SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of Parliament

Blake Richards

  • Member of Parliament
  • Conservative
  • Banff—Airdrie
  • Alberta
  • Voting Attendance: 67%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $145,439.36

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 2 - Nov/23/21
Mr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC)
  • Nov/23/21 4:36:43 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a question of privilege. However, as this is my first time rising in this Parliament, I would like to congratulate you on your election as Speaker. I know you will face a number of challenges, as you did in the last Parliament, and that you will handle them with the same tact, grace and dignity that you always have. Congratulations from this side of the House on your continuing role in the chair. I also want to express my appreciation to the voters of Banff—Airdrie for giving me another opportunity to represent them in this place. No matter how many times one is elected to serve, it is always an immense honour. I am rising on a question of privilege that relates to the decision of the Board of Internal Economy that was announced on the evening of October 19. I will quote from that decision: Speaker of the House of Commons and Chair of the Board of Internal Economy, reports that the Board has determined that, effective Monday, November 22, 2021, individuals must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 to be allowed within the House of Commons Precinct. This requirement will apply to any person who wishes to enter the House of Commons Precinct, including Members.... In media comments the following day, I said that the Conservatives could not agree to seven members of Parliament, and I was referring to the non-Conservative members of the board, meeting in secret and deciding which of the 338 members of this House, who had just been elected by Canadians, could enter this chamber to represent their constituents. Members will recall that, once upon a time, the Liberals were boasting about the Board of Internal Economy meetings being open by default and talking about the great transparency they were going to bring to them. Instead, in this case, we ended up with a decision that has very sweeping constitutional implications being made behind closed doors under a very vague agenda heading referring to legal employment matters. Frankly, that could have meant practically anything to anyone who was looking at the board's website. As the board meeting was held in camera, members will appreciate that I will have to be cautious in what I say about those deliberations, but one of the traditions of the board is that it operates on a consensus basis. Votes are, in fact, very rare. I think there have been fewer than a handful of them in the past decade or two. There are a lot of good reasons for consensus decision-making at the board. That model is important there. Not the least of these reasons is that, when a decision is made, every member of the board can then go back to his or her caucus and simply explain the decision without having to betray the in camera discussions that took place. I will say that the opposition House leader and I abstained from the vote on that board decision, given that we believed that the board lacked the jurisdiction to limit members' access to parliamentary proceedings. I am challenging that lack of jurisdiction here today by way of this question of privilege—
537 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border