44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 22, 2023 01:00PM
- Mar/22/23 10:09:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I think this is a question of the quality of our democracy. If, in the House of Commons, we were to switch to speeches back and forth, as opposed to debate with questions and answers, I think the level of accountability on all sides would be reduced. I ask you to rule on this very fair point of order.
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:10:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
This is not out of order. These are points of debate from people who are angry about how things have transpired this evening. The parliamentary secretary to the House leader is here. The government whip is here. Maybe I am not supposed to refer to their presence. If the members on the Liberal side want to talk about amending the Standing Orders, that is actually what needs to happen here. There is no violation of the Standing Orders happening here. This is simply a waste of time, which we are used to from the member who is about to speak.
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:11:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
First of all, it is not questions. It is questions and comments. Five minutes of comments should be allowed if the individual is no longer in the House. Standing Order 43(c) says, “Except as provided in Standing Orders 95, 97.1(2)(c)(i) and 126(1)(a), following any 10-minute speech, a period not exceeding five minutes shall be made available...to allow members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto.”
What needs to happen is that the Conservatives need to realize that they were outwitted by the NDP today, suck it up, call it a day and move on. Tomorrow is a new day.
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:11:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think we should recall that at one time in the House of Commons there was a period without questions and comments. It was not until the McGrath committee report of the 1980s that Parliament adopted the practice of having questions and answers after comments.
If we look at certain provincial legislatures, like the legislature in Manitoba, they do not have the practice of questions and comments. The McGrath committee found that parliamentary debate would be far better if members were asked questions after their speeches. It was due to a very deliberate attempt to improve the quality of debate, by the McGrath committee in 1989, that we have questions and comments.
Unless we are going to study the issue and change our Standing Orders, I do not think members should go back on an important reflection of members at that time. It has been the tradition, up until now, to have meaningful debate in the chamber by having questions and comments, and that is what members are doing. Whether they are leaving the chamber or whether they are just stupefied, which I can believe with some members on the Conservative bench, and they choose to stay in their place—
210 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:13:01 p.m.
- Watch
I will read from the Standing Orders. I will complete the clause that says, “Following any speech by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, a minister moving a government order, or the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister, and following any 20-minute speech, a period not exceeding 10 minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto.”
Bosc and Gagnon state, “If the questions and comments period is interrupted by another proceeding, when debate resumes on the motion, the questions and comments period will continue only if the Member who made the initial speech is present.”
There is also a ruling from 1986 that I can go and dig up, if people want.
As much as I am uncomfortable with what is going on here tonight, I believe there is a small piece of input from the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:14:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I just have a question. Was the time between the end of the speech and the beginning of Q and A interrupted by other business of the House?
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:14:32 p.m.
- Watch
No.
I did reference “if available”. Whether I say if somebody is in the House or not means whether they are available and whether they can.
I am not the debater of what is required and what is not in this particular case. Folks, I am going to move on to the next speaker, which is the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:15:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague who asked me if I will hang around to answer questions: absolutely. It is about accountability. At least the Liberal Party of Canada stands for accountability, transparency and so forth.
We have seen a demonstration, and it has happened to me personally today twice, where a Conservative stood in his place and delivered his speech and I wanted to ask him a question, but I could not. One was the former speaker, the official opposition House leader.
It is not a reflection on the rules, but I would encourage members, in particular from the Conservative Party, to please understand that there is a tradition of a higher sense of accountability. If they say something in the chamber, they should at least provide members the opportunity to challenge, comment or ask a question. I have witnessed this first-hand as a parliamentarian in the House of Commons, but this is the first time that I have actually been stood up twice when I asked a question of a Conservative and they did not have the courage—
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:16:09 p.m.
- Watch
I believe we have another point of order. It is a point of order night. You guys are great.
The hon. member for Brantford—Brant.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:16:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, before the commencement of the speech from the member opposite, there was a brief exchange between me and I believe the member opposite for Milton. Under his breath, he called me an “asshole”. Therefore, I would be asking for a full apology and a retraction.
An hon. member: Is it true?
Mr. Larry Brock: Now I have heard from the NDP that it is true, so I would like—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:16:39 p.m.
- Watch
All right. Order.
Everybody can sit down. I am just trying to bring the temperature down here a little bit. We are going to take a second.
The member for Elmwood—Transcona.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:17:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I just want to reassure my colleague that I did not say that it was true; I asked if it was true.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:17:18 p.m.
- Watch
Okay, that is a clarification.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:17:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I just do not understand. Is he saying the accusation is true or that it is true that the member for Milton said it? I think there is a big difference there, and we really want to know and understand.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:17:37 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Milton.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:17:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that the member and I had an exchange. However, what I said was: “Aren't you a lawyer?”
Now, I understand the word he said is sometimes confused with the word “lawyer”. However, I did not use the term that he said. It is unparliamentary language. I apologize if I offended the member, but I did not use that word.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:18:08 p.m.
- Watch
I do not know if that was any better, but there you go.
While I recognize the late hour and the energy that everybody seems to be experiencing, I want to make sure that everybody has the opportunity to speak and be heard when they have that opportunity.
Right now, the floor is to the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader with eight minutes and 57 seconds left.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:18:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to get into the reality of the Conservative opposition motion that they are talking about today. We have to put it in proper perspective.
Over the last number of months, there has been a great deal of canvassing. The Prime Minister often says that Ottawa is a great place to be, and one has to bring the issues and the concerns of the constituents in one's ridings to Ottawa.
I can assure those who are following the debate that we bring a wide variety of different types of issues from out in our communities to Ottawa. We do this to ensure that we reflect what Canadians want to see.
The Conservatives are really focused on things like character assassination. In contrast, we are concerned about making sure that we have the backs of Canadians.
I say that because today they want to talk about beer and wine tax. There is no doubt that beer, alcohol, is a very important issue. I do not question that. However, when I do the math, I think it works out to about 15¢ or 16¢ on a case of 24 beers. That is what they want to talk about.
That is an opposition day. They get a few every year. I would suggest that if we were to listen to someone like me, who likes to respond to what my constituents are talking about, they talk about a wide variety of issues of great concern, whether it is inflation, health care or the environment. The list goes on.
By the way, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Strathcona.
I can assure everyone that there is a great number of issues. However, the Conservatives want to talk about taxes. They are being selective. One of the very first things we did in government, back in 2015 when Canadians kicked out Stephen Harper, was to reduce the tax for the middle class.
How did the Conservatives respond to that reduction, that legislation that reduced the tax for Canada's middle class? They ran. They voted against it.
We also increased the tax for Canada's wealthiest 1% of people. Once again, how did we see the Conservative Party vote? It voted against that too.
Let us fast-forward, right from the beginning to where we are today. It was not that long ago, three or four months, maybe five, that the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, said we want to provide additional tax relief for Canadians. We brought in legislation to say that we are going to double the GST rebate temporarily for the next six months.
Originally, the Conservatives actually opposed that tax initiative. In fairness, it took a little bit of shaming, quite a while, but at the end of the day, they actually flip-flopped. I say it somewhat candidly, but I compliment them on their change of heart.
I am glad, because that tax break that we provided, if we relate it to this one, would buy hundreds of bottles of beer, that one break. At the end of the day, we understand the benefits and the drawbacks of what is happening in our communities from a taxation perspective.
They are talking specifically about alcohol and beer. We are all concerned about that issue. We have a budget coming up awfully soon. I know that I am getting anxious about it; maybe there might even be the odd Conservative who is getting anxious about it. We anticipate that there is going to be a wide spectrum of issues dealt with in that budget.
For years, I have been a very strong advocate, for example, on the health care file. Health care, I have argued in the past, is part of our Canadian core identity. I would suggest that it might have been more advantageous to talk about the health care issue based on what the Conservative Party has been talking about for the last few days, something Canadians are genuinely concerned about: the recognition of credentials and how we get more health care workers, whether doctors, nurses or support workers, into the system.
Conservatives might not fully understand jurisdictional responsibilities and things of that nature. They might be trying to intentionally mislead people in terms of what they could be capable of doing, especially if we look at the history of the Conservative Party. It is not very good when it comes to health care; I can assure everyone of that.
At the end of the day—
760 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:24:47 p.m.
- Watch
There is a point of order by the hon. member for Pickering—Uxbridge.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:24:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are heckling. I would encourage them, if they have questions or concerns, to ask them. The opportunity is there. I would welcome them asking questions instead of running out.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
