Madam Speaker, obviously I rise disappointed in the government's action. It is only a small thing like amending the Constitution, so why would we have fulsome debate on that and allow members to speak? I think at this point we have only had 10 speakers speak to the bill, but I have no doubt that we will hear indignation from the government House leader and, of course, his partner in the NDP, and about obstruction. We will hear that the Conservatives are obstructing the House. We are actually fulfilling our constitutional obligation of holding the government to account, and for that we are not going to apologize.

Motion No. 11 allowed for the government to extend hours not just to have fulsome debate, but to make sure issues that are important to Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and indeed other opposition parties, are debated in the House. Spare me if I cry crocodile tears for what the government is about to talk about and certainly what its partners in the NDP will be talking about. This is all about democracy in decline. I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Infrastructure agree with that fact.

The other thing I want to point out is that as these extended hours are happening, committees get cancelled, which we saw tonight with regard to the Emergencies Act committee. The whitewashing and the undermining of getting to the bottom of this continue to happen with the cancellation of these committees, and certainly the NDP is a party to it.

We are not going to be lapdogs like the NDP is to the government. We are going to continue to push. We are going to continue to make sure that we hold the government to account and make sure that we are not just an audience, as the Prime Minister and certainly the government House leader would like us to be. We are going to be an effective and loyal opposition to Her Majesty.

That is all I have to say. Here comes the indignation. It is going to be good. Hang on to your seat, Madam Speaker. Go ahead.

Arab Heritage Month Act May 17th, 2022

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

Business of the House May 17th, 2022

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for rising on this, because she quite rightly said that Motion No. 11 says “agreement” among the parties; it does not say “consultation” among the parties. The House certainly has the right and privilege to know with whom the agreement was made, or which other leader of the House of a recognized party made it, as Motion No. 11 states.

I ask for some clarity on this. It is quite clear in Motion No. 11 that agreement must be had. There was no agreement by me. Certainly the hon. member from the Bloc said there was no agreement from him. I think we need it stated clearly where that agreement came from, as Motion No. 11 dictates. It does not say “consultation”. A consultation according to the party opposite is simply sending an email around. There has to be clear agreement. Who made that agreement?

Business of the House May 17th, 2022

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I remind the Chair that yesterday I rose on a similar point of order related to Motion No. 11, which says:

a minister of the Crown may, with the agreement of the House leader of another recognized party, rise from his or her seat at any time during a sitting, but no later than 6:30 p.m., and request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the current sitting or a subsequent sitting be 12 a.m.

The government House leader did that. Would he please indicate to the House which other House leader agreed to this? I ask because it was not me.

Preserving Provincial Representation in the House of Commons Act May 16th, 2022

Madam Speaker, I really enjoy working with the hon. member in the time that we have been here, since 2015.

I want to pick up on a point that the hon. member made. I recall when the electoral reform committee was constituted, there was a tremendous amount of work that went into it. The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston was on that committee.

There were recommendations that all of the opposition parties agreed to, not the least of which was to recommend the idea of proportional representation, but again, bring it to Canadians in a referendum.

There can be an argument made as to where we go. I understand that the NDP is in favour of a citizens' assembly, but would she not agree with me and reaffirm that a promise was not kept by the Prime Minister? He did not get his preferred choice of voting, which would have been a ranked system, but more so, the issue of proportional representation, bringing it to Canadians and letting them decide on what type of voting system should be enacted is important.

Points of Order May 16th, 2022

Madam Speaker, it certainly is our understanding that he did engage in that, and perhaps it is a misunderstanding on our part. For future reference, at a minimum, if a minister does invoke that section of Motion No. 11, there should be an indication, and I hope the Speaker agrees with me, that a recognized House party leader who is agreeing to that be named as that minister stands up.