SoVote

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/2/22 1:52:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the House leader of the opposition for bringing forward this amendment because by doing so he is giving the member for Winnipeg North another opportunity to speak to this. I did not have an opportunity to hear what the member for Winnipeg North said on Thursday, so I am looking forward to hearing his thoughts on this one. He speaks again for the second time to this. My question for the opposition House leader is quite simple. He seems to be quite concerned about staff members right now and the impact that asking them to stay until midnight will have on them. I wonder where his empathy was a couple of years ago, when the Conservatives literally made this house vote for 30 hours straight, or a couple of years after that, when they made this house vote for 22 hours straight. They knew full well it would produce absolutely nothing with respect to a tangible result of improving this country; rather, it was just for the purpose of being destructive. Can the member justify for me the hypocrisy I am hearing from him when he talks about being so overly concerned about staff and the impacts on them? That party will force staff to stay here for 30 hours straight just to appease its own desire to see this place move as slowly as possible.

234 words

Context: House Hansard - 62 - May/2/22

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

May/2/22 3:54:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to say that I am disappointed, I would say yes. To say I am surprised, I would say no. It is unfortunate that the Conservative Party continues to demonstrate to Canadians its willingness to play games. We are actually supposed to be debating Motion No. 11 to ultimately see parliamentarians be able to sit longer for a debate, in order to accommodate more debate. Now the Conservatives take yet another tactical report, something that focuses on their interests, not the interests of Canadians, and that is what they want to debate, as opposed to debating other, more substantive issues, such as Motion No. 11, Bill C-8 and so forth. Does the member not see the hypocrisy that is oozing from the Conservative caucus on the whole issue of credibility in standing and addressing the issues that Canadians are facing today? It is shameful.

146 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 62 - May/2/22

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/2/22 3:55:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what is shameful is the fact that the member is complicit in a government that is so corrupt that it refused to even allow the conversation of accountability within this place. Specifically when it comes to the government's legislative agenda, it is nothing short of incompetence to the extreme that the Liberals cannot seem to manage anything: government, their ethical conduct, let alone their legislative agenda. I look forward to debating Motion No. 11. Unfortunately, the government, in what is the height of hypocrisy, moved closure to limit debate on what is a motion that would limit the ability of MPs in this place to have their say. This is incredible. Motion No. 11, which the member just referred to, would give the Prime Minister unilateral ability to shut this place down on his whim. That is not democracy. That is tyranny and certainly lands pretty close to the allegations I hear often from constituents who suggest that this is not a Prime Minister but rather a dictator.

171 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 62 - May/2/22

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

May/2/22 4:13:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member sees any hypocrisy when the official opposition members say that they would like to be able to have more debate on issues, and then they filibuster concurrence reports to prevent debate from happening and are voting against the government's Motion No. 11 to extend debate time so that members would have more time to debate. On the one hand, the government is providing the opportunity to debate and, on the other hand, the opposition members are saying that they want to be able to debate but are denying any opportunity for yourself. It is almost as if you want the chamber to self-destruct in terms of debate.

117 words

All Topics