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 56
View Joe Comartin Profile
NDP (ON)
View Joe Comartin Profile
2015-06-08 22:51 [p.14764]
Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall Schedule 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall Schedule 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall I rise and report the bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
View Joe Comartin Profile
NDP (ON)
View Joe Comartin Profile
2015-06-08 23:04 [p.14770]
Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: Shall Schedule 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: Shall Schedule 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: Shall I rise and report the bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
View Joe Preston Profile
2015-04-20 15:11 [p.12757]
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114 I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 35th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership of the committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 35th report later today.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
View Peter Julian Profile
2015-02-27 12:33 [p.11803]
Mr. Speaker, I just want to reply to the comments from my friend and colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. If anything, he has served to reinforce the point of order that I made this morning.
I reiterate that he has not at any point contradicted that the rule book says that in committee, motions for the previous question are inadmissible. The member has not contradicted that in any way. That reinforces the principal argument that we made this morning, which is that committees cannot just write their own rule book and that they indeed do have to follow House of Commons Procedure and Practice.
The government House leader made essentially political arguments, and I want to take a few minutes to reply to the political arguments he made before I come back to the technicality. Political arguments are basically the only thing that the government is hanging its hat on.
First is the issue of speed and the importance of the legislation. We have no doubt that this is important legislation that needs to be considered. However, as the 100 law professors across the country noted this morning in their open letter to the government and all members of Parliament, saying that this dangerous legislation needs to be amended or killed:
...Bill C-51 does not include “the type of concrete, effective measures that have been proven to work [against radicalization], such as working with communities on measures to counter radicalization of youth — [and the bill] may even undermine outreach.”
On the issue of speed, we have 100 of Canada's leading law professors across the country, most of whom are in Conservative ridings, saying they have read and scrutinized the bill and that what it would actually do is maybe even hinder the types of measures that the government should be putting into place.
We have seen the Conservatives claw back money from the RCMP. That was an issue in this House last week, as you know, Mr. Speaker. It is a program that was supposed to counter radicalization, and instead the government clawed back money.
We have seen the government gut the Canada Border Services Agency, eliminating hundreds of front-line investigative officers in the Canada Border Services Agency. All the measures that the Conservatives should be taking if there is real concern from the government side about taking effective measures, they are not taking. In fact, the Conservatives have done measures that are counterproductive.
Therefore, the issue that the government House leader raises about speed contradicts every action the Conservatives have carried out over the last few months, except putting in place Bill C-51, which the most learned law professors in the country, the experts that the government members refuse to hear from, say does not include the concrete, effective measures that are needed and that bill may even undermine that outreach and those measures.
Second is the issue of the New Democrats speaking in committee. What the government House leader forgot to mention, or omitted mentioning, is that over the course of this week New Democrats have called for hearings that would include hearing expert testimony and hearing from Canadians. The hearings would take place during both day and evening, including the break weeks. It is Conservatives who refuse to sit during break weeks. It is Conservatives who have refused to sit in the evening. Hard-working NDP members of Parliament, such as the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and the member for Alfred-Pellan, are saying we should sit next week. It is a break week, but let us be in Ottawa and let us hear from experts.
The Conservatives say they do not want to work on this bill next week. We had New Democrats saying they want to sit in the evening and Conservatives saying they do not want to sit, that they want to go to their socials or to the bar and do not want to sit during an evening session.
Quite frankly, it is appalling to hear Conservatives who refused those extra hearings now saying that somehow the New Democrats did not want to work. We always want to work. We are the worker bees in this House. We do not mind being the worker bees. We do not mind scrutinizing legislation. However, it is simply false to pretend that Conservatives wanted to work and New Democrats did not. We want to work night and day on this bill. We believe it requires close scrutiny. It is Conservatives who have systematically blocked that tight scrutiny.
The question has to be asked: what are they afraid of? What are they hiding? Why do they not want full scrutiny of the bill? Who are the Conservatives cutting out by slashing the witness list? How many former prime ministers have expressed concerns about this bill? How many former chief justices or justices of the Supreme Court are they cutting out? How many people who have actually been involved in security issues are they cutting out? How many of those law professors who are some of the leading minds on security issues in the country are the Conservatives refusing to hear from?
They want a short list with only pro-government witnesses, except for a handful of people who may have opposing concerns or real concerns about this bill.
The Conservatives say that they want to hear from the public, but everything they have done this week demonstrates exactly the opposite. They want to shut down debate. They do not want to sit during break weeks. They do not want to sit during the evenings. They want to get through this bill with the minimum amount of public scrutiny.
Finally, we get to the one procedural argument that was raised. I will say this to conclude. You have been very patient, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate that. The argument is what the government House leader admits is a technicality. He said that we had not had a report from the committee, and he was going to hang his hat on that technicality. That is the one procedural argument that the Conservatives have to offer— as if a Conservative majority that has just ripped up the rule book and run roughshod over the procedures, precedents, and practice that we have had in the House of Commons for 150 years, as if the Conservatives are going to send the evidence to the House of Commons.
I am simply going to ask members of the House. We can solve this very simply. If that little technicality is the only thing that the government can point to to avoid the important guidance and wisdom that we have asked for from the Speaker, which we hope to get in the coming days, I am going to ask unanimous consent for the following motion: that the official transcript of the 51st meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security of Thursday, February 26, 2015, be deemed to be the 10th report of said committee and that it be deemed reported to the House.
That way, the evidence is delivered. Conservatives cannot hide it. The government cannot hang its hat on a technicality. What that means, of course, is that the truth will come out.
View Joe Comartin Profile
NDP (ON)
View Joe Comartin Profile
2015-02-27 12:40 [p.11804]
Does the House leader for the official opposition have unanimous consent to proceed?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is obviously no unanimous consent.
I want to thank both House leaders and the member for Winnipeg North for their submissions. I understand that the government House leader may have further submissions. I am sure that the Speaker will be responsive to the point of order as quickly as possible, once the submissions are completed.
View James Rajotte Profile
CPC (AB)
View James Rajotte Profile
2015-02-26 15:12 [p.11748]
Mr. Speaker, following the usual consultations among all the parties and individuals in this House, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance entitled “Towards Prosperity: Federal Budgetary Priorities for People, Businesses and Communities” presented to the House on December 10, 2014, be amended by replacing the following sentence on page 56:
“The Green Budget Coalition asked the government to renew the Clean Air Regulatory Agenda beyond 2016, and to increase funding to at least $45 million annually.”
With the following:
“The Green Budget Coalition asked the government to renew the Clean Air Agenda beyond 2016, and to increase its adaptation funding to at least $45 million annually”.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2015-02-26 15:13 [p.11748]
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to present this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2015-02-24 15:43 [p.11611]
Mr. Speaker, I am a Bomber fan myself and I am an optimist. I believe we are going to go to the Grey Cup this year. I really believe it.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address this very important issue. If we look at the broader issue anywhere in Canada, we would find that there is a great deal of interest in the issue because at some point in time we all have to make some very important decisions. I suspect there is a great deal of interest in what is happening today in this debate.
The Supreme Court set the stage in a clear fashion. It was not a split decision. The unanimous decision of the Supreme Court was that we need to change the law. With that decision, it compelled Parliament to come up with something to replace it. We have a responsibility to demonstrate leadership on an issue that is very important to all Canadians.
That is the essence of what we are suggesting today in the opposition motion. We are asking the government and all parliamentarians to look at what we have before us, to understand the importance of the issue, as I believe most of us do, and to start participating in the debate. It is perhaps most important to recognize the need to have this special committee that we are calling for.
The leader of the Liberal Party said it well earlier today in his opening comments on the motion. He said:
Physician-assisted dying is a complex and deeply personal issue, and Canadians are looking for real conversations about strengthening end-of-life care and support, including palliative care.
I believe the leader of the Liberal Party is reflecting on the importance of the issue and why Canadians are so interested in seeing leadership from the House of Commons. I believe we have approached the debate in a very apolitical fashion and in an open way.
I will get a chance to go over the motion, but most of us were here when the motion was first brought in, and we indicated very clearly that if people have ideas about how we might make some changes to the motion, we are open to amendments. If they have ideas about ways we could make sure consultations are more comprehensive, we are open to those ideas.
The party's decision to put forward the motion today is in recognition that the clock is ticking, because the Supreme Court has said we have until mid-February of 2016 to come up with the changes required in order to have a standard that would apply coast to coast to coast. We want to ensure that the issue is dealt with by the House of Commons. We do not want the law to lapse. If we were to venture in that direction, we would end up having different approaches to the issue that would depend on which province or territory someone happened to live in.
I do not believe, as we heard earlier in comments, that we have to reinvent the wheel, per se. As a number of my colleagues have already mentioned, the Province of Quebec has already made some significant advancements on this very issue. If we look at the length of time it took for the Province of Quebec as a legislature to try to come up with that consensus, it took a great deal of time. It did not occur overnight. That is, in part, why it is important for us to get started.
I listened to a lot of the answers to questions and to comments, particularly from government members. Their primary concern seems to be that they want something comprehensive. They want some sort of alternative to what the Liberal Party is suggesting that would allow for more input, whether from the average citizen, a stakeholder group, or a professional.
There is absolutely nothing that has been raised today that could not be addressed in a special committee of the House. Members know that. We all know that. A standing committee of the House has the ability to compel, to travel, to set its own hours, and to extend. The abilities of a special committee would be no different, because what we are suggesting would be modelled on a standing committee.
So that members will be as clear as possible about what the Liberal Party is suggesting, I would like to go over the motion. It might take a few minutes to do that, but it is important that people understand what the Liberal Party is proposing. As I go through the motion, I want to highlight the fact that the leader of the Liberal Party has clearly indicated that we want this initiative to be supported by all political parties by recognizing the importance of the issue and trying to address it in an apolitical fashion. I say that so that if members hear something that they might not necessarily like, we can talk about it and make changes. The principle is still there.
Here is what is being suggested:
That (a) the House recognize that (i) the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the prohibition on physician-assisted dying violates Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”, (ii) the Supreme Court has suspended the implementation of its ruling for 12 months, (iii) the expected federal election and summer recess limit the remaining sitting days in 2015, (iv) Canadians expect Parliamentarians to take a leadership role on this issue and engage with it in an informed and respectful way, (v) a non-partisan, deliberate and effective discussion took place on this issue in the Quebec National Assembly, (vi) Parliament has a responsibility to respond to the Supreme Court ruling...
The motion goes on to say:
That (a) the House recognize that (i) the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the prohibition on physician-assisted dying violates Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”, (ii) the Supreme Court has suspended the implementation of its ruling for 12 months, (iii) the expected federal election and summer recess limit the remaining sitting days in 2015, (iv) Canadians expect Parliamentarians to take a leadership role on this issue and engage with it in an informed and respectful way, (v) a non-partisan, deliberate and effective discussion took place on this issue in the Quebec National Assembly, (vi) Parliament has a responsibility to respond to the Supreme Court ruling...
It goes on further to explain the composition of the standing committee. The party was not trying to do a one-up. We based it upon current numbers of standing committees. I heard some individuals, from their seats, indicate that we should have more representation from the Liberals. That was actually coming from the other side. We did not make that recommendation in the motion, but if some members feel we should change the composition, again, it is something to which we are open, but at least we are modelling it off a standing committee, including that there be, obviously, a chair and two vice-chairs, one from each party:
...that the committee have all of the powers of a standing committee as provided in the Standing Orders, as well as the power to travel, accompanied by the necessary staff, inside and outside of Canada, subject to the usual authorization from the House; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed...
Again, it goes through the process of a whip and says that in fact members of the committee, no later than March 11, put together a list with respect to the committee that would be put together.
...the quorum of the committee be seven members for any proceedings, provided that at least a member of the opposition and of the government party be present; that membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in [a] Standing Order....
I really do think that is a very important rule that we actually have for standing committees because, at different levels, possibly in different regions, there might be different members of Parliament who want to be able to get engaged on the issue at that committee level:
...and that the committee report no later than July 31, 2015, provided that, if the committee has ready its report at any time the House stands adjourned, when that report is deposited with the Clerk of the House, it shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House.
In reading the motion, I believe it would reinforce many points that I started off my speech by talking about—the ability of this special committee to do the things that are important to Canadians and, ultimately, respond appropriately to what the Supreme Court has challenged us to do by having that unanimous ruling.
Time does matter. We do have a limited amount of time to deal with this issue. If we want to do a thorough job, we are not in a position to do nothing or to wait until after the federal election, as some might want to suggest. We are talking about a federal election that, according to our election laws, would be on October 19. If we are going to be doing the type of consultation that is important and that Canadians deserve, I believe that is just not enough time. In terms of parliamentary days, I believe there are actually less than 50 sitting days left before the House will adjourn for the summer.
However, I know that when members of Parliament from all sides of the House collectively come together and their intentions are good and they want to build a consensus and are prepared to make the sacrifices that are necessary—and I have seen many members of Parliament do yeomen's work in terms of getting a job done when it needs to get done—we do have enough time to be thorough and get that report.
We need to start the process. That is really what the motion we are discussing today is about. If members feel this is an issue that has to be addressed and is important to Canadians, then there is no fear in terms of having this special committee struck, or there should be no fear.
When I was listening to members, Conservative, New Democratic, and members from my own caucus of the Liberal Party, everyone seemed to recognize the importance of the issue. If there is unanimous opinion that the issue is of grave concern and that our constituents would see it that way, then I suggest that we have a responsibility to do what we can in a timely fashion to deal with it.
We have put something forward that is tangible, on which we can actually vote and act. If members do not believe this is the way we should be going, at the very least they should provide an alternative and tell us what we will be doing. They should tell us how that way being suggested would be all encompassing, and how it would address the issues that members on all sides have already expressed in their comments when making the statement that they wanted to consult broadly, have far and wide consultations, as well as many other statements.
In terms of the consultation being asked for, this motion deals with every aspect of that consultation, without exception. If need be, it would even allow for the committee to travel outside Canada if, through consensus, the committee felt that would be necessary. I suspect there would be the unanimous support of the House if it were deemed necessary for the committee to visit every region and possibly every province in Canada on the issue.
I know, as other members know, that there is no shortage of opinion on this particular issue. Time and time again, in listening to the debate today, I heard members give specific examples. I, too, sat at the passing of my father, who had cancer and was in a tertiary hospital, a health science centre, and then ultimately went to his apartment. This is all within a couple of months. Then from the apartment, where there was incredible discomfort, we were able to get him into Riverview Health Centre and a phenomenal palliative care program. I applaud those health care professionals for everything they did.
We all have the understanding and the experiences we could share, not only inside the House but with our constituents.
I want to give a final appeal and say that this special committee we are talking about can do the job. I know parliamentarians can respond in an apolitical fashion, and we would be able to make a difference and do what Canadians want us to do. Let us fill that gap, that vacuum. Let us do what the Supreme Court of Canada has challenged us to do, unanimously. All nine judges have come forward. We can do it. I know we can do it.
If we put our collective minds together, we can come up with a consensus, just as the province of Quebec was able to do. I believe the will would be here if in fact we could get the support necessary for this particular motion.
I am thankful for this opportunity to share a few thoughts.
View Bob Dechert Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bob Dechert Profile
2015-02-24 17:10 [p.11621]
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. He quite rightly said that this issue of physician-assisted dying is something in which 100% of Canadians are interested.
He and his colleagues have outlined today the proposed special committee that would meet periodically between now and the end of July. I wonder if he could tell us how many witnesses the special committee would be able to hear in its deliberations. Could he give us a sense of who they would be and how they would be chosen, and if he thinks that all of the views that need to be heard could be accommodated?
I wonder if he could also clarify something that his colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor said about having legislation developed by this committee proposed and passed by the end of June. I think that the motion itself calls for the committee to sit until the end of July.
View Phil McColeman Profile
CPC (ON)
View Phil McColeman Profile
2015-01-28 15:13 [p.10740]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The committee has studied and has decided to report back to the House.
View Sadia Groguhé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Sadia Groguhé Profile
2015-01-28 15:13 [p.10740]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the dissenting opinion of the NDP, the official opposition, regarding the study on the renewal of labour market development agreements.
This dissenting opinion presents the many relevant recommendations made by labour market stakeholders for creating good jobs for the middle class, recommendations that the committee did not include in its report. The purpose of this dissenting opinion is to make the government aware of these recommendations so that it can respond to them.
View James Rajotte Profile
CPC (AB)
View James Rajotte Profile
2014-11-06 15:07 [p.9300]
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding Standing Order 83.1, the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to present its report on the pre-budget consultations no later than December 12, 2014.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2014-11-06 15:07 [p.9300]
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed
View Paul Dewar Profile
NDP (ON)
View Paul Dewar Profile
2014-06-16 15:24 [p.6888]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to this subject. Just over one year ago, the foreign affairs committee agreed with my request to do a study on corporate social responsibility. That was after the tragic collapse of the Rana Plaza in Bangladesh.
The committee held an additional follow-up study this year. Unfortunately, the committee decided not to produce an official report.
However, I have some good news. We have compiled a report that I would like to table now so all MPs can take a look at the findings of the foreign affairs committee as it relates to the Rana Plaza in Bangladesh.
I therefore seek unanimous consent to table, in both official languages, the report on foreign affairs committee hearings on corporate social responsibility.
Results: 1 - 15 of 56 | Page: 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data