Finance Committee on Oct. 8th, 2020

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I was about to bring it back, Mr. Chair. I was, but Mr. MacGregor wanted clarification on that point.

When I was going to bring it back, I was going to simply say that in light of the fact that we continue to deal with COVID-19, we must recognize that the state, as a whole, has a responsibility. Naturally the NDP will understand the responsibility of the state in a particular way, one that seeks to put in a place of primacy working class Canadians.

Who can forget the very famous poem recited by Tommy Douglas? It's an interesting fact that it wasn't Tommy Douglas who came up with the Mouseland poem and fable. It was someone else, but either way, the idea is that the working class should be at the very core of what parliamentarians are looking at and who they are seeking to support.

Of course, he used the analogy of the mice and the black cats—the black cats, of course, being the capitalist class, and the mice being the working class—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I do think we are straying from—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

—the motion we are debating.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I was trying to work it back, Mr. Chair. I am working to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We have a point of order from Mr. Genuis.

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, based on what the member was saying, I had assumed we were in camera and that these were not things he wanted on the record. Could you clarify whether we are in camera or in public?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

This is public.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Oh, it's public. Okay. I'm glad the record will show it, then. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It is a public meeting, Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Fragiskatos, we'll go on to relevance.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Certainly, Mr. Chair.

I'm making the point that when we think about pre-budged consultations, we have to think about responsibilities. Each member of Parliament will understand their responsibilities in a certain way. The NDP has a particular approach to the issue of responsibility and what it means for parliamentarians, which aligns with the ideological perspective of the NDP and the role of the state within that wider framework.

I'm glad to go on record on these things. I'm happy, even as a Liberal, to quote Tommy Douglas. It is interesting that if we reviewed the parliamentary record and some of the things Mr. Genuis has said over the years, I wonder if—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'm coming back to relevance again, but I'm reluctant to cut you off.

Go ahead.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I'm getting to the point at hand, Mr. Chair. I've stayed on topic, although yes, perhaps I've strayed at certain points.

I know Mr. Genuis is off his game here a little bit and wants to continue to interject. It's not my intent to get under his skin. He's a valued colleague, and I hope we can remain collegial here.

There are others, Mr. Chair, who will say that the role of parliamentarians—and this again reflects their position on what the state is all about—the primary job of parliamentarians, is to make sure that people are secure, because the job of the state is to ensure the physical security of citizens, but that's not just a point that relates to the need for a strong military.

Think about economic security and what Canadians are going through right now. You don't have to have a particularly focused understanding of German sociology through the works of Max Weber and others on what the state is all about to recognize that the state is much more than an entity tasked with ensuring the physical security of citizens. The economic security of citizens is absolutely paramount, and here we have an opportunity at this committee to look at that matter in great detail.

I'm tempted, Mr. Chair, as someone of Greek heritage, to speak about the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato and what Socrates said about the state. I won't go into that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That's good, because I was going to suggest that the clerk has now sent you the motion. It might be good for you to pull it up so that you could be on the motion with relevance.

The floor is yours to start to sum up.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Again, with due respect, it is all relevant, Mr. Chair, when we are debating a subamendment that, if accepted, would allow this committee to meaningfully approach its various responsibilities.

Number one, we would finally have a path forward that would allow for pre-budget consultations to begin. On top of that, we would deal with the issues that our opposition friends have raised here today. They wish to discuss this issue of redaction—fair enough—but we cannot do that unless we discuss it with those who were involved, those being the public servants and the law clerk. Let's have them at committee. Let's have that meaningful discussion. Why we would hold that back is only for the opposition, namely the Conservatives, to answer, and they have not done it. Instead they want to continue to focus on political points and partisanship, issues that everyday Canadians on Main Street don't care at all about. They care about ideas that will lead to genuine policy outcomes, as we've seen.

As I made clear in my earlier remarks today, this committee has the ability to do that, the ability to suggest policy proposals to the government, namely the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, that would continue to contribute to this country. CEBA, the payroll subsidy, and matters of rent could all be looked at in a very serious way.

Mr. Chair, I think we ought to move forward, agree to the subamendment of Mr. Gerretsen, and then begin planning what Ms. Dzerowicz and Mr. Ste-Marie have both called for, and I believe Mr. Julian too at some point—I don't want to leave him out of this—which is a pre-budget consultation. It's been a pleasure to serve on this committee for the last several years, and the best part of the role is sitting through pre-budget consultations. It's a very serious enterprise, one that I take incredibly seriously.

I've raised various philosophers and philosophical theories here today about what the state should be. Ultimately, the state should look after its citizens, whether you put the working class at the centre, as the NDP does, whether you put business at the centre, as the Conservatives do, or whether, as the Liberals do as a party of moderation, you put the needs of the working class, the poor and business in the middle. Again, it's a party of moderation, and we can find ways to work together.

All of what we've heard here today from the opposition stands in the way of that. What the Conservatives continue to do here is not in the spirit of collaboration. I would call on them to stop being obstructionist, to accept the subamendment of Mr. Gerretsen, and to get on with the business of this committee—namely, the recognition of Standing Order 83.1. Let's do what's right, agree with Mr. Gerretsen on what he has put forward, and then, as I said, start planning the real work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

I said I'd give Mr. Genuis an opportunity to at least finish his quote on Winston Churchill or, if he wants to, make further remarks.

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis. Then I will go to Mr. Gerretsen and Mr. Badawey.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, I'm extremely grateful.

The quotation was from Winston Churchill, who said, “It is good for an uneducated man to read books of quotations.”

That is all I have to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That is the shortest I've ever heard you speak.

Go ahead, Mr. Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I don't know how I'm supposed to follow that. That was a very enlightening quote Mr. Genuis provided.

Let's get back to what I am proposing. I put up my hand when Mrs. Jansen was speaking. This amendment hadn't been distributed yet, although I thought it had gone out. Fair enough. I don't know if she fully understood—and I'm just interpreting this based on what she was saying—what this is asking for.

I want to very quickly go through it again, now that everybody has it in front of them.

The first part says, “That the committee requests the complete package of documents provided to the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons by relevant Deputy Ministers or the signatories of the transmittal letters, as well as the final package of documents that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons approved for release”. It's asking for those documents.

Then it goes on to say that “both the documents and packages be provided no later than October 19” and further, “that after the committee reviews the two versions of the documents, the committee invite the relevant deputy ministers, the signatories of the transmittal letters, as well as the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel”—which is to the point that she raised—“of the House of Commons to give testimony regarding the redactions”.

Then it goes on to indicate various dates in there, and that Mr. Poilievre's motion be picked up after that fact.

I am having a very difficult time letting this go. Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I'd love to hear from Mr. MacGregor or Mr. Ste-Marie as to where they are on this. I know they would not want to put themselves in a position of voting on something that basically deems these officials to have breached privileges of Parliament without even providing them due process.

Because we haven't heard from the NDP and the Bloc, I am really curious to know where they are in terms of supporting it. It's important for people to know that we're basically casting judgment based on some work that was done without asking for information as to how and why the work was done in the way that it was. Although I can appreciate the political need to not support my previous two motions, I think that members should pay a lot more attention to this one, because what we're saying is to give them....

I see that Mr. MacGregor has raised his hand to signal you, Mr. Chair. I know you're on a really small screen there, so hopefully you'll give him the opportunity to chime in at the appropriate moment. Maybe Mr. Ste-Marie wants to as well.

No, he doesn't. Okay.

We're basically saying that these officials, who are independent and work for Parliament, have breached privileges of members. What's worse is that you're not even giving them an opportunity to explain how and why they did their work before you deem that to be the case. If you really have an interest in defending the institution and the individuals, which I know the NDP and the Bloc do, you would want to at least explain, and put on the record, why you don't think they should be afforded the opportunity to defend themselves before casting this judgment on them.

The next part of it is.... It doesn't leave it there. This amendment doesn't just say, “Okay, that's it. That's the end of the story.” The amendment goes on to say that if the committee is still not satisfied, it can take further actions it deems necessary—i.e., for privilege being breached—so there is still the opportunity to go back to Mr. Poilievre's motion and enforce that later on.

It's easy to assume that people out there don't understand the nuances of how this stuff works. Mr. Poilievre brought out documents that had been redacted, and he waved them around. When he did that, he was, of course, trying to imply that they had all been done by the PMO, that the Prime Minister sat there and blacked out all these things, or got his people to black out all these things, before they were turned over to Parliament. Come on. Nobody in this meeting right now thinks otherwise. Everybody knows that this was Mr. Poilievre's intention. Nobody believes that he took the time to explain to people, while he was flashing these documents around, that legal counsel and the officers of Parliament were the ones who blacked out the necessary portions of them. Nobody thinks that anybody took the time to do that.

Therefore, we have to let these people have their say. This is like trying an individual before a court without allowing that individual to put forth their defence. I can't understand how any member of Parliament wouldn't support more openness and accountability—unless of course, going back to what I've been accused of so many times today, the motive has nothing to do with openness and transparency and getting the information out there, but rather has to do with grandstanding and using this opportunity to once again, as Mr. Fragiskatos said, do nothing more than attempt to inflict political damage on the Prime Minister in particular.

We know that from day one, the Conservatives, in opposition since 2015, have spent very, very little time bringing forward policies and motions. I hand it to the NDP, because quite often, although not all the time, when they bring forward opposition motions, they are actually about policy. As we've seen from the Conservatives, every motion they bring forward has always been about how to make the Prime Minister look bad, how to paint him in a bad light. It has always been about personal attacks on the Prime Minister.

I apologize if I'm jumping to the conclusion that motives exist here, but it's all that I've witnessed from the Conservatives for five years. It's the only thing I've had the opportunity to see. There's no interest in policy. There's no interest in bringing forward anything that would advance the agenda of Canadians. They never do that. They just bring forward opposition motions, and take various opportunities during question period, to try to completely annihilate political careers, as opposed to advancing things that Canadians care about right now.

This is germane to the discussion, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to highlight why they're not interested in supporting something like this, or at least why I perceive they're not supporting something like this. I wholeheartedly believe that the NDP and the Bloc are in a different place in terms of worrying about how we are affecting public servants through this process and what a motion like this would be inflicting upon public servants. I think they should be extremely careful when going down this road.

Mr. Chair, I know that Mr. Badawey has something to add to this, so I will conclude my remarks by saying that I have a very, very difficult time letting this go. We're talking about more openness, we're talking about more transparency and we're talking about allowing people to defend themselves against accusations of a breach of privilege. We should be affording them the opportunity to do that.

Maybe Mr. MacGregor or Mr. Ste-Marie see this a little differently and have problems with this particular amendment. Maybe they can find an amendment to the amendment that would make it more palatable in terms of their being able to accept it. However, I really think that at the end of the day, we need to make sure these individuals have the opportunity to have a say in what they're basically being accused of through this motion.

I'm really hoping that, as Mr. Fragiskatos said, in the spirit of collegiality, we can find a way to allow them the opportunity to do that. If you're are genuinely interested in getting to the bottom of this, I think that people will support that idea.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

Just to give everyone a heads-up, I have on my list Mr. Badawey, Mr. MacGregor, and Mr. Lake.

First is Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have to say, just jumping into this fray—although I've been watching it for a bit today—that it's been quite a journey. I also have to say that I'm not going to be here to give anybody any lessons or any preaching or any quotes; I'm just going to get right to the point.

I guess somewhat of a benefit, Mr. Chairman, is that I'm coming from the perspective of being outside the box for the past day, in comparison to many of you who've been at this for quite some time. What I've witnessed, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, is something that has disturbed me since becoming an MP in 2015, compared to my former life as a mayor for 14 years here in a small community in Niagara, in Port Colborne.

I've always had a certain attitude or mindset. It's an attitude that was progressive on behalf of the people I represented and a mindset that we put the business of good government ahead of the business of good politics. Quite frankly, that's what I can see here happening.

I say “good government” because we have priorities that are a heck of a lot more important to deal with today, like COVID and the pandemic and many of the files that many of you work on on a daily basis on behalf of each and every individual and business in your ridings.

When I look at this, I see two words that resonate in my mind, one being “accountability” and one being “transparency”. It's that simple, quite frankly: accountability based on what we're discussing and transparency on how to come out with decisions based on the motion that's before us. Equally as important, if not more important, is to get to the amendment that's been presented to us and that we're now discussing.

Mr. Chairman, it is about team and it is about respect. I bring up my former life as a mayor because one of the things I didn't demand but commanded was just that: a respect for our team. That's the respect for the people who are elected, but equally, if not more importantly, it's the respect for those people who work side by side with us on a daily basis who, quite frankly, make us look good.

Make no mistake about it, members: It's not you who does much of what is read about you or is the reason your name or face is in the paper. It's the people you work with on a daily basis. It's your staff. It's the team. In this case in the House, it's public servants, the law clerk, and the list goes on. Let's not dismiss that. Let's remember that. Quite frankly, they deserve your respect as much as they respect you. They're passionate about being in the business of good government, not in the business of good politics.

With that said, there are many opportunities that come out of that mindset, opportunities for you to best represent the people who are in your ridings and, quite frankly, even outside them, across Canada, as we get out of our ridings sometimes. In my former life, I also made it very clear to my council that we were not sitting around a horseshoe to bully the people we worked with. We were sitting around to listen, to learn and to make proper decisions because of what we heard and what we learned. This is no different. Here we are with an opportunity to make a good decision for the people we represent, a decision for good government, which is the business we should be in, and to take into consideration what our public servants and our law clerk have to say in explaining their decisions before we inform the House that they have breached members' privilege, your privilege.

I say “bully” because without that opportunity, quite frankly, that's what we're doing. We're taking on a decision that, in fact, is not fully informed.

I'm currently the chair of the Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities. Frankly, I'm blessed to date—although we've only had one meeting with many discussions—with the committee members we have in place. What I hear from the sincerity of committee members, both at the meeting as well as off to the side, is that we all have a desire to get on with business and to get on with good government as opposed to good politics. With that said, it's political gain that you'll get, based on results.

When it comes election time, those results come from that narrative, on how hard you worked and what you brought back to your people.

I've talked to many people throughout the past many weeks and many months on this very issue, and quite frankly, what people are concerned with is putting food on their table, paying their bills and being healthy.

Quite frankly, this is, to some extent, rhetoric. It's noise, and as was mentioned earlier, it's just a ploy by the opposition party to gain a narrative, after the good work that has been done by this government, and not just by the government but by all of us working together for the past many months.

That said, it's not just about us; it's about the people we work with on a daily basis. It's the different organizations: the United Way, seniors organizations, our Legions, the people who help the homeless, people who put food on people's tables, and the list goes on, including our municipal councils. That's what we should be discussing right now. That's the priority. That's the business of good government.

I've always considered myself a riding MP, someone who will not get caught in the Ottawa bubble, in all the rhetoric and the attempts to capture the narrative and get that word out there. No, it's all about “simple”. It's simply dealing with the residents, with Mrs. Jones in Thorold, Mrs. MacKinnon in Welland, Mr. Polc in Port Colborne and residents throughout the region. That's my priority. That's what I'm about. That's what I spend my time on.

Now I'm pulled into a meeting such as this, which, by the way, I fully appreciate. I feel very privileged, actually, to be with many of you, who I see almost on a daily basis are doing good work.

Why are we going down this road? If, in fact, we're going to go down this road, why are we not doing it properly? Why are we not doing it in a way that the people we represent expect us to, as MPs, and being accountable and transparent? Why are we not allowing the process to be accountable and transparent, and therefore allowing this amendment to move forward?

Again I go back to my former life, which I try to learn from when I'm in my current life as a member of Parliament and trying to inject better government into the process, versus better politics. As many of you may know, at the municipal level it's about the person you talk to in the Loblaws or on the soccer field or at the arena, or when you're walking down a sidewalk or you're interrupted while you're cutting your grass. They want to talk about transit or about the high water bills, and the list goes on.

This is no different. People still do that with me. One of the first questions they ask me is, “Why is it always a fight up in Ottawa? Why can't people just look after our best interests, the things that we deal with on a daily basis, as you used to do when you were a mayor, and simply stop playing politics and trying to gain a narrative, bashing the Prime Minister or bashing certain ministers or MPs?” Let's get down to it. Let's get down to work.

I came in about an hour ago and saw the amendment that has been brought forward, and when I see, quite frankly, the disrespect that's being shown here versus the respect for the people we deal with on a daily basis, it's quite disturbing.

Folks, we're all on the same team here. We all should be rowing in the same direction. It's Canada. I'll stop short of giving my opinion on some of the things that happen around the world or even with our neighbours to the south, because what's relevant here is that as Canadians, we should be rowing in the same direction.

Part of that—and I get the politics, because it is Ottawa—is allowing respect to be front and centre and therefore giving an opportunity for our team—our public servants and the law clerk—to come forward and be accountable, be transparent and give us a reason, and therefore move forward past that to the main motion.

To all of you, I say that: Show that respect. Show that you recognize the team. Show that you recognize that what's more important here is the business of government, not the business of politics. Therefore, we can move forward with this discussion, and I do respect the discussion, but equally if not more importantly is to move forward with what our priorities are here on this day, October 15, 2020, and moving forward as long as we're in this pandemic.

Those priorities are to ensure that people are healthy, safe, and confident and comfortable that they have a government that's working in their best interests in terms of what they're dealing with today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

We have Mr. MacGregor followed by Mr. Lake.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I won't be long. Mr. Gerretsen asked for my viewpoint on this. When I go back and look at the original letter that was provided by the parliamentary law clerk, I was struck by that one paragraph where the parliamentary law clerk notes that the power the House and its committees have to order the production of records is absolute and unfettered as it constitutes a constitutional parliamentary privilege that supersedes statutory obligations such as the exemptions found in the Access to Information Act. That's it in a nutshell. That's it, full stop.

We're now dealing with a subamendment to an amendment to a main motion. I get what the Liberals are trying to do. They've talked repeatedly about wanting the finance committee to get on to more important matters, whereas members of the opposition are saying, yes, let's get to a vote so we can get to those other matters. However, for me it's the fact that various departments took that step of deciding what the committee could see and what the committee could not see. It just really goes back to that one sentence in the letter from the parliamentary law clerk. Our power to order the production of records and the production of papers is an absolute authority. It's rooted in centuries of tradition. That's what we're standing up for. Ultimately, we are the ones who make the decisions on what we view and so on.

I don't think, ultimately, any member of this committee.... I've heard members of the governing party allude to the fact that we may want to go on a witch hunt, or that members of various ministries and deputy ministers.... We're not interested in going after those people. I've worked very closely with deputy ministers at the agriculture committee. They're fine, upstanding people. In no way do we want to impugn their records or what they contribute to the way our government functions.

At the heart of this matter is our upholding the rights and privileges of Parliament as an institution, a convention and a set of rules that are rooted in centuries of tradition. That's really where the opposition is at.

I was at the great PROC filibuster of 2017. I remember taking part in that. I wonder why the Liberals are choosing this hill to die on. If you're going to filibuster a committee—if you're going to delay our actually getting to a vote—you should have a reason.

In 2017 we were legitimately filibustering the procedure and house affairs committee because we were trying to stop the executive from unilaterally changing the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. That was a hill we were going to die on, because it was affecting not only our rights and privileges as members but the rights and privileges of all MPs—present and future. I think that was a more noble cause. It was something that could be easily explained to the Canadian public.

You have to ask yourself.... People who are tuning in right now—not only to the Standing Committee on Finance but also to the Standing Committee on Ethics—are wondering why it's still October 8 on the Standing Committee of Finance's website when we are now more than 176 hours in, and why we keep having subamendments to an amendment to the main motion. It's continuous delay to not allow us, as members of the committee, to see information that we are rightly allowed to see, given Parliament's absolute power in this regard.

I'll end there by saying that I understand the Liberal argument on why they have to do this and the process they're going through.

To Mr. Badawey's comments, I believe that Parliament and its various committees are able to walk and chew gum. The business of government is going on. The House of Commons is dealing with justice bills. I know the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food is looking at agricultural matters. This Standing Committee on Finance is doing something that's related to its mandate, as is the ethics committee.

The government is still functioning. The various ministries are still functioning. The House of Commons is still looking at other things. I believe that this committee is exercising a power that it should be exercising. I hope the Liberals on this committee understand that the longer this goes on, the reasons they have for delaying our getting to an actual vote are going to start wearing thin with the Canadian public.

You don't have, on your side, a plausible argument for delay like we, the opposition members, did in 2017. We had the public on side with us for that fight. The public inherently understood that it was about the rights of Parliament, the rights of its members and the rights against executive overreach. In this particular one, the longer this goes on, the more it looks like there's something to hide.

I would ask my Liberal MPs to help us get along so that the Standing Committee on Finance can have those pre-budgetary hearings. I know we're already in October, but there is still time left in this year to allow this committee to get to a vote on the main motion. We can uphold Parliament's right for the production of papers in order that we, as a committee, can exercise our right to look at the fully unredacted documents and work with parliamentary law counsel to decide what information should ultimately be withheld. There are numerous ways that committees can protect private information, but ultimately this goes to the heart of what parliamentary privilege is all about.

I would draw the attention of all members of this committee to that very important sentence that is contained in the original letter from the parliamentary law clerk.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'll conclude my remarks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

On the list I have Mr. Lake, and Mr. Gerretsen following that.

If there are others, click the hand on the reaction screen or raise your hand.

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you. It's a pleasure to be a guest here.

I wasn't going to weigh in. I was listening intently, and after listening to Mr. Gerretsen and Mr. Badawey, I had to, as they spoke in hushed tones, very serious tones about Parliament properly doing its work and about accountability and transparency. I know my constituents would be astonished if I didn't weigh in on their behalf, because it is unbelievably ironic to hear those words being used in the discussion we're having here today.

Of particular interest to me was Mr. Badawey's assertion that we should all be rowing in the same direction. How unbelievable that statement is, given that about eight weeks ago the Liberals not only stopped rowing but threw all the oars out of the boat so none of us could row either. It's absolutely astonishing to hear that being said in the middle of a global pandemic in order to avoid accountability and transparency, to use Mr. Badawey's words, to stop Parliament from functioning properly. “Properly” again being M. Badawey's words.

They shut down Parliament so that the COVID committee, for example, couldn't function and hear from expert witnesses from across the country on best measures that we could take as a country to address a global pandemic.

We're in a situation where, by the time this is over, we're probably going to be spending as much money or run up as much debt in months, maybe in a year, as we ran up in over 150 years of Confederation. Canadians expect that Parliament will sit and parliamentarians will hold the government to account, and in a minority Parliament, if anything, the government should be working with parliamentarians from all sides to get the best results for Canadians.

I had to weigh in. When I put my hand up at first, I think it was before Mr. Badawey even said the things he said. It was in response to Mr. Gerretsen, who made the comment that opposition members, particularly Conservatives, haven't moved legislation or bills or motions to better the lives of Canadians.

In the spring of 2017, the one time I had the opportunity to move an opposition day motion, I remember working with members of the New Democratic Party, the Bloc and the Green Party, members from all sides of the House, to come up with a motion that I thought was the biggest no-brainer. In fact, I reached out to Liberals. Between a dozen and two dozen Liberals told me they would support my motion on a Canadian autism partnership. Talk about something that should be as easy to support as just about anything.

I put forward the motion. First of all, an expert committee put forward a proposal to government for a budget. It got rejected in the budget. Then we brought forward an opposition day motion to further the issue. New Democrats and Conservatives don't always agree, but on this point, we were in full agreement. At the end of the day, when it came time to stand up and vote, every Conservative, New Democrat and Green Party member voted in favour. Do you know who didn't vote in favour? Not one member of the Liberal Party voted in favour because they were whipped to vote against it.

I'm looking at all of you. Mr. Fragiskatos, Mr. Easter, Mr. Gerretsen, Mr. Badawey, Mr. Fraser, you voted against it. All five of you voted against it.

To hear Mr. Gerretsen give the lecture that he gave here earlier, a lecture that was born out of a situation where he has to waste as much of the committee's time as he can because he wants to avoid losing a vote that he's almost certainly going to lose eventually, to hear him make the points he made, I just couldn't stay silent.

On behalf of my constituents, on behalf of stakeholders whom I work with across the country, I had to weigh in. I will now, I assume, cede the floor so that we can listen to hours upon hours of Liberals standing up one after the other to lecture us in the way that they've been lecturing us for hours upon hours already.

With that, I hope, maybe hope against hope, that at some point we can come to a little bit of common sense and understanding and come to a vote.