Debates of May 2nd, 2022

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I note the hypocrisy of that member. He used to stand in here and rail against the government on the WE scandal itself, because the Prime Minister and the former minister of finance, Bill Morneau, refused to recuse themselves from the decision process.

This is the member who always wanted to make sure that we did not do closure on debate, and now since he has become, I guess, deputy leader of the NDP-Liberal coalition or deputy House leader, NDP members are now standing here defending the government on moving things like closure on debate and trying to limit the ability of committees to do their work on things. He wants to kick the can down the road another week or two before we actually do it, but we have a chance to get this done today: to put it to a vote and let the committee get to work immediately on making sure that those who committed contempt on this Parliament are actually held to account.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is clear, from the answer to the last question, that the Conservatives have absolutely no response to the great question that the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman was just asked, because had he actually conjured up an answer to the question, he would have been able to provide some substance to the member's question.

I think it is in the best interests of Canadians that we get back to the business of this House rather than the political games that the Conservatives are continuing to play. Therefore, I move, seconded by the member for Winnipeg North:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

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

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

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

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #66

Committees of the House

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

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from April 28 consideration of the motion.

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

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

I believe when we left this last, the member for Barrie—Innisfil, the House leader for the official opposition, had two minutes remaining in his question and comment period.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question to the member is actually very straightforward. When we look at the essence of Motion No. 11, all it wants to do is allow for more debate time so members of the Conservative Party, and others, would be able to talk about legislation more.

Why does the Conservative Party oppose additional debate time?

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

Madam Speaker, I have said this numerous times. The government has failed miserably in dealing with its legislative agenda. It is going to make everybody around this place pay a price. Conservatives are prepared to work 24 hours a day if we have to, and we will.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, to the hon. House leader of the official opposition, I am torn about the debate. This happens to be, by the way, for everybody else who was elected May 2, 2011, our 11th anniversary. We have had a lot of late nights in June. This is the first time we have faced the prospect of staying until midnight in May and in June. We do good work that way, but it is not the best.

Does my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party agree with me that it would be far preferable if we adopted the rules we have that prohibit members from reading speeches? Then we would have fewer people prepared to keep debating forever and ever on a point—

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

We have to give the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil time to answer.

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

Madam Speaker, we have already agreed to a schedule, which all of the parties agreed to last year. The last two weeks of June were proposed for extended sittings. The hon. member is quite right. This has never happened before.

What Canadians need to ask themselves, and certainly what the NDP members need to ask themselves, is why. Why are we doing this at the beginning of May? It is because the government has failed in its legislative agenda? The second reason is that it has the NDP in its hip pocket, so it can do whatever it wants now.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, since I do not have the endless time allotted to the official opposition and have only 20 minutes for my speech, I will read it.

I rise in the House—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would request a modicum of decorum because I cannot hear myself speak.

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

May I ask hon. members to take their conversations outside of the chamber, please.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, I rise in the House feeling extremely disappointed. I am disappointed with the government's vision of parliamentary democracy. What a waste of time and energy.

Since securing the support of the NDP, the government has been acting with the arrogance of a majority government. Some will ask whether I am truly surprised. I will answer that I entered politics because, first and foremost, I refuse to be cynical.

Last Thursday, I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government brazenly state that this type of motion was nothing out of the ordinary. A brief review showed me that, indeed, this happens too often in the House.

The Liberals said that it was not uncommon and that it was not a big deal, because the Conservatives did it before. Just because the Conservatives did something once, that does not mean that another party is justified in doing the same thing once in power. There is no reason to normalize parliamentary mediocrity and an inability to manage the parliamentary agenda.

The government has been lax, not to say lackadaisical, in administering its legislative agenda, especially when it comes to medical assistance in dying. There was an election, there were three sessions before the election, and a committee was created, but the committee was not recalled until late March, and its first meeting was held on April 8. That is totally unacceptable.

In my view, this motion is unworthy of a democratic Parliament. It is despicable. Either this motion is malicious, deceptive and twisted, or it is astoundingly insensitive toward people who are suffering. Today, with this motion, not only is the government limiting the powers of the opposition parties, but it is doing so for partisan reasons. This is end-of-session quibbling over matters of life and death. The government is exploiting the issue of end-of-life care and capitalizing on the suffering of people who are dying, who are experiencing intolerable suffering, who would like to have access to support in dying with dignity and who would like the proper respect to be shown for their right to make a free, informed choice.

These people trusted us last year when we passed Bill C-7. They assumed we would spend the next year conducting a rigorous, thorough cross-party analysis and produce a credible report on the revision of the act.

In our opinion, the Liberals’ strategy is the epitome of cynicism. They are preparing to trample on the powers of the opposition parties with the NDP’s complicity, while in 2017, 2018 and 2019 the NDP voted against this type of motion. The Liberals are muzzling the opposition parties, something we have always voted against. They are imposing closure, but they are careful to add in the same motion what the Bloc Québécois wants, namely to extend the mandate of the joint committee until October 17. On the one hand, they are giving us less time. On the other hand, they are extending the deadline.

Fortunately, knowing that we could not divide the motion, the Speaker allowed us to divide the vote.

By tabling the motion last Thursday, however, the government placed the Bloc Québécois in a position where it had to vote against its desire to implement a rigorous and credible process to review the act respecting medical assistance in dying in order to allow the joint committee to submit a report worthy of expectations or alternatively compromise its principles of parliamentary democracy. This is the Liberals’ twisted way of governing.

Since the last election, the government has dragged its feet when it came to reconstituting the special joint committee. It did so not in a separate motion, but—nice going—in a motion adopted under a gag order, which muzzled the opposition.

Since the beginning of the 44th Parliament, the Bloc, represented by myself and my excellent House leader, has told the government that we were short on time and that we should proceed by consensus to extend the deadline for the joint committee’s report. A first compromise was made, and the deadline was extended until June 23. Unfortunately, to succeed, we would have had to sit continuously, and intensively, more than once a week, starting with the first meeting.

The way we conduct this process is important for ensuring the credibility of the findings. This part of Motion No. 11 should at least have been moved separately. Discussions could have continued with the Conservative party; so far, the Conservatives are claiming that the June 23 deadline is reasonable and sufficient.

Obviously, the schedule can be reorganized at the end of the session. Obviously, with this hybrid parliament, resources cannot be optimized to accommodate more work, even until midnight. Obviously, this limits the organization of business. Claiming that we can call witnesses and ensure—

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

I ask the hon. members to please take their conversations to the lobbies.

The hon. member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, how can someone claim to be able to call witnesses and have them submit briefs of no more than 1,000 words and talk to us for five scant minutes, when in Quebec we called experts who were given an hour for questions and answers and 15 minutes to explain their research? How can someone believe that the process would be credible with such a short deadline and a 10-page report? It is appalling.

Let us take a brief look at the main reports produced on medical assistance in dying to show why October 17 was an entirely appropriate and realistic deadline.

In 2012, in the National Assembly, the report of the Select Committee on Dying with Dignity entitled “Dying with Dignity” was 178 pages long.

In 2016, the report of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying entitled “Medical Assistance in Dying: A Patient-Centred Approach,” was 60 pages long.

In December 2018, the first report of the Council of Canadian Academies’ Expert Panel on Medical Assistance in Dying entitled “The State of Knowledge on Medical Assistance in Dying for Mature Minors” was 193 pages long. The second report, entitled “The State of Knowledge on Advance Requests for Medical Assistance in Dying” was 219 pages long. The third report, entitled “The State of Knowledge on Medical Assistance in Dying Where Mental Disorder is the Sole Underlying Medical Condition”, was 247 pages long.

In 2019, Filion and Maclure’s report entitled “L’aide médicale à mourir pour les personnes en situation d’inaptitude: le juste équilibre entre le droit à l’autodétermination, la compassion et la prudence”, or medical assistance in dying for incapacitated persons: balancing the right to self-determination, compassion and prudence, was 157 pages long. This report was prepared following 17 eight-hour sessions.

In December 2021, the report of the Select Committee on the Evolution of the Act respecting end-of-life care, submitted to the Quebec National Assembly, was 90 pages long. This report was prepared following 39 meetings with witnesses and 46 steering committee meetings.

However, on our side, we would have to do the same thing in eight weeks, at a pace of one meeting a week, with witnesses who are not allowed to submit reports over 1,000 words long, so we could produce a report of no more than 10 pages. That is ridiculous. They put that in a closure motion and they think we are going to be happy about it.

I have no problem with the Conservatives completely disagreeing with what I stand for on this file, but I will not go along with the work being done poorly or in a partisan manner or with a debate as important as this one being reduced to legal quibbling at the end of the session. That is how this government is behaving.

The motion we are debating today is a prime example of how the Liberals have decided to act a like an arrogant majority government with support from the NDP. The message Canadians and Quebeckers sent during the election in September has gone by the wayside once again. This minority government, emphasis on minority, can go back to strongarming and cutting debate short when it feels like it. It is deplorable.

The main purpose of today's motion, although meant to extend debate until midnight from Monday to Friday, is to muzzle the opposition parties, and I will prove it. I would like to add another consideration, which stems from a certain deference to House of Commons employees. We need to think about the repercussions that extending sittings until midnight will have on the interpreters' ability to do their work safely, both in the House of Commons and in committee.

During the pandemic, we saw that virtual meetings created extra work for interpreters. In light of that, the Liberals should have shown greater consideration for them. Should we be surprised that they did not? We are concerned that, with all the extra work required of the interpreters, there will be fewer time slots available for committee meetings.

Let us look at the first part of this motion, paragraph (a). It begins by stating that “on the day of the adoption of this order, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12:00 a.m.”. That is not a problem because the Bloc Québécois wants to sit, debate and work. On the issue of medical assistance in dying, we wanted to work on it before last April 8.

Paragraph (a) continues, “that until Thursday, June 23, 2022, a minister of the Crown may, with the agreement of the House leader of another recognized party, rise from his or her seat at any time during a sitting, but no later than 6:30 p.m., and request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the current sitting or a subsequent sitting be 12:00 a.m., provided that it be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1 is to take place, and that such a request shall be deemed adopted”.

To me, the words “with the agreement of the House leader of another recognized party” are clearly referring to the NDP. The government is talking about the NDP, but this is completely out of character for that party. This is not the first time a government has moved a motion like this one.

Let us think back to the period from 2015 to 2019 and the democratic position of the so-called democratic party. At that time, the Liberals had a majoirity government. Earlier I spoke about how the Conservatives and the Liberals pass the buck back and forth, normalizing what is happening and accusing one another of the very thing that they themselves are doing. Then, they are shocked when people no longer have faith in democracy and go protest in the streets.

On May 30, 2017, the opposition, including 34 NDP members, voted against Motion No. 14 on the extension of sitting hours and conduct of extended proceedings. On May 29, 2018, the opposition, including 30 NDP members, voted against Motion No. 22 on the extension of sitting hours and conduct of extended proceedings. On May 28, 2019, the opposition, including 30 NDP members, voted against Motion No. 30 on the extension of sitting hours and conduct of extended proceedings.

Between 2011 and 2015, the Conservatives had a majority government.

On June 11, 2012, 96 NDP members voted against Motion No. 15 on the extension of sitting hours from June 11 to 22, except on Fridays, pursuant to Standing Order 27. On May 22, 2013, the opposition, including 82 NDP members, voted against Motion No. 17 on the extension of sitting hours and the conduct of extended proceedings. On May 29, 2014, 28 NDP members voted against Motion No. 10 on the extension of sitting hours and the conduct of extended proceedings.

The last time a minority government tabled such a motion, in 2009, it was defeated by the opposition. If a minority government tries to take away parliamentarians' privileges and their ability to debate, the opposition usually votes against it, as long as the opposition members are willing to stand up and respect the people who voted for them to oppose an arrogant majority government that governs like an absolute monarch.

On June 9, 2009, the minority government was Conservative.

On June 9, 2002, 138 opposition MPs, including 27 NDP members, voted against Motion No. 5 on extending the hours in June, and 134 members voted for the motion.

We know that the Liberals and New Democrats have an agreement on Motion No. 11. The NDP always opposed such a move over the years, but this time, it decided to give in.

This means that debate hours will be extended to midnight, Monday to Friday, provided that the government leader obtains the agreement of the NDP leader and makes the announcement before 6:30 p.m. If an emergency or take‑note debate is scheduled, the debate will be extended until 10:00 p.m.

The minority government has complete control over the evening program without allowing the opposition to have any say on what happens in the House. That is the first problem.

It is paragraph (c) that really limits the opposition's powers. The House leader of the official opposition spoke at length about this and did a brilliant job illustrating it, citing all the examples where the rights of the opposition could be flouted, so I do not need to repeat all of them.

The most abhorrent part of this motion is paragraph (e), which extends the deadline for the final report on medical assistance in dying. As I said earlier, even though the Bloc agrees, it nevertheless took an appeal to the Chair to have the vote split, which, fortunately, we obtained.

In closing, I implore all parties to take an approach that crosses partisan divides on this issue. I hope the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who said at one point that he did not agree with the October 17 date, can convince his colleagues to vote in favour of that part of the motion.

That said, I would like to table an amendment to the amendment:

That the amendment be amended, in subparagraph (a)(ii), by replacing the words “two sitting days’ notice” with the words “one sitting day’s notice”.

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

The amendment to the amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, I heard the member speak at length about his accusations that the government is unable to fulfill its responsibilities in delivering on its agenda, but I am wondering if the member has ever taken the opportunity to talk to some of the folks in the Conservative Party. They share a lobby together. Did he perhaps go to them and say that maybe they are going a little overboard with respect to the way they are trying to stall pieces of legislation, such as Bill C-8? The Conservatives have had 51 members speak to it at report stage alone.

I am wondering if the member could comment on whether or not he has taken his criticism to members of the party that he shares a lobby with to share his frustration over how slow things are moving given their tactics.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again, my colleague is unable of rising above partisanship.

That being said, my criticism of the government is that it introduced in a closure motion a file that it has mismanaged and has been very lax in addressing. Had it not been for the separate vote we were able to obtain concerning medical assistance in dying, we would have been forced to vote against it, when all we want is for that file to move forward.

I will stop there because the member in question is always very partisan. He thinks that, by pointing a finger at the official opposition and saying that it would have done worse than his government, his government’s current actions are justified. However, it is the Liberals who are in power now.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Montcalm addressed several issues and problems he had with the various paragraphs in the motion.

I would like to hear what he thinks about subparagraph (c)(B)(iv), under which “a minister of the Crown may move, without notice, a motion to adjourn the House until Monday, September 19, 2022...and that the said motion shall be decided immediately without debate or amendment”.

In my opinion, this looks like prorogation on demand: At any time, if things are not going well for the government, it can prorogue Parliament. However, in 2015, this government promised that it would not do that, and the NDP also promised that it would never support it.