44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 17, 2022 10:00AM
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 18, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation), not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and
That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians).
52 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 6:35:35 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.
The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, obviously I rise disappointed in the government's action. It is only a small thing like amending the Constitution, so why would we have fulsome debate on that and allow members to speak? I think at this point we have only had 10 speakers speak to the bill, but I have no doubt that we will hear indignation from the government House leader and, of course, his partner in the NDP, and about obstruction. We will hear that the Conservatives are obstructing the House. We are actually fulfilling our constitutional obligation of holding the government to account, and for that we are not going to apologize.
Motion No. 11 allowed for the government to extend hours not just to have fulsome debate, but to make sure issues that are important to Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and indeed other opposition parties, are debated in the House. Spare me if I cry crocodile tears for what the government is about to talk about and certainly what its partners in the NDP will be talking about. This is all about democracy in decline. I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Infrastructure agree with that fact.
The other thing I want to point out is that as these extended hours are happening, committees get cancelled, which we saw tonight with regard to the Emergencies Act committee. The whitewashing and the undermining of getting to the bottom of this continue to happen with the cancellation of these committees, and certainly the NDP is a party to it.
We are not going to be lapdogs like the NDP is to the government. We are going to continue to push. We are going to continue to make sure that we hold the government to account and make sure that we are not just an audience, as the Prime Minister and certainly the government House leader would like us to be. We are going to be an effective and loyal opposition to Her Majesty.
That is all I have to say. Here comes the indignation. It is going to be good. Hang on to your seat, Madam Speaker. Go ahead.
357 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think members will find it ironic that we are getting lectures on indignation in that Oscar-winning performance on the other side of the aisle. We should never underestimate our Conservative friends' ability to manufacture outrage and indignation, and talk about loyal opposition and democracy.
We think that Bill C-14, which is the subject of the discussion for the next 25 minutes and not the fabricated outrage of my friend on the other side of the aisle, is about ensuring that every province, including the Speaker's province of Quebec, maintains the electoral representation and the number of seats it had in the House of Commons in 2021. In other words, no province should see a reduction in its representation in the House of Commons.
I was very encouraged, when this bill was first debated, that the Conservative Party showed support for this legislation. Members spoke in favour of the bill as an important gesture recognizing the unique position that the province of Quebec occupies in the Canadian federation, and recognizing that every province should be able to benefit from a grandfather clause, similar to what former prime minister Brian Mulroney did in 1985. We are suggesting in this legislation that the House of Commons and the Senate approve a similar amendment that would allow us to have a 2021 grandfather clause.
That is the subject of this conversation. The Conservatives say they want to support the bill, but they do everything they can to vandalize the legislative process and make sure that Parliament cannot actually proceed to a vote. What we are saying tonight is that it is time for members to stand in their places and vote on this legislation, and we are very confident that the Conservatives, who manufactured this outrage, will in the end stand up and vote for this process. We are making this possible for them tonight.
317 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think that the substance of Bill C-14 is worthy of further debate. It is not simply a matter of the number of seats; however, I am not going to debate Bill C-14 here. I think the debate deserves to continue in a truly democratic fashion.
I have a question about the gag orders that are being used week after week. Normally a gag order would be something out of the ordinary in this form of government, but we are seeing them come up repeatedly. Is this by any chance related to Motion No. 11, which we had shoved down our throats?
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville that this bill deserves to be debated. That is precisely what we tried to do last night. However, we saw the official opposition, the Conservatives, move bogus motions to force 30‑minute bells and votes to ensure that there would be no debate, even though they said they wanted to have one.
The best way to continue to debate is to ensure that there are no endless procedural games that prevent Parliament from discussing and debating this important issue, as my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville indicated.
We look forward to seeing the debate continue, for example at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs or even when Bill C‑14 comes back, I hope, to the House of Commons at report stage and third reading. We will then have many opportunities to hear our colleagues debate this bill.
I think that our colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville understands full well that this has absolutely nothing to do with Motion No. 11; rather, it is a way to ensure that the provinces in our federation, including her province of Quebec, keep their number of seats. I know that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of maintaining the 78 seats for the Province of Quebec. That is what we are trying to do, in due course.
245 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think never has the House leader of the official opposition spoken truer words than when, in referring to the Conservative Party, he talked about the decline of the democracy.
We have now seen over the past six months, ever since we passed unanimously the ban on conversion therapy and there was a revolt in the Conservative backbench, that Conservatives have blocked every single piece of legislation. In Bill C-9, teachers and farmers were looking for supports and Conservatives refused to let it through. They are now blocking Bill C-14.
The reality is as we saw it last night. The House leader of the official opposition referred to vigorous debate. What Conservatives wanted us to debate, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars last night, for hour after hour, was which Conservative MP would speak. We had vote—
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 6:43:23 p.m.
- Watch
I apologize for interrupting, but can we stop with the imitation of animals in the House please?
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is the overall decline of Conservative morals and scruples. The Conservatives were willing to have the entire Parliament of Canada subject to a debate within the Conservative Party on which Conservative MP should speak. This was a complete, colossal waste of the time of the House of Commons. Every single Conservative MP participated in what was a travesty. Instead of debating legislation, we were debating which member, which faction, in the Conservative Party would actually speak, and they held us up for hours on that absolutely irresponsible evening.
My question to my colleague is simply this: What has happened to the Conservative Party? Why do the members show such complete disrespect for the legislative process? Why do they waste taxpayers' money hour after hour with these procedural, childish games of having all members of Parliament decide which Conservative MP should speak?
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank our colleague for New Westminster—Burnaby for his comments and his question.
As colleagues know, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby is a senior member of the House. He has served the Province of British Columbia and the citizens of New Westminster—Burnaby well for a long time. I had the privilege to work with him when I was an opposition House leader, and when we sat on the Board of Internal Economy and other bodies of the House. We have worked well together.
I think that our colleague for New Westminster—Burnaby identifies a fundamental challenge. When members of the Conservative Party say that they oppose, for example, this necessary measure to bring this legislation to a vote, of course they will oppose it, but at the same time they are not interested in participating constructively in debating the legislation. Our colleague for New Westminster—Burnaby identified what I think was a shambolic and appalling performance last night when, with 30-minute bells and vote after vote, the House of Commons was pronouncing on which Conservative member would make a speech. It was all designed to ensure that legislation, which the Conservatives will ultimately support, does not actually come to a vote.
If we are looking for a reason to point to dysfunction in the House of Commons, we can think about this: The official opposition supports a particular piece of legislation, but is desperately trying to make sure that it actually does not come to a vote so that it might be adopted. The legislation would preserve, for example, the seat allocation in the province of Quebec and other provinces. However, at the same time, the Conservatives insist on having vote after vote to decide which Conservative will make a speech, which is designed to delay the legislation coming to a vote. It is unfortunate that it has come to this.
I think that the government House leader has taken his responsibility seriously, and we hope that parliamentarians in the Senate and in the House of Commons can discuss this legislation, consider it in committee, and debate it at report stage and third reading. We think it is important as well to allow the electoral boundaries commissions, which have been set up under law and are operating right now, to have clarity in terms of what will be the number of seats for provinces, which is why it is somewhat urgent that Parliament have a chance to pronounce itself on this legislation.
425 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am flabbergasted by the indignation of the Liberal side on this debate. The member speaks about dysfunction in the House. It is their House, as government, to manage, and it is obvious that they are so dysfunctional in managing the House that they cannot get legislation through.
Last night, the Liberals adjourned the House two and a half hours early, after cancelling committees so that we could have interpretation services available and other House services that were required. They sent those people home early and sent the whole House home two and a half hours early after they had scheduled it to sit until midnight last night.
We have to really question what is behind this determination to serve time allocation notice on the bill before us. What is coming behind it? We have seen previous legislation, such as Bill C-10 now Bill C-11, which will be coming through for debate. Is this an effort to get things out of the way so that they can push that forward through time allocation as well?
I hear NDP members rail against the procedural tools that we have to hold this government accountable. For years, in Parliament after Parliament, they railed against time allocation votes. Here they are, after this marriage of the NDP-Liberal government, now joining in with the Liberals in supporting time allocation votes. I question what really is behind all of this rush to get legislation through and to silence the opposition that we are here to provide, having been elected by the people that we represent.
264 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, far from wanting to silence the official opposition, we are actually trying to help the members have an opportunity to vote on this legislation. We are trying to help them out of the dead end they found themselves in last evening, as our friend for New Westminster—Burnaby pointed out, where they were using a series of absolutely ridiculous measures to ensure that the House was voting on which Conservative member would repeat a speech that was generated the previous time this legislation was brought before the House.
Our Conservative colleague asked what is behind this. I will be very clear on what is behind this. This is about allowing the House of Commons to pronounce itself on Bill C-14, which we think will enjoy broad support in the House, and then allowing the bill to proceed to committee, where our colleagues in committee can hear from witnesses, can debate the legislation and can make amendments if they decide it is necessary. The bill can come back to the House of Commons in the normal legislative process with which we are extremely familiar. Then, finally, our friends in the other place will have an opportunity to study the legislation as well.
The urgency, as I said, is constitutional and under legislation. Every 10 years, after a census, there is a redistribution process that takes place in every province, allowing an independent commission chaired by a justice or a judge from that province, appointed by the chief justice of the province, to look at the question of electoral boundaries and to adjust electoral boundaries for movements in population and for increases in population in some provinces. In this case, if this bill is adopted, we will provide a floor for the number of seats every province will have in this House of Commons. It is particularly important to our friends from the province of Quebec who, under the formula, would have stood to be diminished by one seat, losing one seat in the House of Commons. We think it is important for Canadians and for Quebeckers to know that the representation in 2021 will be the representation used by these commissions in determining the appropriate electoral boundaries. In your great province of Quebec, Madam Speaker, that would be 78 seats.
We wish the Conservative Party would support us in passing this so the commission could do its important work.
402 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what is disappointing this evening is the sad spectacle put on by the Liberals and the Conservatives.
The Bloc Québécois will always oppose muzzling opposition parties and taking away their powers. Yesterday, the delay tactics had consequences not just for the House, but for committees as well. A committee on medical assistance in dying was scheduled to discuss two fundamental matters yesterday: the protection of people with disabilities and the issue of mental illness as the sole underlying condition for medical assistance in dying. Witnesses were waiting. We upended all that and had to make people wait, when this committee does not meet very often as it is.
At present, a minister is telling us that what the Conservatives did was appalling. The Liberals themselves, when they were in opposition, used the same tactic and will continue to use it. Neither party is all that credible. At some point, common sense must prevail, and we must act according to our cherished principles of the exercise of parliamentary democracy.
What we are hearing from the minister and from the official opposition will do nothing to convince the people watching that this place is not a circus. Then, they act surprised that people are cynical about the work that we do here in the House. The Bloc Québécois feels that Bill C‑14 offers barely half of what we were asking for. That is another story, but we need to stop acting like this is the place for theatrics.
I would like to see more dignified behaviour here. Instead of telling the Conservatives that what they are saying is appalling, it would be better to tell them that it is more important we keep working. There is no problem with working until midnight. However, members' ability to do so should not be taken away.
We must denounce what the Conservatives did because, if we have a repeat of yesterday's nonsense, the people watching us will wonder what the heck is going on. However, this pretext is being used here to muzzle us. I would like to call for more respect for parliamentary democracy. Otherwise, democracy will rise from the streets.
371 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I disagree with our colleague from Montcalm when he says that democracy happens in the streets. I do not share his pessimism.
However, I appreciate the fact that he mentioned what happened last night. The repeated calls for votes showed a lack of respect for our colleagues who sit on House of Commons committees. I am thinking in particular of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying, which is very important. I am thinking in particular of the witnesses, people who often travel quite a distance to discuss a sensitive, difficult and very important subject. The study of this issue has already been postponed for some time.
We believe it is important to allow this committee to do its important work. It is in the interest of all Canadians that the issues raised by my friend from Montcalm be studied, that they be discussed and that we hear from witnesses with different perspectives and often professional experience in the field. We are well aware of what happens when the Conservatives organize a series of ridiculous repeated votes, like they did last night.
I may not agree with my friend from Montcalm on the second point. The Liberal Party has been in opposition too. We too have sat on the other side of the House, where our Bloc friends are now seated. When we were in opposition, we never sought to sabotage the legislative process with a series of procedural motions to deprive MPs of the opportunity to speak.
Frankly, I think it is time for the House of Commons to vote on Bill C‑14 and study it in committee. I am eager to work with our colleagues of all stripes to get this important bill passed as soon as possible.
296 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Montcalm for bringing up that point, because I am also a member of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, and what I saw last night was a travesty of the legislative process. We did have very important witnesses and a very delicate subject matter to cover, the protection of persons with disabilities. The antics that I saw in the House, debating which Conservative member needs to be heard while we have witnesses who are trying to report their important life experiences to our committee so that we can table a comprehensive report on a very delicate subject matter, that was a travesty.
It started earlier in the day. Members will recall that yesterday being a Monday, Routine Proceedings started right after question period and the Conservatives decided to move debate on a committee report, something that was unanimously agreed upon at the committee by all parties. When it came to the member for London—Fanshawe, she gave a short, two-minute speech and then asked for unanimous consent for the House to adopt that committee report. The Conservatives refused unanimous consent, showing that they just wanted to continue delaying the business of the House.
I will end here. The great David Christopherson, during my rookie year here in Parliament, said that if people are going to engage in filibustering or delay tactics, they have to know what the goal is, what the endgame is and what they are trying to achieve. Unfortunately, what I see from my Conservative colleagues is a rudderless ship flailing around with no endgame in sight. I just wish they would clearly state what their legislative goals in this session are so that the rest of us here can get to work and do that work on behalf of the constituents who sent us here.
313 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, our colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford reinforced the unfortunate circumstance at the joint committee looking at medical assistance in dying. I entirely associate myself with his view on the inability of those witnesses to be heard on an issue as important to Canadians and as sensitive as medical assistance in dying. This is exactly what the House of Commons should not do.
If we set up a committee like that, and if colleagues want to serve effectively and honourably on a committee like that, to represent their constituents and their colleagues in the House and do that important work, which necessarily includes hearing from Canadians, as I said, with different perspectives and in some cases with professional experience, then anything that would ensure that important work is disrupted is disrespectful to those witnesses. It is disrespectful to colleagues in the House, and it is also disrespectful to our colleagues who serve in the other place, who are also working with colleagues from the House of Commons on this committee.
What the Conservatives did last evening with a series of votes is what has made it important for the government to take this necessary step tonight to ensure this goes through. If the Conservatives were really interested in debate, they would have actually debated the bill last night, and not debated, as our friends have said, which Conservative member should be heard in order to delay the bill coming to a vote.
We think the House of Commons should have an opportunity to vote on this bill. I am confident that the members who are seeking to disrupt and vandalize the legislative process will ultimately vote for the bill. If we ever wondered if it was ridiculous, it will be when they end up voting for a bill they did absolutely everything they possibly could to ensure would never be adopted. One could perhaps see, as my friend from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford said, referring to our former colleague David Christopherson, that they do not know what the ultimate legislative objective is other than to try to burn it down. That is their objective. They start the fire and then pretend to show up with a hose to put it out. That is not the way the parliamentary process works. They cannot be the fire chief and the pyromaniac at the same time.
It is important for the House to proceed to a vote.
408 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, any Canadians I know from my riding who have been watching the debate over the last couple of years have seen the government run roughshod over the democratic process, and then it hears them lecture us about how bad the Conservative Party is, calling us all kinds of names.
We have a Prime Minister and a Liberal Party that think they are a majority government. Then we hear from the NDP down the way, and it thinks it is the Liberal Party. Once again, instead of standing in opposition to the government, which is running roughshod over democracy, the New Democrats are carrying their water again. I hate to overuse that term “carrying their water”, but my goodness, we hear them again supporting what the government is doing, and then we hear the same from the Bloc.
The Conservative Party is the only party, the only group in Parliament, that is doing its job. We are doing our job of being in opposition to this out-of-control Liberal government.
They represent the Liberal Party. I have a simple question for the minister: When will you represent Canadians once again?
194 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I hope our colleague was not asking you when you will represent Canadians, because I think not only that you represent very well the people of your great Quebec constituency, but also that you represent all Canadians when you sit in that chair. I cannot imagine my colleague would be casting that aspersion on you because that would be inappropriate.
There is a level of manufactured indignation and fake outrage from the Conservatives about parliamentary procedures that actually allow the House of Commons to pronounce itself on legislation. As the Speaker will remember, I also sat in opposition on the other side of the House. We watched the government House leader at the time, Peter Van Loan, so many times—
An hon. member: He did it over 100 times.
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, yes, it was over 100 times. Can members imagine it? A Conservative House leader, these great professors of democratic principles, did it over 100 times. Peter Van Loan introduced time allocation or closure measures that many times in the House of Commons.
In fact, the chief government whip at the time wrote a manual of how to ensure that a parliamentary standing committee could be driven completely into the ditch. It was sort of a how-to manual of what to do if something went wrong in the committee, and how to ensure the whole thing could be ground directly into the ditch.
These are the authors of those kinds of documents. I think Peter Van Loan moved time allocation and closure so many times that the words are actually carved into the desk to the right of where I sit. If we lift the desk, we might see that he has engraved in that desk all of the words necessary to bring time allocation and closure. That is what the Conservatives did in government.
Now they are in opposition, and they do everything they can to ensure that the government agenda, which is important to Canadians, cannot advance to a legislative vote. They will not allow the House of Commons to pronounce itself on legislation.
When my colleagues ask when we are going to start working for Canadians, the answer is that we have never stopped working for Canadians.
377 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
