to have a speaking spot. That is my understanding. If I misunderstood, I will correct it, but that is my understanding.

Extended sitting hours do allow for extra debate on bills and for people to put their thoughts out. I enjoy coming to the House and presenting my thoughts on various bills and matters, which I know matter considerably to the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge, back home in my beautiful riding.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, from time to time at committee, particularly when travelling but sometimes here in Ottawa, the committee will waive its quorum requirement and provide that no substantive motions can be moved or debated, in order to hear from witnesses. The committee sees value in hearing points of view and getting them on the record, but recognizes that it may not be an appropriate time to address issues that come out of left field, so to speak. That is kind of similar to what is being proposed for evening sittings in the House of Commons when we have these extended meetings.

I just wonder if the member has some experience with a committee that has conducted its business this way and if democracy ended when the committee decided to conduct its business that way.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have sat at committees for the almost seven years that I have been here. I have been on a number of committees, three in the last session. We do debate vigorously many bills that are put forward. We debate motions that are put forward. It is always great to have a robust discussion and hear different viewpoints from the members who have the privilege of sitting on those committees.

I do not think this type of motion has in any way impaired the ability of democracy to function. That is exactly what happens on committees.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my friend and colleague could just provide his thoughts in regard to how important it is, when a government works with the opposition as a House, to try to work co-operatively in order to pass a legislative agenda that is there not only for government but also for all members, especially when reflecting on private members' bills.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I like to use words like “reasonable leadership”. Being in government and being elected, we need to demonstrate responsible leadership and collaborate with other parties in the House, which we have been able to do. I know some of the official opposition members put forward ideas that ended up in a government bill relating to extended sick leave benefits. I think that is what it was, by one of the members from York region.

It is very important that we get the work done that our constituents need us to do without facing obstructions. It is very important that we collaborate with other parties in the House, which we are doing, to get the work done that Canadians want us to do. As we exit the pandemic, as we are in one of the most unique times in history, we need to collaborate, work together and get things done that are important for our constituents so that we can move forward in building an even more prosperous and brighter future for all Canadians.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate, which I have been following carefully for the past few hours.

Human memory is a curious thing. I am not a psychologist, but I have noticed that humans have a tendency to forget the most painful memories, the difficult and distressing moments of the past, and this can sometimes condemn us to repeat the same mistakes. I think others would agree with me.

At a certain point, people often decide to focus on the positive and forget the negative. When I say “the negative”, I am talking about the crisis we just went through, and are still going through, but it was worse in 2020-21. Life has been completely turned upside down since March 2020, including our personal, family and work lives, and our work in this Parliament, in the House of Commons.

If we go back a bit, we will recall that the House of Commons did not sit for weeks. At the very beginning of the pandemic, it was extremely important to practise social distancing. There were perhaps a few hours once every two weeks where a handful of MPs could come to the House of Commons to adopt measures for Canadians and businesses. Apart from that, we lost a tremendous amount of time before setting up the hybrid Parliament.

Some may say that it is true that we lost time, but they will also accuse us of calling an election and losing even more time. Those who say that are not providing the full picture of what happens in a Parliament with a minority government, which has a very specific dynamic.

If we look at the history of minority governments in Canada, they do not last much more than 18 months. After that, the opposition likes to spin a narrative that the government is not working very well, and it repeats that story out loud day after day during question period. The government then starts to drag its feet for real. The opposition points the finger at the government, claiming that it is not accomplishing anything, that it is getting nowhere and that a new government is needed. That is how it plays out; that is how it has always played out.

I have been an MP under several minority governments, more so than under majority governments. This is the dynamic that usually takes hold, especially after an opposition party elects a new leader and a minority government has been in place for 18 to 24 months. People start thinking about triggering an election.

Our government was operating in a crisis, and it had to go back to voters for a reset, if you will, and a renewed mandate. When the government was elected in 2019, there was no crisis. Later on, it had to implement health measures, and strengthening and extending those measures required a mandate from Canadians. We lost time because of the pandemic, and we were unable to move forward on certain files.

The House has spent a very long time on Bill C‑8, a major bill that is crucial to helping Canada recover from the pandemic crisis. The bill is supposed to implement the fall economic update, but we have not yet passed it, and summer is just around the corner.

Why is it important?

Bill C‑8 provides essential support to workers and businesses to fight COVID‑19 and will continue to support the provincial and territorial health care systems with supplies of vaccines and rapid tests. The more information Canadians have about their health, the easier it will be for them to make decisions that enable them to keep the most vulnerable people—such as seniors and immunocompromised people—healthy, to keep themselves healthy and to keep others safe in the face of this pandemic. Canadians need assurances that they will not get sick when they go to work and that they will not make their loved ones sick with COVID‑19.

Bill C‑8 will also protect children by ensuring that schools have adequate ventilation. We must do everything in our power to prevent outbreaks in schools. This bill would implement a number of tax measures, such as tax credits for businesses that purchase ventilation equipment and for teachers who buy school supplies to facilitate virtual learning.

The safe return to class fund originally provided $2 billion to the provinces and territories to help cover a variety of investments to protect students and staff. The addition of $100 million to the fund is intended to support projects with the primary objective of increasing outdoor air intake or increasing air cleaning to help reduce transmission of COVID‑19.

I would also like to take the time to recognize the great work being done by teachers across the country. They are doing the most important job: taking care of our next generation.

Bill C‑8 is very important for recovering from the pandemic and avoiding a setback. We do not need any setbacks at this point. Things are hard enough, and we are already facing enough challenges, so this is an important bill in that sense. However, it is also a bill that is dragging on. What the opposition does from time to time is drag its feet in an attempt to show that the government does not have the competence to achieve its objectives.

There are other very important bills to be passed as well. I am referring in particular to Bill C-13, which deals with official languages. I represent a community that is predominantly made up of a linguistic minority in Canada, and Bill C‑13 will help better support this linguistic minority. It will enshrine the court challenges program in law, in a way. This program helps official language minority groups defend themselves in court when they are faced with actions such as the Harris government's move to close the Montfort Hospital, or the Harper government's move to cancel the court challenges program. This is therefore a very important bill for the anglophone minority in Quebec, but also for the francophone minority outside Quebec, as well as for promoting the French language and francophone culture in Quebec and across the country.

Bill C-11 is just as vital to promoting Canadian culture, including Quebec culture and French-Canadian culture. Let us take a look back and think about Bill C-10 in the previous Parliament. That was another bill on which the opposition was dragging its feet and filibustering in committee and in the House. They seemed to support the bill initially, but once the Conservatives saw the winds changing, especially among certain segments of the voting public, they changed their tune. This example illustrates how the official opposition decided to drag its feet and create obstacles. Let us get rid of those obstacles and move forward.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, one aspect of this motion is that the government can extend the sittings with the agreement of one other party, and we have heard from multiple speakers on the government side that the justification for that is, of course, that it would represent a majority of Parliament. However, as I understand the motion, should a situation arise where all three opposition parties, including the NDP, were to want to push for extended sittings, they would not have that power.

Why does the government believe in the will of Parliament only when it is the will of its party?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, to do anything in this House, such as to extend hours, we need motions, and these motions need to be supported by a majority of MPs in the House. This idea that somehow this motion does away with that principle of democracy, which is majority rule, is a bit misleading, but I know that it is the opposition's role to sow doubt, and it is fair game.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech, and I must say that four words caught my attention, specifically “francophone minority in Quebec”.

I wonder whether my colleague said that deliberately or unconsciously. Sometimes people say one thing when they actually mean the opposite. I wanted to confirm that, because it would be quite hurtful if he said that deliberately. Even if he did not mean to say that, it still raises some questions. Often what comes out unwittingly actually, in some way, reflects what we really feel.

I wonder if my colleague wants French to become a minority language in Quebec.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Come on, Madam Speaker.

That is an absurd accusation. I was talking about minority languages, about official language minority communities in Canada. There is a francophone linguistic minority outside of Quebec and an anglophone linguistic minority in Quebec.

What I was saying is that Bill C‑13 is designed to strengthen the French fact across Canada. That is one of the objectives of the bill.

The member seems to have misunderstood, because that is clearly not what I was saying.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member for Lac-Saint-Louis finds it as strange as I do that the Conservatives argue there is no deliberate delay here, yet we are still debating the fall economic statement and we are now in May. When they say there is no urgency to get moving with things, we have things like the tax credit for teachers that are being held up by Revenue Canada as it waits for legislation to pass.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Again, Madam Speaker, I have lived through a number of minority governments and I have observed the sort of dynamic that characterizes these minority governments. One of the things that the opposition likes to do is to delay and delay to make it look like the government is not accomplishing what it wants to accomplish and in order to give the message to people that the government is not working, not functioning.

Yes, it is a problem that we are discussing Bill C-8 as we enter the summer, when there are important measures in Bill C-8 to help farmers and people who live in the north and have to travel to the south for medical reasons and so on. I do not understand what is so complicated about this bill that we have to have 51 speakers at report stage. I just do not get it. It is very straightforward. It is to help people in the middle of a pandemic.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be joining the debate on Motion No. 11. Ahead of time, I am going to inform you that I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley. I have to look at him just to remember his riding name, so I recognize it is difficult to memorize all of the members' riding names here.

I want to start by saying something for constituents back home who are wondering why we are debating this motion. It is actually not government legislation; it is a motion that would structure how we use the time of Parliament on a go-forward basis from now until the end of June. I want to highlight some of the parts in the motion I am most concerned about. It directly affects my ability to represent my constituents back home in the riding of Calgary Shepard. They have honoured me with the ability to represent them for a third term in Parliament, and I want to recognize that fact.

We had a member from the Liberal caucus who said earlier that they could not understand why over 50 members of Parliament wanted to speak on a piece of legislation. It is just that simple. This place exists to debate legislation. This place exists to debate. That is the whole point of Parliament. The government has all of the powers necessary, if it chooses to use them. It is always a choice. It can choose to use them to limit debate and to also program debate. For example, it can do time allocation. It can say there will be five more days of debate on a particular piece of legislation. It can have evening sittings if it chooses to, as it is choosing to do in Motion No. 11.

The problem with Motion No. 11 is that it has also larded on all of these extra measures, like prorogation on demand. Section (c)(iv) states, “a minister of the Crown may move, without notice, a motion to adjourn the House until Monday, September 19, 2022, provided that the House shall be adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28 and that the said motion shall be decided immediately without debate or amendment”.

That is the type of thing that side, the government's side, the Liberal caucus, in 2015, promised it would never do; it would never prorogue Parliament. That was not the Conservatives making a promise. That was the Liberal Party of Canada. The Liberal government made the promise that it would not do such a thing. It has already prorogued Parliament once in the past six and a half years that I have been here.

The Liberals have now also inserted into this motion prorogation on demand. At any moment of the day, a minister of the Crown can decide that is it. We are done. It is too much. The heat is on. We need to flee for the summer, before the rest of the parties and the public realize what is going on in the House of Commons. It is wrong, and they should not be doing such things.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I hear them heckling me and chirping away. I appreciate they do not like it when I bring up these facts, but I want to make sure that my constituents back home understand what we are debating here and what we are going to be called to vote upon. I look forward to questions from their side.

“He that cannot pay, let him pray.” I love Yiddish proverbs. I know there are members of the lobby on the opposite side who appreciate my Yiddish proverbs. I spend time looking for them to make sure I find a good one. The Liberals are paying for having a government House leader who is incapable of running the calendar. This is not the first time this has happened. I remember the very first Parliament I was here, every single May and June they found themselves in exactly the same situation. They had to impose evening sittings early on in order to be able to pass legislation.

The difference here is that the Liberals are inserting these extra provisions that they do not need to sit here if they do not want to. In fact, none of them will have to rise in their place to debate, because they will have programmed the evenings away. As a parliamentarian, I am happy to work until midnight. During the Emergencies Act debate, the record will show I was here every single day, actively debating into the late hours of the day, and I was happy to do so on behalf of my constituents.

I recognize that they sent me here. I cannot complain about the hours I have to put in. That is the expectation when one comes to this place. We have to go to committees. We have to meet with stakeholders. We have to meet with constituents. We have to manage our own time. There are lots of people waiting all across the country to take any one of our jobs. I think we can all recognize that. Anybody would love the opportunity to represent a riding in this country. That is why so many people run as candidates for various political parties.

This is a unique opportunity for 337 members. I recognize that as Speaker you cannot speak on behalf of your constituents. You have given up that right in order to make sure we follow all the rules of this place. It is a unique privilege that we have to speak on behalf of our constituents.

The government is saying, “Yes, you can speak for them, but it is all for naught because you are speaking only to a mostly empty House that will not be listening to your words to perhaps sway them in the votes they are about to take, because of the programming motions that have been inserted into Motion No. 11.”

There are very few notice permissions provided. Ministers of the Crown will have very little time within which they can provide notice to extend hours into the evening. Other members, including the opposition House leader of the Conservative caucus, have mentioned the fact that this would put a huge strain on the resources of the House of Commons administration.

I am a former chair of the Conservative caucus, and I remember how difficult it was to manage the resources of the House just so we could have our own meetings over Zoom and have them interpreted in both official languages, with the technical staff present. Then we moved to a hybrid format and it made it even more complex and more difficult.

We all have political staff who work long hours with us to ensure that we can do all of the work that we have here. It is on all sides of the House. Many of them are willing to put in the extra time. They are usually younger Canadians who see an opportunity to serve their country in these political offices and make a contribution as a duty of citizenship. I recognize that, but what we are asking people to do is to come in, on the whim of a minister at the very last moment, to sit evenings. It takes a huge number of staff to make Parliament work, both the House of Commons and the Senate. That recognition is not in the motion.

The government is saying it is fine for our interpreters, of whom, at one point during the pandemic, something like 70% had work-related injuries. There were committees being cancelled. It was calculated that up to eight committees of the House could be cancelled on a weekly basis because there would not be enough resources to do the work. We refer a lot of work from the House of Commons to a smaller group of parliamentarians, to hear from witnesses and then consider the matter in more detail. That is what we ask the House of Commons committees to do.

No one on the Conservative side is saying that we do not want to put in the time or the work. We are more than happy to do so. What we are saying is, first, remove some of the provisions that are obviously there, such as prorogation on demand, as I said, in subsection (c)(iv), which would make it a lot easier for the government to flee if they do not like where the debate is heading or if they may lose a potential vote.

The second part is provide the notices. We are asking for 48 hours' notice. It is the typical standing committee notice period that is used. I have sat on several committees of the House. That is a pretty standard way of ensuring that every single member at the committee has an opportunity to both read the content that is sent around and prepare for the committee that they are members of, or that they are substituting on if they have a particular issue they are chasing down on behalf of their constituents.

I think that is perfectly reasonable. A Yiddish proverb says, “He that cannot pay, let him pray.” This a prayer, and it has been answered by the NDP. The NDP has answered the prayer of the government House leader. Its members are willing to throw away all their values. They are going to throw away the principles that the New Democrats stood for. I know and have worked with some of the fine members of that New Democratic caucus. I have a hard time believing they would be willing to simply give in to the government House leader because of his complete incapacity and inability to manage the House calendar. If legislation is being held up, the Liberals can move time allocation. They can negotiate in good faith as well.

I have sat through some of the House leaders meetings, and I do not believe there are negotiations in good faith going on. I used to work in human resources. The member for Edmonton West, I am sure, will chuckle at that. I remember what fair negotiations were like, what is fair at a labour negotiation table and what is considered fair bargaining. I do not see that here. All I see is ultimatums and “do it our way or no way”. That is what I see in Motion No. 11.

To constituents back home, this is what is going on. The government is going to program and instruct the entire business of the House of Commons until the end of June, and if the Liberals do not like what is going on, they will yank it, prorogue Parliament and resume some time in September, when they feel more comfortable. They can say whatever they want about what is actually going on. They can put whatever talking points they want forward, but that is essentially what will happen to this place. The rest of the business of the House will be programmed. Our votes will not matter, because it will all be prejudged and preordained through Motion No. 11.

It is wrong. We should not be doing this. I would have gone into the quorum matter, which is deeply unconstitutional; however, I will leave it at that and I will take questions from House members.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. A minister cannot suddenly just end the parliamentary session. Of course, the member would not want to give the House the full facts, because that would take away from the narrative. The reality is that a minister can move a motion, and then the entire chamber has to vote on it, including that member. A minister cannot just arbitrarily end the session. It is something that comes forward through a motion, and then it is voted on. Why is the member intentionally trying to mislead Canadians and mislead—

[An hon. member]

The member cannot say that.

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

Yes, I can—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is the “intentional” misleading.