SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 66

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 6, 2022 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 66 - May/6/22
Mr. John Brassard (House leader of the official opposition, CPC)
  • May/6/22 12:39:08 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-5 
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister would be proud of this member for his intervention today. The Prime Minister refers to spreading disinformation quite a bit. Let us go back to what actually happened here. The member for St. Albert—Edmonton, who is a member of the justice committee, proposed the motion during Routine Proceedings to split Bill C-5 at committee to allow the committee to effectively do its work. I then stood up and said that we want to put the question, which means we want to put it to a vote. That vote would have happened on Monday. There would have been no need for debate. There would have been no need for the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to stand up and do this filibuster, and I suspect there are going to be others as well. They could have easily gone to Bill C-19 to debate it. I am guessing that maybe either the whip of the Liberal Party or the House leader has called the House leader of the NDP to prepare him to speak to this just to filibuster this. Let us be very clear about what happened. We put the question. We could have voted on this on Monday and we could have gone to Bill C-19. This is not a question, but more of a comment. I am curious as to why the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has decided to filibuster his own piece of legislation to delay time so that we cannot get to Bill C-19. It just does not make any sense.
273 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 66 - May/6/22
Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)
  • May/6/22 12:59:03 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-5 
Madam Speaker, I really respect and honour the hon. member's intervention on a debate that we, quite frankly, really should not be having. The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton, as is his right as a member of Parliament, proposed in routine proceedings, in a motion, to split the bill. I asked that the question be put, which meant that we would have voted for it on Monday and, as is the hon. member's right, he could have simply stood up with the NDP and voted against it, if he chose to, or voted for it, depending on what his views are on splitting the bill and sending it back to committee to allow the committee to do the work. What I do not understand is why the government is continuing to filibuster on this issue when the question could have been put. We could have been avoiding all of this discussion. I do not understand. If one does not agree with it, vote against it on Monday. If one does agree with it, vote for it. That is the issue we are dealing with, not just standing up here and filibustering. We want to get to government business, and we could have gotten to government business.
210 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 66 - May/6/22
Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie
  • May/6/22 1:12:04 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-5 
Madam Speaker, obviously, the members are so embarrassed by this filibuster that we do not have quorum in the House, even if we count the cameras that are on. Even the member for Winnipeg North is not in the chamber. I would ask you to call quorum.
47 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border