Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 101
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2019-06-11 15:14 [p.28926]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have found the heckling so bad in this corner that I even feel intimidated to raise the point that we are violating Standing Order 16 and Standing Order 18. People are yelling so loudly that I have trouble hearing the answers even with my earpiece. I know raising this makes me unpopular with those who yell, but I hope Canadians will know that some of us in this place value decorum and are actually embarrassed by the conduct of our fellows.
I plead with members to read the Standing Orders and follow them.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2019-06-06 15:34 [p.28709]
Mr. Speaker, it arises out of the point made by my friend from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. We would never reference the presence or absence of a minister in the House. However, it certainly was unusual that the Minister of Environment did not rise to answer questions, which went to her parliamentary secretary instead.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-06-05 15:22 [p.28587]
Mr. Speaker, 3,800 people have signed a petition demanding a public inquiry into the Lac-Mégantic rail tragedy. Over a year ago, a motion calling for a public inquiry was unanimously adopted by Quebec's National Assembly.
I think the Minister of Transport should retract his comments about conspiracy theories.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2019-05-29 15:20 [p.28226]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is not the first time I have risen on this point of order, but it is the first time I have risen on a point of order from my new vantage point in the House.
The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills is completely correct with respect to his point of order on decorum. Under Standing Order 16, none of the members in this place are to speak when another member is speaking, interrupt him or her or speak disrespectfully.
As impossible as it is for me to believe it to be the case, my vantage point in this corner of the House subjects me to more noise than when I was in the other corner of the House, and I cannot hear people speaking.
I am ashamed of my colleagues who cannot control themselves and perform in a way that would make their constituents proud. Think of your constituents before you shout with derision at our Speaker.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2019-05-17 12:20 [p.28013]
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, had it been possible to catch your eye, I had hoped to join in and support the request just made by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Obviously now that the Speaker has ruled, it is not possible for me to make that point.
Perhaps under the Standing Orders, the Speaker could advise me of how best to make sure that, when a request for an emergency debate comes forward, there is more opportunity for other parties in this place to speak to that request.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2019-05-07 15:10 [p.27485]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the Conservatives are going to heckle, the least they could do, in a self-respecting Parliament, is wait until the last sentence or word of a motion.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2019-04-29 13:16 [p.27091]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. There is no need whatsoever for the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes to suggest for one minute that I want anything other than to be the elected member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I have no interest in personal advancement and I am not pandering to any political interest for personal advancement. I ask him to withdraw his unnecessary and absolutely unworthy comment.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2019-04-10 15:57 [p.26943]
Mr. Speaker, I attempted to catch your eye to respond to the earlier question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope. I also would like to put on notice that I will make representations on that motion later.
At this moment, I want to support the motion we have just heard related to Bill C-97 and its status as an omnibus bill. I am still working my way through it, but it is very clear that this meets the definition of an omnibus bill. I regret so much that it has now become common to hear the words “omnibus budget bill” strung together. I did not think we would be seeing this in this Parliament. I believed the Liberal commitments to end the use of omnibus budget bills, but this one does contain sections that are quite disturbing.
As I went through the budget, it was very clear that 35 separate measures within the budget required legislative changes, so it was very clear to me that we were going to see legislative changes for things like changing the interest rates for student loans and getting action on items that we think are appropriate and long overdue. However, bundled up in all of those measures are things like division 16 of part 4 with amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that are deeply disturbing, unacceptable and should never be bundled together in an omnibus fashion in a budget bill.
I will not go on at length, although I could because this is really outrageous. I do hope that we can at least split apart these sections so that the immigration committee studies this division. Otherwise, it is very clear what happens in an omnibus budget bill. Most of it will never get properly studied because it is only before the Standing Committee on Finance. It is not that there is anything wrong or delinquent or inadequate about the finance committee, but it is not the proper place to study substantial changes to other areas of law where the expertise resides with the committee, which is a standing committee, on that issue.
Mr. Speaker, in the strongest possible terms, I urge you to find this bill as omnibus and allow us to split out those sections that require proper and thorough study.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2019-04-10 16:35 [p.26949]
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am really finding this research fascinating and I have been watching Ben Chin's association with the Christy Clark government in B.C., but I am not yet seeing a connection to the bill we are currently debating. I really find it interesting, and I am not being facetious, but I just realized it had nothing to do with Bill C-97.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2019-04-09 15:16 [p.26888]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of question period.
I would have risen if I could have at the moment this event occurred, but under our standing rules, there are no points of order during Question Period. Under our standing rules, we are not to interrupt members when they are speaking. We are not to heckle. We are not to create a din.
Just as a point of reference for you, Mr. Speaker, at the point that you were trying to bring the House to order, when the Minister of Finance was speaking, with the volume at my desk at full, as high as I could listen to it, as far as our technology would take it, I was unable to hear the minister over the heckling. That is just unacceptable, and I wish that we would find a way. We have the Standing Orders.
It is disrespectful to this institution, to democracy itself and to our constituents that we allow this sort of bad behaviour to continue at high volume.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2019-04-04 18:14 [p.26712]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and I am deriving it from the Standing Orders. It is becoming too common to see demonstrations on the floor of the House as we are voting. It is certainly against the rules to have any noise or disturbance while you are putting the question. I seek your guidance as to whether it is appropriate to have clapping, stomping of feet and so on while we are conducting the vote.
View Simon Marcil Profile
BQ (QC)
View Simon Marcil Profile
2019-04-03 15:16 [p.26627]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you will find unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: that this House acknowledge the 50th anniversary of the expropriation of land from Mirabel residents and that this House call on the government to formally and officially apologize to the people of Quebec from whom the federal government expropriated land in 1969 to build the Mirabel airport.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2019-03-20 20:54 [p.26227]
Mr. Speaker, I know we are not supposed to have interruptions. I am not hearing the clerk's vote tally. I hear it carried, but his microphone is not working, and I like keeping track of how the votes are going, and those are not being amplified for us.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2019-03-21 3:06 [p.26274]
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have a brief reminder. I would like members to refer to Standing Order 16(1), which states:
When the Speaker is putting a question, no Member shall enter, walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2019-03-21 3:26 [p.26276]
Mr. Speaker, it is the last thing anyone needs, but I meant to vote no, and I am afraid I voted yes. This is one motion I oppose. I do not want any more public money going to AECL while SNC-Lavalin manages it.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2019-03-21 3:27 [p.26276]
Mr. Speaker, I am in the same boat. I apologize, but I inadvertently voted for this motion when I wanted to vote against it. I would like my vote to be recorded as a nay.
View Xavier Barsalou-Duval Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am rising because I, too, inadvertently voted yes when my intention was to vote no. I would like my vote to be considered as a vote against the motion.
I would like to say that, unlike the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I wanted to vote no, but not because SNC-Lavalin is involved. I am defending SNC-Lavalin jobs. I wanted to vote no because we, in Quebec, have opted out of nuclear energy, and we believe that it is not part of the solution.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2019-03-21 4:02 [p.26281]
Mr. Speaker, I just want to verify that my vote was recorded as yea. I did not vote no.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2019-03-21 4:50 [p.26288]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is really difficult for me, and it may not be acceptable to anyone in this place, but I would like to put it on the record. I have been notified on Twitter by my friend from St. John's that according to his records, and he went to check with the table, I voted no on Motion No. 3, which was funding for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, which I fully intended to vote yes on. I do not know how it happened, and I do not know if it is too late to correct the vote, but I thought I would try.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2019-03-21 6:42 [p.26305]
Yes, Madam Speaker.
Given what the member for Carleton has just said, it is tempting to make the point that if you seek it you will find that most of us here are voting on supplementary estimates so that the Government of Canada can continue to work, and we are not trying to hold up anything.
As much as I agree with the motivation of my friends in the Conservative Party, this is a huge waste of public funds and resources.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2019-03-21 16:45 [p.26391]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point. I was in the lobby when you read the question the first time. I heard the skirmish and came in, but from what I understand you reread the question before the vote. I heard the question and voted. I think my vote should count. That being said, if you think it does not count because I was not here before the skirmish, then withdraw my vote. However, I heard the question, I exercised my right to vote and I think that is legitimate.
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
BQ (QC)
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
2019-03-21 16:45 [p.26391]
Mr. Speaker, I arrived after the skirmish began. Since you read the question I thought I had the right to vote, but since you are saying that is not the case according to your understanding and that we needed to be present from the very start of the skirmish, I withdraw my vote.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2019-02-20 15:30 [p.25562]
Mr. Speaker, now that you have consented to look into the matter, with some trepidation I weigh in to say that the client is not the Prime Minister; the client is the Government of Canada. We in this place need to understand Westminster parliamentary democracy. We are not run by one person on either side of the House. Therefore, I do not think the Prime Minister, individually, is the government, nor is the Prime Minister, individually, the client, and I did not find it improper for him to vote.
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
BQ (QC)
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
2019-02-07 15:05 [p.25406]
Mr. Speaker, my question was for the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human rights. Why did he not answer it?
View Simon Marcil Profile
BQ (QC)
View Simon Marcil Profile
2019-02-01 12:09 [p.25159]
Mr. Speaker, I really believe I have the unanimous consent of the House to table the correspondence between my office and the minister's office concerning the Aveos workers.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2019-01-31 17:02 [p.25122]
Mr. Speaker, I believe the direct statement by the member for Lethbridge, that I was propagating false information, is an attack on my integrity and honesty. I ask her to withdraw the comments and urge her to look at the testimony of the five economists who were before the environment committee this week. They explained that the way in which the large final emitter tax was applied was not an exemption. It is an incentive to further reductions. It is a different treatment, not an exemption.
I really find it offensive that I would be attacked in this place for false information when, in fact, I am absolutely honest in everything I say, and I do my research.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2019-01-30 15:12 [p.25025]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to a question from the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, the Minister of Canadian Heritage made a statement that is beneath the dignity of this House. He said, and I quote, that “the traditional discourse of the Bloc Québécois...seeks to divide and create barriers on the basis of language, culture and colour.”
He accused the Bloc Québécois of making racist statements because we want to protect the French language. He is implying that if Quebec wants to speak French, it is racist. The Minister of Canadian Heritage must immediately apologize for his biased, shameful, untrue and unfounded comments.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2019-01-29 10:05 [p.24933]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today not to speak about the method you will be using for the next secret ballot on the votability of Bill C-421, which was introduced by the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, but to ask that the result of the secret ballot be announced at the same time as the result of the vote.
We therefore ask that the Speaker announce not only whether Bill C-421 is votable or not, but also the number of votes in favour and votes against.
Standing Orders 92(4)(a) and 92(4)(b) have been used only once before. Mr. Speaker, on that occasion, you followed the practice following upon the election of the Speaker, which is to announce the result of the vote with no reference to the number of ballots cast for each side of the question.
On November 27, 2017, my NDP colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby clearly articulated one of the issues surrounding the announcement of ballot results. On that day, he said:
This place runs on precedent and previous practice and the only other use of a secret ballot vote in the House is for the election of the Speaker. That procedure is prescribed by Standing Orders 2 through 7 and they are designed to show the importance of the following of these rules.
It is rather ironic to compare the election of a Speaker of the House of Commons, which falls under sections 44 and 49 of the Constitution Act of 1867, to the votability and thus the constitutionality of Bill C-421, which should be considered as part of the regular legislative work of the House.
We understand full well why it is important to protect and not undermine a new Speaker by not divulging the number of supporting votes he or she received. That helps prevent the Speaker's mandate from being challenged, but who is the government trying to protect in the case of Bill C-421?
The purpose of the secret ballot under Standing Order 92(4)(b) is to allow members to vote freely without their party whip knowing how they voted, but how would we know if the vote was in fact whipped?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Luc Thériault: If any of the members opposite have something to say, then they should rise and say it; otherwise, they should let me talk.
The government is trying to muzzle the opposition by saying that the bill is clearly unconstitutional, when that may not in fact be the case. We are not calling into question the secret ballot, but we believe that it is essential that the number of members who are in favour and the number who are opposed be made known, precisely to counter the government's will to impose a gag order.
To put this in context, a bill can be rejected if it is clearly unconstitutional. The third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice from 2017 is very clear on the subject:
Bills and motions must not clearly violate the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
During his testimony in committee, a House of Commons law clerk explained that Bill C-421 was not clearly unconstitutional because arguments could be made both for and against its constitutionality. Unfortunately, the Liberal majority decided otherwise, not based on whether the bill was unconstitutional, but for its own partisan reasons.
Over the next two days, members will decide whether private member's Bill C-421 can be designated votable. This matter relates to the legislative procedure governing private members' bills, which is something we have dealt with about a thousand times since the last election. It is not a constitutional matter like the election of the Speaker of the House.
It is rare that we see such an obvious imbalance between parliamentary democracy and partisan politics within the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
For the government to use its majority to defeat a bill after debate in the House is one thing, but for it to stop the debate before it begins is another thing altogether.
Civic debate must be allowed in Parliament. What is the point of debate otherwise, if not to serve a parliamentary dictatorship?
Disclosing the vote results, while respecting each member's secret vote, would fall in line with what seems to me should be the goal of this Parliament in the 21st century, namely transparency and democracy.
For the same reasons given by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, for the additional reasons I just outlined regarding the spirit in which the standing order was written, and for the reasons I mentioned about avoiding the kind of obfuscation that can undermine the vitality of parliamentary democracy, we are asking that the vote results be disclosed, specifically the number of votes in favour of the bill and the number against.
View Louis Plamondon Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, you invited members to an official smudging ceremony in the House this morning. This was a wonderful idea, but I am disappointed that 99% of this ceremony was in English and that there was no interpretation.
I have been a member in this House for 35 years, and interpretation has always been available for important events or official ceremonies, or else the ceremony has been conducted in both official languages. There are francophone indigenous communities, like the Abenaki community, that could have participated in this ceremony along with the Algonquin people. This smudging ceremony could have then been in both official languages.
In the future, I hope everyone remembers that there are two official languages here. In this country's history, the indigenous peoples were here first, then francophones were here for 200 years, and after that the anglophones arrived. Clearly, there is every reason to include French in our official ceremonies.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2018-12-07 10:09 [p.24553]
Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I am very torn. I would say that normally, I would want to accept what the hon. parliamentary secretary said. I have an amendment at report stage. I am prepared to speak to it. However, I do not think the rules of this House would allow us to proceed with an imperfect amendment placed before us at report stage. I do not think we can say that we will proceed and hope it all turns out all right, as much as I would like to. I think it would violate our rules to proceed in such a fashion.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2018-12-07 10:20 [p.24555]
Madam Speaker, I have looked carefully at this amendment from the hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington. As we debate this legitimate procedural point, we should not lose sight of the fact that it is very important that the substance of this matter not be overlooked. This is an important amendment that should be included at report stage.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2018-12-07 10:24 [p.24556]
Madam Speaker, I also believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent of the House.
If we start working before you come back with your ruling, that means we will have to rely on the English version.
To the Bloc Québécois, that would be completely unacceptable. It would mean that the House is relegating French to second place, which would be an intolerable outrage.
You are the guarantor of our rights. Personally, as a Bloc Québécois member and a Quebecker, I will never agree to let the English version take precedence, even temporarily.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2018-11-26 15:05 [p.23920]
Mr. Speaker, as you have directed us on numerous occasions, it offends Standing Order 16 in several places when hon. members interrupt someone who is speaking.
I wonder if you could direct us on the question that strikes me. Quite often you will chastise someone you have heard interrupt. Down here we do not hear members interrupt, because the noises, while rude, are isolated. It seems there is a new practice of organized, loud laughter, which is actually so loud that it interrupts my ability to hear members across the way.
I wonder if loud laughter when someone else is speaking, organized by the party whip, could be seen as a violation of our standing rules.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2018-10-31 16:29 [p.23092]
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my friend, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, what he refers to as a convention is more accurately described as sloppy practice. Far too often, people stand and await the Speaker recognizing them.
It is very clear in our Standing Orders that when the Speaker is standing all members must be seated. It is tolerated, I suppose, that people stand up, waiting because this place is increasingly not under the control of the Speaker, with all due respect, but under the control of party whips in the back room who give people lists and give the Speaker a list. The point of it is, when we all stand to be recognized in debate, that is one thing. When people expect to be recognized and are standing, they are actually violating the Standing Orders. It is not a convention. It is simply sloppy.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2018-10-25 15:16 [p.22841]
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to raise this point of order earlier. I did not mean to interrupt the Thursday question.
The level of heckling in this place, and I have mentioned this before, has become unbearable. I am not able to hear the Minister of Environment's answers, even though I have an earpiece.
I have a lot of criticisms of aspects of the government's climate plan too, but I would ask my friends on the Conservative benches to please show some restraint so we can hear the answers in this place.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2018-10-04 15:08 [p.22237]
Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent for me to table Mr. Campbell's book, which offers a new perspective on the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic and will be of interest to all those involved in making decisions connected to this tragic accident.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2018-06-06 15:20 [p.20357]
Mr. Speaker, this is not a novel point of order. It relates to Standing Order 16 and 18, but in particular to Standing Order 16, related to interrupting members when they speak, in this case, the Prime Minister.
I can assure other members that I feel like screaming a good deal of the time when I listen to the Prime Minister, but I do not. It violates the rules of this place when I cannot hear the Prime Minister deliver a response. I do not recall, from this seat, having trouble hearing Stephen Harper. I do not think he spoke louder than the current Prime Minister. The noise from this quarter of Conservatives is unacceptable. It violates our rules.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2018-06-06 22:37 [p.20400]
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I know the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is very entertaining, and I hate to interrupt the flow of the narrative, but it has nothing to do with Bill C-69.
View Xavier Barsalou-Duval Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: that the House call on the Government of Canada to negotiate with the Government of Quebec to allow the Government of Quebec to administer its own income tax returns.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2018-05-03 13:47 [p.19061]
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I attempted to vote yes, but the attention had already gone to those voting no. My friend from Cumberland—Colchester will attest to my standing up, but I was not spotted.
If my vote could be recorded as yes, I would appreciate it.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2018-04-26 15:18 [p.18812]
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am grieved by the disrespect that occurred during this question period. It should not go unmarked that I have not ever seen, and I do not know if in the annals of this House any Speaker has ever seen, the disrespect shown by members of the Conservative Party, rising in unison against a ruling of the Speaker. It was unconscionable, undemocratic, and unparliamentary, and they should apologize as a group. The violations of the rules include interrupting a Speaker when speaking, standing when the Speaker is speaking, challenging a ruling of the Speaker, and doing so in a way that brings disrespect and dishonour to this place.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2018-03-26 15:00 [p.18094]
Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed in question period that occasionally I attempted to gesture to you. I would like to explain. The Standing Orders make it clear that we are not supposed to heckle in this place. It would be a fool's mission to try to get the volume down all the time. However, I do not recall the disrespect toward the Prime Minister and the front benches in the 41st Parliament that I am seeing in the 42nd Parliament. When I cannot hear the Prime Minister's answers, even with my earpiece in, I would ask the hon. members on the opposition benches to at least show the courtesy of not heckling so loudly that other members cannot hear the answers.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
BQ (QC)
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
2018-03-22 15:05 [p.17869]
Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion: That, in the unanimous opinion of the House, the Canadian government respond to the Quebec government’s request by committing to reimburse all costs for the large wave of asylum seekers who arrived in Quebec last year, since refugee settlement falls under federal jurisdiction.
View Xavier Barsalou-Duval Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I share my opposition colleagues' opinion, so I will join the debate. I agree that it is not right for the government to start controlling access to the gallery. I would also like to add that my constituency office received requests to reserve seats in the gallery on budget day, but we were turned down. I felt exactly the same frustration as my colleague who spoke earlier when I saw the empty seats yesterday. I want to thank him for his point of order, and I fully support his efforts.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2018-02-13 15:09 [p.17140]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on two points of order.
First, I find that the comments made by the Minister of National Revenue about my interventions were not entirely respectful and, consequently, she was disrespectful to the constituents of my riding, Joliette.
I ask that she withdraw her comments.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2018-02-13 15:09 [p.17140]
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: that this House call on the government to not apply federal tax provisions that allow the active business income from a Canadian company's foreign subsidiary in Antigua and Barbuda, as well as Grenada, to be paid to the Canadian parent company in the form of dividends that are exempt from Canadian taxes.
I am sure there will be unanimous consent for that.
View Simon Marcil Profile
BQ (QC)
View Simon Marcil Profile
2018-02-07 15:10 [p.16883]
Mr. Speaker, during yesterday's question period, I used unparliamentary language and hurt people's feelings. Since I am not the kind of person who wants to hurt people's feelings, I withdraw my remarks.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2017-11-22 15:19 [p.15432]
Mr. Speaker, subsequent to the point of order my colleague from Joliette raised on November 8, I would like to share some additional observations that I hope will inform your consideration of the matter. I also believe that the vote was marred by irregularities and should be retaken.
As my colleague from Joliette said, the code of conduct for members of Parliament, which is part of our Standing Orders, clearly prohibits an elected member from furthering his or her private interests. In addition to taking part in the vote on Motion No. 42, a motion that will have an impact on his private interests, the Minister of Finance influenced the debate through his then-parliamentary secretary, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain.
As stated in the “Guide for Parliamentary Secretaries”, issued by the Prime Minister on January 16, 2016, a parliamentary secretary speaks on behalf of the minister. In other words, when a parliamentary secretary takes the floor in the House, it is the minister's words that we hear, as we can see on pages 1 and 2 of the guide. On page 1, under Your Role and Responsibilities, it says:
Section 47 of the Parliament of Canada Act sets out the following succinct job description: “The Parliamentary Secretary or Secretaries to a minister shall assist the minister in such manner as the minister directs.” In this context, the responsibilities of parliamentary secretaries generally fall into two broad categories: (1) House business and (2) department-related duties.
On page 2, under House Business, it says:
In this context, the role of parliamentary secretaries in supporting ministers’ House duties includes:
--attending Question Period;
--piloting the minister’s legislation through the legislative process on the floor of the House, in parliamentary committees...and with caucus and opposition MPs;
--supporting the minister’s position on Private Members’ Business;
Later on, the guide specifically talks about the role of parliamentary secretaries with respect to private members' business. On page 4, under Private Members' Business, the guide states:
Given that ministers do not generally participate directly in debates on Private Members’ Business, this is an opportunity for parliamentary secretaries to bring their parliamentary skills to bear. This is particularly so since all Private Members’ Business comes to a vote. Parliamentary secretaries play a key role in the Government's handling of Private Members’ Business, in that they:
--may be called upon to speak for the minister during Private Members’ Hour;
--work with the Government House Leader’s office to organize and deliver the minister’s response to Private Members’ Bills and motions;
As members can see, Minister of Finance, by way of his his parliamentary secretary, reassured members of the House about the government's actions on this matter. He also urged them to vote against Motion No. 42. I remind members that if this motion had passed, it would have affected the minister's personal interests.
I want to be clear. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance should have recused himself from the debates on Motion No. 42, since he speaks on behalf of his minister. I repeat, this minister's interests are directly affected by Motion No. 42. As my colleague from Joliette pointed out, we are talking about the results of a vote and about the integrity of the House of Commons as an institution, which you oversee, Mr. Speaker. We are here, at the heart of representative democracy, and at the heart of the trust that the public must have in its representatives. This vote should be taken again, since it was tainted.
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2017-11-22 15:25 [p.15433]
Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek consent for the following motion: That this House call on the Department of Transport to prohibit the carrying of a knife with a blade measuring less than six centimetres on board aircraft.
View Michel Boudrias Profile
BQ (QC)
View Michel Boudrias Profile
2017-11-09 15:08 [p.15223]
Mr. Speaker, I once again seek the consent of the House for the following motion:
That this House recognize the expertise of the Davie shipyard in Lévis, which represents 50% of the country's production capacity; and
That it call on the government to adjust its national shipbuilding strategy—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Michel Boudrias Profile
BQ (QC)
View Michel Boudrias Profile
2017-11-08 15:13 [p.15137]
Mr. Speaker, I seek the consent of the House to move the following motion: that this House recognize the expertise of the Davie shipyard in Lévis, which represents 50% of the country's production capacity; and that it call on the government to adjust its national shipbuilding strategy to take into account the production capacity of the Davie shipyard.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2017-11-08 15:13 [p.15138]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A year ago, on October 26, 2016, the House voted down my Motion No. 42 on tax havens.
Specifically, my motion called on the government to amend section 5907 of the Income Tax Regulations in order to ensure that the income that a Canadian company brings back from its subsidiary in Barbados, or 22 other tax havens, will henceforth be taxed in Canada.
In my view, the vote was full of irregularities and should be retaken. The code of conduct for members of Parliament is part of our Standing Orders, which clearly prohibit an elected member from furthering his or her private interests. We now know that the Minister of Finance has companies located in tax havens. His family's company, Morneau Shepell, promotes the use of tax havens through pension funds and insurance companies. Adopting Motion No. 42 would have had a major impact on the minister's finances. It would have seriously impeded his ability to carry on business as usual. In the Journals of October 26, 2016, we see that the Minister of Finance took part in the vote and voted against Motion No. 42. In fact, with the notable exception of the hon. member for Cambridge, every Liberal member voted against Motion No. 42 because they were strongly urged to vote along party lines.
On pages 220 and 221 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, published in 2009, it says that members may not vote on questions in which they have a personal interest, and that any such vote may be challenged and disallowed.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2017-11-08 15:16 [p.15138]
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance had a private interest in the motion on tax havens being defeated. As I was saying, according to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, I challenge the Minister of Finance's vote, as well as the vote of all those he could have influenced. I urge you to disqualify them.
As indicated on page 214 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, “On being elected, Members of the House of Commons become trustees of public confidence. Members must place the public’s interests over their private interests and derive no personal benefit or gain from their decisions.”
I know this because the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is responsible for enforcing the code of ethics and the Conflict of Interest Act. She does an amazing job. This is not about the ethics of a single member of Parliament. This is about the result of a vote and the integrity of the House of Commons as an institution presided over by the Speaker. We are here, at the heart of representative democracy, at the heart of the bonds of trust that need to exist between the public and its representatives and without which the House of Commons has no legitimacy. In light of the irregularities and the appearance of conflicts of interest that tainted the vote on Motion No. 42 on tax havens, I think that the vote should be overturned and taken again.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2017-11-07 10:33 [p.15051]
Mr. Speaker, I will have an opportunity to address Bill C-63 in its substance very shortly in the speaking order in debate today, but I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on the question of whether the bill is appropriately put before us. It is the first real test of Standing Order 69.1 on omnibus bills.
I made many attempts in points of order in the 41st Parliament to argue for the splitting of omnibus bills, for setting them aside. The Speaker at that point, currently the leader of the Conservative Party, ruled that was not for the Speaker to decide, and the House had to speak to the matter of whether a bill was properly an omnibus bill or not.
By way of background, there is nothing wrong with an omnibus bill. In tradition, all the Speakers in this place have said if a bill has a central and primary purpose, in order to achieve that purpose, amendments or repeals to other bills are acceptable. What was unacceptable in the 41st Parliament was randomly putting in so many bills. It was not only in the 41st Parliament. It happened in 2009 and 2010. When a bill is a budget bill, to defeat it is to bring down the government, so in a minority government it became political leverage to push through unpalatable bills all at once, with inadequate study. In a majority Parliament, it became a way for the government of the day to move through things expeditiously.
It put us in mind of the statement from Speaker Lucien Lamoureux years ago, who said he supposed there would come a day where the business of the House would be one omnibus bill that goes through all at once.
In this case, we now have guidance. I agree with previous speakers that it is lamentable that the Standing Order changes were brought in by majority rule as opposed to by consensus. However, Standing Order 69.1 is helpful. It gives us guidance, and it gives the Speaker the discretion to separate out those sections that are not properly within the bill.
I will be speaking to this in Bill C-63 in my second reading debate to say this kind of omnibus budget bill bears no relationship to the kind of egregious abuse of process that we saw in Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 in 2012. Those were bills that achieved things that had nothing to do with the budget, were not mentioned in the budget, and were egregious in their impact. This is of an order that is quite different.
I do not find Bill C-63, as an omnibus budget bill, objectionable, but it is quite right, as the hon. NDP House leader has pointed out, that where there are provisions that were not mentioned at all in the budget, if we are to uphold Standing Order 69.1, the Speaker has the discretion to move those parts out and allow separate debate and study of those portions only.
Standing Order 69.1 is an improvement over our previous Standing Orders. It does give guidance. However, I would hate to see the debate in this place misunderstood by anyone observing as representing an abuse of process, abuse of Parliament, and an affront to democracy that we saw in previous Parliaments under the previous government.
View Simon Marcil Profile
BQ (QC)
View Simon Marcil Profile
2017-09-29 12:06 [p.13756]
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to table the email from the office of the Prime Minister.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2017-09-20 15:26 [p.13281]
Mr. Speaker, having come back at the end of summer, I ask for guidance on how to handle this issue of concern, and to remind other members. A number of presenters of petitions have used this time as a launching place for a mini-speech. I know our rules tell us we are to present petitions in summary form, not read them, and not be an advocate for them.
I lament that Arnold Chan's wonderful words to us did not last until today's question period, but that is a point of order for another time.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2017-06-19 15:32 [p.12914]
Mr. Speaker, you appear poised to rule on this matter.
The hon. member for Perth—Wellington was very thorough and impressive in the academic rigour of his presentation. He did not make the case that the rule of anticipation has ever been codified in our Standing Orders, but rather that we could have reference to it.
This is a very critical matter for all members of this place. I have to express deep discomfort, because the Clerk will be someone with whom we will all work and on whom we will all rely, and there does seem to be a matter of extreme haste. The position was posted with a deadline of February of this year, while our current Clerk has been in the position in an acting capacity since 2014. I feel there is something of a rush that may undermine the new person and the government's intent to name a new Clerk.
The member for Perth—Wellington raises a very strong point, because the parliamentary committee on procedure and House affairs had begun the work of asking questions and pursuing this matter. The appointment of our previous Clerk was by consensus; that clearly would be the preferred route here.
I appreciate your time, Mr. Speaker, in letting me weigh in to support the point of order by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2017-06-05 13:21 [p.11988]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I need your guidance on this. The member for Carleton just said that he understood my position was revenue neutrality, but then went on to impugn my motives and suggested my motives were quite to the contrary.
I believe, as a point of order, the member cannot attack my character in the course of responding to a question.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2017-06-02 10:03 [p.11931]
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, during the Standing Committee on Finance's clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-44, I presented an amendment that the committee chair ruled inadmissible. Since the Standing Orders do not recognize us as members of the committee, I was not allowed to dispute the chair's ruling. I was not even able to ask the committee to overturn the ruling. That is how our parliamentary rules treat members of non-recognized parties.
The chair of the Standing Committee on Finance justified his decision on the grounds that it would have broadened the scope of the bill, thereby extending the charge on the public treasury. We disagree. Here is why. The employment insurance fund is no longer part of the consolidated revenue fund. It is managed at arm's length, so there is no burden on the treasury.
Furthermore, my amendment would not broaden the scope of the bill or the benefits. It is not a new benefit. It merely extends the qualifying period, much as Bill C-44 does anyway.
Bill C-44 makes it possible to go back further than 52 weeks when it comes to sick leave, preventive withdrawal, or compassionate leave, but not in the case of parental leave. This bill makes changes to the employment insurance program regarding maternity leave and seeks to increase the number of weeks a woman is eligible for benefits during her maternity leave. What happens, though, when the mother loses her job during her maternity leave or just a few days later? She will be penalized.
The current EI system penalizes women who lose their jobs right after giving birth. This government, which claims to be a feminist government, has been aware of this situation for at least a year, and yet it does nothing. It continues to allow women who lose their jobs to be penalized by the EI system, which it refuses to change.
Our amendment has only one purpose, which is to protect mothers and children when the moms lose their jobs. Imagine a single mother who has just had a baby and then loses her job. That is truly heartbreaking.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to allow me to debate this amendment today on behalf of women. I am sure you understand how difficult it can be for women who find themselves in these situations, but I also understand that it is not up to you to change the rules of the House.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2017-06-01 13:11 [p.11832]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize for interrupting, but I am sure the hon. member intended to say Prime Minister and not his proper name.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2017-05-30 15:14 [p.11664]
Mr. Speaker, this is a point of order that relates to our Standing Orders, particularly Standing Orders 16 and 18, which taken together mean we should not be interrupting each other in this place, nor speaking disrespectfully of each other. I noted today that we did have a duck question, and I know that sometimes ministers do duck questions. I also know that there are many canards on all sides of this place and sometimes, as today, the atmosphere becomes foul.
I just wanted to suggest that when it is not our—
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2017-05-29 15:08 [p.11541]
Mr. Speaker, I hope you will not mind a brief commentary before my point of order, which will relate to Standing Orders 16 and 18, to congratulate the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle on becoming the Leader of the Opposition.
I do recall his time as Speaker, and I hope he will too as he helps this place restore respect for the rules regarding heckling. Goodness knows, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the new Leader of the Opposition, knows those rules inside and out. However, I hate to mention that in today's question period, the noise was all coming—not all, not entirely, but primarily—from the Conservative benches. I hope he will turn his attention to that.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2017-05-18 15:13 [p.11432]
Mr. Speaker, during statements by members, I said that 40 ghost members, including the Prime Minister, found it easier to stand up for Monsanto than for Quebec consumers, in reference to yesterday's vote on GMOs.
My hon. colleague from Sherbrooke pointed out to me that the members for Brome—Missisquoi, Pierrefonds—Dollard, and Vaudreuil—Soulanges voted in favour of his bill. I want to correct my statement to say that it was not 40, but 37 members.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2017-05-17 15:18 [p.11319]
Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to be helpful, I return to the problems with observing and honouring Standing Orders 16 and 18, which make it against the rules of this place to interrupt people when they are speaking or to speak disrespectfully. The use of the term “heckling” is no longer adequate. Heckling suggests occasional interruptions by individual members who yell something out.
I do feel for those members of the opposition parties who are not participating. Clearly, many people on these benches are caught up in what appears to be a roar of derision and rudeness from their colleagues. Not every member of the opposition is participating, but they are lost in what becomes a sort of amorphous blob of rage, like some sort of non-human creature craving raw meat. I do not know what can be done, but I urge my colleagues to look at the Standing Orders, and try to observe them.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2017-05-04 15:10 [p.10782]
Mr. Speaker, one might think that the hon. member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas and I had a simultaneous sense of a point of order. I ask for your indulgence for just a moment.
It has been six years since those of us elected on May 2, 2011, have served. I recall distinctly the opening of the 41st Parliament, in which most parties in this place took a pledge never to heckle. The initiative was led by the late Jack Layton on behalf of the New Democrats. Stephen Harper endorsed it, and for comic relief, my entire caucus pledged never to heckle. Since that time, the disappointed group in this corner, led by interim leader Bob Rae, said that they were not so sure, that they might need to heckle.
At this point I need to turn for reference to a quote from the great A.A. Milne in the poem of good bears and bad bears: “And then quite suddenly (just like Us) One got Better and the other got Wuss”.
The NDP members, over the last few weeks, have hardly been heckling at all. The Liberals have hardly heckled at all. However, it seems the Conservatives feel there is a void and they must fill it with more noise than I have ever heard in this place. I urge them, as individuals and collectively, to please honour Standing Order 16 and 18 and find a way to tone down the violence—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2017-05-03 15:22 [p.10694]
Mr. Speaker, you are the guardian of our rights. Again today, the government claimed that every member could contribute to parliamentary reform. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The parliamentary reform introduced by the government and the government's handling of this file tramples the rights and privileges of members who do not belong to recognized parties. Hundreds of thousands of voters are being muzzled. I have checked, and I want to—
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2017-05-01 18:06 [p.10602]
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I hope you can shed light on this. I do not believe it is the option of a member of Parliament to pass judgment on the relevance of a question. It was directly relevant to points made by the member for Lethbridge. She raised the People's Republic of China. She called the current government a dictatorship. She claimed that the previous government under Stephen Harper was not one. I pointed out that the reality of the fact is somewhat to the contrary. She raised all those points. How does she rule on relevance?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2017-04-10 16:14 [p.10392]
Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order. I have been wrestling with myself on this point of order, but now that there are just five minutes remaining I wonder if the member plans to address the bill we are debating today, Bill C-17, the Yukon environmental and socio-economic assessment act. As nostalgic as we all are for the destruction of environmental laws under Bill C-38 back in 2012, I really wonder if the member has some views on the current bill.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2017-04-10 16:15 [p.10392]
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I asked the hon. member, on a point of order that was reasonable, what was the relevance. His response, which is an attack on something that is most outrageous, was the assumption that I did not understand numbers and that I was harried. I am sorry, I want to hear speeches that are relevant to the subject we are debating today, and to attack me personally is completely unacceptable.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2017-04-04 15:04 [p.10147]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As we know, we are debating in this place changing the Standing Orders, but I would like to refer, for my point of order, to our existing rules, Standing Orders 16(2) and 18. The combined effect of these two Standing Orders is that interrupting members or speaking disrespectfully of them violates the rules of this place.
The amount of heckling, which I know many members say they would like to curtail, is getting completely out of hand from my little corner. The Liberals no longer heckle, but the Conservatives and the New Democrats are heckling fiercely, and it is a violation of this place.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2017-02-16 15:05 [p.9051]
Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek consent for the following motion, which is seconded by the member for Humber River—Black Creek, the member for Chilliwack—Hope, the member for Vancouver East, and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
That the House recognize the injustice, abuse and suffering endured by the British Home Children as well as the efforts, participation and contribution of these children and their descendants within our communities; and offer its sincere apology to the former British Home Children who are still living and to the descendants of these 100,000 individuals who were shipped from Great Britain to Canada between 1869 and 1948, and torn from their families to serve mainly as cheap labour once they arrived in Canada.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2017-01-31 19:57 [p.8282]
Mr. Speaker, I surfed my rules of procedure thinking there might be a point of order I could raise, but I could not find an order dealing with my request.
Outside in the cold, I have never seen anything like it. There are people lined up to get into this place. The public galleries are full. I have never seen an emergency debate at night draw crowds. Those people are very cold, and I would ask the minister if he would join me in asking that whatever procedural steps need to be taken are taken to ensure that the people waiting outside get in for this debate. Canadians' consciences have been struck deeply by the appalling executive order of the Trump administration, and Canadians outside in the cold would like to be in here watching parliamentarians debate.
View Simon Marcil Profile
BQ (QC)
View Simon Marcil Profile
2016-12-13 15:03 [p.8037]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance urged me to read the provisions of Bill C-29. He said:
He might want to know what he is talking about before asking a question. I can tell him very clearly that, in Marcotte, the Supreme Court asked us to clarify consumer protection provisions.
I read the Marcotte ruling. The court does not call on the federal government to do anything; rather, it requires the banks to respect Quebec and Quebec laws. In fact—
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2016-12-01 15:06 [p.7521]
Mr. Speaker, it is a point of order to point to the rules that say that no member shall speak disrespectfully of other members in this place. I believe the entire membership of the electoral reform committee was disrespected by the Minister of Democratic Institutions.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2016-11-30 15:20 [p.7444]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. While I agree with the current opposition House leader, I temper my comments by recognizing the irony that in the previous Parliament, it was her government that quite often brought such a motion forward. However, as a representative of the smallest party, our opportunity to speak in routine proceedings, to put forward petitions and so on, is grievously interfered with as this practice becomes more routine.
As I support the comments made by the member for Victoria, and the hon. opposition House leader, I urge that we find a solution so that we can proceed with routine proceedings more—forgive me—routinely.
View Simon Marcil Profile
BQ (QC)
View Simon Marcil Profile
2016-11-28 11:04 [p.7281]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning remarks during question period last Monday.
There are many dairy and cheese producers in my riding, and this subject is very important to me. However, I used an unparliamentary word that caused a commotion. I would like to withdraw that word unequivocally, and I apologize.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2016-11-21 15:07 [p.6999]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Did you note the fact that the member for Mirabel withdrew his remarks?
View Simon Marcil Profile
BQ (QC)
View Simon Marcil Profile
2016-11-21 15:07 [p.6999]
Mr. Speaker, now that everyone knows what I am thinking, I withdraw my remarks.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2016-11-15 15:18 [p.6762]
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. government whip for the magnanimity in allowing the NDP votes to count. I was able to register my vote, but I was confused by the fact that I had not gotten to my seat yet, with the NDP votes first, as they usually would be, so I would also like my vote to count as for the motion.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2016-11-15 16:18 [p.6771]
Yes, Mr. Speaker. I hate to interrupt my friend in her speech, but I heard her say a word that I know is distinctly unparliamentary, and I think she may want to withdraw it. The word was f-a-r-t.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2016-11-15 16:19 [p.6771]
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot to say about the content of my friend's speech. I am deeply concerned, as are all people in this place, for Canadians who are hurting from the economic downturn.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2016-11-15 16:20 [p.6771]
Mr. Speaker, the reason I feel it is important to make something of the member's choice of words is that she then accused people opposite her for reacting. In that context, decorum and respect are important in this place.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2016-11-15 16:21 [p.6771]
Mr. Speaker, I remind those who are now heckling me that they are breaking the rules of this place when they do so.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2016-11-15 16:21 [p.6771]
Mr. Speaker, I have never heckled in this place, not once, and I have never used language that was unparliamentary, not once. I recognize my friend's passion, but I do not forgive, nor do I accept—
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2016-10-25 10:11 [p.6062]
Mr. Speaker, I did not understand your ruling, and more to the point, I did not hear any grounds. I heard only a statement. I would have liked to hear at least some grounds.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2016-10-24 17:33 [p.6047]
Mr. Speaker, entirely inadvertently I am sure, the official opposition advocate for opportunity used the opportunity to use the personal name of the Minister of Finance. I think he will regret that. It's just a hunch.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2016-06-01 15:11 [p.3884]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to statements we just heard during question period.
I am sure that if we ask—
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2016-06-01 15:11 [p.3884]
Mr. Speaker, in light of the statements made during question period, I am sure that if you were to ask all parties in the House about membership of the electoral reform committee, people would give the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois the right to participate and vote.
I would like to move the following motion; “That the participation of the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party be governed by the same provisions governing all other members and include the right to vote”.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2016-05-16 15:07 [p.3376]
Mr. Speaker, the minister stated twice in the House that she had invited members of the Bloc and the Green Party to join her committee. What she failed to mention, however, is that we will not have the same rights as the other members, since she denied us our right to vote on this committee.
Are the members of the Bloc Québécois second-class MPs?
Some hon. members: Yes.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2016-05-16 15:08 [p.3376]
Mr. Speaker, I just asked a question and some of those people had the gall to answer in the affirmative.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2016-04-20 15:25 [p.2482]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Please forgive me. I noticed some confusion at the Table. I did intentionally abstain. I do not approve of the fundraising, but I thought the business of supply was too much of a—
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2016-04-11 13:42 [p.1987]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a brief point of order. I think that nothing is as critical in this place as the ability to debate issues as important as the budget. I find it disturbing—and I do not know if there is anything that can be done about it—that the construction noise is so loud that it vibrates through our desks and reverberates through our brains. I have missed much of what the hon. member for Malpeque was trying to say, and I do not know if anything can be done.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2016-02-24 19:04 [p.1346]
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Members of Parliament are not to refer to the presence or absence of others in the House. I was offended earlier when this gentleman suggested people were asleep across the way. No one is asleep. We are all listening to the hon. member.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2016-02-02 10:08 [p.698]
Mr. Speaker, this is the first convenient moment to raise a point of order about a disturbing trend. Last night in the votes, I have to say it became intolerable. I refer to our rules, and you will find at page 580 of O'Brien and Bosc the following reminder:
From the time the Speaker begins to put the question until the results of the vote are announced, Members are not to enter, leave or cross the House, nor may they make any noise or disturbance.
Mr. Speaker, we have had a poor practice, certainly in the last Parliament and continuing to this one, of constant interruptions for wild applause for members of one's own party as they vote. That is against our rules. It was particularly disturbing last night to hear booing across the floor for members as they voted.
Our rules are clear that the occasion of voting is not an occasion for demonstrations of any kind. Mr. Speaker, I ask for your guidance on this point and a reminder to members.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2016-01-26 15:08 [p.446]
Mr. Speaker, I think you will find this a real point of order. It comes from our Standing Orders. It is not just a small reminder, but picks up from your efforts earlier in question period to remind members. While I was at COP21, I heard great news from Parliament that there was a new spirit in this place, that there was a real consensus around no heckling, and that we could expect greater decorum.
Mr. Speaker, you said from your chair that you could hear the noise. From here, I want to remind members that Standing Order 16 and Standing Order 18 make it an offence to interrupt members when they are speaking and to be disrespectful to members. I would like to see some respect for our rules and decorum in this place, and I would do anything in my far corner to assist you, Mr. Speaker, because in the noise I could not hear members' questions and ministers' answers.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2015-12-10 10:16 [p.205]
Mr. Speaker, I would just like some clarification on this motion. I do not have the text of the motion.
Will the Bloc Québécois be part of the committee?
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2015-12-10 10:18 [p.205]
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your open-mindedness. My hon. colleague had a lot to say, but I still do not have an answer to my question. Quebec has indeed been leading the way and I wonder whether beyond the fact that we can—
Results: 1 - 100 of 101 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data