44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 17, 2022 10:00AM
- May/17/22 3:09:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, members will not be surprised to hear me thank my colleague for the outstanding work that she does.
We are proud to be investing more than $25 million in this expansion project, which will help many municipalities in Montreal divert more organic materials. This will reduce our emissions by more than 13,000 tonnes a year and divert thousands of tonnes of organic waste.
This is all thanks to the hard work of our colleague from Longueuil—Charles‑LeMoyne.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think members will find it ironic that we are getting lectures on indignation in that Oscar-winning performance on the other side of the aisle. We should never underestimate our Conservative friends' ability to manufacture outrage and indignation, and talk about loyal opposition and democracy.
We think that Bill C-14, which is the subject of the discussion for the next 25 minutes and not the fabricated outrage of my friend on the other side of the aisle, is about ensuring that every province, including the Speaker's province of Quebec, maintains the electoral representation and the number of seats it had in the House of Commons in 2021. In other words, no province should see a reduction in its representation in the House of Commons.
I was very encouraged, when this bill was first debated, that the Conservative Party showed support for this legislation. Members spoke in favour of the bill as an important gesture recognizing the unique position that the province of Quebec occupies in the Canadian federation, and recognizing that every province should be able to benefit from a grandfather clause, similar to what former prime minister Brian Mulroney did in 1985. We are suggesting in this legislation that the House of Commons and the Senate approve a similar amendment that would allow us to have a 2021 grandfather clause.
That is the subject of this conversation. The Conservatives say they want to support the bill, but they do everything they can to vandalize the legislative process and make sure that Parliament cannot actually proceed to a vote. What we are saying tonight is that it is time for members to stand in their places and vote on this legislation, and we are very confident that the Conservatives, who manufactured this outrage, will in the end stand up and vote for this process. We are making this possible for them tonight.
317 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville that this bill deserves to be debated. That is precisely what we tried to do last night. However, we saw the official opposition, the Conservatives, move bogus motions to force 30‑minute bells and votes to ensure that there would be no debate, even though they said they wanted to have one.
The best way to continue to debate is to ensure that there are no endless procedural games that prevent Parliament from discussing and debating this important issue, as my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville indicated.
We look forward to seeing the debate continue, for example at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs or even when Bill C‑14 comes back, I hope, to the House of Commons at report stage and third reading. We will then have many opportunities to hear our colleagues debate this bill.
I think that our colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville understands full well that this has absolutely nothing to do with Motion No. 11; rather, it is a way to ensure that the provinces in our federation, including her province of Quebec, keep their number of seats. I know that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of maintaining the 78 seats for the Province of Quebec. That is what we are trying to do, in due course.
245 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank our colleague for New Westminster—Burnaby for his comments and his question.
As colleagues know, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby is a senior member of the House. He has served the Province of British Columbia and the citizens of New Westminster—Burnaby well for a long time. I had the privilege to work with him when I was an opposition House leader, and when we sat on the Board of Internal Economy and other bodies of the House. We have worked well together.
I think that our colleague for New Westminster—Burnaby identifies a fundamental challenge. When members of the Conservative Party say that they oppose, for example, this necessary measure to bring this legislation to a vote, of course they will oppose it, but at the same time they are not interested in participating constructively in debating the legislation. Our colleague for New Westminster—Burnaby identified what I think was a shambolic and appalling performance last night when, with 30-minute bells and vote after vote, the House of Commons was pronouncing on which Conservative member would make a speech. It was all designed to ensure that legislation, which the Conservatives will ultimately support, does not actually come to a vote.
If we are looking for a reason to point to dysfunction in the House of Commons, we can think about this: The official opposition supports a particular piece of legislation, but is desperately trying to make sure that it actually does not come to a vote so that it might be adopted. The legislation would preserve, for example, the seat allocation in the province of Quebec and other provinces. However, at the same time, the Conservatives insist on having vote after vote to decide which Conservative will make a speech, which is designed to delay the legislation coming to a vote. It is unfortunate that it has come to this.
I think that the government House leader has taken his responsibility seriously, and we hope that parliamentarians in the Senate and in the House of Commons can discuss this legislation, consider it in committee, and debate it at report stage and third reading. We think it is important as well to allow the electoral boundaries commissions, which have been set up under law and are operating right now, to have clarity in terms of what will be the number of seats for provinces, which is why it is somewhat urgent that Parliament have a chance to pronounce itself on this legislation.
425 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, far from wanting to silence the official opposition, we are actually trying to help the members have an opportunity to vote on this legislation. We are trying to help them out of the dead end they found themselves in last evening, as our friend for New Westminster—Burnaby pointed out, where they were using a series of absolutely ridiculous measures to ensure that the House was voting on which Conservative member would repeat a speech that was generated the previous time this legislation was brought before the House.
Our Conservative colleague asked what is behind this. I will be very clear on what is behind this. This is about allowing the House of Commons to pronounce itself on Bill C-14, which we think will enjoy broad support in the House, and then allowing the bill to proceed to committee, where our colleagues in committee can hear from witnesses, can debate the legislation and can make amendments if they decide it is necessary. The bill can come back to the House of Commons in the normal legislative process with which we are extremely familiar. Then, finally, our friends in the other place will have an opportunity to study the legislation as well.
The urgency, as I said, is constitutional and under legislation. Every 10 years, after a census, there is a redistribution process that takes place in every province, allowing an independent commission chaired by a justice or a judge from that province, appointed by the chief justice of the province, to look at the question of electoral boundaries and to adjust electoral boundaries for movements in population and for increases in population in some provinces. In this case, if this bill is adopted, we will provide a floor for the number of seats every province will have in this House of Commons. It is particularly important to our friends from the province of Quebec who, under the formula, would have stood to be diminished by one seat, losing one seat in the House of Commons. We think it is important for Canadians and for Quebeckers to know that the representation in 2021 will be the representation used by these commissions in determining the appropriate electoral boundaries. In your great province of Quebec, Madam Speaker, that would be 78 seats.
We wish the Conservative Party would support us in passing this so the commission could do its important work.
402 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I disagree with our colleague from Montcalm when he says that democracy happens in the streets. I do not share his pessimism.
However, I appreciate the fact that he mentioned what happened last night. The repeated calls for votes showed a lack of respect for our colleagues who sit on House of Commons committees. I am thinking in particular of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying, which is very important. I am thinking in particular of the witnesses, people who often travel quite a distance to discuss a sensitive, difficult and very important subject. The study of this issue has already been postponed for some time.
We believe it is important to allow this committee to do its important work. It is in the interest of all Canadians that the issues raised by my friend from Montcalm be studied, that they be discussed and that we hear from witnesses with different perspectives and often professional experience in the field. We are well aware of what happens when the Conservatives organize a series of ridiculous repeated votes, like they did last night.
I may not agree with my friend from Montcalm on the second point. The Liberal Party has been in opposition too. We too have sat on the other side of the House, where our Bloc friends are now seated. When we were in opposition, we never sought to sabotage the legislative process with a series of procedural motions to deprive MPs of the opportunity to speak.
Frankly, I think it is time for the House of Commons to vote on Bill C‑14 and study it in committee. I am eager to work with our colleagues of all stripes to get this important bill passed as soon as possible.
296 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, our colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford reinforced the unfortunate circumstance at the joint committee looking at medical assistance in dying. I entirely associate myself with his view on the inability of those witnesses to be heard on an issue as important to Canadians and as sensitive as medical assistance in dying. This is exactly what the House of Commons should not do.
If we set up a committee like that, and if colleagues want to serve effectively and honourably on a committee like that, to represent their constituents and their colleagues in the House and do that important work, which necessarily includes hearing from Canadians, as I said, with different perspectives and in some cases with professional experience, then anything that would ensure that important work is disrupted is disrespectful to those witnesses. It is disrespectful to colleagues in the House, and it is also disrespectful to our colleagues who serve in the other place, who are also working with colleagues from the House of Commons on this committee.
What the Conservatives did last evening with a series of votes is what has made it important for the government to take this necessary step tonight to ensure this goes through. If the Conservatives were really interested in debate, they would have actually debated the bill last night, and not debated, as our friends have said, which Conservative member should be heard in order to delay the bill coming to a vote.
We think the House of Commons should have an opportunity to vote on this bill. I am confident that the members who are seeking to disrupt and vandalize the legislative process will ultimately vote for the bill. If we ever wondered if it was ridiculous, it will be when they end up voting for a bill they did absolutely everything they possibly could to ensure would never be adopted. One could perhaps see, as my friend from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford said, referring to our former colleague David Christopherson, that they do not know what the ultimate legislative objective is other than to try to burn it down. That is their objective. They start the fire and then pretend to show up with a hose to put it out. That is not the way the parliamentary process works. They cannot be the fire chief and the pyromaniac at the same time.
It is important for the House to proceed to a vote.
408 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I hope our colleague was not asking you when you will represent Canadians, because I think not only that you represent very well the people of your great Quebec constituency, but also that you represent all Canadians when you sit in that chair. I cannot imagine my colleague would be casting that aspersion on you because that would be inappropriate.
There is a level of manufactured indignation and fake outrage from the Conservatives about parliamentary procedures that actually allow the House of Commons to pronounce itself on legislation. As the Speaker will remember, I also sat in opposition on the other side of the House. We watched the government House leader at the time, Peter Van Loan, so many times—
An hon. member: He did it over 100 times.
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, yes, it was over 100 times. Can members imagine it? A Conservative House leader, these great professors of democratic principles, did it over 100 times. Peter Van Loan introduced time allocation or closure measures that many times in the House of Commons.
In fact, the chief government whip at the time wrote a manual of how to ensure that a parliamentary standing committee could be driven completely into the ditch. It was sort of a how-to manual of what to do if something went wrong in the committee, and how to ensure the whole thing could be ground directly into the ditch.
These are the authors of those kinds of documents. I think Peter Van Loan moved time allocation and closure so many times that the words are actually carved into the desk to the right of where I sit. If we lift the desk, we might see that he has engraved in that desk all of the words necessary to bring time allocation and closure. That is what the Conservatives did in government.
Now they are in opposition, and they do everything they can to ensure that the government agenda, which is important to Canadians, cannot advance to a legislative vote. They will not allow the House of Commons to pronounce itself on legislation.
When my colleagues ask when we are going to start working for Canadians, the answer is that we have never stopped working for Canadians.
377 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I obviously agree with my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby when he characterized what is really a very unfortunate series of procedural shenanigans the Conservatives have participated in. Why?
In French, they want to be able to tell their colleagues from Quebec who support Bill C‑14 that they are in favour of maintaining the number of seats in Quebec. However, in the House of Commons, and especially in their English remarks, they are doing everything in their power to prevent a vote on this bill. I think that was the reason in this case.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
