- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Board of Internal Economy
Deputy House leader of the government
- Liberal
- Kingston and the Islands
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $112,228.33
- Government Page
- May/21/24 11:17:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for starters, monetary policy is something that is done by a central bank. Fiscal policy is done by a government. Maybe the member should just Google those terms so he knows what he is talking about in the future.
When he asks about who is leading the debate, he makes it sound as though this is the first time we have talked about this. This is the fall economic statement. We have debated it.
An hon. member: It is summer.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: He is right: It is summer. Madam Speaker, that is because the Conservatives will not let this debate collapse. They just keep dragging it on and on. The finance minister has spoken to the bill, probably on more than one occasion. He suggests I am the lead on this when we have been debating it for nine months.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 10:10:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to the fall economic statement.
Here we are. We had to time allocate the fall economic statement. For those that might not clue in, including some of those who are heckling me already in my preamble to my speech, the fall economic statement, believe it or not, was tabled in the fall. However, here we are, as we approach June, and we still have not had an opportunity to vote on this because the Conservatives relentlessly prevent us from bringing forward an opportunity to vote. Those are the tactics that they use.
When I think about the measures that the government has brought in to support Canadians, notwithstanding the endless rhetoric that I hear from Conservatives about those measures, I am extremely proud to be part of a government that has made meaningful efforts to support communities and individuals and to give people the chances they need.
Around everything that the government has been doing, in particular the budget that we are debating concurrently with this one, the main theme is fairness. I would say the theme of fairness applies to the fall economic statement that we are debating now as well.
It is hard for me to really debate anything this week without reflecting on the comments I have heard from Conservatives in the House. The Leader of the Opposition started a discussion by saying that, if he becomes prime minister, he would use the notwithstanding clause to invoke the laws that he sees fit. He wants to live in a country where one man gets to decide what the laws are of the land. He does not care about the judiciary. He not care about the processes or the systems that are in place. That is all that the Leader of the Opposition wants, and that is what he is demonstrating when he talks about using the notwithstanding clause.
After that, we saw the member for Peace River—Westlock start to talk about the “preborn”, protecting the preborn and encouraging the government to bring in policies that would protect the preborn. It cannot be a coincidence that the Leader of the Opposition starts to talk about using the notwithstanding clause, and then Conservative members bring up the issue of abortion and outlawing abortion in Canada. It cannot be a coincidence that these people assembled on the front lawn of Parliament Hill today to cheer on the member for Peace River—Westlock and the member for Yorkton—Melville.
This is what the member for Yorkton—Melville said on the front lawn of Parliament Hill, and this is not the 1960s. It was today. She said that the truth is not being told in the media or in our House of Commons about what abortion really does to one's heart and mind, soul and body, let alone that lost life. The member then went on to speak on behalf of all Conservatives when she said, “We in the House, as Conservatives, stand for equality between men and women from the instant of conception.”
The member for Barrie—Innisfil also believes in equality from the moment of conception. I appreciate his saying that. Now we know where Conservatives stand.
People are probably wondering how this all ties into the fall economic statement. That is where I am going with this. I wish that the member for Peace River—Westlock, the member from Barrie—Innisfil and the member for Yorkton—Melville cared just a little about that child when it is an actual child.
If they did, they would vote in favour of things and support initiatives such as the national school food program that would actually put food into the bellies of children. They would support initiatives such as the Canada child benefit that actually supports children while they are growing up. They would support initiatives like $10-a-day child care to help families, and in particular mothers, who more often than not are the parent that stays at home to take care of children, and to help them when they need help.
I am aghast at how much Conservatives, including those heckling me right now, are so preoccupied with the preborn, to use the words of the member for Peace River—Westlock, and have no regard whatsoever, or at least do not acknowledge any regard, for children that need to be taken care of right now in our communities. One has to ask oneself why that is. Is it because they somehow have this passion for the preborn? No, it is not. They are not interested in children or the preborn. What they are interested in is controlling a woman's body. That is what they care about. That is the Conservatives' angle on this.
That is why 80 of the current sitting Conservative members of Parliament, I am sure more than half of them in this room right now, are endorsed by anti-abortion organizations. They have given the Conservatives the green light. Can anyone imagine an organization that gives a different colour light based on one's willingness to support its anti-choice objectives? People get a green light if they are considered really anti-choice. They get an orange light if the organization is somewhat cautious about whether it can trust that they will be anti-choice enough, and then they get a red light if they are pro-choice, meaning the organization does not support those individuals.
In 2024, this is the world we live in. I know Conservative members, in particular, female Conservative members, have challenged me, such as the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, saying how dare I talk about this issue, as though I cannot talk about this issue because I am a man. I have news for her and the Conservatives who are heckling me now. I have an obligation to ensure that my five-year-old daughter has the same rights that her mother had when she was growing up. I have an obligation to ensure that the rights that my mother's generation fought for and the rights that my wife enjoyed continue for my five-year-old daughter as she grows up. That is why I am speaking up about it, despite the Conservative heckles and despite what is happening on Parliament Hill in this chamber over the last couple of weeks.
It is extremely unfortunate that Conservatives have decided that they feel emboldened to start having these discussions once again, because their leader is giving them the authority to be the worst versions of themselves that they can possibly be. Unfortunately, that is where we are right now. The leader of the Conservative Party is encouraging members to act in the way they are acting, to say what they are saying and encouraging the members for Peace River—Westlock and Yorkton—Melville to go out on the front lawn of this place and start talking about restricting a woman's right to choose what to do with her body.
As long as I am here, I will not let it happen. I will stand up to it, and I genuinely believe that a majority of the members of the House will continue to do the same.
1225 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 6:31:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member from the Bloc knows what we are debating right now. What he just said that the NDP are asking for is in the concurrence motion. We are going to vote in favour of it. I voted in favour of it at PROC. I am fully aware of the concurrence motion. To set standards for the Speaker is exactly what is in there.
The member suggests that the Bloc members came here with good intentions, and in a nice, calm way their whip said what they really think should be done. That would hold a lot more water if they had not been hell-bent on demanding the resignation of the Speaker. From the first opportunity they sniffed a little blood, they started circling around like a group of sharks looking to pounce on the Speaker. That is all that happened. The member knows it.
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 12:24:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I hate to call a point of order because it only prolongs how much longer I have to listen to this, but do you think you could ask the member to at least return to the subject? You have already asked him once and stressed the importance of that. Perhaps he could return to the subject of the bill that we are debating today.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 1:02:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, we are debating the concurrence motion on a report. We are not even debating the report. We are debating whether or not the report should be concurred in. I am speaking directly to the procedure and to why I think Conservatives are using this motion right now. I am extremely relevant on my points.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 12:57:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely disgusted with what we are seeing unfold here today in the House of Commons.
For those who are watching at home and those who might be tuning in, it is important to understand what happened here today. We put forward the Order Paper, and that Order Paper says what we plan to debate during the day. Conservatives would have seen on that Order Paper that we were taking the report back from committee, with respect to Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. They knew it was our intention to debate this today.
For the fourth, fifth or maybe even sixth time, the Conservatives have, once again, used a concurrence motion to shut down debate on something they are absolutely afraid of talking about. I find it most egregious that this comes the day after the Ukrainian Canadian Congress published an open letter to the Leader of the Oppositionthat said:
The UCC was disappointed to see the Official Opposition vote against the adoption of Bill C-57, the implementation of which would modernize the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement (CUFTA).
Ukraine needs assistance in strengthening economic reslience. Ukraine's government has stressed that the modernization of CUFTA would play an important role in this regard.
The UCC therefore asks that the Official Opposition revisit their position on Bill C-57 and vote to support the Bill in 3rd reading.
The Conservatives knew this was coming. They put forward this particular concurrence motion the day after the Ukrainian Canadian Congress published this open letter.
There are two red herrings on this matter I would like to talk about. The first is the price on pollution, the carbon tax and the Conservatives' so-called reasoning for not supporting this. I would remind the House that we do not have to go that far back in Debates to see that they never talked about the price on pollution and they never talked about the carbon tax the entire time we first started debating this. They used every reason not to.
As a matter of fact, the first time I gave a speech on this, I stood in this exact same place and spoke to it as though it were a foregone conclusion, that this entire House was going to support it. I talked for about 10 minutes, and then I sat down. The member for Cumberland—Colchester stood up and started to talk about the agreement as though it were woke legislation. I could not believe it. I almost fell over. Members can go back and review the tape. I stood up in shock. I did not know what was going on.
Then we started to find out, as little bits of information started to make their way forward, that that member and four other Conservatives travelled in June to London, where they had meetings with people from the Danube Institute, who also sponsored some of their travel. It is a right-wing Hungarian think tank that, coincidentally, has also referred to the Canadian and western approach towards Ukraine as being woke.
Then the Conservatives show up back here, a couple of months later, and they start parroting the exact same information from that particular organization. It is not a far stretch to understand why they are in this position. That is the first red herring.
The second red herring, the newly developed one that just came out of committee a couple of days ago, was when Conservatives tried to put forward amendments about arms. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan kept saying, “Ukraine needs”. What Ukraine needs is for Conservatives to start listening to them when they say they want this agreement. What Ukraine needs is for Conservatives to listen to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress when it says they want this agreement. What Ukraine does not need are Vladimir Putin and the Conservatives telling it what it needs. That is not what Ukraine needs. It needs Conservatives to listen. Now it is in an open letter, which was just distributed yesterday.
Once again, we see the same tactics from the Conservatives. They have two red herrings, and it is a red herring because I reminded the committee members, when I was there earlier this week, that there was half a billion dollars in the 2022 budget for arms for Ukraine. They voted against that. They could perhaps somehow justify that being in the opposition meant they had to vote against the budget, but I went back and looked at the speeches from the four members who were in that committee, and not a single one of them actually spoke about those arms during the budget debate. It is a red herring.
It is red herring after red herring. The Conservatives are looking for reasons not to support it.
808 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/27/23 7:11:00 p.m.
- Watch
It is relevant, Madam Speaker, and I should remind the member across the way what we are actually debating is not the report. We are debating a motion to concur in the report. The report has already been established, the report has already been unanimously supported by committee and the motion was to concur in it.
My analysis and my reflections on why Conservatives chose to put forward that motion is extremely germane to the debate and specifically speaks to why I think they did this, which is very important. The member can get up and call a point of order as often as he wants. He probably does not want to hear the truth from me, and that is fine. He does not have to accept what I say and I am happy to answer his questions on the subject matter afterward.
However, I would remind him we just spent the whole afternoon talking about a bill on scab labour that the Conservatives never even mentioned in any of their speeches. They just talked about everything other than the bill, and would not even say whether they thought the bill was good or not. They were asked the question probably about half a dozen times and never even indicated whether they support the bill. It is very rich coming from a Conservative member right now, who is trying to call me out on relevance, when I have established how the relevance of my speech is related to this concurrence motion.
What we saw is Conservatives eventually vote against the Canada-Ukraine free trade bill, after continually putting up concurrence motion after concurrence motion on various different issues. The reality is we started to hear them talk about it being woke. I know there has been a lot of buyer's remorse since we had that vote, and a lot of Conservatives have stood up in the House and talked about how much they supported Ukraine. I know four, five or six of them stood up right after question period today and said that.
My sense is they are probably feeling regretful for their decision. They are probably feeling a bit upset with their leader for forcing them to do that and now are trying to justify to their communities why they voted that same way.
However, it does not end there. I say this to my Conservative colleagues who are in the House and who stand up and say that they unequivocally support Ukraine at any cost, no matter what. The member for Provencher, in the remaining few speeches we had before we voted on this, actually said:
That said, the Prime Minister and the government have been consistent and unequivocal in saying, “We will...support Ukraine with whatever it takes, for as long as it takes.”
Then he went on to say, “That concerns me a bit”. That is in Hansard; one can go find that. That does not sound like somebody who is unequivocal and stands with Ukraine right until the very end.
When we talk about this report and we talk about Arctic sovereignty and who we are really concerned about maintaining our sovereignty from, it can only be our neighbours that share the Arctic region with us or that impede upon the Arctic region. I know this because I was on the Standing Committee for National Defence for three years, where at the time we studied Arctic sovereignty, and there were some real concerns over it. Of course, one of those is Russia.
I have a problem with listening to my Conservative colleagues talk about Russia, because we know Conservatives are also getting very close right now to Prime Minister Orban, who is the Prime Minister of Hungary, who is very close to Vladimir Putin. Recently, there is a story titled “Putin and Orban reaffirm Russian-Hungarian ties amid international strains.”
652 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/27/23 7:06:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to a concurrence motion. For those who are just tuning in, to understand the context of what we are doing right now, back on November 3, the government had on the Order Paper that we would continue to debate the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. However, as was becoming very consistent around that time, every time we brought forward that particular bill to be debated, Conservatives would put forward concurrence motions to basically prevent us from discussing the bill. The reason I am willing to go out on a limb to say that they were intentionally preventing us from debating that bill is not only that they had done it a number of times already, but also, and more importantly, that they were continually doing it with reports from committees that were unanimous. This was another unanimous report that came from committee.
Just so the public knows, when a report is tabled in the House by the chair of the committee, there is no obligation to debate it as it is considered received. As a matter of fact, the government responded to this particular report from the committee, so there was really no need to have a debate on it. The committee report was unanimous. The government, in its introductory reply, thanked the committee, said that the majority of the committee's recommendations were in line with work already being undertaken by the government, and went on to address each and every specific recommendation in the report.
On Friday, November 3, Conservatives put forward a motion to concur in this unanimous report from the committee, which had already been responded to by the government. It was just to delay and prevent us from talking about the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Of course, at the time, none of us really understood why. We could not fathom that Conservatives would be against that piece of legislation, which was the result of a trade agreement that had been signed by President Zelenskyy and the Prime Minister. It also has the endorsement of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and had all of the important elements built within it to help Ukraine rebuild. This side of the House, and probably all parties but the Conservative Party, were under the impression that it was going to be a pretty easy debate. We thought that everybody would agree and then we would pass it.
However, very early on in the debate process, the member for Cumberland—Colchester rose and referred to the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement as being woke. That was the first sign for us on this side of the House. At that point, we started asking what was going on and if it were possible that the Conservative Party of Canada does not support this very important piece of legislation.
474 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/23 4:38:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is the first speech from the Conservatives in this debate, and we are talking about the anti-scab legislation the minister has tabled and spoken to. However, this member is talking about something completely unrelated. He is talking about Stellantis, which is regulated by the Province of Ontario, concerning the workers there, and not by the federal government. He is nowhere near discussing the bill.
I am really hoping that you, Mr. Speaker, can encourage him to come back to the substance we are debating today and to be relevant.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/23 6:16:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us just be frank about what is going on here. Today, the Speaker of the House of Commons basically told the House, including Conservatives, that we have to behave ourselves. Conservatives are upset about that. They tried to prevent him, on a number of occasions, from giving that statement today.
Now, they are using this tactic in order to slow down the House, because they are frustrated and upset. It is actually behaviour for which I would scold my five-year-old and my seven-year-old, but that is actually what is going on in the House of Commons right now, demonstrated by the Conservative Party of Canada. In the next eight or nine minutes, I will demonstrate why I believe this to be the case. For starters, the Conservatives could not have picked a worse concurrence motion to bring forward. I have had the opportunity, since we started debating this, to have a look at the motion. There are six recommendations in it. The government agrees with five recommendations, and accepts and acknowledges the sixth one.
The Conservatives could not have picked a worse concurrence motion. At least they could have picked something that is slightly more controversial. This is a concurrence motion on a report about which the government has already put in writing that it agrees with over 80% of it. This is about trade relations. It is important for the public who might be tuned in right now and watching this to fully understand what is going on here.
The government had put on the Order Paper that we would be talking about Bill C-50, sustainable jobs, today. That is what we were supposed to talk about. There is a whole other issue that I do not have time to dive into, about why Conservatives are not interested in sustainable jobs, but let us just park that for a moment and focus on their objective today. The government said that this is what we were going to talk about. The House commenced at 2:00 p.m. today. The Speaker, a brand new Speaker, tried to rise to give a statement about how he plans to conduct the House, in terms of decorum. He cited numerous references of other Speakers, including, at great length, what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said when he was the Speaker, and he just established a benchmark for what the Speaker expects from the House.
Conservatives heckled, made points of order and did everything they could to prevent the Speaker from even giving that statement, which I think was incredibly petty. Then we got to the point where we were supposed to go to Government Orders and start the listed item for today. There is an opportunity in Routine Proceedings to put forward a concurrence motion. This basically sucks up anywhere up to three hours of House time. Conservatives looked at the clock, and they knew that if we started this concurrence motion, the three hours would expire before the House needed to adjourn, and the government would not get to dealing with its business today. That is the Conservatives' objective. That is what they did.
However, the motion they did it on I find to be so perplexing. It is a set of recommendations in a committee report about our borders, particularly postpandemic. I did not really read it or even know it existed before the concurrence motion was put on the floor. There are many committees submitting many reports, and I was not aware of this one. However, I did take the opportunity to have a good look at it since then, in the last 40 minutes or so since we started debating this. Here is recommendation 1: “That the Government of Canada ensure the safety and security of Canadians by continuing with its ongoing efforts designed to modernize Canada’s borders.” It goes on to list how to do that. The important thing is that the government agrees with the recommendation and accepts the recommendation from the committee.
Recommendation 2 reads as follows: “That the Government of Canada enhance its efforts designed to increase domestic and international awareness that Canada has removed COVID-19–related public health measures.” There is nothing the Conservatives would want more than to do that. Again, the government agrees and says it is a good recommendation, that we need to make sure that the world knows Canada is open and ready for business and tourism, that this is a great recommendation and that we should move forward with this one. The government agrees with that recommendation.
Recommendation 3 is “[t]hat the Government of Canada ensure that international bridge authorities and commissions, as well as duty-free stores in Canada, are eligible for federal financial support if the Government decides to close—for any length of time— the borders that Canada shares with the United States.” This is the one thing the government responded to and said it acknowledges but that it might not be as simple as how it is being portrayed.
For example, the government did assist with the tourism sector quite a bit. The government also assisted with businesses, as we know. The government assisted in many different ways, including trying to reopen borders that Conservative supporters were trying to close. The government did a lot to ensure that we supported businesses throughout the pandemic. Although the government acknowledges the recommendation, it said that it is a bit more complex, as there are various sectors involved, and that this needs to be looked at more closely. It certainly did not outright reject the recommendation.
Then there is recommendation 4, which says, “That the Government of Canada enhance safety and security, reduce delays and backlogs, and improve processing times at Canadian ports of entry”. Once again, the Government of Canada agreed with that recommendation.
Also, I am sorry. There were not six recommendations; there were five.
We have the fifth recommendation, which the government agrees with. My point is that there were five recommendations, and the government agreed with all but one but did acknowledge that it was important and tried to explain what the government was doing about it.
What the public needs to know is that 99.9% of the time that somebody in this House moves concurrence on a report from a committee, they agree with it. They are basically saying that this report is so important that it is not enough to table it for the government, even though the government already responded to it: They need to force Parliament to vote on it so they can solidify the support of this House and not just the committee. That is what they are saying.
Why do I point that out? I point that out because the Conservatives put this forward as if they support it, because one only puts forward a motion of concurrence if one supports it, and then turned around moments later and put forward an amendment to basically wipe the entire report clean as if it did not exist, sending it back to committee. I could not put together a scenario in which the Conservatives would look more petty than we have right here, right now on the floor of the House of Commons.
I am sorry the Speaker told the Conservatives today that they have to behave themselves, that it is time to play nice, that they cannot be heckling and making up fake names for ministers, shooting them out like this is some kind of wild frat party. The reality of the situation is that maybe a little decorum is required in this House from the Conservatives, as day after day we hear personal attacks and name-calling.
The Speaker did the right thing by pointing that out. Then what do they do? They act worse than I expect of my children with the games they play and with what they are doing right now to delay talking about a very important piece of legislation on how we create, manage and ensure that sustainable jobs are here for the future of Canadians. How many times have we heard Conservatives talk about jobs and needing to make sure that we put the right groundwork in place for jobs? Just two days ago, a minister of the Crown went to my neighbouring riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington to make the announcement of 600 sustainable jobs. These are sustainable jobs.
This is the bill we are talking about. This bill is about how we ensure there are more of those jobs throughout our entire country. How do we continue to attract clean-tech jobs from Germany or Belgium, as we see with Umicore, and bring them right here to Canada?
I think this is very petty. It is very unfortunate, but for eight years I have been watching it occur time after time.
1499 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/23 8:02:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what I found deplorable was that when the member for Timmins—James Bay was asking his question and talking about how he could literally smell forest fires from where he was sitting in his community, Conservatives were just laughing.
Somehow, Conservatives think that climate change is a partisan issue, but even their buddies in the Bloc do not agree with them on that. They take it seriously.
I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could comment on whether it is time to put partisanship aside when it comes to climate change. We can have debates about whether or not a policy is right or whether a different policy is the way to go, but what we should not be debating are the actual facts, the fact that climate change is real.
Would the parliamentary secretary like to comment on that?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 1:41:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, I cannot believe that my NDP colleague is trying to silence the member when he is representing his constituents and properly debating in this House.
32 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:21:17 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, just so Canadians understand what we are debating right now, this is a matter of moving forward with legislation that everybody in the House, to my understanding, supports, including the Conservatives. We have had an incredible amount of debate, both here and in the Senate, in regard to this piece of legislation.
To be completely honest, the outrage that we normally get from the Conservatives when it comes to a time allocation motion is extremely lacklustre with respect to this one. It is almost as though they are just coming out and doing what they always do, but they do not even have the energy or the passion for crying foul when it comes to an affront on democracy that we are used to seeing in these circumstances.
Can the minister confirm whether she believes that the amount of debate to this point has been exhaustive and extensive, and that it is now time for the House to come to a vote on the matter?
167 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 12:26:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I know members of the Bloc have been very supportive of this bill through the process and getting us to where we are today in debating it.
We hear, and I know he hears, a lot of rhetoric and lot of misinformation and disinformation, in particular that rights would be trampled upon with this legislation. I wonder if the member can comment on whether Bloc members agree with the relentless position that the Conservatives have had on this bill, as though it somehow would trample on individual rights and freedoms.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/23 5:46:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, despite the fact that the member for Hamilton Centre decided to use the limited time he had for a question for me on such a frivolous question, I actually think he had a really good point earlier in his speech, and that was when he brought up the issue of why it is not expanded.
I personally do not have a problem with that. I spent a great amount of my time talking about the openness and transparency of government and what our commitment was to that openness and transparency. This motion could have been brought forward in a way that addressed that on a more holistic scale, because I think the member for Hamilton Centre has a good point: Why just limit this to one? Why not make it more open? I do not think that anybody on this side of the House is afraid to hear the answers that come out of that.
Unfortunately, to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, we are debating this motion, which is very specific in nature, and I think it is a topic for another day. Perhaps the committee responsible for this will open up the scope to address that concern.
202 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 12:15:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, the member from “wherever he is from” is actually from Burnaby South, just so my Conservative colleague knows.
A point of order references the order of procedure. It is to call to the attention of the Chair that the order of procedure did not happen. Clearly the member is debating. He is not bringing forward a point of order.
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/23/22 12:20:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have no problem debating this issue with the member; however, what we are debating right now is a hybrid Parliament, and for the last five to seven minutes at least, the member has been off talking about a relationship between the—
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, perhaps that is a better question for the Conservatives, who continue to rail on this issue, despite the fact that these legal opinions have come forward. Of course they are going to dig up one or two individuals who can support what they are saying, as they continuously do in the House.
However, in my opinion as to why we are debating, it is because the Conservatives, in the last Parliament, drew a little blood out of this issue. They saw that, and like a group of sharks, they circled around it. They are attempting to get more and more blood out of it, quite frankly. I just do not see any concern, and this member has indicated that perfectly through her question.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 4:43:32 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-9
Mr. Speaker, going back to the question that was just asked and answered, the member suggested, and she is absolutely right, that the government sets the agenda. However, the opposition has tools that it should and can use from time to time to slow down legislation and the legislative process in here.
My question to the member is very simple. Does she not think we would have been able to table this bill and start debating it sooner had the Conservatives not held bills up, such as Bill C-8, the fall economic statement, which they held up for five or six months in the House? If we had seen fewer partisan games to slow the process down, would we not have been able to deal with items like this sooner?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 11:12:10 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, the amendment has been read. The member should be submitting it to the Chair and should not be further debating.
22 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
