SoVote

May/19/22 11:42:23 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by telling my colleague from Thornhill that I think she is a very dynamic person and that I think highly of her. I hope she will not take offence at the comments I am about to make. On the last Bloc opposition day, my Conservative colleagues talked a lot about the relevance of our motion, which had to do with prayer. They wondered why we had raised that subject at a time when no one was talking about prayer and when, in their opinion, we should have been talking about inflation and gas prices. I am therefore surprised that my Conservative colleagues have not put forward any motions on gas prices or inflation on their last two opposition days. I do not hold it against them, but I would like to do the same for them. I may not talk about the relevance of their motion, but I would like to talk about their intent. What is my Conservative colleagues' intention? What is motivating them today to call on the government to immediately revert to pre‑pandemic rules and service levels for travel? First, I believe that, before we can immediately revert to prepandemic rules, we must necessarily rely on public health guidance. Here, I would like to make a first distinction. On the one hand, there is the science and public health objectives, which involve establishing truths that are sometimes difficult to establish, especially during a pandemic. On the other hand, there is political partisanship or the desire to promote a political ideology, which often involves advancing a political agenda. In my view, the purpose of the motion before us today is to advance the political agenda of the Conservatives rather than really determining whether the public health situation permits a full reopening and the lifting of certain measures. I do not want to hurt the feelings of my Conservative friends, because, after all, I am a caring person. That said, the reason why I am talking about the Conservative political agenda is because I think that there is a phenomenon that is plaguing my Conservatives colleagues, and that is populism. There seems to be a form of populism embedded in Conservative Party rhetoric, and the proof of that is in the favourite topics of the member for Carleton, whom I admire. In the cut and thrust of debate, the member for Carleton is exciting and interesting, and we want to hear him, but, unfortunately, the issues that he brings up often relate to some form of populism. I am thinking of all his speeches about the need to take back control of our lives. I will come back to that later. I do not know what other people are going through, but I for one have not lost control of my life. I may have lost control of my weight, but sooner or later I will be able to get that back under control. However, I have not lost control of my life. I am also thinking of that word “justinflation” that the member for Carleton is always mentioning, and, of course, his rhetoric about freedom. Shouting “freedom” four or five times does not necessarily imply an understanding of that concept. I could refer to some concepts of freedom—

555 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 75 - May/19/22

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

May/19/22 3:04:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 37(2), my question is for the spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy: the member for Red Deer—Lacombe. Last fall, a question of privilege was raised in the House about troubling allegations of Liberal partisanship by the Clerk of the House, benefiting the government with insider tips and helpful arrangements. The Chair ruled that the Board of Internal Economy was seized with the matter, so it was better placed to address the allegations. Since then, the board has held eight meetings, but there have been no reports, no consequences, no investigations and no news whatsoever. Can the spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy please update the House?

117 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 75 - May/19/22

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC)

May/19/22 3:05:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for reminding me about that rule. As he may know, the board is required by law to discuss employment and legal matters in private, so I cannot say what, if anything, has been decided or discussed at those eight meetings. I would note, though, that the board's July minutes, which have been tabled in the House, indicate that my predecessor asked for an internal review but that the board did not approve. Of course, my friend is experienced and savvy about Parliament and would know that the board works on a consensus basis, so if any single political party were to veto taking action on the allegations of Liberal partisanship, there would be no board action or decision to report.

128 words

All Topics