SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 214

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 15, 2023 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 214 - Jun/15/23
Hon. Mark Holland
  • Jun/15/23 4:22:37 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I would respond in the following way. The history is important. Let us remember that this system was created, with unanimity, in the depths of the pandemic. All parties agreed to how it would function and how it would work. Then those provisions started to live, and those provisions have lived for the last three years. In fact, the proposal that is on the table now is a continuance of an existing system that the member uses regularly, that I use regularly and that I think every member of this House has used. I see members rail against the utilization of these provisions, and then they turn on their application and vote electronically or they turn on their screen and use it. After this system was unanimously created and had existed for three years, the procedure and House affairs committee heard from witnesses and did very detailed work, exactly as the member is describing. What came out of it was that it became very clear that two parties were against this under all conditions. The parties were asked numerous times what it would take for them to support it and if there was any flexibility: The answer was “no”. They do not support it in any form and they do not support it in any function. As a result, we are at the point where continuing the debate means just listening to “no” a thousand times over. That does not make sense. At some point, we have to proceed to implement it, and that is what we are doing today.
266 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 214 - Jun/15/23
Hon. David Lametti
  • Jun/15/23 9:51:10 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, every lawyer who was trained in Quebec like me knows the distinction between the obligation of diligence and the obligation of result. I fully understand her question and, in principle, I completely agree with her. That said, we are accepting the Senate's proposal, in the circumstances, because we believe we can do it. We have consulted the judiciary, who believe they are able to live with the obligation of result. That is why we accepted the amendment.
81 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border