44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 6, 2023 02:00PM
- Dec/6/23 2:35:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the Bloc Québécois knows full well, we will always be here to stand up for Canada's two official languages. We are going to focus special attention on protecting French, including French in Quebec.
CBC/Radio-Canada has an important mandate in this area. We are concerned about the situation confronting all of our media outlets these days, what with digitization, web giants and the Conservatives' attacks on the media, especially on CBC/Radio-Canada. We will always be here to stand up for journalism as an essential pillar of our democracy.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 3:03:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am on the ground, whereas my colleague might not be. There are direct repercussions for farmers, even back home in Quebec. For those who may not know it, all the propane consumed in Quebec comes from outside, so we do pay the tax.
We refuse to give a pass to the economic statement that was presented last week by the government and that has not even been called for debate yet. The word “agriculture” does not even appear in the bill, even though food bank use is at a record high.
Do the Liberals really want to lower the price of food? I will repeat my question and hope that my colleague across the way will take the time to answer. When will the Prime Minister give up his plan to radically increase the carbon tax?
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 3:05:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we now know that it was the Prime Minister who interfered in the public art competition for the monument commemorating the Afghanistan mission. We know that it was the Prime Minister who pulled some strings to overturn the decision so the Daoust team, the Quebec team, would lose. Yesterday, the House of Commons spoke. On the Bloc's initiative, the House denounced the government's about-face and its failure to play by its own rules.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge the House's anger and reverse his decision to cast aside Quebec's winning team?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 3:06:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are deliberately rejecting Quebec.
There was a call for tenders for the monument. Quebec won, so the Prime Minister vetoed that decision. Quebec was therefore swept aside.
In the Boeing versus Bombardier matter, the Liberals did not take any chances: They refused to issue a call for tenders. Quebec had no chance of winning because the Liberals had rejected it in advance. However, it still comes out to the same thing. In both cases, the Liberals went to great lengths to exclude Quebec so we would miss out on a federal contract. Why?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 6:40:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was actually thinking of making the exact same observation. Even I am having trouble hearing myself right now.
I was talking about how the Fathers of Confederation tried to incorporate unwritten conventions in a written instrument, or by reference to incorporate them. To understand this instrument, we have to go back and look at what was said at the Quebec Conference at the so-called Confederation debates that took place in the ancestor of this chamber in 1865, 900 pages' worth of which are recorded.
It is interesting that those who ran the Parliament of the Province of Canada thought it was important enough that they, though there was no Hansard in those days, should have a special Hansard recorded of that debate so the general public could read and understand all of the aspects of the constitutional deal they were making that would not be written down. The same kind of rules ought to apply to the internal governance of this place. Those offices have their powers and authority largely due to convention, as well as due, to some degree, to what is written in the Standing Orders. That would be very profitable.
PROC is the master of its own proceedings, within the parameters of the motions presented to it; however, I do not think it is appropriate to start by asking whether the Speaker was aware of exactly where the video would be used, and whether he is therefore guilty in the sense that one is found guilty in a criminal trial. He is not on trial for a crime, so mens rea is not actually a relevant consideration. It is equally possible he could simply have been exercising bad judgment, a sign of an inability to consistently make wise judgments, or of a weakness in the way he chooses to conduct himself, that makes him, although an honourable member and an honourable person, simply an inappropriate occupant of the chair.
The fact is that many people would be inappropriate occupants of the chair. In fact, a majority of the people in this room, I suspect, if asked, would say, “I am not the right occupant for the chair”, for one reason or another. It has nothing to do with their character; it has to do with the fact that they are unilingual or they have to be away from this place because of family considerations, so can participate online, but not here. The Speaker should be here. There is a whole range of reasons; perhaps someone may not have the attention span or the energy they used to have when they were a younger person, and cannot sit for all those hours. One feature of being a Speaker is having a certain degree of stamina. They cannot drift off, and some debates are kind of dull. The Assistant Deputy Speaker even agrees with me.
These are considerations that are relevant to a hearing of this sort. It is really a question of determining what the standards are and doing a reset so we can all be clear that these are the standards we regard as being reasonable and acceptable. We either do or do not think that the incumbent in the role of Speaker is fitting in with those expectations, now that we have had a chance to examine them in more detail.
I hope that, on that basis, we will go forward and decide to vote in favour of the motion, we will trust PROC to make an intelligent report back to us, and we will have a chance to consider its report and to vote on the report in the House of Commons. It would come back to us. I have indicated in the past that I think it is best, when dealing with PROC reports, that we try to do so on a non-partisan basis. I would encourage that to happen here. I do not control that, but I think that at least one committee should be treated as being non-partisan as much as possible, both in its own behaviour and in how the House responds to its reports. That, by the way, was exactly the approach it took when a motion I proposed was considered by PROC a few years ago to change the way the Speaker is elected. I think that was beneficial. I hope we can all do the same thing here.
738 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
