Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 181 - 195 of 195
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
2020-05-26 15:34 [p.2450]
Mr. Speaker, I expected this closure to happen earlier this morning, but here we are today. My question has to do with convention and precedents of the House. It seems that once we do something it becomes a rule of the House, which means that in the future we can go forward and continue to do it.
When September rolls around, when things get back to whatever the normal is going to be, is this going to be continued because it has now become a convention? We all know, and have been told that from a political standpoint, there are no votes for us in Ottawa. We should stay in our constituencies and meet with our folks.
We should be able to come back here. Will this be continued in September?
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2020-05-26 15:34 [p.2450]
Mr. Speaker, we all want this place filled with MPs. I would like to see 338 men and women in this place representing their ridings and the people they were elected by, but it is another reality. My colleague talked about a precedent. What precedent does a pandemic have? How did we know? This is a new order for everybody, for all of us. These are not normal circumstances.
Of course, we are working toward coming back to Parliament. That is what everyone wants, but we need to strike that fine balance between the capacity of the opposition to ask important, tough questions, as they should do and as they are doing, and also respecting the advice of Health Canada. It is fundamental. This is why the motion is good and it represents that balance.
View Christine Normandin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Christine Normandin Profile
2020-05-26 15:35 [p.2451]
Mr. Speaker, we have heard other parliaments being cited as going virtual. The government is saying how wonderful it is because we can ask them questions, just like people outside. I completely agree with that.
On the other hand, other hybrid parliaments are not necessarily limited to question period. In fact, they have tested electronic voting. They are going much further.
Why should we limit ourselves to question period? Why should we not proceed with the legislative agenda? Why should we not have opposition days?
Why should we not go further and play the role of a real parliament, which we can do in a hybrid manner?
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2020-05-26 15:36 [p.2451]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
We all agree that Parliament's role is important. That is why we asked the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study the possibility of voting remotely, which is not currently possible. If remote voting were possible and if the Conservatives were interested, we would do it. My understanding is that the Conservatives do not want to do it. At some point, we may have to do it in order to carry out all our duties. We do not know how long the pandemic will last. We do not know what the future holds.
One thing is clear: The government will always act in accordance with the basic principles that define our country and will always debate issues and decisions. The opposition plays an important role that we respect, and we want it to carry on doing so.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2020-05-26 15:36 [p.2451]
Mr. Speaker, just now a member mentioned London's hybrid Parliament experiment. Actually, the idea was scrapped because it was not working well enough. Let's make sure this debate is based on facts.
The Conservatives have always said that there is no way we can bring all 338 members together in the House. Everyone knows that. During a press conference, the Prime Minister said things that were not true. He said that was what we were doing. Other members have made statements suggesting that is what we wanted to do. That is not true.
Parliament has been sitting for two days. We have had member statements and question period. The government needs to be held to account. Members of the House are debating motions. Parliament is doing its work. We are prepared to make certain revisions and adjustments, including with regard to parliamentary committees.
The tragedy involving Ms. Levesque took place in Quebec City a few months ago. A report was released on the weekend. As the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said so clearly in interviews with the media, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security must do its job. Unfortunately, it cannot do so at this time.
Why is the government so determined to do things its way, according to its vision?
Despite the friendship, esteem and respect that I have for my colleague, I am asking him not to seek our sympathy by saying that having to answer five-minute questions is hard for the government. They must give real answers. What is the real answer to the question about the current deficit?
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2020-05-26 15:38 [p.2451]
Mr. Speaker, I too have regard for my Conservative colleague. That said, these are vital questions and it is just as vital that the government answer them, which it is doing. We may not agree on the answers, but we will answer openly, sincerely and with transparency.
My colleague referred to the committee. I thank him for that as it allows me to say that despite all the difficulties caused by the pandemic—people are dying, people are losing their jobs, some people are ill—we have managed to accomplish several things here in the House. For example, eight committees have held meetings. In total, there have been 74 meetings. We heard from 580 witnesses and 23 ministers appeared before committees.
The motion would have us add the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and I am certain that my colleague is happy about that.
View Patricia Lattanzio Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, since March 13 the House of Commons has met on multiple occasions with reduced numbers of MPs in order to respect the advice from public health officials. A quick look at the Hansard makes one realize that it is often the same MPs who take part in the House proceedings.
What is the government's suggestion to allow more MPs to take part in the parliamentary proceedings?
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2020-05-26 15:40 [p.2451]
Mr. Speaker, in a very objective way, that is an excellent question, because we want the participation of MPs from everywhere. In an ideal world, we would be 338 people here, men and women, representing their constituents. Because of the pandemic and the measures that have been put in place, and we respect those measures on both sides of the aisle, there is an option. It is this hybrid committee we can have here, with members on both sides, and MPs from everywhere across the country, so that MPs who are elected in Vancouver, Halifax, Côte-Nord or wherever can ask their questions on screen.
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2020-05-26 15:41 [p.2451]
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the words “Côte-Nord”, because it just so happens the Côte-Nord expects more from me.
The government House leader talked about people who are sick, who have lost their jobs and who do not know what tomorrow will bring. What I am being told is that, as an MP, I should work less and stay away from Parliament. We are getting a math lesson, being told that six is more than two and more than four.
Recognizing that we normally spend 30-some odd hours discussing things here in Parliament, that is going to be replaced by committee meetings that do not always go so well, because we have less time to ask questions and we are constantly cut off. I think there is something the government would have us believe, but I would not call it a lesson in democracy.
We should do more for our constituents. We are considered essential workers. I consider it my duty to drive 10 or 12 hours to be here and participate in the committee meetings. It is my duty to stand up for my constituents.
I find it unacceptable that a minority government should decide to shut down the House. It is a denial of democracy, even if the government would have us believe that we are going to be able to ask more questions. I expect more from this government. I do not expect it to shut down the House. It is a minority government and it needs to remember that. The government needs to bring us together here so that we can ask it the right questions, and it must answer them. There are suggested questions, but they are not at all worthwhile and do not address the needs of our constituents. Our constituents want us to work. If we are asking them to make an effort, then we need to make an even greater one.
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2020-05-26 15:42 [p.2452]
Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the importance of the work that is done by each member, in this case by my colleague and by all of the other members of the House.
This gives me an opportunity to point out something else, and that is the fundamental work that MPs do when they are in their own ridings. Some members told us that it was time to get back to work. I heard the opposition say that several times. However, we are working every day when we are in our ridings, when we lend a hand to community organizations, when we call seniors who live alone. All of the activities that members do are essential. I am sure that each member does just as good of a job of this, and I do not think that this type of work is done any better by a Liberal, a Conservative or a Bloc member.
Every member does this type of work. We must continue to recognize that, just as we just continue to recognize the work we do here.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2020-05-26 15:44 [p.2452]
Mr. Speaker, let us do a quick run-through of our favourite moments of shutting down democracy. Do I say Stephen Harper, Stephen Harper, Stephen Harper? I will probably have to say that about 150 times, for every single time he shut it down. Then there were all the committees, where everything had to go in camera no matter what it was so there was no accountability. Then there was the crisis of 2008, the biggest economic crisis up to that point, when Stephen Harper came into the House and they all puffed up and were going to massively push through this austerity budget. The New Democrats said no. Then what did Stephen Harper do? He panicked and shut Parliament down. Do members remember that? He had to shut Parliament down.
It is pretty rich, when we are here to talk about keeping Parliament accountable until the end of June, plus sessions this summer, and we will continue in the fall, to see the howling at the moon and the abuse of the privileges of the most privileged people in Canada, when, in fact, if we remember the Stephen Harper years, the doors were locked in the Parliament of the people because he was afraid to meet a minority government.
We have a minority government, and we have work to get done. I want to get to that work tomorrow so we can start to drill down and ask serious questions of ministers, where we have a good period of time to actually go through the issues, push, find out and insist on responses. Let us just get down to it.
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2020-05-25 18:11 [p.2390]
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 7 I wish to give notice that at the next sitting of the House I shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-05-25 18:12 [p.2390]
The House appreciates the notice.
Resuming debate.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.
Results: 181 - 195 of 195 | Page: 13 of 13

|<
<
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data