Debates of Feb. 28th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Additional Allotted Days

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for giving me another chance to hammer home the fact that the government does not seem to understand the position it is in.

I would not want anyone to interpret my remarks as permission for a future majority government, of any party, to do as it pleases, secure in the knowledge that it cannot be overthrown by the opposition. Everyone in the House needs to realize that parliamentarians must collaborate, whatever the context.

We have to agree to disagree.

While we will sometimes have to agree to disagree, we must be able to discuss issues and get things done in an atmosphere that is conducive to an intelligent debate of ideas.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I will say at the outset that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. I am very happy to do so because I think he has a significant contribution to make to the debate, as has been noticed in the past.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this debate because I think it is an important one. It is an opportunity to add three more opposition debate days to the calendar. That may be technical and require a change to the statutory rules, the instruments of the House, the Standing Orders. However, it is an addition that is very valid and welcome in this minority Parliament.

There is a special reason for that. I will not go into the reasons why the Conservatives were prompted to do this in this particular instance, but I will say that we are dealing with a government that is acting in a manner that is not in keeping with the expectations of Canadians to co-operate with other parties to deliver a good government. There are many examples of that.

I will go over some of the valid and excellent motions that were brought forward by our party on opposition days over the last number of years. These motions were extremely important to the future of the country and to the people of Canada. I hope that those listening will agree that in the last election no party was given a majority. We had had four years of a Liberal majority, and people said they did not want that. They wanted the parties to work together to deliver good government.

What we are getting from the government is that its agenda is the only agenda that matters. That is all it wants to do. The government wants to run the House as if it had a majority, and it is not really prepared to listen to what the opposition has to say.

Here is an opportunity for the Liberals to agree that we need to hear more from the opposition. We might ask the opposition to be more constructive sometimes, but the opposition is here to provide an alternative and to hold the government to account. We have tried over many years, including in this Parliament, to provide constructive opposition day motions.

The first example is the most recent, which occurred on February 26. It was a motion calling on the government to change its proposed tax cuts by targeting benefits to those families earning less than $90,000 a year. The savings could then be used to add a dental care program for those who do not have a dental program. That was an important debate. The government did not listen to it, but that is its prerogative.

Canadians were able to listen to the proposal to use part of the $6.85 billion per year that the government proposes to spend on a so-called middle-class tax cut, of which at least $1.6 billion is going to those who are making in excess of $90,000 a year, to create a dental plan.

The tax cut will give those who are making in excess of $90,000 a year a $340 break on their taxes, while people who make less than $15,000 will save $1. That is the middle-class tax cut for them.

We said take the top part of that, the $1.6 billion from those making more than $90,000 a year, and use a portion of it, not even all of it, to ensure that those who do not have dental care plans, like every member in the House has, would get an opportunity to have access to dental care.

That is a very important motion, a very important provision and a very important proposal to compromise with the government's stated aim to have what it calls a middle-class tax cut.

That is only one example, and examples are repeated time and again in a review of NDP motions in the past. In May 2019, there was a motion by our leader, the member for Burnaby South, for a declaration of an environment and climate emergency. We have had considerable motions over the last number of years on the importance of the climate and concerns about climate change.

We had a motion in February of last year addressing Canada's housing crisis, which is still a significant issue and one that the government is struggling to have credibility on. This keeps the issue on the table and it gives an opportunity to the government to see where to go if it wants co-operation in the House, which is what Canadians want.

In November of the previous year we had a motion on service standards for Canadian veterans. We have still not seen the results of that, but it was brought to the House by an opposition day motion. Members had a full day to debate the importance of veterans getting the services they need, getting the attention they need, and getting beyond this continuous and long-standing wait-list, which is depriving them of the services they need and are entitled to. It is still going on, regardless of the fact that this was brought in during a majority government. Maybe in a minority government with more opposition days these issues would actually get dealt with, because the government will be told by parliamentarians elected by all Canadians what the priorities are.

This is certainly a big priority for me, for our party and for the people of my province. Indeed, it is a big priority for the whole country, which has the important issue of support for veterans on their minds.

We have discussed other issues that are of world importance, such as our debate in June 2017 on nuclear disarmament. What could be more important, in terms of making the world a safer place for our children and the future, than moving forward on the motion of nuclear disarmament in a world that is getting a bit more uncertain as time goes on?

We introduced a bill on a universal pharmacare program. That was debated in the House in October 2017, thanks to the New Democratic Party, and we now have legislation before the House. It is a matter that at least has the attention of the Liberals, but I have not seen any sign that we are going to have a public system that Canadians want, similar to what is contained in the Canada Health Act.

Issues that keep coming back again and again were sometimes brought to the House by New Democrats, not necessarily for the first time, but in a forceful and positive way looking for solutions.

A motion on care for first nations children was brought forward by the member for Timmins—James Bay in November 2016.

I could go on but I will go back to one issue that comes up again and again, and I am talking about the motions brought forward by the New Democratic Party on climate change. We can go as far back as February 2007, with a motion on the Kyoto protocol, which the previous government got rid of.

In 2007, a climate change action plan was brought forward by former leader Jack Layton of the New Democratic Party. That was more than 12 years ago. Climate change action has been on the NDP agenda for more than a decade. Climate change has now reached a crisis point. We recognized that crisis many years ago. The government is now at least listening, but where are we in terms of enforceable standards? Where is the plan? Where are the timetables? Where is the reporting back to the House?

These issues are still there, but they were brought to the House in important opposition day motions.

I have one minute left and I am happy to devote it to a motion brought forward by my former colleague Romeo Saganash on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, also known as UNDRIP. This is an extremely important resolution from the United Nations supported by the Government of Canada but not yet brought into force. It was adopted by the Government of British Columbia. It is extremely important in terms of what we are dealing with these days with the Wet'suwet'en in British Columbia.

Opposition day motions are so important for Canadians and for this House of Parliament. We should have more of them.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for St. John's East for raising those points. He has laid out a list of activities and initiatives that have been identified as important by the people who elected him and his NDP colleagues.

All of us in this place can agree that Canadians elected 338 members to do the very best for all Canadians. While we do not necessarily agree on all the ways to get there, he has described for us how the NDP would like to make a better Canada. We do want a better Canada. I think we can agree, however, that Canadians in electing a minority government were looking for more collaboration in the House among all parties and they expect debate on issues led not just by the government but by members of all parties.

I would like to hear his comment on that.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree with the member's comments about what Canadians did. His party received more votes than the Liberal Party, so clearly there is a division among Canadians as to what kind of government they want and who they want to lead it. Canadians have decided that there should be a minority Parliament with representation from five parties in this House. The mantra from the date of the election has been that Canadians want these parties to work together. We have not seen a lot of evidence of that to date.

I am hoping that perhaps the Liberals will support this resolution and give an indication that they do want to work together, and maybe we will have fewer partisan debates and more co-operation and collaboration.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's always thoughtful speech. He is welcome to criticize the government, though hopefully he will do it the proper way.

I mentioned earlier how the NDP, in a debate in 2017, passionately opposed getting around the Standing Orders like this. I gave a quote.

In another quote the former member for Hamilton Centre referred to the report of the special committee on modernization, of which Bob Kilger was the chair, and said:

The Committee's order of reference—like that of the predecessor—required that...any report be adopted by unanimous agreement of all the members.

Further on he said:

...parliamentary reform is best achieved where there is consensus and all-party agreement.

The NDP passionately spoke for many weeks of debate against the changes to the Standing Orders like this without any unanimous support.

Does the member agree that some of his members might vote for this motion and go against the principles they so strongly stated during that debate, which I do not think the member was here for?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure it is important to refer back to a debate that took place in a majority Parliament.

We are talking about a motion before the House to adapt to the minority situation that we have. We need mechanisms to be able to demonstrate the kind of co-operation required to identify the important issues and hopefully seek, if not unanimous consent, the majority consent in this House, as we did, for example, in establishing the Canada-China committee just a few weeks ago.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am new to the House. I came here with a clear willingness to work and collaborate to advance the interests of the people of Shefford and Quebec.

I wonder if my colleague has any advice to give me on how I might hang on to this democratic ideal on this sad day.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question.

I will tell the hon. member that I was elected for the first time to this House in 1987, and I am back again. I have to say that I have not lost my political idealism. I am here for the same reason now that I was here in 1987, and that was to build on the ideas of creating a better world.

That is why I debated the dental care motion the other day. I was very disappointed the member and her colleagues chose not to support it for some other reason, but I think they agreed with the principle that everyone should have dental care.

We should be finding reasons to support these things and finding solutions as opposed to reasons not to vote for something. That way members will maintain their idealism. Hopefully we will be back here to talk about that in the future.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity today to express my disgust and profound outrage at the decal produced by oil company X-Site Energy Services. This decal shows an explicit representation of young environmentalist Greta Thunberg being sexually assaulted.

This is disgraceful and likely warrants an investigation. There are limits to how people can challenge someone they disagree with. This decal blatantly encourages the assault and rape of a young girl. I am calling on the government and all parliamentarians in the House to strongly condemn such declarations and actions.

I will get back to the motion we are debating. This debate is a very important one, and I thank my colleagues in the official opposition for moving this motion. It reminds us that as parliamentarians, we are here to serve the Canadians who elected us to come to the House to talk, make suggestions, introduce bills and build a fairer society and a better world, as my colleague from Newfoundland said.

In 2015, the Liberals repeated ad nauseam that they wanted to do politics differently, that they wanted to respect the work of MPs, that they wanted to respect the parliamentary institution that is the House of Commons.

Unfortunately, what we saw was a Liberal government that invoked closure more times than Stephen Harper's Conservatives. Once again, the Liberals say one thing and do the opposite. This arrogance has a limit, and it was reached on October 21 when Quebeckers and Canadians gave a mandate to all parliamentarians to work together for the good of the country.

The Liberals did find themselves back in power—with fewer votes than the official opposition, as we know—and they must now work with different parties in the House to advance various files and find solutions. Today and for the second time since the beginning of the 43rd Parliament, the Liberals are being given a lesson in humility to let them know that they cannot do whatever they want in the House and that they must respect parliamentarians and the institution.

It is important to know the purpose of these opposition days, which give a voice to the political parties that legitimately represent the will of the people and the interests of their constituents.

Opposition days are an opportunity to bring to the House, here in Parliament, issues and topics that the government of the day might not want to talk about much, but are important to the people we represent and to Canadians across the country. They advance debate because it is not just the government's policies that are always put on the agenda and always being discussed. This creates greater diversity and better representation of the concerns and needs of the citizens of this country.

I will provide a few recent examples and some older ones of motions moved by the NDP that I believe addressed critical issues. This month, my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby introduced the idea that dental care should be provided in this country. We explained very clearly to all Canadians how this could be done at no extra cost.

The Liberals came up with some other tax cut scheme that mainly benefits the wealthy and the most fortunate in society and does not amount to much for the less fortunate or low-income workers.

The maximum amount one can save in a year with this tax cut is $600. That is what this plan is about. Only people who earn over $143,000 a year will be eligible for this gift worth $600. I really do not think those are the people who need it the most, when there are people living in poverty and who are struggling to make ends meet.

We in the NDP are saying that anyone who earns more than $90,000 a year should not have access to tax cuts above that threshold.

Let us take all that money that we are going to save and invest it in a new public service, a new social program that would give everyone access to dental care. By implementing the tax measure proposed by the NDP, we would save approximately $1.6 billion, which would enable us to provide care to 4.3 million Canadians, who often do not even dare go to the dentist because they cannot afford it.

This is the type of concern that an opposition party can raise here to force a debate and see what positions the government and the other parties will take. That is what opposition days are for. I am pleased that we can debate the need for more opposition days in the House so that we can share more points of view and concerns about issues that are not necessarily part of the current government's priorities.

Last June, at the end of the 42nd Parliament, one of my colleagues from British Columbia moved a motion about the fact that Quebeckers and Canadians pay more for cellular telecommunications services than people in other countries and in the OECD.

We in the NDP proposed mechanisms to help Canadians save money and access affordable internet and cellular services. Our goal was really to save them money, because the profits going to big telecom are frankly obscene.

Of course, the current government is not always keen to discuss these issues, but we opposition members can raise these concerns, start a debate and force everyone to take a side and vote, so they will then report back to their constituents and explain why they accepted or rejected whatever the proposal was.

That is why I think the motion moved today by the official opposition is so interesting. It gives us a chance to list all these examples.

Back in May, the leader of the NDP, the member for Burnaby South, moved a motion calling for a climate emergency to be declared. Here is a subject we have to come back to again and again so we can take the Liberal government to task, since it seems to be incapable of meeting the targets set by the previous Conservative government. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned, based on scientific evidence, that we have 10 years to reverse course, take action and drastically lower our greenhouse gas emissions.

Unfortunately, not only will we fail to reach the Conservatives' targets, but, according to reports by a series of commissioners of the environment and sustainable development, we are falling further behind with each passing year. In 2018, they said we would fail to hit the target by 66 megatonnes. In 2019, they said we would fail to hit the target by 79 megatonnes. On the one hand, the Liberal government dragged its feet for three and a half years before putting a price on pollution, and even that has had no impact so far.

On the other hand, the Liberal government bought the Trans Mountain pipeline with taxpayers' money. That project makes no sense from an environmental point of view, let alone an economic or financial point of view, as we can already see from the pipeline's ballooning costs. It cost us $4.5 billion to buy that 65-year-old pipe, and building a new pipeline alongside it was supposed to cost $7.4 billion, but now that has gone up to $12 billion.

The Liberal government has no idea how high that number could go. Will there come a time when we stop wasting our money by investing in something that has no future? Not only is it an outdated energy source, but it is also the first type of oil global markets will stop buying.

We could take that money and massively invest in renewable energy to help the western provinces, such as Alberta, make a fair energy transition in a way that respects workers. Alberta has incredible solar and wind energy potential that has not yet been tapped. Let us turn toward those energy resources to help us make the transition.

That is what opposition motions are for and that is why it is important to have more of them.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, since we are working in a minority government, it is even more important to ensure the voices of those of us who are in opposition are brought forth. It is important to hold the government to account and to advocate for what is important to our communities.

Has the member opposite seen that opposition day motions have already functioned well in this Parliament, how they have been collaborative, even if we do not always agree, and how we need more of these to ensure that everyone's voices are heard?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I could continue to give examples of subjects that we could raise in the House as parliamentarians and that would give us an opportunity to better represent our constituents.

One of my NDP colleagues from Winnipeg moved a motion on the influence of major corporations on the government. No government would want to talk about that.

My former colleague from Saskatchewan also moved a motion on the housing crisis. Sometimes we get these motions adopted by the House. That was the case with a motion moved by one of my colleagues from British Columbia on the minimum standards necessary to ensure good services for our country's veterans. The members of the House managed to come to a consensus on this extremely important issue.

My colleague from Timmins—James Bay moved a motion asking the Pope to apologize to residential school survivors. That is an important issue that we were able to raise.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy the member's speeches.

I do not think it will be lost on the media that sat in on the many weeks of discussion on the changing of the Standing Orders, where the Conservatives and NDP passionately voted and spoke against doing it without the consensus of all parties. Now, in a few hours, they want to go totally against that.

I have already given a couple of quotes from the NDP. On the morning of March 21, 2017, the member for Hamilton Centre said that, “...anything you might call a comprehensive or systemic review of the Standing Orders, that report, as other reports have told us, was always done with all-party support”.

I am very interested to see on Monday which NDP members vote against their principles and vote for this motion.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which has been coming up since earlier today.

I would simply say to him that if all parliamentarians had his attitude, collaboration would be generally easier in the House. I think it is important to put things in context and keep track of what is happening. Balance is being restored today, which is necessary in a minority government.

The government has sufficient means to advance its agenda. We only have to look at gag orders and the extension of sitting hours until midnight, which has happened systematically every June for the past four years. Opposition days allow us to raise issues that are important to our constituents.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

Like him, I would like to do politics differently. We need to put ideas and a positive, constructive attitude front and centre.

I would like to know if he has any useful suggestions for this minority government context. He and I won seats in a minority Parliament, and our constituents would like to hear what suggestions we might have for the government to help us all work together constructively. Those suggestions might even be valid in a majority context too.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think this gives us an opportunity to improve ourselves and engage in healthier, more rational and more reasonable discussions. I hope that will be the case, especially in committees, where we will have opportunities to propose amendments and find ways for all parties to compromise.

I would like to mention one thing that is very important to me. A proportional voting system would really help us get into the habit of engaging in dialogue among the parties. Our democracy would be healthier. I hope we will adopt some good habits that a future majority government, perhaps an NDP government, will maintain.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, Canada needs more democracy. Better yet, Canada needs better democracy.

The frustrations of the opposition over the government's decisions and its policies can be seen in the streets, on the rails and online, but the Prime Minister is not getting the message. Our country needs more debate and more opposition days if Canada is to be saved.

Our economy and large sectors of our job creators are on their knees. Canada is tearing itself apart. I love our country, but I do not think the Liberals love my province or my people. The Liberals should want to enter into more debate on how we can fix Canada. Our country is at a crossroads.

This week, we witnessed massive nation-building projects shut down. The government is ignoring the pleas for help and support from the 20 elected band chiefs who want the Coastal GasLink and the 14 reserves that support the Teck mine. These are projects that support good-paying jobs, are environmentally friendly and can help Canada grow and get us off our knees, but the government is ignoring them. Instead, the Liberal government is listening to the pollsters, the UN and the elites. The Liberals need to start listening to the majority of MPs who were sent here with an agenda that is different from theirs.

Before being elected federally by the good people of Saskatoon—University, I was honoured to serve two terms in the Saskatchewan legislative assembly. I was lucky enough that my colleagues elected me the 25th Speaker of our assembly. I know what it is like to work in consensus with government, the opposition and the NDP to find ways forward. I believe we can do that in this Parliament, and it is with this experience of reference that I enter the 43rd Parliament.

I have seen first-hand how an effective opposition can challenge a government for the betterment of all. I have sat in government, I have sat in the Speaker's chair, and now I sit in opposition. I bring a unique viewpoint on how our democracy does or does not work. It is not a zero-sum game, as some would have us believe. My experience is that when governments grant time and availability to opposition, ultimately it is democracy, the governing party and the people themselves who benefit.

I would say this to the Liberal members who are here today: When governments fight against transparency and scrutiny, it is their public support that hurts. We have seen in recent polling that the government is failing our country. I challenge the Liberals not to fight for less debate. Now more than ever, I believe debate is needed in Canada. Too many important issues are at stake. If the government truly values transparency, it will champion motions such as this one.

I am fearful that the Liberal government will desire to stay in the shadows and hide from debate. Some Liberals will want other opposition parties to join them, but I believe the human spirit and a desire to fulfill our honourable work as members of Parliament will overcome this darkness.

Our Westminster-based democracy works best only when we witness vigorous debate in this chamber. This chamber was set up for that reason, with the government to the right of the Speaker proposing an agenda, opposition parties across the aisle vigorously debating what is at stake, and independent media watching over the top. That is is how Westminster democracies properly work. This configuration has been our tradition for over 150 years in this country.

I believe everyone in this chamber is honourable and wants a better nation. We need more debate on the big issues we face today. Through these debates and honest dialogue, we will get the best solutions for Canadians.

I propose that liquefied natural gas exported from Canada will lower the use of coal and greenhouse gases around the world and provide jobs and wealth to Canada. I ask fellow parliamentarians to change my view if they disagree with that statement, and that is the debate we need to have.

This is the forum to have that debate. We should be encouraging more debates, not less. I might be new here, but I still believe my arguments can change the direction of the country. However, I have been here long enough to know that others can change my opinions. It is how democracy should work. It is how we should get the best decisions for all of Canada.

If the Liberal government is so sure that it is correct, then providing more opportunity to debate its policy should be welcomed. On October 21 of last year, the Liberal government was punished and lost its majority, because, in part, it could not defend its agenda.

This motion today would grant the Liberals this forum to defend their agenda. If the Liberals believe in their agenda, democracy and this country, I hope they will vote in favour of the motion.

For the other non-government members of the House, why were we sent here? We have the honour to sit in this chamber because the majority of people in our home ridings wanted a new and different direction for our country, a different direction than what the Liberals were proposing. We won the right to be called members of Parliament, because people wanted their voices in Ottawa, a voice different from the Liberals. Today, we have the opportunity to let that voices be heard. Granting more debate will result in more real democracy.

Another important part of the Westminster democracy that needs attention and could benefit from more debate is the press.

I find it shocking that during most question periods, we have a handful of press members watching the proceedings. I know other people watch electronically, but that is a sad state when we compare the press we had 10 to 20 years ago. That decline is seriously jeopardizing our democracy and needs to be addressed if we are going to be a successful country.

We only have a strong democracy if we have a strong independent press. I along with many in Canada are concerned with the direction of media in our nation. We should be welcoming new media platforms, new stories, new sources and new reporting of our debates. If this motion to increase debate in the House of Commons is successful, it could encourage more media coverage, more attention and itself help save independent press. The alternative is more taxpayer dollars subsidizing the slowing of the decline of media in Canada. We can change that.

If we are successful, more debates will happen, democracy will be enhanced and Canada can be saved. Opposition days for other parties will welcome new and different motions to be debated. Who would not want to hear different views and beliefs from different ridings across Canada? The Liberals believe only their views are to be heard and thought.

I cannot say that I will vote in favour of the motions of other parties in future days, but I do welcome that debate. We as Parliamentarians have the honour to be that voice in that debate.

If the solutions to the problems our country is facing are to be found, this motion needs to be passed.

All of us will be returning to our ridings next week. Many of us will be hearing directly from Canadians. We hopefully will hear about solutions, what real people are facing and hopefully exchange ideas on what we can do better in our great country. We need the ability to bring those new ideas forward. The motion would allow for that: more opposition days, more debate and more ideas to be shared. It is what well-functioning democracies should be like.

Motions such as this one highlight how a minority Parliament can and should work. Opposition members have shown Canadians how we can work. Let us continue this work.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the recurring themes in the hon. member's speech was encouraging debate in this place.

A week ago today, the members of the House were debating Bill C-3. I participated in the debate on the Thursday, a debate that was going to make significant changes and improvements to Canada's boarder agency.

As we recall, a Conservative member moved a motion to shut down the House for the day at 12:30 in the afternoon. We had a lot more to debate, yet the Conservatives wanted to shut down the House for the day, so they could go home or go to Niagara. They failed to get the votes they needed and MPs from other parties wanted to continue debate on the bill, but it did not matter. The Conservatives tied up the House over and over with votes that took attention away from debating this important legislation.

It is part of their pattern. The Conservatives have done this many times before to try to delay a passage of legislation in this place and to get in the way of debate in this place.

Why does the member's party continually play political tactics to prevent members of Parliament in the House from doing their jobs to debate important legislation?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is not the opposition's role to pass the government's agenda. It is up to the government to manage the passage of the government's agenda.

I believe the hon. member was incorrect and it was on Friday, not Thursday, that this occurred. On that day, once again it was up to the government to make sure that it properly proceeded to get its agenda across. I was lucky to be in the chamber that Friday and was ready to sit until the end.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his presentation. I appreciate the tone he used during his intervention. I am encouraged to see that we can have calm and reasoned exchanges in the House.

Does he think his colleagues might exercise self-control from now on?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, the translation was not working for the first part of the member's question, but I believe it was about civility and respect of fellow members. I concur that this place works best when we respect each other as honourable colleagues.

There is a part, though, of our Westminster democracy where we need to highlight the inaccuracy of other members. Sometimes that takes the form of heckling or excessive motion, and that is to draw attention to maybe a partial or incomplete answer in question period. That also has the important role of drawing attention of the media to that minister's response, so that if there is a scrum afterward, the minister would be held to account for the questions asked in here.

I do respect all members in here and we should show respect as much as possible, but let us understand our traditions in here and that there is going to be some give-and-take.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I certainly hope the member is not saying that heckling should be allowed in the House.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think the Liberals do not realize that they do not have a majority government and that this is a minority government. It is an opportunity to enhance democracy further and to make this Parliament work better.

Does my hon. colleague agree that the government should support this motion because it is wiser under a minority government?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will not challenge the Speaker, but I do believe heckling should be allowed in this chamber as one of the key traditions of our Westminster democracy.

To the comment about the minority Liberal government's fighting against the importance of transparency and increased debate, I believe that it should be coming on board. We will see what happens when the vote takes place.

Next week, Liberal members will go back to their ridings and will probably hear from Canadians how frustrated they are about the state of affairs in our country. They will come back here and say that we are going to need to hold more debates and exchange more ideas on how to get our economy back working for everybody and how to get our goods to market. I believe those are the conversations Liberal members are going to have over the break. When we come back two Mondays from now, we will have an opportunity to hopefully come together and vote for democracy, clarity and the transparency that this motion would provide the people of Canada.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that he thought the media was not present, but I do not think it is going to be lost on the media, with the many weeks they spent hearing Conservatives and NDPs saying that a change like this around the Standing Orders should not be made without all-party consensus.

I have already given some quotes from both those parties, but I will just give one more short one. On March 23, 2017, near 6 p.m., the member for Calgary Shepard from the Conservatives said, “I think they need more time, but we shouldn't change them without unanimous agreement.”

I know this was before the member's time in Parliament, but hopefully some members who are here will stick to their principles and vote against this motion.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I mean Madam Speaker, I am not used to having a female Speaker. We are very lucky federally to have female Speakers. I think having more females in roles such as that is encouraging. It encourages better decisions. It encouraged better debates, and the civility that we are lucky enough to have in this chamber has probably a lot to do with the good work that you bring forward.

To the member's comments about the 42nd Parliament, I have not reviewed all of my PROC Hansard. I will go back and start reading them over, from the last couple of years, over the week, and I will endeavour to come back and report what I have read over the week.