SoVote

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

May/2/22 12:26:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was here from 2011 to 2015. The most shocking thing I have seen today is the member for New Westminster—Burnaby swallow himself whole. He routinely raged against any motion for closure and routinely raged against any motion for time allocation. It was as if the sky were falling. Now he is in the Liberals' back pocket, saying this is a great thing. Growing up, my parents always told me that when someone shows us who they are, we should believe them. Let us look at some things. Who would bring forward this kind of a time allocation on this motion? Perhaps it would be someone whose leader said he admired China's basic dictatorship and a justice minister who said that debate is obstruction. We see where these people are going. If this is all about debate and we want more time for debate, why does the motion include the ability for a cabinet minister to move to adjourn the House for the summer? If it is about debate, why do the Liberals not take that out and prove it is about debate? I can tell members that they will not.

196 words

Context: House Hansard - 62 - May/2/22

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

May/2/22 12:37:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is something illogical about my colleague's argument. He is being asked why the Liberals included in this motion the possibility for the minister to adjourn for the summer without agreement from the other parties. He is telling us that this is done routinely at the end of every season and that is why they included this measure in the motion. If this measure is preventing people from being in favour of the motion, why not simply remove it since, in any event, adjournment is usually done with no problem, with the agreement of all parties? Why not proceed as usual?

104 words

Context: House Hansard - 62 - May/2/22

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

May/2/22 5:29:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Montcalm addressed several issues and problems he had with the various paragraphs in the motion. I would like to hear what he thinks about subparagraph (c)(B)(iv), under which “a minister of the Crown may move, without notice, a motion to adjourn the House until Monday, September 19, 2022...and that the said motion shall be decided immediately without debate or amendment”. In my opinion, this looks like prorogation on demand: At any time, if things are not going well for the government, it can prorogue Parliament. However, in 2015, this government promised that it would not do that, and the NDP also promised that it would never support it.

119 words

Context: House Hansard - 62 - May/2/22

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

May/2/22 6:06:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the member will know that particular provision would allow a minister to call for a vote to have an adjournment. We are in a minority Parliament, and that allows every member to weigh in on whether the House ought to adjourn, so I think the fact is that it would precipitate a vote. We do this at committee. Sometimes people call for adjournment of a committee and we proceed immediately to a vote on whether that will happen. In a minority context, on committee, I have seen proposals by the government to adjourn refused by the opposition parties together. I can imagine that happening in an instance where the government makes an egregious move to adjourn Parliament early. That is why the vote is a really important component of the motion.

135 words

Context: House Hansard - 62 - May/2/22

Mr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC)

May/2/22 6:50:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the things I would like to ask my colleague about is this issue of dilatory motions. The motion prevents all members from entertaining or bringing forward dilatory motions, except for one class of members, which is a minister of the Crown, for example, the Prime Minister. A minister can bring forward a dilatory motion, a motion to adjourn the House without debate and the vote must be called immediately. That is the definition of a dilatory motion. Could my colleague comment on the fact that this seems to be an inequity in the motion in that it does not apply equally to all members?

108 words