44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 15, 2022 10:00AM
- Nov/15/22 10:04:24 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague could provide some additional thoughts with regard to the forgiveness of interest on student loans and the impact that this is going to have on the affordability issue of post-secondary education, something that I know many of my constituents are very concerned about.
52 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, many aspects of the member's speech somewhat contradict the way he will be voting.
Let me give an example. He talks about housing being important, and it is important. If we look at what is being proposed, we have the doubling of the first-time home buyers' tax credit, the multigenerational home renovation tax credit and the 1% annual tax on underused housing being put into place. These are some of the initiatives taking place, yet the member says Ottawa needs to do more on housing.
We are taking actions that deal with some of the things the member is talking about, yet he is voting against it. That is consistent with the Conservatives. They say they want to see this, but when they see it happen, they end up voting against it.
Does the member not recognize that many would see that as a sign of hypocrisy?
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. There is only one Conservative in the House. Does that matter with respect to the quorum count?
27 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Bloc is supporting the legislation and that it has concerns with regard to health care. When I reflect on health care, it is important to recognize that there is a strong role in health care coming from Ottawa, whether it is through the Canada Health Act or through recognizing things from the pandemic such as long-term care, mental health and so forth.
I am wondering if the member could provide her arguments as to why she believes the federal government should not play more of a role in health care. I would ultimately argue that a vast majority of Canadians want a national government that is there for health care and in more ways than just being an ATM.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I wondering if the member can explain to Canadians why the Conservative Party continues to vote against measures that would give breaks to Canadians in all regions. In this legislation, for example, we have interest relief. Students who go to post-secondary facilities will not have to pay interest if the legislation passes.
Why does the Conservative Party consistently vote against supporting Canadians?
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 3:49:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, just so the government House leader can complete his answer in a more fulsome fashion, there is a substantial cost to the delay of legislation. I wonder if he could just expand on those costs.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 5:25:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we should look at the core of what we are debating today and think about it. Opposition members often say that they want to have more time to debate legislation. If this motion passes, it will provide additional hours for members of Parliament to debate. The opposition is asking for more time and we are giving them exactly that, so that more MPs will be able to speak.
Can the member speculate as to why the Conservative Party would oppose such a motion?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, first off, I want to acknowledge the efforts of the member for Beaches—East York.
We are somewhat losing the perspective of what we are debating today. It is almost as if the government presented legislation that it was proposing to pass. We need to put it in the perspective of private members' hour. An individual member of the House has brought forward a bill that is reflective, no doubt, of the concerns of constituents, people and some stakeholders who the member himself met with, and he has come forward with a proposal. I had the opportunity to chat with the member and listened to what the member was saying when he introduced his bill. It is very much a private member's bill.
In no way does it put in the limitations that are being suggested by opposition members or anyone else in the House. I see it as a positive piece of legislation that, ultimately, would be nice to see go to committee. The member himself has indicated, if not directly, indirectly, that he is very much open to changes to the legislation and to other ideas that members might have. I suspect that the offer for changes goes beyond members from any one political party, but is open to members of all political parties. That point is being lost.
I know there is a huge expectation about where we go from here with respect to the pandemic. The pandemic is not behind us. There is still a need for governments to monitor and take actions where necessary. There are some governments at local levels raising the issue of masking again in the current pandemic, depending on the region of the country. There was a policy this year of a curfew in at least one province. There was mandatory masking. A great deal of variations have taken place.
What I see before us today is proposed legislation that would provide something very tangible for a standing committee could look at. It talks about a comprehensive study or report where we could start to itemize some of the things we could look at. We heard that in a number of speeches, including from the member who introduced the legislation. No one would question issues such as long-term care and the manner in which both provincial—
391 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, quorum does not necessarily reflect that on the entire other side of the House—
17 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I was just going to say there is only one person on the other side of the House. There is absolutely nothing wrong with indicating that there is only one on the other side of the House—
An hon. member: There is one Conservative.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Other members might say “one Conservative.” I will not say that. The bottom line is that we are in private members' hour and—
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we have a private member's bill of substance. It is a private member's bill that would have a positive impact, and it reflects what has been taking place over the last two and a half years. I do not want to play games on the legislation. I want to recognize the legislation for what it is. It is something that reflects a very real and genuine need, and it gives specific direction as to what the government could actually do, not only the government but also the entire House of Commons.
To imply that this is in fact a government initiative is to do a disservice to private members. To try to play the quorum game on a private member's bill does a disservice to private members' hour. I really, truly believe that, and I would hope that we will at least put a pause on that game until we get through private members' hour.
There were issues such as border controls, supply issues, stockpile issues and supports for real people during pandemics. Let us think of the human resources that are necessary, not to mention outside stakeholders such as the Red Cross or our Canadian Forces. There are so many dynamics at play.
We have a piece of legislation that has been brought forward by a private member to try to have an answer going forward. Are there things that we can learn from the last two and a half years? Every member of the Liberal caucus will tell us that, yes, there are things that we can learn from this process. I would like to think that all members on all sides of the House would recognize that value.
Let us put partisanship to the side for a moment and say that it would be good to see this legislation go to a committee. Of the many times I have debated during private members' hour, it is not often that I would be so bold as to say, “Let us get this legislation to a committee” in private members' business. However, I believe this legislation is relevant to the what we are experiencing today.
It would not prevent other forms of inquiries. It would not prevent other standing committees from looking at what has taken place. I am one of many members of Parliament who have recognized that we had to make decisions in a fairly quick fashion. I have acknowledged in the past, and I will continue to acknowledge, that it has not been perfect. There have been some mistakes. However, when governments spend literally billions of additional dollars and create programs from virtually nothing, there are going to be mistakes. There were things that took place during the pandemic that we can all learn from.
It is not just Ottawa. Whether it is provincial governments, municipal governments, school boards, and indigenous community leaders and indigenous communities in general, all of us have played a role in making the decisions. Having that comprehensive study is the responsible thing to be doing, along with the idea of having a report on a three- or a five-year basis. The legislation says three years, and the member says he is open to changes in that.
I do not quite understand why other members would be opposing the legislation. I anxiously wait for a vote because I do believe that, if we were to consult with our constituents, this is the type of legislation they would want us to get behind unanimously.
589 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 6:39:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the member can explain something to those following the debate. The Conservatives say they want to speak to legislation and are provided the opportunity to ensure there will be more time to speak to the legislation they want to speak to, but they are opposing the ability of their caucus colleagues to speak to legislation. It does not make any sense to me. Many would see it as being somewhat hypocritical.
Does the member believe that there might be some merit to that argument, given that the Conservatives are in opposition to a motion that would give them more time to speak?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 6:53:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member spent a lot of his time talking about budgetary measures, and I will pick up on that in the form of a question. The first major economic policy statement that really came out of the current leader of the Conservative Party was to recommend to Canadians that they should invest in cryptocurrency as a way to combat inflation. We all know that turned into a dud.
Now we hear again and again from members of the Conservative Party that they will abolish the price on pollution. However, the price on pollution that Ottawa has implemented does not cover the entire country as there are provinces that have their own price on pollution. Ours is a backstop. Is it the Conservative Party's position that it will mandate all provinces to get rid of any form of a price on pollution?
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 6:57:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is a lot to be said in regard to what we have been witnessing over the last number of hours. We can contrast that to what we have seen from the official opposition over the last couple of years. For those who are following the debate, I am going to try to use the experience I have accumulated over the last 30 years as a parliamentarian to try to shed some light on what the Conservative Party is actually doing.
I do not come to this lightly. I served just over 20 years in opposition, so I understand what it is the opposition is attempting to do. I have also now had the privilege of being on the government benches for a number of years. When I reflect on what I have been witnessing over the last couple of years, the first thing that comes to my mind is the political agenda of the Conservative Party when it comes to the legislative process in the House of Commons. It is actually fairly simple and straightforward for them. It is to, if at all possible, prevent any type of legislation from passing through the House of Commons.
The only time we will see legislation pass through the House of Commons is if the Conservative Party is shamed into supporting the legislation, if it accidentally slips through because its members were not necessarily paying attention or if it is something they really want to see pass, and that is very rare. They use delay tactics to try to frustrate the government, because what they want to be able to say is that the government has no legislative agenda and that it was not able to get things passed. I suspect that, with very little research, we could find quotes where the Conservatives are critical of us for not being able to pass a legislative agenda.
It is almost like sitting on the sidewalk, watching people walk by and extending a leg to trip a person and then saying, “How come you fell?” The Conservatives are intentionally trying to prevent the government's legislative agenda from passing, and they come up with a wide variety of tools to do just that. Then, they get upset when the government says it is going to continue to push through legislation in the best way it can.
Today it is a minority government. That requires us to get at least one opposition party to assist us in passing legislation. If we cannot get the assistance of at least one political party, given the Conservative Party's approach to legislation, we would not be able to pass a legislative agenda. We have a very aggressive number of pieces of legislation that are so important for us to—
466 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 7:01:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order myself. My concern is that, if the Conservatives continue to stand up and call for quorum, I do not want that to take away from my cumulative time. I believe I am given 20 minutes, so whether members stand up on a point of order or they continue to want to call for quorum, they should be aware that it does not take away from my time. Am I not correct in that assessment?
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 7:01:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for the Conservative Party it is a game. The best way I can illustrate that game is to talk about the motion that is before the House. The Conservatives say they want to have more debate, and that is why they get all upset when the government is forced to bring in time allocation. If we bring in time allocation on a piece of legislation, they will stand up and scream and holler from their seats, saying they have more members who want to speak and how dare we bring in time allocation. That is what they will do. Then the government works with an opposition party in order to try to get legislation passed, and we bring in time allocation. The Conservative Party will then almost collapse with its debate on that legislation.
If we want to get something through the House of Commons, we have to bring in time allocation, unless of course the Conservative Party is feeling very merciful or has been shamed into supporting something that does not require the government to bring in time allocation.
The Conservatives' excuse is that they have more people who want to speak to the legislation. What does the motion do? If the motion were to pass today, it would enable the government, not on its own but working with any other opposition party to form a majority inside the House, to say that it wants to sit an extended number of hours. In other words, it would allow for more time to debate legislation.
One would think that if the Conservative Party was so preoccupied about ensuring that more of its members get to speak on legislation, it would support that initiative. However, that is not the case. This is not the first time it has been done. Is it that the Conservative Party does not believe it should work late into the evening? Millions of Canadians work past six o'clock in the evening. Hundreds of thousands work past midnight.
Liberal and New Democrat members of this House are not scared to work. If it means we can pass legislation by working the extra hours, we will do that, because the legislation we are passing is of substance. It is there to support Canadians through the pandemic. It is there to provide national programs, such as the dental care program. It is budgetary measures that enable the government to do all sorts of wonderful things for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
There is a limited number of days for us to pass through all the measures that need to be passed, whether they be budgetary measures, legislative measures, or all different types or forms of debate that the government is ultimately responsible for bringing before the House. It does not take an incredible effort to prevent any piece of legislation from being passed if there is no time allocation. I could take 10 high school students from Sisler High School, Maples, R. B. Russell Vocational High School, Children of the Earth High School or St. John's High School, and I could prevent legislation from passing under the current rules.
If the Conservative Party genuinely wants to contribute to debate on legislation, that is being accommodated through this motion.
However, that is not the Conservatives' real reason. Their real reason is demonstrated by their behaviour. Imagine that members are working during the day and the Conservatives stand up and move to adjourn or shut down the House and our debate. They have done that on many occasions.
Imagine they have two Conservatives who want to speak to a bill; they both stand up and one moves that the other be heard. Why? It is to cause the bells to ring, not to facilitate debate. Why, whenever there is a concurrence motion from the opposition benches, is it always, without exception, during government business? It is to prevent debate on government bills.
These are all tactics that the opposition, the Conservatives, are so focused on. These are not normal times. We are going through a pandemic and there is extra legislation that is necessary. The government has been so focused on ensuring that we have an economy that works for all Canadians. We are a government that is focused on ensuring we have the backs of Canadians during a worldwide pandemic.
We now have worldwide inflation that is hitting Canadians too, even though our inflation rate is less than the inflation in the U.S.A. and many other countries in Europe. We are bringing forward legislation to provide real, tangible relief at a time when Canadians need that relief, but we have a Conservative Party that is more focused on political games and preventing legislation from passing. If only Canadians knew how the Conservative Party is behaving on the floor of the House of Commons. I do not say that lightly.
As I indicated at the beginning, I spent over 20 years in opposition. We do not have to be a destructive force. There are many positive ways to contribute and still be a strong official opposition. Members on this side of the House and other members are frustrated with the leadership of the Conservative Party, because we want to be there for Canadians in a real and tangible way, and the games that are being played indicate that it is not democratic.
That is a weird statement to make, when we are offering more time for debate. We are being accused of being anti-democratic because we want to give more time for debate. It is something they have been asking for, but it does not fit their agenda, because when they say they want more time for debate, what they are really talking about is that they do not want to work beyond the normal hours. If we work beyond the normal hours, that means they have to work a little harder to filibuster debate. It means they might have to sit past seven o'clock in the evening. They might have to go to midnight to continue to filibuster legislation.
The member for Kingston and the Islands, the government House leader and others in the House used Bill S-5 as an example. It is a wonderful example. Bill S-5 states that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment. Do members remember the debate on it? Every member of the House supported that legislation. Everyone wanted to see it go to committee.
The Conservative Party could not get enough of debating that piece of legislation, even though they played some games. I have not done the research, but I suspect that if I did, I would find that they probably moved concurrence and they probably did what they could to kill time, even on legislation they supported and that was universally well accepted.
All we wanted to do was get it through committee and yet, they put up speaker after speaker after speaker. If we had approached them and suggested that in order for them to accommodate all their speakers, why not continue it on into the evening, no, they would not want to do that.
Our microphones work after eight o'clock in the evening. It is now seven o'clock. If we sit until midnight, the wonderful thing about the House of Commons is we have a civil service, a wonderful group of people. We have our security, our Hansard and the Clerk and his officers, and the administration. They allow this House to operate. It is truly amazing. They do a fantastic job. They respond to the needs of this House so that when the Speaker allows an emergency debate, we are able to sit and have that emergency debate. When the government proposes a take-note debate, they are there to support us into the evening. When there is a need for us to sit later in the evening to facilitate more debate, they will be there for us in order to ensure that it takes place, as well it should. This is Canada's focal point on our democracy.
I do not need a lesson on democracy from the Conservative opposition. Believe me, there are opportunities for opposition parties to abuse the rules. We have been witnessing that. I sat in opposition when Stephen Harper brought in time allocation after time allocation well over 100 times when he was in a majority government situation. I even stood up and defended him on more than one occasion, saying that at times there is a need to bring in time allocation.
Unlike opposition parties, we do not have programmed legislation. On an opposition day, opposition members know that they bring in a motion and within 10 days there is going to be a vote on it and it moves on. The government does not have that. There is no programming. Some jurisdictions do have programming. Maybe that is what we need to be looking into.
I supported programming when I was in opposition in the Manitoba legislature. It is not an advantage to the government or a disadvantage to the opposition. There are all sorts of checks and balances that can be put into place. As I say, if they give me 10 students and never bring in time allocation or any sort of a closure, I could prevent anything from passing. The issue is that when there is a majority of the House that in essence says it is time to move on to some other debate and it is time that a piece of legislation went to committee, there is a need to recognize that fact and allow it to go to committee.
With respect to the legislative process, first reading does not really consume the time of the House, but second reading does, as does report stage, as does third reading. Often, there will be amendments that come from the Senate, which require more time. That is on one piece of legislation. Let us look at the substantial legislation that we have brought forward. I have a list, but because of limited time, I will not go through its entirety.
We are talking about dozens of pieces of legislation of substance. It is legislation that is putting money in people's pockets, that is protecting small businesses and that is modernizing legislation that has not been modernized for decades. It is a substantial legislative agenda. Is it any wonder that a majority of the House, not just the Liberals but a majority of the members of Parliament, are saying that one of the ways we can try to get some of this legislation through and allow for more debate opportunities is by extending the hours. Then we get the Conservatives. I am going to wait and see what the Bloc members actually do on this. At the end of the day, I would like to think the Bloc members would support the need.
It is nothing new. It is not like parliaments in democracies, whether at the provincial level or national level, have not brought in motions of this nature in the past. It is not uncommon.
The core issue of this motion is to say that, if there is a majority of members of Parliament on the floor of the House of Commons who want to see extended sitting hours, that can take place. We can sit more hours to accommodate debate. To me, that is a strong positive. I do not believe for a moment that members can say no to this and then criticize the government for not allowing debate on legislation.
That is how I would conclude my remarks to my Conservative friends. If they vote no to this motion, they are really saying that they do not need additional time to debate legislation. If they are not saying that, then they are really saying they do not want to sit extra hours. It has to be one of the two, unless it is because they do not want to pass any legislation whatsoever and want to continue playing games and frustrating the House. I will let the individuals who follow the debate determine which one they think it is. I am hoping the Conservatives will turn the page, realize its benefits and pass this motion.
2058 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 7:19:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that, if this motion passes, there will be more hours of debate to be able to cover a wide spectrum of different issues. I see that as a positive thing. In my history here on the Hill, and even when I was an MLA, there has never been a shortfall of supports to ensure the chamber is able to fulfill the mandates of the fundamental democratic principles here on the floor of the House of Commons.
I have confidence in those individuals to ensure that. Whether they are those in security, the Hansard, the TV or at the table, or the Speaker or the translators, who do a fantastic job I must say, they will be here to support us. After all, this is the centre of democracy in Canada, and the member should not be concerned about the chamber not being able to have the proper resources in order for us sit.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 7:22:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member does not need to be suspicious. The motion is very straightforward. The question the member has to ask himself is whether he believes there might be a need for additional debate time on a wide spectrum of potential issues. If he believes the answer is yes and if a majority of MPs in the House of Commons today agree, then there will be additional time for members to debate.
That is what this motion does. Whether the member supports that, it is really not that much more complicated than what I just finished stating. If the member supports additional potential time for members to debate legislation, he should be supporting this motion.
Whatever the House leadership team of his political party is telling him, I can assure him that this is, in fact, the essence of what we are voting on.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 7:23:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is right. When we look at the hybrid system, are there things we could do to modernize our Parliament that would, in fact, make it a better and friendlier environment, particularly for our constituents? If there are ways in which we could allow members of Parliament to serve their constituents, whether they are in British Columbia, Nova Scotia or my home province of Manitoba, by, for example, giving a speech through a hybrid system or being able to vote while they are in their constituency, I see that as a positive thing. I am very much open to that.
I anxiously await the report that is going to be coming from the procedure and House affairs committee, which is chaired by a very dear friend of mine. I am hoping that we will see certain aspects of what we have been able to put into place over the last couple of years put into our Standing Orders permanently, such as voting applications, which are wonderful things. There are other things we could look at.
I anxiously await the report coming from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
