Mark Gerretsen

Mr. Speaker, I would sincerely like to apologize to the member for interrupting him. I do know that from time to time many members of the House get excited when listening to others discuss stuff, and certainly I am not the first person to ever heckle, but it does not mean it was right. Therefore, I apologize to the member and certainly withdraw my statement.

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the automotive sector in Canada being built on the concept of integration between Canada and the United States. I do not think there is anybody in the House who would disagree with that, but what I want to hear from the member is what his proposed solution is to this. Integration depends on both countries being interested in trade. What we have seen since the new administration has come along is that the United States is moving away from that. It is no longer interested in the integration the member talks about. He can stand here and say until he is blue in the face that the Prime Minister needs to get back to work, but the reality of the situation is that if one side is no longer interested in that integration, there is really not much one can do other than to provide supports for workers and look for new opportunities. Can the member explain what he means by “get back to work”, when the objective is clear?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a Kingston icon and one of the most celebrated town criers in the world: our very own Chris Whyman. This year marks more than four decades since Chris first donned the regalia and stepped into the role of Kingston's official town crier in 1984. What began as a one-year appointment has become a remarkable career, representing our city with pride, humour and a voice that can carry across Market Square. Over the years, Chris has earned provincial, national and international acclaim, including multiple world championships, all while serving as an ambassador for Kingston's history, culture and community spirit. Whether he is welcoming visitors, opening festivals or representing Canada abroad, he brings an unmistakable energy that reflects the very best of our city. On behalf of the residents of Kingston, I congratulate Chris Whyman on his extraordinary service and thank him for more than 40 years of dedication to our community. Hear ye, hear ye. Well done, Chris.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Moments ago, the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South issued a social media post that included the results of a vote that occurred earlier this afternoon in the House. He indicated in his post that the Prime Minister voted against a motion. However, the Prime Minister did not even vote at all. He is not even in the country. I wonder if the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South will stand up and apologize to the House for the misinformation that he is distributing around the Internet that relates to proceedings in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent among the parties to agree to switch the first two speaking spots between the Conservatives and the Liberals, with the understanding that all regular rules, including allotted time allocations for those spots, be provided accordingly with that switch.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised by my colleague, respecting the effect of the programming motion related to Bill C‑22 in the context of our collective and individual privileges. I submit that the matter is a question of whether the House has the ability to regulate its proceedings that appear to restrict the privileges of the House. I can state categorically that the House does have the powers to limit and, in some cases, waive its privileges. Page 65 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states: As a collectivity, the House of Commons has privileges that enable its members to fulfill their constitutional duties.... The two most dominant rights or powers are the right of the House to regulate its own internal affairs and the power to discipline. The programming motion that would govern the consideration of Bill C‑22 seeks to achieve to set a procedural process for the disposal of the bill. The House is no stranger to innovative and constructive ways to dispose of business before the House and in committees. During the pandemic, the House adopted motions that would have normally been seen as a restriction on the privileges of members and the House more generally. Indeed, the exclusive power of the House to regulate internal affairs is the cornerstone of the architecture of parliamentary privilege. The ability to regulate and control its own debates, agenda and proceedings relating to the legislative and deliberative functions is one of the most important privileges that the Constitution bestows upon Parliament. I submit that the exercise of these powers is central to the matter before the House. The House can give direction to committees, which are creatures of the House. The House can decide, by a majority of the voices, to structure the legislative process for any given bill. This is precisely the case with the proposal before the House. Therefore, I conclude that the matter is clearly within the House's powers to regulate its internal affairs in respect of the legislative agenda.

Mr. Speaker, it is more than just out of order. The member has brought cake into the House of Commons, which is incredibly disrespectful of the rules of this House. I would suggest that the member apologize to the House for disrespecting it in this way.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the hon. member was critical of the parliamentary secretary. He was suggesting that the parliamentary secretary was inaccurate when he said that Conservatives are just filibustering everything. He tried to make the offer that Conservatives come here in good faith. We can look at Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. The reality is that it is a bill that passed the House unanimously, passed committee unanimously and ultimately passed the House unanimously, yet we still had to move time allocation on it. Even with a bill they completely and fully supported, the Conservatives would not let it go through the House. It is a little bit much for the member to stand up and suggest that we are the ones accusing them of games, when, in reality, he knows full well that Conservatives are playing games on every bill, including the bills they support.

Mr. Speaker, the good thing is that we have over 150 years of precedent on our side on this. If members go back and look at the precedents, I am sure they will find many examples where ministers of state have moved this motion.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the questions my Conservative colleagues are asking today are intended just to go after this member's character. The irony is that she has shown character in her willingness to properly represent her community, to stand for her constituents and to work on behalf of her constituents to make their lives even better. I wonder if she can reflect on how she feels now that she has joined the governing caucus and how she sees that translating into a very positive message and positive outcome for her community specifically.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting, listening to Conservatives talk about accountability and how dare we use this opportunity to move closure. Yesterday we moved closure on Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, which was supported unanimously in the PROC committee and then got to the House. They forced us to move closure on it just so they could vote on it as well. It passed unanimously in the House too. It is clear that all the Conservatives are doing is using any possible delay tactic, regardless of whether they even support a bill. Would the minister not agree that perhaps it is time for the Conservatives to put down the tool of forcing us to use time allocation just because they know they can delay until the point that we have to do this, so they can then use the 30 minutes to stand in the House and say, “Oh, how dare you disrupt accountability?” Meanwhile, it is all about the games that they are playing.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Bow River did not answer the question of the parliamentary secretary. In his speech, he said he spoke with RCMP all the time. The parliamentary secretary asked what the RCMP told him about bail reform and lawful access. In his answer, in which he ironically first started off by accusing Liberals of never answering the question, he then skated around the whole question and talked about what his constituents are saying to him. Why do we not ask the member again what the RCMP has been saying to him? He will not answer that question because law enforcement is wholly behind this bill. That is why he does not want to answer it. Will he just come to terms with the fact that he is at odds with the RCMP and law enforcement on this?