Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 1727
View Blake Richards Profile
CPC (AB)
View Blake Richards Profile
2021-06-23 15:17 [p.9059]
Mr. Speaker, as we are approaching the end of our session for the summer, I note that there are four outstanding questions of privilege.
There is a question of privilege from the member for Timmins—James Bay, in relation to the government ignoring a House order regarding taking indigenous children to court.
There is a question of privilege from the member for Carleton, regarding the government's inflation tax; and from the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, regarding the ethics committee and the fact that the government has ordered staff there to disobey the order to appear.
Then, of course, there was a question of privilege from our opposition House leader as well, related to the documents related to the Winnipeg lab, after the appearance at the bar by the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada on Monday.
While I appreciate that obviously you, Mr. Speaker, have to have some deliberations on some of them, and that is understandable, in particular the one from the opposition House leader, I would note, first of all, that there is some new information that has come to light, which is that the government has now filed an order in Federal Court with you as the defendant, Mr. Speaker, where the government is seeking to have those records and those documents sealed so that they can be hidden from Canadians. That obviously adds a very significant element of timeliness to this. When we have that being done by the government and the government has gone to that length to actually go to the Federal Court against you, Mr. Speaker, to try to see those documents sealed so that they cannot be seen by Canadians, that would add a very important element of timeliness to this.
I do believe that, on that question of privilege in particular, it does seem like there is a pretty clear set of facts there. You brought the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada to the bar and you admonished him. The documents were supposed to come with him. They did not. That is very clear. That is a very clear set of facts and very well established. We now have the government going to court to try to seal those documents, and that is shameful. I would think that there is very clear evidence there that we do have a prima facie case, so I would have expected us to see a ruling from you prior to the summer adjournment of Parliament.
Therefore, I just want to ask a three-part question so that we can get some clarity on where things are at with these questions of privilege.
Will you, Mr. Speaker, be delivering a ruling now, particularly on that question of privilege, given the timeliness of that matter, and on the other questions of privilege as well that I have raised here? If not, can you tell the House why not? In addition, what would happen with those questions of privilege should the government, as has been very widely speculated, go ahead and dissolve Parliament for an election? What would happen then to those questions of privilege?
I certainly hope, given that the government has now gone to Federal Court against you as the defendant, Mr. Speaker, trying to seal documents, that you will deliver a ruling prior to the summer. Could you answer those questions, please?
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I want to thank the hon. member for his question, and it certainly is a fair question.
Unfortunately, over the last week, the amount of resources required from the clerks and me has limited the resources that we have to put to the points of order and the questions of privilege.
One of the things I have prided myself on in being here is putting out a well-thought-out response that merits the position that I am in. One of the things that I did not want to do is to rush through that with limited resources and give a ruling that was not up to the level that is expected by members and that members have been used to.
Therefore, should Parliament dissolve today, I will not be able to do it right away. It will be done at the next sitting of the House, whenever that does happen, and we will have something that is very robust, something that makes sense and something that all members can have confidence in.
View Blake Richards Profile
CPC (AB)
View Blake Richards Profile
2021-06-23 15:22 [p.9059]
Mr. Speaker, in relation to the last question I had, I have more of a point of clarification than anything.
First, what would happen with those points of privilege should the government choose to dissolve this Parliament and go to an election? Would those points of privilege carry forward into the next Parliament?
Second, what bearing does the fact that the government has applied to the Federal Court to have those documents sealed have on this? Does that change anything about this point of privilege and about your ruling? Are you concerned about the fact that the government has applied to have those documents sealed and the effect that would have on this place and its ability to follow through on its orders?
It is a very serious matter when a government is taking the Speaker of the House of Commons to Federal Court in order to try to seal documents so that it can avoid being held accountable to Canadians. That is something that we all must take incredibly seriously in this place, because the very heart of democracy is at stake.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I want to thank the member for Banff—Airdrie. I just want to make sure that we got everything the way it should be and that the answer is correct.
The points of privilege and the points of order will be carried over, and it will be up to the Speaker at the time to look at it and take all the information as it evolves and make a decision at that time. I would not want to take that away from whoever the next Speaker is.
On the second point, we were told by the government House leader. He announced it in the chamber, and it is in the process. We will be taking that under consideration as we proceed.
The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-06-23 15:39 [p.9061]
Mr. Speaker, we are still reeling from the shock of the recent announcement about how the government is going to court against the House of Commons. As such, we would like some time to consider the motion the government leader just moved, which we agreed upon initially. However, that was before the events that just transpired. We will get back to you shortly.
View Mélanie Joly Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I was having technical problems, not with the vote we just had, but with the previous vote on the motion moved by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I would like to change my vote and vote in favour of the motion.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2021-06-23 17:07 [p.9070]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I seek the consent of the House to deliver a reply on behalf of the Green Party of Canada.
View Randall Garrison Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am rising virtually to ask for unanimous consent to make a few short remarks in tabling an NDP supplemental report to the justice committee's report on elder abuse just tabled by our very able chair, the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2021-06-23 17:09 [p.9070]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I am a member.
I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make a few remarks. I have tabled a supplementary report, and I would like to outline the basis for it, if my colleagues in the House do not object.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to clarify that the motion adopted to give the member special permission to present a supplementary report was to present the report, not to read the entirety of the report.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I was getting there. I would like to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary to be as concise as possible. I will let her continue.
View Blake Richards Profile
CPC (AB)
View Blake Richards Profile
2021-06-22 10:14 [p.8936]
Mr. Speaker, I understand that you are attempting to give the member some latitude here, but this time is intended to present a dissenting report or supplemental report. There have been attacks on other parties, and there have been all kinds of commentary here. I really do think, Mr. Speaker, it might be time to consider that it has been enough.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I understand the parliamentary secretary is wrapping up, so I will give her a bit more time and then we will go from there.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.
I seek the unanimous consent of the House, in all fairness, for the member for Lakeland to be able to share a few more comments about the Conservative dissenting report. I am sure she also has more to say. I wonder if there is unanimous consent to do that.
View Derek Sloan Profile
Ind. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I mentioned in my question, I had a parliamentary press conference that was censored by Facebook. People have reached out to me to say that they are unable to share it. That is problematic. Anything that goes on in the House should be able to be shared freely by Canadians.
I would like to seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House recognize that the House of Commons itself and the Parliament of Canada are a bastion of democracy and free speech; that members of Parliament enjoy special parliamentary privileges overseeing their ability to speak freely in Parliament, to discharge their duties freely and without constraint; that any Canadian seeking to share digital content of parliamentary functions should be able to do so freely and without constraint; that the government must strongly defend the rights of parliamentarians against the outside interference of social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter; and I call on the government to recognize that any potential suppression of information or censorship of parliamentary events, such as official press conferences, must not be allowed to happen and to officially sanction Facebook and Twitter for their actions.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
An hon. member: Nay.
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Greg Fergus Profile
2021-06-22 15:15 [p.8983]
Mr. Speaker, I had technical difficulties and could not complete my S.O. 31 as a result. I would ask for unanimous consent to do it now.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
All those opposed to the hon. member's request for unanimous consent will please say nay.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, in the past, you have not required unanimous consent to allow a member redo his or her statement. I expect you would apply the same logic this time.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I do not have a problem with it. The hon. member asked for unanimous consent. If he wants to retract that, I will allow him to go ahead.
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Greg Fergus Profile
2021-06-22 15:16 [p.8983]
I would be happy to retract that, Mr. Speaker.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Since there were technical difficulties, we will allow the member to go ahead.
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to clarify the record. The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations in question period talked about $48.8 million being given to Saskatchewan first nations. That number is incorrect. It is in fact—
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
That is beginning to turn into debate. A point of order is for referring to one of the Standing Orders and how it is contravened. Members often forget that and we get caught up, and that is fine. I thought I would point that out to remind hon. members.
View Alain Therrien Profile
BQ (QC)
View Alain Therrien Profile
2021-06-22 15:45 [p.8986]
Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to the question of privilege raised yesterday by the House Leader of the Official Opposition, who alleged that the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada did not fully comply with the order adopted by the House on June 17.
This question of privilege is quite appropriate. We are of the opinion that the order of the House was not followed in its entirety and that the House must act accordingly. It is time for it to act.
Last week, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel Philippe Dufresne sent a document to the Standing Committee on Finance regarding the committees' power to send for papers, since the committee was finding it difficult to get documents from KPMG on its study of tax havens. This letter from Mr. Dufresne provides some thoughtful clarifications on the question of privilege we are discussing today. Regarding the refusal to produce the documents, he said, and I quote:
Only the House of Commons has the disciplinary powers to deal with this type of offence. The disciplinary powers of the House include, for example, the power to reprimand a person who is not a Member (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 983, n. 164). In cases where the author of or the authority responsible for a record refuses to comply with an order issued by a committee to produce documents, the committee essentially has three options. The first is to accept the reasons put forward to justify the refusal (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 986). The second is to seek an acceptable compromise to obtain the information with certain measures in place. This could entail putting measures in place to ensure that the record is kept confidential while it is being consulted, such as in camera review, limited and numbered copies, and/or putting in place arrangements for disposing of or destroying the copies after the committee meeting (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 986, notes 180, 181, 182). It could also include having proposed redactions to the documents provided to the Committee or to my Office for review before any information is made public. The third option is to reject the reasons given for denying access to the record and insist on the production of the entire record (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 987). If a witness does not provide requested documents, the committee’s recourse is to report the matter to the House (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 983, n. 165; p. 987, n. 183). Once seized with the matter, the House takes the measures that it considers appropriate (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 983, n. 166; p. 987).
The letter from Mr. Stewart's lawyer was tabled in both official languages in the House this morning. Mr. Stewart has no intention of complying with the order of the House for the time being, which brings us back to the third option I just mentioned.
The House has already considered what action should be taken against the Public Health Agency of Canada as a result of Mr. Stewart's refusal to table the unredacted documents before the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.
The order adopted by the House on June 17 was adopted by a majority vote, and therefore the point of order raised by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is inappropriate. The Chair must rule on the solution, the remedy to be applied with respect to the documents that were requested but have still not been tabled in the House.
I will not repeat all the rulings and precedents that the House Leader of the Official Opposition referred to yesterday. However, I would like to come back to some of the fundamental issues he raised about the importance of decisions that are made by the House, and I quote:
If the House does not respect its orders, who will respect the laws adopted by the House? Who will respect the regulations adopted by the House? Who will respect the political decisions made after debates, albeit spirited ones, but decisions that were voted on by the individuals who were duly elected by the public?
Therefore, we ask that you take one of the conclusions proposed yesterday by the House Leader of the Official Opposition.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-06-21 15:11 [p.8855]
Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, when a member rises to move a motion in the House, they must always have the proper equipment. We saw that the leader of the Bloc Québécois did not have the necessary equipment. That being said, I think that all parties know what the leader of the Bloc Québécois wants to talk about, and I seek the consent of the House to let him continue.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-06-21 15:11 [p.8855]
Mr. Speaker, I think we all recognize that the member for Beloeil—Chambly is not set up correctly to address the House of Commons. We also know what he wants to talk about today.
What I would suggest to my colleague for Beloeil—Chambly is that he first make his presentation in French and then after that, if he can, translate it to be sure that every member will have access, in both official languages, to his proposition of the day.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The problem with the interpretation is due to the fact that the member does not have the proper equipment. Does the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly agree to proceed as the member for Louis-Saint‑Laurent suggested?
View Yves-François Blanchet Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about the nature of the request because I cannot simultaneously interpret—
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The problem is that we cannot hear the member for Beloeil-Chambly properly because he is not using the official equipment provided by the House.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Order. I would ask for the attention of the House.
Even if we could understand—barely— what the hon. member for Beloeil-Chambly was saying, it was not clear enough for the interpreters. It was therefore suggested that the member start in one official language and then repeat the same thing in the other official language so that everyone could understand. Is that agreeable to everyone?
Hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: That is how we will proceed. The hon. member for Beloeil-Chambly will start in the official language of his choice and then repeat the same thing in the other official language. The hon. member for Beloeil-Chambly.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-06-21 15:19 [p.8856]
Mr. Speaker, I will make myself clear so everyone understands what I am saying.
We have to follow certain rules. Yes, there are technical considerations, but location matters too. I completely understand what motivated the member for Beloeil—Chambly, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, to do this on National Indigenous Peoples Day and to do it in an indigenous centre. That puts us all in a positive frame of mind. Plus, his proposal, which he read in both official languages, was unanimously adopted.
I invite the Speaker to issue a recommendation about whether we are supposed to be in the House, in our parliamentary office or in our riding office. If it should so happen that we are not in one of those three places, I believe, although we would have to reread what has been said about this, that we are expected to inform the House in advance so officials can make sure everything is working properly.
For today, it is understandable. I would be the first to agree, because Wendake is in my riding. We can move symbolic motions like the one moved today. However, I think we need a rule, should a member choose to speak from somewhere other than the House of Commons.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I thank the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who raised a very good point.
I would like to remind all members that the House is a neutral place, as free of symbols as possible. Sometimes, we do not notice it at all, but it is very important to make sure that the House is as neutral as possible.
It being 3:22 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 17, it is my duty to ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to admit Mr. Iain Stewart.
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2021-06-21 15:26 [p.8857]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House how the government believes we can move forward on the the issue of the document order from June 2. Today, I wrote a letter to you in which I go into some detail on this issue, and I would like to explain to the House what I proposed in this letter, if I may.
The House of Commons adopted a motion on June 17, 2021, which states, “That the House find the Public Health Agency of Canada to be in—”
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-06-21 15:26 [p.8857]
Mr. Speaker, we shall follow the rules step by step. You were talking about the June 17 decision. There is someone here, and we are asking this person to table documents. Do what you have to do, and after that we will see if there are any documents. If there are none, we will address it.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I have made my statement. I ask all members to sit and wait while we consult. It is a matter that we must go over. As I said, this is a very unique situation. I want to make sure that we get it right on all sides. This is not to show any favouritism to one side or the other; I just want to go over it.
The Chair is in the hands of the House. Nothing in the order of June 17 provided for the possibility of taking measures, nor does the order give the Chair the authority to respond to the situation the House is currently facing. It is up to the House to decide.
I will go back to the hon. government House leader and ask if the point of order he is raising is directly related to what we are discussing now. If it is not, I would ask him to please inform the House and we shall continue.
The hon. government House leader.
View Blake Richards Profile
CPC (AB)
View Blake Richards Profile
2021-06-21 15:30 [p.8858]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe you were interrupted while trying to finish the statement you were making. You were admonishing the Public Health Agency of Canada, and I think you should be able to finish your statement before there is a point of order responding to that statement. I think you should have the right to—
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
To correct the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie, I was done and about to dismiss Mr. Stewart when the hon. government House leader rose on a point of order to bring information forward. It was brought after. Right now we are dealing with that to see if it is directly related.
This is what I am going to do. I will listen to what the government House leader has to say and then determine relevance afterward. If it is way out of whack, I will stop him, but I believe what he has to say is related.
I stopped the hon. member because what he brought up was not exactly correct.
Mr. Blake Richards: I have a point of order.
The Speaker: I think we will listen to what has to be said and then we will deal with that after.
The hon. government House leader.
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2021-06-21 15:31 [p.8858]
Mr. Speaker, it is totally related.
The president of the Public Health Agency of Canada has worked diligently to try to comply with the order of June 2, 2021. He has done so in a manner that balances the rights of parliamentarians to have access to information with the duty of the government to protect information related to national security and privacy.
The Parliament of Canada Act states in section 4 that the privileges, immunities and powers of the two Houses are to be those that were held in 1867 by the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, and such privileges, immunities and powers as are defined by an act of the Parliament of Canada.
The Parliament of Canada, in exercising its legislative authority to define the privileges of the Houses, may circumscribe those privileges and has done so. A statute may be made expressly applicable to the Senate and the House of Commons or may apply implicitly, by necessary intendment.
As well, statutes of Parliament may impose duties of non-disclosure on government officials. As the Supreme Court observed in Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid in 2005, “Legislative bodies created by the Constitution Act, 1867 do not constitute enclaves shielded from the ordinary law of the land.”
Furthermore, in Chagnon v. Syndicat de la fonction publique et parapublique du Québec, Justice Rowe, in concurring with the majority of the court, added, “...expecting a legislature to comply with its own legislation cannot be regarded as an intrusion on the legislature's privilege. It is not an impediment to the functioning of a legislature for it to comply with its own enactments. Accordingly, when a legislature has set out in legislation how something previously governed pursuant to privilege is to operate, the legislature no longer can rely on inherent privilege so as to bypass the statute.”
Parliamentary privilege has been circumscribed by valid statutes, and the House of Commons cannot now choose to relieve itself from their application.
As we know, the Minister of Health referred the matter and provided unredacted documents to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, given the expertise of the members of the committee in matters of national security. The committee has a broad mandate to review Canada's legislative, regulatory, policy, administrative and financial framework for national security and intelligence. It may also—
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2021-06-21 15:34 [p.8858]
Mr. Speaker, the connection to the matter before us will soon be clear.
Of course the government wants to collaborate. That is what it has been trying to do from the start, in a way that respects parliamentary privilege and extremely important national security issues.
I am going to skip a whole section of my presentation and jump right to my proposal.
We are putting various options before you, all of them valid, in my opinion. I think it would be worth your while to read them so that we can find a solution that works for all parliamentarians and all parties.
I will not be very long.
The first option relates to what I call a memorandum of understanding regarding Afghan detainee documents. In response to the ruling by Speaker Milliken in 2010, the government and the opposition agreed to a memorandum of understanding that created an ad hoc committee of parliamentarians to review national security documents. It included safeguards and a panel of arbiters to determine how the relevant and necessary information could be made available to MPs and the public without compromising national security. A similar memorandum of understanding could be used for the review of the documents that the House has ordered.
As a second option, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel could be assisted by national security specialists.
The motion adopted by the House on June 2, 2021, states, in part:
(d) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall confidentially review the documents with a view to redacting information which, in his opinion, could reasonably be expected to compromise national security or reveal details of an ongoing criminal investigation, other than the existence of an investigation;
(e) the Speaker shall cause the documents, as redacted pursuant to paragraph (d), to be laid upon the table at the next earliest opportunity and, after being tabled, they shall stand referred to the special committee;
While the government accepts that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel has the appropriate security clearance to review the information, we do not believe he has the necessary training or expertise in national security-related information to make the necessary assessment. Disclosing sensitive information could have a number of negative side effects for our intelligence agencies. These include, inter alia, revealing covert methods of operation and tradecraft and investigative techniques; putting at risk human sources and their families; and identifying or helping to identify employees, internal procedures and administrative practices. Finally, it could have a severe impact on Canada's reputation as a responsible security partner.
Assessing the damage caused by disclosure of information cannot be done in the abstract or in isolation. Seemingly unrelated information can be used to develop a more comprehensive picture or “mosaic effect” when added to information already known, thereby revealing further tradecraft. Declassification of documents needs to undergo a review which takes into account the potential impact on covert methodologies, sources and relationships.
The government is open to providing the unredacted documents to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel if the House of Commons agrees that national security specialists can assist him in this process and that other appropriate safeguards be put in place.
It is our hope that the government and the opposition can come to a reasonable solution that ensures that the government can continue to respect its obligations to protect national security, and the House of Commons can effectively do its work.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have now had Mr. Stewart here for about half an hour. He has been standing diligently at the bar. I think it would be appropriate for the Speaker to allow him to leave now, so he can get back to the important work he has been doing over the last 15 months looking to protect this country.
I would ask that the Speaker allow Mr. Stewart to leave at this time. I think the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc have proven their point, and now it is time for him to be able to depart.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I do not believe that is a point of order.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Order, please.
I would like to point out that I had discussions with the Sergeant-at-Arms prior to Mr. Stewart's coming here to ensure that, should Mr. Stewart want to sit, there would be a chair for him there. There is one there, so he can be comfortable, if he prefers to sit.
View Mel Arnold Profile
CPC (BC)
View Mel Arnold Profile
2021-06-21 17:30 [p.8872]
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure how it showed up on the broadcast, but someone else's image appeared on the screen as I was presenting the complementary report. If that is the case, I would like to present it again so it can be recorded properly.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
We are verifying that now. Since, we are still checking, in the interest of time, the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap can again present his complementary report.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
View Heather McPherson Profile
2021-06-21 19:02 [p.8890]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if the member actually accused the NDP of lying. We are not supposed to do in the House. I wonder if he wants to take that back.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, I believe the minister questioned if something that was said could have been a lie. He did not specifically call anybody a liar. He was trying to understand. It seems to me as though he was trying to personally rationalize the situation.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2021-06-21 19:03 [p.8890]
I thank hon. members for their interventions. I did not hear the minister's words in this case as I was taken aside for a moment on an administrative matter. For general purposes, references to lying is always a tricky area. Generally, if it is not applied to an individual member, group and so on, although it is not advisable, it is not an unparliamentary reference.
The hon. minister can finish his response.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-06-21 22:09 [p.8905]
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois did not get its turn to rise in this debate. I think there must have been some mistake.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
I apologize, but only one hour was provided for debate. It depends on the manner in which the debate unfolds. Right now, we need to move on to the votes.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
View Jody Wilson-Raybould Profile
Ind. (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I had my hand up for the previous vote and I was not acknowledged by the Speaker.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
We will finish this and I will go back and see what we can do.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the chair.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
View Jody Wilson-Raybould Profile
Ind. (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I was waiting to be acknowledged on the previous vote. When that did not happen, I raised my hand to be acknowledged. I was voting for the previous motion.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
We have finished the vote. We have to have unanimous consent.
I just want to remind hon. members to raise their hands to be acknowledged. It does not just happen. I have to be aware that they are in the chamber or here virtually.
Could the hon. member for Vancouver Granville clarify if that was a yea or nay? The table just wants to confirm.
View Jody Wilson-Raybould Profile
Ind. (BC)
Results: 1 - 60 of 1727 | Page: 1 of 29

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

For more data options, please see Open Data