Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 25225
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)
The hon. government House leader is rising on a point of order.
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2022-05-17 10:01
Mr. Speaker, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment today be 12 midnight, pursuant to order made Monday, May 2.
View John Brassard Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I remind the Chair that yesterday I rose on a similar point of order related to Motion No. 11, which says:
a minister of the Crown may, with the agreement of the House leader of another recognized party, rise from his or her seat at any time during a sitting, but no later than 6:30 p.m., and request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the current sitting or a subsequent sitting be 12 a.m.
The government House leader did that. Would he please indicate to the House which other House leader agreed to this? I ask because it was not me.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
Mr. Speaker, there are numerous precedents on the matter of consultation. The Chair has ruled on many occasions that the Speaker has no discretionary authority to refuse a motion if all the procedural requirements have been met. As indicated on page 676 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, “the Chair has no authority to determine whether or not consultation took place nor what constitutes consultation among the representatives of the parties.”
Furthermore, Deputy Speaker Comartin, on March 6, 2014, indicated:
The nature of the consultation, the quality of the consultation, and the quantity of the consultation is not something that the Chair will involve himself in. That has been the tradition of this House for many years. What the Chair would have to do, in effect, is conduct an extensive investigative inquiry into the nature of the consultation. That is not our role, nor do the rules require it. Therefore, I am rejecting the request for the point of order.
Finally, if I may, I will quote Speaker Fraser, who stated on June 6, 1988:
...I do not think the Speaker has the authority, in view of the Speaker's responsibility to rule on procedural matters, to inquire as to what consultation did or did not take place.
There might be some occasion when the question of whether or not consultation had taken place on some matter comes before this Chamber. I am not in anyway suggesting what I have heard today either amounts to sufficient consultation or no consultation or any kind of consultation at all. I am just pointing out that, as I read the rule, it is not for me to get into that. I would not want any comments I made today in any way to take away from the ability of the Hon. Member for Windsor West to argue whether a certain set of conversations did or did not amount to consultation at some future time if the Hon. Member wanted to raise the matter again under this Standing Order or any other.
I am saying that I think I am bound by the rule as it is and that I cannot investigate whether consultation took place because, frankly, the Standing Order is silent as to my authority to do that.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member for Winnipeg North often, but I agree with his point of order today. Certainly, as you are aware, we have seen repeated attempts to have these evening sessions. I will say that I regret enormously the conduct of the Conservative caucus yesterday, which I thought was simply not in keeping with the dignity required in the House of Commons.
View Alain Therrien Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, it does not matter what happened last night in the House. That is not what we are talking about.
As House leader for the Bloc Québécois, I was not consulted about extending today's sitting. I was never consulted about that. According to the motion, the sitting can only be extended if two leaders agree. The government is not disclosing who the second leader is, which raises questions. The motion clearly states that two leaders must agree in order to proceed.
Where is the second leader?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I think the response from the hon. member for Winnipeg North missed the connection with what the hon. opposition House leader was saying, which is that it is not the word “consultation” that is relevant, but the words “support” and “agreement”.
View John Brassard Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for rising on this, because she quite rightly said that Motion No. 11 says “agreement” among the parties; it does not say “consultation” among the parties. The House certainly has the right and privilege to know with whom the agreement was made, or which other leader of the House of a recognized party made it, as Motion No. 11 states.
I ask for some clarity on this. It is quite clear in Motion No. 11 that agreement must be had. There was no agreement by me. Certainly the hon. member from the Bloc said there was no agreement from him. I think we need it stated clearly where that agreement came from, as Motion No. 11 dictates. It does not say “consultation”. A consultation according to the party opposite is simply sending an email around. There has to be clear agreement. Who made that agreement?
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)
I want to thank everyone for their interventions.
We are all hon. members in the House of Commons, and when we say we have consulted with one another, I expect, of course, as I do with unanimous consent motions and others, that there has been consultation among the House leaders. I will continue to push to make sure that consultation does happen on a regular basis, but in this particular case, you are all hon. members and I cannot intercede in the discussion between House leaders on the floor of the House.
Pursuant to order made on May 2, the minister's request to extend the sitting is deemed adopted.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in relation to Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner).
The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.
I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Recommendations following the study of Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner)”. It states:
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee has considered Bill C-233, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner), and wishes to make the following recommendations to the Government:
That the committee considered issues and consequences around the availability of cell service in the use of e-monitoring and recommends the Government of Canada move as soon as possible to ensure access to cell service is available across Canada, and that the committee feels strongly and recommends that when developing training for new judges, the issues of intimate partner violence, coercive control in intimate partner and family relationships, and social context be included.
View Hedy Fry Profile
Lib. (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage entitled “The Rogers-Shaw Merger: Bad News for Local News.”
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
View John Williamson Profile
CPC (NB)
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the 12th report entitled “Main Estimates 2022-23: Vote 1 under Office of the Auditor General” and the 13th report entitled “Lessons Learned from Canada's Record on Climate Change”.
I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the 14th report, entitled “Protecting Canada's Food System”, and the 15th report, entitled “Health Resources for Indigenous Communities”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these two reports.
View Melissa Lantsman Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, another day, another petition, and this time on behalf of 27,000 Canadians. Employees in the civil aviation sector have been on leave since last year, 2021. They were once hailed as heroes, and the government's interim order has put them out of a job. The world has moved on, so should Canada. Drop the interim order.
View Sean Casey Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Sean Casey Profile
2022-05-17 10:12
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of Prince Edward Islanders who are very concerned about the climate emergency and motivated by a book written by Seth Klein called A Good War.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to enact just transition legislation that will reduce emissions by at least 60% below 2005 levels by 2030; expand the social safety net through new income supports, decarbonized public housing and operational funding for affordable and accessible public transit countrywide; create good green jobs; and drive inclusive workforce development.
Results: 1 - 15 of 25225 | Page: 1 of 1682

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data