SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 196 - May/12/23

May/12/23 12:45:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am definitely ready to go. However, I would like to point out that post-secondary education in French is broadly lacking in western Canada. Some huge challenges remain, which is preventing western Canada from having decent French-language educational institutions. I want to point something out regarding the right to self-determination. If Quebec is considered a nation, it should have control over what makes it a nation and over its language. The Charter of the French language should take precedence over the Official Languages Act. We should have a say in the hundreds of millions of dollars in grants that are awarded to support English. The NDP has not always supported these proposals, but it has supported some of them.

126 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

May/12/23 12:46:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-13

Mr. Speaker, I thank and I congratulate my friend and colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for all the work he is doing to defend and promote French in the House within our party, but also for all the work he has done all his life with various organizations. He has made this his life's mission, and I salute and thank him for it. Bill C-13 contains some good measures for Acadians and francophones outside Quebec. We welcome that, and we support it. For the first time, the government is recognizing that French is under threat, including in Quebec. That is a first, so we applaud it. However, at the same time that the government is saying that French is threatened in Quebec, it is spending $800 million on English to encourage the anglicization of Quebec. Does that not expose the utter hypocrisy of the Liberal government?

152 words

Mr. Mario Beaulieu

May/12/23 12:47:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I could not have put it better myself. The Bloc Québécois certainly supports francophone and Acadian communities. We think what has been happening for the past few years is totally unacceptable. There was a strategy that led to the presentation of action plans on official languages that promoted that. Again, it is the same thing. A journalist asked a question and a senior official answered on condition of anonymity. That is how we were able to find out that $800 million was going to be allocated to English in Quebec. I found out because I combed through the public accounts. I think that Quebeckers do not agree with this. Francophones from Quebec do not agree, and we are going to make it known. If we get enough people to rally behind the Government of Quebec and the Bloc Québécois, the federal government is going to have to change this. Otherwise, as I said, we will soon have to resume marching toward Quebec's independence.

175 words

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP)

May/12/23 12:49:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-13

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to speak on behalf of the NDP at third reading of Bill C-13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act. This bill has our unequivocal support. Today is a historic day. No changes have been made to the Official Languages Act for 30 years, but we finally managed to do it. The work was sometimes hard, but it was important for the francophonie, Quebec, Acadia, Franco-Manitobans and all of the other francophone communities across the country. On a personal level, it is important for me, for my children, for all of our children and for our future. I am a proud francophile. I was born in Thompson, in northern Manitoba. I am the daughter of immigrant parents. My mother tongue is not English or French. It is Greek. I understand how lucky I am. My parents understood the importance of speaking both of Canada's official languages, and it is thanks to the battle waged by francophones across the country, teachers and allies, that I had the opportunity to study French through a French immersion program. In Manitoba, many francophones fought for their rights and for public investment in French education. In the 1980s, a Manitoba NDP government, of which my father, Steve Ashton, was a member, fought against discrimination and defended the right of francophones to have access to services and legislation in their language. I knew from a young age that we cannot take anything for granted. We have to fight to move forward. I also know that generations of young Canadians are able to communicate in our two official languages thanks to the dedication of our teachers, our schools and our communities and, above all, their passion for the French language. In my last speech, I paid tribute to almost every teacher that my generation of students and I had at our immersion school, Riverside School, in Thompson. It was through teachers, particularly in my immersion experience, that we learned not only French, but also about francophone culture. We now have unique insight and a richer understanding of our country and our world. I want the same thing for my two children, Stefanos and Leonidas. They are now five and a half years old. They are in kindergarten at École La Voie du Nord, a French-language school in the Division scolaire franco-manitobaine, or DSFM, in Thompson. My children are part of the next generation. For them, the world has become a little smaller, but it is a world where French is in decline in Canada. We must stop this decline and fight for this next generation. I want to point out that the work we did in committee was historic work. I am proud of what we accomplished at this committee. I want to mention a few important changes that we made to Bill C-13 to strengthen it and to better address the decline of French in our country. First, I want to mention that changes were made to the bill concerning immigration. We must ensure that we have ambitious targets that recognize that we must accept francophone immigrants and francophone families to enrich our communities across the country and address the decline of French. I recognize that this is also a priority in the government's action plan, but let us remember that ambitious targets are not enough. We also need to invest in consular services, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. We need to invest in settlement services here in Canada, and we need to ensure that we have a well-organized and carefully targeted system to recruit the people that we need. I especially want to emphasize the recruitment of early childhood, elementary, secondary and post-secondary educators. The reality is that there is a major shortage of French teachers both in immersion and in the francophone network outside Quebec. We need to find solutions to this labour shortage. We need to acknowledge that the Canadian Association of Immersion Professionals has said that an extra 10,000 teachers are needed to meet the current demand for French immersion and French as a second language. How are we going to resolve these labour shortages and attract the professionals we need to maintain public services in French-language and immersion schools and day cares? We need to strive to meet the ambitious targets in Bill C‑13 with targeted investments and with a real plan to welcome the people we need to be able to educate the next generation of young people in French across the country. I have to say that this is personal for me. I have mentioned in committee several times that my own children were on a waiting list for more than a year to get a spot at a French day care in my community because of the labour shortage. Many efforts were made to resolve this problem, including an initiative to bring people with early childhood education experience to Canada. Despite all these efforts, the problem could not be resolved. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada did not provide enough help. The result is that several children, including my own, were unable to attend day care in French. We have to be able to make these crucial investments in education in order to educate the next generation in French. This step forward in the bill is also linked to one of the other changes we were able to make, of which I am very proud. It was the NDP that pushed to include the negotiation of mandatory language clauses in agreements between the provinces and the federal government. Our aim is to ensure that every agreement between the federal government and the provinces includes language clauses so funding can be given to francophone and anglophone minority communities, to ensure they receive their fair share. Be it for health care, employment services or day care, we absolutely need to include language clauses in our agreements with the provinces to ensure that francophone and anglophone minority communities have access to adequate services and opportunities. I would also like to point out that we were able to make changes to increase the Treasury Board's powers regarding the enforcement of Bill C‑13. We were also able to give more powers to the Commissioner of Official Languages. We were able to make changes that a number of stakeholders had requested, particularly with respect to access to justice. I would like to mention that Manitoba's francophone jurists clearly indicated that Bill C‑13 should address the importance of access to justice in French and ensure that Manitoba francophones can go to court in French. Of course, the same right will apply to English-speaking minority communities. With all our colleagues around the table, we were able to ensure that people will have access to justice in French outside Quebec in provinces like Manitoba. I would also like to talk about another change we made. We insisted on the issue of access to federal lands for francophone school districts. This is something of utmost importance for many school boards that need to grow to meet increasing demand yet do not have the space to do so. Bill C-13 provides that opportunity. Finally, I am very proud of the work we have been able to do. I want to once again recognize organizations like the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, or FCFA, and its president, Liane Roy. The FCFA is the national voice of 2.8 million French-speaking Canadians living in nine provinces and three territories. It represents the voice of francophones across Canada. It has played a key role and was crucial in ensuring that the President of the Treasury Board would have greater responsibility for implementing Bill C‑13 and that francophone immigration will be supported. It is also thanks to that organization that we pushed further on the issue of language clauses and succeeded in giving more powers to the Commissioner of Official Languages. I also want to recognize the work of the FCFA member organizations working on the ground, including here in Manitoba. They are the true defenders of the French language. I want to commend them for their hard work on Bill C‑13. The last major reform of the Official Languages Act was in 1988. It was clear that there were gaps in the act. It was not easy for our youth to receive all their education in French, from early childhood to post-secondary education. There was a lack of francophone staff. Access to justice in French was difficult. Emergency alerts and information on health and public safety were not available in French. I believe that Bill C‑13 is a big step in the right direction. I want to acknowledge the committee's cooperation during our work. I want to thank all the committee members who moved amendments to the bill. I know that we did not always see eye to eye, but we all had the same goal of protecting the French language in Canada and defending the rights of official language minority communities in Canada. The amendments that were adopted by the committee are essential. We hope that the Senate will respect them. The reality is that this bill will change the federal government approach by recognizing that French is a minority language throughout Canada and North America. The government's actions will have to reflect that. We must recognize that the sharp decline in the number of francophones in Canada is a serious problem and that we must take action in whatever way we can. We are all familiar with the statistics. The French language is in decline across our country. In 1971, the demographic weight of francophones was 25.5%; today, it is less than 23%. If we do not defend our services and institutions, if we do not defend French education in French and immersion schools, the decline will continue. Today, we are moving forward with a national project, a project rooted in the recognition of first peoples and indigenous languages. It is a project that recognizes our two official languages and the fact that we must work to protect French in Canada. It is a project that recognizes the diversity of our country, the multiculturalism of our country. It is a project that recognizes the fact that there are many Canadians like me, whose parents came from other countries and who want to raise their families and contribute to our country in both official languages, perhaps even in their mother tongue, and thus contribute to a bilingual country, a multicultural country, a country that respects the first peoples of Canada. I strongly encourage all my colleagues in the House to vote in favour of this historic bill so we can continue the work needed to defend French and support official language minority communities.

1840 words

Mr. Francis Drouin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.)

May/12/23 1:04:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-13

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, with whom I am fortunate to serve on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. As she so rightly pointed out, everyone worked really hard to send this bill back to the House, and here we are. All of the official language minority communities are asking that Bill C-13 be passed as quickly as possible. We recently commenced a study on francophone immigration, more specifically francophone immigration from Africa. My colleague and I do not have access to French child care, so I would like her to explain how important it is to identify the needs of our communities. Bill C-13 provides for the adoption of a francophone immigration policy, and we established a threshold of recovery to 1971 levels. How important is it to identify the needs of our communities and how will Bill C-13 help with that?

152 words

Ms. Niki Ashton

May/12/23 1:05:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-13

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his work on this historic bill. Bill C-13 contains some strong language regarding the need to restore the demographic weight of francophones. We believe that the 4.4% target does not go far enough. We agree with the stakeholders, like the the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, who have said as much. We need an ambitious plan to support our communities. As my colleague said, specific areas need to be targeted, areas like education, including early childhood education. We need to ensure that the necessary work is done in this country to recruit, educate and support French-language educators. However, let us be honest. We also have to welcome people from outside Canada to help fill these jobs. These people must be able to come here to contribute to Canada and benefit from the advantages of living here, as many immigrant families have done, including mine. We hope that Bill C-13 will mark the beginning of a new chapter. We have a lot of work to do.

190 words

Mr. Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC)

May/12/23 1:06:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my colleague from Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, with whom I had the privilege of working on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Indeed, we are unanimous and we have all worked towards the same goal, albeit in different ways. My colleague said she was proud of the result. I, for one, think we only got half the job done. We could have done a lot more, even though, as the saying goes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. It had been a long time since the legislation had been modernized, so we should have used more aggressive means to obtain more immediate results. I had the opportunity to work with my colleague. In her speech, she often talked about access to education, but there is one amendment in particular on which I would like to hear her opinion. Why did she vote with the Liberals on the enumeration of rights holders? This is important because it gives us much more precise data than an estimate. We proposed an amendment to do what was provided for in the 2021 census and to put it into law so that future governments would be required to paint the most representative picture of reality possible, which has an impact on investments. Why did my colleague vote against this?

230 words

Ms. Niki Ashton

May/12/23 1:08:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-13

Mr. Speaker, first of all, Bill C‑13 is a strong measure that gives us the tools to address the decline of the French language. It is a huge step in the right direction, but it is not enough, obviously. Of course, we must address the decline of French, be it in education or in other fields. We must make the necessary investments and recognize that we need clear and targeted plans to support our communities, especially outside Quebec, where we are seeing a fairly serious decline. We certainly need to have the right information. Of course, we want Statistics Canada or any other government agency to be able to collect the necessary information to ensure that our children, our schools and our school districts have the data they need to support education in French. As I said, we have a lot of work to do to end the decline of the French language, but I believe that Bill C‑13 represents a big step in the right direction.

171 words

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

May/12/23 1:09:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her co-operation and work on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. I would like to know if she considers Quebec to be a nation with French as its official and common language, and if she recognizes Quebec's right to self-determination. If so, does she think it is okay for the federal government to swoop in and spend hundreds of millions of dollars in areas of Quebec's jurisdiction to support English?

82 words

Ms. Niki Ashton

May/12/23 1:10:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-13

Mr. Speaker, yes, we recognize the Quebec nation. It was very important for us to work with the Government of Quebec in developing Bill C‑13. We were very happy to learn that an agreement had been signed between the Government of Quebec and the federal government to advance shared priorities. It is obvious that such an agreement is crucial to ensure Quebec's self-determination in many key areas, and that the federal government must be a part of the solution to protect the French language and stand up for official language minority communities. From the beginning of the debate on Bill C‑13, I have been very clear in saying that French is in decline. We see it here, in western Canada, and we know that it is obviously the case in Quebec. The federal government must keep this in mind not only in the context of this bill, but also, more specifically, when it invests and plans for the future.

165 words

Mr. Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC)

May/12/23 1:12:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague. I was asking her about rights holders earlier. Now I have a question about the Treasury Board. The FCFA, which represents several organizations across Canada, asked that the Treasury Board be extended to the entire legislation. Why did my colleague vote with the Liberals again in the NDP-Liberal coalition?

60 words

Ms. Niki Ashton

May/12/23 1:12:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first I would say that this is not the time to give a course on Canadian politics. The NDP is not in a coalition with anyone. I know that is the message Conservatives like to use to raise funds, but it is not true. I believe that the FCFA's statement is clear about the fact that they are very pleased with the final bill. The federation certainly fought hard, and we all collaborated to advance their priorities. I am proud that we were able to improve the bill by giving more powers to the Treasury Board. As I said, this bill is a big step forward. Clearly, we will have to continue our work to meet the objectives of the bill and invest in what our communities need to protect French and official language minority communities. Finally, I would add that I appreciate that my colleague is raising this priority with respect to the bill, but I have many concerns about the Conservative leader, who talks a lot about cutting funding to Radio-Canada, an organization that is vital to the protection of French, especially in western Canada. I have concerns about the Conservative leadership, and I question why they do not want to protect French in minority situations in various ways.

215 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/12/23 1:14:29 p.m.
Watch

Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. deputy whip for the government.

66 words

Deputy
Whip

Ms. Ruby Sahota

May/12/23 1:15:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

8 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/12/23 1:15:18 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Monday, May 15, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The hon. deputy whip for the government.

34 words

Ms. Ruby Sahota

May/12/23 1:15:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find that there is unanimous agreement to see the clock at 1:30 for Private Members' Business.

27 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/12/23 1:15:48 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

May/12/23 1:18:33 p.m.
Watch

moved: That: (a) the House recognize that, (i) it is a prerogative of the Crown to prorogue or dissolve Parliament at its pleasure, (ii) the circumstances surrounding a prorogation of the House may bear on whether the government enjoys the confidence of the House, (iii) the confidence convention is an important cornerstone of the Canadian political system, (iv) the confidence convention has never been clearly codified and this has sometimes led to confusion among members and the general public as to the nature and significance of certain votes, (v) governments have sometimes abused the confidence convention to reinforce party discipline or influence the outcome of a vote that is not explicitly a matter of confidence or that would not be considered a matter of confidence by convention; (b) in the opinion of the House, (i) the House itself, not the Prime Minister, should be the final authority as to whether the government of the day enjoys the confidence of the House, (ii) when the House assembles following a general election, the government shall be called upon to demonstrate it enjoys the confidence of the House, (iii) before a prorogation occurs, the House ought to have an opportunity to express its confidence in the government, (iv) the means by which the House may pronounce itself on a question of confidence should be explicit, clear and predictable so that all members know well in advance when and how the confidence of the House will be tested, (v) once the House has determined such means in its Standing Orders or in legislation, the government should not seek to circumvent the process established by the House by declaring a vote to be a matter of confidence if the rules of the House would not otherwise designate that vote as a matter of confidence, and any attempt to do so constitutes a contempt of Parliament, (vi) a question of confidence is a serious matter and should not be used as a pretext for dilatory tactics by either side of the House; (c) effective from the 20th sitting day after the adoption of this motion or at the beginning of the next Parliament, whichever comes first, the Standing Orders be amended as follows: (i) by adding, after Standing Order 53.1, the following new standing order: “53.2(1) The government must enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. The House may express its confidence, or lack thereof, in the government by adopting a confidence motion in one of the following forms: (a) “That the House has lost confidence in the government”; (b) “That the House has confidence in the government”. (2)(a) Notice of a confidence motion pursuant to section (1) of this standing order shall meet the requirements of Standing Order 54, provided that four sitting days shall be given prior to the motion being placed on the Order Paper. Such notice shall be signed by the sponsor and 20 other members representing more than one of the recognized parties. (b) Notwithstanding Standing Order 18, the House may pronounce itself on the motions listed in section (1) of this standing order more than once. (c) Only one confidence motion pursuant to section (1) of this standing order: (i) may be placed on notice in each supply period; (ii) shall be sponsored or signed by the same member of the House in a session of a Parliament. (3) At the expiry of the notice period pursuant to section (2) of this standing order, an order of the day for the consideration of a confidence motion shall be placed on the Order Paper, be considered at the next sitting of the House and take precedence over all other business of the House, with the exception of a debate on a motion arising from a question of privilege. (4) When the order of the day on a confidence motion is called, it must stand as the first order of the day. The confidence motion is deemed to have been moved and seconded and shall not be subject to any amendment. (5) Private Members’ Business shall be suspended on a day any such motion is debated. (6) No dilatory motion shall be received during debate on a confidence motion pursuant to section (1) of this standing order and the provisions of Standing Orders 62 and 63 shall be suspended. (7) The proceedings on the order of the day on a confidence motion proposed thereto shall not exceed one sitting day. (8) No member shall speak for more than 20 minutes at a time in the debate on a confidence motion. Following the speech of each member, a period not exceeding 10 minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto. Any period of debate of 20 minutes may be divided in two pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43(2). (9) When no further member rises to speak, or at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, whichever is earlier, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and the question shall be put and forthwith disposed of, notwithstanding Standing Order 45. (10) Any matter of confidence so designated beyond those provided for in Standing Orders 50(8), 53.2(1), 81(18)(e), and 84(6)(b) may be called to the attention of the Chair and the member may ask that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. As the case may be, the matter shall automatically be referred to the said committee.”, (ii) by adding, after Standing Order 53.2, the following new standing order: “53.3(1) Following an expression of intent by the Prime Minister to recommend prorogation to the Crown, a minister of the Crown may place a confidence motion on notice that does not count for the purposes of Standing Order 53.2(2)(c). (2) This motion shall proceed pursuant to Standing Order 53.2, except that the notice period required by Standing Order 53.2(2)(a) shall be one sitting day, instead of four, and the notice need only be signed by a minister of the Crown. (3) During an adjournment period, when a confidence motion is put on notice pursuant to paragraph 3(1) of this standing order, the Speaker shall recall the House to meet at an earlier time, and thereupon the House shall meet to transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time, provided that at least 48 hours’ notice shall be given for any sitting held pursuant to this paragraph. (4) In the event of a prorogation occurring prior to the question being put on a confidence motion, the House shall, as its first item of business of a new session, consider a confidence motion pursuant to Standing Order 53.2, which shall be deemed placed on the Order Paper for that purpose. 53.4 At the opening of every Parliament, immediately after the Speaker has reported on the attendance of the Commons to the Senate, a motion pursuant to Standing Order 53.2(1)(b) shall be deemed moved and seconded, and be otherwise governed pursuant to Standing Orders 53.2(6), (7), (8) and (9). (iii) in Standing Order 45(6)(a), by adding, after the words “An exception to this rule is”, the following: “the division on a confidence motion pursuant to Standing Order 53.2(9) and”, (iv) by adding, after Standing Order 50(7), the following: “(8) If the main motion is defeated, the government has lost the confidence of the House.”, (v) by adding, after Standing Order 67(1)(p), the following: “(q) for the consideration of a confidence motion”, (vi) in Standing Order 81(13), by adding the following: “They cannot contain explicitly worded expressions of confidence in the government.”, (vii) by adding, after Standing Order 81(18)(d), the following: “(e) After having disposed of any opposed item, if the motion to concur in the main estimates is defeated, the government has lost the confidence of the House.”, (viii) by renumbering Standing Order 84(6) as Standing Order 84(6)(a), (ix) by adding, after Standing Order 84(6)(a), the following: “(b) If the main motion is defeated, the government has lost the confidence of the House.”, (x) in Standing Order 99(1), by adding, after “52(14),”, the following: “53.2(5),”; and (d) the Clerk of the House be authorized to make any required editorial and consequential alterations to the Standing Orders, including to the marginal notes, as well as such changes to the Order Paper and Notice Paper, as may be required. He said: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is one of the most powerful people in the country, and that is a function of the Prime Minister's Office, which includes a number of serious powers. Foremost among those is the power to decide, at any time, that Parliament is done, that the work of Parliament is finished and that we are going to have an election. It is the power to decide that Parliament's work can be put on pause, and the important work that is happening at committee could be, not just put on pause, but stopped. It would have to start up again in another session of Parliament. We have seen this power used appropriately over the course of Canadian history, and we have also seen it be abused. One of the most recent examples of the abuse of this power was in the summer of 2020, when the government was embroiled in the WE charity scandal, with many committees studying what had happened. They were calling for witnesses for, and papers and evidence about, what was going on in the government and how the scandal arose. The Prime Minister decided to say that Parliament was prorogued. All that work stopped. Members of Parliament were not able to come to this place or to work together to do the work that we are elected to do, which is to hold the government to account. We saw that happen in the summer of 2020. It was a controversial decision to prorogue. I think many Canadians were rightly upset about that. I was part of an effort at the procedure and House affairs committee to get to the bottom of why it was the Prime Minister chose to prorogue. One of the real frustrations in that sitting was that the Prime Minister himself refused to come to that study. In fact, we watched Liberal members on that committee filibuster for months on end to avoid a simple invitation to the Prime Minister to come to explain his own actions. That was certainly an example where we saw the power of prorogation abused. I would say, arguably, just the next year, in 2021, we saw the same Prime Minister abuse a similar power, which was to dissolve Parliament and declare our work finished, and then we went to the polls. We have fixed election date laws in Canada. Unfortunately, there is no way to punish prime ministers for ignoring those laws, as the Prime Minister did in the fall of 2021 when he called an election while we were still in the midst of a pandemic. In fact, the procedure and House affairs committee was in the process of looking at a government bill designed to make accommodations for the pandemic at election time. Instead of respecting the work of that committee and the many voices across the country who were saying that Canada was not ready to have an election during a pandemic, the Prime Minister pulled the plug and held the election anyway. It was an election that no one but him wanted, and that was very clear. It was made very clear to all of us on the doorsteps over the course of that election. Nevertheless, it was the Prime Minister, through the power of his office, who was able to do that, without any meaningful accountability. I want to go back to an example from much earlier, but folks would be relieved to hear it is in this century. I am not going all the way back to the 19th century. In 2008, former prime minister Harper effected the most egregious abuse of the power of prorogation when he knew that opposition parties were going to bring a non-confidence motion forward to say that the members of this place did not believe that he should govern. Instead of facing the House and facing that vote, which would have been the honourable thing to do, he chose to abuse the powers of the Prime Minister's Office and prorogued parliament, so opposition members could not bring a motion of non-confidence to the House. Some hon. members: Shame. Mr. Daniel Blaikie: It was indeed a shameful thing. Mr. Speaker, up until now, there has been a lot of discussion about this, but I do not think there have been real proposals to try to do something about it. It is difficult to do something about it because, in our Constitution, dissolving or proroguing Parliament is said to be a power of the monarch, of the Queen, or now the King. Really, it is a power of the Prime Minister because it is only on the Prime Minister's advice that this is done. Because this is a power that is granted to the monarchy, we need a constitutional amendment to do anything about it, or so we have been told. Let us consider all the important institutions that make up the very foundation of Canadian government. We could think about the monarch, the executive or the government, and we could think about the House of Commons, the judiciary and the Senate. Actually, only one of those is directly elected by Canadians, and that is the House of Commons. The monarch certainly is not elected; we have all been bearing witness to that process recently. The Senate is not elected. Judges are not elected, and I do not think that is a bad thing; we need accountability in the process of their appointment, so they are not elected. The executive is not directly elected; it is actually the House of Commons that ultimately decides who sits in the Prime Minister's chair, or not, based on what happens at election time. I think that the House of Commons, both as the democratically elected component of the Canadian government and as the institution with the job of holding the government to account, should be the one to decide whether the work here is paused in a prorogation. The House of Commons, as the democratically elected chamber, should be the one to decide if we are done before fixed election date laws say we would be done and to have an early election. No simple motion in the House of Commons can change the Constitution, which is as it should be. Therefore, within the constitutional context that we are in, this motion would allow us, the members of this place, to assert our rightful role in having a much bigger say on when our work begins, when it ends and whether it is stopped or paused by a prime minister. That is a decision that should be in the hands of Canadians. If we want to talk about gatekeeping in Canada, one of the biggest gatekeeping powers that exists is the power of the Prime Minister to get out of accountability to Parliament. Anyone who is concerned about fighting inappropriate gatekeeping in Canada should be concerned to constrain that power by the Prime Minister. That is what this motion is really about. It is about making it more difficult for prime ministers to prorogue Parliament to get out of facing accountability on a confidence vote. It is about making it more difficult for prime ministers to get out of accountability for scandals like the WE Charity scandal or the question of Afghan detainees by telling members of this Parliament to go back to their ridings and not come back until the Prime Minister decides he is okay with having them back. It is about ensuring that the Prime Minister does not get to inappropriately influence votes in this place by suddenly declaring something that has nothing to do with confidence and everything to do with covering his own behind or a special pet project in order to try to force members to vote for something that they would not otherwise vote for. That is what this motion is about, and that is why it is so important that this motion pass. It is about time that the House of Commons started pushing back on those other unelected parts of the Canadian governance structure and assert its own authority and its own decision-making power, especially in regard to our ability to sit in this place and to hold governments to account. How would it constrain the power of the Prime Minister? As I said, there is no perfect solution without a constitutional amendment. However, it would mean that a prime minister who wanted to prorogue would have the option of first having a confidence vote in the House of Commons before a prorogation. If the Prime Minister did not do that, it would guarantee that the first order of business when parliamentarians came back would not be the Prime Minister's Speech from the Throne, where they get to frame the issues however they like; it would be a debate and a vote of confidence in the government after it made a decision to prorogue. I say that would have been especially important in the case of the Harper prorogation, because he prorogued in order to avoid a confidence vote. We know that the next way for opposition parties at that time to have a confidence vote would have been on an opposition day motion. Who decides when to have opposition day motions? The government decides when to have an opposition day motion. Therefore, that does not really work as an accountability mechanism. If the Prime Minister can prorogue for as long as they want and then delay an opposition day motion for just about as long as they like after we come back, then opposition parties do not have the ability to hold the government to account in the appropriate way. What this motion would guarantee is that there would be a moment of accountability at the beginning of every Parliament, with a confidence vote. There would be a possibility of a prime minister doing the right thing and testing the confidence of the chamber before prorogation; if they do not, it would guarantee that the first order of business when we came back would be a confidence vote to have that accountability for the House of Commons. It makes it clear for members how they can go about initiating a confidence vote. It lays out a process for that. I will spare folks the details; they are in the motion. Another thing it does, which is also quite important, is that it specifically says what votes would be votes of confidence. Traditionally, by convention, the Speech from the Throne is a vote of confidence. This motion would simply add that into the Standing Orders so that it would no longer be a question for which we have to call in a whole bunch of constitutional experts who have studied the history of Canada since 1867 to weigh in on it. We would know because it would be written in the Standing Orders that it is a vote of confidence. We would know that the budget vote is a vote of confidence because it would be written down in the Standing Orders. We would know that the main vote on estimates is a confidence motion. That matters because there have been many times where we have voted all night on the estimates, on every line item, and it is always a debate. We see the media questioning if the government could fall on any vote. Some people say it could. Others say that it cannot; it is complicated; maybe it would; maybe it would not; maybe it would lose that vote and the next day it would have to come to the House for a more explicitly worded motion of confidence; or maybe the Prime Minister would decide. We are a 21st-century democracy. How is it so unclear whether the only elected chamber, the only elected part of our Constitution, would sit or not sit, have confidence or not have confidence, have an election or not have an election? These are things we should be able to put our heads together on to sort out so it is crystal clear to Canadians, who should not have to get a Ph.D. in Canadian constitutional history to understand what the heck is going on in this place. It is something we should be able to teach in a grade 12 civics class and be proud of. The idea behind this motion is to make it a heck of a lot more clear so that we can do exactly that. To have a lack of clarity around these issues that are so central to the proper functioning of our democracy is to invite the kind of toxic debates and intractable disputes that we see too often now in western democracies about whether this was a power grab or if the government acted appropriately or not. The way to defend this is to seek the maximum amount of clarity before we are in a crisis. Already this year, there has been speculation in the media about whether a motion in the House would be a confidence or non-confidence vote. The government House leader refused to comment, so it hung in the air. It should not be that way. We should know clearly whether something is or is not a vote of confidence. There have been rumours around prorogation already in this Parliament. We should know that, if a prime minister is going to prorogue and we think it is a bad decision, the House of Commons itself will have the opportunity to pronounce on whether the government is making an acceptable decision or not. That is something the House ought to be able to do because we are the only ones who are elected with a mandate to make those kinds of decisions. It is not the Prime Minister or anybody else. It is certainly not a King or Queen who has the ability to make that decision. It is not a decision for the Senate, where senators who have all been appointed by previous prime ministers to make that decision. This is the place that decision ought to be made. That is how we put democracy before gatekeeping. That is what this motion is about. That is why I encourage all members of the House to give their support to this motion.

3869 words

Mr. Terry Beech (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.)

May/12/23 1:32:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for putting this together. He has obviously thought it through. I appreciate him going over how in some ways the current rules could be abused. He is a thoughtful guy, and I am sure he has thought about the other side. Has he considered any ways this change in procedure could potentially be abused, and if so, has he thought about ways to mitigate that, or are there no ways in which this could be abused?

89 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

May/12/23 1:32:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians would agree that politicians are often disappointing and find ways to abuse things that ought not to be abused, so I certainly would not make the claim that anything that comes out of this place is beyond abuse. One hopes that it has enough clarity and instruction behind it that folks would find it hard to abuse. One of the ways I was concerned this new way of presenting a confidence motion might be abused is as a dilatory tactic, so one of the provisions in this motion is that, to move a motion of non-confidence or confidence, as the case may be, there are two ways to present those motions. One would need a mover and 20 other members from at least two recognized political parties to sign onto it. That is one way I have sought to ensure this new type of motion would not be used continuously as a dilatory tactic. I can say more about that. If members read the motion in its entirety, they will find that there are some other guardrails in there as well because of that. In fact, what the Speaker read in the guiding principles is exactly that, that this should not be seen as a dilatory tactic or some other way to conduct funny business. What we want is for members of Parliament to have lots of notice when votes of confidence are coming, a full day of debate and a vote at the end of that day so that it is a clear process that is hopefully not open to abuse.

268 words