SoVote

May/2/22 12:15:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from La Prairie for his question. I am surprised that he is aligning himself with the Conservatives, who are blocking the work of the House. What we are doing here is giving members time to debate issues as they are presented. That is all. We are here to organize the legislative calendar. Canadians and Quebeckers elected us to get things done. We have an ambitious agenda, and we want to implement it. We want to work with the members of the House, but the obstructionist tactics of the Conservative Party, supported by the Bloc Québécois, are creating obstacles. That is why we want to put an end to the procedural gridlock to bring more democracy and respect to the House. As I said, I am surprised to see that the hon. member for La Prairie does not support us.

153 words

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

May/2/22 12:16:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am surprised at the Conservatives' attitude. They have been blocking bills that would actually provide supports, talking about Bill C-8, to teachers and farmers, and around COVID. The Conservatives have been blocking these bills for months without any explanation, except that they want to block everything that comes through the House. The solution that is being offered is that we extend debate and sit until midnight. Past Conservative governments did the same thing, with one notable exception: The Conservatives never showed up. We remember that during the dismal decade of the Harper government, we saw these kinds of motions brought forward, and over 200 times, Conservatives who were scheduled to speak did not show up to work. It is unbelievable that they would let down Canadians in the way that they have. For the life of me, I cannot understand why Conservatives object so strenuously to sitting until midnight, because that is the solution. Let us sit longer. Let us work harder. Let us get bills passed to help Canadians. My question for my colleague is simply this: Why do Conservatives object so strenuously to sitting until midnight?

192 words

Hon. David Lametti

May/2/22 12:17:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I share that frustration. I saw it with Bill C-5 in the previous Parliament, which is now being slowed down in this Parliament, again by the Conservative Party, for ideological reasons that actually have nothing to do with the empirical evidence behind the bill. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, like all Canadians, wants to get things done in this House. He wants to see us accomplish measures that better the lives of Canadians, and that is what we are doing. That is what we are doing with this bill. As the hon. member pointed out, we are here to extend hours. We are here to give every issue adequate time to be ventilated and for adequate discussion to be had in order to move forward with a progressive, substantive agenda. That is why we are here. We are here to organize that. These are measures that have been taken in the past in this House. We are doing it again, and we are doing it to facilitate and prolong debate. I, too, share the surprise at the Conservative Party's not wanting to stay for fulsome debate.

193 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC)

May/2/22 12:19:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is an example of the Liberal-NDP marriage, the NDP in the corner, carrying the water for the government, when it should be debating and acting as the opposition, fighting the government. We are prepared to work, and we have been working. What the minister has set up as holding up debate on this is actually debating, doing our job as a democracy, speaking against bills when we think we should be against bills. Canadians are expecting us to be against this terrible budget, yet the government says that is obstructing Parliament. It is called debate. That is our job. This is from the Minister of Justice. It just baffles me that he would come with that as the foundation of his argument. I would ask him one simple question. This is going to have major effects on committees. How many committee meetings is he planning to stop with Motion No. 11?

155 words

Hon. David Lametti

May/2/22 12:20:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know that our House leadership has been careful to make sure, in proposing this motion and moving forward with this plan, that the various kinds of work being done in Parliament outside of this chamber are also done in a safe, secure and healthy fashion. I am not worried about working harder. I know that members opposite like to repeat the same arguments over and over again. That is what they call debate, but they do not add anything new. We are going to give them a chance to do that for as long as they want without impeding the work of this place. It is critically important that we get legislation through. We have seen, as I have said, 12 days on the fall economic statement, which contains real measures to aid the lives of Canadians, including people they claim to want to represent, like farmers and parents. It is baffling to see the way they block and block. We are taking measures to make this place work better.

173 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

May/2/22 12:21:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what is baffling is having the justice minister actually stand in this place and talk in the way he is. Bill C-8 was not introduced until December 16, so he is playing around a bit with the facts here. It went to committee February 1 and came back from committee on March 1. After December 16, the House was not sitting for six weeks, so there was no obstruction going on. Nobody on this side of the House is afraid to work. These are multi-billion dollar bills that the government for some reason expects the official opposition and the third party just to simply rubber-stamp without questioning, without proposing and without amending. How can the Liberals contribute to the further decline in our democracy? People in this country are looking at this place as its symbol, yet the government continues to contribute to the decline in democracy. I do not understand how the justice minister can stand here and defend this action by his government.

170 words

Hon. David Lametti

May/2/22 12:22:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I dispute the hon. member's narrative of events. I have been here since 2015, and I have watched the Conservatives' systematic obstruction time and time again. I have seen it on my own bills as minister, and now we are seeing it again. I welcome the day when cameras show all the members of the House of Commons at the same time, so that Canadians can actually see the kinds of things that are happening when there is somebody speaking. It is critically important that we get our legislative agenda through. It is what the vast majority of Canadians elected us to do, and it is what we are going to do. We are using measures that have been used in the past by governments of all political stripes. The measures are going to allow for debate to happen. They will incentivize members of Parliament to use their time better, and we will get our progressive agenda through, working with other members of Parliament in good faith.

170 words

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

May/2/22 12:23:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we just had the opposition House leader admit to the Conservatives' blocking these bills for two months. He just stood up, went through the timeline and admitted to everybody that for two months, Conservatives blocked the bills, despite the fact that Canadian teachers have been writing to them wanting to get the tax credit that is in Bill C-8 and Canadian farmers have been writing to them. The Conservatives have thrown aside any kind of public input. They are just running rogue. They are renegades, yet they reference democracy. This is the same party that had members of its caucus endorsing the so-called “freedom convoy”, whose vowed objective was the overthrow of constitutional government. We then have Conservatives standing up in this House and trying to say that somehow they actually support democracy, with that as their track record. What a joke. What happened to the Conservative Party that in December endorsed the ban on conversion therapy, that was productive and working well in this minority Parliament? What has happened to the Conservatives over the last few months that they will even refuse to sit late and refuse to pass legislation that Canadians are asking for? What is it about the Conservative Party that has turned?

212 words

Hon. David Lametti

May/2/22 12:25:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member indeed reminds me that Conservatives, whether inside or outside the House, seem to have fallen in love with blocking and blockades. We are here because we have many other pieces of legislation, including a budget. There is not just Bill C-8, which, as we have mentioned, has had 12 days of debate and obstruction and concurrence motions and everything else that the Conservatives can throw up in order to delay it, but also Bill C-7, which we have not debated yet, and Bill C-9, which we have not debated yet. There is Bill C-18 and there is Bill C-19. There are all kinds of things that we have yet to debate, as well as the budget, and that is because the official opposition simply wants to run out the clock; delay, delay, delay; and use every tactic at its disposal to throw this government off its agenda. Canadians do not want that. They want us to work together.

168 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

May/2/22 12:26:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was here from 2011 to 2015. The most shocking thing I have seen today is the member for New Westminster—Burnaby swallow himself whole. He routinely raged against any motion for closure and routinely raged against any motion for time allocation. It was as if the sky were falling. Now he is in the Liberals' back pocket, saying this is a great thing. Growing up, my parents always told me that when someone shows us who they are, we should believe them. Let us look at some things. Who would bring forward this kind of a time allocation on this motion? Perhaps it would be someone whose leader said he admired China's basic dictatorship and a justice minister who said that debate is obstruction. We see where these people are going. If this is all about debate and we want more time for debate, why does the motion include the ability for a cabinet minister to move to adjourn the House for the summer? If it is about debate, why do the Liberals not take that out and prove it is about debate? I can tell members that they will not.

196 words

Hon. David Lametti

May/2/22 12:27:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I found the hon. member's intervention quite amusing, and I am sure he meant it that way. The House leadership, and our government House leader, have made it clear that particular provision is a common motion that is used at the end of every parliamentary session. We have put it in now with the engagement to not use it until the very last week when it is commonly used. It is there as part of this package in order to get more pieces of legislation through, and get us through to the end of June. It is there to be used at the end of the session, when it is traditionally used, on consent by all the parties, working together. That is how it will be used again.

131 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

May/2/22 12:28:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this debate is an embarrassment. I have listened to the debate on Motion No. 11. I listened to the very lengthy speech my colleague from Winnipeg North gave on this motion last week. Everything in the rhetoric we hear from the Liberals and NDP seems to suggest that there are good democrats, in other words, those who support Motion No. 11, on one side of the House, and then there are bad democrats, basically the Conservative and Bloc Québécois members who oppose the motion, on the other side. Motion No. 11 is not just about extending our sitting time. It also contains a number of measures to muzzle the opposition. The funny thing is, when I think about the Liberals and democracy, I remember the Prime Minister, with his hand on his heart during the election campaign, talking about electoral reform, saying he was going to do this and that. Is that what democracy is? When are those things going to happen? Who prorogued Parliament in the summer of 2020? Who sent the country into an election when there were lots of bills close to being voted on that were important to Canada? The Liberals called an election and wiped the slate clean, killing bills like the one on the Official Languages Act, which is an important piece of legislation. There was also the bill to reform the CRTC, which was very important, but it too was killed. Are those folks over there really the democrats they claim to be?

262 words

Hon. David Lametti

May/2/22 12:29:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation. Obviously we must never forget that the Bloc Québécois is the master of obstruction. That is their whole purpose. We know that we must work together to advance legislation and reforms that are supported throughout Canada. We want to ensure that we have enough time to hold real debates on real issues without obstruction. We are here precisely to set out a process on how to proceed until the end of the session in June, one that will give all parliamentarians the opportunity to have their say and help to pass good bills.

106 words

Mr. John Brassard

May/2/22 12:30:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to give the justice minister an opportunity, because I believe he did misspeak. Perhaps he did not understand that there is a constitutional obligation for quorum to be held in this place. He said that this has happened before, but it only happens in take-note debates. It also happens in emergency debates when no vote on government legislation is held. In fact, this has never been held before. I would give the justice minister an opportunity to correct himself and not mislead the House.

96 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/2/22 12:31:14 p.m.
Watch

If I may, hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil, it was the ruling of the Speaker. It was not the Minister of Justice who made the case.

27 words

Mr. John Brassard

May/2/22 12:31:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice just said that this has happened before when in fact it has not happened before, with the exception of emergency debates and take-note debates. That is what I am seeking clarification on.

39 words

All Topics

Hon. David Lametti

May/2/22 12:31:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in responding to the hon. member's point of order and the question, to the extent that that is what it was, the Speaker has just made a ruling on this. These kinds of proceedings happen routinely at the ends of sessions.

44 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

May/2/22 12:31:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have not been in the House for that long, since January 2019— An hon. member: Or that often. Mr. Warren Steinley: Or that often, madam Speaker, because of the rules put forward by the Liberal government. I would say that one thing here is very different from where I grew up: When I had a job to do, generally it was my priority to get that job done. I did not have to blame someone else for not getting my work done. Right now, we are having this debate on Motion No. 11 because the Liberals cannot get their work done, and they are trying to blame Conservatives for standing up for people and debating on what the House puts forward. It is interesting that we are talking about billions of dollars going forward that would be going out to the people of Canada, and they do not want to debate it. Where I grew up, if I had to get a job done, it was my responsibility to do that job. How can this government be blaming the opposition for doing our job because it cannot get its legislative agenda forward? It does not make any sense. I would ask the minister this. When he does extend sitting hours, will he let the people who are doing the fine work in interpretation know so that they have time to do their schedules and have forewarning if the Liberals are going to extend the schedule until midnight? That would be the proper thing to do, because we know that the staff here is overworked, and they should have some notice if they are going to have to be here until 12 o'clock or not.

289 words

Hon. David Lametti

May/2/22 12:33:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his two questions. I will answer the second one first, as it is a critically important question, and I am glad he asked it. The leadership in this place is going to make sure that interpreters and others have advance warning of when sessions will be extended. We are very mindful of their rights, their health and safety, and their working environment. It is an engagement that I know my House leader in this place has made. I thank the hon. member for that question. We are here to work, and we are proposing this motion precisely because obstruction is not work. I worked on construction sites, and my friend has probably worked a fair bit in his day too and is proud of it, as am I. However, it is working together. It is rolling up our sleeves and getting the job done. If one person on that job site is obstructing, we have to help that person to move somewhere else, and this is what we are doing here. Obstruction is not work. Obstruction is not debate. Debate is about the exchange of ideas, and that is what we are facilitating here.

202 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

May/2/22 12:34:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I came to this House to get something done for my constituents and to help them in any way, shape or form that I could, and I am proud to be able to do that work here in the House. Before I was elected to the House, I worked for many members of Parliament. During a Conservative majority government, I watched the then hon. House leader, Peter Van Loan, argue that the government needed those long hours to sit until midnight. Those extended hours were not just on an as-needed basis: It was constant, night after night, that I had to send my member in to get that work done. That was under a majority Conservative government. I would like to hear from the hon. minister why it is important to note, in the debate on this motion, that it is on an as-needed basis.

149 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 62