SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 214 - Jun/15/23

Jun/15/23 8:55:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote.

7 words

Context: House Hansard - 214 - Jun/15/23

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

Jun/15/23 10:23:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would say respectfully to the government that, if it wanted this law passed, it should not have prorogued or called an unnecessary election. This could have been law years ago. These are substantive amendments to be put in place here, so this is not some tactic. We are talking about the livelihoods and reputation of justices. In my opinion, it is not untoward to have a right of appeal. Requesting leave to the Supreme Court is not real. One will get no shot at it. This will not bog down the court system. There might be a handful of cases that would make it to the Federal Court of Appeal. Does the member agree with my comments?

120 words

Context: House Hansard - 214 - Jun/15/23

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

Jun/15/23 11:55:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are going to bring it home. For their home, our home, my home, let us bring it home. To begin, it felt great to be sitting momentarily over on that side of the House. I know we will be there soon and I am looking forward to it. There has been some discussion, and in the limited time left, I want to present the framework before we actually discuss the amendments. There has been some discussion as to whether we should be debating these amendments or just rubber-stamping them and going ahead. I am going to read something. I do not normally do this and I normally speak without notes, but this time I think it is important that I get this right and read it word for word. An article states: Our job as Official Opposition is to say, particularly when we agree with the principles of the legislation, “Here are amendments that will make the legislation stand up to scrutiny, and there are amendments that will actually make the legislation do what it purports to do.” The problem on the government side is they consistently refuse those amendments. The amendments we are putting forward have actually been supported by many members of the judiciary. They are supportive. They say they support the legislation, and it says here that we should be able to bring the amendments forward, but according to this, the government of the day was stopping it. The article continues: Even when they make sense, even when they’re reinforced by the public and by experts, they systematically refuse all the amendments.... That is just what happened. Our amendments are being refused. The article states, “...which is why they have a such a poor record in terms of product recall.” That is interesting. Let us read some more about this. The article says: So we like to make the case for those amendments. Of course, if the government were willing to co-operate, it would be in their interests...And if they said, first off, “Okay, here’s a piece of legislation; we know you support it in principle; we’re actually willing to work with you on amendments,” then I think it would be fair to say the approach would be different and we wouldn’t have to make the case in the House of Commons necessarily around those amendments because the government would be working with us. It seems like we had many negotiations. The amendments were not put in place. That is exactly what is going on here. Do members know who said that? It was the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. That is his quote. I think my comments, when I am over there, might be used against me, but I do not think so. I do not think I will say the exact opposite when I am in a coalition as opposed to when I am in opposition. Let us just continue. The article says, “The principle of this place is members are here to represent their ridings”. I could not agree more. It continues, “They’re here to speak out on issues and they’re also here to offer suggestions to the government.” That is just like what we are trying to do right now. Then it says, “Now, we have a government that doesn’t want those suggestions”. Oh, my goodness; the government wants to bring in time allocation. How many times have we had time allocation in this Parliament so far? Number 40 is tomorrow. How many times did the NDP rail against the Harper government? Mr. Peter Julian: You did it 150 times.

630 words

Context: House Hansard - 214 - Jun/15/23

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Jun/15/23 11:59:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will finish off with more of the quote. It says: To say only 15 MPs are able to speak to all of your average bills, that is very clearly contravening what Canadians want to see here. They want to see vivid debate, they want to see a government that actually listens to the improvements that can be made to bills and they want to see their member of parliament being able to speak out. When you say only 15 can speak on this, or only 12 can speak on this, you’re disenfranchising all of those other ridings across the country.... I really believe my case is closed. I know our members have aptly talked about this, but there are two particular substantive amendments. This is not any type of minor thing; these are amendments that have been supported by the NDP. Some of them were brought to the floor by the NDP. We are standing strongly for these, one of which is to have judicial review—

172 words

Disenfranchising