Debates of June 15th, 2026

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, as I said before, I had the privilege of being on committees for over a decade in this place, and so much important work is done by committees. It is vital to our democracy. However, when the committee had over 30 hours of a filibuster last week, that is not productive.

The member opposite also talked about the calls, emails and visits to constituency offices. I had some time in my constituency office late Friday afternoon. Canadians want us to move forward. Canadians want us to build our economy strong, and we are going to do just that.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his responses to many of the questions being asked of him today. This is an important question, because Canadians have seen over the last number of years, and increasingly so, the limits of debate in this House in terms of how we address government bills. When Canadians elect a Parliament, they elect a government, with the most seats, and they elect an opposition. The tools of the opposition, of course, are to make sure the government is held accountable for what it is doing, and it brings those things forward through a process that has been well understood for a long time. If the government thinks that our role as the opposition is just to roll over and not perform our role as His Majesty's loyal opposition, then it is mistaken.

We need to continue to look at what the government is proposing. I have a number of issues with the bill at hand, including why we have allocated less than half the credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage in enhanced oil recovery than in any other of the environmental approaches. It is the most accessible way we can reduce CO2 emissions in this bill, and yet it is not going to be debated at committee. These are the types of things that have to be brought forth, and we have to respect the fact that Canadians need to see democracy being performed in the House where they elect people to represent them.

Can my colleague please tell us where he thinks Canadians will get a view of how we are getting things done here in a democratic forum when his leader is using it less and less?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, we are here to deliver for Canadians. Again, I have sat on committees. We know when committees are productive and functioning well. Yes, the opposition has a role to play for sure. We should be challenged.

I will say that I have been here through the elections of 2015, 2019, 2021 and 2025. We have been in government and are now into our 11th year. Canadians have spoken again. Canadians want real leadership. The members opposite at times wonder why they sit on that side. Some of them have been over there for 11 years or longer. It is because they are not offering viable solutions, a viable government for Canadians. Canadians have spoken.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask my hon. colleague to comment on the hypocrisy that we are hearing today from members opposite, who complain about debate being contracted here in the House when they wasted almost 30 hours of time in committee, filibustering with eight subamendments just on lowering CPP contributions. That kind of behaviour is a waste of time, taxpayer money and the resources of this House, which are valuable in committee and could have been used to debate this legislation.

Here we are in the House, having to move closure. Why? It is because Conservatives are not serious about getting legislation done, and when they have the opportunity, they waste it.

Could my colleague speak to the hypocrisy that we experience here in the House?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for his tremendous leadership in this House and on the finance committee. He is absolutely correct. I would ask Canadians to tune in to ParlVU or CPAC to watch the filibuster that occurred last week, where opposition members were talking about elephants and everything else under the sun. That is not a serious government. That is not serious opposition.

We are here to deliver. Our spring economic update contains things that are vital to grow our Canadian economy: billions of dollars for trade unions, a sovereign wealth fund and $1 billion for small craft harbours. The Conservatives are getting in the way. We are here to produce for Canadians.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the issue of the trades. In 2006, Stephen Harper brought in grants for trades workers. In 2009, the same Conservative government brought in completion grants. One of the first acts of this Prime Minister was to cancel grants for trades workers and completion grants. The government also pulled student grants for students studying at vocational institutions. Now, after a lot of advocacy from Conservatives, as well as from unions, we were pleased to see the partial restoration of grants to trades workers. This is something we and unions had advocated for.

I want to ask the minister, number one, why did the Liberals cancel these grants in the first place? Second, why are they still denying student grants to those studying at vocational institutions?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, that member and I both came to this House in 2015 and have advocated for Canadians since then. However, that member is sadly mistaken when it comes to trade unions and their support for their government. If we look at Canadian Building Trades Unions and the IBEW, and the list goes on and on, they are standing with our government. We announced billions of dollars for trades and retraining. Trade unions stand with our government. The trade unions want to build Canada. Trade unions are totally impressed with the major projects that we are announcing, the projects that we are going to build from coast to coast to coast.

If members of the opposition party want to stand up and say they are the party of unions, I think they are sadly mistaken. Unions will speak volumes about that.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, earlier a member of the opposition talked about the fact that they were not filibustering, yet she was the one who actually told the story about an elephant in a discussion of Bill C-30, where there is money that has to go out to people who need more housing in a faster way.

Could the minister talk about the fact that while opposition members continue to say we are stopping debate, they are talking about elephants in a debate about money that needs to go out for the construction of housing?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, the opposition has a role to play in our democracy and in our government. That party has been in opposition going into its 11th straight year now.

There comes a point in time when debate has to stop, such as, for example, when members are talking about elephants or when there has been 30 hours of filibuster. We are here to move forward. We are here to build our economy. The spring economic update contains so many things that Canadians want and need. When trade unions call my office and I talk to them about 30 hours of filibuster resulting in programs that cannot move forward, they are upset. They want us to build Canada strong.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, when we sit in a committee with members opposite and officials who are unwilling to answer questions, we make whatever analogies we can to try to convince them to answer those questions.

What we were talking about in committee, which was very important and very serious, was how we explain to Canadians what we are doing with CPP. That is very important to those in this country. Following the supposed filibuster that they are talking about, which was really questions about CPP, I got a phone call from a very senior finance executive who has worked for not one but two of the maple eight pension funds, telling me how important the work we are doing in finance committee is and saying how important it is to produce reports that explain, in plain English, what we are doing in the House to Canadians' pensions.

If the members opposite do not understand how important it is to make sure that there are no unintended consequences through the drafting of bills that affect Canadians' pensions, then I do not know what to do. Perhaps the member could explain why he does not think Canadians should be able to get a full explanation about what the government is doing to Canadians' pensions?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, I also met with the maple eight pension funds. The maple eight pension funds want us to get going to build our economy. They want to invest in Canada.

Capital follows its easiest path, and right now, we are building major projects, investing in defence, investing in aerospace, investing in housing and investing in infrastructure. We are here to build an economy that is strong for all Canadians. It is time for that member, and that party, to stop the filibuster. Let us get to work. Let us build Canada.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find some of the comments from the official opposition interesting, especially when comments are made that 30 hours of debate is not enough.

I agree that we want to raise different perspectives. Constituents in the riding of Waterloo have a diversity of perspectives. They want to hear us having meaningful debate on the floor of the House of Commons, as well as in committee, but they also remind me that we are not just here to talk things out and to debate. We need to make decisions. Canadians made a decision to send the Liberal government to Ottawa to govern the country and respond to the challenges we are facing.

Can the secretary of state just reaffirm the importance of making decisions and calling the question on votes so we can be productive?

The opposition has the ability to ensure that members can be heard, but they refuse to share how many members want to speak because they are derailing the conversation rather than staying focused. Why is it that these tools constantly need to be used?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, we were elected just over a year ago with the mandate to restructure, rebuild, refocus, diversify, build new trading relationships and strengthen our economy to move from reliance to resilience. We have a job to do. Canadians are watching.

Again, I ask Canadians from coast to coast to watch the filibuster from last week and to tell me if it is productive or a great use of committee time. It is not. We have a job to do. We have things in the spring economic update, such as billions for unions, the sovereign wealth fund and small craft harbours. The list goes on and on.

We are going to focus on Canadians. We are going to focus on delivering affordability, rebuilding and retooling our economy. That is what we are elected to do.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I must say that this is fascinating.

I too am a member of the opposition in the House and have been for 11 years. As my colleague said earlier, the Conservatives have been in opposition for 11 years. The Bloc Québécois will always be in opposition. The opposition is necessary. The opposition stops the government from becoming a dictatorship, although it has been acting like a dictator in committee ever since it secured its majority and got to set the agenda. We are also seeing dictatorial behaviour in the House, where the government wants to cut our debates short.

I think that there is a fundamental problem in the House, and I have been experiencing it for 11 years: The government has a hard time managing its legislative agenda. If it were more organized, we would not be forced to rush through business at the end of every session under the threat of not being able to go home.

I think that this is disrespectful to the public. They do not expect us to rush through our work. They expect us to manage our time properly.

Take today, for example. If we had simply started with Bill C-9 this morning and debated Motion No. 12 after question period, we would have saved two hours. That would have given the government two extra hours for its legislative agenda.

In my opinion, the government is having a hard time being efficient. We were discussing heat recovery earlier. If only we had a time recovery system, we could be more productive not only for all members of the House, but also for the public. That would be nice. I offer that as food for thought for my colleague across the aisle.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to believe that we are in our 11th year in this great place advocating on behalf of Canadians.

We remember the last Parliament. We remember how it was bogged down and obstructed. We could not move forward for Canadians. We could not move forward with legislation.

I come from the private sector. I believe good leadership needs to be challenged. There is no question about that, but there comes a point when, after 30 hours of filibuster, somebody has to call it and say we need to move forward, because if we did not have the opportunity to move forward, the Conservatives would absolutely obstruct this legislation and we would not be able to pass the spring economic update, Bill C-30, to deliver for unions, small craft harbours and Canadians.

Our Prime Minister was elected over a year ago. He is a world-class diplomat. He is a world-class economic and business leader. He was elected, and we were elected, to build our economy, diversify our economy and deliver for Canadians.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are seeing here a heavy-handed Liberal government that has decided that, because it is unable to manage the time of the House and because it is unable to bring forward legislation in a timely manner, it is going to use the hammer to curtail debate.

We have seen an hour of debate on this particular bill in the chamber, and the Liberals' answer is to speed this through so we cannot have an adequate debate on the bill. They are trying to use every excuse in the book, but the reality is that, when we started sitting, we had effectively no bills for a very long period of time, and that is on the Liberals. They cannot get bills out for us to have time to debate them. It is not on the opposition for holding them accountable and saying that we deserve to have debate. This is a lot of money being spent.

Does the minister not believe that Canadians deserve to have actual conversations and debate on bills in this chamber, specifically when we are spending billions of dollars for Canadians, yes or no?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her advocacy on behalf of Canadians, although I do not agree.

We are here with an agenda to deliver for Canadians. We are here to rebuild, refocus, diversify our trading partners and build new trade relationships. We are here to deliver affordability for Canadians. We are here to build our economy from coast to coast to coast. We are here for east-west trade, not north-south trade.

Maybe it is because of my business background from before I was in this great place, but I think there is a point when we can listen to opposition. Good leadership needs to be challenged, absolutely, but there is also a point when it is not productive any longer. The Conservatives know that. We have had 30 hours of filibuster talking about elephants and everything under the sun.

Conservatives know it. Canadians know it. We know it. It is time to move on, and we are going to do just that.

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

Madam Speaker, over the course of this debate, I have heard a number of things said that need to be referenced. As my hon. friend from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake pointed out, we have actually had one hour, or maybe a bit more by now, for the programming motion we are debating right now, and now we have closure on that programming motion, which is all about speeding things up.

The hon. member says that the government was elected and “we were elected”. I remember the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie pointing out that climate change was mentioned 28 times in what the government was elected to do. Pipelines were not mentioned once. I will remind the hon. member that, in the spring economic statement, there is no reference at all to deciding that, if a pesticide is considered too dangerous for use, that decision can be overturned for economic reasons. That is now buried in an omnibus budget bill that only got studied at the finance committee and, even there, very briefly. That is not due to the Conservative filibuster, but to the priority of the whole committee in what witnesses got called.

Therefore, I beg of the government to not push this through without taking the time necessary, to not push through those buried bits in the omnibus budget bill without any real discussion or debate.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, number one, we were elected to do a job for Canadians. Number two, we want to focus on moving our agenda forward; that is important. Number three, what has happened over the last week with respect to the finance committee and the 30 hours of filibuster is not productive. Again, I ask Canadians to tune in to watch it if they can suffer through the filibuster like the members on our side have had to. There comes a point when we have to show leadership, make tough decisions and do what needs to be done for Canadians.

We are going to build our economy. We are going to cut taxes. We are going to invest in Canadians. We are going to build major projects. We are going to invest in infrastructure, outer space and defence; you name it. We are going to retool this economy. We are going to restructure this economy, one step and one day at a time, and we are going to build Canada strong.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is great to see you back in the chair today. It is a sight for sore eyes.

In my colleague's comments, he was talking about trade, not just north and south but east and west, even though our trading partner to the south of us is the most important trading partner for our economy, and the Liberals are turning their backs on it.

Regarding the east-west comment, the member knows that food transportation was exempt from the Liberals Canadian free trade agreement. We are talking about food affordability and food production and the importance of that issue. We have not had an opportunity to even talk about that and why it is exempt from their Canadian free trade agreement, when they are closing down seven critical research centres and experimental farms, which again will impact food affordability and food production here in Canada.

The Prime Minister himself spoke of food sovereignty and how a country that is unable to feed itself has few options. Well, we have hardly been able to scratch the surface of the impact that the decisions in this budget bill would have on food production and food affordability in Canada. Would the member not agree that food affordability is a top priority for all Canadians, and worth some time to discuss?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, that member too came into this great place in 2015.

[An hon. member]

No.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

No? Was it 2014?

[An hon. member]

The last remaining member.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Well, I stand corrected. You have been over there for 12 years now.

Madam Speaker, I would agree with him that food affordability—