House of Commons Hansard #62 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was debate.

Topics

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedExtension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended ProceedingsGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt this important debate, but for clarity, are we to be asking our questions to the member from the Liberal Party or the member from the NDP?

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedExtension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended ProceedingsGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

I think that is a question.

The hon. minister.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedExtension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended ProceedingsGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Madam Speaker, that question just demonstrates exactly why we are here. We are here to help Canadians and we are here to work for Canadians, because that is what we are here to do. We are not here just to throw up every single objection and participate in every single blockade anywhere it exists in Canada. We are here to work for Canadians proactively, positively and in good faith. These provisions are here because one party has failed to do that. We are here in order to give all parties an opportunity to do better.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedExtension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended ProceedingsGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedExtension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended ProceedingsGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedExtension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended ProceedingsGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #63

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended ProceedingsGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from April 28 consideration of the motion.

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended ProceedingsGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Mr. Speaker, once again, it gives me pleasure to rise and speak to government Motion No. 11.

However, before I get into the specifics of it, let me just address a couple of issues that came up during the closure debate earlier. It was a very vigorous debate. I want to address one issue. There were several claims, both from the government side and the NDP side, which is the same side, about members of the opposition not wanting or being willing to work. Let me state unequivocally that Conservatives are here to do the business of the nation. We want to work. I have no problem with extending the hours. I really do not.

My profound concern, and I stated this in my interaction on Friday, is about the staff. We have seen, over the course of the last couple of years, that staff have been tested. The measure of the staff has been certainly tested around this place. We have heard about the interpreters, about the health challenges that have gone on. We have seen an increase in occupational injury risk for the interpreters. We are concerned about that work-life balance.

For two parties that espouse and say they are for the working class, they are not showing any empathy or compassion for what families are going to have to deal with, with respect to this motion, specifically the timeline for the extension of those sitting hours. It is causing me, as I said the other day, tremendous concern that with just one minute's notice, the government can come, with the NDP's help, and say they want to extend the hours. What is that going to mean for the staffing around this place? What is that going to mean to committees, when we start transferring resources to deal with some of these late-night sittings?

My staff in the House leader's office just informed me before I got up to speak that two committees already today are going to be cancelled: the Afghanistan committee and the medical assistance in dying committee. The meetings that were scheduled for today are going to be cancelled because they are going to have to allocate or transfer resources from those committees to the extension of the House sitting hours.

The government has said, and I heard the justice minister say, that this happens all the time. This happens, actually, once the agreed schedule is applied. All of the House leaders get together and we discuss. In fact, we are in the process of discussing the schedule for next year. Within the last two weeks, there are asterisks in the schedule. Those asterisks indicate there will be an extension of hours. It is agreed to. It is understood. However, what this does is basically give the government last-minute appeal. It can impose late sittings when it wants to.

We saw some news coverage over the weekend of the government saying that this was not what it was going to do and that it was going to give enough notice. If it is going to give enough notice, why would it put it specifically in this motion that it could do it up until 6:30 p.m. of any given day? I would suggest that this is the intent of what the government is going to do.

Cynically, I can think of only one reason this would happen: to keep the opposition parties, both the Conservatives and the Bloc, on their toes. This means that every day and every night, we are going to have to carry debate. We are prepared to do that. This is not a rubber stamp factory where multiple billions of dollars and pieces of legislation are debated and proposed, and where amendments are proposed at committee. We are already seeing the committee work being affected, but this is not a rubber stamp factory. There is a constitutional obligation on the part of the opposition to hold the government to account. That is our constitutional obligation.

With this motion, the Liberal Party and its Prime Minister are getting exactly what they have always wanted, with the help of the NDP. I will talk about the NDP in a second. With the help of the NDP, the government and the Prime Minister are going to get an audience, not an opposition. That is what he has been hoping for over the past six and a half years, and now with the NDP in the government's hip pocket, they have it.

Going back to the debate before, I just cannot believe the hypocrisy of the House leader of the NDP. For six and a half years, I have sat in this place and we have all sat in this place, those members who were elected in 2015, and how many times did the opposition House leader of the NDP talk about the fact that the Prime Minister was worse than Stephen Harper when it came to time allocation? He said it many times, and yet, the hypocrisy is that he stands here today and blames Conservatives for obstructing. Nothing could be further from the truth.

They talk about Bill C-8 as their benchmark piece of legislation that they look at. Bill C-8 was introduced on December 16. The House rose shortly thereafter. We sat in our constituencies and worked there for six weeks. We did not come back until January 29. It received second reading on March 1, went to committee and came back on April 1. There was a time allocation motion that was put in on April 4, and the NDP refused to support the government on time allocation. For them to sit here and blame Conservatives for obstructing that bill is disingenuous and, I would suggest, misleading the House, because maybe someone should hold the NDP House leader to account as to why he did not agree to that.

Here is the problem. When we look at the motion and we look at all the things that are in the motion, as I said earlier, it gives the Prime Minister exactly what he wants: an audience, not an opposition.

I appreciate the ruling of the Speaker this morning, but the reality is that, in previous circumstances, the issue of quorum was let go for non-votable matters. It was agreed to by the House leaders. Anything to do with take-note debates or emergency debates, we would allow quorum not to be called as part of an agreement. What the government is doing with this is basically imposing a sledgehammer to say that the Liberals are not even required to show up. The NDP is not even required to show up. In theory, what we could have is opposition-side members debating themselves on pieces of legislation that the government is proposing, asking ourselves questions and comments when the Liberals are not even required to be here.

As I said the other day in question period, they can effectively be sitting at home in their PJs and their fuzzy slippers watching reruns of This Is Us and those socialist documentaries that they covet so much. That is what they could effectively be doing without the constitutional obligation of having a quorum call in the House.

Who does not want to show up to work? Why are they putting that in this motion? Conservatives will be here; I can guarantee that. With this motion and no quorum call, it means that the government and the NDP do not even have to show up to debate their own legislation. How ridiculous is that?

I talked about the “without notice...to adjourn the House”. This is egregious, in the sense that what the government is proposing with this particular part of this motion is that it can prorogue Parliament without proroguing.

I will take us back, as I said earlier, to the WE Charity scandal. When the heat got really hot on the Prime Minister, he did the very thing he said he was not going to do in 2015, and that was to prorogue Parliament.

Let us picture this scenario. There is a situation where we have a scandal brewing. We have the RCMP potentially deciding to investigate the Prime Minister on whether he granted himself permission for that vacation to that luxurious island that cost over $200,000. What if, with regard to the Winnipeg lab document scandal, we were able, through committee or some other means, to have those documents produced and they show that the government did something? What if we had another SNC-Lavalin scandal or any other scandal that gets too hot for the Prime Minister to handle? One minister of the Crown, just one, can decide to shut this place down. Can members imagine that?

It is stunts like these that cause further erosion in Canadians' respect for our democratic institutions and the faith they have in our democratic institutions.

When a government of the day, with a fourth party in its hip pocket, can decide that it is going to seize control of this place and do whatever it wants, how can Canadians not be cynical of the institution? How can they not be cynical of our Parliament? How can they not be cynical when they are witnessing right in front of them, as we all are, a decline in our democracy? There are measurements used that determine that decline. We have seen that over the course of the last six and a half years, and we are further seeing an erosion in the decline of our democracy as a result of stunts like this by the government. It can shut it down with one minister of the Crown proposing it. Yes, it will come to a vote. Surprise, surprise: I wonder what that vote will be when it has the NDP in its hip pocket. There is a lot to be concerned about in this.

What we are seeing, and perhaps Motion No. 11 is further evidence of this, is the shady, backroom deals that are going on here. The government House leader does not even give me the courtesy, nor does he give the Bloc Québécois House leader the courtesy, of saying what is going on. What do the Liberals do now? They do not go to the official opposition or the third party in this place. They do an end-around to the fourth party, say what they are going to do and ask if it will support them. There are shady, backroom deals: exactly the thing that further diminishes the confidence that Canadians have in our democracy.

As far as the standing order changes, I am really appreciative of the ruling that the Speaker made earlier in having a separate vote for that. What the government was doing, with the help of its NDP partner, again led to this cynicism and further erosion. The Liberals were putting a poison pill in the motion to force the opposition to vote against it. I stood here the other day and said very clearly that Conservatives unequivocally supported call to action 80 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, to make sure that we had a stand-alone day for truth and reconciliation. I was very glad for the Speaker's wisdom in that decision. The Speaker saw right through what the government was trying to do: putting in this poison pill, probably under the suggestion of its partner in the NDP, to force the Conservative Party to vote against it as an omnibus procedural motion. I am glad the Speaker did that, because we will be supporting that particular part of the motion when it is carved out of this omnibus motion and will vote in favour of national day for truth and reconciliation.

Of course we all know the history of the Prime Minister on this one. Last year, what did he do? He did not get involved. He went surfing in Tofino. The schedule for the Prime Minister even said he was having private meetings. It did not give a true indication of what was happening. What was happening was that, on the most important day in this nation, he went surfing in Tofino. How dare the Liberals use this poison pill for political purposes to further wedge, further stigmatize and further divide Canadians, especially those who supported the Conservative Party in the last election and who understand the importance of truth and reconciliation, because it was Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper who started that commission from which those recommendations came.

I am obviously profoundly disappointed. I am really concerned about where this place goes from here. I really am. The government was elected with a minority. The NDP was the fourth party in the last election and now, between the two of them, they are going to be able to control every aspect of this place. What about those voices who elected a minority government? What about those people who said they wanted the government to be held in check? They wanted the government to be held to account, they wanted transparency from the government, they wanted to make sure that multi-billion dollar bills that the government proposes, these big-money appropriation bills, deserve the level of scrutiny that they should. What about those voices? That is not going to happen anymore because of this alliance, this coalition, between the NDP and the Liberals.

I said earlier the impact this was going to have on committees. What about the finance committee? What about the ethics committee?

What about other committees, such as important committees on Afghanistan and the invocation of the Emergency Measures Act? How are they going to be impacted? The resources of the House will now go towards evening sessions, further putting in jeopardy the ability not just of those committees but of parliamentarians on the opposition side and Canadians in general to get to the bottom of what they are looking for. When I go back to the invocation of the Emergencies Act, we have already seen that the government is not going to allow cabinet confidentiality. What other documents are not going to be available to the committee because the committee is not going to be able to sit?

This is a government that ran in 2015 on the principle of being accountable and transparent by default. How times have fallen. The hypocrisy of those words is being shown by the government. This is a government that is anything but transparent and accountable. This is a government that has undermined the very role of this institution of Parliament: the constitutional obligation of the opposition parties to hold the government to account, not to basically ram legislation through when it sees fit.

This is not a rubber stamp factory. This is a place for vigorous debate. It is a place where the government is held to account. It is not a place where, as much as the Prime Minister wants it to be, he gets an audience. This is a place where he gets an opposition. Conservatives will work as long and as tirelessly as we need to in order to hold the government to account. We are going to expose this coalition unholy alliance, and these backroom shady deals that are being made by the NDP-Liberal government.

We are going to work as hard as we can to make sure it is held to account, that there is transparency and there is accountability on behalf of every single Canadian who did not vote for them, but voted for a minority government in this Parliament.

With the little time I have left, the opposition party is proposing what we consider to be reasonable amendments. Again, I thank you, Mr. Speaker for your judicious, intelligent ruling this morning to carve out those pieces that are poison pills meant to obstruct the opposition and in fact make the opposition vote against something that none of us would ever consider voting for. I do appreciate that. I am going to move the following amendments.

I move:

That the motion be amended

(a) in paragraph (a),

(i) by replacing the words “a minister of the Crown may, with the agreement of the House leader of another recognized party” with the words “a House leader of a recognized party may, with the agreement of the House leaders of two other recognized parties”,

(ii) by replacing the words “but no later than 6:30 p.m., and request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the current sitting or” with the words “request, with at least two sitting days' notice, that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for”,

(iii) by adding, after the words “a subsequent sitting”, the words “, other than a Friday,”, and

(iv) by adding, after the words “a day when a debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1 is to take place”, the words “or a day appointed for the consideration of business under Standing Order 81(4)(a)”;

(b) in paragraph (b),

(i) by deleting subparagraph (i),

(ii) by deleting, in subparagraph (ii), the words “quorum calls or”, and

(iii) by deleting, in subparagraph (iii), all the words after the word “Crown”; and

(c) in paragraph (c),

(i) by replacing, in subparagraph (ii), the word “35th” with the word “15th”, and

(ii) by deleting subparagraph (iv).

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful for these reasonable amendments I am proposing, which take into account not just how this place functions and how properly it should function but also take into account, as I said at the onset, the concern that we have for the lives of the people who work here, and how they are going to be impacted.

I am not specifically referring to members of Parliament, but to the work-life balance of the staff who make this place operate, whether it is the clerks, the administration, the bus drivers, the security officers, the food services branch or any others, and not least the translators, who have seen tremendous injury and impact. I do not understand why the government would want to expose them to that.

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended ProceedingsGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended ProceedingsGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the House leader of the opposition for bringing forward this amendment because by doing so he is giving the member for Winnipeg North another opportunity to speak to this. I did not have an opportunity to hear what the member for Winnipeg North said on Thursday, so I am looking forward to hearing his thoughts on this one. He speaks again for the second time to this.

My question for the opposition House leader is quite simple. He seems to be quite concerned about staff members right now and the impact that asking them to stay until midnight will have on them. I wonder where his empathy was a couple of years ago, when the Conservatives literally made this house vote for 30 hours straight, or a couple of years after that, when they made this house vote for 22 hours straight. They knew full well it would produce absolutely nothing with respect to a tangible result of improving this country; rather, it was just for the purpose of being destructive.

Can the member justify for me the hypocrisy I am hearing from him when he talks about being so overly concerned about staff and the impacts on them? That party will force staff to stay here for 30 hours straight just to appease its own desire to see this place move as slowly as possible.

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended ProceedingsGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. Those were appropriation bills. If members recall, at one point we were very close to seeing the government fall. It was 4:30 in the morning and it was very close to actually falling.

These are legislative bills and a failure on the part of the government to propose its legislative agenda. It is actually a massive failure on the Liberals' part. We have only had 19 pieces of legislation, and within that time only eight have passed. The government's inability or failure to push through its legislative agenda is not our fault, nor is it the fault of the people who work here. There is no need to expand beyond the normal course of business. That is already addressed in the Standing Orders for the last two weeks of June. It was agreed to by all parties.

Most importantly, what this motion does is it creates a trap: It gives the government the ability to basically shut down this place if there is a scandal or if and when it decides to do that. We are here to work on behalf of Canadians and will continue to work despite the assertions from the other side.

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended ProceedingsGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to hear his thoughts about how this government is rushing through things and failing to allow for in-depth studies into topics such as medical assistance in dying.

There is a lack of seriousness in committee. I do not want to make accusations, but I am asking my Conservative colleague because, in this case, his party seems to be the one that is obstructing.

Members can be for or against a given topic. However, I think that those who are against always benefit from studying it properly. Now the government has issued a gag order that, of course, puts off the final report until October. We will not have enough time to study this issue.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended ProceedingsGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. The four House leaders jointly proposed extending the committee until June 23.

We actually did that. As I hope the hon. member understands, this is another example of a failure of the legislative agenda. That committee was supposed to legislatively report back in May. It was not until the end of March that we actually started talking about it. We agreed with the May deadline, but we proposed to extend it until June 23, which we did. Now the government is going to put that off until October 17, and I understand there are very important issues around that.

We just heard, in advance of my taking the floor today, that the medical assistance in dying committee is going to be cancelled today because of the government's plans to prolong or extend hours of debate. The Liberals cannot manage anything, and that is why we are in this situation we are in. We now have to deal with the government's failure to push forward a legislative agenda to manage the time of the House, and it is Canadians and all of us who are going to be paying the price for the mismanagement of their legislative agenda.

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended ProceedingsGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

NDP

Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for bringing our attention to the incredible work that is done by the staff in the House. They are with us through all of this, and I am always so grateful for their support, their professionalism and their work.

They do need additional resources, and I agree with the member that this is required. I know this will take conversations and agreements among the parties, so I am asking if he would support that move. Will he push on the government to ensure that additional resources are provided to interpretation, security and the staff in this place so that we can get the work done that we are elected to do?

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended ProceedingsGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Mr. Speaker, time and time again, as we have heard, the problem specifically with regard to the interpreters, which I suspect affects other parts of the operation of the House of Commons, is the issue of hybrid Parliament. Let us stop this. Let us stop hybrid Parliament and let us get back to normal. Let us do what other legislatures around the country are doing and return to being here in person. The interpreters have paid a dear price for this hybrid Parliament, and anybody who has read the reports understands that. We cannot just manufacture interpreters. There is a shortage, and a pool of resources is unavailable to us.

My suggestion is that we get rid of hybrid Parliament, come back, deal with this and make it easier on the interpreters. We can make it easy on all the staff who work so hard to support this place. Let us do what other legislatures are doing. Let us get back to normal and not hide behind masks like the other parties are doing.

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended ProceedingsGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the hon. House leader of the official opposition to reflect on this: that the dysfunctionality of this place cannot be blamed on one recognized party. When the House does not work well, it is because we have brought the partisanship of election campaigning into the daily work of the House, which is not how it should be. It is not how it always was in the past. I think it would go away if we changed to proportional representation as our voting system to increase co-operation in this place.

Since the Conservatives had more votes in the last two elections, are they ready to consider perhaps changing our voting system?

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended ProceedingsGovernment Orders

2 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Mr. Speaker, we can respectfully disagree on that.

UkraineStatements by Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON

Mr. Speaker, when Vladimir Putin senselessly invaded Ukraine, he attacked not only the people of Ukraine but Ukrainians everywhere, including those here in Canada. I was recently joined by the Minister of Public Safety to meet with the Durham Ukrainian Canadian Congress. We heard truly inspiring stories from people with family and friends on the ground fleeing violence or staying to fight and defend their country. We heard stories of the members of the Ukrainian community in the Durham region who wake up each day focused on helping those who have been affected.

The Durham chapter of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress is coordinating an extensive support system and has even set up separate committees to help with housing, food, clothing and much more as it prepares to support over 2,000 refugees, including the hundreds that it is already helping. I would encourage everyone who wants to provide support to visit supportukrainians.ca/durham to find out how they can assist. The dedication, level of organization and perseverance exhibited by the Durham UCC is nothing short of amazing.

Play by Local Theatre TroupeStatements by Members

2 p.m.

Conservative

Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, many projects of all sorts in our ridings had to be shelved because of the pandemic.

For over two years now, town celebrations, festivals, dances and many other events have had to be postponed or, in most cases, cancelled.

Today, I am happy to say that, just as we are now seeing signs of spring, we are also beginning to see signs of a return to normal life. I am also pleased to announce that the Théâtre populaire régional theatre troupe will be putting on a play at the Salle André‑Gagnon in La Pocatière on May 27 and 28. Amateur actors and friends have been waiting for nearly three years to present George Dandin ou le mari confondu, a comedy by Molière.

I know many of the actors and so I know that this play will make people smile.

I invite everyone to attend to cheer themselves up as the pandemic draws to a close.

Let us encourage our artist friends and celebrate our culture.

Honorary Consul of LebanonStatements by Members

May 2nd, 2022 / 2 p.m.

Liberal

Lena Metlege Diab Liberal Halifax West, NS

I rise today to recognize a pillar of the community, His Excellency Wadih M. Fares. Mr. Fares is an engineer, entrepreneur, innovator and community builder who has put his time, talent and treasure into a multitude of local, national and international boards and committees. His unwavering support of and commitment to society have earned him numerous awards, accolades and honours, including the Order of Canada.

For the past 26 years, he has served as the honorary consul of Lebanon for the maritime provinces. At the end of May, under the patronage of Ambassador Fadi Ziadeh, the community will gather at the silver jubilee celebration, where the Order of Merit, Lebanon's highest order for civilians, will be bestowed upon him as a token of gratitude for his service to Lebanon and the Lebanese community in the Atlantic provinces. I ask all parliamentarians to join me in thanking and congratulating His Excellency Wadih Fares.

International Workers' DayStatements by Members

2 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, May 1 is International Workers' Day. It is an opportunity to recognize the many battles workers have waged to improve working and living conditions in our societies.

The reason we have eight-hour work days and labour standards today is because there were workers who made a lot of sacrifices and stood up for their rights and those of future generations. When faced with repression and injustice, they chose to stand in solidarity and push the limits of what is possible.

The theme yesterday was about ensuring health and safety as we come out of the crisis, and thousands of workers from Quebec marched in the streets to remind us of that.

I salute all those men and women who fought and are still fighting. Happy May 1.

Abdelghani DadesStatements by Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to wish Eid Mubarak to the entire Muslim community back home in my neighbourhood in Montreal and across the country.

As we mark the end of the sacred month of Ramadan, I am thinking of our Moroccan community, and in particular its patriarch, Abdelghani Dades.

My friend, Mr. Dades, is the driving force of the Moroccan-Canadian community. He and I share the mission of bringing the Jewish and Muslim communities together, both here and around the world.

Mr. Dades is most certainly wondering why I am paying tribute to him today. This year, we are celebrating the 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Canada and Morocco.

I would like him to hear his name in the House of Commons, and I would like him to know how much our government appreciates everything he has done and will continue to do to ensure this friendship lasts forever.

Amherst Little League BaseballStatements by Members

2:05 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, “If you build it, [they] will come.” I am certain that many, if not all, Parliamentarians recognize this quote from Field of Dreams.

For almost 75 years, Amherst, Nova Scotia, has been the home of many incredible baseball players and volunteers, which has allowed this community to enjoy many championships and banners. Given its residents' incredible community spirit and desire to move to evening programming, the enrolment for little league baseball has soared.

The community needed another T-ball field. The Amherst Little League Baseball association applied to the Jays Care Foundation's Field of Dreams program, and this year they are the recipients of a much-needed grant of $70,000. This is, of course, a testimony to the strength of their volunteers and players, and to the history of baseball in the community over the past 75 years.

I send my congratulations to the Amherst Little League Baseball association and to the many young people who will benefit from their involvement in little league baseball over the many seasons to come. Let us play ball.