SoVote

Marty Morantz

Member of Parliament
Member of Parliament
Conservative

Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley
Manitoba
Voting Attendance: 66%
Expenses Last Quarter: $99,486.97

Government Page

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

Mr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC)

Nov/15/22 4:57:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to read this into the record. This is section 48 of the Constitution Act, 1867. It says: The Presence of at least Twenty Members of the House of Commons shall be necessary to constitute a Meeting of the House for the Exercise of its Powers, and for that Purpose the Speaker shall be reckoned as a Member. Does the hon. member understand that he is advocating for the passage of a motion which is in direct conflict with the Constitution of Canada?

87 words

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

Mr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC)

Nov/15/22 3:33:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a very serious question. I believe our colleague across the way is an hon. member of the House. It is a very serious question, and I would like a serious answer. It has to do with the Constitution of Canada, and I know the Liberals get very upset when they see other levels of government tinkering around the edges of the Constitution, yet the motion before us would take away the constitutionally required law that there be 20 members in the House at all times. Why is the Liberal government so cavalier about simply ignoring the Constitution when it is convenient for them, but so adamant that it is a terrible thing when other orders of government see it the same way?

126 words

Context: House Hansard - 4 - Nov/25/21

Mr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC)

Nov/25/21 6:35:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to debate very carefully today and member after member on the government side has stood and said that this motion is about COVID, it is about protecting MPs, protecting the public and that is why we should have a virtual option. However, my problem is that when I read the motion, it does not say that. It does not say that members can Zoom in if they are diagnosed with COVID. It does not say that members can Zoom in if they have been in proximity of someone who has had COVID or has had to self-isolate. It does not say any of those things. It just says that any member can Zoom in for any reason. I am wondering if the intention is, and I take my colleague at his word, that if members have one of those conditions, if they are diagnosed with COVID, been in proximity or had an alert, that under those circumstances they can Zoom in, and not for any reason?

173 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 4 - Nov/25/21

Mr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC)

Nov/25/21 4:08:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise for the first time after being re-elected by the great people of Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley. I am happy to be back live and in person in this amazing place. I have been listening carefully to the speeches today and almost, without exception, everyone supporting the motion is saying that if somebody gets COVID, has been near somebody who has COVID or received an alert that he or she has had a brush with COVID, the member should not be disenfranchised and should be able to participate virtually. There is some logic to that, but the fact is that is not what the motion says at all. The motion says that any member can participate virtually or in-person for any reason. Does the member not think the motion is simply too broad and if the government is sincere in wanting members to be able to participate virtually because they are ill or might become ill, the motion should simply say that?

175 words

All Topics

SoVote

Member of Parliament

Marty Morantz