John Brassard

[Business of the House, June 23rd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, you will be glad to know, and I am sure the pages will be glad to know, that I am cleaning out my desk—

[Public Safety, June 23rd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, what do Mark Norman, Jody Wilson-Raybould and Darren Campbell all have in common? They spoke truth to power and their reputations were attacked, but not before the Liberals gaslit Canadians about their underhanded role in manipulating the criminal justice system. In Campbell's case, the Prime Minister, the former minister and the RCMP commissioner are staying true to form. They have all lined up a fall guy, but Canadians will not buy it this time.

When will the good guys stop paying the price, and when will the Liberals stop manipulating the criminal justice system to suit their crass political self-interests?

[Public Safety, June 23rd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, RCMP Superintendent Campbell is an honest officer with a solid reputation. Former commissioners, deputy commissioners and other RCMP veterans from across Canada are speaking up to defend the man's character.

Campbell's notes show that his team of investigators was under political pressure and interference from Brenda Lucki on behalf of the Prime Minister and the former minister of public safety, but this Ottawa gang has denied it meddled in the most tragic crime in Nova Scotia's history. It is never the crime; it is always the cover-up.

Someone is lying and it is not Campbell. Is it Lucki, the Prime Minister, the former minister or all three?

[Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees, June 23rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I want to show how little respect I have for this member: I will take the next question now.

[Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees, June 23rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, the only way I will respond is to note that other legislatures around the world, such as the U.S. Congress and our mother Parliament, have all resumed to normal, in-person sittings. Why should they be any different from us?

I would be glad to take a question from the member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees, June 23rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I sat on PROC when we studied this at the beginning of the pandemic. The concern was always that this was going to become more permanent in nature, and I believe it is the goal of not just the Liberal government but its partners in the NDP to make this more permanent.

There were other concerns as well. Members may use this not to come here so that in close ridings they can perpetually electioneer. I suspect that this is probably going to be the case for the NDP and the Liberals.

As I said last night about somebody who wants to be in their community, this is a transcontinental country, and the expectation is that when we get elected here, we are going to come to Ottawa. If members want to be in their riding, they can run for mayor, run for council or run for public school trustee. They should not run for MP, because the expectation is that they will need to be here.

[Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees, June 23rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her understanding of how deep the abyss of irrelevance will be once the Canadian electorate gets a hold of the New Democrats in the next election after they made a deal with the Liberals. The Liberals were sent here with 32% of the vote. It was only because the Prime Minister did not receive a majority government that he decided to invite the NDP to be a coalition partner.

If these things become true, I will eat my words. Promises were made by the Liberal government to the NDP, but the Liberals have never lived up to a promise they have been able to keep. The country is in chaos and calamity. Even the most basic services are not being delivered. If the New Democrats think they are going to get their way out of this, they are sadly wrong and they will be irrelevant in the next election.

[Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees, June 23rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, this discussion came up a couple of weeks ago in a House leaders' meeting. The leader of the House for the Bloc Québécois made it explicitly clear to the government House leader that this was important, just as it is for our members from Quebec, because this is a holiday of great importance within Quebec. At the time we talked about it, there was no indication that we were going to be dealing with Motion No. 19. In fact, what the Liberals did was put it on notice Monday evening knowing that the debate would eventually roll into Thursday, with the vote scheduled for 8:30 p.m.

I want to assure my hon. colleague that we have done everything we can to ensure that the vote happens as early as possible, with an understanding for not just Bloc Québécois members but our members from Quebec, who understand how important the fête nationale is in Quebec. I am just sorry that the Liberal government House leader does not realize or understand how important it is. Basically, what he did—

[Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees, June 23rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, the fact is that constitutionally Ottawa is the seat of power. It is the seat of Parliament, and this is where people are expected to be.

Do I think that going hybrid during COVID served a purpose? I explained very well in my discourse last night that at the height of the pandemic, yes, it did serve a purpose because there were many unknowns at that point. There were agreements among all the parties to move, and I give full credit to the administrative staff.

However, in terms of what we are dealing with today, we are normalizing this process of a hybrid Parliament in the fall when no other legislatures around the world or even in this country are doing it. Why are we dealing with this now? If we want to talk about how to modernize Parliament, we can do that, and the procedure and House affairs committee is the proper venue for it.

[Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees, June 23rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it is very relevant. It is not lost on me that every time any member on this side—and even in the Bloc Québécois, for that matter—starts saying things that the member does not like, he jumps up on a point of order just to disrupt the interaction. That is too bad. If he does not like what I have to say, too bad.

I want to focus as well on a couple of other things that are critical in this debate on whether we return to a hybrid system in the fall.

What is not being taken into account, and I know Madam Speaker is fully aware of this, is that there have been increases in injuries within the interpretation bureau. We have received numerous reports over the last several years that there has been a ninefold increase in injuries among those people who work so hard to ensure that we have world-class interpretation in this place, and when I say “world-class”, I mean it is unlike any other around the world.

We are seeing increased workplace injuries. We have been told that those workplace injuries are going to continue as long as we continue with a hybrid system here in the House and at committee. Why the government and the NDP are proposing to jeopardize the health and safety of our interpretation bureau is beyond me, especially since the warning signs and signals have been sent.

We are seeing a diminishing pool of interpreters, for which these workplace injuries are not the least reason. That puts the bilingualism component of our Parliament at risk for all of us, especially those who are francophone in this place and those who listen in who are francophone, and calls into question the future of bilingualism and the ability of interpreters to relay what is going on to francophone Canadians. I think that needs to be strongly considered as we consider moving into this hybrid Parliament format.

It is no surprise to the House that we want to signal to Canadians that we are getting back to some sense of normalcy, but there is no reason, no science, no evidence and no rationale as to why we are dealing with this in the waning hours of this session of Parliament, all because the government House leader and the NDP House leader do not want to return to normal. That is the only alternative. They want to continue the decline in the relevance of this institution by allowing ministers and members to not be here. It is sad.

I wear this bracelet around my wrist. It says, “Lest we forget”. I have said this before in this place, because I often think about the lives that have been lost and the families that have been decimated by war. Those who have defended our country in faraway lands to allow us all the privilege to sit in our symbol of democracy did not fight so we can sit on Zoom. They did not fight so ministers can hide from accountability. They did not fight to see a decline in our democracy. They fought to strengthen our democracy and to ensure that it was sustainable for years to come, but what the government is proposing is limiting and diminishing our democratic institution.

I know the government is going to argue otherwise, but we have seen it. We have seen a lack of accountability and transparency. We have seen the government hide using these tools. We saw it with Bill C-11. We saw the chaos that ensued at committee when the chair was sitting in her living room trying to manage and deal with a complicated and substantive bill with hundreds of amendments.

It is done. It is over. Its time has come. It served a purpose at the time, but it serves a purpose no longer when no other legislatures in this country, provincial or territorial, or around the world, are using a hybrid system. It is done. It is over.

In the time I have left, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy Royal, that the motion be amended:

(a) in paragraph (i) by deleting all the words after the words “motion is adopted” and substituting the following: “or adopted on division, provided that precedence shall be given to a request for a recorded division followed by an indication the motion is adopted on division”;

(b) in paragraph (p) (i) by adding after the word “videoconference” the following: “provided that members participating remotely be in Canada”, (ii) by adding after the words “resources for meetings shall be” the following: “subject to the provisions of paragraph (j) of the order adopted on Monday, May 16, 2022”, (iii) by adding after subparagraph (vi) the following: “(vii) any proceedings before a committee in relation to a motion to exercise the committee's power to send for persons, papers and records shall, if not previously disposed of, be interrupted upon the earlier of the completion of four hours of consideration or one sitting week after the motion was first moved, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the motion shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment”; and

(c) in paragraph (q) (i) by deleting all the words in subparagraph (ii) and substituting the following: “members participating remotely shall be in Canada and shall be counted for the purpose of quorum”, (ii) by adding after subparagraph (v) the following: “(vi) any proceedings before the committee in relation to a motion to exercise the committee's power to send for persons, papers and records shall, if not previously disposed of, be interrupted upon the earlier of the completion of four hours of consideration or one sitting week after the motion was first moved, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the motion shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate and amendment”.