44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 2, 2022 11:00AM
- May/2/22 5:29:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Montcalm addressed several issues and problems he had with the various paragraphs in the motion.
I would like to hear what he thinks about subparagraph (c)(B)(iv), under which “a minister of the Crown may move, without notice, a motion to adjourn the House until Monday, September 19, 2022...and that the said motion shall be decided immediately without debate or amendment”.
In my opinion, this looks like prorogation on demand: At any time, if things are not going well for the government, it can prorogue Parliament. However, in 2015, this government promised that it would not do that, and the NDP also promised that it would never support it.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
