SoVote

May/2/22 12:29:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation. Obviously we must never forget that the Bloc Québécois is the master of obstruction. That is their whole purpose. We know that we must work together to advance legislation and reforms that are supported throughout Canada. We want to ensure that we have enough time to hold real debates on real issues without obstruction. We are here precisely to set out a process on how to proceed until the end of the session in June, one that will give all parliamentarians the opportunity to have their say and help to pass good bills.

106 words

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

Mr. John Brassard

May/2/22 12:31:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice just said that this has happened before when in fact it has not happened before, with the exception of emergency debates and take-note debates. That is what I am seeking clarification on.

39 words

All Topics

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

Mr. Luc Thériault

May/2/22 5:30:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. My colleague is perfectly correct. When I said that it limited the powers of the opposition parties and that it restricted debates in Parliament, this is an example of how a government can become arrogant and, with the complicity of another party, give itself the powers of a majority government. The voters elected a minority government. As such, I think that the government will have to pay a price for what it is doing now.

82 words

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

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

May/2/22 5:53:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and to have the occasion to address this motion. I have always taken an interest, and do today, in parliamentary procedure. Whenever we are talking about the rules of debate, I think that members rightly have an interest on what exactly is going on and what those details are and there is a legitimate tension. That is why in parliaments these kinds of debates tend to happen frequently between a government that needs to get its business done, not just for its own sake, but presumably for the sake of the nation and the people who elected them, and those in opposition who have a job to do in terms of scrutinizing the government's work in trying to make it better where they can and oppose it when they can. I have often said that. I think there are reasons for supporting the rights of the opposition within Parliament that have to do with the rights of parliamentarians. However, there are also reasons for supporting the rights of the opposition within Parliament that have to do with the time it takes for word to get out about what government intends to do, to have a civil society response and to organize around initiatives by the government that they may not like. I think one of our responsibilities as parliamentarians always is to look at the need for things to get done in the nation's capital, in Parliament and in government, as well as the obligations that we have to foster a healthy culture of opposition. These are certainly the issues that are at stake. I think sometimes in this place it is hard to get at the particular circumstances, because we often tend to address these issues with a hyperbolic tone. Sometimes that is warranted. I have seen occasions in this House where I felt that it was warranted and have participated in that spirit. I think that is especially true when we have majority governments that are not forced to negotiate with other parties in Parliament in order to advance their agenda. When we see members of all the same party getting up and dictating the rules of debate and there has been no meaningful interplay between parties in the House, that is one thing. I do think it is another thing when the government has to negotiate with another party in order to get its business done. What we are seeing is a government that has undertaken a number of initiatives in order to get support from the NDP to move a budget forward, for instance. That is okay. That is actually how this place is supposed to work, and I think that is how it works when it is working at its best. Then the question is this. In order to be able to get some of those things done, how do we conduct the business of the chamber? I want to use Bill C-8 as an example of a case of opposition that does bleed into obstructionism. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Daniel Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I am trying to both speak and listen to the conversation that is happening at the same time.

539 words

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

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

May/2/22 6:04:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the things that really impressed me when I had the opportunity to tour the Scottish Parliament was that they said they could speak any language that they want in the Scottish Parliament. It does not have to be a language of Scotland. They can speak any language from anywhere in the world in the Parliament of Scotland. Part of the reason they are able to do that is they decide as a parliament months in advance what bill they are going to be debating and on what day. They get together and the parties talk about how many people from their respective caucuses want to address a bill, and then they develop a schedule that allows members to speak to the things they want to speak to and it allows for decisions to happen. We are so far away from a culture where we can sit down in good faith with parties that disagree on things and come up with a professional way of doing business on the floor of the House of Commons that we are going to continue to be in these kinds of debates again and again. What we need to see is a little more goodwill on all sides, so that we can develop an appropriate and professional culture of decision-making in this place.

223 words

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

Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC)

May/2/22 7:17:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Vaughan—Woodbridge for his thoughts. I would just counter by saying that I believe there is a bit more to this motion than the government is letting on. Obviously, it has been making the argument that having longer sittings, more sittings and more time to debate legislation is good. I would certainly agree with that, but this motion allows for the House to not meet quorum and not have an adequate number of members present for those debates, potentially opening the door for members of the government or other parties not to attend and take part in that important discussion. I wonder if the member could speak to that contradiction in the motion and why that would be the case.

128 words