SoVote

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

Nov/15/22 5:09:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not even really need to say much more, other than that the people watching at home have witnessed what just happened in this House. They are seeing first-hand on their TV screens, or wherever they happen to be watching this, the games that Conservatives will play and, guess what, the Bloc Québécois is right there with them playing these games, too. If anybody in this House really needs a reason as to why we need the motion that we are going to vote on later this evening, they need look no further than the games that the Conservatives and the Bloc are playing while I am speaking. That is the reality of the situation. They can laugh and chuckle and give me the thumbs-up like they are doing, but it is very clear what is going on. I will go back to where I started, and that is this obtuse idea that the Conservatives are somehow trying to suggest that there is less democracy as a result of sitting late. I am sorry, but if Conservatives thought when they were elected that this was a nine-to-five job, they were mistaken. I would encourage—

206 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/15/22 5:10:53 p.m.
Watch

There seem to be some discussions going back and forth. I do not have my speakers on, but the hon. member has a boisterous voice and I can still hear the heckling and discussions going on. I would remind members that if they want to have conversations, they should take them outside. If they want to heckle, I would ask them to wait until it is time for questions and comments. They will have a better opportunity to be heard at that time. The hon. parliamentary secretary has one minute to finish his speech before we get to the interesting part of questions and comments.

105 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/15/22 5:11:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was just going to conclude by saying that if Conservatives thought when they were elected that this was a nine-to-five job, they were mistaken. I am sure there are a lot of opportunities for them to have a nine-to-five job and contribute to society in a way other than being in the House, and perhaps they want to explore those opportunities, but the reality of the situation is that democracy does not end at five o'clock. This is not a nine-to-five job, and we have to be prepared to work later into the evening when it is going to directly benefit Canadians, which is the reality of a lot of the measures that have been brought forward this fall alone that the Conservatives have routinely held up. I hope my Bloc friends, who sometimes can see the light, can come around on this issue, see the importance of this and vote in favour of it, because I know this is what Canadians and Quebeckers are expecting of them.

178 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Nov/15/22 5:12:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to correct the record, because the parliamentary secretary said a number of things that are not true. First of all, I am certainly a hard-working individual, and I do not mind working as many hours as are needed to get the job done. He said that the opposition has only one tool, and that is delay, when there is a bill that it feels is not going to be good for Canada, but there are just so many terrible pieces of legislation being brought forward. However, I would point out that Conservatives are not obstructing. In fact, we voted to move Bill C-30 quickly to committee. We voted to move the conversion therapy bill right through first, second and third reading. On truth and reconciliation, it is really rich, when the Prime Minister goes surfing on the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, that Liberals could say we are trying to be obstructionist. Would the member agree that he needs to correct the record?

170 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/15/22 5:13:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, if I were to take the member at her word in what she is saying, that Conservatives are genuinely using that delay tool only for the purpose of bills they are in opposition to, she would then have to explain to me why they delayed Bill S-5 and forced the government to add more and more days so they could speak to Bill S-5 and never even scratch the surface of talking about the bill. If the member wants to find one or two bills that they happened to move along a little more quickly to try to somehow justify their actions, it certainly does not sit well with those who are watching, looking at this holistically and realizing that what Conservatives have been doing routinely is delay, delay, delay.

134 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Nov/15/22 5:14:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I found it very amusing just now when this part of the House emptied out, and suddenly, we saw the other side of the House come in. Now we know what was needed to make the Liberals come to work in the House. All it took was a call for quorum. To me, it was like lifting up a rock. I think members will understand the image. I find it a little insulting to hear the Bloc being called lazy. We are always ready to work. We are there for our constituents, and we come to work when we are asked to. If the House decides to extend sitting hours to midnight certain evenings, we will be there and we will be there in person. I challenge my Liberal colleagues to also be there in person. That said, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question. Let us say that we could justify extending sitting hours until December 16. Why do they want to extend them until June, the end of the spring session? What reason could there be for applying this measure in February, March, April and May? I would really like to have a sensible answer to this question.

206 words

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

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

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/15/22 5:16:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we should certainly be looking at this issue. It is also important to reflect on the fact that the Conservatives are not just doing it to the Liberals. They are doing it to the Green member too. I was here that night, when they did the exact same thing to her in the middle of her speech. Should we look at a way to try to resolve this issue? Yes, I think we should, or we could just expect everybody to be adults and not play those games.

90 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Nov/15/22 5:17:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for sharing his time with me. That was very kind of him. Voters did not elect a majority government. Had they wanted to, they would have done so in 2019 or 2021, but they did not. They chose a minority government. However, the current false, hybrid, patchwork majority is an unholy alliance resulting from the NDP's renunciation of its fundamental values in exchange for a promise. I have some advice for my NDP friends. They should be aware that all of the promises this government makes are for the future, which is understandable, but of course it makes them in the conditional form, never in the present tense. It is important to be aware of that because there is a good chance that many of these promises will end up in the graveyard of good intentions. An intention is a promise that is not strong enough to be achieved. An intention is basically a false promise. When someone says that they had good intentions, their intentions were not good enough because they never resulted in action. Government Business No. 22 is what I would describe as a rogue motion. It is a hold-up of democracy. The motion shows that the current government does not like to govern with an involved Parliament. To avoid having to do so, it does not hesitate to violate the spirit of the rules of the House. Let us not forget that these rules are the culmination of the past wisdom of previous governments. Government Business No. 22 is detrimental to the legitimacy of the government. Some claim that Parliament is currently ungovernable. Ungovernable, no, unpleasant maybe, but not ungovernable. The government has introduced 36 bills, 19 of which have gone through every stage, 16 of those received royal assent and three are at the Senate; seven bills are being studied at committee, 10 others are at second reading, and so on. Thirty-six bills is not bad. It is not ungovernable. Things might not be going at the pace that some would like. That may be unpleasant. Why does the government want to muzzle the opposition? It claims this is urgent. Urgency is a convenient pretext. Philosophically speaking, urgency does not exist. It is simply a characteristic that individuals choose to assign to an event. Urgency does not exist. Here, the person who chose to assign that characteristic to the event is the Leader of the Government. Urgency is subjective, not objective. Urgency is something that is decided, it is our own view. The Bloc Québécois does not agree with this subjectivity. Subjectivity is about the subject, it is about the individual examining something. The thing I am examining is an object. It is said to be objective. Clearly, depending on where I am in relation to the object, it will have one hue rather than another. It is an interpretation, not the truth. Therefore, urgency does not exist. The only justification that I can see for Government Business No. 22 is an open devotion to ignoring the Standing Orders. The motion will prevent members from discussing issues together because not everyone will be there. Ultimately, having discussions together is the very essence of parliaments. Government Business No. 22 will force us to give monologues and not have dialogue, and yet, dialogue is the only way to build an objective and not a subjective argument. I will repeat that this motion is a hold-up of the House and its activities. Why are they doing this? Why are they moving a motion such as this? Everyone here knows that there is no point in asking “how” without asking “why”, so I have to ask, why? The only valid answer I have found in my heart of hearts and in consultation with my eminent colleagues is that the government prefers to govern in absentia, as they say in Latin, leaving members to fill the void in the evenings, at the whims of the government House leader and another party's House leader, I might add. I cannot imagine who the leader of the other party will be, but that mystery should be solved soon. Of course, as parliamentarians, it is our job to sit. I am not arguing that. Our work is planned so that we can put forward our respective points of view. Sittings cannot be improvised at the whim of the government House leader. In 1982, the House adopted the principle of a sessional calendar. It cannot be flouted at every sitting. Government Business No. 22 allows the government to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. Those are very wise philosophical words. I do not remember who said that; it could have been Plato, Aristotle or Martin Champoux. I am sorry, I should have said the member for Drummond. Anyway, Motion No. 22 is an unethical decision based on the interest of one, not all. Motion No. 22 disregards the public interest by cutting off debate rather than enabling dialogue. The purpose of a parliament is to bring people together, to foster dialogue, to be constructive. Motion No. 22 says no to all that. I listened to the member for Kingston and the Islands' passionate speech, and I look forward to hearing members opposite defend the indefensible, because Motion No. 22 is indefensible. I will end there. I am happy to answer questions.

913 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Nov/15/22 5:23:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I understand my colleague's concerns with moving time allocation and moving forward on this, but I am curious. It was not very long ago that the Bloc supported time allocation on Bill C-10, when we were debating that in the House, when we were seeing the Conservatives do everything they could to stop the important work that needed to be done for Canadians, to make sure that Canadian broadcasting was protected. We were updating our broadcasting legislation. At that point, the Bloc supported time allocation. It seems like the Bloc members are saying it is a massive overreach but also that it is a massive overreach they can support when it is in their interests. I am wondering how the Bloc members square that circle.

129 words

Mr. René Villemure

Nov/15/22 5:24:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for that excellent question. It is important to distinguish between an exception and a precedent. An exception is something that happens only once and must not happen again. That is what happened with Bill C‑10 because there was so much pressure from Quebec's cultural sector, and protecting that culture was the right thing to do. A precedent is something that has already been set; it is there, we see it, and it will happen again. This practice should not be allowed to happen again, period.

95 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Nov/15/22 5:24:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. Is he concerned that committee work will be disrupted as a result of this motion?

24 words

Mr. René Villemure

Nov/15/22 5:25:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her excellent question. We cannot immediately gauge all the negative effects that could arise, but we do know that there is a possibility that committee work will be disrupted, which would be unfortunate.

40 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/15/22 5:25:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we should look at the core of what we are debating today and think about it. Opposition members often say that they want to have more time to debate legislation. If this motion passes, it will provide additional hours for members of Parliament to debate. The opposition is asking for more time and we are giving them exactly that, so that more MPs will be able to speak. Can the member speculate as to why the Conservative Party would oppose such a motion?

85 words

Mr. René Villemure

Nov/15/22 5:26:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I cannot answer the member for Winnipeg North on behalf of the Conservative Party. However, I will respond on my own behalf and on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. We could be grateful for the amount of time we are allotted, but what we need in order to build the society we want is quality time. For me, here, quantity is not as important as quality.

72 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Nov/15/22 5:26:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I would like to ask for an apology from the member for Trois‑Rivières, who made the mistake of referring to me by my name rather than by the name of my riding of Drummond. I was thinking of rising on a point of order, but I will let it go this time. I wanted to raise the issue of our interpreters' schedules in the context of the decision that the government is preparing to make with the help of our NDP colleagues. There will definitely be repercussions on the work and the schedules that we need to organize with the House of Commons interpreters. What is more, the government has decided to apply this measure until June 23, which includes all of the winter and spring months. I would like to hear what my colleague from Trois‑Rivières has to say about that because, earlier, the member for Kingston and the Islands chose not to answer my question.

172 words

Mr. René Villemure

Nov/15/22 5:27:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his question. It seems excessive, unjustified and unjustifiable to apply this measure until June 23. One of the negative consequences that was mentioned earlier is the fact that the work of committees will be compromised, but there are others. Members were elected to sit and that is what we will do. However, quite honestly, this measure places a pointless and unwarranted burden on other staff, such as the pages, interpreters and other House employees.

84 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Nov/15/22 5:28:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Here we are again with another draconian motion by the Liberal government. I have been a member of Parliament for seven years, and I want to talk a bit about the history of the Liberal government trying to shut down debate and shut down scrutiny at committee. Let us start at the very beginning with Motion No. 6. Motion No. 6 is the identical motion to the motion we have here, and in between, there was another motion that was very similar as well, Motion No. 11. If anyone gets the mathematical irony, Motion No. 22 is twice as bad as Motion No. 11. In the short time I have, I want to rebut something the member for New Westminster—Burnaby said in his speech. He talked about how he is going to support this great motion and called out other parties. On May 19, 2016, the CBC reported that the member said the motion was fundamentally anti-democratic and showed a greater disrespect than we had seen developing for weeks. That is what the member for New Westminster—Burnaby said in 2016, so I am not sure when the moral compass was lost or what is different when the motions are so similar. Let us go back in time to 2016 with Motion No. 6. I will set the stage. There was the MAID, medical assistance in dying, legislation and the courts had prescribed a date by which it was due. The government was very angry that numerous amendments had to be brought because the legislation was so terrible. We were there to vote on these multiple amendments. It was not starting as quickly as the Prime Minister wanted it to start and he became very angry. He came over and grabbed the late Gordon Brown and tried to shove him, but he accidentally “elbowgated” another member, Ruth Ellen Brosseau. That was the introduction of the first draconian motion, and we see that bad behaviour continues. Then we get to Motion No. 11, forcing folks to sit until midnight, but not everybody. Nobody in the NDP or the Liberal Party had to show up. They could be in their PJs in their beds. They just wanted to keep the opposition busy talking without an audience until midnight night after night. Obviously, I do not have an issue talking until midnight. However, I am being told that I have to stop talking now.

419 words

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/15/22 5:31:02 p.m.
Watch

When we come back to the motion, the member for Sarnia—Lambton will have seven minutes to express her thoughts. It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

47 words