- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Board of Internal Economy
Deputy House leader of the government
- Liberal
- Kingston and the Islands
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $112,228.33
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Nepean.
Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the ancestral unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
Our collective journey on the path of reconciliation, healing and understanding is not merely a path we choose to walk; it is an essential step toward a better future and an acknowledgement of past wrongs. This is about acknowledging that while we cannot change the past, we have the power and, indeed, the responsibility to shape a better future, which is exactly what Bill C-29, the piece of legislation we are debating today, is all about. Simply put, it would establish a national council for reconciliation.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The second matter relates to the deliberation on the NDP opposition day motion that took place on Monday, March 18. The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier alleges that his privileges were breached when the government House leader moved an amendment to the motion during the debate and the translation delays prevented members from considering the amendment in French.
I submit that there are two matters to be considered in this case. The first is that the events took place on Monday, March 18 and the member raised the argument two days later. This was not the first opportunity to raise the matter.
Second is the fact that the events of the debate of March 18 simply do not support the allegation raised by the member. The member did not raise his question of privilege at the first opportunity, as required.
Page 145 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:
The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House. Therefore, the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation. When a Member has not fulfilled this important requirement, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is not a prima facie question of privilege.
There was no requirement for the member to have time to marshal sophisticated arguments or to substantiate his allegation. If I were to speculate, the member either did not take the matter seriously or did wait to raise the argument on Wednesday for the simple objective of disrupting proceedings related to the consideration of Bill C-29 on that day.
There is no procedural limitation on when an amendment may be proposed to a motion before the House while it is under consideration. The House was under Government Orders when the amendment was proposed. It is a well-established practice that amendments may be moved in either official language.
Citation 552, subsection (3), of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms was addressed this matter. It states, “Every motion that is duly moved and seconded is placed before the House by the Speaker as a question for the decision of the House. All motions must be presented to the Speaker in writing in either of the two official languages.”
I will concede that the amendment was moved later in the day, but this was the result of good-faith discussions between members of Parliament that lasted until shortly before the motion was moved, which is why it was moved in one language.
That is how the House of Commons is supposed to work: rigorous debate and discussions to come to consensus.
It is always the practice of the government to provide all parties with information in both official languages. However, in this case, it was not possible to provide a written copy in both official languages in the time provided, which is why the members of the House were provided with simultaneous interpretation of the proceedings of the House in both official languages.
Third, while the House was suspended to the call of the Chair, the table officers circulated to all parties the text of the amendment in French to ensure that members could understand what had been proposed as an amendment and what they were voting on.
Finally, when the House resumed, after the amendment had been made available in both official languages, the Speaker entertained additional points of order on the admissibility of the motion, which would have offered the opportunity for any member to intervene on the amendment in either official language.
When the Speaker put the question to the House on the amendment, it included text of the motion in French, clearly demonstrating that the text was available in both official languages.
The government strongly believes in the importance of both official languages in the Parliament of Canada. To demonstrate this, the House passed amendments to the Official Languages Act in Bill C-13. Bill C-13 would implement a series of proposals that promote the progression toward the equality of status and the use of English and French. Several provisions of the enactment are therefore concrete illustrations of the constitutional principles set out in subsection 16(3) of the charter.
The facts contradict the assertion by the member that he did not have access to the text of the amendment in both official languages, nor did he meet the test that the matter must be raised at the first opportunity. Therefore, I submit that the matter does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.
789 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I certainly was not trying to suggest that because of the particular member's gender she was not able to find that. All I was trying to do was suggest to the House, and I brought this up with a male NDP member earlier, how easy it is to find the information if one is trying to seek it out.
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member's comments, and she mentioned the Indigenous Watchdog website, so I went and looked at that. As a matter of fact, based on my quick assessment, it is only showing, based on various different institutions, what is considered complete.
She then went on to talk about why there is no availability of what is being done on the calls to action. As I said in my previous question, she can find that very easily. All she has to do is google “94 calls to action” and the rest will pop up. They will populate by Google itself. Then she will find herself on a Government of Canada, not a Liberal Party, website where she can then see what actions have been taken and the results of each one. Every single one has the details on it. It is very easy to find.
I want to thank her for the work that her colleagues did on the committee. It does not matter to me whether the suggestions come from this side of the House, at committee, or working together at committee. I am just thrilled to see that, based on her assessment, three more recommendations could be achieved because of the incredible work of the committee, including the Conservatives who did that work, so through you, Mr. Speaker, to her colleagues, I thank them.
233 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on some of the first comments the member for Winnipeg North raised. I find it very interesting. I would expect this kind of behaviour from Conservatives, but certainly not from the NDP. The member for Courtenay—Alberni stood up, like so many NDP members have, to basically say the government has completely failed on the calls to action. That could not be further from the truth.
All we have to do is google delivering on truth and reconciliation calls to action and we would get to a Government of Canada website that not only tells us the status, but breaks down the details as to what has been happening on each and every action, who is responsible and how the government has been coordinating things.
The NDP would like us to believe that we can wave a magic wand and suddenly all 94 recommendations would instantly be dealt with.
Could the member for Winnipeg North pick up—
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here listening to this debate all day and this is the first time that I have gotten up to even ask a question. I cannot help but reflect on the fact that, time after time, every Conservative who gets up to speak to this links the concept of economic reconciliation to fossil fuel extraction. It is as though that is the only part of reconciliation that the Conservatives are interested in.
I have heard very few comments about anything other than this idea of economic reconciliation. I know the member is extremely proud of the fact that he thinks that the Conservatives think a lot about the economy, as he indicated in his speech, but is there any other part of this bill or, indeed, the reconciliation process that the member or any Conservative member would like to talk about other than economic reconciliation?
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member is attributing comments to me that I simply did not make. He might be confusing me with another member. I never said that.
32 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and I particularly took note of the fact that he took credit for the previous government's truth and reconciliation report. I would remind him that there were protests in the street demanding that the government do that, which finally forced the government to do that.
Nonetheless, I think what is more important is that, of those 94 recommendations, to date, it has only been the Liberal Party that has gone on record to say it would move to implement all of them.
Does the Conservative Party support moving forward and accomplishing all 94 and working with the different jurisdictions to do that? If it does not, which of the 94 does it not support?
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her intervention today, and I appreciate her encouraging all people to read those 94 calls to action.
I wonder if the member could provide a comment on how many of those 94 recommendations the government has acted on, how many are actually the responsibility of the federal government, how many are ongoing and how many are outstanding.
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
