SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 72

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2022 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 72 - May/16/22
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
  • May/16/22 4:13:25 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, as I was saying, if we were to take reports such as the one that has been brought forward by the Conservatives today, the one that I actually read onto the record, if we were to do that every day on all the different reports, there would not be the opportunity to have debates on the legislative agenda, not only from the government's perspective, but also from the private member's perspective, especially if we factor in opposition days. People who have been following the debates of concurrence motions will be very much aware that the Conservative Party of Canada might be interested in the topic being debated. All members of the House are very much aware of the relationship between Taiwan and China, and we are very much concerned about Taiwan and its future. We see the true value of having Taiwan play a stronger role with the World Health Organization. I suspect that is one of the reasons why it passed through the standing committee. The Conservative Party announced that we need to have a fulsome debate on this issue to be able to see how the entire chamber is going to vote, how each member of the House is going to vote. What issue in the standing committee, which is ultimately providing a report, would the Conservative Party say it has no interest in bringing before the committee as it is an absolute waste of time? I suspect they could argue that every report is important and should be brought to the House. As the opposition House leader said, they are. If we do that, we are taking away from the opportunity for the House to do the many other things that it needs to do. One would ultimately argue, as I would, that the real purpose of the motion is not to deal with Taiwan and the World Health Organization. It has everything to do with the ongoing gamesmanship of the official opposition to frustrate the government from being able to get its legislation dealt with. I ask members to think of the motion. I will read it again: That the Standing Committee on Health report to the House that it supports the full participation of Taiwan in the World Health Assembly (WHA) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Madam Speaker, how many times have you sat in your chair and heard members from all sides of the House stand and say, “There have been consultations among the parties, and we would like to see if we can get unanimous consent to pass”, before reading their motion? I am surprised, and I will maybe give some advice to my colleagues across the way: If they are genuine about the topic at hand, why not have those discussions? Why not get the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the shadow minister for the Conservatives together? Let us get our friends in the New Democrats and the Bloc, and do a little consultation with the Green Party, which is something the Conservative Party is not very good at. Let us see if we can have a discussion among parties in the chamber and build the consensus that was achieved at the standing committee. Nothing would prevent the leaders of the House from then bringing forward a unanimous consent motion. I would suggest that they follow the advice that was provided by the Speaker shortly after question period, when the Speaker clearly indicated, on the passing of unanimous consent motions, that there should be some consultations done prior to the introduction and the sense that it would be approved. I looked at my colleague, the deputy House leader at the time, and we both thought that was a pretty bold and right-on statement by the Speaker. I was encouraged by the number of Conservative members of Parliament who were applauding the comments of the Speaker. That tells me that even Conservative members in opposition recognize how important it is to actually work with other members of the House. That is a good, healthy sign. We, in the government, have been reaching out to the Conservative Party to say that they should work with us and recognize some of the benefits being brought forward through House initiatives. There is some really good stuff here that we could be passing, that we could be working together on. However, the Conservative Party is not interested in that. If the Conservatives were interested in that, we would not be speaking about this right now. The opposition House leader talks about disinformation, just as the presenter of the motion talked about misinformation and disinformation. Hopefully I will have some time to expand on that. I think that is a valid point being raised by the mover of the motion. For me, at this stage in my comments, I want to acknowledge that sometimes we do see some encouraging signs coming from the Conservative opposition. After question period, I saw that. Let me suggest to the members that, before they just look at the Order Paper and pluck something out that they want to introduce that day as a tool to filibuster, prevent debate or stop the government from being able to debate its legislation, before they actually do that random draw, to take a look at the motion. Did the House leadership of the Conservative Party realize the content of the motion? I do not think it did. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, we have an admission from the opposition House leader. I appreciate that. We can go a long way with some honesty. At the end of the day, this is the type of thing that I think, with some effort from opposition— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
966 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 72 - May/16/22
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
  • May/16/22 4:36:27 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, standing committees pass all sorts of motions. I would argue there is an endless number of wonderful debates that we could be having, but that is not the issue here. The issue here is that the Conservative Party continues to focus its attention on doing whatever it can to prevent the government from being able to debate its legislation or budgetary measures. The Conservatives could have worked with the government on this particular motion. We could have had a group hug and see if we could pass this with unanimous consent. At the end of day, let us be very clear. This has nothing to do with Taiwan. This has everything to do with Conservatives playing games and filibustering. That is what this is all about. They do not want to debate Bill C-14. Let us vote on Bill C-14 and get it passed.
148 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border