SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 49

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 30, 2022 02:00PM
Context: House Hansard - 49 - Mar/30/22
Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)
  • Mar/30/22 4:21:10 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-5 
Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑5, on which the government is moving closure, is an important bill that should be studied in depth. The government seems to have a growing appetite for closure motions all of a sudden. This worries me. In the past, the Liberals decried the Conservative majority governments' abuse of closure. However, once they came to power in 2015, the Liberals moved one closure motion after another, although they have not done it as often in the past few years. I have to wonder whether they will start using their manufactured pseudo-majority to abuse closure as others have done in the past.
106 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 49 - Mar/30/22
Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval
  • Mar/30/22 4:31:00 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-5 
Mr. Speaker, I would like a chance to ask the minister the same question I asked him earlier because the Bloc Québécois has a constructive approach. I think we have always had a constructive approach with respect to the bill on the table right now. We have looked at its merits and its flaws, and we have tried to find ways to improve it. The problem we have now is that the government is invoking closure. Closure here is problematic because it prevents us from really digging into things. We are wondering if closure is going to be the government's new modus operandi and if it finds this to be a constructive approach.
118 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 49 - Mar/30/22
Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)
  • Mar/30/22 5:33:37 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-5 
Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague across the aisle. Earlier I asked the Minister of Justice about the relevance of imposing a gag order. If he ever gets a chance to speak with me about it, I would be pleased to do so, but I would like to come back to the issue that has also been raised by some of my Bloc colleagues. The bill currently before the House deals with mandatory minimum sentences for gun possession, but it also deals with everything related to the decriminalization of drugs. We are dealing with two very different subjects. Why did the government reject our proposal to split the bill in two? By splitting the bill, we would have had the opportunity to study each of its two aspects in greater depth, so that they could be dealt with in an intelligent manner, and this would mean that members would not have to vote for or against the bill in its entirety. I think the government is mixing things up. This is creating confusion both in the debate and in the study of the bill.
187 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border