SoVote

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

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

May/2/22 7:48:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do indeed appreciate the hon. member's use of proverbs. In fact, if his words were a stick, one could not lean on it. It was 92 times under the Harper government, and Peter Van Loan, that they used the same type of tricks in this House. My question for the very hon. member is this: Why this change of heart now? Why is it good for the Conservatives when they do it to move forward with what they call good government, but it is not good in a minority situation for the opposition to actually work with government and finally get something done for Canadians?

109 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec

May/2/22 7:49:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let me quibble first with the number. Obviously, when a time allocation motion is moved, there is a difference between having a 24-hour notice that debate will be shut down versus having two weeks to debate the matter. I know the member for Hamilton Centre is heckling and would perhaps like to jump in and correct what I am trying to say, but again, there is a huge difference between informing members ahead of time that they will have a week's worth of debate on a particular piece of legislation versus having the ability to completely shut down the House or impose evening sittings when they do not even have to participate in the debate, because Parliament cannot even be shut down. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Tom Kmiec: Mr. Speaker, I hear the member heckling me again.

143 words

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC)

May/2/22 7:50:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, being over in the corner here, I have to make dramatic hand gestures to get your attention. Thank you for noticing me. I, too, want to correct the member for Calgary Shepard. He stated boldly, but I think incorrectly, that it is the Liberal government House leader who is at fault for this. I notice that there have been a number of government House leaders over the past six or seven years, and there is always this problem. I posit the alternative hypothesis that this might be a problem with the Prime Minister and the people he chooses as House leader. I would ask the member what he thinks about that possibility.

114 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec

May/2/22 7:51:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will always be happy to be corrected by the chair of our caucus and one of the longest-serving members on the Conservative side in the House of Commons. He is right. The end person, the person who decides who is the government House leader and who is supposed to be responsible for the government's agenda and making sure it goes through the House if not smoothly at least assuredly, with an end deadline so the government can pass the agenda that it was supposed to be elected to do, is in fact the Prime Minister.

100 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

May/2/22 7:51:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague from Calgary Shepard, this comes from having the memory of this. We have had a lot of people back and forth in the House saying, “Well, this did not happen when the Conservatives were in power.” I just want to make it clear that there is a problem, and I think it is reflected in the culture of Parliament and the change that has happened over decades. I worked as a staffer to the minister of the environment in the 1980s. We did not have the sense then that the opposition existed to obstruct. That has been a growing sense, and certainly during my first time in Parliament, which started 11 years ago today, May 2, the Harper Conservatives, in majority, moved us to sitting every day of the week until midnight to catch up with the agenda. No one said they were to blame for not managing themselves properly. We need to work together far better, which requires setting partisanship aside after an election.

173 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec

May/2/22 7:52:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will agree with the member's concerns about the culture of this place. That is probably unusual for a Conservative, to agree with the former leader of the Green Party, but I have sat at many prayer breakfast tables with her, so I know her heart is in the right place. However, the culture of this place has gone in the wrong direction over perhaps the last 40 to 45 years, and I do not think that is particularly the fault of any individual party in this area here. I think it is a combination of technology, mass media and also the fact that there are now 338 members in the House of Commons, which makes it far more difficult to get to know each other across the way. That includes the pandemic, which has made it extremely difficult to get to know other members and build that relationship of trust.

154 words

Mr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC)

May/2/22 7:53:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, from the outset I want to say that it would warm my late Baba Gertie's Yiddish heart to hear my colleagues use Yiddish proverbs. In fact, I think she would be schlepping nachas right now if she were watching this wonderful debate. Most Canadians take for granted that politicians always seem to be at each other's throats over something or other. I often get asked why our party is so critical of the government, why we are always opposed to everything the government does. My response is usually something like that it is actually the job of the official opposition to oppose the government and to hold the government to account. It is an extremely important role in a parliamentary democracy. We see, time and time again, that countries without a strong political opposition often take a dark path. We see this happening right now before our eyes as Vladimir Putin wields the full military might of Russia against the freedom-loving democratic state of Ukraine. Mr. Putin has no real political opposition to hold him to account, and we know what happens if somebody actively speaks in opposition to his government: He punishes them. We are lucky to live in a country where we are free to speak our minds and where the official opposition operates as a check and balance in a system designed to hold the Prime Minister and his or her government responsible for the decisions they make. The Prime Minister in our system has tremendous power, and our job as the official opposition is to keep the government in check. In fact, Michael Ignatieff, the former Liberal leader of the official opposition, said, “The opposition performs an adversarial function critical to democracy itself.” This is why we are concerned about this motion, as it limits the ability of Her Majesty's loyal opposition to keep the government in check. Here is why. Motion No. 11 says, among other things, “after 6:30 p.m. the Speaker shall not receive any quorum calls”. Quorum is vital to a properly functioning government. Taking it to its extreme, let us imagine that only one MP is in this House. In the absence of a quorum requirement, that one member could have unlimited power to introduce motions and laws, literally in the middle of the night, without proper parliamentary oversight. Under the Constitution Act, a quorum of 20 members is legally required “to constitute a Meeting of the House for the Exercise of its Powers”. Any member has the constitutionally entrenched right to make a quorum call and to bring this to the attention of the Chair, except after 6:30 in the evening if the NDP-Liberal coalition passes this motion. This is unprecedented. This is unconstitutional. Quorum rules exist to ensure that a small number cannot take matters into their own hands. Another thing about quorum is that it can be used by democratically elected opposition members to make a point. Quorum busting is a tactic that prevents a legislative body from attaining a quorum and can be used by opposition members seeking to block the adoption of some measure they oppose. For instance, Abraham Lincoln, during his time back in the Illinois legislature, actually leapt out of a first-storey window, in a failed attempt to prevent a quorum from being present, as the doors of the capitol had been locked to prevent legislators from fleeing. I want to be very clear so that government members do not ask me if I am endorsing this. I am not endorsing this. Please, no one go and jump out of a window to avoid a quorum. However, we do have the right. We are maybe more civilized as to how we approach quorum busting, but we have a right to call out lack of quorum. One of my hon. colleagues from the Bloc made the point earlier that it is very difficult right now with the hybrid Parliament to know whether we have a quorum, and that is another issue that we need to settle here at some point. We do have lack of quorum as a legitimate tool of accountability. Motion No. 11 would take this away. Regarding dilatory motions, Bosc and Gagnon state that dilatory motions do not require notice, are not debatable or amendable and, if in order, are to be put to a vote by the Chair immediately. Motion No. 11 says the Speaker shall not receive any dilatory motions. In fact, the motion says, “a minister of the Crown may move, without notice, a motion to adjourn the House until Monday, September 19, 2022” and, ironically, that motion can be “decided immediately without debate or amendment”. That sounds to me an awful lot like a dilatory motion. On the one hand, we have the motion saying no dilatory motions, and then we have the motion saying that here is a dilatory motion and that is okay. The motion gives a procedural right to a minister of the Crown that is unavailable to any other members to avail themselves of. This seems inherently unfair to me, and I would go so far as to say that a matter of privilege could be considered as to whether it is in order. Motion No. 11 seeks to tie the hands of the official opposition while expanding government authority. It is clear that the government wants to give itself an escape hatch: the ability to prorogue. I know hon. members across have argued that this is not prorogation. They say they will put the motion and there has to be another House leader and it is going to be put to a vote, but the reality is that in this place we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. That is the effect of this motion: the ability to avoid the scrutiny of the opposition, which, as Mr. Ignatieff said, is “critical to democracy itself”. To be clear, the government wants to give itself the power to stop opposition motions, to prorogue whenever it wants, to avoid accountability, to stop important committee work in its tracks and to govern without a quorum. That is what this motion would do. What this motion would also do is neuter Parliament, plain and simple. It is a brazen power grab. About working until midnight, I hear government members, particularly the member for Winnipeg North, my colleague from Winnipeg, claiming that members of the Conservative Party have a problem working late. With respect, I believe all members in this House have always worked hard. In fact, we cannot get here without working hard. I am happy to work as long and as late as it takes, as are my colleagues. Therefore, let us show a little respect and stop inferring that somehow some hon. members do not want to work. That is just not true at all. The problem is not working late; the problem is the last-minute nature of the decision. The motion would allow the government and the NDP House leader to decide at 6:29 p.m. to sit until midnight. I know the NDP claims to care about workers. There are hundreds of staff members who run this place: the clerks, the cleaning staff, security, kitchen staff, the interpreters, the good folks who drive the shuttles we rely upon to get around the Hill, and our young pages. How is it fair to them to say at 6:29 p.m., after working since 9 a.m., that they will have to stay until midnight? Perhaps their unions will take this up. If not, I think they should. I am looking forward to seeing the Liberal-NDP coalition members in the House with us as we all work late into the night for the betterment of Canadians. I take them at their word that they will be here. If they unilaterally choose to extend hours and do not show up for debate, perhaps we need to rethink the standing rules that currently prevent us from commenting on the presence or absence of a member. The goal of this motion is to limit the opposition parties' ability to hold the government to account, plain and simple. The motion erodes our ability to hold the government to account and erodes the trust that Canadians have in our institutions. How can a government that claims to want to work across the aisle ever be taken seriously when it pulls stunts like this? The Prime Minister is giving himself the power to shut down Parliament until September, as well as the power to disrupt the work of parliamentary committees. We should not be surprised, though. It is part of a pattern of behaviour where the Prime Minister runs from accountability and transparency. Last week, the Liberal and NDP members on the foreign affairs committee voted against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills' reasonable motion for the production of the Winnipeg lab documents. Ironically, this is the same motion the NDP voted for in the last Parliament. In addition, the Prime Minister is withholding documents related to the invocation of the Emergencies Act. He may be the subject of an RCMP criminal investigation. The list goes on and on. I will close by saying that this motion is an affront to our democracy and, if I have not made it clear so far, I am voting against it. In the meantime, Canadians can rest assured that Conservatives will fulfill our constitutional obligations and continue to hold the government to account.

1607 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

May/2/22 8:02:35 p.m.
Watch

It being 8:02 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of government business No. 11 now before the House. Pursuant to the Speaker's ruling earlier today, the first question is on the subamendment, paragraphs (a) to (d) of government business No. 11. Shall I dispense? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of subamendment to House] If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment to the amendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

119 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec

May/2/22 8:09:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Her Majesty's official opposition, I ask for a recorded division.

16 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 62