SoVote

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Jun/23/22 12:33:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the leader of the official opposition for his speech. I would like to hear his thoughts on the leader of the government's comments about the Quebec nation, which I felt were condescending. This evening is when we would normally be celebrating Quebec's national holiday in Montreal, Quebec City and elsewhere. We leave June 23 on the calendar for any emergencies we have to deal with, such as the passport situation. Was this motion that urgent? I do not think so. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the following. The House is governed by two things: rules and practice. The rule is that we sit on June 23, but in practice we do not sit, as a matter of basic respect. The leader of the government will rise in the House in a few months to ask for unanimous consent to finish earlier so the Liberal members can attend the Liberal convention. How is the Liberal convention more important than the Quebec nation?

172 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard

Jun/23/22 12:34:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this discussion came up a couple of weeks ago in a House leaders' meeting. The leader of the House for the Bloc Québécois made it explicitly clear to the government House leader that this was important, just as it is for our members from Quebec, because this is a holiday of great importance within Quebec. At the time we talked about it, there was no indication that we were going to be dealing with Motion No. 19. In fact, what the Liberals did was put it on notice Monday evening knowing that the debate would eventually roll into Thursday, with the vote scheduled for 8:30 p.m. I want to assure my hon. colleague that we have done everything we can to ensure that the vote happens as early as possible, with an understanding for not just Bloc Québécois members but our members from Quebec, who understand how important the fête nationale is in Quebec. I am just sorry that the Liberal government House leader does not realize or understand how important it is. Basically, what he did—

192 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/23/22 12:36:01 p.m.
Watch

We need time for other questions. The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

13 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Jun/23/22 12:36:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, listening to the opposition House leader for the last 20 minutes or half an hour has truly inspired me to nominate him for a Pulitzer Prize in fiction. As 119 MPs have ultimately become irrelevant because they are wrong on this issue and on every issue, I can understand the bitterness of the member across the way. However, if we were to listen to him and his objection to the NDP fighting for pharmacare or dental care, which are things that will help Canadians, and if we accepted the Conservatives' outdated arguments, we would never have progress in this place. We would not have achievements on child care, health care or LGBTQ rights. My question is simple. With his members hosting convoy organizers on the Hill, how can Canadians take the member and his party seriously?

138 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard

Jun/23/22 12:37:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her understanding of how deep the abyss of irrelevance will be once the Canadian electorate gets a hold of the New Democrats in the next election after they made a deal with the Liberals. The Liberals were sent here with 32% of the vote. It was only because the Prime Minister did not receive a majority government that he decided to invite the NDP to be a coalition partner. If these things become true, I will eat my words. Promises were made by the Liberal government to the NDP, but the Liberals have never lived up to a promise they have been able to keep. The country is in chaos and calamity. Even the most basic services are not being delivered. If the New Democrats think they are going to get their way out of this, they are sadly wrong and they will be irrelevant in the next election.

159 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Jun/23/22 12:38:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join this debate. I have been listening intently over the last hour or so to what has been discussed in the House, and I heard the government House leader say that we will be able to look at this at PROC in the fall. However, the rule is going to be in place until June 23, 2023. I do not know where the Liberals come from, but where I come from, we do not make a rule and then study it to make another rule when it has already been put in place. Their argument here is irrelevant. If they want PROC to study this in September, why are they putting in this piece of legislation now so that the rule stays until June 23, 2023? It does not make any sense, so I would like our House leader to explain it to us.

151 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard

Jun/23/22 12:38:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I sat on PROC when we studied this at the beginning of the pandemic. The concern was always that this was going to become more permanent in nature, and I believe it is the goal of not just the Liberal government but its partners in the NDP to make this more permanent. There were other concerns as well. Members may use this not to come here so that in close ridings they can perpetually electioneer. I suspect that this is probably going to be the case for the NDP and the Liberals. As I said last night about somebody who wants to be in their community, this is a transcontinental country, and the expectation is that when we get elected here, we are going to come to Ottawa. If members want to be in their riding, they can run for mayor, run for council or run for public school trustee. They should not run for MP, because the expectation is that they will need to be here.

169 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/23/22 12:39:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. official opposition House leader, COVID is not over. My husband is at home right now extremely sick because he tested positive for COVID. I tested myself this morning and the test came up negative. I do not want to put people at risk. We can look casually and google for scientific advice right now, today. The hon. opposition House leader tells us that there is no scientific evidence, but he is willfully blind. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control is saying that it fears another outbreak. There is what is happening right now in Portugal. There are warnings from Dr. Zain Chagla at McMaster and from Dr. Isaac Bogoch, whom we have been following very carefully. He says to look at the waste-water data. This is a virus that mutates. That is what it does. It does not mutate to milder and milder; it sometimes mutates milder, sometimes worse. What I have seen in this place since March 13, 2020, when we adjourned because of COVID, is that every measure to adapt has seen a big parliamentary fight, so deciding this now saves us time in the fall.

199 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard

Jun/23/22 12:41:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the only way I will respond is to note that other legislatures around the world, such as the U.S. Congress and our mother Parliament, have all resumed to normal, in-person sittings. Why should they be any different from us? I would be glad to take a question from the member for Kingston and the Islands.

59 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/23/22 12:41:15 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry, but we have to resume debate. We have a point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

25 words

Secretary

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/23/22 12:41:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for one more question to be taken by the member for Barrie—Innisfil.

27 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/23/22 12:41:38 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

23 words

All Topics

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

Jun/23/22 12:42:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the opposition House leader can try to clarify something for me. When we had a motion this morning to move to orders of the day, 66 Conservatives voted remotely and 44 voted in person. This is public data available on the website. When we voted on the motion for closure, 52 Conservatives voted remotely. That means 14 Conservatives were within a 10-minute walk of this place and were able to get over here, as they had previously voted remotely. Can the opposition House leader please explain to the House how the Conservatives can be so dead set against this technology when they are routinely using it?

113 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard

Jun/23/22 12:42:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to show how little respect I have for this member: I will take the next question now.

21 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/23/22 12:43:11 p.m.
Watch

Order, please. I am recognizing a point of order, and it is not the one from the parliamentary secretary. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is rising on a point of order.

33 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Jun/23/22 12:43:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know I do not need to point this out to you, but Standing Order 18 says that “No member shall speak disrespectfully” of another member. That is not just using foul language or calling someone a name; it is also saying, as the hon. member just said, he has so little respect for the member that he is leaving. I am sorry, but that violates Standing Order 18.

73 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/23/22 12:44:00 p.m.
Watch

I appreciate the point of order from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I want to remind members to please be respectful to each other. We are at the end of the session and today is the last day, and I am sure the Clerks are going to be happy to have a bit of a break, as all of us will. I ask members to please be respectful to each other, and to allow the hon. member for La Prairie to have the floor at this point.

90 words

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Jun/23/22 12:44:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Joliette. Once again, we are debating a motion aimed at extending hybrid parliamentary proceedings. Let me make one thing clear: Hybrid Parliament is not a cure-all. There are a number of problems with the format. It was supposed to be temporary, and I hope that is still the intention. First, there are the interpretation problems. On several occasions, the interpretation has stopped working or interpreters have fallen ill for various reasons. This format is extremely demanding on our human resources. We must be aware of that. Second, there is the matter of accountability. The government is hiding behind a two-dimensional format. It is always easier for ministers to hide their incompetence behind a screen than in person. It is a little less embarrassing. That is one of the reasons the Liberal Party likes the hybrid format so much. It is a way of dodging accountability. As we know, this government does not like Parliament. It does not like to talk or negotiate. It would rather impose its own law. This was a minority government. Thanks to the NDP, it became a majority government and, thanks to the government House leader, it is now an authoritarian government. There are no more negotiations, but the extension of the hybrid Parliament is something that should be negotiated by common agreement or consensus. We are changing the way Parliament operates. That is a big deal. I am not wrong in saying that it has changed. Democracy requires that ministers and members be present. That way, we can do more parliamentary work and discuss current files and future committees. We can do that when we are here in person. This is a government that likes to run away. Considering all of the disasters Quebeckers and Canadians are going through because of this government, the reason is obvious. This government is just plain incompetent. The day before yesterday, June 21, we ran into problems with the hybrid format. That shows just how fragile it is. The Bloc Québécois wanted to be able to continue to do our parliamentary work during the pandemic, but we would have liked to have more of a discussion about extending the hybrid Parliament, instead of having it imposed on us like the government is doing today. It was not urgent. Lastly, we hope, and in fact we know, that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will be looking at the extension of the hybrid Parliament to determine what will happen next. They should be able to see that it is not going too well. There are a number of problems. What do the other parties think? As I mentioned, the Liberals do not want anything to do with Parliament. They do not want to hold discussions, so they like the idea of continuing in hybrid format. The government's position is as follows: less time in Parliament and more virtual answers, which is far easier. If the Liberals had their way, Parliament would stay hybrid until the end of time. Why are we talking about a hybrid Parliament? We are talking about it because of the pandemic, and yet, when we ask the New Democrats why they want a hybrid Parliament, they do not even mention the pandemic. They talk about improving work-life balance and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The NDP government—because, yes, the NDP is now part of the government—agreed to the Bay du Nord project and to increased subsidies for the Trans Mountain pipeline, and now the NDP members come along and tell us that we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions. As the House leader of the official opposition said, the truth is that the New Democrats want to stay home because they live far away, and flying hurts their ears. That is their position. They like to participate, but from a distance. The reality is that elected members of Parliament are accountable. We have responsibilities and obligations towards our constituents. Sitting in Parliament is the primary responsibility. Hiding behind a screen will not make us work any better. No one here believes that, but that is the position the NDP government has taken. The Bloc Québécois believes that the virtual mode should not be the norm, it should be the exception in a context of COVID-19. People should be able to participate virtually if they have the virus or if they have been in contact with someone who does. Virtual mode should be used only in those cases. There are several members we have barely seen for two years. Why is that? Do they have eternal COVID? Did they dive into a little pool full of COVID? Did they make friends with two viruses and start going around with them all the time? That is the reality. I will not name any names, but we know who they are and, above all, we know which party does this. If we want to make this about work-life balance, if we want to use less gas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then it will be up to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to discuss it and to decide if we will have a permanent hybrid Parliament. With respect to the NDP members' thinking, the pandemic is not the real reason for this. They want a permanent hybrid Parliament, and we do not agree with that. Why are we talking about this on June 23? We have been co-operating with the government for more than two weeks so that we could rise for the summer today. Remember, Parliament voted to recognize the Quebec nation. Saint-Jean-Baptiste festivities are taking place today and tomorrow, and we do not understand why we are being forced to sit when this almost never happens. I think it has happened four times in the last 40 years. We asked the leader of the government to postpone this discussion until the fall for three reasons. First, that is how it has been done since forever. The start of the session is when we determine how the House will operate. Second, there is no rush, because we are going back to our respective ridings. Finally, it would allow us to gather more information. The Liberals said earlier that we are in a pandemic and we do not know what the future holds. All the more reason to wait and gather information for three months, in order to make more informed decisions, but they are talking about extending the hybrid Parliament for a year. Would we still need a year or six months? Perhaps by September, we would have had more answers, and more intelligent ones, to our questions. The Liberals clearly do not care much about intelligent answers. Just look at the passport situation. We therefore suggested that we postpone the discussion until the fall because we have some problems with the hybrid Parliament model. As I said earlier, we view this model as an impediment to democracy and do not think it should be the norm. I am repeating this, because it is important. The hybrid model must be an exception. Looking back, there is one point I want to bring up. I know that the member for Kingston and the Islands enjoys making lists of who votes and who does not vote. He is not concerned about his own party, but no matter. When Bloc Québécois members were not in the House, it was usually because, with few exceptions, they had caught COVID‑19 or had been in close contact with someone who had it. We always viewed hybrid Parliament as an exception. We are trying to set an example. We believe in walking the talk. The government's recognition of the Quebec nation cannot be all talk. It needs to take action. Once again, the government has failed to walk the talk. For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the motion.

1364 words

All Topics

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

Jun/23/22 12:53:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, last week, I was unable to participate here on the floor of the House of Commons because I had tested positive. Fortunately, now I am testing negative, so I did have a bout of COVID-19. I was able to participate here by using hybrid Parliament. That was just last week. I had the opportunity to address a number of issues on the floor. It also enabled me to vote. To try to wish away the pandemic is highly irresponsible. Believe it or not, we will continue to have the pandemic over the next couple of months at the very least. What we are doing is affording members of the House the chance to demonstrate leadership to their constituents by not having to go into a certain environment. I would not have wanted to come in here, having tested positive, to deliver a speech or to vote. That demonstrates leadership, and that is the type of leadership we should be demonstrating to our constituents. Does the member not agree that it was the responsible thing for me to do to be here by the hybrid method, as opposed to being here in person, because I tested positive last week?

201 words

All Topics

Mr. Alain Therrien

Jun/23/22 12:55:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North says that that demonstrates leadership. I thank him for that. He demonstrated leadership because he is an exception. As I explained, we support the idea of members who have COVID-19 not coming to the House in person but still being able to do their work. If my colleague had listened more carefully, he would have understood that I support that way of doing things, and so I commend him for his actions. Yes, the member for Winnipeg North is often in the House. We are well aware that. When I noticed last week that he was not physically present in the House and was participating virtually, I knew something must have happened, and I figured he had COVID-19. No one could ever say that he does not do his job in Parliament.

141 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 95