“We have plenty of time to talk about this bill. Why is the government shutting down debate instead of letting us do our jobs?”

“Madam Speaker, I should use this time to finish my speech on Bill C-269. However, I have a simple question. We have late-night sittings, and we have plenty of time. Why is this government, once again, bringing the guillotine of closure and limiting debate? Canadians sent us here to debate the issues, not have the government shut down debate. To the hon. member opposite, why is he doing this again?”

“We need more time to study this bill. Thirty hours is not enough for a bill that changes so many laws. My constituents are worried about some of these changes, and rushing the bill through could cause bad mistakes.”

“Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of being at the finance committee over the last week or so for a number of the hours the member is speaking about, and I can say that it has not been about filibustering. It has been about asking questions in the only venue that has been made available to us to examine this bill. I have received many emails, phone calls and comments from constituents who are concerned about some of the things that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands talked about, such as the pesticide clauses and other changes that are happening to a wide variety of bills. For a bill that would touch so many acts, 30 hours is not enough. We need to be able to examine this bill properly. I am wondering why the government is determined to ram things through without adequate consultation and risk unintended consequences of bills, as we have seen with Bill C-30.”

“Canadians gave the Liberals a minority government. They should not shut down debate like they have a majority.”

“Madam Speaker, I, along with a number of my colleagues, came to this place in 2019 and have gone through three elections. The member opposite just said the Liberals were elected and, yes, they were elected, in a minority Parliament. I have experienced nothing but seven years of minority Parliament until, of course, a few weeks ago. Now I am experiencing a majority government for the first time in my elected career. Is this what I am to expect, time allocation, closure and cutting off debate? Is this how the government intends to reflect the minority mandate, quite frankly, that the Canadian people gave it?”

“The government is cutting off debate on this bill, and the opposition needs to hold them accountable. I have real problems with the bill, like how it funds carbon capture. We need to be able to debate these issues in Parliament.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his responses to many of the questions being asked of him today. This is an important question, because Canadians have seen over the last number of years, and increasingly so, the limits of debate in this House in terms of how we address government bills. When Canadians elect a Parliament, they elect a government, with the most seats, and they elect an opposition. The tools of the opposition, of course, are to make sure the government is held accountable for what it is doing, and it brings those things forward through a process that has been well understood for a long time. If the government thinks that our role as the opposition is just to roll over and not perform our role as His Majesty’s loyal opposition, then it is mistaken. We need to continue to look at what the government is proposing. I have a number of issues with the bill at hand, including why we have allocated less than half the credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage in enhanced oil recovery than in any other of the environmental approaches. It is the most accessible way we can reduce CO2 emissions in this bill, and yet it is not going to be debated at committee. These are the types of things that have to be brought forth, and we have to respect the fact that Canadians need to see democracy being performed in the House where they elect people to represent them. Can my colleague please tell us where he thinks Canadians will get a view of how we are getting things done here in a democratic forum when his leader is using it less and less?”

“The previous Conservative government created grants for trades workers, but the Liberals cancelled them and stopped grants for vocational students. Conservatives and unions pushed the government to bring back some of these trades grants. Why did the Liberals cancel them in the first place? Why do they still refuse grants to vocational students?”

“Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the issue of the trades. In 2006, Stephen Harper brought in grants for trades workers. In 2009, the same Conservative government brought in completion grants. One of the first acts of this Prime Minister was to cancel grants for trades workers and completion grants. The government also pulled student grants for students studying at vocational institutions. Now, after a lot of advocacy from Conservatives, as well as from unions, we were pleased to see the partial restoration of grants to trades workers. This is something we and unions had advocated for. I want to ask the minister, number one, why did the Liberals cancel these grants in the first place? Second, why are they still denying student grants to those studying at vocational institutions?”

“The government refused to answer our questions in committee about public pensions. A top finance expert told me our work to explain these changes clearly is very important. I want the government to explain why it will not give Canadians clear answers about what it is doing to their pensions.”

“Madam Speaker, when we sit in a committee with members opposite and officials who are unwilling to answer questions, we make whatever analogies we can to try to convince them to answer those questions. What we were talking about in committee, which was very important and very serious, was how we explain to Canadians what we are doing with CPP. That is very important to those in this country. Following the supposed filibuster that they are talking about, which was really questions about CPP, I got a phone call from a very senior finance executive who has worked for not one but two of the maple eight pension funds, telling me how important the work we are doing in finance committee is and saying how important it is to produce reports that explain, in plain English, what we are doing in the House to Canadians’ pensions. If the members opposite do not understand how important it is to make sure that there are no unintended consequences through the drafting of bills that affect Canadians’ pensions, then I do not know what to do. Perhaps the member could explain why he does not think Canadians should be able to get a full explanation about what the government is doing to Canadians’ pensions?”

“The government is cutting debate short on this bill after only one hour. They cannot manage the House schedule, and now they are rushing this through. This bill spends billions of dollars, and we need time to debate it.”

“Madam Speaker, we are seeing here a heavy-handed Liberal government that has decided that, because it is unable to manage the time of the House and because it is unable to bring forward legislation in a timely manner, it is going to use the hammer to curtail debate. We have seen an hour of debate on this particular bill in the chamber, and the Liberals’ answer is to speed this through so we cannot have an adequate debate on the bill. They are trying to use every excuse in the book, but the reality is that, when we started sitting, we had effectively no bills for a very long period of time, and that is on the Liberals. They cannot get bills out for us to have time to debate them. It is not on the opposition for holding them accountable and saying that we deserve to have debate. This is a lot of money being spent. Does the minister not believe that Canadians deserve to have actual conversations and debate on bills in this chamber, specifically when we are spending billions of dollars for Canadians, yes or no?”

“We need more time to debate this budget bill. It harms Canadian food production and makes groceries more expensive, especially by closing research farms and ignoring food transport in trade deals.”

“Madam Speaker, it is great to see you back in the chair today. It is a sight for sore eyes. In my colleague’s comments, he was talking about trade, not just north and south but east and west, even though our trading partner to the south of us is the most important trading partner for our economy, and the Liberals are turning their backs on it. Regarding the east-west comment, the member knows that food transportation was exempt from the Liberals Canadian free trade agreement. We are talking about food affordability and food production and the importance of that issue. We have not had an opportunity to even talk about that and why it is exempt from their Canadian free trade agreement, when they are closing down seven critical research centres and experimental farms, which again will impact food affordability and food production here in Canada. The Prime Minister himself spoke of food sovereignty and how a country that is unable to feed itself has few options. Well, we have hardly been able to scratch the surface of the impact that the decisions in this budget bill would have on food production and food affordability in Canada. Would the member not agree that food affordability is a top priority for all Canadians, and worth some time to discuss?”