44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/13/23 2:40:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we learned this morning that the RCMP has opened more than 100 investigations into foreign interference. The RCMP is conducting investigations involving more than 100 Canadians who were influenced by a foreign state.
A real leader makes real decisions. A real leader takes responsibility for his decisions. The Prime Minister does neither. He has no backbone. He is incapable of making important decisions. That is why he chose a special rapporteur and gave his friend, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the option of trying to waltz around the issue and not have an independent public inquiry.
Will he stop waltzing around and finally launch an independent public inquiry?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 2:41:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the special rapporteur announced his resignation four days ago, but he will remain on the payroll long enough to produce a final report that has already lost all credibility.
The Prime Minister is the one who chose partisanship by ignoring the three calls by the majority of members of the House to launch an independent public inquiry. As everyone knows, he selected a friend, a member of the Trudeau Foundation, whom he literally threw under the bus to protect himself and prevent Canadians from learning the whole truth.
I am giving him another chance to call an independent public inquiry to uncover the truth about any interference by the Beijing regime in our democracy.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 10:26:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I just want to acknowledge the excellent work of my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe.
This evening, in his speech, with his parliamentary experience, he talked about the many years he has been a member here, both on the opposition side and the government side. He learned to operate within this parliamentary life that calls for a lot more than just standing up, giving speeches and sharing his positions. Parliamentary life is bringing the voice of the people back home here to Parliament, joining it to the other voices we hear across the country, throughout Quebec, in British Columbia, in the Atlantic provinces, in northern Quebec, to be able to have discussions between colleagues about what everyone is going through. After that, we can make more informed decisions on how we are going to vote, the bills we will support, the discussions we will have in committee. This allows us to see what is happening and what people are experiencing in this wonderful country from coast to coast to coast. Indeed, to me, this is a great country from coast to coast to coast.
At present, the government is proposing 50 permanent changes to the Standing Orders, to make permanent a situation that was temporary during COVID‑19. The pandemic was a terrible time. Fortunately, the technology made it possible for us to continue debating. If not for the technology, the government would have preferred that we adopt the majority of laws without debate, without discussion, without committee meetings, because it would have made things much easier for it. However, the technology helped us get through the situation.
The technology also has its faults. We see it today with the arrival of artificial intelligence. People believe that it may revolutionize the world and help everyone, but it is raising many concerns. Hybrid Parliament is not without its faults. The main fault of the 50 amendments that the government is proposing to change the way members work together in this chamber to make Canada a better place is the fact that these changes will impose a new way for the House to carry out its work, breaking a tradition that goes back many years. Major changes to how we work in the House are usually made by consensus.
A consensus means that we agree, that we are working together. This can take time. It can take a while, especially when we are talking about opposing political parties that are not always on the same wavelength. One thing everyone must understand, however, is that we are all here to represent our constituents. We are all here to stand up for our values. We are all here to stand up for our principles in our various political parties. We are on the parliamentary playing field, where we exchange ideas and where these exchanges have been going on for decades in a relatively specific way, based on rules that sometimes seem a bit exaggerated. It is precisely the role of parliamentarians to try to convince other parliamentarians that their point of view is better than any other one. That is how it works.
These are the kinds of discussions that should normally take place to amend the Standing Orders. We should have taken the time to do that. Yes, today's technology allows us to do things that were not possible before. However, these changes should have been made by consensus. All parties should have had time to submit proposals. As long as we do not all agree on a change, we wait and put it off until later.
In terms of the voting app, we nearly reached a consensus. We were almost there. That could have been one change. The first change that could have been made was the remote voting app. We support using this application. I know that my Bloc Québécois colleagues were somewhat reluctant to extend it to all votes, but it was a step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, in committee, when the time came to continue these discussions, one party—which is in the minority—and another party—which has an even smaller minority—decided to join forces and vote for these changes. They chose to work together to make sure things changed. That was the end of consensus.
In the past, there was a majority government. I had just been elected shortly before that.
The majority Liberal government tried to unilaterally change the rules in a rather absurd way with a motion known as Motion No. 6. It was moved in response to altercations that occurred between the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party whip at the time. The Prime Minister and the Conservative whip got into a spat and I would say that the Prime Minister practically assaulted him.
Then, the government said that it was going to put an end to all this nonsense by changing the rules, but that did not happen because all of the opposition parties stood up and decided that the motion was not up to snuff. Still today, we would expect changes like these to require the consensus of all members of the House, particularly given that the government is in a minority position. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
I would even say that the Liberals are braver than usual because they have the support of the NDP. Why are they braver? They now know that they form one party and they have the support of another party; with two out of four parties, that should be enough to change the rules. Canadians will probably not really realize that the government did not listen to the majority of the House, that we did not work on consensus.
This emboldened the Liberals and made the NDP forget their role as opposition. The NDP basically decided to become a full-fledged member of the government in many ways. These changes to the rules are probably part of some negotiation between the Liberals and the NDP to get things that we saw in the budget and to get all sorts of other benefits for a very minor party that is doing business with a party that has a few more members.
That is where we are at. The NDP members are forgetting that they are members of the opposition. They are letting the Liberals do the dirty work of changing the rules without reaching a consensus, but there is one thing the NDP is forgetting. Their party is going to remain an opposition party. There will be a change of government, but they will still be in opposition. That is just the way it is. Unfortunately, the party will have to relearn how to become an opposition party, just under the rules it agreed to change when it decided to support the Liberal Party. It will pay for that, one day. Unfortunately, in the meantime, democracy is paying the price.
Democracy pays the price because the hybrid Parliament is a form of Parliament that we are just getting to know. We should have had more time to do a full cycle and look at the pros and cons and come to a consensus.
That is why the Conservatives proposed setting an end date, but not just some random date we pulled out of a hat. We are proposing that the temporary measures come to an end one year after the election of the next government. That would give the next government enough time to see what worked and try to come to an agreement with all parliamentarians on whether the changes should become permanent. This is not something that should be done at the last minute, as my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle said earlier.
This is not something that should be done at the last minute as the summer looms and all the bills are being rushed through with the Liberals' gag orders. We must operate by consensus. That is what gives the Standing Orders longevity. Imposing changes opens the door for successive governments to make changes to the Standing Orders. They will believe that anything goes because the Liberals will have broken the basic rule. According to the Liberals, when they want to change how we work in a democracy, how parliamentarians vote and do their job, there is no need for a consensus and they can do it provided they have one more member than all the other parties.
Unfortunately, it is an NDP member this time. How sad. I believe that it would be better for the Liberals and the NDP to say that they have heard the official opposition and the other parties, that they will take a break, pause this reform and try to obtain a consensus. Small steps take us further than a giant leap into the void.
1476 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 10:38:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, according to the Standing Orders of the House, it is not a prop.
I believe that we must not go too far or too quickly, and that we must do things properly. I was elected by the people who sent me to the House and who pay me a very good salary. I am well aware that people pay me to be here in the House, and this salary comes with sacrifices that we must accept.
I do not see how I could explain to my voters why I should be able to work at home every other day rather than coming to Ottawa, when the contract I have with them is to come here to do my job.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 10:40:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to give an example to show why it is important for us to be present in the House. Tomorrow evening, I am going to offer MPs the chance to watch a documentary on the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. All parliamentarians have been invited to join me to watch the documentary, to see what happened to residents and what caused the tragedy.
Unfortunately, some parliamentarians will not be here and will not be able to attend the screening. Why? It is because they are currently in their ridings, instead of being in Ottawa to ensure that they are properly informed and up to speed on the issues that concern all Canadians, particularly those affected by tragedies like the Lac‑Mégantic disaster, for example.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 10:41:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I challenge my colleague to tell me, of all the changes he has just noted, how many of them were imposed through the will of one party. How many of those changes to our rules were made by one party, without consensus from all members of the House?
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
