SoVote

Mrs. Sherry Romanado (Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, Lib.)

Jun/5/23 12:25:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I understand that the member did receive an answer to the question. She may not like the answer, but she did receive one.

31 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Jun/5/23 12:25:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, like the previous member, I stand today to address some of what I believe are very serious challenges when it comes to the questions posed related to the Order Paper questions. I would read from the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. This is the September 2021 edition where 39(5)(b) states: If such a question remains unanswered at the expiration of the said period of 45 days, the matter of the failure of the ministry to respond shall be deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee. Within five sitting days of such a referral the Chair of the committee shall convene a meeting of the committee to consider the matter of the failure of the ministry to respond. The question shall be designated as referred to committee on the Order Paper and, notwithstanding Standing Order 39(4), the member may submit one further question for each question so designated. The member who put the question may rise in the House under Questions on the Order Paper and give notice that he or she intends to transfer the question and raise the subject matter thereof on the adjournment of the House, and the order referring the matter to committee is thereby discharged. There is a growing trend when it comes to the responses that the government has brought forward to Order Paper questions that I have seen and with the questions that I have brought forward to this House. I would specifically refer to Question No. 604 put forward by me, which was signed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. The information provided in that answer varies differently from information that was both reported in the public and information that I received via members of the Canadian Armed Forces. For context, for the Speaker and for those watching, this has to do with a number of Canadian Armed Forces personnel who were put on leave due to their choice of not—

330 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/5/23 12:27:35 p.m.
Watch

I want to indicate that I get the hon. member's point and I will take the information under advisement. I want to remind members who are getting up on this point of order that our precedents are clear that it is not for the Chair to rule on the content of the responses to written questions. Indeed, in a ruling on a similar matter, on April 25, 2022, at page 4310 of the Debates, the Chair stated: The Chair is of the view that ruling on the completeness of responses to written questions is tantamount to ruling on their content, and that is not the Chair's role. Therefore, although the hon. member is mentioning that the information was different, he may not like the information that he received, but he did receive a response. I will go to another point of order if the hon. member is finished. If he wants to continue on with respect to the information he just provided, as I indicated, he may not have been satisfied with the information he received, but it is very clear that it is not the responsibility of the Chair to rule on the information he has received. I would ask the hon. member to wrap it up, please, because points of order and questions of privilege need to be succinct and to the point and should not drag on. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

240 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Jun/5/23 12:29:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, absolutely. Personally, I would not want to drag it on. I would just point to Standing Order 19 on points of order, which indicates the effort of being succinct certainly when addressing these fundamental questions we have before us. There are three specific questions. To ensure that I am in fact succinct, I would simply reference specifically the other two questions I am calling the Chair to look at, not just with respect to the government having provided a response, but as to whether or not that response was satisfactory. With respect to the work we do within this place, it is fundamentally important that Canadians can trust the information that is provided. Therefore, this has far less to do with whether I am satisfied with the response, as that is not even relevant to the discussion, but about the government hiding behind procedure and the ability to simply reply by saying it cannot reply, or in some cases it simply seems like it is not willing to do the work. I would refer you to Question No. 286, signed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. There is a very clear unwillingness on behalf of the ministry to provide information. Again, it is not that I am dissatisfied with the answer, but the fact that it seems there is an unwillingness on the part of the government to provide any information related to the substance of the question. I may not like the answer, but it is not the responsibility of the government to decide whether or not it likes the question. I would further refer you to Question No. 565, signed by the then parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, which has to do specifically with the work that is being done at the ethics committee, of which I am a part. The issue is not whether I agree with the substance, but that the government seems to be using the 45-day timeline requirement to simply not table a response in this place. It can then wash its hands of anything to do with those important questions that, in some cases, my constituents bring forward, like I referenced with—

374 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/5/23 12:31:26 p.m.
Watch

I am satisfied with the information that I have received. Does the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock also want to weigh in on this point of order?

30 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Jun/5/23 12:31:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a different point of order.

10 words

Rise
Point

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/5/23 12:31:39 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member is rising on a different point of order. Does the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill want to add to this point of order?

27 words

Calgary
Hill

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

Jun/5/23 12:31:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I just want to respond to the deputy House leader's assertion that I did not like the response. For your information, and for that of the table staff who are perhaps providing you information, the point is that the government said that it could not respond to the question in the time allotted. Therefore, it has stated that it could not respond. Whether or not I like that or the government likes that is immaterial; the reality is, the government, by its own admission, said that it could not respond to the question in the time allotted. Ergo, the question remains open. Ergo, the Standing Orders have been violated, and I ask you to review that similarly.

128 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/5/23 12:32:23 p.m.
Watch

Though I appreciate the additional information, I am not sure whether the government was indicating that it would not respond at all, so I will take the information under advisement. Is the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil rising on this point of order?

44 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Jun/5/23 12:32:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order. I want to thank the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill for bringing this very important matter to your attention, because I too have a similar situation. I am not going to reference all of the Standing Orders, as I think the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill has done that, but this is in relation to Question No. 1357. If you will indulge me, I asked this question of the government: With regard to government expenditures related to vacations by the Prime Minister outside of Canada, since November 4, 2015, broken down by each vacation: (a) what was the date and location of each trip; (b) for each vacation in (a), what were the total costs incurred by the government, including those incurred by security and support staff, for (i) accommodations, (ii) per diems, (iii) other expenses, broken down by type of expense; (c) what was the total amount of expenses related to the trips, such as flights, incurred by the government that were reimbursed by the Prime Minister; and (d) what number of travellers were [reimbursed].... It is not that the government did not respond within 45 days. It did not answer the questions that I had asked. It only referred to the Privy Council Office. Again I refer to the importance of the intervention by the member for Calgary Nose Hill. On behalf of Canadians and the people I represent in Barrie—Innisfil, I note that my question was not answered. The government needs to respond to ensure the transparency and openness that these Order Paper questions call for. I want you to consider that in your deliberations as well.

285 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/5/23 12:34:11 p.m.
Watch

I will certainly consider that. The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George is also rising. Is it on this point of order?

23 words

Mr. Todd Doherty

Jun/5/23 12:34:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is on a separate but similar point of order.

12 words

Separate

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/5/23 12:34:23 p.m.
Watch

Okay. It is on a separate point of order. I will indicate that I have heard enough on this particular matter. I will take the information under advisement and will come back to members if required. There are quite a few points of order. Other members had their hands up before the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, so I am going to the member for South Surrey—White Rock.

72 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Jun/5/23 12:34:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to the vote that took place on Friday, June 2, 2023. I want to express my thanks to the Speaker for returning to the House with the results of his investigation into the technical issues that were experienced. With the indulgence of the Chair, I would like to make a few brief points to add some context and then ask for a clarification from the Speaker. First, as the chief opposition whip, I would point out that votes on a Friday are rare and unusual. In my caucus, we allow members who do not have further responsibilities in Parliament on Fridays to travel back to their constituencies to tend to community and family matters. This is a policy that helps members who have long commutes to and from their ridings. In the Conservative caucus, we have 14 members from Saskatchewan, 29 from Alberta and 13 from British Columbia. That is 56 members from the west. To accommodate these members and others who travel great distances to perform their elected responsibilities, governments have generally avoided forcing these kinds of votes on Fridays. However, the government is in a rush to pass its budget implementation legislation, something the NDP is eager to help it do. When the parliamentary—

218 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/5/23 12:36:09 p.m.
Watch

I remind the hon. member not to go into debate and to go into the issue itself, because what the hon. member is bringing up is debate. If she can get to the exact point, that would be better.

39 words

Issue

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Jun/5/23 12:36:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am trying to get there. To put this in context, when the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader surprised the House with a motion to proceed to orders of the day, a non-debatable motion, the Liberals triggered a vote on short notice, catching many members off guard, and we—

55 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/5/23 12:36:46 p.m.
Watch

This is going into debate. The hon. member— Hon. Kerry-Lynn Findlay: Madam Speaker— The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): I have the floor right now. I want to remind the hon. member that what she is providing right now is more debate. The hon. member and all members in this House are well aware that votes can be had at any time and that we need to be ready to respond if required. If the hon. member wants to discuss the technical issues that were experienced, based on the report of the Speaker I am willing to entertain that. I am not willing to entertain debate on the issue. The hon. official opposition whip.

118 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Jun/5/23 12:37:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am trying to provide context because we are seeking clarification from the Speaker, including in my own situation, where I had no use of my camera on my computer and had to switch to my phone. As you may recall, I also did not have the proper headset. I appreciate that my vote was counted, but these things happened on a Friday. I am certainly going to encourage all members of the House to make sure they have proper equipment and access at all times regardless, because of what you just said. The clarification I seek is this: is the Chair contemplating the question of privilege raised by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader? As you are aware, the parliamentary secretary rose in this place following the vote and accused the Conservatives of being in contempt of Parliament, which is a serious accusation. Such an accusation would normally be raised as a question of privilege and would then be contemplated by the Speaker, who would decide if there was a prima facie case of privilege. I note that the member did not explicitly state that he was raising the matter as a question of privilege. It is a common practice for other members to return to the House to make arguments as they see fit if the matter is being considered as a question of privilege. Therefore, it would be helpful to all members if the Chair clarified whether a question of privilege is being contemplated. For our part, I can assure the House that the Conservative caucus holds the highest regard for the institution of Parliament. We do, however, have contempt for the Liberal-NDP government that is in the process of forcing a budget through. Some hon. members: Debate. Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay: That said, I thank the Chair for clarification on this issue.

311 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/5/23 12:39:36 p.m.
Watch

I appreciate that members are trying to indicate that this is debate, but I am the Chair and am well able to decide whether it is debate or not. I want to advise the member that no question of privilege was raised. I have no way of knowing whether someone is contemplating one. It is not something we will need to come back to the House on. As for voting, as indicated, every member in the House has a responsibility to ensure that they have the necessary tools, whether it is their headphones, their phone or their computer. There are already procedures in place, which are spelled out, for what to do if they are not able to vote. As indicated, the technical team looked on our side, the side of the House, to see if there were issues technically and none were seen. I want to remind members that they all have responsibilities. We know it is a privilege to go into our ridings when the House is sitting, and we need to make sure we have the tools with us to react immediately, as required. The hon. official opposition House leader has a point of order.

198 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Jun/5/23 12:41:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is on a different point, but it does relate to a decision by the Chair. I want to seek clarification on the use of the word “phony” in the House of Commons. You will recall that, last week, I referred to the special rapporteur, David Johnston, as the “phony rapporteur”, because the Conservatives simply believe it is a fake job. The job is fake. The idea that he is independent is fake. He himself has acknowledged that he answers to the government, not to Parliament and not to the people of Canada. In fact, his order in council lists him as a special adviser to the Prime Minister. There is no independence around somebody who is employed by the government, who is employed by the Prime Minister and who has acknowledged that he is not independent. That is point number one— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

154 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 206