SoVote

Nov/2/23 3:18:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows: Rideau Hall Ottawa November 1, 2023 Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 1st day of November, 2023, at 4:12 p.m. Yours sincerely, Maia Welbourne Acting Secretary to the Governor General The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

110 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Nov/2/23 3:19:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles heckled us by saying that the carbon tax affected the price on pollution in Quebec. I have a document that shows the contrary. I seek unanimous consent to table it.

50 words

The Speaker

Nov/2/23 3:19:37 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's request will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay.

17 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Nov/2/23 3:19:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In light of some clear misunderstandings in question period, I would request the unanimous consent of the House to table the special permit given by the Liberal government to Siemens to get around sanctions, that the government gave the permit to facilitate Russia selling energy to Germany instead of supporting Canadian oil and gas. That was in support of Ukraine. I would like to table the document.

76 words

The Speaker

Nov/2/23 3:20:16 p.m.
Watch

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table the document? Some hon. members: No.

15 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Nov/2/23 3:20:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a separate point of order, there was some discussion in the House as to the impact of the carbon tax. The Governor of the Bank of Canada clearly said at finance committee that it was 16%. I would like the unanimous consent of the House to table documents showing that.

53 words

The Speaker

Nov/2/23 3:20:54 p.m.
Watch

Regrettably, before the member finished making his request for unanimous consent, I heard noes from the floor.

17 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/2/23 3:21:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have witnessed this again today. Am I correct in my assumption that if a member is rising and asking for unanimous consent after question period, that the member seek consultation. Could you just provide some clarity on that?

48 words

The Speaker

Nov/2/23 3:21:27 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for raising this point. As all members are now experienced members, they would know that the Chair has asked many times, that when they do rise to seek unanimous consent, that they make every effort to please consult with colleagues in other parties, certainly the whips or the House leaders, so we can ensure we do not the waste the time of the House and of all hon. members.

75 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Nov/2/23 3:22:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to respond to what my colleague from Winnipeg North said. It is the custom and tradition of the House that, after question period, members raise points of order on topics mentioned during question period. That is the proper time for that. My colleague did exactly that. He mentioned an aspect of question period. He wanted to seek the unanimous consent of the House to support what was said during question period. That is the tradition. That is what we have been doing since I have been here and, I assume, for many years before that.

106 words

The Speaker

Nov/2/23 3:22:44 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable. He is right. However, I encourage members not to waste members' time. I am very patient. I can stay here a long time, but I do not want to waste members' time. I encourage members to always seek unanimous consent before rising in the House.

58 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Nov/2/23 3:23:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise for this very exciting time of the week, when I get to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons the Thursday question. I have a burning question that I cannot wait to ask. In addition to knowing the government's schedule for tomorrow and next week, I would like to know whether oral question period on Wednesday will be held as it has been for the past few years, at least since the Prime Minister was elected, with the Prime Minister answering all the questions.

98 words

Hon. Karina Gould (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/2/23 3:24:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-9 Bill C-57 Bill C-52 Bill C-34

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the Thursday question. Tomorrow, we will continue with second reading of Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement implementation act. Next week, our priority will be given to Bill C-34 concerning the Canada Investment Act; Bill S-9, the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act; and Bill C-52 to enact the air transportation accountability act. Finally, next Tuesday shall be an allotted day.

74 words

All Topics

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Nov/2/23 3:25:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On October 18, you took the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to make quite a detailed statement on the matter of order and decorum in the House. In that statement you indicated that “order and decorum are signs of respect for each other and for the institution”. You further stated that the lack of order and decorum were most prominent during daily question period. On that day, Mr. Speaker, you raised a number of concerns, from incendiary language to reference to the absence of members to heckling and personal attacks. One matter that was not discussed was the need to maintain question period for what it is: a tool for opposition parties and for individual members to hold the government to account. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice states: ...time is set aside almost exclusively for the opposition parties to confront the government and hold it accountable for its actions, and to highlight the perceived inadequacies of the government. Speaker Bosley, in 1986, outlined a number of principles, including stating that: While there may be other purposes and ambitions involved in Question Period, its primary purpose must be the seeking of information from the government and calling the government to account for its actions. The book continues in stating that when recognized in question period, a member should, “ask a question, be brief, seek information and ask a question that is within the administrative responsibility of the government or of the individual Minister addressed.” This is a key point, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you will understand. Clearly, the primary purpose of question period is to hold the government to account. However, we have seen question period used in recent days and weeks, not to hold the government to account but to ask questions of individual members, in some cases government backbenchers and in other cases members from other opposition parties. As was previously the case, I would submit that such tactics should be considered out of order and not allowed. I will quote extensively from some of the decisions that have been rendered by a previous Speaker who is now the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. In that regard, here is what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, when he was the Speaker, had to say in his January 28, 2014, ruling, and I quote: It is for similar reasons that questions that concern...the actions...of other members, risk being ruled out of order....[A]s Speaker Milliken stated in a ruling on June 14, 2010, found in Debates at page 3778, “...the use of [...] preambles to questions to attack other members does not provide those targeted with an opportunity to respond or deal directly with such attacks.” Thus, unless a link to the administrative responsibilities of the government can be established early in the question to justify them, such questions can be and indeed have been ruled out of order by successive Speakers. In the same ruling, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who knows the House well, also said: ...we have witnessed a growing trend: we hear preambles to questions that go on at some length to criticize the position, statements, or actions of other parties, Members from other parties, and in some cases even private citizens before concluding with a brief question about the Government’s policies. What we have, therefore, is an example of a hybrid question, one in which the preamble is on a subject that has nothing to do with the administrative responsibility of the Government but which concludes in the final five or ten seconds with a query that in a technical sense manages to relate to the Government’s administrative responsibilities. ...since members have very little time to pose their questions and the Chair has even less time to make decisions about their admissibility, it would be helpful if the link to the administrative responsibility of the government were made as quickly as possible. Accordingly, these kinds of questions will continue to risk being ruled out of order and members should take care to establish the link to government responsibility as quickly as possible. That was said by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle when he was Speaker of the House. The MP for Regina—Qu'Appelle, as Speaker, concluded with this: In conclusion, I will continue to rule questions out of order that do not establish a direct link to the administrative responsibilities of the government. In the same sense, so-called hybrid questions will also continue to risk being ruled out of order when this link is not quickly demonstrated. Members should take care when formulating their questions and establish this link as soon as possible in posing their questions to ensure that the Chair does not rule what may be a legitimate question out of order. On March 24, 2014, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle cut off two questions by the official opposition. I was in the House at the time. In response to a point of order raised by myself as House leader of the official opposition, he ruled: ...I raised the concern about questions that had no obvious link to government business, and informed members that they would run the risk of having their questions cut off unless that link was established early on in the question. At the time I stood up to stop the members, I had not heard that link. If they feel they have a link to government business, I look forward with eagerness to their attempt to establish that, but as I heard it, there was no such link to the direct administrative responsibility of government. As relevant as it might be to public interest or to members, there has to be that established link to the administrative role of government. Mr. Speaker, I do want to take this opportunity to commend you for your efforts to address matters of order and decorum. New Democrats are pledged to work together with you on this matter. We would, however, like to implore you, as part of this work, to ensure that question period remains a tool for keeping the government accountable. Parliamentarians, and Parliament as a whole, are not well served if that mandate expands, as we have seen this week, to matters that are definitely not within the administrative purview of the government. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this point of order and to use the tools the House has equipped you with to ensure that the kinds of questions we have heard this week, which are clearly out of order, are ruled as such before the question is finished. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your attention.

1137 words

The Speaker

Nov/2/23 3:32:54 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby for raising this point of order. The member brought up a nuanced argument, one that I will consider and come back to the House on. I would like to note that the member did note that although the question would start off as a hybrid question that would not refer to the administrative matters of the House, near the end of the question it would come back to it. There were, of course, members of the government who were willing to stand to answer those questions. I do appreciate the carefulness of the member in bringing up this issue and I will come back to the House with a ruling on that.

122 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Nov/2/23 3:34:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to help you in your deliberations, I would like to remind you that all the questions asked by an opposition member were addressed to a government member or a member of the government coalition, given that we know that the Liberals and the NDP have signed an agreement of mutual understanding and support. It is entirely reasonable for us to refer to this agreement and to potential joint decisions when we ask the government questions, given that we know that the NDP will ultimately have to support the government under this agreement. It is only right that, when we ask our questions, we refer to the party that has formed a coalition with the government. I would like to advise you that we will surely have more to add on this point over the next few days.

139 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Nov/2/23 3:35:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that notwithstanding the last comment by my Conservative colleague, there is not a single Westminster parliamentary system that follows what he outlined.

30 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Nov/2/23 3:35:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important pedagogical opportunity, because the Conservatives do not seem to understand what a coalition is in a Westminster parliamentary system. It has come to the point where it is causing a considerable amount of disorder, including interfering with the proper terms of question period. A coalition government is where more than one party is represented in cabinet. That would mean that a member of the New Democratic Party would be eligible in question period to answer for the actions of the NDP. There is no universe in which any Liberal gives answers on behalf of New Democrats. It is why we are up asking questions in question period every day of the government and not mincing words. The idea that we are in a governing coalition and somehow Liberals get to answer for our actions is completely unacceptable. It has come to the point that it is making a mockery of question period, which Conservatives get up and say is a sanctity in this place. While I am inclined to agree that question period is one of the more important moments in the parliamentary day, the fact of the matter is that if they are going to talk about the sanctity of Parliament, they should bother to learn the rules.

217 words

The Speaker

Nov/2/23 3:36:44 p.m.
Watch

I am hoping that we can close this matter. I have heard from all members of the House, and I think I have a pretty full understanding of the issues raised. I would like to thank all members who participated. I thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, and I will get back to the House. Unless there is a pressing and novel point, I suggest that we close this subject. The member for Kingston and the Islands.

79 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/2/23 3:37:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in light of the comments that were just made by my NDP colleague, I note there is a distinct difference between a supply and confidence agreement and a coalition. We just have to look at some of the parliamentary systems that take place in Europe, for example, where genuine coalitions are formed. To the member's point, they end up with a government that is representative of various parties. That is not the case here, and I want to support my NDP colleague's comments with that.

89 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 245