Debates of May 2nd, 2022

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. My colleague is perfectly correct.

When I said that it limited the powers of the opposition parties and that it restricted debates in Parliament, this is an example of how a government can become arrogant and, with the complicity of another party, give itself the powers of a majority government. The voters elected a minority government. As such, I think that the government will have to pay a price for what it is doing now.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been working with my colleague for several years and I respect him, but I must say that he has shown only one side of the coin.

He forgot all the times the NDP voted to move files forward. We are here to advance the cause of ordinary Canadians. My colleague knows that. Right now, the Conservatives systematically want to block everything. They do not want anything to happen in the House of Commons. Even when Quebec’s farmers or teachers want us to pass bills, the Conservatives refuse. They absolutely do not want it to happen.

The NDP pushed to have the government implement a dental care program and, for the first time, an affordable housing program. My question is very simple.

Why does the Bloc simply stand by when it has seen the Conservatives’ systematic obstruction in the past months?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, if I understand the NDP House leader correctly, I have to conclude that if one day the NDP came to power, it would do the same thing the Liberals are doing now. This is a good example of what a member of Parliament worthy of the title should condemn in Parliament.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

His speech was very powerful, and he used some very harsh words. He used words like “unworthy”, “mediocre”, “lax”, “incapable”, and I would say that he forgot to add “contemptible”. Throughout his speech, I was left wondering whether my colleague was talking about the Liberals or the NDP.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that I was quite specific. I think the onus is on NDP members to tell us why they have suddenly reversed course.

I listed how they voted since 2011. How is it that they have always voted against these kinds of measures that restrict the powers of parliamentarians?

Now, they have a little deal with the government and they are drawn in by the taste and smell of power. All of a sudden, they decide that it is okay to trample on the rights of parliamentarians. That is what the NDP stands for.

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

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the fact that this is a minority government and it is what Canadians elected. Part of being under an elected minority government means there is an onus of responsibility on opposition parties. At times, they have to work with the governing party to get things through the House of Commons.

I understand the Conservatives. They just want to frustrate the legislative process. They do not want things to pass. The Bloc, on the other hand, seems to have bought into the Conservative Party.

As much as the Bloc and the Conservatives come together and criticize us for working with the NDP, what about the unholy alliance between the double blue, the Bloc and the Conservatives, who want to prevent things from going through the House? Is that not a reality also?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is another example of just how low my colleague will go. It is more partisan thinking.

I thought my speech was very clear. I said it was despicable to include medical assistance in dying in the closure motion when we have been asking the government to give the committee more time, to recall the committee and reconstitute it as soon as possible for weeks, months even. I did so the day after the election. They dragged their feet and now, with the clock ticking, they have decided to include it in a closure motion.

It is clear now that they did not understand what I said. They did not understand the speech. Some things are just not done. If they had left that out, if they had decided to talk about it, and if the Conservatives had said “no”, we could've had this same debate on one issue. Maybe the cat would be out of the bag, which is not currently the case. Some people can vote against this motion for reasons other than the ones I am talking about.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague about the part of the motion that prevents us from making quorum calls. This is not just a matter of suspending a standing rule. This is a constitutionally entrenched right. The rules of the House call for the ability of members to make a quorum call. In other words, we could have literally one or two members in the House introducing motions or bills.

I wonder if the member could comment on why the government would think this is important to do.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right.

In the House, it is even harder to make sure we have quorum because some people are attending virtually. I know I cannot talk about who is here. At times over the past few days, I have wanted to do a quorum call, but I was told that some people might be attending virtually.

That said, this is definitely something we need to pay attention to. At some point, we will have to stop sitting virtually because we have work to do and we have to find way to get it done without closure motions.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the excellent and eloquent member for Elmwood—Transcona.

I am truly saddened by what I just heard from the Bloc Québécois. For months, the Bloc Québécois have watched the Conservatives block everything. Instead of intervening to help the people of Quebec, who need these bills to be passed, the Bloc decided to just stay on the sidelines and let things slide. The Bloc wants to let things keep sliding for the next few months. That saddens me because the Bloc was not elected in Quebec simply to let Parliament go around in circles and to allow one party to block everything. I think the Bloc is really here to make things happens, but it decided not to. That is sad, but I am happy to hear that it will be voting in favour of some aspects of Motion No. 11. That is a positive thing.

Personally, I will be voting in favour of the motion. I will explain why I am voting in favour of the motion by recapping the history of this Parliament.

When we came out of the unnecessary election last fall that Canadians did not want, Canadians rightfully said they were going to have the same Parliament that they had in 2019. They basically adopted the same numbers, but the message that they were sending to all of us was to work together.

We had a shining moment in Parliamentary history when every single member working together unanimously adopted the ban on conversion therapy. That point is worth applauding. That was a shining moment in this Parliament. Conservatives actually proposed the adoption unanimously of that important bill, and members from all parties voted together.

We know what happened after that. The leader of the Conservatives at the time was deposed. The Conservatives broke into various factions. Subsequent to that, we have seen a rogue element within the Conservative Party decide that it was going to block every piece of legislation coming forward: every single piece. “Nothing will pass” is the motto of the Conservative Party today.

I know that there are Conservative members who are uncomfortable and in fact do not believe that this is appropriate, particularly in a time of pandemic and particularly at a time when we need to get legislation through the House, but that is not where the interim leadership has decided to go. They have decided to block absolutely everything, and that is why we have this motion before us.

Bill C-8 was put forward last year and has provisions that every single member of Parliament is aware have a profound impact on teachers and farmers. It has an impact on how we, as Canadians, can respond to the continuing pandemic. For no other reason than this radicalization of the Conservative leadership, Bill C-8 has been blocked systematically now for months. I am saddened by this.

There are good members of Parliament in the Conservative Party who understand that this is the wrong thing to do, but the leadership that is in place in the Conservative Party wants to block everything, come hell or high water. It does not matter if teachers or farmers, or Canadians generally, are suffering as a result. Conservatives simply refuse any legislation, and that is why we have to take extraordinary measures. What the NDP has proposed and pushed the government on, and what the government has accepted, is the condition that we now increase our working time in order to get legislation through. We will be sitting until midnight when it is appropriate to do so. That is extremely important because it allows us to move legislation through the House.

The official opposition House leader has raised the point, and so has the House leader for the Bloc Québécois, that we need to ensure and enhance our translation services over this period. I certainly agree, and the NDP agrees. We have been pushing for more resources to be provided to translation. Our interpreters have not had the resources allocated to them that need to be allocated. I sincerely hope that we will have all parties coming together in order to achieve that.

We sit longer. We will be sitting evenings, and that is important. The question then is what the results of that are, if we can eliminate this impasse and start getting legislation through the House.

Immediately, of course, there is Bill C-8 and those provisions. I know that will make a difference to the teachers, farmers and health care professionals I have mentioned who have been waiting now for months to get a simple bill through that comes out of the fall economic update.

I know that my colleague for Elmwood—Transcona is going to speak to the issue of what many people are calling the NDP budget. The budget implementation act would put in place, for the first time in Canadian history, national dental care. It would start first for children and would move, over the course of the next year, to people with disabilities, seniors and teenagers. Canadians right across this country who have never had access to dental care would finally have access to it.

Also, there is the most significant investment in housing that we have seen in decades. The NDP has been very critical of the former Liberal government under Paul Martin that destroyed, gutted and ended the national housing program, and we have seen how housing has been in a crisis ever since. We need supply. We need to have affordable housing built, and that is co-operative housing, social housing and indigenous-led housing projects.

These components of what is coming forward need to be adopted swiftly, with the appropriate scrutiny, of course, and not held up, as we have seen with the legislation coming out of the fall economic statement, for months and months purely at the whim of a Conservative Party that is fractured now into so many different factions that none of them knows which way they are going. Their only reaction is: “Well, let us hold up everything”. That is simply not appropriate in a time of pandemic when so many Canadians are suffering.

We need to have these extended hours so that we can get through the important components of what the NDP, and the member for Burnaby South, our national leader, pushed the government to put into place for this budget. It is the first time under this Liberal government that I can actually see a budget that Canadians can have some hope for, with national dental care and a national housing investment that seeks to meet the gravity of the affordable housing crisis that we are seeing right across the length and breadth of this country, including in my communities of New Westminster and Burnaby.

To do the scrutiny, it means that all parties should be working together, but that has not been the case. We have seen, over the past few months, that the Conservatives have blocked everything they can at all times without explanation, and without really trying to even justify their actions. We saw it today when they presented the same motion that they presented last week, even though the Standing Orders require that discussion next week. They just wanted to hold up the House for the purpose of holding up the House.

Who suffers? It is Canadian families who suffer. It is Canadians who are waiting for those affordable housing investments that the NDP has pushed for who will suffer. It is Canadians who cannot afford dental care for their children who will suffer if we continue to allow the Conservatives to block everything in the House at all times.

What this is, is a common-sense approach when it is obviously not working, and when everything is being blocked by the Conservative opposition for internal reasons, I guess, that only they can explain. They have not really attempted to explain it either. We need to put in place extended hours, work harder and longer, but make sure that we get those tax credits in the hands of teachers and in the hands of farmers immediately. We need to make sure that we actually provide the health care professionals with those COVID supports. We need to make sure that we start to put in place that national dental program that the member for Burnaby South has been such a strong advocate for, and put in place that national housing strategy that will finally produce affordable housing from coast to to coast to coast. That is why I am voting yes.

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

Madam Speaker, the member spoke earlier on in his speech about Bill C-8 in particular. We know there are a lot of measures in Bill C-8 that were literally stalled on getting out to people. I can think of teachers specifically. There are various measures related to the supports that we are delivering for Canadians right now. We really want to get those out to Canadians because, quite frankly, they have been waiting long enough.

Can he comment on how important this is for constituents in his riding?

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

Madam Speaker, I have had constituents raise this with me and ask why this is being blocked, in the same way that all members of Parliament have had these issues raised. Why is this being blocked? The Conservatives have never explained why it is they are systematically blocking everything.

In a minority Parliament, of course there are negotiations and discussions. We would think the Conservatives would say there was some benefit for teachers, but they want the benefit extended for somebody else. There has never been any explanation. There has never been anything in the House to justify what has been a systematic blocking of everything. We simply have to ask, when it comes to blocking everything that would help Canadians, why they would do that when we know that Canadians need those supports.

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

Madam Speaker, I know there has been a lot of discussion on Bill C-8 and the accusations of obstruction and obfuscation of the bill.

On April 4, the government put a notice of time allocation on Bill C-8. When I asked the government House leader why he did not move that notice of time allocation, he said it was because the NDP House leader said no and that they were waiting to see what was in the budget. The budget, of course, happened April 7, and then we all went home two weeks later.

Can the NDP House leader explain to Canadians why he decided not to use time allocation, or agree with the government at the time when they wanted to use it, when they could have moved this bill much further and much faster down the line? Maybe he can explain to Canadians why he said no to the government House leader in a telephone conversation, and maybe he can explain to teachers and farmers why they delayed this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a valid question and I appreciate the House leader of the official opposition raising it. The answer is that I have faith in this institution, as New Democrats do. We have faith in this institution. We believed in giving a last chance to the Conservatives. We believed that they would understand the importance. As the teachers contacted them and as the farmers contacted them, they would understand the dramatic impact of their refusal to adopt anything.

In faith that all members of Parliament are motivated by that higher calling, I really believed the Conservatives would come along and they have not. They have done the opposite. They have hardened their positions. They have refused passing anything that would actually help Canadians, and that is why this motion is before us today.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to say three things: I am a full-fledged adult, I have been here long enough, and I am not gullible.

While listening to my colleague, I asked myself who exactly was speaking. Was it the minority Liberal government or the new majority government formed by the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party? This is unbelievable. How can they repudiate everything a party should and could be, namely the NDP? How can they, through a motion, deny fundamental and democratic rights and then blame the opposition for it?

Please explain it to us, Madam Speaker.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I cannot explain it, but I will give someone else the opportunity to do so.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby for a brief response.

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

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to explain.

I find it unbelievable that the Bloc Québécois is not helping Quebeckers and that it refuses to say that Quebec's teachers and farmers are affected by the fact that Bill C‑8 has not been passed. Dental care and affordable housing are issues that also affect Quebeckers. I find it unbelievable that the Bloc refuses to do whatever it can to get this bill adopted and ensure that these people—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and to have the occasion to address this motion.

I have always taken an interest, and do today, in parliamentary procedure. Whenever we are talking about the rules of debate, I think that members rightly have an interest on what exactly is going on and what those details are and there is a legitimate tension. That is why in parliaments these kinds of debates tend to happen frequently between a government that needs to get its business done, not just for its own sake, but presumably for the sake of the nation and the people who elected them, and those in opposition who have a job to do in terms of scrutinizing the government's work in trying to make it better where they can and oppose it when they can. I have often said that.

I think there are reasons for supporting the rights of the opposition within Parliament that have to do with the rights of parliamentarians. However, there are also reasons for supporting the rights of the opposition within Parliament that have to do with the time it takes for word to get out about what government intends to do, to have a civil society response and to organize around initiatives by the government that they may not like. I think one of our responsibilities as parliamentarians always is to look at the need for things to get done in the nation's capital, in Parliament and in government, as well as the obligations that we have to foster a healthy culture of opposition.

These are certainly the issues that are at stake. I think sometimes in this place it is hard to get at the particular circumstances, because we often tend to address these issues with a hyperbolic tone. Sometimes that is warranted. I have seen occasions in this House where I felt that it was warranted and have participated in that spirit. I think that is especially true when we have majority governments that are not forced to negotiate with other parties in Parliament in order to advance their agenda.

When we see members of all the same party getting up and dictating the rules of debate and there has been no meaningful interplay between parties in the House, that is one thing. I do think it is another thing when the government has to negotiate with another party in order to get its business done. What we are seeing is a government that has undertaken a number of initiatives in order to get support from the NDP to move a budget forward, for instance. That is okay. That is actually how this place is supposed to work, and I think that is how it works when it is working at its best. Then the question is this. In order to be able to get some of those things done, how do we conduct the business of the chamber?

I want to use Bill C-8 as an example of a case of opposition that does bleed into obstructionism.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Madam Speaker, I am trying to both speak and listen to the conversation that is happening at the same time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind members that they should take discussions to the lobbies when one of their colleagues is speaking.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Madam Speaker, when we look at Bill C-8, what I will say is that it is disappointing in some regards, and I am on the record in terms of the ways in which I think it is disappointing. Despite it being disappointing, however, there are some things. For instance, there is the foreign homebuyers tax, but it has a lot of loopholes. I can say it is a step in the right direction, but it is certainly not going to solve the housing crisis that we see in Canada. We actually need to take some action on domestic investors who are helping pump up prices in the housing market. Unless we do that, a lot of the other things the government has been contemplating simply are not going to be effective. I certainly have my criticisms of the bill. I am happy to talk about those and I have talked about those in other places.

What I would say is that we have not seen a burgeoning kind of civil movement against Bill C-8. I do not think anyone is particularly animated about it outside of this place, but we would not know that by looking at the proportion of time that this place has spent on that bill. We have people calling for real climate action who are really upset at a government that has not done enough and is not doing enough and is not even planning to do enough in order to fight the climate crisis.

We are hearing from people about health funding and the state of health care in Canada and the need for more money to be transferred from the federal government to the provinces for health funding. We are also hearing about the absurdly high cost of prescription drugs and the ways in which a national pharmacare plan could help with that. We have heard from people who have never, in their family, been able to access dental services. They want to be able to access dental services and are excited at the prospect of finally having a mechanism to be able to go to the dentist and have that visit paid for.

These are the issues we are hearing about. However, in this place, despite none of those issues really being addressed in Bill C-8, we have spent already over 28 hours on debate on the bill. When we compare that to other bills and other business, that is a lot of time on a particular bill that does not seem to be at the centre of what Canadians are worried about and what they are thinking about. I do not get a lot of mail on Bill C-8. I get mail on many issues, but not on Bill C-8.

I do think there is a legitimate question as to why it is that certain opposition parties are spending that much time on that particular bill and that we cannot seem to find a way to move it along. Even those who do not particularly like it would say, and I would certainly say, that the issue is it just does not have the right solutions for the problems, but it is not that any of those solutions are particularly offensive.

It is true that time allocation is a tool that can be used and has been used. Many parties in this place have supported time allocation at one time or another.

People have asked why we are talking about extended sittings in May as opposed to June, as is the custom. Part of that is because we do not have a majority government that can just use time allocation on its own. We have a government that has to work with an opposition party that has said that if other opposition parties want more time to debate things, we endorse that. Therefore, let us create more opportunities to speak to bills while recognizing that we still have an obligation to pass bills in this place or, at the very least, to vote on them. Maybe they will not pass, but by literally calling the question, we will only get the answer to the question if members in this place allow us to proceed to the vote. Therefore, yes, we are supporting a motion that involves more midnight sittings than ever.

It also has a mechanism where we do not necessarily have to sit until midnight, partly to try to introduce some discretion to recognize that we normally go to midnight only in June. However, because we do not have a majority government that is just going to time allocate and time allocate, we are going to try to create more time for debate in the hopes that opposition politicians who say they want more time to debate government bills are being sincere and that it is a desire that could be satisfied. We may know in advance that the desire cannot be satisfied because opposition parties are committed in principle simply to talking out bills and creating dysfunction so that they can accuse the government of being incompetent when it comes to its legislative agenda. There may be some independent reasons for making that accusation that I am very sympathetic with, but it conflates the issue when we see opposition parties systematically trying to obstruct government business and it gets harder to tell where the blame lies.

Here we are trying to propose a path forward that allows for more opportunity for debate and discussion. That is exactly in the spirit of taking other opposition members at their word in saying that what they want is more time to debate these things, but we need to get to some decisions.

The situation of teachers in respect of Bill C-8 is an excellent example as to why in this place we cannot just talk and talk, but we do need to decide matters. There are teachers who have filed their tax returns and are being told that the reason those tax returns are not being processed is that there is a pending change to their tax entitlements in Bill C-8. It is a bill the CRA expected would have been decided upon one way or the other well in advance of the tax year, because Bill C-8 is the bill to implement the announcements that came in the fall economic statement some time ago, as implied by its name.

As such, here we are. We have not begun debate on the budget implementation act, which is the budget that was tabled about four weeks ago. We have done over 28 hours of debate on the act to implement the fall economic statement. We have teachers who are waiting on the CRA, which is waiting on this place to make a decision so that it knows what teachers are actually entitled to. If Bill C-8 passes, then those teachers who have spent money to buy supplies for the children in their class would get more back on their taxes than they otherwise would. We need to reach a decision.

This actually is a motion unlike other motions we have seen for June, when we have had majority governments that have unilaterally extended midnight sittings in June only and otherwise used the hammer of time allocation on its own. There is an attempt at compromise here. I think it would be more helpful to get some good-faith input from opposition parties about how we find that right balance between advancing government business and doing the proper job of an opposition party.

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

Madam Speaker, we know in particular when it comes to bills like Bill C-8 that members of the Conservative Party want to talk a lot, that they have a lot to say.

Can the member possibly understand why the Conservative Party would be against this, when this would just give those members even more opportunity to speak to very important pieces of legislation? Would he not think, given the number of speeches the Conservatives have given and the interest and passion they have in debating in this place, that they would not welcome with open arms the opportunity to debate even longer?

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things that really impressed me when I had the opportunity to tour the Scottish Parliament was that they said they could speak any language that they want in the Scottish Parliament. It does not have to be a language of Scotland. They can speak any language from anywhere in the world in the Parliament of Scotland. Part of the reason they are able to do that is they decide as a parliament months in advance what bill they are going to be debating and on what day. They get together and the parties talk about how many people from their respective caucuses want to address a bill, and then they develop a schedule that allows members to speak to the things they want to speak to and it allows for decisions to happen.

We are so far away from a culture where we can sit down in good faith with parties that disagree on things and come up with a professional way of doing business on the floor of the House of Commons that we are going to continue to be in these kinds of debates again and again. What we need to see is a little more goodwill on all sides, so that we can develop an appropriate and professional culture of decision-making in this place.