- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Barrie—Innisfil
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $99,360.72
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This is the 37th time allocation motion that the NDP has supported thus far, showing that it is yet again a willing partner to the Liberals, aiding and abetting them in pushing time allocation.
I did a little research comparing this NDP to the more historically principled NDP, from Tommy Douglas to Thomas Mulcair, and over the span of 17 Parliaments, it only supported time allocation and closure 14 times, averaging 1.2 times per Parliament. Here we are, for the 37th time, with the NDP supporting time allocation. Tommy Douglas must be rolling over in his grave.
Five hours of debate is all we have had on this consequential piece of legislation. Why?
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, once again we are seeing the hammer drop. It is on Bill C-21 this time, which further strengthens our resolve. You and I are unfortunate to have a front row seat to the further decline in democracy in this place and another attack on the institution of Parliament.
There has been three hours and 24 minutes of debate on this bill, which is a very substantive bill. Just last week, the Conservatives made an offer to the government: split the bill so we can work on portions of it that we can support, such as domestic violence and other matters within the bill. That was rejected by the government.
This bill would do nothing to solve gun and gang criminal activity in this country. This past weekend there were seven shootings in Liberal-held ridings just in Toronto. Instead of dealing with the situation, what the Liberals are doing is further traumatizing, stigmatizing and dividing Canadians through a bill by not offering to work and do the right thing.
My question for the minister is this. Is it true that, for the purposes of further dividing, stigmatizing and wedging, and using this bill as a politicized weapon, the Liberals have earmarked almost $1 million for an ad campaign in the summer to target opposition parties that are looking to better this bill as opposed to oppose it?
230 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 10:55:37 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, once again we are privy to a front-row seat to the decline in democracy. Bill C-5, the soft-on-crime bill, has gone through committee, and there have been thousands and millions of dissenting voices on this bill. There have been advocates and stakeholders, and there have been police chiefs and police forces across Canada that have spoken against this bill, because it does diminish mandatory minimum sentences.
Just to give an example, Bill C-5 would eliminate a number of mandatory minimum sentences related to gun crimes, including robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, and weapons trafficking excluding firearms and ammunition. This would only embolden criminals, make them more brazen, in our communities in Canada.
The Liberals have been aided and abetted in this time allocation, this motion of closure, by their puppy-dog partners in the NDP. They have pulled the choke collar on the New Democrats to get them to conform and sit and be good partners in this. This decline in democracy, this assault, will not make our communities safer and will threaten the lives of Canadians across the country.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
195 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, well, it is no surprise, commensurate to what is a decline in democracy in this country, we are actually seeing in lockstep a decline in the amount of time that debate happens in this place, despite the fact millions of people voted for an opposition party to hold the government to account and make it transparent and accountable with pieces of legislation.
It is not surprising we are moving to time allocation. In this Parliament alone, more time allocation has been called than in the previous Parliament. We are just eight months into this one, and we were a year and a half into the previous Parliament. Of course, we would be hard pressed to find any opposition party that would have supported time allocation in the manner it has been proposed by the government more so than the coalition partners of the NDP, who used to rail against time allocation as being anti-democratic and anti-institution, but here we are. No doubt NDP members will be rising to support the government.
Bill C-19, through committee stage, went through significant motions. It went through significant amendments. There are perhaps, as it comes back to report stage, more amendments in the debate that could happen here, but we have had one hour of debate on this important piece of legislation.
I am wondering how the minister can justify to Canadians this further decline in democracy we are witnessing. The public faith in our institutions is in decline as well.
252 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, since we are making up numbers, I have a poll here stating that 100% of Liberal voters did not vote for an NDP-Liberal coalition, but that is where we are at. With how quickly and how far the New Democrats have fallen in holding the government to account as a fourth party, they sound like lapdogs to the Liberal Party.
This is important because the government representative, the minister, is talking about obstruction that has been going on, but we have had two hours of debate on this bill. The official opposition, Her Majesty's loyal opposition, has had one member speak to this bill, which has been universally panned. There is no question that there is a need to fix this issue, but when we actively engage in vigorous debate in this place, ideas are formed. That is how better bills are passed. To see the heritage minister use obstruction as a reason for ramming this bill through the House is rather disingenuous.
The minister's legacy will be a decline in democracy as it relates to this institution. We wonder why people are losing faith in our institutions, and this the exact reason: Voices are being silenced in this place, those of millions of people who voted for opposition parties, including the Conservatives. It is a legacy he will have to live with.
A free and open democracy requires an independent news media. We agree with that, but this is not the way to get this done.
253 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, you and I are in a unique position: We both have front-row seats to what is becoming quickly a further decline of democracy here in Canada.
The government has moved time allocation on this bill with just two hours of debate. One speaker on the official opposition side has spoken to this piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that has been universally panned. It is quite controversial and warrants further debate.
This is the 101st time that the Liberal government has used time allocation and the 22nd time in this Parliament that their partners in the NDP, the NDP-Liberal coalition, have agreed to time allocation, which makes Motion No. 11 laughable, because the government's argument was that it was going to extend time to give more debate for members, which we now are seeing as a farce.
My question for the minister is this: Given the controversial nature of this bill and the fact that it does warrant further debate, I am wondering how he feels his legacy will be seen in furthering a decline in democracy in this country by muting the voices, limiting the voices, of millions of people speaking through members elected in this place.
204 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am certainly not surprised that we are at this point of time allocation by the government considering it is being aided and abetted by the NDP, a party, by the way, that used to rail against time allocation every time it came up in the last Parliament, the Parliament before that and Parliaments before that. As the now moderate wing of the Liberal Party, the NDP is furthering a decline in democracy.
Millions of people voted for opposition parties other than the NDP. Those voices are being silenced as these types of things happen, and it is unfortunate that we are seeing a further decline in our democracy. There is a decline in the faith people have in our institutions when these types of tactics are employed by the government, aided and abetted by its lapdogs in the NDP.
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, obviously I rise disappointed in the government's action. It is only a small thing like amending the Constitution, so why would we have fulsome debate on that and allow members to speak? I think at this point we have only had 10 speakers speak to the bill, but I have no doubt that we will hear indignation from the government House leader and, of course, his partner in the NDP, and about obstruction. We will hear that the Conservatives are obstructing the House. We are actually fulfilling our constitutional obligation of holding the government to account, and for that we are not going to apologize.
Motion No. 11 allowed for the government to extend hours not just to have fulsome debate, but to make sure issues that are important to Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and indeed other opposition parties, are debated in the House. Spare me if I cry crocodile tears for what the government is about to talk about and certainly what its partners in the NDP will be talking about. This is all about democracy in decline. I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Infrastructure agree with that fact.
The other thing I want to point out is that as these extended hours are happening, committees get cancelled, which we saw tonight with regard to the Emergencies Act committee. The whitewashing and the undermining of getting to the bottom of this continue to happen with the cancellation of these committees, and certainly the NDP is a party to it.
We are not going to be lapdogs like the NDP is to the government. We are going to continue to push. We are going to continue to make sure that we hold the government to account and make sure that we are not just an audience, as the Prime Minister and certainly the government House leader would like us to be. We are going to be an effective and loyal opposition to Her Majesty.
That is all I have to say. Here comes the indignation. It is going to be good. Hang on to your seat, Madam Speaker. Go ahead.
357 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Here are the facts, Madam Speaker. Two concurrence motions have been moved: one on fisheries and one on ethics. There was an important issue with respect to fisheries coming out of committee and, of course, important issues as they relate to the scandalous behaviour of the government on ethics.
Bill C-8 was introduced December 16, and we had 10 weeks when the House was not sitting. What did the Liberals expect for the fall economic statement, when we are not going to have debate on this?
The other thing we are seeing is that before the coalition agreement with the NDP, the NDP sided with the government 89% of the time on votes. Since that coalition agreement, it has sided with the government 95% of the time. It is not surprising to me that I am hearing the NDP House leader parroting the talking points of the government.
The fact is that we are seeing a decline in democracy. This is the government's attempt to seize complete control over this place on important legislation, such as Bill C-19, when members have the right to speak and members have the right to move motions. We have those rights because these are important issues to Canadians.
Will the government House leader just admit that he is contributing to a further decline in democracy in this country, and that Canadians did not vote for a coalition agreement between the NDP and the Liberals? They actually voted for an effective opposition, including the Conservative Party, which, by the way, is the official opposition: Her Majesty's loyal opposition. We will continue to do our job, despite the fact that the government does not want us to do it.
287 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not quite surprised by this. The only thing surprising me is that the motion was not seconded by the NDP House leader.
This is just amazing to me. This is a government that argued with its coalition partners in the NDP about Motion No. 11. What Motion No. 11 was going to do was expand the time, give more opportunities for members to speak by expanding the hours, and yet, with just two and a half days of debate, the government moved time allocation on an important piece of legislation, doing the exact opposite of what it argued Motion No. 11 was going to do.
Before the Liberals spare us the false indignation of obstruction, in fact what the government is doing is utilizing this motion to obstruct members of Parliament from doing their job, which is providing oversight and scrutiny on important pieces of legislation. Therefore, it is not surprising to me that we are at this point. I know the opposition House leader is going to go on about Friday and about the movement of a motion to committee, splitting up a bill. We called a vote. There was no reason for Bill C-19 not to be debated, except the filibuster by the government.
My question is a simple one. Is it not true that the government House leader and the Prime Minister, in fact, because of this tag-team partnership with the NDP, actually have exactly what they want and need in this Parliament, and that is an audience, not an opposition?
260 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 4:06:25 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Mr. Speaker, I spoke at length earlier about the government mismanaging its legislative agenda. This bill was introduced back in December. The second reading was in February, it went to committee and was approved March 1, and it came back to the House in April at report stage. Not only members of the opposition, but also members of the Bloc had significant concerns about this piece of legislation coming out of committee that opened up debate, but subsequent to that we had four weeks off in this place.
I know that the government is going to blame obstruction and obfuscation on the part of the opposition, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, on April 4, the government gave notice of time allocation and the reason it did not move it was because the NDP would not agree to it. Is that not correct?
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 1:51:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank the hon. member for bringing up that point, because it gave me an opportunity to take a drink of water.
I certainly do not wear it as a badge of honour that I have spoken longer than the member, but I hope members have found that I have something substantive to say and not just ramble on.
I did some research, as I said. The hon. member for Winnipeg North, who rose and rises often on his points of indignation, was once sitting on the opposition benches, and it is sincerely our hope that soon he will be sitting up in the corner. If there are only one or two seats, he can sit up there. That is sincerely our hope. It is funny how, when the Liberals get in government, all of a sudden this righteous indignation that they have shown in opposition suddenly becomes a supportive view and they are arguing to justify their position rather than be accountable.
In 2013, the member for Winnipeg North, who is the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, talked about the extra cost of extended hours. I have not even touched on that. I have touched on the mental health aspects of our staff, the clerks, the administration and everybody who is associated. I have talked about the translators, but not the extra cost. Of course, the government does not worry about costs. It has not found a problem it cannot fix by throwing billions of dollars at it, so why should this be any different?
On extended hours, here is what the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said on May 21, 2013:
I want to raise a specific issue. It was during the 39th Parliament that the previous clerk of the House of Commons told the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that the budget for Parliament can handle two weeks of extended sitting hours in June. However, if the extended hours were to continue for additional weeks, the government would likely have to seek Parliament's approval for more money.
I notice that the supplementary estimates (A) do not include a request to make any of the payments that will be generated by things such as overtime for House of Commons staff. I would argue that the government House leader seems to be responding to a Conservative crisis from last week and is getting anxious to leave a little early as opposed to going through the normal process.
That is the very thing I spoke about before. When he is in opposition, he is opposed to it, but when he is in government, there is no problem. The day this motion is approved, we will run the potential of extending hours, addressing the very issues that the member brought forward in 2013, but it is not a concern for him now. Why? It is because he is in government.
An hon. member: See what Peter said about that.
Mr. John Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I have some stuff that Peter said. I may get to them. I have six minutes. I hope the member is keeping time.
I will move to the former House leader of the NDP. This is part of this unholy alliance and the fact that they are working together on this. Nathan Cullen, the former NDP House leader, said this on extra cost, on the same day as the member for Winnipeg North: “The fact that they have not actually accounted for the money required to run Parliament for these extra hours for an extended time—a month, in this case—shows two things. One is that they do not really care all that much if they have to blow more money.” We are looking at two months.
Is it not ironic that the NDP and the Liberals likely are going to support this motion to extend the time, not just for a month but for two months, and all of a sudden money is not a problem? Worse yet, I would suggest, the mental and physical health of the family unit and the people who work here, not least the translators, is going be impacted by this.
I have some more nuggets. The member for Winnipeg North stood again on May 22, 2013, and said, “The government House leader, possibly and most likely, after serious discussions with the Prime Minister's Office, came to the conclusion that what we need to do is lose a little bit of focus on what is happening in the Prime Minister's Office and to try to maybe change the channel.” That sounds familiar.
It was a problem back then, but it is not a problem right now. They are facing numerous investigations, numerous things that they are going to have to deal with, not the least of which is the Winnipeg lab documents and the RCMP situation, which I mentioned before. They will give themselves the ability to shut this place down: shut it down, and let us all go home. Proroguing without proroguing, that is what they want to do with this motion.
I have another one. On time allocation in the House, on March 12, 2015, when the member for Winnipeg North was still sitting in the corner over there, where he is going to be soon, he said, “Never before in the history of our country have we seen a government abuse the rule of time allocation on legislation that Canadians are concerned about.” It is okay when he is in opposition, but when he gets in government the hypocrisy is palpable. This is what they do. I agree it is selective, but I picked some good nuggets here, and I have more.
The member for Winnipeg North spent a lot of time talking about the government on June 3. He said, “The government, by once again relying on a time allocation motion to get its agenda passed, speaks of incompetence.” I have spent the last hour and 20 minutes talking about the government's incompetence in moving forward its legislative agenda, and these are words that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has obviously said before, which is just perfect. He said, “It speaks of a genuine lack of respect for parliamentary procedure and ultimately for Canadians.” How ironic that the member from the government side now was saying exactly the same thing. Talk about hypocrisy. He sits here and he defends and justifies the government action to implement this strong-arm, sledgehammer approach in this place. It is laughable to think about it.
Do members want to hear another one? Now I know why I woke up at 6:30 this morning, so I could look at this stuff. On April 1, the member for Winnipeg North said, “The bottom line is that the government has failed to properly manage the legislative agenda of the House of Commons and as a direct result has become completely dependent on time allocation. That is not healthy for a democracy in Canada.” That is what he said.
I would suggest that what the Liberals are doing is not healthy for democracy. The reason why they are moving in this direction is that the NDP does not like time allocation. By extending and suspending debate, they are appeasing the NDP, but the other thing they are doing is putting themselves in a position, without a quorum call, where they can be at home in their PJs and their slippers watching the Blue Jays all summer and not have to worry about coming to work.
The opposition party will continue to work. Our colleagues, and I have spoken to the member for La Prairie and the Bloc, will be here as well, even if the Liberals and the NDP do not want to come here and be held accountable, to be able to justify, to be transparent and to work in this place to ensure that our democracy is not in decline. What Motion No. 11 does is cause a continuation and a further decline in our democracy, and we will continue to fight that.
1374 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 4:04:04 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, obviously, it is a profound disappointment that the government is now moving time allocation on what is effectively a very substantive justice bill repealing, for example, mandatory minimums. Effectively, what it is doing is giving criminals a get-out-of -jail-free card at a cost to victims.
I want to point out, too, that we have dealt with this issue since December of 2021 with only four days of debate on this substantive bill. I also want to point out that I am sure the left hand will be holding the left hand on this one. In the agreement between the NDP and the Liberals, it says that both parties agree that parliamentary debate is essential and they will identify the priority of bills to expedite them through the House of Commons, including expediting sitting hours to allow for additional speakers, so I do not quite understand why they are not allowing for additional speakers on this bill, especially as it is something so substantive.
My question to the Minister of Justice is this. There has been an increase in gun crimes and domestic violence in this country since this bill was introduced. Why is the NDP-Liberal government proposing time allocation? Why is it putting the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of victims?
219 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
