Debates of May 2nd, 2022

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

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

Madam Speaker, at stake immediately in Bill C-8 are the teachers, who have supports in the bill that should have been passed months ago so they could realize those supports. They cannot because the Conservatives are literally holding up this piece of legislation as long as they possibly can. They will go on and on.

What is at stake are some of the other pieces of legislation that we need to move forward on, such as modernizing the criminal justice system to remove mandatory minimums. I realize that is something the Conservatives are against, but the point is that this government has an interest in debating that. They will have their time to do that. Other pieces would be on modernizing the Broadcasting Act and the Official Languages Act. These are all very important pieces of legislation that we know we want to discuss and get passed in some form or another by the end of this session in June.

Now we are just saying that this is fine. If the Conservatives want to talk endlessly, we will give them more opportunity to do that. That is what this is all about.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, in this motion, section (e) talks about the final report for the special committee on MAID. I was curious if the parliamentary secretary would share some of his thinking on why this extension is required.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not know why the extension is required. I assume the committee would have a better understanding of that, but I do not know exactly why the extension is required. I do not want to give the member an answer without being able to properly consult on that.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the member for Kingston and the Islands' speech because he highlighted a lot of the hypocrisy that we have seen in this House. My question to him is about the fact that the Conservatives claim they want more time. They complain about closure motions. They say they want more time to speak, yet we are debating a motion that would allow them to have as many speakers as they need to have on any given issue.

Perhaps the member for Kingston and the Islands could comment about the fact that this motion provides more opportunities in this place for democratic debate to happen and why he thinks the Conservatives are so afraid of that.

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

Madam Speaker, this gives me a good opportunity to bring up a couple more quotes. On March 28, I asked the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock when he thought the Conservatives would finally let us vote on this important piece of legislation to provide Canadians supports. His response was, “This is our job. We are legislators. We are supposed to be criticizing. We are supposed to be talking about how we can improve pieces of legislation.”

To answer the member’s question, that is exactly what this motion is about. It is about giving the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock and other members more time so they can debate and discuss the motions and pieces of legislation, just as he indicated they want to do.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, there is not another member in the House who loves healthy debate more than my hon. colleague. He is on his feet every chance he gets. He absolutely relishes it.

I ask my hon. colleague this. Does he want to take healthy debate out of democracy?

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to use the first quote the member made in my next householder just so the folks back in my riding know that the Conservatives appreciate how much I love debating. In all seriousness, I appreciate the comment. That last bit was in jest.

Of course we do not want to restrict or prevent debate. That is what this is about. I do not understand where the member is getting this notion from, because the previous question he asked me was very similar to this: it was about restricting debate or somehow preventing debate from happening. Somebody has to explain to me where the Conservatives are getting this notion. This motion is about extending the opportunity by working later into the evening, giving more opportunity to speak so more people can get up and more people can ask questions. I do not understand where the member is getting this from.

I appreciate his comment about my love for healthy debate. I certainly do enjoy it. I also enjoy hearing what members from across the way say. That is what this entire process is about. I enjoy being a part of it.

To the member’s question specifically, I do not think this is limiting debate. I think it is providing more.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes rising on a point of order?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. I wanted to draw the attention of all members in the House to the fourth anniversary of the passing of my predecessor and hon. member of this place, the late Gord Brown, who served as the MP for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes from November 2004 to 2018.

He was the husband of Claudine, the father of Chance and Tristan. He was a friend to all members of this place.

I thank you for giving me the opportunity to mark his passing four years ago today.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, may Gord rest in peace. We miss him here.

I will be splitting my time with my colleague for Battle River—Crowfoot.

I rise to oppose government Motion No. 11. It is not because we do not want to have more debate here; it is just that my colleague, who just spoke across the way, does not understand what the contents of his own motion are. He could not even answer a simple question from the Green Party MP about why there was an extension for the medical assistance in dying committee. He does not understand his own motion here, either.

Conservatives are ready to debate, but the issue before us is the wording of the motion in several places. One of the most egregious things that is in the motion is the ability for the government, a minister or the Prime Minister, at any point in time after Motion No. 11 is passed, if it is passed unamended, to simply adjourn the House. That is something that is reserved for the Speaker only, as we saw on that one day when the Speaker adjourned the House during the convoy when the police had moved in. There was supposed to be a debate on the Emergencies Act that day, but the House was adjourned so we had a reason why the Speaker took that particular prerogative.

Normally, when a prime minister wants to adjourn the House, he or she has to go through the process of prorogation to reset the political agenda. That would be the only reason. We have already agreed, as political parties here, what days we are going to sit. We have the parliamentary sitting calendar, so it is simply not true that Conservatives do not want to have a debate. We already have the parliamentary calendar set up. What is actually true is that the government, which is blaming Conservatives for being obstructionist when we are simply doing our job debating legislation, has already been able to pass eight of the 18 bills that it has introduced in this particular Parliament. Yes, Bill C-8 is taking some time, but it is billions of dollars in spending. Here is what the Liberals are not saying about Bill C-8.

First of all, the Prime Minister called an unnecessary election in August of last year, which used all of the sitting days that would have been available in September and October all the way up to November 22, which by my calculation is at least seven sitting weeks. That is 35 days of Parliament that we otherwise would have sat and we could have debated and discussed this legislation. Even more cynically, the Liberals tabled Bill C-8 on the very last day of the fall sitting, which was December 16, which means that they basically had not one day. They tabled the bill one day before the House adjourned in the fall. That means that the fall economic statement had zero days of debate in the fall.

If we fast forward, after weeks of Parliament being adjourned over the Christmas break, the Liberals' mismanagement, and the name-calling of Canadian citizens that resulted in a protest that sidetracked this place, here we find ourselves. Lo and behold, the Conservatives have only been speaking to Bill C-8 for a handful of days, and the bill has gone through committee and passed at second reading. It is now at report stage and is moving its way through third reading. All the Liberals had to do was simply ask their coalition dance partners in the NDP if they wanted to move this along.

We have legitimate concerns about the legislation. There are some things we may agree with on this side of the House, but there are also some things in there that we disagree with. It is our job to bring those matters to debate before the House of Commons. As I said, they have a supply and confidence motion, otherwise known as a coalition with the NDP. They simply had to ask their dance partners for approval to do this. For whatever reason they did not get it, so I do not know how much confidence the Liberals could have in what the NDP is supplying them, but I will leave that for the dance partners to talk about.

My point is that the mismanagement of the time of the House by the Liberals is what is actually the problem. They have been able to get bills passed, but we have a right and a constitutional responsibility to oppose legislation that we do not agree with. Even if we agree with bits and pieces of it, our job is to challenge the legislation that is before the House. The whole notion of how a democracy is supposed to work is through the cut and thrust of debate, the to and fro of debate. It is to have the best ideas from all sides of the House and all sides of the chamber, and all the people who voted in the last election have their ideas come together and bubble to the top.

The problem with the motion is the tone of the motion. This is what the Liberal and NDP members are trying to do. If a citizen is at home watching this and wondering what is actually going on, let me spell it out for them.

In a normal sitting of the House, there is this thing called “quorum”. The House must have at least 20 MPs here. Normally, the governing party, the party that is responsible for the legislation that is being discussed, has to be present to carry the debate. That would require, in addition to the Speaker, at least 19 Liberal members of Parliament, or Liberal-NDP members of Parliament if they are working in cahoots together, to be present for the debate.

In Motion No. 11, there is a clause that says the government will remove any ability to call quorum or to move a dilatory motion. People at home might wonder what a dilatory motion is. That is a motion to adjourn the House and end the debate. It ends what we are talking about or stops what we are doing at a particular point in time. It adjourns a meeting of the House of Commons.

It is the quorum part that matters. As Conservatives, we are willing to be here and debate. That is not a problem. On behalf of the millions of people who voted for us, we would expect that at least 20 Liberals would be in the House to listen. With the motion worded the way it is, the government is basically saying, to Conservatives and Bloc Québécois MPs, “Talk to the hand.” The government is going to pass an autopilot motion in the House of Commons that is normally reserved for debates, such as take-note debates or emergency debates, where there is no question, no vote, at the end of those debates.

At the end of Bill C-8, and at the end of Motion No. 11, there is going to be a vote. That is different. To put the House in that type of scenario is completely unacceptable. For those who are watching at home, this is the part that the Liberals and the NDP are not telling people. They are not telling Canadians that they are getting rid of the actual processes and procedures in the House of Commons: the Standing Orders that we normally operate by. They are getting rid of those things because they do not necessarily want to be here.

I am pretty sure the member for Kingston and the Islands will be here and my friend for Winnipeg North, who is always here in the House, will probably be here. There will be one if not two of them. I might see some of the other MPs from the Liberal Party, but I do not expect to hear from them because, frankly, I never do.

Notwithstanding any of that, for people who are watching at home, it is not just Conservatives who are opposed to this: it is members of the Bloc as well. I am pretty sure there are some members in the NDP who are very uncomfortable with what is happening: people who used to stand up for the working-class Canadians in this country, and people who used to actually stand up for transparency and accountability in this country, are looking at this and wondering what is going on as well.

To Canadians who are watching at home and listening to the talking points from the Liberal MPs who are speaking, this is the part that is egregious. They would simply take away the ability for the Prime Minister or the government of the day to just adjourn the House, so that when things get a little hot around here, if the Prime Minister was under another investigation, they would just shut down the House but they would not have to go through the embarrassment of calling a prorogation to do it. That is the first thing.

The second is quorum. “Talk to the hand,” is basically what they are saying to Conservative members of Parliament and the Bloc Québécois. The government just wants us to talk. We could just have a joint caucus meeting with the Bloc, according to the motion. We do not actually need to be here. There is no point in us sitting here debating if the government is not interested in listening.

If the government is not interested in listening, why not? Does the government not care about the millions of Canadians who did not vote for its members in the last election? Are there no good ideas from the official opposition? Is there no role for the official opposition? Is there no role for the people who voted for the Bloc Québécois to bring up the issues that are important to them?

Where are we in this democracy? This is the problem. To Canadians who are watching, this is the problem. This is why Conservatives are so adamant that Motion No. 11 is fundamentally flawed. We are okay to come to work. We want to come to work. I have been here for 16 years, and the last two weeks in June is the time when extended sitting hours are automatically in the calendar. If MPs in the governing caucus want to have extended hours, they do it. I have done it. As a matter of fact, I was a member of the Harper caucus when Harper was the prime minister. We had motions like this, but we would never dream of putting in an autopilot motion on government legislation.

It is egregious. It is an abuse of the powers of the House. What is shocking to me is that the NDP is going along with this. Where is the party of Tommy Douglas and Jack Layton?

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

Madam Speaker, the member tries to appeal to those who might be following the debate in terms of what is taking place. It is a very simple motion. The intent of the motion is to enable opposition members and other members the opportunity to speak after 6:30 p.m. It would be from 6:30 p.m. to midnight. The Conservatives might want to try to confuse the issue. Everything else is based on votes, so it is not like the government on its own can ram things through. It is all based on votes.

It is an issue of should we be having more debate between 6:30 p.m. and midnight. If we were to canvass Canadians, we will find there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who work past 6:30 in the evening. There is nothing wrong with having more opportunities to debate.

The member is wrong. He is wrong on the quorums. Opposition parties have equal responsibility in the issue of quorum. On the issue of quorum, there are many occasions when we see no quorum or dilatory motions. That is nothing new.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way, as much as I try to have respect for what he has to say, is actually completely wrong. He is not only misleading Canadians who are watching this, but this has never been done. This type of motion, the removal of quorum and the autopilot on government legislation has never happened in the 16 years I have been an MP.

As I said in my speech, these kinds of things happen on motions before this House that do not have a question being put, like an emergency debate, a take-note debate or autopilot on other procedures where there is no vote, no money being spent and no bills being passed.

The difference now is that the government is so afraid of not only dealing with and debating with the Conservatives, but obviously it is afraid of its own backbench if it is not even sure it can muster quorum and keep 20 people here to listen to what Canadians have to say.

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

Madam Speaker, earlier in his remarks, the hon. member made reference to the power of prorogation when talking about the adjournment provision in this motion.

I was reminded of the procedure and House affairs committee in the last Parliament where we did a study of the Prime Minister's latest prorogation. I wanted the committee to recommend that the Prime Minister should not be allowed to prorogue the House without a vote in the House of Commons, the same kind of vote that is actually in the adjournment provision of this motion.

That recommendation did not appear because Liberals and Conservatives alike want to preserve that power of prorogation. For all the song and dance and foot stomping they do in this place, at the end of the day when the Conservatives had a real opportunity to just recommend constraining the power of the Prime Minister, they chose not to.

I find it hard to believe the outrage of the member here today.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pretty sure I am appearing calm and poised. I am not sure what the outrage is all about.

The member has his opinions about prorogation and that is fine if that is what the procedure and House affairs committee wanted to talk about, but the reality is if the member believes so strongly in what he said, the NDP may be the worst negotiators in the world because the NDP just negotiated a supply and confidence agreement with the Liberals. If he truly believes in what he is saying, why did his party not negotiate this as part of that agreement? Those members are either the worst negotiators ever or they do not mean what they say.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I would like to ask my colleague about is this issue of dilatory motions. The motion prevents all members from entertaining or bringing forward dilatory motions, except for one class of members, which is a minister of the Crown, for example, the Prime Minister. A minister can bring forward a dilatory motion, a motion to adjourn the House without debate and the vote must be called immediately. That is the definition of a dilatory motion.

Could my colleague comment on the fact that this seems to be an inequity in the motion in that it does not apply equally to all members?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, for the Canadians who are watching this at home, I will say this. What would one call a government that is able to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants and to whomever it wants without any consequences or seeking the permission of the House? I will let the folks at home come up with that answer. I have my own thoughts on that and my guess is the people who are watching at home would think the same thing.

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

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to rise in this place and stand up for the people who sent me here.

Before I get into the substance of my speech, I take very seriously the fact that when I stand in this place, I am representing about 110,000 people spread out over approximately 53,000 square kilometres in east central Alberta. I am representing them here in this place. Whenever I stand, whenever I am engaged in committee, I make sure it is their best interests that are at heart.

As we debate Motion No. 11, the tragic irony is the fact that the government, supported by its coalition partners in the NDP, moved closure on a motion that would limit debate and limit the ability for MPs to fulfill their parliamentary, constitutional and societal duties.

There is tragedy after tragedy, but Motion No. 11 represents what I believe, and from what I have heard already from my constituents and many Canadians, is a terrible demonstration of democracy in decline in Canada. I do not say that lightly, because when it comes to the institutions of Parliament, of our country, we are seeing decline. We are seeing damage that is being done. I believe it is incumbent upon each and every one of us to ensure that we stand for the rights and freedoms, for the democratic values that built this country.

I first read Motion No. 11 shortly after it was put on the Order Paper last week. It is in typical Liberal strategic fashion. They are bringing something forward that, if it passes tonight, will contribute to further democratic decline in this country.

I am proud to be able to stand in this place to fight against that not just for the sake of Conservatives. It is a misnomer to suggest that the Conservatives are only fighting for themselves. No, the reality is that when one fights for democracy, one stands to fight for all voices. One stands to fight for all political opinions, all who have the honour, the privilege and the ability in this country, not just elected MPs, but all in this country who have the privilege to vote during an election, to be engaged in democratic discourse each and every day. It goes all the way up to our having the responsibility of representing Canadians in this place.

I want to systematically go through some of the significant challenges in Motion No. 11. The Liberals are quick to say that many of us in this place do not want to work. They throw around those allegations, but that is a very small part of what Motion No. 11 really is about.

Let us look at paragraph (b), which is the details related to paragraph (a) of Motion No. 11. The first part would allow there to be late-night sittings. Few Canadians would debate the fact that they expect their politicians to work. The problem is that the Liberals want control. It is clear that they themselves do not want to work, and this motion confirms that, but they also want control over exactly how Parliament functions. The opposition House leader has used a phrase that I think explains very well the attitude of this government when it comes to how it wants Canada to work. The government does not want an opposition. It simply wants an audience.

I find it really interesting that whenever the Liberals fail, they often say that it is in the name of being team Canada, that it is for team Canada's sake that we need to simply move forward, or skip due process or whatever the excuse of the day is. It is shameful that time and time again they have repeated those sorts of failures.

On the first part of Motion No. 11, many Canadians would look at it and say that for politicians to be able to work late to get things done is okay. However, I certainly hear from constituents, and the Liberals do not want to hear this, that they want us to actually debate bills. They want us to be engaged in this place in democratic discourse.

It goes on. In the next three parts of (b), items (ii), (iii) and (iv), it is truly an attack on democracy. It goes on further. It comes to (c), regarding changing some of the rules. We have heard a lot of discussion about quorum calls and how, again, the Liberals do not want further debate. They want to simply be able to control the debate to meet their ends.

There is no better example of that than Bill C-8. We hear many Liberals, especially, and New Democrats who are now complaining about the fact that it is still in Parliament. It is the government's job to manage its legislative agenda. Like so many things in Canada, the Liberals have done that poorly. However, I would point to the fact that the Liberals only introduced Bill C-8 just before Parliament rose for Christmas. They talked about it. We all knew it was coming. There was no surprise that it was coming, but they introduced it only a day or two before Parliament recessed for six weeks. Then Parliament came back and they had the audacity to suggest that somehow, when Conservatives want to fulsomely debate that bill, we are being obstructionist or whatever their key line of the day is. It is an absolute shame. Again, it is an attack on democracy. We are seeing a decline in democracy.

Of course, there is the ability for the Prime Minister or any minister of the Crown to prorogue Parliament, basically. It is a bit different because it would require a vote. However, this speaks to the fact that when the Prime Minister flip-flopped on his prorogation promise in order to cover up another one of his litany of scandals over the course of his time of being leader of this country, he suffered in the polls for it. Now the Liberals are using their partners in the NDP to avoid the shame and the political punishment that come with the fact that they break their promises. Now they are giving the chance for any minister of the Crown, as early as tomorrow or the next day, to be able to stand up. Worse, I would suggest, is to hold that over the heads of parliamentarians, knowing that they would be quick to use the entire infrastructure of government, which does not stop when Parliament adjourns, to keep repeating their same old tired talking points.

There is much to say in this debate in the fact that the government did limit debate on the motion that would limit debate. There is the tragic irony of that. I see how these Liberals, in their litany of scandals, want to see as little discussion and opposition on any aspect of their agenda as possible. We see that represented throughout Motion No. 11.

I would simply suggest something which is quite straightforward. I have in front of me a document that was put together by a constituent whose name is Neil. I thank Neil for this. There are 15 different scandals, promises that were made and broken. They were clear misrepresentations to Canadians that the government made over the course of leading up to the election that the Prime Minister promised he would not call but did anyway. Canadians know what that is. There are 15 very clear, different issues that speak to how the government cannot be trusted with power of any kind, let alone the ability to unilaterally control Parliament.

A Liberal majority government was bad. Hundreds of thousands of Albertans were pushed out of work by the Liberals' ideological games. There was the fact that we saw an agenda that diminished Canada's presence on the world stage, and on and on it goes.

What is worse, which I certainly have heard from many constituents, is a Liberal minority government with a bought-off majority by a socialist NDP, or “NP” maybe because the democratic part maybe is not as relevant. It is worse than a Liberal majority government because the New Democrats have been able to buy off the Liberals and then, of course, with a threat of a confidence motion within whatever their quasi-caucus circumstances might be.

I conclude by saying that Canadians are tired of having a government simply repeat for itself the same tired, in many cases, misrepresentations of the truth time and time again, claiming it is real when Canadians know better. Canadians did not vote for the circumstances we are debating here today. Certainly Conservatives are going to stand up for Canadians of all political affiliations to make sure that their rights can be respected within Canada's Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, when the member talks about the political games that are played, what he does not make reference to is the number of days that Bill C-8, the fall economic statement, has been debated, and the number of times the government has attempted to bring it forward only to be frustrated because the opposition wants a concurrence motion on this or that. There is no doubt that there are important issues, but this is always done on government business days. When the Conservatives attempt to adjourn debate or stop the House for the day, it is for issues the opposition initiates in order to frustrate and prevent the government from passing legislation. Then they criticize the government for not being able to pass legislation. That is just plain stupid.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe you should seek the advice of the table. I am not sure that “stupid” is within the realm of parliamentary language.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member was not referring to an individual specifically.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

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

Madam Speaker, I will certainly note that when I call the Liberals corrupt, because I think that is a fair representation of not an individual but an attitude.

It is interesting. Here we have the Liberals again misrepresenting to Canadians the reality of what happens in this place. The member, in his remarks, suggested there are important issues to discuss. I do not see government members standing up to concur on supply days. They could, but they do not because they want to play politics.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Madam Speaker, now they are somehow suggesting we want to play games. That is the problem. The Liberals will do everything they can to assert their dominance within our parliamentary institutions, leading to a democratic decline.

The Conservatives will continue to come to Ottawa to stand up for the issues and things that our constituents expect of us, regardless of what the Liberals try to do to shut us down.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that when someone else has the floor and they already had an opportunity to ask a question, they should hold off on any other questions and comments they may have.

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.