Mark Gerretsen

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am using the opportunity provided by this motion today to try to understand how things occurred the way they did when this particular inmate was moved, which might help inform us of how we could create better policies so this does not happen again.

We have heard from others members that the Conservatives were unaware in 2014 that this person had been moved from a maximum to a medium-security facility. However, we did hear about it this time. We heard about it because a family member came forward with the information. Does the member think there could be a better way to make sure that information is moved around so we do not have to rely on this way of finding out? Is there a way to change the policy so this would not happen again in the future?

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I have a brief question. We have heard that the Conservatives were not aware of what happened in 2014, when the convicted person was moved from a maximum to a medium-security prison. Given that information, I am wondering if the member can provide his feedback as to whether or not he thinks it should be politicians making these decisions, or the trained individuals who are currently making the decisions.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I just want to go back to my interrupting you, perhaps inappropriately, and assure you and the House that when the member for Battle River—Crowfoot was responding to a question or asking a question, indeed, I was not the one who was laughing. I take this matter extremely seriously.

My question is for the member. I asked the member for Oxford, who spoke before him, about the decision to move the prisoner from a maximum-security facility to a medium-security facility in 2014. He and the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, who asked a question after him, both acknowledged that the government of the day was not aware that that had happened.

Could the member provide some input as to why the Conservative government of the day was not made properly aware of this, and why it did not respond appropriately at that time, at least appropriately in terms of the position the Conservative members are taking today?

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I regret to interrupt the proceedings, but I want to point out for clarification that he said that I was laughing in response to that and—

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I would echo what we have heard today, which is that the tragic events that unfolded in this particular crime were horrific, and our thoughts are obviously with the family.

My question is about the individual who has been moved to a new facility. We know that this is the second time such a move has occurred. Ms. McClintic was moved in 2014. Is the member aware of what led to that move happening in 2014? Why did the Conservative government allow this individual to be moved from a maximum-security facility to a medium security facility in 2014?

[National Defence Act, October 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about this eventually getting to committee and we really hope it does eventfully happen. I recognize that so many Conservatives are interested in talking to this very important topic, but it begs this question. When they originally introduced very similar legislation, why did they introduce it five days before the House rose in 2015, only to know that Parliament would be dissolved shortly thereafter and that the legislation would never end up making it anywhere?

Would my colleague agree that it perhaps is slightly disingenuous, given the fact that the process to go through the House and the Senate would take much longer than five days, yet there was such great passion for this issue, as we can see coming from the Conservatives?

[National Defence Act, October 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would encourage you to encourage the member to refer to me through you. As he was saying “you”, I do not think that is proper parliamentary practice.

[National Defence Act, October 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, during his remarks, the member made a comment, which many members on the other side of the House have been making, about why it had taken so long to get this legislation to the House.

I would argue that it is exactly because of the reason why we seem to be stalled on it right now. Time and again the Conservatives put up road blocks to moving forward with legislation. We all know that we all agree on this. We are all going to, pretty much unanimously, vote in favour of this.

Why are we not sending it to committee so it can be properly studied, so the people who could be impacted by it will genuinely have an opportunity when it becomes legislation? I have already asked that, and I do not expect to get a clear answer. I will ask the member something else.

The member also mentioned vets. He talked about the record of Liberals versus Conservatives when it came to vets. Interestingly enough, the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry posted something on his Facebook page last week. He asked which party defended the rights of veterans. Then he put a Conservative logo and a Liberal logo. He had a whopping 1,400 votes on that. The Conservative member's own poll yielded 26% for the Conservatives and 74% for the Liberals.

Would the member agree that the poll is correct, or would he suggest that the constituents from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry do not have their facts straight?

[National Defence Act, October 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for speaking so eloquently on this legislation, as so many of his other colleagues have done for 20 minutes each in the last several hours.

I would note, although I find it very interesting, that this legislation was brought before the House by the former Conservative government five days before the House rose in 2015, and essentially would lead to the dissolving of Parliament. I cannot imagine how all of those Conservative MPs who wanted to speak to this issue were going to be able to do that plus see the bill go to committee, come back to the House, go to the Senate and go through the process there in order for it to be ratified.

I am wondering if my colleague would agree that perhaps the approach that the Conservative Party is taking on this issue now is slightly disingenuous given that it brought this forward a mere five days before the House rose in 2015.

If they were genuinely concerned about this issue, then they would agree that it is time to vote in favour of the bill and let it go to committee so that the proper work can be done there. It can then come back to the House where it can be ratified and become a reality for the people that it affects.

[National Defence Act, October 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the member started off answering the last question talking about veering off, and all he did was veer off from answering the question that he was asked.

We have been talking about this a lot. This came up a few years ago, and it was talked about a lot then. Now is the time to move this on to committee so that it can be properly studied there.

The question to the member is: Is he interested in seeing this move on and can we get to that stage now?

He said earlier that he thought it was extremely important for everybody to say their piece and be contributing. I could not agree more. The only problem is that everything we keep hearing from the other side is the exact same talking points over and over. There is no new contribution to the debate.

If we have heard it all, and it has been repeated over and over, can we now send it on to committee? Will he support that?