SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/22 6:16:24 p.m.
Watch

In hindsight, given what is going on right now, I would ask the member to continue with his speech, as opposed to always focusing on a specific party, and at this point focus on the motion before the House. It is becoming a little—

45 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/22 6:17:18 p.m.
Watch

Well, I would just ask members to tone it down a bit because it is getting a bit rowdy in here. I would also again ask the official opposition to hold on to their thoughts until they can ask questions and make comments. Just be mindful of the words you are using in order to ensure that no one takes something out of context. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

68 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/2/22 6:17:18 p.m.
Watch

Am I not allowed to do that?

7 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

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

Mr. Clifford Small (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, CPC)

May/2/22 6:25:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy my colleague opposite. He is such a great orator. We just love hearing what he has to say. However, earlier I heard you, Madam Speaker, chastise him because he was getting a little out of line. I heard the member talk about how we are trying to impede things, and that we are negative. However, if I was trying to sell a motion, I would stand up and talk about the merits of the motion. He did not say one good thing about the motion except that we are over here opposing it. I think there are a few things on the go. There might a little bit of heat on the Prime Minister. I would ask my hon. colleague why the Liberals want the ability to shut Parliament down just like that?

138 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

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

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

May/2/22 6:27:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will try to elevate the debate in the House and move away from irony and accusations. I agree with some of the criticisms that my Liberal colleague has levelled against the Conservatives, but I would like to steer him towards other topics. I would like to hear his thoughts on the three points I am about to raise. Is this motion not designed to make up for his government's lax management of the agenda? The government prorogued the House, called an election and took months to recall the House. Medical assistance in dying is a fundamental issue. To include the MAID committee in a motion like this is unacceptable. The government claims it wants to save time. That was just brought up. I will explain to my colleague what the possibility of a closure motion means. I will predict what will happen. When my prediction comes true, I would like my colleague to acknowledge it. At the end of the session, the government will put an end to all this, probably before June 23, by putting a bunch of legislation in a closure motion without any debate. That is not what I call democracy. Everyone wants to work for the time we spend in the House from evening until midnight. That is why we are all here. Moreover, I think that we are not moving quickly most of the time, and we are taking up committee resources. Just today, a committee meeting was cancelled.

249 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

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

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

May/2/22 6:29:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have to say that nobody does indignance in the House quite like the hon. member who just gave his speech. I appreciate him for that because I share some of it. Quite frankly, at committee there have been lots of opportunities where the opposition parties have worked hard to hold the government to account, yet it seems that every time we are in this House, the political impotence of the Conservatives and the Bloc, who have been missing in action, quite frankly, for the last three years, rears its ugly head, and they try to grind this process to a halt. Could the hon. member please elaborate and expand upon just what is at stake in these upcoming weeks for Canadians and Quebeckers, in order for us to deliver it to them during this time of a COVID recovery?

142 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

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

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

May/2/22 6:31:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in this motion, section (e) talks about the final report for the special committee on MAID. I was curious if the parliamentary secretary would share some of his thinking on why this extension is required.

37 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

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

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

May/2/22 6:32:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the member for Kingston and the Islands' speech because he highlighted a lot of the hypocrisy that we have seen in this House. My question to him is about the fact that the Conservatives claim they want more time. They complain about closure motions. They say they want more time to speak, yet we are debating a motion that would allow them to have as many speakers as they need to have on any given issue. Perhaps the member for Kingston and the Islands could comment about the fact that this motion provides more opportunities in this place for democratic debate to happen and why he thinks the Conservatives are so afraid of that.

119 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

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

Mr. Clifford Small (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, CPC)

May/2/22 6:33:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is not another member in the House who loves healthy debate more than my hon. colleague. He is on his feet every chance he gets. He absolutely relishes it. I ask my hon. colleague this. Does he want to take healthy debate out of democracy?

48 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/22 6:35:35 p.m.
Watch

Is the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes rising on a point of order?

20 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

May/2/22 6:35:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. I wanted to draw the attention of all members in the House to the fourth anniversary of the passing of my predecessor and hon. member of this place, the late Gord Brown, who served as the MP for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes from November 2004 to 2018. He was the husband of Claudine, the father of Chance and Tristan. He was a friend to all members of this place. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to mark his passing four years ago today.

100 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/22 6:36:22 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

10 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 62