SoVote

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Apr/28/22 12:22:47 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot is rising on a point of order.

15 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Apr/28/22 12:24:01 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for his point of order, but I think it is really a matter of debate. I will ask the parliamentary secretary to continue his speech and to clarify his thoughts on that part of the motion.

41 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/28/22 12:24:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to provide some clarity on the issue. I think the government House leader was fairly clear when he indicated that the motion for adjournment would not be taking place before the last week, which would be the week of June 20. At the end of the day, it is a government minister who would be moving such a motion. I will leave it at that, if that answers the member's question, or would he like me to be more specific?

86 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Apr/28/22 12:24:53 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot has another point of order.

13 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Apr/28/22 12:24:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, correct me if I heard the parliamentary secretary incorrectly, but he did reference the involvement of other opposition House leaders in that process, which is not specified in the motion. I would encourage him, through you, to apologize and withdraw those remarks. However, if he is moving an amendment to his government's motion, I am sure the House would be happy to entertain that, but I would not want the issue to be confused as we debate this very important motion, which has a significant impact on the way this place, the centrepiece of Canadian democracy, is able to do business. I hope we can get absolute clarity on this issue before we continue with the debate.

120 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Apr/28/22 12:26:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know I enjoy hearing from the hon. member, but this back and forth is debate. The Conservatives will have an opportunity to respond, and I look forward to hearing that, but all of this back and forth is truly just debate.

51 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Apr/28/22 12:26:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to respond to the parliamentary secretary's response to my point of order. When it comes to the content of the motion to which the other member has alleged, that is not us debating the substance. That clearly has to do with whether the House is able to accurately debate the substance of this motion, so it has nothing to do with the perspectives of different parties. It has nothing to do with the debate on the motion itself, but truly the substance at the heart of what creates the foundation for any debate within this place.

106 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Apr/28/22 12:27:15 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for his point of order, but that is another point of debate. The motion is in written form. The hon. parliamentary secretary on debate.

29 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/28/22 12:27:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I attempted to provide a bit of an answer. It is not necessarily questions and answers at this point in time. I can attempt to provide a more detailed answer during the questions and answers, but maybe he can review what I have said. At the end of the day, there is a motion that has to be moved by the government. That motion does not require other members or opposition parties to sign off on it before it is actually introduced. The member needs to be aware that if the government moves a motion to adjourn for September 19, at the end of the day a vote takes place once it is moved. I suspect that getting that motion passed is going to require more than the government of the day. It is going to require at least one other opposition party. Hopefully that provides clarity, but the member can seek more clarity during questions and answers. I made a commitment to the opposition House leader in terms of the length of my comments. I said we would have to take a look at who speaks longer. My commitment was to speak less than the official opposition House leader. I know he was concerned about that, so this is really important to me. I want to be able to speak less than the opposition House leader. I am going to wind up my comments. In an appeal to all members, but specifically members of the Conservative caucus, I want you to think in terms of what it is that is within the motion. The motion does two things, in essence. One thing is that it extends the special standing committee to deal with MAID, and I trust no one is opposing that. If you are, please stand and let me know or come over and tell me that you oppose that. To the best of my knowledge, that is not the case. I am going to believe that is not a reason why someone would vote against this. The other thing that the motion does is it extends the number of hours in which members on all sides of the House will be able to debate. That is something that historically and traditionally has taken place in provincial legislatures and here in Ottawa. Why would someone not allow for more time for debate, unless there is of course a hidden agenda behind it? I think there is a responsibility to tell us why it is. As opposed to just being critical, tell us why it is specifically that you feel you do not think we should be working a few extra hours in the evening. Tell us why it is that we should not be allowing more members to be able to participate in debate. If you vote against this legislation, I suspect that any future argument you have, asking for more time to debate on legislation the government brings forward, will lack credibility. As members will know, I hang out in this place a lot. I will be sure to remind members of the way in which they voted on this motion if they end up criticizing the government because we are not allowing more time for debate. We are doing what other governments have done. Let us put Canadians and the people of Canada first. Let us allow the motion to pass. Let us put in a little more effort working in the evenings, allow for more debate, and allow for that special committee being dealt with. Always remember it is a minority government, and Canadians expect us all to work co-operatively. Working co-operatively ensures there is a lot of accountability and transparency. It does not mean that you have to vote with us all the time, but it does mean that there has to be recognition that there is a legislative agenda. I did not even go through the details of all the legislation, but I can assure you there is a lot of good stuff that we are waiting for.

679 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Apr/28/22 12:32:34 p.m.
Watch

Before we go to questions and comments, I would remind the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons that all comments must be addressed to the Chair. The hon. House leader of the official opposition.

42 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Apr/28/22 12:32:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a space where people are either accountable or they justify. I heard very little in the way of accountability with the member's speech, and a lot of justification. I want to make a couple of points. He spoke specifically about Bill C-8. The bill was first introduced on December 15, 2021. It got approval at second reading on February 10, went to committee and got committee approval on March 1, and now it is at report stage. We have had four weeks off in that time, yet the government suggests that somehow the opposition is obstructing. The other thing is that on April 4, the government put on notice a motion of time allocation. It was the NDP that refused to support that notice of time allocation. In fact, the government has mismanaged its legislative agenda, and that is why we are seeing the hammer fall as it is with Motion No. 11. The member spoke about specific examples of other governments. The Standing Orders are very clear that there is a specific timeline in which we can extend debate. Those are in the Standing Orders, and the schedule was agreed to by all of the parties. Can the member give examples, specifically, of where other levels of government, as he says, actually did this: extending hours at this point in time? I would be very curious and interested to hear about that.

241 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/28/22 12:34:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my first-hand experience of dealing with and seeing these types of motions in the past is that often they are reflected in the negotiations that take place. They will sit an hour and then we will often see that even before that hour is achieved, the debate will collapse, the bill will pass and the House will move on. In order to have a legislative agenda get through, we need that sense of co-operation. I hope that helps the member better understand the importance of working collaboratively. It does not mean colleagues must listen to everything we say and obey everything we say. No, there is give-and-take. I suspect that if there was more give-and-take between the government and the official opposition there would probably be a higher sense of gratification on all sides of the House, as we want to try to do what is right for the people of Canada.

160 words

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Apr/28/22 12:35:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, medical assistance in dying is an important issue to the Bloc Québécois and to Quebec. We have worked hard at parliamentary committee and saw that we would not have enough time to do all the work that such a sensitive topic demands. That is why the Bloc Québécois wanted to move the deadline for tabling the report to October 17. The other parties, some of which were not convinced, dragged their feet. The government decided to include this in a motion that muzzles the opposition, when it was unnecessary to do that since Standing Order 27 allows sitting hours to be extended. It has brought out the heavy artillery, complete with a gift to the Bloc Québécois that would extend the deadline for the report on medical assistance in dying to October 17. That is like the government asking us if we like honey and us saying yes, but then the government adds arsenic to the honey and tells us to eat up. Why did the government choose to muzzle the opposition when it could have simply used Standing Order 27?

197 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/28/22 12:36:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is where I have to disagree with the member. It is quite the opposite. The member makes reference to the Bloc's desire to have the MAID committee continue on through the summer. If anything, it shows that the government was listening, instead of trying to pass it through. It shows a sense of co-operation. We recognize the importance of the issue, not only for the province of Quebec but for all of Canada. That is the reason why it is in there, on October 17. I do not quite make the connection. The member seems to be in opposition to the fact that we are giving many hours of debate into the evening. I do not understand. For the life of me, I believe that a vast majority of Canadians would not object to Parliament sitting until midnight. While I was in the Manitoba legislature, I would sit until two o'clock in the morning at times. Sometimes there is a need to work.

169 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Apr/28/22 12:38:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the types of debates that are not happening right now and that we would like to talk about, whether it be the fall fiscal update or the budget. I think about today being a very important day, the National Day of Mourning. Today, on April 28, we know that workers, families, employers and people in our communities gather together at events, including in my riding, in Courtenay and in Port Alberni. They are held across the country, so that we remember those who have lost their lives on the job or who have been injured on the job, and we renew our commitment to creating safer workplaces. The government, in terms of hiring people with disabilities, is the worst for any equity group in the federal public service. I have to raise this today, that with the federal accessibility legislation now in place and employment for persons with disabilities identified as a key priority, recognizing the explicit interface between disability, poverty and employment, I need to know this: What are the federal government's key strategies in accommodating employees who acquire a mental or physical health impairment and who are unable to carry on their duties? Maybe the member could speak to that and the importance of that, because I have not seen enough on the action that needs to happen.

227 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/28/22 12:39:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very important issue, especially on the National Day of Mourning. I represent Winnipeg North, and the 1919 Winnipeg General Strike weighs heavily on my mind. I have attempted to bring unanimous consent through the House to recognize the historic 100th anniversary and the sacrifices that workers have made over the years. We could never give true recognition to it, or enough recognition to it. The contributions that our unions have made in the past, make today and will make into the future are incredible. On the issue of people with disabilities, our minister has been very proactive in trying to bring forward progressive legislation to deal with some of these issues. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. I am sorry, but I just do not have the details to provide to my friend that I know he was hoping for.

151 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Apr/28/22 12:40:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on this question. As the member for Winnipeg North may be aware, over a hundred MPs from all parties in this place have already shared their support for the government introducing substantial legislation with respect to a guaranteed income for people with disabilities: the Canada disability benefit. This is actually legislation that the governing party promised in the previous election. Can the member for Winnipeg North share, should this motion pass, whether this would allow time for critical legislation like the Canada disability benefit act to be introduced and debated?

98 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/28/22 12:41:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of the things it does not do is prevent, for example, emergency debates from occurring, or potential other types of debates, during the day, such as private members' hour. I know there is a private member's bill that deals with this particular issue, at least in good part. I believe there is at least one of them. Everything depends on when it gets called. Unlike government legislation, there is programming that takes place with private members' bills, which will ultimately see it brought to the floor, debated and voted upon. I do not know where that particular issue is at, in regard to Private Members' Business, but I do hope to see a healthy discussion on the guaranteed annual income, because I know there is a great deal of interest out there.

136 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Apr/28/22 12:42:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member opposite, but he did not answer the question of my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil as to which Parliament it was where these draconian requirements were ever exercised before. I have only been here 21 years, and I realize there are many other Parliaments, but perhaps it is another country where they have imposed this, perhaps Russia or China. I do not know. While he does not mind if we are here all night, which is not a problem, the fact of the matter is that they will be putting on their pyjamas as soon as the House rises here at 6:30, and not even tuning into Zoom.

117 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/28/22 12:43:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member started off by saying she has been here for the last 20 years as a parliamentarian. That means she was here during the Stephen Harper era. All she needs to do is pick up the phone and talk to her good friend, Mr. Harper, and ask why he brought it in. I suspect the answer he would give her is that he felt it was necessary to allow for more debate on legislation. Governments, including her former government, brought in extended hours motions such as this.

94 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 60