SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 211

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 12, 2023 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 211 - Jun/12/23
Hon. Mark Holland
  • Jun/12/23 6:58:45 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, on the question of unanimity, let me be very clear that unanimity existed for a brief period of time, and for a very focused reason. Unanimity existed when the pandemic first began. We all agreed, rightfully at that moment in time, that it was going to be impossible for Parliament to operate in person. It was time-limited, but it is important to understand that those changes and that work were done with the co-operation and unanimity of all parties. In terms of why we do not just put in a sunset clause, I have a couple of points. The first point is that every time we started a session of Parliament over the last number of sessions, it began with a very long, protracted debate about whether or not we should use these provisions. We debated them extensively, and we are seeing them work. This brings me to my last point in response to the opposition House leader, which is that the unanimity that exists here is in watching the provisions be used. I found it very ironic, for example, that the Conservatives who had a position against the voting application, when there was a vote on the voting application, mostly voted using the voting application. It is an inconsistent position to be against the voting application, but then use the voting application; to be against the utilization of hybrid, and then to watch Conservative members even today participating in debate virtually, as one member did. So, when there is a use by all parties of the provisions, it makes it sound like the opposition is more partisan in nature and cares more about posturing than it does about what I think the hon. member knows, which is the fact that these provisions work, they are used judiciously and, lastly, they could be changed at any time by a government in the future having a majority by changing the Standing Orders.
328 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 211 - Jun/12/23
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
  • Jun/12/23 10:59:39 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I would argue that the interests of Canadians is best served by having a hybrid Parliament, as has been suggested in a motion that the Conservative Party has indicated it would support if there was a sunset clause where it would have to be reaffirmed three years from now. Does the member not see anything within that statement that is rather odd with respect to the Conservatives saying that they will accept the changes if we put in that sunset clause, which, in essence, is saying for the rest of this Parliament and at least a year going into the next Parliament that these rules would be accepted? Does he not see any inconsistencies?
116 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 211 - Jun/12/23
Mr. Alex Ruff
  • Jun/12/23 11:49:18 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, a number of members and our House leader, as well as the member for Perth—Wellington, highlighted that this is really the purpose of our amendment to the motion. I think that is technically what we are supposed to be debating right now. It is about saying that we should keep this in place. There are parts that we do not like, but we can accept that. However, let us not make it permanent. Let us force the government to come back and work with all parties. I think the consensus is that, if we just put the sunset clause on this bill, it would be acceptable to all members here in the House. That is key. Traditionally, for the last 100-plus years, changing Standing Orders has always been done through consensus, not unilaterally by the majority of MPs.
143 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border