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 102
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-06-18 10:24 [p.29267]
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present petitions from people who live in my riding of Portage—Lisgar. These petitioners are asking that medical practitioners, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, etc., would have protection of freedom of conscience when they are administering health services.
View Ted Falk Profile
CPC (MB)
View Ted Falk Profile
2019-06-11 10:29 [p.28887]
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Banff—Airdrie for his advocacy for parents who are mourning and grieving the loss of a child.
Owen Reimer is an individual from my riding. He is a businessman, a financial planner, and he works very hard. His wife, Stephanie, is an X-ray technician. She is also my niece, which makes Owen my nephew. They have one son living with them. They have had three sons die in their arms. I want to acknowledge this morning Kieran, Micah and Tobias, newborns, conceived in their mother's womb, nurtured as a mother would care as best she could, and then to have them born and to cradle them, but to have them pass away in their parents' arms.
This bill would give grieving parents like them the proper time to grieve, without the government making life difficult. What the member for Winnipeg North has done with this outburst, with his yelling and the rant we have just witnessed here, is a poor display of parliamentarianship. I would ask the member for Banff—Airdrie to respond to that.
View James Bezan Profile
CPC (MB)
View James Bezan Profile
2019-06-03 15:37 [p.28421]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present e-petition 2126 with almost 750 names on it. It is in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-266, the respecting families of brutalized persons act.
As members will recall, individuals convicted of abducting, sexually assaulting and murdering currently can get parole at year 23. The petitioners call on Canada to pass the bill to give the courts the power to increase parole ineligibility to 40 years to ensure that families of victims are not revictimized. The bill is fair, just and compassionate.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-05-29 16:30 [p.28235]
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I did hear noes from the other side as well. We all heard some noes.
View Ted Falk Profile
CPC (MB)
View Ted Falk Profile
2019-05-28 10:11 [p.28108]
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here signed by dozens of Canadians.
They are concerned that the government has forgotten about section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which identifies, among other things, the freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of belief as fundamental freedoms. They are concerned that the attestation requirement for the Canada summer jobs program is a violation of section 2 of the charter. They are calling on the Prime Minister and the government to defend freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of belief and to withdraw the attestation requirement on the Canada summer jobs program.
I have two other signed petitions that identify the same concern. I would be prepared not to speak to those individually but to lump them all together, with your permission, Mr. Speaker.
View James Bezan Profile
CPC (MB)
View James Bezan Profile
2019-05-27 15:52 [p.28065]
Madam Speaker, I have a dissenting report attached to the official report from the Standing Committee on National Defence. The Conservative members on the committee feel that there are a number of omissions in the report. There was some testimony that was absent and understated, and the report did not reflect all the testimony we heard.
We believe that the Liberal members on the committee neglected to demonstrate how the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Mali serves our national interest, were unable to substantiate their rhetoric on what actually is peacekeeping, failed to address the risk environment inherent in modern peacekeeping missions and failed to acknowledge the importance of consulting Parliament before committing our troops to war zones. More important, the report also failed to address the issue of crimes committed by troops from contributing nations during UN missions, which actually undermines the overall statement on modern-day peacekeeping.
We have made several recommendations. We have included testimony from General Fraser, General Lewis MacKenzie, Bruce Jones and Ian Johnstone, who we felt provided a lot more depth and robust discussion on both the positives and negatives in UN peacekeeping missions.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-05-16 10:21 [p.27910]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition with thousands of signatures from Canadians from every part of the country, calling on the Prime Minister to resign. The petitioners are not doing this lightly. This is unprecedented. It is because these Canadians believe the Prime Minister has lost the moral authority to govern.
Given the cover-up that he has been embroiled in with SNC-Lavalin and other ethical lapses, Canadians are seeing that the Prime Minister, who said he would be a leader with ethics, an open leader, somebody who was transparent, has indeed been the exact opposite. Because of that, literally tens of thousands of Canadians are joining with us and calling on the Prime Minister to resign.
I want the petitioners to know that we are in the last days of this Parliament and an election is coming up. However, I wanted to present this petition on their behalf and ask that the government look at this seriously and look at the reasons behind this petition.
View Ted Falk Profile
CPC (MB)
View Ted Falk Profile
2019-05-15 15:23 [p.27840]
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to present a petition on the trafficking of human organs that have been removed from victims without their consent.
This petition urges Parliament to pass legislation, both in the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, that would prevent people who have done that from entering Canada.
View James Bezan Profile
CPC (MB)
View James Bezan Profile
2019-05-07 10:08 [p.27436]
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a petition today especially knowing that we are approaching Falun Gong international day. It will be the 20th anniversary this week. The petition is signed by over 100 Canadians.
The petitioners are asking the government to use the Magnitsky act, which we passed in this Parliament, to sanction individuals responsible for extrajudicial killings and organ harvesting from Falun Gong participants in China.
The motto of Falun Gong practitioners is truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. Unfortunately, they are not experiencing that in China, so we need to take action against those who are responsible for their persecution.
View James Bezan Profile
CPC (MB)
View James Bezan Profile
2019-05-01 15:31 [p.27241]
Madam Speaker, I am proud to present petition e-1950, started by John Feldsted, in the riding of Kildonan—St. Paul, which has 1,251 names on it.
When Jerry Dias, the president of Unifor, came out with a statement that he was going to make sure that the members of the Unifor union who are in the media and journalistic sector would be making certain statements against the Conservative Party, he started this petition. He is calling on the Government of Canada to make sure that steps are taken to protect the journalistic integrity of our media and to make sure that the free press is respected.
View Ted Falk Profile
CPC (MB)
View Ted Falk Profile
2019-04-11 10:15 [p.26975]
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition in support of two bills, one presently before the House and one before the Senate, Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. Both bills address the issue of the illegal harvesting of organs from donors who, in all likelihood, have not given consent for the removal of these organs. As well, the petitioners ask that the people involved in that industry be prohibited from entering our country.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-04-05 12:16 [p.26747]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to table a petition signed by Canadians from across the country who were happy and relieved when our Conservative government got rid of the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry and then were saddened and dismayed to see the current government introduce legislation in the form of Bill C-71 that once again targets law-abiding gun owners.
These signatures are not just from gun owners; they are from families of hunters and families of people who are using firearms for legitimate purposes in rural areas. These petitions are from Canadians right across the country who want gangs and violence and drugs addressed by legislation, not by targeting law-abiding firearms owners.
I am happy to table this petition and to be able to continue to fight for the rights of law-abiding firearms owners.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-04-01 15:53 [p.26525]
Mr. Speaker, I rise to contribute to the question of privilege that was raised by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby regarding the recorded division on opposed vote no. 126 during this year's interim estimates.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, during that vote many Liberal members entered the House after the question was put by the Assistant Deputy Speaker. After an hour of points of order, the Chair invited members to come forward, be honest and declare whether or not they were in fact in the chamber when the question was put. If they were not, the Chair called upon those members to identify themselves and withdraw their votes.
A number of members did just that. They showed honesty and principle. However, many more members did not. This was in spite of being clearly seen entering the chamber after the question was put by the Speaker. I know Canadians have seen the video. In fact I have gotten messages they have sent me. Canadians saw what happened. All of us were here and saw what happened. If you check the video, Mr. Speaker, you will confirm what I am saying. I know that this is a point that was urged upon the Chair at the time as well.
At page 81 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it refers to a ruling from Speaker Sauvé, who stated in that 1980 ruling:
…while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred.
One way of looking at what took place during the vote is to conclude that certain members had found a unique and a disturbing way to mislead the House deliberately, and in so doing interfered with the proceedings of the House. Normally we talk here about misleading the House in the sense of words spoken, but that is not the only way to mislead someone. In this case, it is a matter of misleading both through actions and inactions or omissions committed by members.
On page 15 of the 24th edition of Erskine May, a contempt is described as:
Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results, may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
In the first instance, by standing up and voting despite not having heard the question read by the Chair, which everyone saw, including Canadians watching the camera, it is an act I contend be a contempt of the House.
To be sure, we are not talking about a one-off accidental or inadvertent error by someone who was not paying close attention to the vote. That has happened in this place and we all know it could happen. Members walk in, they realize they did not hear the vote and they tell the Speaker. That is not what we are talking about in this case.
As I said earlier, the House, in fact, was seized with an hour of points of order before and following the taking of the recorded division. It would, frankly, have been impossible for any member present at the time not to have been consciously aware of what was going on and what the live controversy was before the House.
The second element of which I am concerned about here is the inaction or the omission. By staying silent after being called upon by the Assistant Deputy Speaker, certain members have deliberately misled the House regarding the recorded division on opposed vote no. 126.
As a result, the records of the House on this vote are simply in error and, therefore, false. The records have been falsified through the inaction of these members who did not take the appropriate steps when prompted and called upon to do so. At page 82 of Bosc and Gagnon, falsifying the records of the House and deliberately misleading the House are both listed as offences treated as contempt.
This is a very serious matter that strikes at the very heart of our parliamentary system of democratic governance. The government may have actually lost a confidence vote that night. All of us who were here for that vote, including Canadians who witnessed it, saw it happen.
It is one thing to act and believe in the honour of all of us as members of Parliament, but if the House trusts our honour and then evidence comes forward that our honour was indeed not intact, the House, the Speaker and the office has an obligation to act on that.
It is one thing for a member to say that he or she is honourable, but if proof exists that he or she is not honourable as a member of Parliament, that cannot be ignored, nor should it ever be ignored. At page 82 of Bosc and Gagnon, falsifying the records of the House and deliberately misleading the House are both listed as offences and treated as contempt. This is a very serious matter. It strikes at the heart of our system and, as I said, the government may have actually lost a confidence vote that night.
I want to offer this citation from Beauchesne's. In the sixth edition at page 3, it talks of the basic principles of parliamentary law, which are “To protect the minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of the majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner”. It also states further down the same page that Canada is, in short, “a responsible Cabinet system with the assumption that there will always be a recognizable Government with a legislative programme. ...the system also presupposes an Opposition ready and willing to attack the Government in an attempt to have its legislation altered or rejected.”
That should have produced results as a consequence of the votes on the interim estimates. Opposed vote no. 126 should have been rejected. Had opposed vote no. 126 occurred in an honourable, legal fashion, which should have happened, there is a very good chance that the estimate would have been rejected. Therefore, the supply bill based upon the interim estimates, Bill C-96, should have been altered accordingly before being disposed of by the House.
There is ample evidence of this. There is ample evidence that the government blatantly disregarded the constitutional convention of prosecutorial independence when it sought to protect its corporate friends during the SNC-Lavalin affair. However, there is ample evidence that about 50 members misled the House. We all saw it in plain view. The cameras caught it in plain view, while the table saw it and the Deputy Speaker saw it. It was seen in plain view. That is now another cornerstone of our unwritten Constitution. The confidence convention is being undermined for Liberal interests.
During the votes on interim estimates the government attempted to interfere. If we do not take action, it will be successful at interfering with parliamentary law, the law that is supposed to secure our democratic principles and protect the House from the tyranny of a majority government, a government that we have currently seen use its majority to shut down the justice committee and now shut down the ethics committee. We now find that the majority government is rigging votes in the House of Commons to protect itself from losing the confidence of the House and having to face the verdict of Canadians at the ballot box.
As I said earlier, certain Liberal members have found a unique and disturbing way to try to mislead the House, which may have profound consequences and cannot be ignored. The government may have actually lost a confidence vote. However, since up until this moment there has been no accountability mechanism in place to deal with the actions of these members, the government appeared to have been able to dodge a bullet.
This is, Mr. Speaker, where we are asking for your intervention. Perhaps this question of privilege could serve as a means for accountability. If anything, it is certainly worthy of study at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Maingot's second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, at page 227, suggests that:
In the final analysis, in areas of doubt, the Speaker asks simply:
“Does the act complained of appear at first sight to be a breach of privilege...or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should...leave it to the House.”
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you find a prima facie case in response to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
View Robert Sopuck Profile
CPC (MB)
Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt my fellow Manitoban, but talking about Supreme Court appointments is clearly ridiculously off topic. It is not relevant to this debate, and I would ask you to direct the speaker to stay relevant to the topic.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-02-28 10:21 [p.25890]
Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to seek leave for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing an important matter requiring urgent consideration pursuant to Standing Order 52.
Yesterday, we heard compelling, convincing and very credible testimony from the former attorney general at the justice committee. She told of unwanted, sustained and coordinated pressure that came to bear on her from the highest offices of this country, from the office of the Minister of Finance, from the Prime Minister's Office, from the Prime Minister himself, and from the Clerk of the Privy Council. She told of pressure that came to bear on her to interfere in a criminal trial.
This has caused a crisis of confidence in the Prime Minister and in his cabinet, certainly in the Clerk of the Privy Council, in the Minister of Finance and in the current Attorney General. Her testimony was meticulous. It was detailed. It was believable.
We have over the last three weeks been asking the Prime Minister about this. His response, from three weeks to yesterday, has not given us any confidence that he is being transparent. He in fact said yesterday that the former attorney general, whom he appointed and whom all of us have been trusting, he has been trusting for the last three years, his caucus has been trusting and the country has been trusting, was lying.
Somebody is lying, and I would say that it is not the former attorney general. We need to find out what has happened, and we need to get to the bottom of this.
We heard testimony that the Clerk of the Privy Council, in putting pressure on her, referred to board meetings of SNC-Lavalin. We heard that the Prime Minister, in putting pressure on her, referred to his own re-election. There were hours of very credible testimony given yesterday that begs that this chamber discuss this issue.
We are certainly at a crisis. As opposition, we will not have a day to bring anything forward for 19 more days. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we will be rising for a two-week constituency break, and we will not have an opportunity to address this.
This is a crisis, and that is why I am asking that we be given the opportunity to discuss this during an emergency debate.
Results: 1 - 15 of 102 | Page: 1 of 7

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

For more data options, please see Open Data