SoVote

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

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

Mr. Luc Thériault

May/2/22 5:30:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. My colleague is perfectly correct. When I said that it limited the powers of the opposition parties and that it restricted debates in Parliament, this is an example of how a government can become arrogant and, with the complicity of another party, give itself the powers of a majority government. The voters elected a minority government. As such, I think that the government will have to pay a price for what it is doing now.

82 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/2/22 5:31:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have been working with my colleague for several years and I respect him, but I must say that he has shown only one side of the coin. He forgot all the times the NDP voted to move files forward. We are here to advance the cause of ordinary Canadians. My colleague knows that. Right now, the Conservatives systematically want to block everything. They do not want anything to happen in the House of Commons. Even when Quebec’s farmers or teachers want us to pass bills, the Conservatives refuse. They absolutely do not want it to happen. The NDP pushed to have the government implement a dental care program and, for the first time, an affordable housing program. My question is very simple. Why does the Bloc simply stand by when it has seen the Conservatives’ systematic obstruction in the past months?

147 words

Mr. Luc Thériault

May/2/22 5:32:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if I understand the NDP House leader correctly, I have to conclude that if one day the NDP came to power, it would do the same thing the Liberals are doing now. This is a good example of what a member of Parliament worthy of the title should condemn in Parliament.

53 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

May/2/22 5:32:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. His speech was very powerful, and he used some very harsh words. He used words like “unworthy”, “mediocre”, “lax”, “incapable”, and I would say that he forgot to add “contemptible”. Throughout his speech, I was left wondering whether my colleague was talking about the Liberals or the NDP.

70 words

Mr. Luc Thériault

May/2/22 5:33:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think that I was quite specific. I think the onus is on NDP members to tell us why they have suddenly reversed course. I listed how they voted since 2011. How is it that they have always voted against these kinds of measures that restrict the powers of parliamentarians? Now, they have a little deal with the government and they are drawn in by the taste and smell of power. All of a sudden, they decide that it is okay to trample on the rights of parliamentarians. That is what the NDP stands for.

97 words

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

May/2/22 5:34:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the fact that this is a minority government and it is what Canadians elected. Part of being under an elected minority government means there is an onus of responsibility on opposition parties. At times, they have to work with the governing party to get things through the House of Commons. I understand the Conservatives. They just want to frustrate the legislative process. They do not want things to pass. The Bloc, on the other hand, seems to have bought into the Conservative Party. As much as the Bloc and the Conservatives come together and criticize us for working with the NDP, what about the unholy alliance between the double blue, the Bloc and the Conservatives, who want to prevent things from going through the House? Is that not a reality also?

138 words

Mr. Luc Thériault

May/2/22 5:34:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is another example of just how low my colleague will go. It is more partisan thinking. I thought my speech was very clear. I said it was despicable to include medical assistance in dying in the closure motion when we have been asking the government to give the committee more time, to recall the committee and reconstitute it as soon as possible for weeks, months even. I did so the day after the election. They dragged their feet and now, with the clock ticking, they have decided to include it in a closure motion. It is clear now that they did not understand what I said. They did not understand the speech. Some things are just not done. If they had left that out, if they had decided to talk about it, and if the Conservatives had said “no”, we could've had this same debate on one issue. Maybe the cat would be out of the bag, which is not currently the case. Some people can vote against this motion for reasons other than the ones I am talking about.

186 words

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

May/2/22 5:36:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague about the part of the motion that prevents us from making quorum calls. This is not just a matter of suspending a standing rule. This is a constitutionally entrenched right. The rules of the House call for the ability of members to make a quorum call. In other words, we could have literally one or two members in the House introducing motions or bills. I wonder if the member could comment on why the government would think this is important to do.

91 words

Mr. Luc Thériault

May/2/22 5:36:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. In the House, it is even harder to make sure we have quorum because some people are attending virtually. I know I cannot talk about who is here. At times over the past few days, I have wanted to do a quorum call, but I was told that some people might be attending virtually. That said, this is definitely something we need to pay attention to. At some point, we will have to stop sitting virtually because we have work to do and we have to find way to get it done without closure motions.

102 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/2/22 5:37:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the excellent and eloquent member for Elmwood—Transcona. I am truly saddened by what I just heard from the Bloc Québécois. For months, the Bloc Québécois have watched the Conservatives block everything. Instead of intervening to help the people of Quebec, who need these bills to be passed, the Bloc decided to just stay on the sidelines and let things slide. The Bloc wants to let things keep sliding for the next few months. That saddens me because the Bloc was not elected in Quebec simply to let Parliament go around in circles and to allow one party to block everything. I think the Bloc is really here to make things happens, but it decided not to. That is sad, but I am happy to hear that it will be voting in favour of some aspects of Motion No. 11. That is a positive thing. Personally, I will be voting in favour of the motion. I will explain why I am voting in favour of the motion by recapping the history of this Parliament. When we came out of the unnecessary election last fall that Canadians did not want, Canadians rightfully said they were going to have the same Parliament that they had in 2019. They basically adopted the same numbers, but the message that they were sending to all of us was to work together. We had a shining moment in Parliamentary history when every single member working together unanimously adopted the ban on conversion therapy. That point is worth applauding. That was a shining moment in this Parliament. Conservatives actually proposed the adoption unanimously of that important bill, and members from all parties voted together. We know what happened after that. The leader of the Conservatives at the time was deposed. The Conservatives broke into various factions. Subsequent to that, we have seen a rogue element within the Conservative Party decide that it was going to block every piece of legislation coming forward: every single piece. “Nothing will pass” is the motto of the Conservative Party today. I know that there are Conservative members who are uncomfortable and in fact do not believe that this is appropriate, particularly in a time of pandemic and particularly at a time when we need to get legislation through the House, but that is not where the interim leadership has decided to go. They have decided to block absolutely everything, and that is why we have this motion before us. Bill C-8 was put forward last year and has provisions that every single member of Parliament is aware have a profound impact on teachers and farmers. It has an impact on how we, as Canadians, can respond to the continuing pandemic. For no other reason than this radicalization of the Conservative leadership, Bill C-8 has been blocked systematically now for months. I am saddened by this. There are good members of Parliament in the Conservative Party who understand that this is the wrong thing to do, but the leadership that is in place in the Conservative Party wants to block everything, come hell or high water. It does not matter if teachers or farmers, or Canadians generally, are suffering as a result. Conservatives simply refuse any legislation, and that is why we have to take extraordinary measures. What the NDP has proposed and pushed the government on, and what the government has accepted, is the condition that we now increase our working time in order to get legislation through. We will be sitting until midnight when it is appropriate to do so. That is extremely important because it allows us to move legislation through the House. The official opposition House leader has raised the point, and so has the House leader for the Bloc Québécois, that we need to ensure and enhance our translation services over this period. I certainly agree, and the NDP agrees. We have been pushing for more resources to be provided to translation. Our interpreters have not had the resources allocated to them that need to be allocated. I sincerely hope that we will have all parties coming together in order to achieve that. We sit longer. We will be sitting evenings, and that is important. The question then is what the results of that are, if we can eliminate this impasse and start getting legislation through the House. Immediately, of course, there is Bill C-8 and those provisions. I know that will make a difference to the teachers, farmers and health care professionals I have mentioned who have been waiting now for months to get a simple bill through that comes out of the fall economic update. I know that my colleague for Elmwood—Transcona is going to speak to the issue of what many people are calling the NDP budget. The budget implementation act would put in place, for the first time in Canadian history, national dental care. It would start first for children and would move, over the course of the next year, to people with disabilities, seniors and teenagers. Canadians right across this country who have never had access to dental care would finally have access to it. Also, there is the most significant investment in housing that we have seen in decades. The NDP has been very critical of the former Liberal government under Paul Martin that destroyed, gutted and ended the national housing program, and we have seen how housing has been in a crisis ever since. We need supply. We need to have affordable housing built, and that is co-operative housing, social housing and indigenous-led housing projects. These components of what is coming forward need to be adopted swiftly, with the appropriate scrutiny, of course, and not held up, as we have seen with the legislation coming out of the fall economic statement, for months and months purely at the whim of a Conservative Party that is fractured now into so many different factions that none of them knows which way they are going. Their only reaction is: “Well, let us hold up everything”. That is simply not appropriate in a time of pandemic when so many Canadians are suffering. We need to have these extended hours so that we can get through the important components of what the NDP, and the member for Burnaby South, our national leader, pushed the government to put into place for this budget. It is the first time under this Liberal government that I can actually see a budget that Canadians can have some hope for, with national dental care and a national housing investment that seeks to meet the gravity of the affordable housing crisis that we are seeing right across the length and breadth of this country, including in my communities of New Westminster and Burnaby. To do the scrutiny, it means that all parties should be working together, but that has not been the case. We have seen, over the past few months, that the Conservatives have blocked everything they can at all times without explanation, and without really trying to even justify their actions. We saw it today when they presented the same motion that they presented last week, even though the Standing Orders require that discussion next week. They just wanted to hold up the House for the purpose of holding up the House. Who suffers? It is Canadian families who suffer. It is Canadians who are waiting for those affordable housing investments that the NDP has pushed for who will suffer. It is Canadians who cannot afford dental care for their children who will suffer if we continue to allow the Conservatives to block everything in the House at all times. What this is, is a common-sense approach when it is obviously not working, and when everything is being blocked by the Conservative opposition for internal reasons, I guess, that only they can explain. They have not really attempted to explain it either. We need to put in place extended hours, work harder and longer, but make sure that we get those tax credits in the hands of teachers and in the hands of farmers immediately. We need to make sure that we actually provide the health care professionals with those COVID supports. We need to make sure that we start to put in place that national dental program that the member for Burnaby South has been such a strong advocate for, and put in place that national housing strategy that will finally produce affordable housing from coast to to coast to coast. That is why I am voting yes.

1454 words

All Topics

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

May/2/22 5:48:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, the member spoke earlier on in his speech about Bill C-8 in particular. We know there are a lot of measures in Bill C-8 that were literally stalled on getting out to people. I can think of teachers specifically. There are various measures related to the supports that we are delivering for Canadians right now. We really want to get those out to Canadians because, quite frankly, they have been waiting long enough. Can he comment on how important this is for constituents in his riding?

90 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/2/22 5:48:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I have had constituents raise this with me and ask why this is being blocked, in the same way that all members of Parliament have had these issues raised. Why is this being blocked? The Conservatives have never explained why it is they are systematically blocking everything. In a minority Parliament, of course there are negotiations and discussions. We would think the Conservatives would say there was some benefit for teachers, but they want the benefit extended for somebody else. There has never been any explanation. There has never been anything in the House to justify what has been a systematic blocking of everything. We simply have to ask, when it comes to blocking everything that would help Canadians, why they would do that when we know that Canadians need those supports.

134 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

May/2/22 5:49:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know there has been a lot of discussion on Bill C-8 and the accusations of obstruction and obfuscation of the bill. On April 4, the government put a notice of time allocation on Bill C-8. When I asked the government House leader why he did not move that notice of time allocation, he said it was because the NDP House leader said no and that they were waiting to see what was in the budget. The budget, of course, happened April 7, and then we all went home two weeks later. Can the NDP House leader explain to Canadians why he decided not to use time allocation, or agree with the government at the time when they wanted to use it, when they could have moved this bill much further and much faster down the line? Maybe he can explain to Canadians why he said no to the government House leader in a telephone conversation, and maybe he can explain to teachers and farmers why they delayed this bill.

174 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/2/22 5:50:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a valid question and I appreciate the House leader of the official opposition raising it. The answer is that I have faith in this institution, as New Democrats do. We have faith in this institution. We believed in giving a last chance to the Conservatives. We believed that they would understand the importance. As the teachers contacted them and as the farmers contacted them, they would understand the dramatic impact of their refusal to adopt anything. In faith that all members of Parliament are motivated by that higher calling, I really believed the Conservatives would come along and they have not. They have done the opposite. They have hardened their positions. They have refused passing anything that would actually help Canadians, and that is why this motion is before us today.

135 words

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

May/2/22 5:51:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to say three things: I am a full-fledged adult, I have been here long enough, and I am not gullible. While listening to my colleague, I asked myself who exactly was speaking. Was it the minority Liberal government or the new majority government formed by the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party? This is unbelievable. How can they repudiate everything a party should and could be, namely the NDP? How can they, through a motion, deny fundamental and democratic rights and then blame the opposition for it? Please explain it to us, Madam Speaker.

101 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

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

I cannot explain it, but I will give someone else the opportunity to do so. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby for a brief response.

27 words

Mr. Peter Julian

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

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to explain. I find it unbelievable that the Bloc Québécois is not helping Quebeckers and that it refuses to say that Quebec's teachers and farmers are affected by the fact that Bill C‑8 has not been passed. Dental care and affordable housing are issues that also affect Quebeckers. I find it unbelievable that the Bloc refuses to do whatever it can to get this bill adopted and ensure that these people—

86 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

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

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

9 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and to have the occasion to address this motion. I have always taken an interest, and do today, in parliamentary procedure. Whenever we are talking about the rules of debate, I think that members rightly have an interest on what exactly is going on and what those details are and there is a legitimate tension. That is why in parliaments these kinds of debates tend to happen frequently between a government that needs to get its business done, not just for its own sake, but presumably for the sake of the nation and the people who elected them, and those in opposition who have a job to do in terms of scrutinizing the government's work in trying to make it better where they can and oppose it when they can. I have often said that. I think there are reasons for supporting the rights of the opposition within Parliament that have to do with the rights of parliamentarians. However, there are also reasons for supporting the rights of the opposition within Parliament that have to do with the time it takes for word to get out about what government intends to do, to have a civil society response and to organize around initiatives by the government that they may not like. I think one of our responsibilities as parliamentarians always is to look at the need for things to get done in the nation's capital, in Parliament and in government, as well as the obligations that we have to foster a healthy culture of opposition. These are certainly the issues that are at stake. I think sometimes in this place it is hard to get at the particular circumstances, because we often tend to address these issues with a hyperbolic tone. Sometimes that is warranted. I have seen occasions in this House where I felt that it was warranted and have participated in that spirit. I think that is especially true when we have majority governments that are not forced to negotiate with other parties in Parliament in order to advance their agenda. When we see members of all the same party getting up and dictating the rules of debate and there has been no meaningful interplay between parties in the House, that is one thing. I do think it is another thing when the government has to negotiate with another party in order to get its business done. What we are seeing is a government that has undertaken a number of initiatives in order to get support from the NDP to move a budget forward, for instance. That is okay. That is actually how this place is supposed to work, and I think that is how it works when it is working at its best. Then the question is this. In order to be able to get some of those things done, how do we conduct the business of the chamber? I want to use Bill C-8 as an example of a case of opposition that does bleed into obstructionism. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Daniel Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I am trying to both speak and listen to the conversation that is happening at the same time.

539 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 62