SoVote

That is part of the debate we are having. I believe we have quorum, and I said that, so thank you for that intervention. Questions and comments. I believe the parliamentary secretary was just finishing up his thought or going to be responding to the question.

46 words

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22

Mr. Brad Redekopp

Nov/15/22 12:21:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I hate to be a nag but it looks like we do not have quorum in the House.

25 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/15/22 12:21:31 p.m.
Watch

I will call for quorum, so let us start the count. And the count having been taken: The Deputy Speaker: There we go. I believe we have quorum.

28 words

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/15/22 12:21:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would just point out that there are several Liberals who contribute to this quorum but virtually no Conservatives.

26 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/15/22 12:22:41 p.m.
Watch

I know we do this in laughter. We are not supposed to point out the absence of members or whether or not members are in the chamber. The quorum call should be just that: We count the members who are here to make sure that we have quorum; it is not to underline who is and who is not here. I am looking at the time that we need to get the number of speakers in. I know the member for Davenport was wrapping up her thoughts. She has about two minutes and 53 seconds left. I think she was starting to wrap up. She had a couple of great ideas there, so I was looking forward to the rest of her discourse. The hon. member for Davenport.

128 words

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22

Hon. Mark Holland

Nov/15/22 3:37:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I have to confess that in all the time since I was elected in 2014, I have never heard such a passionate plea for quorum. I am very glad the member opposite is so passionate about quorum. It is available every single day in the normal operating hours of the House. It is available every single operating day. The second point she made is a very important point, which is that every member in the House is elected to represent their constituents and to be able to voice their concerns, which is why I am also puzzled as to why she would be against extending the hours so she can do the thing she just said she wanted to do. Moreover, if we want to talk about our constituents, let us take a bill like Bill S-5. My hon. colleague spoke to it earlier. We spent six days on a bill that has unanimous support. Every day, we would ask how much more time the Conservatives would need, and they would say, “Oh, we do not know. We will see.” The next day, we would ask how much more time they would need. “We do not know. We will see.” The next day, we would ask how much time they would need. “We do not know. We will see.” Then we have to go to committee. Then we have third reading. We have report stage. This is done at every single stage, and this is for a bill they support. I would ask the hon. member opposite how she goes back and explains to her constituents that she is wasting days and days of House time.

285 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Nov/15/22 4:49:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would draw the attention of the deputy House leader for the Liberal Party to the constitutional requirement for quorum in the House. Quorum is what is being suspended under this motion. That is the violation of the Constitution that would happen. That is what is undemocratic. Would the member support the Conservative amendment that would ensure that the work of committees is protected, to ensure there is a guarantee by the Clerk of the House that the work of committees would be uninterrupted by the coalition's attempt to silence the work of the opposition that Canadians have sent here? Will he support that critical amendment?

109 words

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Nov/15/22 4:58:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Trois-Rivières. I will answer the question the Conservatives asked about having quorum in the House and it being in the Constitution. The unfortunate reality for the Conservative member who asked the question is that he should know that he has participated in unanimous consent motions in the House to waive that provision in the past. He has already set the precedent himself, so has the Conservative Party and, as a matter of fact, every single person in the House has set the precedent to waive the requirements for quorum. We cannot be selective as to when we want to interpret the Constitution to our benefit, which is what the Conservatives are trying to do now. The reality is that there is been a long-standing precedent to waive the requirement for quorum under certain conditions, and that is exactly what we are seeing in this motion. There is the same consistency that comes with that. However, I think what we really have to do with this motion is get to the heart of what is going on. At the heart is the Conservatives' partisan interest and allowing that to supersede the needs of Canadians. That is exactly what is going on here, and I will demonstrate in my speech today how they have routinely done that, not over the last seven years of my being in the House and watching it, although they have done it over the seven years, but five examples just in this fall session alone when they have done that. They have done it on multiple occasions using multiple different tools. Any individual who has participated in or is well versed in how the Westminster parliamentary system works knows that the one tool the opposition has is to delay. That is its sole tool, and it is important for the opposition to exercise the use of that tool when it can to garner support, or whatever it might be, when they find those issues to be so important. When the opposition feels the issue is the hill it will die on, it will fight, delay and filibuster if it has to, because it feels something is not right. That is the main tool opposition parties have in a parliamentary system like this. The problem is that Conservatives are using it all the time. They are using that tool for everything. They are saying absolutely every piece of legislation that comes before the House is a hill they will die on, and the problem is that this diminishes the value of the tool they have. It also affects directly, and this is what I do not understand, their credibility on the issue. When they stand up to delay things they are fully in support of, do they not understand that the public sees that? They are doing the same thing, and their partisan interest in seeing the government fail is more important to them than actually providing supports for Canadians. Let us review some of the legislation from this fall alone. With Bill C-29, the truth and reconciliation bill, the Conservative Party blocked a motion to sit late to try to pass the bill at second reading before the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, which is what the government, and I think all Canadians, would have loved to have seen. It was not until pressure was mounted on them by the public that they backed down from that position. Another one was Bill C-30, the GST tax credit. This is a bill that needed to be passed in a timely manner to get real supports to Canadians. They were real supports for Canadians that needed to be done in a timely fashion to line up with when the GST payments were made. The Conservatives, again, blocked a motion to sit late on the second reading of that important piece of legislation. They only backed down again and changed their minds on how they would vote on that particular piece of legislation based on public criticism and the public holding them accountable for playing the games they are playing. That is the reality of what we are seeing. Bill C-31 is the bill that afforded very important measures regarding dental care and housing supports. The Conservative Party, again, blocked the adoption of the legislation to help the most vulnerable, forcing the government, with the help of the NDP, to have a programming motion to get it passed, and this is what we see time after time. The next is Bill C-9, which would amend the Judges Act, and I will remind members this is all happened during this fall session alone. We had technical issues with interpretation with that bill. The Conservatives are always standing up and using the interpreters as one of their arguments for making sure we have the best quality of debate in the House. When there was a problem with interpretation, which delayed the debate of the bill, the Conservatives refused to support a motion to add time to the debate that day. The Conservatives say that they want more time to debate. We literally said that we lost 30 minutes of time because of a problem and we had to temporarily suspend, so how about we add that 30 minutes onto the end of the day. The Conservatives said no. This is the group that is now sitting before us saying that they are in favour of doing absolutely everything to increase democracy and that they want more speakers on every issue. The one glaring example of this happening in this fall session was with Bill S-5. The bill is on environmental protections, and it is a bill everybody in the House supported. It was unanimously adopted. Conservatives put up 27 speakers on it. I want to provide a comparison for those who might be watching. Compared to that number, Liberals put up six speakers, the NDP put up four speakers, the Bloc put up five speakers and the Green Party put up one speaker. What is even more telling is that, if someone goes back to look at Hansard or watch the videos—

1043 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22

Mrs. Laila Goodridge

Nov/15/22 5:05:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think it is rather ironic that we are here debating a motion that is going to limit much of our capacity here. I sit here in this chamber, and I believe we do not have quorum.

39 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/15/22 5:05:45 p.m.
Watch

If the hon. member is raising a point on quorum, she needs to raise that point and not be part of the debate. I will double check to see if we have quorum. And the count having been taken: The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): We currently have quorum in the House. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

57 words

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22

Mr. Larry Brock

Nov/15/22 5:07:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We do not have quorum.

14 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/15/22 5:07:22 p.m.
Watch

The member is calling for quorum. I will check with the clerks. And the count having been taken: The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): We do have quorum in the House at the moment. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

44 words

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/15/22 5:15:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am sorry if the member finds something insulting. What I find insulting, quite frankly, is that when we are trying to participate in debate, which is the reason we come to this House to represent Canadians, Conservatives and the Bloc, by the member's own admission a few moments ago, would decide that it is funny to stand up and walk out of the room in order to force a quorum call. Is that why he thinks people elected him to come here, to play little games like that and skirt around procedural rules? Does he really think that is what his purpose in this House is?

110 words

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Nov/15/22 5:16:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on the subject of quorum calls, I was troubled to see the other night during a quorum call that it was clear there were members in the lobby who did not come out. I looked at the Standing Orders, and we have no standing order that requires a member of Parliament who is within a few steps of the chamber to show up when there is a quorum call. Would the hon. member agree with me that PROC should have a look at this to see whether we should add to our Standing Orders that when there is a quorum call, the assumption when those rules were written was that any member who was ambulatory would get in and get to their seat, because there was a stronger sense of duty in those days? I wonder if we should have PROC look at it.

146 words

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22

Ms. Marilyn Gladu

Nov/15/22 6:25:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-293

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have quorum in the House.

12 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/15/22 6:25:39 p.m.
Watch

There is a quorum call, so we will do a count. And the count having been taken: The Deputy Speaker: We do have quorum. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

33 words

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/15/22 6:26:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-293

Mr. Speaker, quorum does not necessarily reflect that on the entire other side of the House—

17 words

All Topics