SoVote

May/2/22 7:17:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Vaughan—Woodbridge for his thoughts. I would just counter by saying that I believe there is a bit more to this motion than the government is letting on. Obviously, it has been making the argument that having longer sittings, more sittings and more time to debate legislation is good. I would certainly agree with that, but this motion allows for the House to not meet quorum and not have an adequate number of members present for those debates, potentially opening the door for members of the government or other parties not to attend and take part in that important discussion. I wonder if the member could speak to that contradiction in the motion and why that would be the case.

128 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/2/22 7:18:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I count on the hon. member for Kenora as a friend here in the House of Commons. My understanding of this motion is that all members will be able to participate in debate if they wish to do so. Obviously, they must speak to their representative House leaders as to the determination of when they would like to have a speaking spot. That is my understanding. If I misunderstood, I will correct it, but that is my understanding. Extended sitting hours do allow for extra debate on bills and for people to put their thoughts out. I enjoy coming to the House and presenting my thoughts on various bills and matters, which I know matter considerably to the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge, back home in my beautiful riding.

131 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

May/2/22 7:18:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, from time to time at committee, particularly when travelling but sometimes here in Ottawa, the committee will waive its quorum requirement and provide that no substantive motions can be moved or debated, in order to hear from witnesses. The committee sees value in hearing points of view and getting them on the record, but recognizes that it may not be an appropriate time to address issues that come out of left field, so to speak. That is kind of similar to what is being proposed for evening sittings in the House of Commons when we have these extended meetings. I just wonder if the member has some experience with a committee that has conducted its business this way and if democracy ended when the committee decided to conduct its business that way.

134 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/2/22 7:19:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have sat at committees for the almost seven years that I have been here. I have been on a number of committees, three in the last session. We do debate vigorously many bills that are put forward. We debate motions that are put forward. It is always great to have a robust discussion and hear different viewpoints from the members who have the privilege of sitting on those committees. I do not think this type of motion has in any way impaired the ability of democracy to function. That is exactly what happens on committees.

98 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/2/22 7:20:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my friend and colleague could just provide his thoughts in regard to how important it is, when a government works with the opposition as a House, to try to work co-operatively in order to pass a legislative agenda that is there not only for government but also for all members, especially when reflecting on private members' bills.

63 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/2/22 7:21:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I like to use words like “reasonable leadership”. Being in government and being elected, we need to demonstrate responsible leadership and collaborate with other parties in the House, which we have been able to do. I know some of the official opposition members put forward ideas that ended up in a government bill relating to extended sick leave benefits. I think that is what it was, by one of the members from York region. It is very important that we get the work done that our constituents need us to do without facing obstructions. It is very important that we collaborate with other parties in the House, which we are doing, to get the work done that Canadians want us to do. As we exit the pandemic, as we are in one of the most unique times in history, we need to collaborate, work together and get things done that are important for our constituents so that we can move forward in building an even more prosperous and brighter future for all Canadians.

177 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

May/2/22 7:22:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8 Bill C-13 Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate, which I have been following carefully for the past few hours. Human memory is a curious thing. I am not a psychologist, but I have noticed that humans have a tendency to forget the most painful memories, the difficult and distressing moments of the past, and this can sometimes condemn us to repeat the same mistakes. I think others would agree with me. At a certain point, people often decide to focus on the positive and forget the negative. When I say “the negative”, I am talking about the crisis we just went through, and are still going through, but it was worse in 2020-21. Life has been completely turned upside down since March 2020, including our personal, family and work lives, and our work in this Parliament, in the House of Commons. If we go back a bit, we will recall that the House of Commons did not sit for weeks. At the very beginning of the pandemic, it was extremely important to practise social distancing. There were perhaps a few hours once every two weeks where a handful of MPs could come to the House of Commons to adopt measures for Canadians and businesses. Apart from that, we lost a tremendous amount of time before setting up the hybrid Parliament. Some may say that it is true that we lost time, but they will also accuse us of calling an election and losing even more time. Those who say that are not providing the full picture of what happens in a Parliament with a minority government, which has a very specific dynamic. If we look at the history of minority governments in Canada, they do not last much more than 18 months. After that, the opposition likes to spin a narrative that the government is not working very well, and it repeats that story out loud day after day during question period. The government then starts to drag its feet for real. The opposition points the finger at the government, claiming that it is not accomplishing anything, that it is getting nowhere and that a new government is needed. That is how it plays out; that is how it has always played out. I have been an MP under several minority governments, more so than under majority governments. This is the dynamic that usually takes hold, especially after an opposition party elects a new leader and a minority government has been in place for 18 to 24 months. People start thinking about triggering an election. Our government was operating in a crisis, and it had to go back to voters for a reset, if you will, and a renewed mandate. When the government was elected in 2019, there was no crisis. Later on, it had to implement health measures, and strengthening and extending those measures required a mandate from Canadians. We lost time because of the pandemic, and we were unable to move forward on certain files. The House has spent a very long time on Bill C‑8, a major bill that is crucial to helping Canada recover from the pandemic crisis. The bill is supposed to implement the fall economic update, but we have not yet passed it, and summer is just around the corner. Why is it important? Bill C‑8 provides essential support to workers and businesses to fight COVID‑19 and will continue to support the provincial and territorial health care systems with supplies of vaccines and rapid tests. The more information Canadians have about their health, the easier it will be for them to make decisions that enable them to keep the most vulnerable people—such as seniors and immunocompromised people—healthy, to keep themselves healthy and to keep others safe in the face of this pandemic. Canadians need assurances that they will not get sick when they go to work and that they will not make their loved ones sick with COVID‑19. Bill C‑8 will also protect children by ensuring that schools have adequate ventilation. We must do everything in our power to prevent outbreaks in schools. This bill would implement a number of tax measures, such as tax credits for businesses that purchase ventilation equipment and for teachers who buy school supplies to facilitate virtual learning. The safe return to class fund originally provided $2 billion to the provinces and territories to help cover a variety of investments to protect students and staff. The addition of $100 million to the fund is intended to support projects with the primary objective of increasing outdoor air intake or increasing air cleaning to help reduce transmission of COVID‑19. I would also like to take the time to recognize the great work being done by teachers across the country. They are doing the most important job: taking care of our next generation. Bill C‑8 is very important for recovering from the pandemic and avoiding a setback. We do not need any setbacks at this point. Things are hard enough, and we are already facing enough challenges, so this is an important bill in that sense. However, it is also a bill that is dragging on. What the opposition does from time to time is drag its feet in an attempt to show that the government does not have the competence to achieve its objectives. There are other very important bills to be passed as well. I am referring in particular to Bill C-13, which deals with official languages. I represent a community that is predominantly made up of a linguistic minority in Canada, and Bill C‑13 will help better support this linguistic minority. It will enshrine the court challenges program in law, in a way. This program helps official language minority groups defend themselves in court when they are faced with actions such as the Harris government's move to close the Montfort Hospital, or the Harper government's move to cancel the court challenges program. This is therefore a very important bill for the anglophone minority in Quebec, but also for the francophone minority outside Quebec, as well as for promoting the French language and francophone culture in Quebec and across the country. Bill C-11 is just as vital to promoting Canadian culture, including Quebec culture and French-Canadian culture. Let us take a look back and think about Bill C-10 in the previous Parliament. That was another bill on which the opposition was dragging its feet and filibustering in committee and in the House. They seemed to support the bill initially, but once the Conservatives saw the winds changing, especially among certain segments of the voting public, they changed their tune. This example illustrates how the official opposition decided to drag its feet and create obstacles. Let us get rid of those obstacles and move forward.

1167 words

All Topics

Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC)

May/2/22 7:32:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one aspect of this motion is that the government can extend the sittings with the agreement of one other party, and we have heard from multiple speakers on the government side that the justification for that is, of course, that it would represent a majority of Parliament. However, as I understand the motion, should a situation arise where all three opposition parties, including the NDP, were to want to push for extended sittings, they would not have that power. Why does the government believe in the will of Parliament only when it is the will of its party?

100 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

May/2/22 7:33:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to do anything in this House, such as to extend hours, we need motions, and these motions need to be supported by a majority of MPs in the House. This idea that somehow this motion does away with that principle of democracy, which is majority rule, is a bit misleading, but I know that it is the opposition's role to sow doubt, and it is fair game.

70 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

May/2/22 7:33:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech, and I must say that four words caught my attention, specifically “francophone minority in Quebec”. I wonder whether my colleague said that deliberately or unconsciously. Sometimes people say one thing when they actually mean the opposite. I wanted to confirm that, because it would be quite hurtful if he said that deliberately. Even if he did not mean to say that, it still raises some questions. Often what comes out unwittingly actually, in some way, reflects what we really feel. I wonder if my colleague wants French to become a minority language in Quebec.

105 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

May/2/22 7:34:42 p.m.
Watch

Come on, Madam Speaker. That is an absurd accusation. I was talking about minority languages, about official language minority communities in Canada. There is a francophone linguistic minority outside of Quebec and an anglophone linguistic minority in Quebec. What I was saying is that Bill C‑13 is designed to strengthen the French fact across Canada. That is one of the objectives of the bill. The member seems to have misunderstood, because that is clearly not what I was saying.

82 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

May/2/22 7:35:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member for Lac-Saint-Louis finds it as strange as I do that the Conservatives argue there is no deliberate delay here, yet we are still debating the fall economic statement and we are now in May. When they say there is no urgency to get moving with things, we have things like the tax credit for teachers that are being held up by Revenue Canada as it waits for legislation to pass.

79 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

May/2/22 7:35:54 p.m.
Watch

Again, Madam Speaker, I have lived through a number of minority governments and I have observed the sort of dynamic that characterizes these minority governments. One of the things that the opposition likes to do is to delay and delay to make it look like the government is not accomplishing what it wants to accomplish and in order to give the message to people that the government is not working, not functioning. Yes, it is a problem that we are discussing Bill C-8 as we enter the summer, when there are important measures in Bill C-8 to help farmers and people who live in the north and have to travel to the south for medical reasons and so on. I do not understand what is so complicated about this bill that we have to have 51 speakers at report stage. I just do not get it. It is very straightforward. It is to help people in the middle of a pandemic.

163 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

May/2/22 7:36:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be joining the debate on Motion No. 11. Ahead of time, I am going to inform you that I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley. I have to look at him just to remember his riding name, so I recognize it is difficult to memorize all of the members' riding names here. I want to start by saying something for constituents back home who are wondering why we are debating this motion. It is actually not government legislation; it is a motion that would structure how we use the time of Parliament on a go-forward basis from now until the end of June. I want to highlight some of the parts in the motion I am most concerned about. It directly affects my ability to represent my constituents back home in the riding of Calgary Shepard. They have honoured me with the ability to represent them for a third term in Parliament, and I want to recognize that fact. We had a member from the Liberal caucus who said earlier that they could not understand why over 50 members of Parliament wanted to speak on a piece of legislation. It is just that simple. This place exists to debate legislation. This place exists to debate. That is the whole point of Parliament. The government has all of the powers necessary, if it chooses to use them. It is always a choice. It can choose to use them to limit debate and to also program debate. For example, it can do time allocation. It can say there will be five more days of debate on a particular piece of legislation. It can have evening sittings if it chooses to, as it is choosing to do in Motion No. 11. The problem with Motion No. 11 is that it has also larded on all of these extra measures, like prorogation on demand. Section (c)(iv) states, “a minister of the Crown may move, without notice, a motion to adjourn the House until Monday, September 19, 2022, provided that the House shall be adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28 and that the said motion shall be decided immediately without debate or amendment”. That is the type of thing that side, the government's side, the Liberal caucus, in 2015, promised it would never do; it would never prorogue Parliament. That was not the Conservatives making a promise. That was the Liberal Party of Canada. The Liberal government made the promise that it would not do such a thing. It has already prorogued Parliament once in the past six and a half years that I have been here. The Liberals have now also inserted into this motion prorogation on demand. At any moment of the day, a minister of the Crown can decide that is it. We are done. It is too much. The heat is on. We need to flee for the summer, before the rest of the parties and the public realize what is going on in the House of Commons. It is wrong, and they should not be doing such things. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Tom Kmiec: Madam Speaker, I hear them heckling me and chirping away. I appreciate they do not like it when I bring up these facts, but I want to make sure that my constituents back home understand what we are debating here and what we are going to be called to vote upon. I look forward to questions from their side. “He that cannot pay, let him pray.” I love Yiddish proverbs. I know there are members of the lobby on the opposite side who appreciate my Yiddish proverbs. I spend time looking for them to make sure I find a good one. The Liberals are paying for having a government House leader who is incapable of running the calendar. This is not the first time this has happened. I remember the very first Parliament I was here, every single May and June they found themselves in exactly the same situation. They had to impose evening sittings early on in order to be able to pass legislation. The difference here is that the Liberals are inserting these extra provisions that they do not need to sit here if they do not want to. In fact, none of them will have to rise in their place to debate, because they will have programmed the evenings away. As a parliamentarian, I am happy to work until midnight. During the Emergencies Act debate, the record will show I was here every single day, actively debating into the late hours of the day, and I was happy to do so on behalf of my constituents. I recognize that they sent me here. I cannot complain about the hours I have to put in. That is the expectation when one comes to this place. We have to go to committees. We have to meet with stakeholders. We have to meet with constituents. We have to manage our own time. There are lots of people waiting all across the country to take any one of our jobs. I think we can all recognize that. Anybody would love the opportunity to represent a riding in this country. That is why so many people run as candidates for various political parties. This is a unique opportunity for 337 members. I recognize that as Speaker you cannot speak on behalf of your constituents. You have given up that right in order to make sure we follow all the rules of this place. It is a unique privilege that we have to speak on behalf of our constituents. The government is saying, “Yes, you can speak for them, but it is all for naught because you are speaking only to a mostly empty House that will not be listening to your words to perhaps sway them in the votes they are about to take, because of the programming motions that have been inserted into Motion No. 11.” There are very few notice permissions provided. Ministers of the Crown will have very little time within which they can provide notice to extend hours into the evening. Other members, including the opposition House leader of the Conservative caucus, have mentioned the fact that this would put a huge strain on the resources of the House of Commons administration. I am a former chair of the Conservative caucus, and I remember how difficult it was to manage the resources of the House just so we could have our own meetings over Zoom and have them interpreted in both official languages, with the technical staff present. Then we moved to a hybrid format and it made it even more complex and more difficult. We all have political staff who work long hours with us to ensure that we can do all of the work that we have here. It is on all sides of the House. Many of them are willing to put in the extra time. They are usually younger Canadians who see an opportunity to serve their country in these political offices and make a contribution as a duty of citizenship. I recognize that, but what we are asking people to do is to come in, on the whim of a minister at the very last moment, to sit evenings. It takes a huge number of staff to make Parliament work, both the House of Commons and the Senate. That recognition is not in the motion. The government is saying it is fine for our interpreters, of whom, at one point during the pandemic, something like 70% had work-related injuries. There were committees being cancelled. It was calculated that up to eight committees of the House could be cancelled on a weekly basis because there would not be enough resources to do the work. We refer a lot of work from the House of Commons to a smaller group of parliamentarians, to hear from witnesses and then consider the matter in more detail. That is what we ask the House of Commons committees to do. No one on the Conservative side is saying that we do not want to put in the time or the work. We are more than happy to do so. What we are saying is, first, remove some of the provisions that are obviously there, such as prorogation on demand, as I said, in subsection (c)(iv), which would make it a lot easier for the government to flee if they do not like where the debate is heading or if they may lose a potential vote. The second part is provide the notices. We are asking for 48 hours' notice. It is the typical standing committee notice period that is used. I have sat on several committees of the House. That is a pretty standard way of ensuring that every single member at the committee has an opportunity to both read the content that is sent around and prepare for the committee that they are members of, or that they are substituting on if they have a particular issue they are chasing down on behalf of their constituents. I think that is perfectly reasonable. A Yiddish proverb says, “He that cannot pay, let him pray.” This a prayer, and it has been answered by the NDP. The NDP has answered the prayer of the government House leader. Its members are willing to throw away all their values. They are going to throw away the principles that the New Democrats stood for. I know and have worked with some of the fine members of that New Democratic caucus. I have a hard time believing they would be willing to simply give in to the government House leader because of his complete incapacity and inability to manage the House calendar. If legislation is being held up, the Liberals can move time allocation. They can negotiate in good faith as well. I have sat through some of the House leaders meetings, and I do not believe there are negotiations in good faith going on. I used to work in human resources. The member for Edmonton West, I am sure, will chuckle at that. I remember what fair negotiations were like, what is fair at a labour negotiation table and what is considered fair bargaining. I do not see that here. All I see is ultimatums and “do it our way or no way”. That is what I see in Motion No. 11. To constituents back home, this is what is going on. The government is going to program and instruct the entire business of the House of Commons until the end of June, and if the Liberals do not like what is going on, they will yank it, prorogue Parliament and resume some time in September, when they feel more comfortable. They can say whatever they want about what is actually going on. They can put whatever talking points they want forward, but that is essentially what will happen to this place. The rest of the business of the House will be programmed. Our votes will not matter, because it will all be prejudged and preordained through Motion No. 11. It is wrong. We should not be doing this. I would have gone into the quorum matter, which is deeply unconstitutional; however, I will leave it at that and I will take questions from House members.

1923 words

All Topics

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

May/2/22 7:47:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. A minister cannot suddenly just end the parliamentary session. Of course, the member would not want to give the House the full facts, because that would take away from the narrative. The reality is that a minister can move a motion, and then the entire chamber has to vote on it, including that member. A minister cannot just arbitrarily end the session. It is something that comes forward through a motion, and then it is voted on. Why is the member intentionally trying to mislead Canadians and mislead— An hon. member: The member cannot say that. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Yes, I can—

110 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/2/22 7:47:38 p.m.
Watch

It is the “intentional” misleading.

7 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/2/22 7:47:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, why is the member misleading Canadians by suggesting that this is the case and that ministers can arbitrarily prorogue Parliament when they cannot? They need the support of a majority of the members in this House.

38 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec

May/2/22 7:47:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, apart from correcting the member on the rules of the House, where we cannot impugn another member for intentionally misleading the House, which is against the rules in the Standing Orders, I will remind the member that it is his own government's motion that says the following: “that the said motion shall be decided immediately without debate or amendment”. It can only be moved by a minister of the Crown. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

80 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/2/22 7:48:16 p.m.
Watch

Order. Let us ask the question and let us answer the question as best we can, without others having to talk at the same time. The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

31 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec

May/2/22 7:48:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to finish what I was saying before the heckling drowned me out, only a minister of the Crown can move it. Only a cabinet minister can move said motion. These Liberal members have ensured themselves the vote of the NDP. They bought the vote. Therefore, it is a guarantee that this will happen. They will have a majority, so it is a guarantee that they can shut down the House at any moment. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Tom Kmiec: Mr. Speaker, I hear the member for Kingston and the Islands heckling me again. I am happy to take another question from him.

106 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 62