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 30
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2020-05-26 15:15 [p.2447]
Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 7, I move:
That the debate be not further adjourned.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2020-05-26 15:15 [p.2448]
Mr. Speaker, I am very, very disappointed that we are seeing the government shut down debate on this important motion. When the government gave notice of it, I was anticipating it might try this manoeuvre earlier today and then I was very pleased when the government House leader did not move a motion to shut down debate.
What would possess him to do this right now I do not know, except for the fact that what I do know is that the government does not want Parliament to sit. The government wants a committee to sit so the Liberals can escape the accountability and rigour Parliament demands. We have seen the Prime Minister stand outside his cottage day after day over the last several months taking nice questions from the media and not having to answer questions, opposition day motions, questions on the Order Paper or deal with private members' legislation.
The work Parliament should be doing in this House the Prime Minister has been able to escape from day after day after day, and this motion continues to give him that escape hatch.
We know the government House leader is shutting down debate, but I will ask him this. He and the Prime Minister think that we can be here face to face, as the 40-some of us are here in this place today. If we can do that every day four days a week for the next several weeks, why can we not meet face to face in a Parliament setting with Parliament working and acting, and not just a feeble committee that is a fake parliament?
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2020-05-26 15:17 [p.2448]
Mr. Speaker, this very important motion strikes the right balance between the important role Parliament has to play and also respecting the public health advice. Through this motion, we are adding time for the opposition to ask questions. The opposition will be able to ask questions on pretty much anything it wants. There will be MPs physically present and there will be MPs participating virtually, which means MPs from all over the country will be able to participate.
This is great for democracy, and that is why we introduced this motion. I am not sure which part opposition members do not like: the fact that everybody participates, that they get more questions, that there are S.O. 31s or that we meet this summer. I do not know which part they do not like.
View Alain Therrien Profile
BQ (QC)
View Alain Therrien Profile
2020-05-26 15:18 [p.2448]
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the House Leader of the Official Opposition. We heard that this morning, but it did not come up. I held out hope.
Unfortunately, the motion before us summarily puts an end to the business of the House as we have known it for the past two days. The government says that we will continue to sit and that it will answer our questions. It does not take an Einstein or a Leonardo da Vinci to realize that sitting four times a week with 90 minutes of oral questions a day is not the same as five days of Parliament sitting from 10 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Nobody is going to buy that.
We are in a pandemic. However, the lockdown is easing. The Quebec National Assembly and the legislatures of the other provinces have resumed sitting. Businesses in Quebec are open again, while businesses elsewhere have already been open for some time. We are emerging from the lockdown. Things that were true and went without saying a month and a half ago are no longer relevant today. We are able to act intelligently, open up Parliament, vote on motions, study bills, and advance debate.
Why is the government running away like this when we are in a pandemic and the deficit is $300 billion and climbing? The government is refusing to provide an economic update and going into hiding.
The leader is acting surprised. That is what the government is doing. I am an objective observer of the government, and it is doing everything that it can to avoid answering questions. I think that democracy is ailing in Canada right now. I do not understand, and I want to know why the government is running away like this.
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2020-05-26 15:20 [p.2448]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague says that we are hiding, yet there will be six hours of questions instead of four. To my mind, six is greater than four.
The opposition will be able to ask questions on any topic, not just the pandemic, even though it is the current priority of all Canadians. Pursuant to Standing Order 31, MPs from all regions will be able to participate in the proceedings through screens. Members from remote regions, whether in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, will be able to take part in the debate at any point, which is a cornerstone of democracy.
If the Bloc Québécois was not happy with the motion, it could have come to the table and negotiated with us. The Bloc Québécois says it wants to make gains for Quebec, but gains are made around the table, not by sulking. Think of hockey: goals are scored on the ice. How many of Guy Lafleur's 560 goals were scored while he was on the bench?
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2020-05-26 15:21 [p.2448]
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues that we need to start to move on.
I am very interested whenever I hear my political colleagues talk about their privileges. Privilege is about serving people. It is not about the fact that members are not getting enough air time.
We need to come back in committee of the whole and start addressing a number of the serious shortfalls, such as the serious shortfalls for seniors. What is the government going to do now? We can do the jack-in-the-box questions, jump up and down and point fingers, or we could actually drill down, because this is a bigger crisis that we face. There is the issue of health care and the lack of support for health care. These are issues we need to sit down and discuss.
I certainly want to know if the government is willing to continue working with us to actually drill down in the midst of this crisis to serve Canadians. That is the privilege that we have and that we bring to the House. It is to serve people in a time of unprecedented crisis.
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2020-05-26 15:23 [p.2449]
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleague that, although we may disagree from time to time, we will always be on the same page when it comes to working here for our seniors, for people with disabilities and for people who have lost their jobs. We will always collaborate, since that is the role of the government and the opposition alike.
No matter how good they are to begin with, government bills can always be improved. That is exactly what the opposition did. I want to give them credit for that today. The NDP, the Conservatives and the Bloc all made the bills better. We are working closely with them because the government does not have all the answers and is not always right. We sometimes make mistakes and do things imperfectly. Thanks to our collaboration with the opposition, we were able to improve these bills.
Yes, we will continue to work to help our seniors and people with disabilities, and to provide sick leave to workers.
View Marie-France Lalonde Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Marie-France Lalonde Profile
2020-05-26 15:24 [p.2449]
Mr. Speaker, for over a month now, the Conservatives have been calling for greater accountability from the government.
I would like to ask the government House leader to tell us the consequences of the motion, Government Business No. 7, which we have put forward, and of the content and certainly the duration of that question period.
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2020-05-26 15:24 [p.2449]
Mr. Speaker, that is a great question.
In normal sittings, we have the equivalent of five question periods, which is five times 45 minutes. With this motion, we would come here four days a week physically. We would be here meeting and having fun, but our colleagues would also be able to participate from across the country. That is democracy. It is not just because someone who lives near Ottawa can ask a question, but anybody who has been elected should be able to ask a question. This is what we are doing.
I wonder why the opposition members have a problem if we are giving them more time than before to ask questions. I still do not know.
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
CPC (SK)
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
2020-05-26 15:25 [p.2449]
Mr. Speaker, the problem is not with the format, and Canadians are figuring this out. Perhaps that is the reason those members want to shut down debate. The problem is not the format. The problem is that we are dealing with a committee instead of Parliament itself sitting in this House, and Canadians have figured that out. They are not happy, because this is not what they were asking for and continue to ask the House for.
There is no reason, if there are four days that we are here, and we travel back and forth, that we cannot sit as a proper Parliament during those four days. The member's explanation is not acceptable.
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2020-05-26 15:26 [p.2449]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague says that Canadians are not happy. I would say Conservatives are not happy.
Overall, MPs should be happy with the fact that there is more time to ask questions, because it is fundamental. We want that. We want to have more time for the opposition to ask important questions.
I was in the opposition for many years. I know how important the role of the opposition is, and the members are playing that role very well. We are giving them more time for more questions. They will be sitting this summer, with more hours a week with colleagues and big screens, being able to ask questions from across the country. It is a fair and balanced approach.
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
BQ (QC)
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
2020-05-26 15:26 [p.2449]
Mr. Speaker, I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons say a few moments ago how well parliamentarians on both sides of the House had managed to collaborate so far, to the benefit of Canadians and Quebeckers. I think we can all agree. However, what we are witnessing right now is downright embarrassing. I am not sure that Parliament is earning any dignity and credibility with what has been going on for the past two days.
It seems to me that it should have been easy to come to an agreement. The Conservatives want Parliament to keep working in a more regular fashion. The government wants a hybrid Parliament. What is stopping us from doing both? No, the government decided that it did not have enough ideas for introducing new bills.
How come the government no longer wants to make legislation? Usually a government is elected to make legislation. This government does not want to make legislation. This government just wants to be asked questions behind closed doors here and allow the Prime Minister to keep putting on his daily sideshow in front of his cottage in Ottawa. What we are seeing is not particularly impressive.
It is also not particularly impressive that, in order to get what it wanted, the government negotiated with the NDP behind closed doors about something that is not even a federal matter. They tinkered with a provincial matter, without even talking to the provinces, just so that the Liberals could do what they want with Parliament. That is frankly embarrassing.
I will leave it there. The leader was saying that the Bloc did not participate in the negotiations. As we have said, we have been collaborating from the beginning, but when someone gives their word around a table, we expect them to keep their word. As soon as one party fails to keep its word, there is not enough trust to sit back down at the table. What we have seen over the past two days shows that we were right not to trust the Liberal government and sit down at the table with them.
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2020-05-26 15:29 [p.2450]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.
Sometimes we have our differences and disagreements, but nobody goes and sulks in the corner if they do not agree. We sit at the table, engage in dialogue and talk it out.
The Bloc is again saying the reason it comes here is to make gains for Quebec. The way to make gains on any subject is to sit down at the table, not to stay away from the table and refuse to talk.
Once again, getting back to this motion, it strikes an important balance. There are many questions that remain unanswered. For instance, how will we vote on all the decisions a Parliament makes? How do we make sure that our colleagues who are not here can vote? They have a fundamental right to vote.
That is why, with this motion, we are asking the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine how this can be done, because it is one of the most important things a member does in the House. We need answers to this question and others, but in the meantime, we are increasing the number of hours for questions. In fact, questions on just about any subject are allowed. The members will decide what questions they want to ask.
We are going to come back here this summer. The members will get to make members' statements, speak on behalf of their ridings and so on. I think that is a good balance, because we are in a pandemic and there is a serious crisis under way. Public health officials are issuing directives, and we need to follow them.
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what the government House leader has to say about two issues.
First, I find it disturbing that people living in poverty in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, in Montreal and elsewhere, have to force themselves to go to work when they are ill because they have no access to sick leave. Socially, that is disturbing. The crisis has shown us all these vulnerabilities, all the people living in privation, all the humble workers who have no means.
Here, we are setting ourselves an objective to make progress. As a true defender of workers, as a true social democrat, I find that it moves things forward. I find that it is a worthwhile objective to set for ourselves and I am convinced that the workers in Quebec will be very pleased with it.
Second, as for the hybrid Parliament formula that we are going to have and that works well—as we have seen in London, in Great Britain—I would like to hear what the government House leader has to say about the fact that it is much more helpful for the opposition to have five minutes to have discussions with ministers and ask them questions rather than to be limited to 35 seconds. Personally, I feel that the quantity and the quality of the accountability will be greatly improved by this new measure.
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2020-05-26 15:31 [p.2450]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
The fact that the opposition will have five-minute question periods where there is an exchange is obviously much more difficult for the government. That is human nature. We will be a bit more destabilized.
In reality, the NDP made gains for the other opposition parties. It ensured that there will be more question periods where the government can be questioned about almost anything, any subject the opposition chooses. That is a measure that ensures the proper functioning of our democracy since it forces the government to stay on its toes and to fully respond to a number of questions. I think that is very good for our democracy. It is extremely positive. What is more, the fact that we will be meeting four times this summer is very positive. This type of questioning makes an enormous contribution to our democracy and we are happy to participate in it.
With regard to sick leave, my colleague is absolutely right. It does not make any sense for workers to have to choose between staying at home and hiding their illness and symptoms and going to work because they do not have enough money to put food on the table.
I want to come back to what the Bloc Québécois was saying. Obviously, this is being done in partnership with the provinces. Discussions have been initiated and will continue because we put people at the centre of everything we do. The opposition should do the same.
Results: 1 - 15 of 30 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data