Debates of June 17th, 2026

Government Business No. 13—Proceedings on Bill C‑22

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is yet another erosion of the rights of Canadians. The same that we see in bills like this, in Bill C-11, Bill C-18, Bill C-9, Bill C-8 and Bill C-34 to some extent, although we are still studying it. This is an erosion of democracy, and it limits the participation of many in democracy. We hear every single day from our constituents, asking why we cannot do something about it. It is because they shut down debate, they shut off the cameras and they shut down committees.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unfair for the member to make the kinds of comments that she has. She knows full well that lawful access has been debated and talked about. We brought in legislation back in September of last year. The Conservative Party opposed it; they did not want anything to do with it. That is the reality. If it were up to the opposition, it would never pass. Without time allocation, it would not pass.

We are going to respond to law enforcement officers because the Conservatives have abandoned their support of law enforcement officers. Why have they done that?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary knows full well that law enforcement did not ask for anything in part 2 of this legislation. We offered to pass part 1. We offered to pass it weeks ago and we offered to pass it today. We will still make that offer if he wants to put that on the table, but that is not really what this is about.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand part of my colleague's argument, and I would like her to explain it.

She criticized the government for shutting down debate and shutting off the cameras. However, in June of last year, the Liberals did the same thing during the study of Bill C-5 on projects of national interest. Who supported that closure motion? It was supported by her party, the Conservative Party.

I would simply like her to explain why it was okay to turn off the cameras and support the closure motion last year, but it is no longer acceptable this year.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if my colleague is arguing for this motion or against it. This is about scrutiny on this and any piece of legislation in the House. We are never going to be for turning off cameras and shutting down debate the way that this programming motion has, being brought to the floor of the House of Commons. It has not happened in 15 years, except for the last piece of legislation that they did it with, Bill C-9.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is basically democracy that translates from the House to committee. The Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP all agree with part 1 of this bill. There is no question about that. It is 9:30 at night, and after this, the committee will sit again. It will be one more attempt for MPs in the House to protect civil liberties and privacy.

Does the member think the Liberal government will listen to the debate and actually consider the amendments put together by all the members of the House outside of the Liberal majority government?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have one comment to that: “Democracy Dies in Darkness”. That is what the Liberals should listen to very carefully.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious about something.

If the Conservatives are so constructive, I would like the member to tell me, of the hundreds of hours the Conservatives spent speaking on this bill in committee, how many minutes, because, yes, we are talking in terms of minutes, were spent discussing the actual subject at hand.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from various members on that side of the House that it is 25 hours. There is no number of hours that will replace democracy in this place. That is what we are arguing tonight. We are going to stay as long as we can and as long as Canadians have sent us here to pass legislation.

We offered them part 1. They said no, and that is on them.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There being no further members wishing to speak, pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the amendment.

If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Saskatoon South.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a recorded vote on this. Ring those bells.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #171

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the last vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yes.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting against.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the result of the previous vote to this vote and will vote no.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the result of the previous vote to this vote and will vote no.

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

Vote #172

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call at 12:49 at this time so we can get to the late show.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed nice that we have seen the clock at midnight. I cannot break the legal fiction, while we are all here together, but it is time for Adjournment Proceedings.

I am raising a question I initially raised April 20, two days before Earth Day. I had, on a previous occasion, witnessed an exchange between the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona and the Minister of Energy, in which he was dismissive of the concerns of the most recent oil spill from Imperial Oil on the Cold Lake First Nations territory.

I asked on that occasion if there might be an interest on the part of the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources in amending his answer to reflect deep concern for the fact that it is not just one oil spill or one leaking tailings ponds in northern Alberta in the area of the oil sands, it is multiple.