House Hansard - 66

44th Parl. 1st Sess.

May 6, 2022 10:00AM

May/6/22 12:18:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, we now have the “double blue”, the “true blue” and the “light blue”, with the Bloc being the “light blue”, as one of my colleagues called them. They kind of like to work together to cause a little bit of mischief. On the one hand there is the Conservative Party, the leading party of the “double blue coalition”, moving a motion to prevent debate, and on the other we have the “light blue” or the “mini blue” trying to look at ways in which we can end the session for the day. It is amazing, truly amazing just how much the Bloc and the Conservatives feel that we do not need to debate Bill C-19. Think about it. The Conservatives are saying they want to change the topic today, as they do not want to talk about the budget. I can appreciate why. I can appreciate why because, at the end of the day, there is so much good news in this budget that the Conservatives do not want to talk about it, and that is— An hon. member: Why are you filibustering? You are filibustering yourself.

207 words

All Topics

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Context: House Hansard - 66 - May/6/22

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/6/22 12:20:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, technically I am not filibustering because I am talking about what we should be talking about today, which is the budget. That is the thing that the Conservatives do not want to talk about because it is such a good, healthy budget for all Canadians—

48 words

All Topics

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Context: House Hansard - 66 - May/6/22

Mr. Michael Barrett

May/6/22 12:20:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has just informed you and the House that he is not debating the motion at hand. He is debating a different piece of legislation. On the subject of relevance, he has specifically said that his debate is not relevant to the matter at hand. Perhaps the hon. parliamentary secretary could stop filibustering and let us return to the business of the House.

67 words

All Topics

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Context: House Hansard - 66 - May/6/22

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

May/6/22 12:59:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I really respect and honour the hon. member's intervention on a debate that we, quite frankly, really should not be having. The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton, as is his right as a member of Parliament, proposed in routine proceedings, in a motion, to split the bill. I asked that the question be put, which meant that we would have voted for it on Monday and, as is the hon. member's right, he could have simply stood up with the NDP and voted against it, if he chose to, or voted for it, depending on what his views are on splitting the bill and sending it back to committee to allow the committee to do the work. What I do not understand is why the government is continuing to filibuster on this issue when the question could have been put. We could have been avoiding all of this discussion. I do not understand. If one does not agree with it, vote against it on Monday. If one does agree with it, vote for it. That is the issue we are dealing with, not just standing up here and filibustering. We want to get to government business, and we could have gotten to government business.

210 words

All Topics

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Context: House Hansard - 66 - May/6/22

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

May/6/22 1:00:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, a one-hour debate on this is hardly filibustering. It is, in fact, to put on record what we are talking about, how important this bill is and why it needs to be debated in its entirety as one full unit. That is not filibustering. That is putting forward a coherent set of reasons as to why this bill should not be divided.

65 words

All Topics

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

SoVote

House Hansard - 66