44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 29, 2024 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to what the member said, and I would like to provide some comments in regard to some very specific things that he put on the record this morning.
First and foremost, let me emphasize one of the biggest misrepresentations of reality that the member tried to portray. That is to give the impression in any fashion whatsoever that the government does not recognize the true value of our farmers and what they do, not only in local communities but for the broader world. That does a disservice to the farmers. We, at least on the government benches, recognize that the farmer is the one who experiences climate change at the ground level in a very real and tangible way. If only there were Conservative members of Parliament who recognized that climate change is a reality, because farmers know and appreciate and understand that climate change is in fact a reality.
We have a substantial agreement. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, leading to approximately $3.5 billion. We have heard of the sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership, which is there to support farmers in the community in dealing with issues like climate change. They are tangible dollars to support farmers in the advances that they have taken and to encourage continued advances in regard to recognizing and fighting climate change reality.
The member stood in this place and mentioned, right at the very beginning, the Conservative Party agenda. I suspect we might be hearing more about the Conservative agenda. He said the Conservative Party has four priorities, and priority number one is axing the tax.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, members are saying, “Hear, hear!” They like that priority. How far the Conservative Party has come from the last general election, when that member and every other member who was elected in that election, or all candidates who ran in that election, campaigned on an election platform that said they supported a price on pollution. Now they are saying that they just want, at all costs, to axe the tax, which kind of feeds into the idea that they have no concept of the reality of climate change and the responsibility of good government to bring in policies to deal with climate change.
Whether it is the Ukrainian government, the Canadian government or many states in the United States, they recognize that the price on pollution is a positive policy.
Priority number two for the Conservative Party, as the member across the way said, was dealing with housing. No government in the history of Canada, with a possible exception on a per capita basis in the 1940s, has invested more in housing than this government has in the last eight years. When the leader of the Conservative Party was the person responsible for housing, he was an absolute and total disaster on the issue of housing.
Let us contrast that to this government, which has a number of housing programs to deal with what the member across the way said was the Conservative Party's priority. There is a myriad of programs to support Canadians. Never before have we seen a national government take such a proactive approach to dealing with the issue of housing.
Priority number three that the member referenced in his opening remarks is that the Conservatives would get federal spending under control. Canadians need to be aware of what that hidden Conservative right, MAGA agenda is all about. The Conservatives' agenda is to look at ways in which they can cut back on valuable programs that Canadians are very much dependent on and want to see. Whether it is programs like child care, dental care or whatever it might be, the Conservatives' priority number three is to cut government expenditures. The member just said that.
Whether it is programs like child care, dental care or whatever it might be, the Conservatives' priority number three is to cut government expenditures. The member just said that.
As the Conservatives said, there are the top four items. The fourth item is the issue of crime. There is a difference in approach between the Liberals and the Conservatives on the issue of crime. Whether it is urban or rural, we believe we need to take action that puts a stronger emphasis on repeat offenders, as we saw with the bail reform bill, which took a huge effort not only from this government but also from provincial jurisdictions and many other stakeholders, including the courts, to bring forward legislation. However, the Conservative Party wanted to filibuster and prevent its quick passage, even though everyone else in the country recognized the importance of that bail reform legislation.
On those four priority issues the Conservative Party talks about, I would suggest they will be found wanting. I look forward to the ongoing debates on those issues and others.
When we talk about our farming community, the member made reference to the hog industry in his comments. He said that the hog industry was in trouble, and he talked about a hog farmer in his riding or close to his area. He tried to give the impression to those listening that hog farmers are experiencing a difficult time.
This is not to take away from addressing those important issues, whether one is a hog farmer, a cattle farmer, a wheat farmer or whatever they might be. As a government, we are very sympathetic and are working with our farming community in order to ensure that we have good, sound policy. However, the Minister of International Trade was in Winnipeg just the other day, and we met with Manitoba Pork and with the hog industry at the research centre with the University of Manitoba. Manitoba's hog industry is doing better than it ever has, period, and I believe somewhere around eight million piglets are born in Manitoba every year now. That industry is creating not only thousands of direct jobs but also thousands of indirect jobs as well.
As a government, we recognize that the farming community, whether it is dealing with animal waste or making sure of the quality and the health of the earth, continues to be sustainable well into the future. We will find that government policy and how it works with the different stakeholders supports just that. We invest literally hundreds of millions of dollars every year to ensure we are there to support farmers in a very real, tangible way, and we will continue to work with the industry.
We disagree wholeheartedly with the Conservatives' number one priority of getting rid of or axing the carbon tax. It is highly irresponsible. I look forward to one day being able to knock on a door and to reinforce to my constituents that the Conservative Party does not have any idea or concept. The MAGA Conservative Party of today does a great disservice to the constituents I represent. At the end of the day, climate change is real, and the Conservative Party needs to start being more honest and transparent with Canadians about the environment issue.
1190 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party's fixation on the bumper sticker that reads, “Axe the tax” has caused the Conservative Party and the MAGA right to ultimately say things like they do not support the trade agreement with Ukraine. There are so many bizarre things coming from the far right under the leadership of the Conservative Party.
How does the member justify providing misinformation, or selected information, to the constituents I represent? When he says he wants to axe the tax, he is really telling the majority of the residents in Winnipeg North that he would also get rid of the rebate, which means there is going to be less disposable income because he has a desire for a bumper sticker. How does he justify that?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 12:52:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of Oral Questions later this day, the House observe a moment of silence for the Honourable Ed Broadbent, and that afterwards, the member for Burnaby South, followed by a member of each of the other recognized parties and a member of the Green Party each be permitted to make a statement to pay tribute, and that the time taken for these proceedings shall be added to the time provided for Government Orders.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think of foreign investment, government policy on legislation and budgetary measures. Working with Canadians, on a per-capita basis, when we talk about gross number of dollars being invested in Canada, Canada is actually number one in the world with respect to foreign investment. Much of that investment goes toward renewable energy. Canada is now a leader when it comes to electric batteries. The value of communities are increasing greatly because of the mega-plants going into them, Volkswagen being one of them.
Does the member recognize, whether through things like trade agreements and government policies, that we have seen an enhancement in investment that will ultimately contribute to the world because of many of the green projects that are taking place in Canada today?
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I disagree with much of what the member said. I am sure she is not surprised by that particular comment. She referred to purpose-built housing, homes and apartments, where we are getting rid of the GST to encourage more growth. It is projected that there will be literally thousands of new units built as a direct result. Likewise, we now have provincial jurisdictions that are doing this with the PST.
Would the member not agree that, if the provinces are now trying to duplicate what the federal government is doing, in an attempt to increase the supply of purpose-built homes, it is a good thing? Would she not support that?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on a question regarding housing, because the member spent a lot of time speaking to housing. In the last number of years, and I made reference to this earlier, we have seen the federal government really getting into the area of housing. For many years nothing was being done, nothing was being developed.
Today we can talk about the billions, but, more important, we can also talk about the need for the three levels of government to come to the table to address the housing issues that the member references. I am very sympathetic to the people living in bus shelters and so forth in the city of Winnipeg.
Would he not agree that all three levels of government need to step up to deal with the housing crisis today?
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 3:57:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 102 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 4:32:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and I suspect, if you were to seek it, you would get permission for me to deal with questions on the Order Paper for today.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 4:33:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will go as quickly as I can through this. The following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1945, 1950, 1953 to 1955, 1957 to 1960, 1971, 1972, 1974, 1976, 1983, 1984, 1988, 1989, 1992 to 1995, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2011, 2016 to 2018, 2020, 2021, 2027, 2028, 2031, 2036 to 2038, 2040, 2041, 2046, 2054, 2057 to 2060, 2062, 2066, 2067, 2073, 2079, 2080, 2090 to 2092, 2094, 2097, 2098, 2105, 2106, 2112, 2115, 2118, 2119, 2122, 2129, 2130, 2133, 2136, 2139, 2141 to 2146, 2149, 2150, 2153, 2154, 2158, 2162, 2163, 2167, 2168, 2170, 2172, 2174, 2178, 2179, 2183, 2184, 2192, 2193, 2194 and 2201.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 4:37:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if a revised response to Question No. 1888, originally tabled on December 11 and 12, 2023, and the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1943, 1944, 1946 to 1949, 1951, 1952, 1956, 1961 to 1970, 1973, 1975, 1977 to 1982, 1985 to 1987, 1990, 1991, 1996, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2012 to 2015, 2019, 2022 to 2026, 2029, 2030, 2032 to 2035, 2039, 2042 to 2045, 2047 to 2053, 2055, 2056, 2061, 2063 to 2065, 2068 to 2072, 2074 to 2078, 2081 to 2089, 2093, 2095, 2096, 2099 to 2104, 2107 to 2111, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2117, 2120, 2121, 2123 to 2128, 2131, 2132, 2134, 2135, 2137, 2138, 2140, 2147, 2148, 2151, 2152, 2155 to 2157, 2159 to 2161, 2164 to 2166, 2169, 2171, 2173, 2175 to 2177, 2180 to 2182, 2185 to 2191 and 2195 to 2200 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 4:38:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 4:38:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, knowing how important that particular question was to my colleague across the way, if he wants to walk over, he can look at the numbers I read off. I suspect it was there, as the clerk at the table is very efficient and has already indicated it is there.
A number of thoughts come to my mind in regard to what we are debating. Members would be very familiar with my standing up to express concerns whenever there is a concurrence report that is brought to the floor of the House of Commons. I do that because I recognize the finite amount of time that the House is in fact operational or open where we are actually able to deal with Private Members' Business, opposition days, government business and so forth.
Over the last number of months, we have seen a great deal of effort to prevent government agenda items from being debated. I am going to speak specifically to this concurrence report but before I do, I want to highlight that we are going to be sitting later tonight. The reason we are going to be sitting later tonight is that we have the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Finance that we have to deal with. We also have to deal with the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
These are all concurrence reports. Opposition members also have other mechanisms or tools, and this is where it becomes a little more relevant, even for the motion that has been put forward today by the Bloc.
We all have a very good sense of our feelings with respect to the report, which I support, and I believe the majority of the House will be supporting the report. We know that because it passed through a standing committee with a majority vote. There were two opposition reports attached that are dissenting reports.
My concern is that, in this case it is the Bloc, but most often it is the Conservatives, when they bring up these concurrence reports, they are actually preventing substantive debate on a wide spectrum of different issues.
For example, today, we were supposed to be debating the fall economic statement and the legislation.
It was interesting. The very first debate that we had was a private member's hour, and it was dealing with the farm carbon pricing. The member stood up, and the first thing he said was that they have four priorities, as the Conservative Party. It was interesting when, an hour later, the leader of the Conservative Party stood in this place and, in essence, said the same thing, that they have four priorities. He listed the four priorities of the Conservative Party.
Mr. John Nater: Name them.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I know what they are. “Axe the tax” is one of them. I do not really want to get into them. Housing was the second one. They then had the deal with the government cuts. That is the hidden Tory agenda. They then want to deal with the crime issue, even though they filibustered the bail reform legislation.
We had the very first debate, and then we had the second debate on the fall economic statement. Then, during members' statements, we had another member of the Conservative Party stand up and say that they have four priorities they want to debate today. If one listened to question period, I think at least three of those priorities were, in fact, raised.
The government says, “Let us talk about those priorities.” I love to contrast Conservative policy with the government's or the Liberal Party's policy. I love the contrast. I welcome it. In fact, I was looking forward to debating that today. Much like previous concurrence reports, by introducing the concurrence report, it is preventing that debate.
We have already had the debate about the Speaker. We have spent hours debating that issue. It has gone to committee, and now the committee has provided a report.
Why would we want to talk about the Speaker again? I do not believe it has the priority that members opposite think it has. Canadians are more concerned about issues like inflation, interest rates, jobs, investments and health care. Those are the types of things Canadians from coast to coast to coast are concerned about, not the regurgitation of another report that was already passed in the House by a majority of the members.
Now there is a sense of frustration. As opposed to preventing the debate on those types of important issues, the Bloc has opposition day motions and could have incorporated this into an opposition day motion if it so chose. If the Bloc really felt that this was a road it wanted to take Canadians down, that would be an excellent opportunity. I listened earlier, because I am the one who asked questions of the Bloc members. This morning, they, too, started their debate on the fall economic statement. I listened. I disagreed with a lot of what they said, but there was some merit in some areas where comment was provided.
I honestly thought we would have that continuation of what is so important in every region of our country, and that is the concern about the realities of what is taking place in our communities. I do not believe I am alone. I think a majority of members would agree that we need to talk about issues that are relevant to what our constituents want us to reflect on.
I looked at the report. It is very short. There are three recommendations. Let me read the recommendation that surprised me. I would have thought it would have already been in place.
Recommendation 2
That the House Administration be tasked with preparing, as part of the briefing binder, guidelines for any future Speaker of the House that presents clear boundaries for impartiality and non-partisanship.
To be honest, I thought there would have been something of that nature, and I suspect there is maybe more of an informal one, but I do not know. I think that is a wonderful recommendation. As the member for Kingston and the Islands has pointed out on many occasions, it is not like what happened here with our current Speaker has never happened before. It has happened before.
I question the motivation as to why the Conservatives and the Bloc want to persist with this issue. I believe it has more to do with the Conservative agenda. I often talk about the idea of that MAGA right and how things from the south creep up north. The Leader of the Opposition's office seems to be opening the door wide to it. They want to try to say that Parliament is dysfunctional.
Today, they are trying to amplify the Speaker's chair as if there is something wrong with the institution. There is nothing wrong with the institution. The Speaker made a mistake like other Speakers in the past have made mistakes. That happens.
This time when it happened, there was not only a great deal of debate before we adjourned but also a recommendation. That recommendation was to bring it to PROC for a report, and that is what they want to debate now, even though they had hours of discussions and debates prior to going into PROC, whether it was formal or informal, or while at PROC.
There has been a thorough vetting in terms of what has taken place, and members have been able to express their concerns. I, too, believe in the impartiality of a Speaker. I understand the importance of it. I have highlighted that fact in my political career, and most of it has been while in opposition. I have gone through Progressive Conservative Speakers, New Democratic Speakers and Liberal Speakers, and I can tell members I do not think any of them are absolutely perfect.
I can say that, with the discussions we have heard both here and second-hand and with what has taken place in the procedure and House affairs committee, the conclusion I would draw is that enough is enough. At the end of the day, I do not believe for a moment that this is the type of issue Canadians, in all regions of our country, want us to debate.
It is much like when we talk about the Conservatives wanting to show, as much as possible, that the institution is broken. That is one reason, I would argue, they bring in the concurrence reports or they, at weird times, will try to adjourn debate or adjourn the day's proceedings. There are many different filibusters we see put into place by the Conservatives. There is legislation that is unanimously supported in the House, yet they will still filibuster.
There are all sorts of tactics. I am used to the tactics. I spent many years in opposition. There is a good reason we have those types of levers. The way the Conservative Party is using it, in co-operation at times with others, like the Bloc today, is to disrupt the government's legislative agenda. Who really pays the price? It may be individual members because there is a legislative agenda, and we have to try to get that legislative agenda through. If there is a finite number of hours, that means the more they filibuster, the less time there will be for debate on government legislation.
I was in opposition in a third party. The wonderful thing about Hansard is we would be able to find this. I remember saying that time allocation is a necessary tool, at times, to be able to use in order for government to get its agenda through the House, even if there is a majority government. There is a legislative agenda, a budget that has to pass, and that time is very precious. I look at what we have witnessed, which is a lot of politics. Let me give an example of that.
There were some interesting quotes. When the issue first came up, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable stood up and provided some comments. This was actually before it went to PROC. He said, “The solution for the Speaker is none other than to ask for his resignation, because he has lost the confidence of the House.” This is something that he said in Hansard before it even went to PROC. PROC was responsible for studying it.
The House referred the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instructions that it recommend an appropriate remedy. That was the essence of the motion, which was actually brought forward by Conservatives.
The member for Red Deer—Lacombe stated:
Of course I will listen objectively to all the witnesses who will come to the committee.... I am looking forward to hearing from...the Speaker, who I hope will come to the procedure and House affairs committee....
I alone am not judge and jury on the procedure and House affairs committee. I am just one member. I will have my questions, and I expect that I will get fulsome answers from all [who come].
The member for Red Deer—Lacombe supported the Speaker's resignation even before it went to the PROC committee.
At the end of the day, when we look at some of these quotes, there is an actual report that has come up with those three recommendations, which I will go through very quickly, but there were also dissenting reports. Is there any surprise about that? I was not surprised, because we knew about this even prior.
The official opposition's dissenting report states:
The office of Speaker of the House of Commons is one of the oldest in our constitutional form of government, dating back seven centuries.
It goes on:
The current Speaker of our House...shattered that ancient tradition—three times in a week—earlier this month.
In doing so, he failed to meet his duty of care to the House, thereby squandering the good-will and trust of the Official Opposition. Compounding that, the evidence before the Committee undermined the Speaker’s version of events.
The Conservative Party, in a dissenting report, is suggesting that the Speaker resign. It is the same thing with respect to the dissenting opinion from the Bloc.
However, we have the three recommendations that ultimately have the support of the majority.
Recommendation 1 states:
That the Speaker undertake the appropriate steps to reimburse a suitable amount for the use of parliamentary resources that were not related to the performance of parliamentary functions.
I already made reference to recommendation 2, to ensure that there are guidelines.
Recommendation 3 states:
That the Speaker issue another apology clearly stating that filming the video both in his office, and in his robes was inappropriate, his remorse for the situation, and a clear outline of what he and his office will do to ensure this does not happen again; and that the principle of respect, impartiality, and decorum are values he will continue to prioritize as Speaker.
As has been clearly enunciated over many hours of debate and discussion, both formally and informally, the Speakers from the past have also made mistakes. I think these recommendations are fair; we support them. We have seen the Speaker give a formal apology at the PROC committee itself, and he may have done so twice in the House. I suspect, and I am purely speculating, that he might have even said it informally to others. I say that because I believe he is very remorseful and that this is not going to happen again.
We can take a lot from the main report from PROC and feel good about what it has done. However, I believe that the need to have the issue go back to PROC or to carry on the debate indefinitely in one form or another is doing a disservice to Canadians. At the end of the day, there are far more issues in reality that Canadians are facing every day that we should be dealing with.
Today, we are supposed to be debating the fall economic statement, which is a wonderful opportunity for members to be able to express what their constituents are saying about what is taking place here in Ottawa.
2405 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 5:00:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, here is the Bloc's recommendation in its minority report:
A) That the Speaker resign from his office as Speaker as he no longer has the confidence of a substantial number of Members....
I challenge the member, or any member of the Bloc, to stand in their place and give a clear indication that no other prior Speaker had things of a similar nature happen when they were Speaker and explain why the principle of yelling and demanding a resignation was not put forward by them. The member for Kingston and the Islands specifically referred to how the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, as a Speaker, participated in a major fundraiser. There is even more to that.
At the end of the day, no one is saying that what happened is something we should support. We have all been very clear that it was inappropriate. The Speaker recognized this, demonstrated remorse and apologized. I can honestly say that, in my number of years as a parliamentarian, I have not yet seen a perfect Speaker. The present company in the chair is a possible exception.
No one is perfect. A remorseful Speaker went to the committee, and there are recommendations. In particular, I think recommendation 2, which is the one I really like, draws and should draw the matter to a close.
224 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 5:04:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was not born yesterday. I have been a parliamentarian for many years. What the member for Barrie—Innisfil just said is a bunch of crap, quite frankly. When he uses the word “contempt”, maybe the member should be—
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 5:04:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that word completely and without hesitation, but it is an acronym that was used for the Reform-Conservative union.
At the end of the day, the member is not fooling anyone, no matter how genuine or sincere he tries to come across as. The member knows full well that there is a finite amount of time for government legislation. The member can say that, if Conservatives want to stop debate on government agenda items every day with concurrence motions on reports, they should be able to do that. Yes, they can do that. There is no doubt about that. However, we should remember how upset members of the Conservative Party got when there was a concurrence motion on a report on one of their opposition days. They were crying. They went berserk. They could not believe there was going to be debate on concurrence in a committee report on an opposition day, because those days are really sacred. As for the government, no. To the Conservatives, government only counts if, by chance, they are on this side of the House, maybe 10 or 15 years from now.
An hon. member: Twenty.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Yes, maybe 20.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, I am familiar with the rules, as I am sure the member opposite is. This is an obstruction tactic that the Conservatives use time and time again.
236 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 5:07:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, just to be perfectly clear, the Liberal Party supports all three recommendations. With recommendation 2, I was highlighting that I was a bit surprised when I first read it. I honestly would have thought there would be some formal binder or proceeding where whomever is elected as Speaker of the House would be told to listen for a while, go through it in great detail and put some checks in place, because there is a huge expectation.
I have a huge expectation of the Speaker's office, as I am sure all of us do. It is an important issue; there is no doubt about that. However, the issue has been thoroughly debated both here and in committee and, to the very best of my knowledge, with the consultation and work that I do with my constituents, it is time that we leave this issue and start talking about the real issues that are affecting Canadians every day.
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 5:09:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, never before have I seen an official opposition party go as far or be as extreme as I am witnessing now. I do believe that plays somewhat of a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. This is what I have witnessed, particularly over the last two years.
53 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 5:59:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know the member listened to my comments already in regard to this debate. Not to take anything away from the importance of the institution and the role the Speaker plays, but she raised an interesting point that I picked up on and I would like her to expand on it.
There is nothing to prevent the procedure and House affairs committee from setting its agenda to review a wide spectrum of different issues. If in fact there is a need for opposition parties or any member of the government to look further into X, Y or Z, that opportunity is there because, quite frankly, it is a majority of members who make the determination as to what PROC will look at.
Could the member expand on that? From my perspective, there is no such thing as a perfect human being. Mistakes do happen and there has been a great deal of remorse demonstrated. Recommendations, from I understand, have been fulfilled. Could she provide her thoughts in regard to PROC and its potential agenda in the future without—
181 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 6:36:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, could the member comment on the fact that we are having a concurrence motion?
We had this debate for hours in December. It went to committee and was studied. We got the recommendations. A majority supported the recommendations. Today, I look to my constituents and think about what they want us to talk about in the House, which is the reality of what is happening in our communities across this land. There are issues such as inflation, affordability, the need for investments and the types of things government is doing to support Canadians. That is actually what we were supposed to be debating today: the fall economic statement.
Could the member provide his thoughts on that?
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 6:56:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is really stretching the relevancy issue here. Maybe he could just make some reference to what the debate is all about. I think that would be very helpful. He is referring to something that is completely off base.
49 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
