Candice Bergen

[Business of the House, May 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, could the government tell us what its plans are for the rest of this week and next week?

[Ethics, May 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians expect is that their Prime Minister would give a clear answer to a clear and a simple question. If he has something to hide, then Canadians want to know that as well. I would suggest, if he wants to send Canadians the message that he has nothing to hide, that he answer the question.

How many times has the Prime Minister met with the Ethics Commissioner?

[Ethics, May 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, a moment ago, the Prime Minister arrogantly insulted our opposition leader and said she was confused. Let me say that I think this is actually full confusion right now with the Prime Minister.

I will repeat the question in English, because the question is not if he is happy or satisfied or feeling good about meeting the Ethics Commissioner. Has the Prime Minister met with the Ethics Commissioner, and if so, how many times? It is very, very simple.

[Justice, May 10th, 2017]

She has more courage in her little finger than you have in your entire being. Shame on you. She is not confused. She is brave and honest.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, here we go again with another important debate being shut down. Members of Parliament who should be speaking on behalf of their constituents are being silenced by the Liberals. It is extremely frustrating, but it is also wrong.

We have a budget implementation bill before us that is chock full of things that are going to cause a lot of problems for Canadians, never mind the increased fees for Canadians. We see that this infrastructure bank, which we should really call a Liberal bank, is going to be giving favours to billionaire friends of the Liberals, with no accountability. The taxpayer is going to be on the hook for this infrastructure bank. We also have the issue around the parliamentary budget officer being silenced.

These are really important issues that our members of Parliament on this side would still like to speak to, and one day is not enough time. I ask the government if it would reconsider. We need more time to speak to this bill. The debate should not be shut down. This begs the question: Where is the openness? Where is the willingness to work together with opposition parties that the Liberals promised? We are not seeing it all.

[Points of Order, May 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I understand that you are taking under advisement the admissibility of the amendment, moved by the member for Carleton, to the government's motion regarding the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-4, so I would like to very briefly offer my argument in support of the admissibility of that amendment.

At page 532 of O'Brien and Bosc, it states, “A motion in amendment arises out of debate and is proposed either to modify the original motion in order to make it more acceptable to the House”. I believe that the amendment would do just that.

The Senate has amended Bill C-4 to uphold a fundamental principle of democracy, which is that the certification and decertification of a bargaining agent must be achieved by a secret ballot vote-based majority. Why the government wanted to take this away in the first place is perplexing, since it is proposing secret ballot elections in House committees.

At page 533 of O'Brien and Bosc, it states, “An amendment is out of order...if it is completely contrary to the main motion and would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion.” Madam Speaker, I believe this may be the reason for your deliberations on the matter.

Would the defeat of the main motion to the Senate amendment made to Bill C-4 have the same effect as voting for the amendment proposed by my colleague? I believe that the answer is clearly no. If the government's motion were to be defeated, I would argue that nothing would happen. The government would need to come back with an alternative motion with a different proposition. However, if my colleague's amendment were to be adopted, both the House and the Senate will have adopted Bill C-4 in an identical form, and it would move to eventually receiving royal assent as amended.

As the Journals of June 6, 1923, at page 437, state, the Speaker ruled that an amendment to alter the main question by submitting a proposition with the opposite conclusion is not an “expanded negative” and may be moved.

This amendment indeed offers the opposite conclusion: that is, to accept the amendment made by the Senate that supports democracy. The government's motion rejects this democratic principle. Voting for or against the government's motion would have a different outcome than would voting for my colleague's amendment. Therefore, I ask that you, Madam Speaker, accept the amendment and allow this House to express its views on preserving a fundamental principle of democracy, which is that the certification and decertification of a bargaining agent must be achieved by a secret ballot vote-based majority.

[National Defence, May 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, that is not very believable. In fact the defence minister cannot seem to tell the truth, even with the most basic of facts.

This week there was a fundraiser for veterans. The Minister of National Defence was supposed to be there, but he said all of a sudden he could not go. Why? Lo and behold, suddenly he had a speech he had to write. He had a speech he had to write the same night as this event which he had known about for months. No one is buying that.

He was not the architect of Operation Medusa, and he was not writing a speech on Tuesday night. He has lost all credibility. When will he step aside?

[National Defence, May 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, Operation Medusa is just one example of the minister making false claims. There are reports that Canadian troops who are currently serving in the Sinai desert will see cuts to their danger pay starting next month. This is another example of a broken promise. The Minister of National Defence not only misleading Canadians, but misleading the very troops he is commanding.

Can the minister not see that making false promises and false claims is actually causing hardship for our men and women in uniform?

[National Defence, May 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, we all know that the defence minister misled Canadians by claiming at least twice that he was the architect of Operation Medusa. In doing so, he has lost all credibility, and he needs to step down. However, the Prime Minister has a responsibility as well. The Prime Minister needs to stand up for our military and put their interests first, ahead of protecting the Minister of National Defence.

Does the Prime Minister realize that by not moving his defence minister out he is condoning his actions and sending a very troubling message to our men and women in uniform?

[Business of the House, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I do have the usual Thursday question. As you well know, I get up every Thursday, and I ask the government House leader what the government agenda is for the rest of the week and the week following. The government House leader tells us what the agenda is, and then we go and prepare. The only thing we have to go on is what the government House leader tells us. We are always responding to what the government is doing and to its agenda, but we get one day a week when we have an opposition day. Well, it amounts to about one day a week.

The last time I asked the government House leader this question, she told me and this House what the schedule would be. It included an opposition day, which was supposed to happen today.

There are extremely timely issues that are going on right now in the House of Commons. There is a huge degree of frustration here on this side of the House, but even more so, there is a lot going on in the Canadian military, and they are feeling a sense of betrayal and frustration.

When our opposition day is taken away, when it is changed around, when games are played with our opposition day so that we cannot address these very serious concerns, I think that contributes to the level of frustration on this side of the House.

I am going to ask the government House leader if she would tell us what the business of the House is for this week and for next week, and if we could please stick to that plan, it would be very much appreciated.