44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 13, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/13/24 3:14:15 p.m.
- Watch
There is no consent.
I see we are going to be playing this game again today.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:14:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, during question period, I was reflecting on a unanimous consent motion that I would like to bring—
Some hon. members: No.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:14:33 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member does not have unanimous consent.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:14:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I move that given, after eight years of the Prime Minister, housing costs have doubled, that the CMHC itself admits that housing starts have—
Some hon. members: No.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:14:59 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member is also soliciting noes in seeking unanimous consent.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:15:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Canada-Ukraine Parliamentary Friendship Group, whose members were told yesterday by the chair of that group that we are all in support of our Ukrainian allies, I move that the House call upon the government to support—
Some hon. members: No.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:15:36 p.m.
- Watch
Unfortunately, the hon. member does not have consent.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:15:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, given that the Auditor General revealed that GC Strategies—
Some hon. members: No.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:15:58 p.m.
- Watch
Unfortunately, the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan does not have consent.
It is really important to again remind members, as well as Canadians watching at home, that requesting unanimous consent is a very important tool for members of Parliament and for Parliament itself to consider issues that are timely and cannot be considered through the normal process.
Normally, the process is that members consult with the leadership teams of all officially recognized parties, and the independents, to negotiate ahead of time to save time for members to present their points of order. I am happy to recognize members on points of order, but it would be respectful to other members in the House if members were to make serious efforts at seeking unanimous consent.
I recongnize the hon. member, a former chair and current House officer, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who is rising on a point of order.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:17:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Blessed Sacrament church in Regina was subject to arson and vandalism, and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the House recognizing the right of Canadians to gather to worship or celebrate their faith—
Some hon. members: No.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:17:24 p.m.
- Watch
I regret interrupting the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, but there is clearly no unanimous consent.
The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets is rising on a point of order. I hope the hon. member has done the honourable thing and has consulted other members before seeking unanimous consent.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:17:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Fisheries threw 300 elver harvesters out of work. I am sure you will find unanimous consent in the House to condemn the government for that.
Some hon. members: No.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:18:08 p.m.
- Watch
Unfortunately, there is no unanimous consent.
Members are really using up the time that is valuable to those who have other business in the House.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:19:25 p.m.
- Watch
We will begin where we left off. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader had just finished his speech, and we were beginning questions and comments.
I apologize for speaking English. I invite my hon. colleague, the member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent, who is well known for his mastery of the language of Molière to come back to the question that he started asking earlier before he was interrupted.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:19:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to answer your invitation to ask a question.
During his speech, the member related an issue with the fact that he considered that, on this side, we sometimes say something that is not true. Unfortunately, that is not a fact.
An October 8, 2022, Global News report stated, and I quote:
How poverty, not pain, is driving Canadians with disabilities to consider medically-assisted death.
An article in the May 9, 2023, edition of the National Post was entitled:
Canada shouldn't deny assisted suicide if social conditions made life intolerable: bioethicists.
There is also a CBC News article from June 22, 2023, entitled “Quadriplegic Ontario woman considers medically assisted dying because of long ODSP wait times”.
This is proof, without a shadow of a doubt, that, yes, unfortunately, in this country, there are people who have had difficulties with their social life and decided to knock at the door of MAID. I am quite sure that, in the minds of everybody here in the House, MAID was not made for that purpose. That is exactly what our colleagues said during their speeches. Does the member recognize that, yes, unfortunately, sometimes MAID could be used for a purpose that was not intended?
215 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:20:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is really important that we do not try to trivialize the important issue of MAID.
I have witnessed Conservatives, many different Conservatives, standing to talk about MAID as something that someone could just go to the doctor today and say, “Jeez, I would like to be able to commit suicide. Can I have an appointment on Friday?” It may not have been in those exact words, but that is very close to what Conservative members have implied in the chamber today, and they have implied it previously.
It does a great disservice to the issue at hand. I would suggest that this whole “suicide on demand” the Conservative members want to classify it as is not contributing positively to the debate. I would ask Conservative members, in particular, to take the debate more seriously, and let us not go to the extreme. I have more confidence in health care professionals, social workers, family members or the individuals who are thoroughly consulted well before any sort of a decision is made.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your accommodating the timing of this. I apologize to the members who are involved in debate, but because the matter is currently under consideration by the House, I think giving the Speaker as much time as possible to consider it would be appropriate.
I am rising to ask that you rule the amendment made to the motion, Government Business No. 34, out of order, since according to Bosc and Gagnon, at page 541, it introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion.
The main motion proposes two things in relation to Bill C-62. Part (a) would establish committee meetings on the subject matter of Bill C-62. It proposes one hour to hear from a minister and two hours to hear from other witnesses.
Part (b) deals specifically with the time and management for each stage of the bill. Part (b)(i) would order the consideration by the House of a second reading stage and provides for the number of the speakers, length of speeches, length of debate and deferral of the vote at second reading. It would also restrict the moving of dilatory motions to that of a minister of the Crown. Part b(ii) would deem that Bill C-62 be referred to a committee of the whole and be deemed reported back without amendments, and it would order the consideration of third reading on Thursday, February 15, 2024.
Nowhere does the motion deal with the substance or the text of Bill C-62; it is a programming motion dealing with process, not substance. While this can and has been done by unanimous consent, it cannot be done by way of an amendment. The consequence of an amendment to allow for the expansion of the scope of Bill C-62 and, at the same time, proposing to amend the text of Bill C-62, is that it would, if accepted, expand the scope of the motion.
The process to expand the scope of the bill outside of unanimous consent is to adopt a stand-alone motion after the proper notice and procedures were followed. Page 756 of Bosc and Gagnon describes that procedure as follows:
Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as...expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House.
Alternatively, a separate, stand-alone bill would suffice to introduce the concept of the subject material that is under the amendment for MAID. It is not in order to accomplish this by way of a simple amendment to a programming motion dealing with the management of House time on a government bill.
If you were to review the types of amendments to programming motions, and I am not talking about unanimous consent motions, they all deal with the management of House and committee time, altering the numbers of days, hours of meetings, witnesses, etc. As recently as December 4, 2023, the House disposed of an amendment that dealt with the minister's appearing as a witness and the deletion of parts of the bill dealing with time allocation. This was also the case for the programming motions for Bill C-56, Bill C-31 and Bill C-12.
Unless the main motion strays from the management of time and routine procedural issues and touches on the actual text of the bill, an amendment that attempts to amend the bill is out of order. For example, on May 9, 2023, the House adopted a programming motion for Bill C-21, the firearms act. Part (a) of the main motion then stated that:
it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, that during its consideration of the bill, the committee be granted the power to expand its scope, including that it applies to all proceedings that have taken place prior to the adoption of this order...
The motion went on at some length, instructing the committee to consider a number of amendments to the act. This in turn allowed the Conservative Party to propose an amendment to the programming motion and offer its own amendments to the bill itself, which addressed illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs and brought in measures to crack down on border smuggling and to stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals and gangs in Canada, to name just a few.
The point is that if the main motion does not address the text of the bill, an amendment cannot introduce the new proposition of amending the text of the bill to the programming motion, which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion.
809 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:26:25 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member for the intervention. We will look at that with the Table and come back with an answer as soon as possible.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:26:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member whether he could speak more specifically to the work of the special committee and how important it was for us to be non-partisan in approach. Medical assistance in dying is such an important and deeply personal issue. It was really the work of the committee that helped us arrive at the decision.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member emphasized how this is a deeply personal issue, to use her words. That is why, at the beginning of my comments earlier today before question period, I tried to amplify why it is so important that the House reflect on what brought us here today.
I reflect on the debates that took place in early 2016, which were conducted in more of a non-partisan approach where members of all political parties talked about what is a very important issue. Nothing has changed in the sense of the importance of the issue. We are talking about an issue of death, and we see that Conservatives are putting a twist on it in an attempt to politicize the issue to the degree that there is some silliness as to what is being implied.
I like to think that anyone who is even entertaining the idea of accessing MAID takes it very seriously. That is the reason why, in good part, I believe that every member of the House, party politics aside, should be looking at what the Supreme Court of Canada right back to 2015, and the Charter of Rights, said our responsibility is as legislators: to come forward with good, sound public policy. I believe that over the years, including today with Bill C-62, we have been addressing a very important issue and that the three-year extension is needed because of the response we are getting from stakeholders, in particular our provinces.
253 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
