SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 119 - Oct/27/22

Oct/27/22 5:02:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-31

Madam Speaker, we had a good, constructive opposition day this week. Throughout the day, both Liberal and Conservative members told us that there was no time to talk about such important issues in the House. I would like to ask the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle if he believes that the fact that the Liberals and the NDP tripled the number of closure motions in the House leaves us more time to debate such important issues as the monarchy.

80 words

Context: House Hansard - 119 - Oct/27/22

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Oct/27/22 5:24:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-31

Madam Speaker, I could understand why the government might want to use a procedure like closure, although maybe not the super closure motion, if there were a filibuster at least. The bill we are debating contains so many flaws. In a minority government, we could have worked with the opposition to improve it. This makes the closure motion doubly unacceptable. We are talking about 130,000 parents in Quebec who will not have access to the benefit. We are talking about 86,000 people who make less than $20,000 or less than $35,000 or so and who live in low-rent housing or in co-ops but who will not qualify. Do these people deserve a closure motion? It is worth asking the question.

126 words

Context: House Hansard - 119 - Oct/27/22

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Oct/27/22 5:40:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-31

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As I said, we are in favour of the principle. There is a factual problem with his question. He is saying that the program is for every child in Quebec or for the parents of every child in Quebec. That is not true. The Parliamentary Budget Officer looked into this, and he showed that Quebec will receive only half as much as the rest of Canada will be getting. Quebec is being discriminated against. All we are asking is to drop this super closure motion that the NDP supported so that we can improve this bill in committee. If we had been able to amend it and improve it in committee, we would be voting in favour of the bill now. However, the government imposed super closure on a bill that is out of touch with reality and does not provide fair compensation. If we had had a chance to do the work to ensure that we were not getting just half of what we are entitled to, then we would have voted in favour of the bill. There are consequences to supporting super closure.

194 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 119 - Oct/27/22

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Oct/27/22 6:11:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-31

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was a shame that so much chatter was going on in the corner while my colleagues from Mirabel and Joliette were giving their brilliant speeches. Members will still go ahead and ask my two colleagues questions on issues that were covered in great detail in their speeches. Then members will ask how my colleagues can say this or that. My first point is that members should have been listening rather than talking. My question is this: why the super closure motion? If the Liberals are so sure of their arguments, in other words, that they are not encroaching on any jurisdictions, that Quebec's jurisdictions are not being trampled, that a right of withdrawal with compensation is therefore unnecessary, that everything is hunky-dory and Ottawa knows best, if that were the case, we could have gone through the committee process. We could have done real committee work and done a real study with the experts, including all those who say that the plan falls short. If they are experts in their fields, the committee could have scrutinized their arguments. Why are the Liberals so afraid of democracy? Why come and shove this super closure motion down our throats?

204 words