SoVote

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Jun/23/22 11:14:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have to say that this is such an ableist debate we are having. Even yesterday, some of the ableist language was just gut-wrenching. I wonder what this debate would look like if 338 of us were immunocompromised, had comorbidities or had children or family members who lived with us in our houses and were going through stem cell transplants, chemotherapy or any kind of critical life illness. I have been in rooms with people I know whose spouse has been going through stem cell transfer. They have been forced to arrive in this place because they are staff people. We are in here in our ableist space expecting those who support us to come here and do this work. The last thing I would want to do as an MP, if I was sick or someone in my family was sick, is to come to this place and make a staff person sick who was dealing with some sort of critical life illness at home. This has been really disappointing. As the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra, I have a number of people in my riding who would die if they caught COVID-19. They deal with this ableist language all the time. I am just so over it. Maybe the member—

221 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/23/22 11:15:50 a.m.
Watch

The hon. government House leader has the floor.

8 words

Floor

Hon. Mark Holland

Jun/23/22 11:15:51 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member opposite makes an excellent point. There are many members of Parliament who have different statuses of health. I spent over three years as a former whip, and there are a couple of things one learns. The first is how hard it is to be a human being. There are so many stories we do not hear about what others are going through, and I have tremendous sympathy for all members of Parliament and the sacrifices they make. Second, there has to be an opportunity for those who are ill in a pandemic, or have other illnesses or are immunocompromised, to have the circumstances to continue to represent their constituents. The hon. member is absolutely correct. I will make a last point on this question. I see a child in the chamber, which I love. Not long ago, when I was elected in 2004, that would have been considered abhorrent. Having a child in the chamber would have been considered disrespectful to this place. Members would have talked in the lobby about how disgusting and disrespectful it was to have a child in the House. I heard that. People were saying they would never allow that, and that somebody talking about it is disrespectful to the place and destroys it. Our institutions evolve as our compassion and understanding for one another evolve, and that is what this is about.

232 words

All Topics

Mrs. Laila Goodridge (Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC)

Jun/23/22 11:17:12 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, while I appreciate some of the comments made and the flexibility of sometimes being able to bring my infant into this chamber due to the long hours we work and some of the struggles we have as parliamentarians, the fact that this is being rammed through in the last couple of days of the parliamentary session without any real opportunity for debate is abhorrent. It is not okay. If the members opposite truly want to fix things, let us actually have some conversation. Let us not just band-aid this across. Let us have some serious conversations in September so we can fix the problem rather than just create more band-aids, because that is all this solution does. Every other parliamentary system in Canada has already gone back to meeting in person. There are so many wins that can be had by having these conversations all over. I really think that what we are doing right now is hurting democracy, because we have not had adequate debate. While there are some very good arguments, we have not been able to have the time to actually study this and make sure we are doing the best thing for Canadians.

201 words

All Topics

Hon. Mark Holland

Jun/23/22 11:18:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, I am very glad to see the member opposite be able to bring her child into the chamber. I am very glad we have provisions that recognize the responsibilities of being a parent are extraordinarily difficult and are the most important functions we ever will take on in our lives. There has to be primacy to that, and I respect that she sees that and that all members in the House, whether they have a child or do not, feel that way. We, of course, have been debating this for two years. Every time a session of Parliament began, we had an opportunity in the media, in the House and in the Board of Internal Economy. We had extensive debates. Exactly what I am saying is let us take a year, while we are still in a pandemic, to hold these provisions and then have a separate debate about what is going to happen. I want to point out one thing that is confusing to me. In the last vote on orders of the day, 66 Conservative members voted remotely and 44 voted in person.

190 words

All Topics

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Jun/23/22 11:19:35 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, I learned something today. According to tradition, Quebec’s national holiday is celebrated on June 23 and 24. It is true that Parliament usually does not sit on June 23 except in the case of an emergency, which has only ever happened a few times. June 23 is set aside for emergencies. This motion could easily have been moved sooner, since the government had all the time it needed. The Bloc Québécois has always been ready to collaborate, especially in the case of Bill C-14, for which it set aside two days to allow Parliament to adjourn on Wednesday and Quebec members in the Bloc Québécois and other parties to celebrate with their constituents. Our request was legitimate. The government vehemently rejected the fact that Quebecers have a national holiday to celebrate this evening and tomorrow. We asked either not to sit on Thursday or to sit with a Friday schedule so that we could leave the House earlier to celebrate Quebec’s national holiday with our people back home. The government refused. Would the same thing have happened if we had to work on June 30?

200 words

All Topics

Hon. Mark Holland

Jun/23/22 11:20:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a year ago we had the opportunity to review the calendar, and that included June 23. There was no objection made whatsoever about June 23 being included. At that point in time, the calendar was approved, with unanimity, to have us sit all of those days. There is nothing that promised we were going to leave early. I never said to my constituents that this was the calendar, but maybe we would not fulfill the calendar. Most of us can have hopes the calendar will not go to the end, but if there was a serious problem, why—

101 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/23/22 11:21:19 a.m.
Watch

Order. The hon. member for La Prairie asked a question, but he seems to be in the process of debating with someone else. I am sure that he would like to hear the answer. I would ask the hon. government House leader to finish his answer before I give the floor to someone else to ask a brief question before the expiry of the time provided.

66 words

Hon. Mark Holland

Jun/23/22 11:21:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would simply say that this is the first that I have heard that the 23rd was a problem. It is literally the first time that I have heard that. I would just say that, for future calendars, if the Bloc sees this as a problem, it should not agree for the day to be set.

58 words

All Topics

Hon. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)

Jun/23/22 11:22:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will just ask a very quick question, or a series of quick questions. Can the hon. House leader tell us this: Is the pandemic over? Does the hon. member have the ability to determine whether the pandemic rates are going to go up or go down? Is this really just an insurance policy to make sure that the House has the flexibility to ensure that all members of Parliament can continue representing their constituents in this place?

80 words

All Topics

Hon. Mark Holland

Jun/23/22 11:22:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes. Of course, the pandemic is not over. In fact, I will just point to what happened in November and December. The Conservatives, at that time, were demanding an end to hybrid sittings. They said the pandemic was over and that there was no need for these provisions: they were a waste of time, we were making up something and there could be the possibility of something else. Then, of course, omicron hit. When omicron hit, we all, of course, had to use the hybrid provisions and move back to a different state. That is exactly what this flexibility allows. Nobody is forced to use these provisions. They are more than welcome to not use them, if they wish—

122 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/23/22 11:23:04 a.m.
Watch

I am sorry. The time is up. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time to put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

81 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray

Jun/23/22 11:23:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.

10 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/23/22 11:23:41 a.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

The Speaker

Jun/23/22 12:06:42 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Jun/23/22 12:07:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to continue on this very important debate, although unfortunately under different circumstances than we had last night. Obviously the government, by invoking closure on this motion, is really looking to limit any further debate on this and censor members of Parliament, who have been elected to this place. There are millions of voices on this side and 119 members, yet in just a couple of hours of debate, we are going to determine the continuation of a hybrid Parliament into the fall. Just to recap what I said last night, there are no other legislatures in this country, provincial or territorial, or around the world, not even the mother Parliament in Great Britain, that have a hybrid system. They all have in-person sittings at this point. In fact, the mother Parliament went back to in-person sittings last July. We would be the only outlier, not just within the Commonwealth, but globally, in using a hybrid system. Why are we at this point? The government House leader and his partner in the NDP, with their coalition agreement, have decided this is the direction we are going in the absence of any science, evidence or form of decision-making we should be taking. They are just arbitrarily and unilaterally deciding this is the direction we are going to go. I have heard the argument from both of them that somehow, as I said earlier, there is this southern hemisphere variant coming in. The doctor government House leader and the doctor in the NDP suggest that somehow they know more than public health officials. Here is a news flash: Public health officials in governments across this country have eliminated mandates. They have eliminated mask mandates, and they have also returned to normal within their legislatures. Why are we an outlier? Perhaps the most world-renowned epidemiologists, virologists and immunologists, the doctor in government House leader and the doctor in the NDP, have figured out that we are different in this place than those in the rest of the country. It comes down to one simple thing. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many in our caucus, they have complete contempt for this place as an institution. They have complete contempt for Parliament. They see it as a nuisance. They see it as something that gets in the way of their ideological agenda. Certainly, the government has proven over time that it has shown contempt for Parliament. There have been various motions that have been presented. I remember the start of the pandemic. One of the first orders of business coming into the pandemic was the proposal of a piece of legislation by the government that would have given it entire spending powers and taxing powers until January, 2022. Members can think of the consequences of that. The government was effectively going to seize control of this place to make the opposition parties, and the millions of people who elected members of Parliament to represent them in this place, irrelevant at that point. It was going to seize complete control of Parliament, giving itself complete taxing and spending powers. If it had not been for the opposition, for the voices of millions of Canadians and the media at that time calling into question the government's motives, we might have been in a situation where it would have seized entire control of this place. This is how little respect the Liberals have for Parliament. This is how little respect they have for our democratic institutions, and there were other cases as well. Members will recall Motion No. 6 in the last Parliament. The government tried again to seize the operational control of this place, making the opposition irrelevant. Motion No. 11 was another one where we effectively had Conservatives debating Conservatives in extended evening sessions. The government did not even participate. The Liberals say it was to extend debate, but how can it be about extending debate, when they were not even participating in the process at all? Then of course, there is Motion No. 19, with which the Liberals would once again seize control of where this place will be in September and how it will operate. Just a couple of weeks ago I sent a letter to the government House leader and the other House leaders, a letter the Speaker received as well, with what I thought were very reasonable and practical solutions on how this place can get back to some sense of normalcy. If we are not signalling from this place to Canadians that we are getting back to normal, then what type of message are we sending? One of the reasonable and practical solutions that I proposed was to look at this in August or September. If some southern hemisphere variant is going to be here, as the government House leader and his partner in the NDP are suggesting, then why not revisit this in August and September? We have proven over the last couple of years that we have the tools, that we can flip the switch if we need to. The government's argument is that we need certainty. Well, there is certainty. There is certainty in the land right now, because we are seeing the lifting of public health guidelines, masking mandates, vaccine mandates. I do not know what evidence or science the Liberals are looking at, but it is certainly nothing that they are sharing with us, our colleagues in the Bloc or any other parties so that we can make an informed decision. It is just an arbitrary method to completely seize control of this place, as is the pattern they have shown in the past. As I said, it is really diminishing the value of our democratic institutions. This is a government, quite frankly, that does not want an opposition; it wants an audience. The Prime Minister has shown his contempt for this place. He has shown his contempt for institutions and he has shown contempt for the opposition parties. There is no greater example of that than some of the scandals that have gone on, including the current scandal, with the lines of differentiation be damned between the executive branch and the government and our institutions that are supposed to function independently of government and the executive branch. The government has proven time and time again that it is going to interfere in the institutions that Canadians hold so dear. We are seeing a diminishment in those institutions and we are certainly seeing a decline in our democracy. As I said last night, even the pundits are suggesting that it is time to get back to normal here. Even the pundits are saying that this is done, that this is over. We need to return to normal to signal to the rest of Canadians that we are returning to normal, and if that is not the signal from this place, then what signal are we sending? We cannot live in perpetual fear. We cannot live in a state where the government is inciting this fear among its citizens. Let us look at where we are in September and make a decision then. This week we could have been dealing with many other issues. I am going to suggest that this is a country in chaos right now, when we see what is happening with inflation and the affordability crisis that is facing Canadians, when we look at the passport situation and the fiasco that is going on there, when we look at other factors, not the least of which is what we are hearing out of Nova Scotia about the government, the Prime Minister's Office and the public safety minister's office interfering with an active investigation, not to mention the scandals that have gone on in the past. We could have been dealing with many issues other than the speculative issue that the government House leader and his buddy in the NDP predict may happen. We could have been dealing with and seized with these issues. We could have been providing solutions so that we can help Canadians who are facing this affordability crisis right now. I would suggest the Conservatives have done that many times in the past. Over the course of the last several months, we have proposed solutions like lowering taxes, lowering gas taxes and getting rid of the carbon tax to make life more affordable for Canadians, and every single time, those proposals have been rejected by the government. We have proven time and time again that we want to find solutions and work to help Canadians, but in that time that the government has rejected our proposals since the coalition agreement between the NDP and the Liberals has taken effect, the NDP voted 95% of the time with the Liberals to reject those proposals. This is a party that used to stand up for working families. The NDP used to stand up for principles. There were members in the party who actually had a moral compass system. They had values, and they stood up for what was right or wrong. Now they are standing up every single time with these Liberals, and they do that because of promises. This is a government that cannot deliver even the most basic services in this country, yet the NDP signed a deal with this government that proposes to bring about dental care and pharmacare. Now, let us think about that. The government cannot even deliver the most basic services, yet the NDP is depending on it to implement complicated systems. Boy, have they been sold a bill of goods. As well, they have sold their values and their morals, the things they used to stand for in this place. They used to stand up for what was right and against what was wrong. They have sold those values on a wing and a prayer. I have news for the NDP members. If this government cannot even deliver basic services to Canadians, how can it be expected to deliver on its promises in this deal as a coalition government? Canadians will be waiting a long time for that. However, in the meantime, what we see from the NDP in question period is gross. The NDP is asking this government questions on accountability issues, yet supporting the government on every aspect of what it is doing at least 95% of the time. It is actually gross to see. The NDP could have followed the people before them, like Tom Mulcair, who used to stand on values and principles in this place and who used to actually act like an opposition, and others like Jack Layton and Tommy Douglas, who fought for working Canadians. Where has that NDP gone? I will make a prediction right now that the NDP is heading into an abyss of irrelevance because of this deal that it made with the Liberal government that it continues to prop up. The NDP will continue to prop up the government on all of the issues of corruption, on all of the issues of cronyism, on all of the issues of political interference, on not fulfilling its promises and on not living up to what it promised Canadians, not the least of which was electoral reform. That should have been a signal to this government. He does not like what I am saying, so he—

1905 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/23/22 12:20:07 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

11 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/23/22 12:20:34 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member's earpiece is too close to the mike, which is hard for interpretation. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

20 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/23/22 12:20:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I apologize to the interpreters for that. The member, for the last seven or eight minutes, has not been talking about this motion. I am wondering if perhaps you could gently encourage him to get back on topic.

40 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 95