Debates of Feb. 14th, 2022

Government Business No. 8—Proceedings on Bill C-10

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would like to join his colleague, the hon. member for Louis-Hébert. I too believe we can have a better level of discourse, one that has compassion and collaboration at its heart, not anger and division. Would he stand today and criticize the leader of his party, the Prime Minister, show some strength of character and tell the Prime Minister that we need better, we need a prime minister who does not divide but unites Canadians, as do other people?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if we check Hansard, we will see that I have called on all parliamentarians, whether they be in this House, whether they be the Prime Minister, the leader of the official opposition or elected officials at provincial and municipal levels. It is incumbent on all of us to have a tone and discourse that is respectful and where we can agree to disagree.

I would agree with the member opposite that it is extremely important that we all have that collective responsibility, regardless of the title or role that we hold in this House.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought we were talking about rapid testing. My colleague may have slightly deviated from the main topic, so I will allow myself to do so as well.

My Conservative colleague just spoke about the member for Louis-Hébert, who joined the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois in calling on the government to present a clear plan, as the provinces have done, so that we can get an idea of what is coming.

The member for Louis-Hébert also asked his government to start negotiating health transfer payments with Quebec and the provinces, which is something that we would have liked to have seen in Bill C‑10. Sure, quickly giving the provinces more money so they can deliver rapid tests is a good thing, but we should also start negotiations around supporting our health care systems.

I would like to know my colleague's opinion on this. Is it not high time that the Prime Minister started to listen to his caucus members a little more closely?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for her question. My microphone was not working because of technical difficulties before my speech.

With respect to health transfers, the government made promises during the election campaign. It promised to increase funding and enhance health care systems across the country, especially in Quebec. The government's plan is to provide that help to the provinces.

With respect to speeches in the House and other ways MPs communicate with the public, I think all Canadians are now tired of COVID‑19, but the government has to develop a plan for the days to come. I am confident this government will produce that plan in due course, but not in response to the opposition motion.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we move forward with making sure that people have the rapid tests they need to continue to address the realities of COVID, we know that in Canada we are still not seeing the investment that we need to support local businesses in being able to provide PPE and other necessary requirements for us to deal with these kinds of health concerns. That is unfortunate.

I wonder if the member could explain why the government is not taking that dedication and especially making sure that we are never in a place again like we were at the beginning of the pandemic when we could not even find the things that we desperately because they simply were not created in our country.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises the importance of making sure that we have supplies and rapid tests in the days ahead because, although, yes, we are on the other side of omicron, the reality is that this pandemic could perhaps stay with us in the days ahead. There is not going to be a moment in time where we simply throw down the gauntlet and say we are done with the pandemic. Notwithstanding, I would argue that some members of this House want that to be the case, but that is not how it is going to work.

Our government, since day one, has been there to invest with the provinces and territories in supporting this PPE. As I mentioned earlier in the House to the member's NDP colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has been working closely with a whole bunch of private sector players to make sure that we have vaccine capacity and PPE in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that members will be disappointed to hear this, but I will be sharing my time with one of my colleagues.

We are at a critical time in this nation's history. We hear a lot of, frankly, intentional efforts by other parties to misstate the Conservative Party of Canada's position, but I think it is important to put some clear things on the record about what we are proposing in terms of the response to this pandemic.

Number one, Conservatives oppose the federal mandates. That is why we put forward a motion calling on the government to put forward a plan to end federal mandates. Now, why do we oppose these mandates? It is because they do not make sense, because they are not rooted in science, because they do not help us fight COVID-19, and because they infringe on the rights and liberties of Canadians.

Let us talk about the truckers' mandate. These are people who work alone inside of their trucks. They have to abide by all provincial regulations when it comes to masking and accessing restaurants. Whatever the rules are in the province or state they are in, they have to abide by those rules just like everyone else. An exemption for truckers crossing the border was in place through the entire pandemic up until January, and then the government brought in this additional punitive measure, targeting these frontline workers who had served our country so ably throughout the pandemic and for a long time before. We oppose the truckers' mandate.

We have consistently called for vaccine mandates when it comes to air travel, train travel or the public service, and we have talked about legitimate exceptions for people so that they can have some level of autonomy and choice. That means getting a rapid test before getting on a plane is a reasonable alternative when it makes sense to have that in place. Many public servants throughout the pandemic have worked from home, so a vaccine mandate for firing people, removing people from their jobs, simply because they are making a personal health choice when they are already working from home just does not make sense. Conservatives have been clear on a position that I think is rooted in science and evidence in opposing these federal mandates.

The other thing that we as Conservatives oppose are the efforts by this government, in particular this Prime Minister, to demonize friends and neighbours who may have made different choices about their personal health. As other members have said, every person has their own story. Every person certainly has the responsibility to take the measures they can to protect those around them, but people have to make those decisions individually, and we do not believe in being the kind of country where people are compelled against their will or on pain of job loss to take a vaccination that they still have questions about.

I hear Liberal members now talking about the tone, about bringing down the temperature and about inflammatory comments. The Prime Minister of Canada asked the question, “Do we tolerate these people?” Those were the Prime Minister's words. He talked about not tolerating people. He will call all kinds of names and put in place any kind of policy measure to squeeze those who are making different kinds of personal health choices. It is not helpful, frankly, in persuading people about any issue, to try to demonize and “otherize” those who are making a different choice about themselves. Therefore, we oppose the federal mandates and we oppose the clear efforts by this government, as called out by members of its caucus, to polarize the conversation and demonize those who have made a different choice.

We have also said, and I have said consistently, that we support the right to protest and we support the message of those who are coming to protest on the issue of the federal mandates. Thousands of Canadians who have been forced out of their jobs, have lost businesses, are in a dire position because their livelihoods and the livelihoods of their families are threatened, whose mental health is threatened and are experiencing things they have not experienced before have chosen to come and protest. Many have not ever come to protest before. We support the right of people to protest. We support people's message when it comes to saying that these mandates are fundamentally flawed, they are not based on science and they infringe on individual liberty.

At the same time, we have also been consistently clear in opposing the blockading of critical infrastructure as part of a protest. The great thing about the Conservative Party of Canada is that we have been entirely consistent in opposing blockading critical infrastructure in every case. We have called for additional legislative tools consistently for years when it comes to issues around blockading critical infrastructure, and it does not matter what the cause is. If the cause is federal mandates, if the cause is Idle No More, if the cause is opposing a pipeline, if the cause is trying to create a multi-heritage month—a cause near and dear to my heart—or whatever the cause is, people should not be blockading critical infrastructure. Conservatives have always said this—

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

There are two parts to this bill, and it is a very small bill. One part speaks to spending money to purchase rapid tests and the other paragraph speaks to distributing those tests to provinces and territories. This member has not spoken to this bill at all during the five minutes that he has already spoken.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

To the member, I have given a lot of leeway to a lot of members in the House to speak their minds and of course to get to the motion that is before us.

I will caution the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to adjust towards the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands is eager to interrupt me, of course, because I am pointing out clearly the misinformation that has come specifically from speeches by members of the government during this debate. It is ironic that he would rise on a point of order to try to interrupt me when I am explicitly responding to things that members of the government have said. I know he is eager to come on my podcast, but this is not the way to do it.

Let me resume the point I was making, which is that Conservatives have been clear and consistent on the issue of blocking critical infrastructure.

Interestingly, immediately prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, we had a situation in which critical infrastructure throughout the country was being blockaded, and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations met with the protesters and talked to them. He said it was important not to ramp up and escalate the situation, which is a tone completely different from what we are seeing right now. In contrast to that tone, we have said consistently that we support the message of those who are calling for an end to mandates and we recognize that many of the thousands of people who have come out across the country to protest have done so entirely peacefully. It is sad to see that those who have participated in blockading critical infrastructure are really, frankly, allowing the Prime Minister a distraction. The Prime Minister would much rather be talking about blockades than talking about his own policy failures when it comes to mandates.

Let us recognize that the blockades need to end. Let us also recognize that the failed mandate policies are really aggravating Canadians, and justly so. People are losing their jobs.

The other thing Conservatives support is science-based measures that respond to COVID-19 and take into consideration all of the costs and benefits associated with those policy measures.

Theoretically, we could say that we have to stop the spread of the virus, so everyone should just stay in their homes. However, there are many other costs to that approach, costs to people's livelihoods and costs to people's mental health. We have to balance these considerations against the risks associated with the virus. We have to recognize the variety of tools that are available and we have to recognize when the circumstances have changed.

We are dealing with a bill that is about the government spending additional money on testing. That is ironic, because at the very beginning of this pandemic, I and other members of the Conservative opposition were saying that we need to be focused on testing, that we need to get rapid tests out and available. We need to look to successful models such as South Korea, where there is widely available testing, phone booth-based testing and other measures. We need to look at countries in East Asia that have minimized the use of lockdowns and instead have focused on the use of testing and tracing tools to isolate where the virus is in order to stop it from spreading, rather than this policy of imposing generalized lockdowns because we do not have the testing or tracing capacity to know where the virus is.

Those are tools that were deployed successfully prior to the invention of the vaccination. Now the government is saying they have discovered that they should be investing all this new money into testing, and they are two years behind, just as they are two years behind in this issue of blockading critical infrastructure.

They should have been with us two years ago when we were talking about how people should not blockade critical infrastructure. They should have been with us two years ago when we were talking about the importance of investing in testing. The government has missed the boat on all of these issues and now wants to be patted on its back for being late to the game.

Conservatives recognize the value of testing. We also recognize that the vast majority of Canadians are vaccinated. Those who are not vaccinated are probably not going to get vaccinated. We should have tests available for people. We should give people the freedom to deploy various measures that they see as appropriate to protect themselves, but we should also have a plan in place to get back to normal. Recognizing all of the efforts that have been made and recognizing that provinces and other countries are winding down their restrictions, Canada should have a plan to do the same.

That is why we oppose federal mandates and oppose the efforts by the Prime Minister to demonize people who have made different choices. We support the right to protest. We oppose blockading and we want to see a realistic science-based approach that follows the things we are hearing from Dr. Tam and from provinces and other jurisdictions. They are saying that now is the time to be winding down the kinds of mandates and restrictions we have seen.

Now is the time to allow Canadians hope, to support our businesses, to support individuals and to give people the freedom to move forward without the constraints that we have seen for the last two years. It has been too long, and the government has been way too late. It is time for the government to have a plan to give people the hope they deserve.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the pandemic, we have been able to provide the provinces and territories with the necessary rapid tests, PPE and vaccines. What the provinces are asking for are additional rapid tests. This is based on the demand from provinces and territories. I myself stood in line during the holidays in the cold to get a rapid test because my family did catch COVID over the holidays, and I know that parents want to make sure they have a rapid test at home in case their child is exposed. What we are asking for is support for the provinces based on what they need.

Would the member agree that it is really important to give parents and those of us who want to visit loved ones in long-term care facilities that tool so that we can make sure not to infect someone if we become exposed?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to disagree with the member, but here is the point: We were saying these things in the House two years ago, and the record shows it. The record shows that in my very first interventions in March 2020, I said to the Minister of Health that we should look at the countries that have been most successful at fighting the virus and do the things they did. I suggested looking at Taiwan, South Korea and countries that deployed this kind of testing and these tracing regimes, and those proposals were, at the time, dismissed by the health minister, who allegedly was the authority on all things science.

It is great to see this late-stage conversion. As we are likely moving out of the pandemic phase of COVID-19, it is great to see the government now say that testing is important, but I think we need to recognize the reality of what is happening here and the clear failure of the government to be on this train when it would have made that much more of a difference.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his speech.

I would like to return to something he said about the tone of the messaging. He specifically mentioned the Prime Minister's tone in relation to the protests. He is absolutely right to say that it was detrimental and counterproductive.

However, the tone chosen by people in his party all weekend long after last Thursday's debate conveyed misinformation. They said that the measures were coming to an end immediately, whereas the motion said that we wanted the government to adopt a gradual reopening plan that is based on science. This impeded the adoption of the motion.

I will remind the member that Bloc Québécois members voted for the motion despite all of this, because the motion was worded that way. I would also invite the member and many of the people in his party to stop trying to score political points with overheated rhetoric and instead stick to the substance if they want to make more progress on the issues.

Personally, I want results in the House. I would appreciate a response from my colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first wish to thank the Bloc Québécois members for voting for our motion.

It is too bad we did not have more support from other members in other parties.

The motion was clear in calling on the government to put forward a plan to end all mandates, and of course many Canadians would like to see that plan involve unwinding these mandates as quickly as possible, especially when many of these mandates were not based on science and did not make sense in the first place. There was never a reason to have this trucker mandate in place. They are people who work alone and had an exemption throughout the entirety of the pandemic up until January. These things were never based on science in the first place. The government has no data to justify its decision to say someone has to be vaccinated and that a rapid test is not a legitimate alternative for air travel.

These are the points we have made. I think it is legitimate and right for us to be clear and principled in opposing these mandates while not—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Questions and comments. Let us try to get another quick one in here from the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I hear Conservatives talking about the blockades, I sometimes get the sense that they are kind of like the kid who was playing with matches in a hay barn and was then surprised that the barn burned down.

That said, the motion we have before us is trying to forward a bill very quickly that Conservatives have been calling for for over a year now, and I am wondering why the Conservatives are holding back on something that would allow provinces to get the resources they need so that we can quickly track where COVID is happening and give many families peace of mind.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very disappointing to see the NDP basically giving up all its principles as part of whatever deal it has with the government. The NDP used to understand very well the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of legislation and of a minister testifying about bills, and there should be opportunities to propose amendments at committee.

This is such a basic thing about how parliamentary democracy should function. All parties, except the Liberals, used to get it. Now the NDP has fallen head over heels for this nonsense that somehow, because we agree with the principle of a bill, we need to rush it through without any kind of study. This is ridiculous. We need to do our jobs as parliamentarians to study the legislation, see if it does the things it says it does, see if it works and subject it to a basic level of scrutiny. That is what we are paid to do.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is, as always, an honour to rise in this place to talk to the issues that are so affecting Canadians.

To be honest, I join this debate today with a conflicted heart, having just listened to the Prime Minister's press conference. Before members opposite jump up to call points of order to try to discourage a debate in this place, it is very relevant to the issue at hand.

I rise conflicted because we have a government that has shown itself time and time again to be, quite frankly, and I am going to compliment the government, good at politics. They are thanking me, but they have not heard the second part.

Liberals are good at politics, but they have shown over the last six years that they are not so good at governing. They are quick to take credit, but they never take responsibility. They are quick to divide when it benefits them and their interests, yet they refuse to show an ounce of humility or contrition, even though that is what true leadership is.

I stand conflicted in this place because I just listened to the press conference, where the Prime Minister of this country continued down the path of division and fear, using further inflammatory language. I spoke in this place, about two weeks ago, about how that was inflaming the frustrations and leading to the demonstrations in the streets. It was incredibly disappointing that the Prime Minister would continue down this path instead of acknowledging his failures.

Let us be clear that there are failures, one after the other after the other. There are failures regarding the pandemic. There are failures regarding the so-called fringe minority with despicable views. There are failures on every front, which has led to a country that has maybe never been more divided.

I have spoken a lot about that in this place. The members opposite think that is somehow playing politics, and that it is somehow okay to divide, conquer and segment different elements of Canadian society because it fits their political narrative, so they can win.

I am about halfway through the former attorney general and justice minister's book. This is probably going to trigger a whole bunch of Liberals. I am about halfway through Jody Wilson-Raybould's book and, acknowledging that she and I would disagree on a lot of things regarding policy and practice, what is interesting is that everything that we say is wrong with the Liberal Prime Minister and the way he governs this country is affirmed in the pages of that book.

It is why I say that the Prime Minister and the government are good at politics, but they fail when it comes to governing. The consequences of that are seen each and every day across this country. That is a shame for Canada. I hope and pray each and every day that those divides, and the scars being left on this nation, are not so deep and damaging that it is irreparable.

Those are strong words, but it is what I hear each and every day from my constituents, the people who sent me here and who I have the honour of representing. They feel left behind by these Liberals. I am going to speculate for a moment that the positions, talking points and carefully crafted messaging that come out of the government benches do not reflect the reality of what many of the constituents of those members across the way face.

I am not suggesting there is universal agreement on any of these issues. That would be a mistake the Prime Minister would make. No, I am suggesting there are differences of opinion, but in a democracy that is okay. In a democracy, that is what makes the strength of our discourse. Shortly after being elected, I had to spend much of my time fighting to ensure this place, the only place in this country where there is truly representation from every corner of the country, was able to sit.

I find the path that our nation is on to be incredibly troubling, when the Emergencies Act has been implemented, after 18 days, I think it was. The language the Prime Minister continues to use is incredibly troubling. There is no humility, no leadership, failure after failure, rhetoric inflamed daily in question period, accusations tossed out about members of the official opposition and even to those within their own party when there is disagreement there. I know that those members opposite are hearing a narrative that is very different than the carefully crafted one being amplified by a few political staffers in the PMO, who are bent on power at all costs. It is shameful, and our country is more divided for it.

We see a debate today on an initiative that should be able to unite Canadians, yet what I do find very interesting is, again, the rhetoric. They are trying to somehow blame Conservatives for doing our job. The Liberals need to be careful because Canadians are watching. We want to debate legislation. What I saw, time and time again, throughout the pandemic, was the Liberals would bring forward legislation and say that unless we gave it a rubber stamp, then somehow we were not Canadian enough and somehow we were not serving our constituents, whatever the rhetoric of the day was.

This place ensures the ability for scrutiny of legislation, for things like the rapid testing bill, with its two parts covering both the procurement and the transfer of rapid tests to our provinces. The Liberals have played politics with this, so they have invoked closure so the debate on this ends today. However, we have not heard the Prime Minister apologize for calling an election in the midst of a crisis that has divided Canadians even more. The fact that he lied about mandating—

Oh, my apologies.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Could the member retract that word? Thank you.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will adjust my language to simply point out the inconsistency of the Prime Minister's message prior to the election campaign. As my colleague from the Liberal Party in Quebec very effectively highlighted in the press gallery this past week, there was a real change in the Prime Minister's rhetoric in the days leading up to the election, which he had promised he would not call. I certainly know what that is, and I know Canadians watching do as well.

We want to see rapid tests in the hands of Canadians. We want to see the tools used. I never thought, prior to getting involved in politics, that I would invite local weekly newspapers to come to cover me getting my COVID-19 vaccination because I believed that was in the best interest of the country. However, to hear that the Liberals would somehow change their narrative to demonize the fact that we acknowledge there is not universal agreement on something, it speaks to how utterly ignorant and discriminatory, quite frankly, their rhetoric has become.

We have mandates being changed around the country, and the usage of things like rapid tests, which we are talking about here today, is a tool to help us move forward to learn to live with COVID, yet we have the Liberals who, instead of backing up and carefully considering a path forward, double down on failures and division. Now there is the invocation of the Emergencies Act. My constituents remind me often, because I am not old enough to remember the elder Trudeau when he was prime minister, and I know I am not allowed to say the name of the current, but I was referring to the previous, there are scars that this country has not healed from, from the elder Trudeau. I find it incredibly troubling that the Prime Minister is taking Canada down a path where I fear what the consequences will be.

Whether the Liberals are playing politics with the fact that we Conservatives in the official opposition want to do our job or playing politics with the fact that even though we may disagree on aspects of the pandemic response, we cannot find much agreement, instead of charting a path forward that would put the interest of Canadians first, the Liberals, again in this bill and everything they do, are dividing Canadians for their narrow political game, and that has to stop. For the sake of our country, that has to stop.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I flew into Ottawa a couple of weeks ago, I had the pleasure of sitting on the plane next to the member for Battle River—Crowfoot's wife. We had a wonderful conversation. This being Valentine's Day, I hope he has been in touch with her, as I have been with mine. It was nice getting to know his wife in that way.

The member touched on the election, and I want to let him perhaps expand on that. A lot of people in Canada watching at home think the election took up six weeks of time, but here we are in early February, and we are only just starting a lot of what Parliament has to get going. Six months were wasted for all the issues that are facing us, not just COVID, but also housing and the opioid crisis. I wonder if the member could take some time there.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether Danielle is watching. I know she does not watch CPAC all day. I will thank my hon. colleague from B.C., as I do want to wish Danielle a happy Valentine's Day. I love her, and I am so appreciate of the support that she gives. I thank the member for that reminder, and this will be on the record for all time. I hope the member and his wife have been able to have an enjoyable time. My wife did comment about how much she enjoyed that flight from Toronto to Ottawa a number of weeks ago, and about how conversations, and this place, can bring people together, even when we have, in some cases, diametrically opposed ideological views.

That member highlights exactly the facts when it comes to the Liberals' claiming that there is urgency for this, and I do not disagree with that. What I do disagree with is the fact that, between prorogation and an unnecessary election, we are months behind where we should have been serving Canadians. Instead, the Liberals prioritize politics over the best interests of our country.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly would never be the case that we have seen the Conservatives put politics ahead of anything in this country. I appreciate that the member for Battle River—Crowfoot understands that, in this place, people in glass houses should not throw stones. However, I want to agree with him that the Prime Minister should never have politicized vaccines as he did on August 15. I remember sitting there watching the launching of an unnecessary election and thinking, oh dear, this will go badly. We must not create wedge issues around public health advice.

Would the member reflect now on what we do as parliamentarians to hold this country together, as even within families, people are breaking apart? We need to hold together.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. I have heard from families that are being torn apart by the divisiveness associated with many of these issues. The Quebec Liberal MP who spoke to the press last week articulated very well the division that has taken place as a result of some of the decisions that were brought forward.

I do not often talk about this, but over the election there were a number of instances when the police had to be called, on both extremes of the ideological spectrum in my constituency. If we listen to the Prime Minister and members opposite, they would say what the Prime Minister said in his press conference, which is that somehow there are only right-wing extremists, which I think were the words he used.

The consequence of division for political gain is division in our country, and we are seeing that each and every day. I would never be one to dismiss partisanship, and even its place within our parliamentary institutions, but it is absolutely essential that the priority always be serving Canadians, not our own personal self-interest.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise today to provide some comments on the motion before us, which puts a set of steps into motion that have to do with how to deal with this particular bill.

As I was preparing to do this and I was listening to the debate in the House for the last several hours, I could not help but wonder where it is that the Conservative concern comes from about passing this legislation so quickly. Almost every speaker who has got up to speak to this has spoken about a whole host of issues other than this particular motion, time after time. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan did not speak to the bill at all. He did not even address it, but then in his comments afterwards he said—