SoVote

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

Jun/15/23 4:39:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am listening to what the government House leader is saying, and it is mind-boggling in its intellectual dishonesty. If he keeps talking about electronic voting and all the little things in the reform of the Standing Orders, it is for an obvious reason: He is embarrassed to talk about the way he works. We have before us a government that shows contempt for Parliament, for parliamentarians and for the work of the committee, as we saw with China. It also shows contempt for the electoral system. Today, the government shows contempt for tradition. Changing the Standing Orders without unanimous agreement happened once, and for a minor rule, under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, one of the prime ministers with the lowest moral standards in Canadian history. Today, what the Liberals are telling us is that we did not think fast enough for him and that he would have liked an answer sooner. He decided to trample on the traditions of this Parliament. After listening to all the arguments, the made-up facts and the leader's dishonesty, I have no questions for him, and I invite him, in the time remaining, to continue to spout nonsense.

201 words

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

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/15/23 6:58:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we know how things work in the House and we know how the negotiations went for these changes to the Standing Orders of the House. The government House leader went to see the NDP. They came to an agreement. After that, they did not talk to the other parties. They decided to shove new rules down the members' throats. Here we are in mid-June discussing this under a gag order at the last minute, when it has been weeks, if not months, that the government and the NDP, with whom they are in bed, have known exactly where they are going with this. I would like my colleague to tell me why, in his opinion, they used this strategy of endless stalling, making us waste time until the last minute to finally use the most undemocratic procedure in the House of Commons, the gag order, and force this down our throats.

155 words

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

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/15/23 7:27:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I worked together at the Standing Committee on Health, and he knows that I appreciate him. I know he is a democrat. In his speech, he discussed the importance of having a well functioning democracy. He believes that the new rules could help us to enhance the way democracy functions. I am wondering if he does not see that there is a certain paradox in the fact that, to enhance democracy with the new rules, we are violating democracy, we are violating the parliamentary tradition, we are violating the tradition of unanimity. We are dismantling a long tradition and setting a precedent that will allow any government, especially a majority government, to henceforth have the moral sanction to change all our operating rules as it pleases. Does the member not find that strange to want to enhance the way democracy functions in a completely undemocratic way?

151 words

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

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/15/23 7:58:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech because, since this debate began, we have been hearing all kinds of generalities and nonsense about who votes virtually and who does not. The hon. member for Winnipeg North has once again lowered the level of debate. However, I think my colleague raised the level of debate. Indeed, he pointed out that the way this motion is being put forward, regardless of content, is unacceptable. Since 1867, the House has always been able to operate unanimously. During the pandemic, we were always able to operate unanimously. The hybrid Parliament we have today was adopted unanimously. We have always been able to do that. A few minutes ago, the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River told us suddenly that unanimity is not always the best thing, that things can change. Suddenly, everything becomes relative. How is it that, since 1867, we have always been able to operate properly and now, all of a sudden, we cannot?

170 words