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 505
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, voters will definitely remember that, in 2015, the Liberals promised that they would do things differently, that they would respect Parliament and the democratic process and that they would not not systematically impose gag orders.
These days, we see that they are imposing even more gag orders than Stephen Harper's Conservatives. To me that is proof that the Liberals are unable to manage the parliamentary process, that they are doing things at the last minute, and that they are panicking and imposing gag orders on all the bills.
What does the parliamentary secretary have to say about that?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
2019-06-13 10:54 [p.29038]
Mr. Speaker, we have a great deal of respect for the House and the parliamentary process. The things my colleague said are completely false.
We have had an enormous amount of debate on the bill, as I said. Again, I will provide more context for the hon. member. There have been almost 39 days of debate collectively between this chamber and the other House. We heard from 46 witnesses at the House committee and 15 additional witnesses in the other House.
I think most Canadians would expect that we get on with the business of governing, as 39 days is an enormous amount of time. We have listened and we have incorporated many amendments that were suggested, both here and in the other House. Now it is time for us to make sure we deliver on the commitments that we made to Canadians in 2015.
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jenny Kwan Profile
2019-06-13 10:59 [p.29039]
Mr. Speaker, this debate is about the procedure to which parliamentarians are entitled, and that is to engage in debate in the House. What the government is doing is shutting down debate again. I would surmise that the government will continue with this practice, not only for this bill. I would bet anything that after the debate on this bill, there will be another round of closure yet again.
That is what the government is doing, time and again, bringing in closure to shut down debate. I would love to get into the substance of the bill itself, if we are allowed to actually get into debate without closure.
Will the government commit to that?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
2019-06-13 11:00 [p.29039]
Mr. Speaker, let me once again provide some context for the hon. member. The bill was introduced over a year ago. It has gone through 10 days of debate in this chamber and eight days of debate at the standing committee associated with this chamber. In the Senate, there were 12 days of debate and nine days of committee debate. That is 39 days, in total, associated with debate.
After hearing all of the various perspectives, after adjusting the bill and taking account of some of the considerations that were brought forward, Canadians are now expecting us to act.
I would also say that I have enjoyed the very productive and co-operative working relationship with the former fisheries critic from the party opposite with respect to a number of elements of the bill. We are very proud to incorporate Bill S-203 and Bill S-238, relating to cetaceans in captivity and shark finning, to ensure that they are passed through the House and done in a manner that is appropriate. I have been very happy to work with the former fisheries critic from that party.
View Richard Cannings Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I am generally in favour of this bill, as a biologist working in the country for a very long time. The federal Fisheries Act was often held up as only piece of legislation, certainly in British Columbia, that protected wildlife habitat period. It was very much noticed when the previous Conservative government took away much of those habit protection powers.
However, I want to talk about the pattern of the Liberal government to shut down debate on almost everything. I think this is the 70th time we have had a time allocation or a closure motion. We started off today missing Routine Proceedings and going right to orders of the day because the government was afraid of whatever. I had petitions to present and people may have had private members' bills to propose.
I do not know how many times we have gone to orders of the day, but we are supposed to be debating Bill C-88. Instead we are talking about closure and the shutting down of democracy.
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
2019-06-13 11:07 [p.29040]
Mr. Speaker, I simply provide context again. This bill was introduced over a year ago. It went through three days of debate at second reading; eight days of debate at committee, including almost 50 witnesses; and four days of debate at report stage. Now it is going through three days of debate in the House. In the other House, it went through nine days of debate in second reading, 10 days of debate at committee stage and three days of debate at third reading. That is 39 days of debate.
Members on the other side are engaging in filibuster tactics to try to delay legislation before the end of the sitting. We made a commitment to Canadians that this legislation was a priority and that we would ensure we would restore lost habit protections that were gutted under the previous Conservative government. We intend to keep that promise.
View Pierre-Luc Dusseault Profile
NDP (QC)
View Pierre-Luc Dusseault Profile
2019-06-13 11:11 [p.29040]
Mr. Speaker, what we are debating right now is the procedure being used today to limit debate on Bill C-68, not the substance of the matter.
My colleague repeatedly said that there have been 39 days of debate. He feels that is enough, but his assessment strikes me as subjective because we spend much less time, 10 to 12 days, studying 500-page omnibus bills.
At what point would my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, say there has been enough debate? Is five days enough? Ten days? Thirty-nine days? Fifty days? I would like an answer to that question because the minister's assessment seems very subjective to me.
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
2019-06-13 11:12 [p.29041]
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
It is very important that members have an opportunity to discuss and debate important legislation in the chamber and in the other chamber. This has gone through substantial rigorous debate. Many different amendments have been proposed to the bill, both here and in the other chamber. As I said, we have had three days of debate at second reading, eight days of committee hearings, four days of debate at report stage, and three days of debate presently. That is 10 days of debate, and eight days of debate in committee. In the other House, nine days in second reading, 10 committee meetings and three days at third reading. That is a total of 39 days of debate.
It is important we surface issues. We have had all kinds of time to do that. However, Canadians also expect that we are going to act, that we are going to ensure we meet the commitments we made to them in 2015, and we intend to do that.
View Leona Alleslev Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, the most important question at this moment is around the exact roles of Parliament and of debate in this House of Commons. It sounds like the government House leader is trying to convince us that because we have known about it, because it was available to the public and because it has been on the table, we in the House of Commons have absolutely no role, so we do not need to have a debate in the House of Commons. That is egregious.
Eighty per cent of Canada's GDP is trade; 70% of that trade is with the United States, and this is the most significant trade agreement we have with the United States. It is not a free trade agreement; it is a managed trade agreement. It is now compromising our sovereignty, and this bill is going to give unlimited access to the Prime Minister to do whatever he wants and further undermine the role and responsibility of this House of Commons.
We are in a majority situation; members do not always have the opportunity to vote the government down, but we do have the opportunity to debate in this House. The more the Liberals constrain us, the more they undermine Parliament and everything about this deal.
View Bardish Chagger Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bardish Chagger Profile
2019-06-13 12:15 [p.29045]
Madam Speaker, I have good news for the member. What we are saying today is that we should not only have debate on this legislation but also put it to a vote. After we vote on this legislation, it goes to committee. That is how the process works. Members of Parliament sit on committees. The committee to which we send this legislation will be able to continue studying it.
The member has spoken on numerous occasions about her oath to office and about how her oath is to serve her constituents. The very statistics she just provided are all the more reason this legislation should be sent to committee for study. It should be sent back, and we should be able to advance a trade deal for Canadians. Canada is a trading nation. Rather than talk about it, like the Conservatives are now wanting to do, let us actually act on it. Let us deliver for Canadians, to satisfy that very oath the member took for her constituents: Queen and country, I believe, are the words she repeats.
I will remind everyone that the Conservatives chose not to discuss the legislation during the debate on Tuesday, June 11. The member for Niagara West spoke about the carbon price, Bill C-48 and others, but refused to talk about CUSMA. The member for Calgary Forest Lawn spoke about China and foreign policy rather than about the CUSMA legislation. They have had ample opportunities, but they are trying to stop us from advancing this legislation. That does not sound like a party that supposedly supports Canada being a trading nation.
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jenny Kwan Profile
2019-06-13 12:19 [p.29046]
Madam Speaker, the government House leader suggests that the NDP does not support trade. That is absolutely incorrect. It is false. We support fair trade. Perhaps that is the point that government members do not get.
The government House leader said that we do not have to have this debate here in this chamber, because it could go to committee. Not all members sit on that committee. A limited number of people can participate at committee. We all deserve to engage in this democratic process, to engage in a debate with respect to this trade deal.
This is the second time just this morning where the government is bringing in closure. For a government that said it would do things differently from the Harper government, how is that going? How is that going with the sunny ways and with the number of closure motions the Liberals have brought in that is proportionately higher than that of the Harper government?
View Bardish Chagger Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bardish Chagger Profile
2019-06-13 12:20 [p.29046]
Madam Speaker, I would not state anything that is actually not valid and does not have facts to support it. When it comes to members of the NDP, I would love for them to name one trade deal that they support. Canada is a trading nation. We have trade deals with every other G7 country and the NDP has not supported a single one. If the NDP members could just name one trade deal that they support, I would be more than willing to change my statement. However, they cannot because they want to talk a good game. They do not want action.
We are saying that we are going to have debate and then we are going to call the question on the legislation. Then it can definitely advance to committee.
We are the government that has actually increased resources to committees. If the member wants to be on that committee, I am sure that she can talk to her House leadership team and be able to participate on that committee. If she has questions, what I often do with questions that I want posed, I actually work with my colleagues on our benches to see if we can get an answer to them. I actually go to ministers directly to see if we can get an answer.
There are different ways to obtain information if members want to. What is clear is that the NDP does not want to and does not want to call it—
View Tracey Ramsey Profile
NDP (ON)
View Tracey Ramsey Profile
2019-06-13 12:25 [p.29047]
Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the government House leader does not know what legislation has been passed in this House.
I can reassure her that in this Parliament, and she could go back and look it up for herself, the New Democrats supported the Canada-Ukraine deal and other deals as well. If she would correct her statement, I would appreciate that.
The other thing is the Prime Minister and the minister promised that we would have a full debate, not the closure we are seeing today. Again, Liberals are not being truthful and not just with parliamentarians but with all Canadians.
At the committee on TPP, we had over 400 witnesses. We have two meetings left in this Parliament and we will be lucky to get 16 people through there. This is the most important trade relationship that we have. We cannot afford to have this messed up.
I want to say one other thing about what is happening in the States. This is not moving in tandem. The Democrats have not put this on the floor and will not put it on the floor until the provisions on labour, the environment, the cost of medications and the enforceability are improved. This is something they have done. It is not a Pandora's box. They have a precedent for it under Speaker Pelosi.
The Liberals are not being truthful here today. I want to know why the Liberals have been misleading Canadians and saying that they are allowing debate, when they are shutting it down and there will not be enough witnesses at committee.
View Bardish Chagger Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bardish Chagger Profile
2019-06-13 12:26 [p.29047]
Madam Speaker, we have been very truthful with Canadians, and that is exactly why we had a table set up with people from all sectors, all stripes, experts, economists and the list goes on.
When it comes to the member's comments, I would like to say, the NDP supports trade with Ukraine. The New Democrats supported a trade deal. Canada is a trading nation. I cannot even say how many trade agreements we have. We have at least 75 trade agreements, and the NDP supports one out of 75 trade agreements. We should definitely do the math on that. I guess the NDP now supports trade deals. What those members should—
An hon. member: That's not true. There is more than one.
View Bardish Chagger Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bardish Chagger Profile
2019-06-13 12:27 [p.29048]
Madam Speaker, when it comes to Canada and the United States, as the member knows very well, we have the largest border of any two countries. We have a really important relationship. It is really important to our economy and the workers the member represents and fights for.
The NDP and the Conservatives do not really have a lot of interest when it comes to the actual bill, because not a single Conservative or New Democrat MP showed up to the technical briefing we hosted on June 11. If they have concerns and questions, why did they not show up? Sorry, I would like to correct myself: I think one of the members in the official opposition sent a staff member.
However, what I am saying is that MPs want to debate but MPs are not showing up. Let us call a spade a spade and say that the NDP does not want to see this legislation—
Results: 1 - 15 of 505 | Page: 1 of 34

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

For more data options, please see Open Data