SoVote

Mar/23/22 2:29:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Quebec will not let the NDP‑Liberal coalition weaken its powers and its ability to make its own decisions as a nation. All of the parties in the Quebec National Assembly agree on this. Quebec has jurisdiction over issues such as health care, housing and child care. The Premier of Quebec said, “The Liberal Party and the NDP, two highly centralist parties, want to impose [their vision] on all the provinces. They will fail.” Why is the NDP‑Liberal coalition choosing to bicker instead of working together respectfully?

94 words

Context: House Hansard - 44 - Mar/23/22

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Mar/23/22 2:31:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when a person is the only one who is right, it is inevitably because that person is wrong. I will cite the Quebec government again: A big chunk of our revenue goes into federal taxes. That money belongs to us. We are entitled to that money, but it will be without conditions, and we will use it based on our needs. That is what the Liberals and the orange farm team always forget. It is not their money, it is Quebeckers' money. It belongs to them, it is under their jurisdiction. Knowing that, will they provide for the right to withdraw with full compensation and no conditions?

110 words

Context: House Hansard - 44 - Mar/23/22

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Mar/23/22 3:49:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my thoughts on the point of order raised by the House leader of the official opposition regarding the agreement between the Liberal Party and the NDP. Allow me to reiterate some facts. Yesterday, the Prime Minister's Office and the office of the leader of the New Democratic Party issued the same news release to introduce this agreement. The news releases bore the same titles and were identical. They outlined the two parties' firm commitment to working together. The clear message of these two news releases was that they are making a shared commitment. The part of the agreement that we have a problem with has to do with the more traditional commitments to provide support during so-called confidence votes in exchange for promoting shared projects to centralize powers. The news release also contains some platitudes and inanities like this one: “The agreement will serve to ensure Parliament continues to function in the interest of Canadians.” From our perspective, Parliament is functioning properly at this time, and we do not think that Parliament was dysfunctional before the last election, which was the pretext that the Prime Minister used to justify calling the election. What is worrisome for us are the follow-up actions agreed to by both parties that will effectively muzzle the opposition, both in the House of Commons and in committee. The very nature of this agreement is literally baffling. In order to ensure that the government and the NDP pursue the same objectives in committee and in the House, the two parties have agreed to hold policy alignment meetings in the respective offices of their party leaders, House leaders and whips. This is quite unusual, and it is also suspiciously similar to the alignment meetings normally held by cabinet. What is more, the agreement creates an internal oversight group that will meet monthly to take stock of shared progress and upcoming issues. In my view, this internal oversight group will upset the balance between the government's responsibility to be accountable to the House and the essential role of the opposition in holding the government to account in a democracy like Canada. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, what is worrisome is not that there is an agreement between the government and the NDP on votes of confidence, but that this agreement literally limits the opposition's ability to perform its role of holding the government to account. Bosc and Gagnon's House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 40, “The government's powers in this regard are in theory counterbalanced by its responsibility to the House to account for its actions.” Does this agreement not create a significant imbalance between the government's power to manage the business of the House and the opposition's responsibility to hold the government to account for its actions? With this agreement, the NDP's status as an opposition party becomes somewhat uncertain given that, according to the definition given by authors Bosc and Gagnon at page 4, the role of the opposition is to oppose the government. This is hardly the case with this agreement. The agreement between the government and the NDP goes far beyond so-called confidence votes and specifically seeks to limit the opposition's power to express itself on a subject, namely, by the excessive use of measures to limit debate under the following Standing Orders: Standing Order 56, which enables the government, during Routine Proceedings, to give priority to a motion for which it did not give notice, with majority support; Standing Order 57, which enables the government to move a closure motion and put an end to debate before all the speakers have had an opportunity to speak; Standing Order 61, which enables the government to move the previous question, thus ending debate by expediting the putting of the question; and Standing Order 78, which enables the government to reduce the time allocated to a debate by moving a time allocation motion. In closing, we have concerns about another aspect of the agreement between the two parties. The agreement states, “In addition to briefings provided by the public service and ministers on policy matters related to the arrangement, including the budget and legislation, the government will ensure public servants remain available to brief the NDP on other matters.” I could not make this stuff up. We think that this agreement gives preferential treatment to certain parliamentarians and casts serious doubt on the confidentiality of the upcoming budget. Given the nature of this agreement, I am sure the Chair will agree that there is major cause for concern about the insidious effects that this agreement between the government and the NDP could have on the essential role of the opposition.

810 words