SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/22 5:52:36 p.m.
Watch

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.

27 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/2/22 5:52:45 p.m.
Watch

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—

86 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/22 5:53:25 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

9 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

May/2/22 5:53:33 p.m.
Watch

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

539 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/22 5:56:43 p.m.
Watch

I remind members that they should take discussions to the lobbies when one of their colleagues is speaking. The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

25 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

May/2/22 5:57:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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.

1267 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/2/22 6:03:47 p.m.
Watch

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?

103 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

May/2/22 6:04:32 p.m.
Watch

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.

223 words

Ms. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC)

May/2/22 6:05:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg is an excellent public speaker. I have a number of concerns with Motion No. 11. First and foremost is that this is a scandal-prone government. We have seen the WE Charity scandal and SNC, and the Aga Khan's island has re-emerged. We have also seen a government that avoids accountability. In the two and a half years since I have been elected, the Liberals prorogued Parliament and a year later they called a snap election. My major concern with Motion No. 11 is the part that would allow the provision for a minister to move adjournment of the House until September without notice at any time. In essence, they could shut down Parliament any time there is any reason they think they should, such as to avoid a scandal or if there is another ethical lapse by the Prime Minister. Is my hon. colleague at all concerned that in voting in favour of Motion No. 11, he would be providing the government this kind of power to avoid accountability? He said the opposition has a job to do to hold the government accountable. Is he not concerned he is giving away that power?

202 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

May/2/22 6:06:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the member will know that particular provision would allow a minister to call for a vote to have an adjournment. We are in a minority Parliament, and that allows every member to weigh in on whether the House ought to adjourn, so I think the fact is that it would precipitate a vote. We do this at committee. Sometimes people call for adjournment of a committee and we proceed immediately to a vote on whether that will happen. In a minority context, on committee, I have seen proposals by the government to adjourn refused by the opposition parties together. I can imagine that happening in an instance where the government makes an egregious move to adjourn Parliament early. That is why the vote is a really important component of the motion.

135 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

May/2/22 6:07:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my question will be short and more of a comment. The NDP has sold its soul. It sold its soul last June when it made an agreement with the Liberals to water down the net-zero bill as much as possible. It has just sold its soul a second time to water down democracy as much as possible.

60 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

May/2/22 6:07:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I remember back in December when the Bloc Québécois decided to support Bill C-2 and fast-track it to committee. It negotiated with the government. We could have said that the Bloc had sold its soul, but we understood that even if we did not agree with its position on Bill C‑2, the Bloc had negotiated for something it felt was important. We did the same. We negotiated for our priorities. We were unable to have all of our priorities adopted by the government because it is a negotiation, not something that we could do unilaterally. I therefore do not see how the expression “sell one's soul” applies in our case, given that the Bloc is prepared to do the same thing when the opportunity presents itself.

141 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/2/22 6:08:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will start by picking up where the member for Elmwood—Transcona left off with respect to answering this question about the NDP selling its soul. I have heard this talk on a number of occasions from the Bloc and the Conservatives, as though they are jealous they were not the parties chosen to work with the government. We hear this kind of language coming from across the way repeatedly. They say the NDP has sold itself out and this is not what Canadians voted for. We operate under the Westminster parliamentary system. The entire system is built on political parties working together. Look around the world. We can open our eyes to other Westminster parliamentary systems to see that what we see here with regard to working together with another political party is exactly what our system is designed to do. This notion that it is somehow wrong for parties to be working together only underscores, if anything, the disdain the Conservative Party, and now apparently the Bloc, have for this place and the very institution that we use to exercise our democracy. In any event, let us talk about government Motion No. 11, because that is what we are here to talk about today. I think it is clear from the outset exactly what this motion is about. The core of this motion, at least in terms of what is being debated today, is with respect to extending sitting hours. This motion sets out our government's proposal for the proceedings of the House of Commons until June 23 of this year. It specifically will allow for extended sitting hours to debate bills into the evenings when the government and one party, which represents a majority in the House, request it. What we are trying to do here is empower the House to be more democratic and give members more opportunity to speak. I heard the member for Montcalm not that long ago talk about how this motion is restricting Parliament. He should explain to me how extending sitting hours to give people more opportunity to speak is somehow restricting Parliament. It is the exact opposite. It is increasing the opportunity for members to get up and speak. I heard what members of the Conservative Party said earlier today, which they said on Thursday as well when they raised a point of order on it specifically, about putting into this motion that no quorum calls can be made. Suddenly, this is a constitutional issue for the Conservatives. It is absolutely remarkable. We pass unanimous consent motions waiving the requirement for quorum calls routinely. Consider the number of times that I have stood up and moved unanimous consent motions to waive the requirement for quorum calls when we have evening debates. I have done it at least 15 to 20 times and everybody always votes in favour of it. It is something that has been negotiated in advance. To somehow suggest that it is unconstitutional to move this goes against a practice of the House that is so incredibly well established and entrenched into the daily operations of this place. It is ludicrous to suggest that it is somehow unconstitutional, and the Conservatives are bringing up that point. This makes me think: Why are the Conservatives bringing this up? Is this the best they have, saying that it is unconstitutional to waive the requirement for quorum calls? That is how it appears, because they are scraping, literally, at the bottom of the barrel by trying to suggest that this is somehow a constitutional issue. Nonetheless, why is it so important? Let me talk about this for a second. There are a number of very important pieces of legislation, and something has become very clear regarding the Conservatives, and now the Bloc for some reason. I am not going to lie: Ever since the member for Durham was removed as the leader of the official opposition, the Bloc Québécois has had this cozy relationship with the Conservatives, and I just cannot wrap my head around it. It is a complete change in their posture. They used to be a progressive party that fought for Quebec, primarily, pushed forward ideas and saw past the games the Conservatives played, but suddenly they have taken a completely different approach. I cannot help but think it is all based on the fact that they see the cluster of activity going on in the Conservative Party right now. They see the implosion literally happening before our eyes with these far-right candidates and the progressives. They might see an opportunity to pick up a couple of members. Who knows what might happen after the leadership vote in September? Who knows— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

798 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/22 6:14:10 p.m.
Watch

Order. I am hearing a lot of noise on this side. It is not time for questions and comments yet, but the members will be very happy to know that there will be 10 minutes for questions and comments. To make sure they do not forget anything, maybe they should jot things down so that when it is time, they will be able to ask their questions. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

71 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/2/22 6:14:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think I hit a nerve. The truth hurts; I know it does. I guess they can call me out on it come September, after the results of their leadership race. We will see what happens if Jean Charest wins or if the member for Carleton wins. We will see what happens. To get back to my point, I think the Bloc is banking on it. Bloc members are hedging their bets right now on who they could pick off from the Conservatives when that time comes. That is just my hypothesis. Perhaps I can be accused of being a conspiracy theorist, but that is what I think is happening. I will get back to the core issue here. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, they keep heckling me. I think I really hit a nerve. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan literally will not stop heckling me right now. I have a feeling I hit a nerve there. I understand. I think we all know which side of the Conservative spectrum he is on. In any event, I think I hit a nerve. He is clapping. He likes being part of the alt-right side. That is fine, but there are also some progressives. This is my concern—

218 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/22 6:15:50 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has a point of order.

14 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/2/22 6:15:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not mind a bit of friendly teasing, but for the member to call someone whose grandmother was a Holocaust survivor a member of the alt-right is deeply offensive and insulting. He should apologize for that. He should at least know the difference between alt-right and conservative. If he does not, he should do some reading. He should apologize to the House for that comment.

70 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/22 6:16:15 p.m.
Watch

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary wish to respond?

8 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/2/22 6:16:18 p.m.
Watch

No. I am going to continue with my speech.

9 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/22 6:16:24 p.m.
Watch

In hindsight, given what is going on right now, I would ask the member to continue with his speech, as opposed to always focusing on a specific party, and at this point focus on the motion before the House. It is becoming a little—

45 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 62