SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 126

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 14, 2022 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 126 - Nov/14/22
Hon. Andrew Scheer
  • Nov/14/22 12:49:30 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, for my hon. colleague, I am establishing the motive behind this motion today. It may take some time, because the government does not like to talk about its motives, especially when it has been involved in so much corruption. As I was saying, that is when the government took out the big whiteboard eraser and prorogued Parliament. It did so to avoid the kind of scrutiny that was coming out of the investigation into the WE scandal. Last summer, Parliament was exercising its authority to get information and documents for Canadians and trying to get to the bottom of the Winnipeg lab scandal. Do members remember when there were two researchers at a lab in Winnipeg who were closely tied to the Communist Party in Beijing? They were very quickly escorted out of the country and sent back, and we wanted to know why. What was going on at that lab? Why were these two researchers, who were so closely connected to the Communist Party in Beijing, involved in this type of research here, and what led to their sudden dismissal and deportation? We were trying to get to the bottom of that. Not only did the government refuse to abide by legitimate and procedurally proper motions passed by the committee and by the House of Commons, but it also took the unprecedented step of taking the Speaker to court. It sued the Speaker of the House of Commons. That is a role I once held. I cannot imagine any—
253 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 126 - Nov/14/22
Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)
  • Nov/14/22 1:41:02 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, the concern from this side of the House does not stem from the fact that debate wants to be had. The member said that we are trying to silence members. On the contrary, we are trying to open up more time to allow for more discussion to take place. I would ask her for her thoughts on Bill S-5, which came before the House. Bill S-5 is about environmental protections. I realize that members of the House have passions about different issues. Some people really want to talk about the environment and some people want to talk about certain social programs. However, let me just recap Bill S-5. Six Liberals got up to speak, four NDP members got up to speak, five Bloc members got up to speak and one Green member got up to speak. Do members know how many Conservatives got up to speak to Bill S-5? It was 27. If members listened to the debate on Bill S-5, which I did, they know that none of the Conservative speeches even talked about environmental protections. Then at the end, the Conservatives voted in favour of it anyway. It has become very clear to me that the objective of the Conservatives in the House is not about scrutiny and oversight, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle talks about. It is about obstructing at every possible impasse the ability to do anything for Canadians. Could the member from the Bloc reflect on whether she thinks it is peculiar that 27 Conservatives spoke to Bill S-5, which they voted in favour of, while the rest of the parties only had four or five speakers?
283 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border