44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 2, 2022 11:00AM
- May/2/22 1:52:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the House leader of the opposition for bringing forward this amendment because by doing so he is giving the member for Winnipeg North another opportunity to speak to this. I did not have an opportunity to hear what the member for Winnipeg North said on Thursday, so I am looking forward to hearing his thoughts on this one. He speaks again for the second time to this.
My question for the opposition House leader is quite simple. He seems to be quite concerned about staff members right now and the impact that asking them to stay until midnight will have on them. I wonder where his empathy was a couple of years ago, when the Conservatives literally made this house vote for 30 hours straight, or a couple of years after that, when they made this house vote for 22 hours straight. They knew full well it would produce absolutely nothing with respect to a tangible result of improving this country; rather, it was just for the purpose of being destructive.
Can the member justify for me the hypocrisy I am hearing from him when he talks about being so overly concerned about staff and the impacts on them? That party will force staff to stay here for 30 hours straight just to appease its own desire to see this place move as slowly as possible.
234 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 4:18:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think it is clear, from the answer to the last question, that the Conservatives have absolutely no response to the great question that the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman was just asked, because had he actually conjured up an answer to the question, he would have been able to provide some substance to the member's question.
I think it is in the best interests of Canadians that we get back to the business of this House rather than the political games that the Conservatives are continuing to play. Therefore, I move, seconded by the member for Winnipeg North:
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 5:27:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I heard the member speak at length about his accusations that the government is unable to fulfill its responsibilities in delivering on its agenda, but I am wondering if the member has ever taken the opportunity to talk to some of the folks in the Conservative Party. They share a lobby together. Did he perhaps go to them and say that maybe they are going a little overboard with respect to the way they are trying to stall pieces of legislation, such as Bill C-8? The Conservatives have had 51 members speak to it at report stage alone.
I am wondering if the member could comment on whether or not he has taken his criticism to members of the party that he shares a lobby with to share his frustration over how slow things are moving given their tactics.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 6:03:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we know in particular when it comes to bills like Bill C-8 that members of the Conservative Party want to talk a lot, that they have a lot to say.
Can the member possibly understand why the Conservative Party would be against this, when this would just give those members even more opportunity to speak to very important pieces of legislation? Would he not think, given the number of speeches the Conservatives have given and the interest and passion they have in debating in this place, that they would not welcome with open arms the opportunity to debate even longer?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 6:08:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will start by picking up where the member for Elmwood—Transcona left off with respect to answering this question about the NDP selling its soul. I have heard this talk on a number of occasions from the Bloc and the Conservatives, as though they are jealous they were not the parties chosen to work with the government. We hear this kind of language coming from across the way repeatedly. They say the NDP has sold itself out and this is not what Canadians voted for.
We operate under the Westminster parliamentary system. The entire system is built on political parties working together. Look around the world. We can open our eyes to other Westminster parliamentary systems to see that what we see here with regard to working together with another political party is exactly what our system is designed to do. This notion that it is somehow wrong for parties to be working together only underscores, if anything, the disdain the Conservative Party, and now apparently the Bloc, have for this place and the very institution that we use to exercise our democracy.
In any event, let us talk about government Motion No. 11, because that is what we are here to talk about today. I think it is clear from the outset exactly what this motion is about. The core of this motion, at least in terms of what is being debated today, is with respect to extending sitting hours. This motion sets out our government's proposal for the proceedings of the House of Commons until June 23 of this year. It specifically will allow for extended sitting hours to debate bills into the evenings when the government and one party, which represents a majority in the House, request it.
What we are trying to do here is empower the House to be more democratic and give members more opportunity to speak. I heard the member for Montcalm not that long ago talk about how this motion is restricting Parliament. He should explain to me how extending sitting hours to give people more opportunity to speak is somehow restricting Parliament. It is the exact opposite. It is increasing the opportunity for members to get up and speak.
I heard what members of the Conservative Party said earlier today, which they said on Thursday as well when they raised a point of order on it specifically, about putting into this motion that no quorum calls can be made. Suddenly, this is a constitutional issue for the Conservatives. It is absolutely remarkable. We pass unanimous consent motions waiving the requirement for quorum calls routinely. Consider the number of times that I have stood up and moved unanimous consent motions to waive the requirement for quorum calls when we have evening debates. I have done it at least 15 to 20 times and everybody always votes in favour of it. It is something that has been negotiated in advance.
To somehow suggest that it is unconstitutional to move this goes against a practice of the House that is so incredibly well established and entrenched into the daily operations of this place. It is ludicrous to suggest that it is somehow unconstitutional, and the Conservatives are bringing up that point.
This makes me think: Why are the Conservatives bringing this up? Is this the best they have, saying that it is unconstitutional to waive the requirement for quorum calls? That is how it appears, because they are scraping, literally, at the bottom of the barrel by trying to suggest that this is somehow a constitutional issue.
Nonetheless, why is it so important? Let me talk about this for a second.
There are a number of very important pieces of legislation, and something has become very clear regarding the Conservatives, and now the Bloc for some reason. I am not going to lie: Ever since the member for Durham was removed as the leader of the official opposition, the Bloc Québécois has had this cozy relationship with the Conservatives, and I just cannot wrap my head around it. It is a complete change in their posture. They used to be a progressive party that fought for Quebec, primarily, pushed forward ideas and saw past the games the Conservatives played, but suddenly they have taken a completely different approach.
I cannot help but think it is all based on the fact that they see the cluster of activity going on in the Conservative Party right now. They see the implosion literally happening before our eyes with these far-right candidates and the progressives. They might see an opportunity to pick up a couple of members. Who knows what might happen after the leadership vote in September? Who knows—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
798 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 6:14:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think I hit a nerve. The truth hurts; I know it does. I guess they can call me out on it come September, after the results of their leadership race. We will see what happens if Jean Charest wins or if the member for Carleton wins. We will see what happens.
To get back to my point, I think the Bloc is banking on it. Bloc members are hedging their bets right now on who they could pick off from the Conservatives when that time comes. That is just my hypothesis. Perhaps I can be accused of being a conspiracy theorist, but that is what I think is happening.
I will get back to the core issue here.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, they keep heckling me. I think I really hit a nerve. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan literally will not stop heckling me right now. I have a feeling I hit a nerve there. I understand. I think we all know which side of the Conservative spectrum he is on. In any event, I think I hit a nerve. He is clapping. He likes being part of the alt-right side. That is fine, but there are also some progressives. This is my concern—
218 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 6:16:18 p.m.
- Watch
No. I am going to continue with my speech.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 6:17:18 p.m.
- Watch
Am I not allowed to do that?
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 6:17:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if I am saying something that is unparliamentary or inappropriate, I would expect the Speaker to call me out on that and tell me to discontinue. I did not hear that in what you said. I understood that you are personally concerned about some of the things I was saying, but I do not think I did that.
Nonetheless, I think I am only feeding back what I get. This is the Conservative Party, whose members have called the Prime Minister a trust fund baby in the House. It causes me to be critical, and if they cannot take it, I am sorry, but this is the reality of the situation. They had better learn how to do that.
I will get back to the motion. This motion is about making sure that we have the proper tools in place for legislation to get through. We are talking about the budget. We are also talking about Bill C-11, the modernizing of the Broadcasting Act; Bill C-13, an update to the Official Languages Act; Bill C-14, on electoral representatives; and Bill C-18, enhancing fairness in the Canadian online news marketplace. These are the pieces of legislation this government has deemed to be the priority moving forward. What we are seeing from the other side are Conservatives not wanting to let the legislation go through.
I am sorry if my saying that is offensive to anybody, but the reality is that on Bill C-8 alone, there have been 12 days of debate since report stage was introduced. Two Green Party members have spoken to it. Two NDP members have spoken to it. Three Liberals have spoken to it, and five Bloc members have spoken to it. Does anyone know how many Conservatives have spoken to it?
It is more than four or five. Do members think it is ten? No, it is more. Do members think it is twenty, thirty, or forty? No, it is more. Fifty-one Conservatives have spoken to Bill C-8 since the report stage of that bill was introduced. They cannot tell me that this is not a political game for the Conservatives to be obstructionist. That is exactly what they are doing, and they do it day in and day out.
The NDP has finally seen beyond it. New Democrats do not want anything to do with it, and they want to actually work on behalf of Canadians. Then they get criticized for not following along with the games the Conservatives are playing. That is literally what happens.
When the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman was talking about closure being put on this motion, he said something very interesting, and I would like to read it from the blues. He said, “We [already] just voted on the closure motion to ensure that there is a vote on Motion No. 11. Motion No. 11 is going to be coming into force whether we like it or not. The government, with [their] unholy alliance with the NDP, will get its Motion No. 11 through and we do not feel like it is necessary to sit there and debate this...long, drawn-out process.” Then why are they going to put us through this? They will make every single second of debate go on. They will not let this collapse.
The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman just said himself that he knows this is going to pass and that debating it is absolutely pointless, yet he wants it to go on. Why is that? It is because he wants to push this on as long as possible, along with the rest of the Conservatives and the Bloc, so that we cannot get legislation debated and ultimately passed. That is not our job here. Our job here is to work on behalf of Canadians. The Conservatives' job is to criticize the legislation, to try to improve the legislation, not to put up roadblock after roadblock at every single opportunity they have, which is what they are doing.
I find it interesting that the Conservatives have on a number of occasions talked about how this government does not want to work. This is not a new motion. The timing of it is slightly earlier than normal, but we always have a motion like this to extend sitting hours. I would like to read some quotes.
The member for Mégantic—L'Érable said, on May 28, 2019, to a similar motion, “We are not opposed to working late every evening. We want to work and make progress on files.” In a similar debate two years earlier, on May 30, he said, “We want to work late, and we are prepared to do that and to collaborate with the government”.
The member for Lethbridge on May 1, 2017, said, “The Liberals would like to stop sitting in the House of Commons on Fridays. They would like to move us to a four-day workweek.... The Liberals want Fridays off. They [want to have] a four-day workweek [and that] is more than enough.”
The then leader of the opposition on May 29, 2017, said, “We know they want Fridays off and we know [that this] is a big deal to them. They do not want to be working Fridays. They do not realize that Canadians work five days a week, and many times [they work] more than five days a week.”
We are asking to work more than five days a week, which is exactly what the then leader of the opposition said in May 2017. That is the interesting part about all of this. One cannot help but wonder why, if they want to speak to all of this legislation at great length, and if they want to put up 51-plus speakers on every piece of legislation, they would not be interested in sitting into the evenings to do that. We certainly are. They accused us of not wanting to do it.
An hon. member: Are you?
1021 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 6:25:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am being heckled by the member for Peterborough—Kawartha who is asking, “Are you?”
Of course we are, that is why we are putting the legislation forward. That is why we have this motion here. This motion is asking for members to be able to do that.
I find it fascinating that the same party that accuses this side of the House of not wanting to work, for their own political grandstanding purposes, is now suddenly against this motion that will give us the ability to sit and work throughout the evening when necessary so that we can get the legislation passed.
I will hand it to the members of the NDP. At least their interest is doing things on behalf of Canadians. They do not agree with us on everything. We can see from the questions they ask during question period that there are things they have an issue with. There is policy they have an issue with, and they bring it up and voice it. However, they are still able to work together with the government for the greater good. That is what the Westminster parliamentary system is about. That is what working with political parties and working together when we get here is all about.
We did just have an election six months ago, and one would think that the Conservatives had no idea that the election happened. They literally walked back into this room and picked up right where they left off, with accusatory remarks towards the government, picking at individual people, pointing at the Prime Minister and calling him names, and making everything a scandal and about corruption. They are trying to manufacture stories so they can somehow hope that they win the next election based on knocking the other guy down instead of actually trying to tell people what their policies and ideas are.
I am all in favour of working until midnight if that is what it takes to get the pieces of legislation that I mentioned through. I expect that any member who passionately cares about Canadians, and about making sure that the policies are put in place that will benefit them the most, would do the same.
372 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 6:26:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am flabbergasted. What does the member mean by “shut Parliament down”? This motion would do the complete opposite. It would keep Parliament open longer. It would give the ability for Conservatives who want to put up 51 speakers and more on each piece of legislation the ability to do that. This is the same comment that the Bloc member for Montcalm made earlier, when he talked about restricting Parliament.
This motion would do nothing to restrict Parliament. It is about giving more opportunity to discuss the issues that are clearly important to the Conservatives. That is, of course, if it really is the issues that they care about. I would argue what they care about is stopping absolutely everything at every cost, as the member for New Westminster—Burnaby said earlier, “Nothing will pass”. That is their objective, that absolutely nothing will pass, and that is very clear from where I am sitting.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 6:28:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, he asked about the government not being able to bring forward the important pieces of legislation. Why can we not bring them forward? It is because we have been debating Bill C-8 for 12 days. Fifty-one Conservatives have spoken to it, along with five Bloc members, two Greens, two NDP members and three Liberals. The Conservatives are clearly stopping at nothing to make sure that legislation cannot get through. That is why this is important.
I would encourage that member, who shares an opposition lobby with the Conservatives, to walk over to his colleagues and ask why those guys are holding up the fall economic statement. It is May of 2022, and this is the economic statement that was to provide support for Canadians from the fall of last year.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 6:30:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, at stake immediately in Bill C-8 are the teachers, who have supports in the bill that should have been passed months ago so they could realize those supports. They cannot because the Conservatives are literally holding up this piece of legislation as long as they possibly can. They will go on and on.
What is at stake are some of the other pieces of legislation that we need to move forward on, such as modernizing the criminal justice system to remove mandatory minimums. I realize that is something the Conservatives are against, but the point is that this government has an interest in debating that. They will have their time to do that. Other pieces would be on modernizing the Broadcasting Act and the Official Languages Act. These are all very important pieces of legislation that we know we want to discuss and get passed in some form or another by the end of this session in June.
Now we are just saying that this is fine. If the Conservatives want to talk endlessly, we will give them more opportunity to do that. That is what this is all about.
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 6:31:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not know why the extension is required. I assume the committee would have a better understanding of that, but I do not know exactly why the extension is required. I do not want to give the member an answer without being able to properly consult on that.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 6:33:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this gives me a good opportunity to bring up a couple more quotes. On March 28, I asked the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock when he thought the Conservatives would finally let us vote on this important piece of legislation to provide Canadians supports. His response was, “This is our job. We are legislators. We are supposed to be criticizing. We are supposed to be talking about how we can improve pieces of legislation.”
To answer the member’s question, that is exactly what this motion is about. It is about giving the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock and other members more time so they can debate and discuss the motions and pieces of legislation, just as he indicated they want to do.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 6:34:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am going to use the first quote the member made in my next householder just so the folks back in my riding know that the Conservatives appreciate how much I love debating. In all seriousness, I appreciate the comment. That last bit was in jest.
Of course we do not want to restrict or prevent debate. That is what this is about. I do not understand where the member is getting this notion from, because the previous question he asked me was very similar to this: it was about restricting debate or somehow preventing debate from happening. Somebody has to explain to me where the Conservatives are getting this notion. This motion is about extending the opportunity by working later into the evening, giving more opportunity to speak so more people can get up and more people can ask questions. I do not understand where the member is getting this from.
I appreciate his comment about my love for healthy debate. I certainly do enjoy it. I also enjoy hearing what members from across the way say. That is what this entire process is about. I enjoy being a part of it.
To the member’s question specifically, I do not think this is limiting debate. I think it is providing more.
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 7:47:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. A minister cannot suddenly just end the parliamentary session. Of course, the member would not want to give the House the full facts, because that would take away from the narrative. The reality is that a minister can move a motion, and then the entire chamber has to vote on it, including that member. A minister cannot just arbitrarily end the session. It is something that comes forward through a motion, and then it is voted on. Why is the member intentionally trying to mislead Canadians and mislead—
An hon. member: The member cannot say that.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Yes, I can—
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 7:47:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, why is the member misleading Canadians by suggesting that this is the case and that ministers can arbitrarily prorogue Parliament when they cannot? They need the support of a majority of the members in this House.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 9:39:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am sure we can see this one through in favour on division.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
