SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 116

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 24, 2022 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 116 - Oct/24/22
Mr. Garnett Genuis
  • Oct/24/22 7:05:55 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, there were discussions among parties beforehand. There was an agreement to adjourn this debate to the evening, so it would not take place during Government Orders' time in the hope that we could have a substantive conversation about the fact that, in the world's second-largest economy, the government is committing an ongoing genocide. Instead of addressing those very real issues, the member chased all kinds of rabbit tracks, asking why we were not talking about other issues. However, when we talk about those other issues, such as the last time we had a concurrence debate on Ukraine, the member said we should not have been talking about that either. Every time we try to raise these human rights debates, this member has some reason to suggest why we should not be talking about them. Meanwhile, we have an agreement among parties to discuss this in the evening, and then he comes in the evening after the time normally set aside for Government Orders and he still complains about the fact that we have a concurrence motion going on. This is an extremely serious issue. We have people from the Uighur community in Ottawa advocating this week. This is an issue that requires urgent discussion. Could the member find it in his heart to spend some time learning about the issue and actually speaking about the issue, instead of all this gobbledegook nonsense?
236 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 116 - Oct/24/22
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
  • Oct/24/22 7:08:49 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, as I said at the very beginning, this is not about belittling or trying to minimize the severity of the issue. The issue is all about time management in terms of what takes place on the floor of the House of Commons. If we were to follow the logic that some might try to say, which is that we need to have more debates, it would be virtually endless. For example, if we say we would have an additional 20% across the board, on opposition days, government days, to have more debate time on human rights issues, then I would be a little more sympathetic. However, to try to give the impression that what is taking place this evening inside the House is going to have an impact on what is such a critically important issue is somewhat disingenuous. If we really and truly believe that, then why was it not suggested in a take-note debate or an opposition day motion. Then there would have been more debate on the issue. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
179 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 116 - Oct/24/22
Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)
  • Oct/24/22 7:14:46 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for highlighting the functioning of the House of Commons and the importance of the debates we have here. When I was coming to the Hill today, I was prepared to talk about Bill S-5. I told my community that we were going to be talking about Bill S-5. I sit on the environment committee, and I wanted to hear what other members were going to say about Bill S-5. However, when I came into the chamber, we were not talking about Bill S-5. In order for us to prepare as parliamentarians, could the hon. member talk about how we could do a better job at setting agendas and sticking to agendas?
124 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border