44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 28, 2022 10:00AM
- Apr/28/22 10:36:41 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to hear the enthusiasm from the hon. gentleman opposite and to follow the esteemed member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, as we talk again about a thematic problem for the government. While the Liberals hope, try and pray that prorogation and snap elections, at a time when the Prime Minister had promised that he would not call an election, will make those problems go away, we are here today because these concerns are real for Canadians. Canadians are concerned about the integrity of the institutions that they hold dear.
I gesture this way because I talk about the government and I talk about the executive branch. It is important. We are all temporary occupants and guardians of the offices that we hold. When that is called into question, and when those offices are brought into disrepute by actions or allegations of actions, it is incumbent upon us that there be transparency and a fair hearing of that information.
The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman laid it out very well. We have seen this pattern of behaviour by the Prime Minister over a number of years: He believes that the rules do not apply to him. It is the wrong message to send to Canadians, it is the wrong message to send to parliamentarians and it is also the wrong message to send to the world when we hear condemnations that have come from groups such as the OECD, when it comes to legislators from other countries, who are concerned about the appearance of corruption or corrupt practices by members of the government.
In this case, specifically with respect to hearings that were had on the WE Charity scandal, we had a number of witnesses who were duly ordered to appear by a parliamentary committee. They were instructed by members of the executive, by federal cabinet ministers, not to appear at committee. They were instructed to defy a lawful order of the House.
What is the precedent that sets? I can tell colleagues that on its face it is a bad one. It is that we have a government so afraid of letting the light of transparency shine that it would unroll hundreds of years of precedent and undermine the traditions, customs, practices and legal authority of this place and say those rules do not matter because they make things uncomfortable for it. That puts us in a really tough spot.
I heard questions and comments to my colleague for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman asking why we would talk about this and not talk about that. This issue could have been resolved in the summer of 2020, but the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament to kill it and then set up a system where the government “ragged the puck” so that committees could not meet. This issue was then pushed forward through the fall and into the spring of 2021, and before the issue was resolved to come back in the fall of 2021, he called an election, although just that spring he had committed to not call one. All members in the House undertook to continue advocating for the priorities of Canadians, but in this case the Prime Minister had a different priority and was protecting himself from uncomfortable questions.
The individuals named in that order to appear at committee must appear. It is incumbent on all members of the House to see to the completion of that work. It is an abdication of our responsibility as members, as the House of Commons, and as the Parliament of Canada not to complete our work.
Are there other important issues facing this country? We can bet on that. There is fiscal mismanagement and failure to work with the provinces on important things like health care. The member for Courtenay—Alberni was talking about his coalition partners and a need for action on the opioid crisis facing this country. Hear, hear, I agree. His party had direct input and impact on what this budget looked like. New Democrats are the ones who are going to carry this budget across the goal line for the government.
We can talk about that. We continue those consultations. Conservative members are continuing work on this important file, challenging the government on issues like addiction and mental health and what resources it is committing to the provinces. Is it collaborating with the provinces? Has the Prime Minister finally met with the first ministers, the premiers, to talk about what the future looks like for health care in this country? No, he has not.
However, unlike the Prime Minister, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can do both of those things. We are talking about the budget; we are talking about addiction and mental health; we are talking about reconciliation with Canada's first people. We are doing a lot of things, but we are not going to forget just because the Prime Minister took the walk up to Rideau Hall, contrary to what he said he was going to do, breaking his word, breaking a promise and acting against the will of all members of this House when we passed a motion saying there would not be an election. That is part of the pattern, so we are back, dealing with it again.
Liberals hope that water under the bridge and time on the clock are going to be enough that Canadians will forget, but it is about those precedent-setting behaviours that we take. When we decide that it is okay for ministers to instruct individuals who are duly and lawfully ordered to appear at committee not to appear because they do not like what they might say, what does that say? It says that we are going to cast aside all the traditions of this place.
We should have gotten this done in 2020. Liberals have delayed and obstructed this from being completed. We have formed a new Parliament since then. We had an election. Most of us find ourselves in different roles. I know the member for Winnipeg North continues in his role, as was pointed out by my colleague, as the defender or apologist in chief. I have other things that I am working on, but I can also do this at the same time. It is incredibly important.
In concluding my remarks, I want to underscore for all members in this place that this is important. It is important that we not allow games by the government to distract from the important role that we have as the guardians of this institution, of the rights of Canadians and of what they hold sacred, and that is trust in these democratic institutions.
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, presented on Thursday, March 31, 2022, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Committee for further consideration, provided that
(a) the Committee be instructed (i) to make every effort possible to receive evidence from Ben Chin, Rick Theis and Amitpal Singh, the witnesses who did not comply with this House's order of Thursday, March 25, 2021, to appear before the Committee, (ii) to consider further the concerns expressed in the report about the member for Waterloo's failure “in her obligation to be accurate with a committee”, and (iii) to report back by Monday, October 17, 2022; and
(b) the Committee be empowered to order the attendance of the member for Waterloo, from time to time, as it sees fit.
1290 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 10:47:43 a.m.
- Watch
The amendment is in order.
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
17 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 10:49:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for those who are following the debate today, it is important we recognize right at the very beginning that when the member makes reference to the idea of a “game”, this is really what it is. It is the Conservative Party playing games when we should be debating the many different issues that are having an impact on Canadians every day.
What would Motion No. 11 do? Why are Conservatives playing the game today? It is because Motion No. 11 would in essence allow for us to sit longer hours, so MPs have more time to debate. It is nothing new. It happens all the time, whether it is in Ottawa or the many different provincial legislatures.
The reality is that the Conservatives do not want that additional time. They do not want to work. Why is my colleague across the way afraid to sit a few extra hours? I ask him to recognize how important debate is inside this chamber.
165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 10:50:16 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I ask the member opposite why he is afraid to have other members on his bench speak. The member speaks more than any other member. He and the member for Kingston and the Islands have the rest of them muzzled so tight that they are not even allowed to talk in this place, so we are not going to take any lessons from the member opposite.
Further, what is interesting about Motion No. 11 is that if they are talking about sitting extra hours, why does the motion stipulate that their members do not have to be here? It is just like what we saw in the last Parliament, when they would have only one person in this place, who was the member for Kingston and the Islands, because they were too afraid their members might erupt with some concern about the activities of the government and the Prime Minister, which would reflect very poorly on them.
If they had not called an unnecessary election during a pandemic, we could have dealt with this two years ago.
179 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 10:51:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North said we should focus on issues that are having an impact on Canadians.
I think ethics is an issue that has an impact on Canadians. I think that confidence in institutions is an issue that has an impact on Canadians. What happened with the WE organization and the almost $1 billion that was given to a Liberal Party crony raises some serious questions.
If we are going to talk about lobbying, since my colleague mentioned it in his presentation, the king of Canadian lobby groups is the oil and gas industry. It is the biggest lobby in Canada and controls a considerable portion of our economy.
We can go further still. The emissions reduction fund was launched during the pandemic solely to support the oil and gas sector.
I wonder if my colleague is as concerned as I am by oil and gas sector lobbying.
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 10:52:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am always concerned when we have a situation in which a group that is lobbying the government then gives a gift worth, let us say, a quarter of a million dollars to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister fails to get permission from the head of the branch of government for which he works and then satisfies all of the criteria laid out by the RCMP for a charge of fraud on government to be laid.
That type of behaviour between a lobbyist and a government official is incredibly concerning, and I hope the Prime Minister will co-operate fully with the RCMP in a case like the one I mentioned.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 10:53:09 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to start by making clear that I am not part of any agreement with the governing party. My accountability is to my neighbours in Kitchener.
I know for the hon. member, as well, the housing crisis is significant in his community. This is something that I want to make sure we are speaking about on a regular basis. As for the housing and climate crisis, we might feel differently about that, but to me this place should be focused on those kinds of issues.
In his view, why is this more important than getting at the kinds of issues from housing to the poisoning crisis to the climate crisis?
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 10:53:49 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is a great question from the member for Kitchener Centre. I do not think we need to create a ranked list of what the biggest crises are. Do we have a housing crisis in this country? Yes. Do we have an affordability crisis? We sure do. Do we have an opioid crisis and epidemic? Definitely. Are we still dealing with the crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects? Absolutely, we are.
This is an issue that started two years ago, and we need to—
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 10:54:25 a.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 10:54:28 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it has been an interesting process, to say the very least, and I look forward to the ongoing debates that we will hopefully have today on Motion No. 11. I have a considerable amount to say in regard to Motion No. 11. I really do not have that much to say at this point in time, because I do not necessarily want to play into the same game that the Conservatives are playing right now but rather focus my attention on the issues and what I believe that Canadians want us to be talking about inside the chamber.
While I am on my feet, at this point in time, I move:
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 10:55:41 a.m.
- Watch
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 10:55:57 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 10:56:06 a.m.
- Watch
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 11:38:53 a.m.
- Watch
I declare the motion carried.
5 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 11:44:53 a.m.
- Watch
moved:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House,
(a) on the day of the adoption of this order, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 a.m., that until Thursday, June 23, 2022, a minister of the Crown may, with the agreement of the House leader of another recognized party, rise from his or her seat at any time during a sitting, but no later than 6:30 p.m., and request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the current sitting or a subsequent sitting be 12 a.m., provided that it be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1 is to take place, and that such a request shall be deemed adopted;
(b) on a sitting day extended pursuant to paragraph (a),
(i) proceedings on any opposition motion pursuant to Standing Order 81(16) shall conclude no later than 5:30 p.m. Tuesday to Thursday, 6:30 p.m. on a Monday or 1:30 p.m. on a Friday, on an allotted day for the business of supply, except pursuant to Standing Order 81(18)(c),
(ii) after 6:30 p.m. the Speaker shall not receive any quorum calls or dilatory motions, and shall only accept a request for unanimous consent after receiving a notice from the House leaders or whips of all recognized parties stating that they are in agreement with such a request,
(iii) motions to proceed to the orders of the day, and to adjourn the debate or the House may be moved after 6:30 p.m. by a minister of the Crown, including on a point of order, and such motions be deemed adopted,
(iv) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Orders 33(2), 45(7.1) or 67.1(2);
(c) until Thursday, June 23, 2022,
(i) during consideration of the estimates on the last allotted day, pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), when the Speaker interrupts the proceedings for the purpose of putting forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the estimates,
(A) all remaining motions to concur in the votes for which a notice of opposition was filed shall be deemed to have been moved and seconded, the questions deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested,
(B) the Speaker shall have the power to combine the said motions for voting purposes, provided that, in exercising this power, the Speaker be guided by the same principles and practices used at report stage,
(ii) when debate on a motion for concurrence in committee reports is adjourned or interrupted, including on the day of the adoption of this order, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House leaders of the other recognized parties, but in any case not later than the 35th sitting day after the interruption,
(iii) a motion for third reading of a government bill may be made in the same sitting during which the said bill has been concurred in at report stage,
(iv) 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;
(d) notwithstanding the order adopted on Thursday, November 25, 2021, and Standing Order 45(6), no recorded division requested after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 23, 2022, shall be deferred, except for any recorded division requested in regard to a Private Members’ Business item, for which the provisions of the order adopted on Thursday, November 25, 2021, shall continue to apply; and
(e) notwithstanding paragraph (j) of the order made Wednesday, March 30, 2022, the deadline for the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying to submit to Parliament a final report of its review, including a statement of any recommended changes, be no later than Monday, October 17, 2022, provided that an interim report on mental illness as a sole underlying condition be presented to the House no later than Thursday, June 23, 2022, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House has passed this order; and
that Standing Order 28(1) be amended as follows: “(1) The House shall not meet on New Year’s Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, the day fixed for the celebration of the birthday of the Sovereign, St. John the Baptist Day, Canada Day, Labour Day, the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, Thanksgiving Day, Remembrance Day and Christmas Day. When St. John the Baptist Day, Canada Day or the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation fall on a Tuesday, the House shall not meet the preceding day; when those days fall on a Thursday, the House shall not meet the following day.”.
833 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 11:44:53 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate you taking the time to read the motion. It is a very important motion.
It is important that I emphasize at the very beginning of the debate on this motion that we need to recognize that this is nothing new. I have been a parliamentarian since 1988. I have gone through minority and majority governments, and I have been in opposition and am now in government. More often than not, it is likely the case that we have extended hours during the winding up of a session going into the month of June, and that is the essence of this particular motion.
We are likely going to witness the Conservatives stand up and, in some righteous way, try to say that this motion is something it is not. However, it is a very straightforward and simple motion.
The opposition House leader, when he stands up, will get the opportunity to tell me which governments in particular did not bring in motions of this nature. In my experience, the NDP government in Manitoba, the Progressive Conservative government in Manitoba, Stephen Harper as the Prime Minister of Canada and Prime Ministers before Stephen Harper brought in motions that enabled members to contribute more during debates, and that is the essence of what this motion is all about. People need to realize that.
We are often reminded about being in a minority government, and justifiably so. The first time I was elected, it was a minority government. I was part of the official opposition, and I remember Reg Alcock, who was then the opposition House leader, indicating that we had a role to play in being creative and assisting where we could to contribute positively to legislation. This was to see if we could make changes to legislation and ensure that legislation was ultimately getting through so we had the opportunity to have debates on some of the more important pieces of legislation.
That was back in 1988, and just eight months ago, last September and October, Canadians gave us a third mandate that was greater than our second mandate. More members of Parliament were elected in the third mandate than in the second mandate, and we recognize that it is a minority government. Canadians want us to be working for Canadians, which means that at times we have to put partisan politics to the side. As members know, sometimes I can be somewhat partisan, and I will admit to that. However, at times, it is important that we put partisanship to the side.
I welcome comments from the opposition House leader. He should tell Canadians in the House today whether Stephen Harper brought forward motions of this nature to extend hours. I will let the member opposite know, as I am sure he knows, that the answer to that is yes. It is important that we recognize that at the very beginning, because I can prophesize to a certain degree that we are going to hear the Conservatives note how bad this motion really is.
Mr. Speaker, when we take a look at the details of this motion, we see that the core of the motion does two things. One, it enables the House of Commons to sit later in the evenings, and that means we could be sitting until midnight. Well, why is there is a need for us to sit until midnight? It is because there is a substantial legislative agenda. There is legislation the House needs to be able to debate. To facilitate that debate, we have to extend the hours or we have to put even more limits on the amount of debate inside the House. We often see the reaction from the Conservatives when we try to say this legislation needs to pass: They will debate and debate and then argue for more debate time.
Mr. Damien Kurek: It's called democracy.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite says that it is called democracy. That is what this bill is doing: providing additional time so that members opposite will be able to debate.
We can think of the arguments they have put forward over the last number of weeks and months, saying that they want more debate on government legislation. Well, what the heck? This is the motion they should be voting for. This is the motion they should be supporting so that it passes quickly, because it is going to enable us to have additional hours and hours of debate. Is it because they do not want to put in the effort? I can assure members that every member of the Liberal caucus, due to the support from the New Democratic caucus, will give a commitment to do the work that is necessary to pass the type of legislation that Canadians expect the House of Commons to pass.
At the end of the day, the member across the way is wrong in his assertion because of what we have seen from the Conservative Party. We saw it earlier today, just an hour ago. We were supposed to be talking about the issue of how we can accommodate additional hours so that members of the opposition and government would be able to contribute to debate on important legislation. However, the Conservatives brought forward a concurrence motion, as they continue to do to try to frustrate the legislative agenda. It was difficult for me not to speak when that motion came before us, and I can assure members of that, because I did have a number of thoughts with regard to the behaviour of the Conservative Party by bringing forward such a motion.
As we have seen, the Conservatives have somewhat of a hidden agenda here. They try to tell the public that they want to co-operate, want to do things with the government and want to assist the government in doing the types of things that need to be done, but when the tire hits the road, what ends up happening is that the Conservative Party continues to look at ways to prevent things from happening.
Let me give members a good example of that. The one that comes to my mind is Bill C-8.
Mr. John Brassard: I'm glad you mentioned that.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the opposition House leader says he is glad that I mentioned it, so let me share some thoughts.
We are talking about the fall budgetary measures. Bill C-8, the fall economic statement follow-up, is there to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way. It is hard to believe this, but it is true: That bill is still before the House. The number of days we have debated that bill is more days than we have debated the budget of 2022-23.
The content of Bill C-8 is of a substantial nature. We are talking about legislation that directly supports Canadians in a very real and tangible way. I could talk about, for example, the enhancement of school ventilation. If we think about the pandemic, that is very much needed and there is support for that. There was the first go-round of the rapid tests. We will remember that back in December and January, when people were saying they needed rapid tests, we were able to get record numbers of these rapid tests so that the provinces and territories would have them for distribution. Well over $1 billion was allocated for those rapid tests. There are also direct supports for small businesses in Bill C-8, supports that small businesses are very much depending on.
Bill C-8 is a piece of legislation that should have been passed long ago, but when the government brings it up for debate, the Conservatives look at ways to prevent it from being debated. I made reference to what happened today when the opposition brought forward a concurrence motion. It has brought forward other concurrence motions, even to prevent debate on Bill C-8. The Conservatives will go out of their way to prevent members from debating. The opposition party will often put up roadblocks, no matter what the legislation is. We have even seen that on legislation that it supports. We have an official opposition that has an agenda that says it does not want the government to pass anything, period.
An hon. member: We want accountability.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: They call it accountability. That is not accountability, my friend.
Mr. Jake Stewart: Oh, yes, it is. That's accountability.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, preventing the government from passing everything it brings into the House of Commons is not accountability. We have a different approach when it comes to accountability. That, my friend, is not accountability.
What Canadians voted for was to ensure that the government works with opposition parties, but there is an obligation for opposition parties, in particular the official opposition Conservative Party, to recognize that they too have a mandate. Their mandate is to make the House of Commons a better place to serve the Canadian people.
I would challenge members opposite to go to any sort of real forum, like maybe a university class or something of that nature, and enter into the same discussion we will be having today on this issue and talk about it. I suspect there will be no acceptance by any member of the Conservative Party to deal with that issue, because on one hand, the Conservatives will try to frustrate and prevent debate from occurring, and on the other hand, they will say they need more debate time. They want more people to speak on this bill, that bill or the other bill. They are sending very mixed messages.
Today we are going to hear Conservative after Conservative, and, as I understand, the opposition House leader in particular, say they do not need this motion and there should have been more co-operation. The House leader is going to talk about the support from my New Democratic friends for the motion. No doubt, he is upset with that fact.
The only time the government can get things through the House is when we have cooperation from at least one opposition party. It does not take much to stop government legislation. Give me a dozen high school students from the R.B. Russell school, Sisler, St. John's, or the Maples, put them on the floor of the House of Commons, and I could prevent any bill from being able to proceed.
It does not take much to stop legislation. It takes an effort to be able to contribute to the debate to the degree in which one can make the modifications one feels are necessary and, for those pieces of legislation that one is in real opposition to, look at ways to allow for more healthy debate in the chamber. There is not one Liberal member of Parliament who would try to support that when there is good will coming from all sides of the House to have a debate. That is why we will see, when it comes time to vote on this motion, that every Liberal member of Parliament will vote in favour of it. One does not need to even whip the vote, as this will ensure there are additional hours of debate—
1892 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 12:01:47 p.m.
- Watch
Order. The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes is rising on a point of order.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 12:01:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just out of curiosity, I was wondering if perhaps the hon. gentleman had forgotten to share his time to allow another member of the Liberal caucus to have an opportunity to speak. Perhaps the member for Halifax was looking to speak. I would not want him to be deprived of that opportunity.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 12:02:11 p.m.
- Watch
That is debate.
I invite the parliamentary secretary to continue his speech.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 12:02:19 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Mr. Michael Barrett: If you cross your fingers, it might be me.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, one never knows. It might be the member who just stood. He is right.
Often, when someone rises on a point of order, it interrupts our train of thought. Here, we are talking about the Conservatives wanting to be able to have that additional debate on bills. Motion No. 11 would do just that.
The House would normally adjourn today at 6:30. Once this motion passes, all it would take is any opposition House leader, even the Conservative opposition House leader, and a government minister to come to an agreement before 6:30 to say that we would like to be able to continue on until midnight. What is wrong with that?
The legislation is there. When I look at some of the legislation, on some of it I suspect there is going to be a great deal of interest. The one that comes to my mind is the budget implementation act. I suspect that there will be a good number of people who want to be able to speak to the budget implementation act. If members want to contribute to that debate, I would like to see them contribute to that debate, if it is possible, on that piece of legislation.
The House is now saying that, if there is an agreement between any opposition House leader and a minister, they could then bring it forward so we can sit until midnight, but we have to do that before 6:30 of that day. Let us think in terms of the time opportunities and the splitting of speeches. For example, more often than not we see members split a speech, so it is then a 10-minute speech with five minutes for questions and answers. That gives the opportunity for four other people to speak to a bill or, in the case as I mentioned, to the budget implementation act.
In extending from 6:30 until midnight, one can quickly do the math, and we are talking about 20-plus additional speakers. Those are the individuals who have the full 10 minutes. That does not include the individuals who will stand up and have the opportunity, indirectly, to ask those questions on issues they might have about a piece of legislation or a budget. That is what Motion No. 11 is all about. It is about enabling those 20-plus other members of Parliament to be able to contribute if the need or the desire is there. As I say, if we factor in those three questions per speech on four speeches, there are 12 per hour. We are looking at over five hours. That is a lot of opportunity for members on all sides of the House, if they choose, to get up and provide comments, ask questions and do whatever else they might have to do. That is why I believe it is important.
Bill C-8 is the legislation that has been debated now on 10 separate occasions in the House. If we applied that same principle to the rest of the government legislation, it would not be possible. We would not be able to get it done. We would have to bring in a time allocation motion that is very wholesome in its approach. We would have to look at ways to try to pass the legislative agenda in a very, very tight timeframe.
We know, and we can anticipate, that the official opposition will bring in concurrence reports. It has demonstrated this and shown it. We know the Conservatives will bring in adjournment motions and other activities to frustrate the legislative process. That does not serve Canadians well.
The Prime Minister was very clear yesterday. The message he gave yesterday is something I would like to emphasize today. My take on the message the Prime Minister gave yesterday is that the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition, has its own agenda, whatever that agenda might be. More often than not, it is one of personal attack. We saw that yesterday in question period. We saw today before this motion. That is the issue it wants to talk about.
On character assassination, one of the colleagues from across the way stood up and talked about Bill Morneau. He was talking about the French villa the then minister of finance had, trying to make it impressive by saying it was in located in France and highlighting this morning that he did not declare it to the commission. The first thing that came across my mind as the member was talking about that was that, a few days after the election, when the minister of finance was elected, the cottage in France was reported in the newspaper. I do not believe the minister of finance was trying to hide anything from his constituents, let alone Canadians. It was actually in the newspaper days after he was elected.
However, it does not prevent the Conservatives from focusing their attention on character assassinations. Yesterday the Prime Minister gave a very clear message. The message was very simple. Opposition parties will do what they do, but from the Government of Canada's perspective, the Prime Minister, cabinet and Liberal caucus, at times with the support of the New Democratic Party and, even at times, members from the Bloc, the focus is on Canadians first and foremost.
We have seen that in the many different budgetary actions that have been brought forward, whether it is actions to support seniors, which there are many of, or whether it is actions that have been ongoing to support small businesses in Canada. For example, there is Bill C-8, which is the one we have not been able to pass. These are the types of things Canadians want us to get through the House of Commons.
Canadians want to see a House of Commons that is much more productive on the issues of the day. That is what I believe we, as a government, will continue to focus on. I am concerned about the cost of housing, inflation, health care and long-term care. I am concerned about the dental plan and making sure we can put that into place. I am concerned about pharmacare and the cost of pharmaceuticals.
I am concerned about our environment, and I am looking at initiatives such as the greener home build program and zero-emissions incentives, such as the incentives for electric cars and purchasing. The other day, one of the Speaker's colleagues raised that the Province of Quebec is providing an incentive for people to buy electric vehicles.
Now, Ottawa is doing the same, which is an additional incentive. Back then, I had put forward that this was the type of debate that I would love to see all members participate in. We all come from provinces and territories, and can all contribute to that. I take what the province of Quebec is doing as a very strong positive. My challenge to Heather Stefanson, the Premier of Manitoba, would be to do something of a likewise nature. Those are the types of debates that we could be having.
At times, we see that debate taking place. That is all a part of allowing for the extension that we are requesting through this particular motion. How many speeches have been given here in this place where we talk a great deal about Ukraine and the war that is taking place in Europe? We have already had take-note debates on it this year. I believe we have also had an emergency debate, but it could have been two take-note debates. The point is that those were debates about a matter that Canadians are generally concerned about, as they are about a multitude of different economic issues.
Canadians want to know what the government is actually doing going forward. If there is a silver lining, in terms of the line of questioning that the Conservatives have been putting forward to the government, I would suggest it is that they do not really have much to say about the budget itself, which tells me—
1367 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
