Deaths in Residential Care in Canada by facility – Google Диск – Port Renfrew

7 octobre 2022by Blair Dane

Looking for:

– Canada day vancouver island 2048 xcel solutions federal

Click here to ENTER

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
It does not mean that you have to vote with us all увидеть больше time, but it does mean that there has to be recognition that there is a legislative agenda.
 
 

Canada Day Celebrations on Vancouver Island – Vancouver Island View.Debates (Hansard) No. 60 – April 28, () – House of Commons of Canada

 

We also know that the Prime Minister was found guilty of contravening section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act over his interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin and the unnecessary interference and his concerted campaign to pressure the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Jody Wilson-Raybould, into offering SNC-Lavalin a special plea deal, what is called a deferred prosecution agreement.

We have to remember that Jody Wilson-Raybould stood on her principles, stood up for justice, refused to interfere and, because of that, lost her job as the Attorney General of Canada. The Treasury Board president of the day, Jane Philpott, was also fired from cabinet. Both of them were kicked out of the Liberal caucus by the Prime Minister. We know that this scandal in itself had huge overreaching impacts on the Liberal Party.

We know that the principal secretary to the Prime Minister, Gerald Butts, had to resign, along with the Clerk of the Privy Council at the time, Michael Wernick, who also resigned in disgrace. When we talk about Mr. Morneau, the contents of the report that the ethics committee did, tabled here a month ago, and the report tabled in the previous Parliament, concentrated on Bill Morneau and the WE scandal, but even going into that, Bill Morneau as the finance minister was also found guilty of contravening the Conflict of Interest Act for failing to disclose that he had a luxurious villa in the French countryside.

He refused to disclose that to the Ethics Commissioner for two years. As we just witnessed with the Prime Minister ‘s failure on the issue of his private vacation and being four times guilty under the Conflict of Interest Act and investigated for fraud against the government under the Criminal Code, we do not know if the RCMP investigated Bill Morneau over the WE scandal and the contents of the report that we tabled on March 31, on which I also got up on a question of privilege, as you may recall, Mr.

We have to remember that Mr. Morneau failed to recuse himself from the cabinet table when decisions were made about awarding the WE Charity over half a billion dollars, and gave it preferential treatment. Morneau allowed his ministerial staff to work directly with the WE Charity, help them develop their proposals and intervene on behalf of WE at federal, provincial and municipal levels to deliver a program that was beyond WE’s capabilities, as we found out through testimony.

Additionally, Mr. Morneau failed to talk about how his own daughter worked for the WE foundation. In the wake of this WE scandal, and in the wake of the work that was done by the ethics committee in the previous Parliament, Mr. Morneau was removed from cabinet. However, it was not just Mr.

He always says he is working here for all Canadians. That was a promise to soon-to-be voters, and it was clearly a political message he used in those videos paid for by the WE Charity. Just weeks before that, WE was given a contract for half a billion dollars to deliver the Canada student service grant: something that was specifically designed by the Government of Canada, orchestrated by Bill Morneau and implicated by the Prime Minister in ensuring that it was delivered through the WE Charity, which was an organization that had never done anything working with students at this scale during a pandemic.

These facts appear a clear conflict of interest, and have severely damaged public confidence in our democratic institutions, especially here in the Parliament of Canada.

During our testimony, there were calls to bring a number of witnesses who refused to attend. Chin responded to Mr. Ben Chin refused to comply with the order of the House to appear. Rick Theis, who is also in the Prime Minister ‘s office as the director of policy and cabinet affairs, met with the Kielburger brothers from WE on May 5, , regarding this new program, and Amitpal Singh, who was an adviser to Bill Morneau in early April, suggested a youth services program would eventually be developed into a tailor-made, half-a-billion-dollar WE Charity program.

All three witnesses were instructed to comply, but instead the ministers told them not to. That is contempt, and that election we just had and this new Parliament do not purge those witnesses from being held in contempt. I also want to point out that the MP for Waterloo , who at the time was the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, also perjured herself at committee.

She testified that she did not discuss the half-billion-dollar program with the Kielburgers, yet in documentation submitted to the ethics committee, it was clear that she and her staff were working with the WE foundation.

As members can see, when we put in the litany of scandals the current government has been plagued with, and we look at the WE Charity and the scandal here, it is important we look again at this report as well as have the ethics committee do more to study this issue. As the Prime Minister indicated in question period yesterday very clearly, while the Conservative Party’s focus is purely on character assassination and attacking, we will continue to have our focus on the interests of Canadians.

We just finished having a serious debate on the budget bill, and there is so much more that is out there. I am wondering this. Will the member reflect on the types of political games that he is playing? These are at the expense of having good, sound debate on a wide variety of issues, whether it is the war in Europe, budgetary measures or even what it is we were supposed to be debating today.

James Bezan :. Kevin Lamoureux :. The Conservatives are delaying having really important conversations, and they have not brought forward any solutions around the issues that I have talked about, whether it is climate change, whether it is the important need to fast-track reconciliation or the failure of the government to deliver on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and the calls to justice.

My question to the member is this. Why are the Conservatives continually delaying and not bringing forward solutions to solve these really important issues? A debate about WE Charity is clearly a debate about ethics. I wonder how the NDP-Liberal coalition works, what is really going on behind the scenes and what we here in Parliament are not aware of. I wonder about the importance of being publicly accountable to the House of Commons.

I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the current ethics situation, in , in the House of Commons. This government, this Liberal-NDP coalition, refuses to be held to account and to allow Canadians to look underneath this veil of secrecy of what exactly this Prime Minister has done, whether it comes down to his private vacations or his involvement in the WE scandal.

Canadians deserve to know exactly what is up, and people need to be held accountable. If the NDP want to be here giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to the Liberals, shame on them. I gesture this way because I talk about the government and I talk about the executive branch. It is important. We are all temporary occupants and guardians of the offices that we hold. When that is called into question, and when those offices are brought into disrepute by actions or allegations of actions, it is incumbent upon us that there be transparency and a fair hearing of that information.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman laid it out very well. We have seen this pattern of behaviour by the Prime Minister over a number of years: He believes that the rules do not apply to him. It is the wrong message to send to Canadians, it is the wrong message to send to parliamentarians and it is also the wrong message to send to the world when we hear condemnations that have come from groups such as the OECD, when it comes to legislators from other countries, who are concerned about the appearance of corruption or corrupt practices by members of the government.

In this case, specifically with respect to hearings that were had on the WE Charity scandal, we had a number of witnesses who were duly ordered to appear by a parliamentary committee. They were instructed by members of the executive, by federal cabinet ministers, not to appear at committee.

They were instructed to defy a lawful order of the House. What is the precedent that sets? I can tell colleagues that on its face it is a bad one. It is that we have a government so afraid of letting the light of transparency shine that it would unroll hundreds of years of precedent and undermine the traditions, customs, practices and legal authority of this place and say those rules do not matter because they make things uncomfortable for it. That puts us in a really tough spot.

I heard questions and comments to my colleague for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman asking why we would talk about this and not talk about that. This issue was then pushed forward through the fall and into the spring of , and before the issue was resolved to come back in the fall of , he called an election, although just that spring he had committed to not call one. All members in the House undertook to continue advocating for the priorities of Canadians, but in this case the Prime Minister had a different priority and was protecting himself from uncomfortable questions.

The individuals named in that order to appear at committee must appear. It is incumbent on all members of the House to see to the completion of that work. It is an abdication of our responsibility as members, as the House of Commons, and as the Parliament of Canada not to complete our work.

Are there other important issues facing this country? We can bet on that. There is fiscal mismanagement and failure to work with the provinces on important things like health care. The member for Courtenay—Alberni was talking about his coalition partners and a need for action on the opioid crisis facing this country. Hear, hear, I agree. His party had direct input and impact on what this budget looked like. New Democrats are the ones who are going to carry this budget across the goal line for the government.

We can talk about that. We continue those consultations. Conservative members are continuing work on this important file, challenging the government on issues like addiction and mental health and what resources it is committing to the provinces. Is it collaborating with the provinces? Has the Prime Minister finally met with the first ministers, the premiers, to talk about what the future looks like for health care in this country?

No, he has not. However, unlike the Prime Minister , we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can do both of those things. We are talking about the budget; we are talking about addiction and mental health; we are talking about reconciliation with Canada’s first people. We are doing a lot of things, but we are not going to forget just because the Prime Minister took the walk up to Rideau Hall, contrary to what he said he was going to do, breaking his word, breaking a promise and acting against the will of all members of this House when we passed a motion saying there would not be an election.

That is part of the pattern, so we are back, dealing with it again. Liberals hope that water under the bridge and time on the clock are going to be enough that Canadians will forget, but it is about those precedent-setting behaviours that we take. When we decide that it is okay for ministers to instruct individuals who are duly and lawfully ordered to appear at committee not to appear because they do not like what they might say, what does that say?

It says that we are going to cast aside all the traditions of this place. We should have gotten this done in Liberals have delayed and obstructed this from being completed. We have formed a new Parliament since then. We had an election. Most of us find ourselves in different roles. I know the member for Winnipeg North continues in his role, as was pointed out by my colleague, as the defender or apologist in chief. I have other things that I am working on, but I can also do this at the same time.

It is incredibly important. In concluding my remarks, I want to underscore for all members in this place that this is important. It is important that we not allow games by the government to distract from the important role that we have as the guardians of this institution, of the rights of Canadians and of what they hold sacred, and that is trust in these democratic institutions.

Questions and comments, the hon. What would Motion No. Why are Conservatives playing the game today? It is because Motion No. It is nothing new. It happens all the time, whether it is in Ottawa or the many different provincial legislatures.

The reality is that the Conservatives do not want that additional time. They do not want to work. Why is my colleague across the way afraid to sit a few extra hours? I ask him to recognize how important debate is inside this chamber. Michael Barrett :. Further, what is interesting about Motion No. It is just like what we saw in the last Parliament, when they would have only one person in this place, who was the member for Kingston and the Islands , because they were too afraid their members might erupt with some concern about the activities of the government and the Prime Minister , which would reflect very poorly on them.

If they had not called an unnecessary election during a pandemic, we could have dealt with this two years ago. I think ethics is an issue that has an impact on Canadians. I think that confidence in institutions is an issue that has an impact on Canadians. If we are going to talk about lobbying, since my colleague mentioned it in his presentation, the king of Canadian lobby groups is the oil and gas industry.

It is the biggest lobby in Canada and controls a considerable portion of our economy. We can go further still. The emissions reduction fund was launched during the pandemic solely to support the oil and gas sector.

I wonder if my colleague is as concerned as I am by oil and gas sector lobbying. That type of behaviour between a lobbyist and a government official is incredibly concerning, and I hope the Prime Minister will co-operate fully with the RCMP in a case like the one I mentioned.

I know for the hon. This is something that I want to make sure we are speaking about on a regular basis. As for the housing and climate crisis, we might feel differently about that, but to me this place should be focused on those kinds of issues. In his view, why is this more important than getting at the kinds of issues from housing to the poisoning crisis to the climate crisis? The hon. The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:.

Division No. That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House,. Tuesday to Thursday, p. A all remaining motions to concur in the votes for which a notice of opposition was filed shall be deemed to have been moved and seconded, the questions deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested,.

B the Speaker shall have the power to combine the said motions for voting purposes, provided that, in exercising this power, the Speaker be guided by the same principles and practices used at report stage,.

When St. John the Baptist Day, Canada Day or the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation fall on a Tuesday, the House shall not meet the preceding day; when those days fall on a Thursday, the House shall not meet the following day. It is important that I emphasize at the very beginning of the debate on this motion that we need to recognize that this is nothing new.

I have been a parliamentarian since I have gone through minority and majority governments, and I have been in opposition and am now in government. More often than not, it is likely the case that we have extended hours during the winding up of a session going into the month of June, and that is the essence of this particular motion. We are likely going to witness the Conservatives stand up and, in some righteous way, try to say that this motion is something it is not.

However, it is a very straightforward and simple motion. The opposition House leader , when he stands up, will get the opportunity to tell me which governments in particular did not bring in motions of this nature. In my experience, the NDP government in Manitoba, the Progressive Conservative government in Manitoba, Stephen Harper as the Prime Minister of Canada and Prime Ministers before Stephen Harper brought in motions that enabled members to contribute more during debates, and that is the essence of what this motion is all about.

People need to realize that. We are often reminded about being in a minority government, and justifiably so. The first time I was elected, it was a minority government. I was part of the official opposition, and I remember Reg Alcock, who was then the opposition House leader, indicating that we had a role to play in being creative and assisting where we could to contribute positively to legislation.

This was to see if we could make changes to legislation and ensure that legislation was ultimately getting through so we had the opportunity to have debates on some of the more important pieces of legislation. That was back in , and just eight months ago, last September and October, Canadians gave us a third mandate that was greater than our second mandate.

More members of Parliament were elected in the third mandate than in the second mandate, and we recognize that it is a minority government. Canadians want us to be working for Canadians, which means that at times we have to put partisan politics to the side. As members know, sometimes I can be somewhat partisan, and I will admit to that. However, at times, it is important that we put partisanship to the side.

I welcome comments from the opposition House leader. He should tell Canadians in the House today whether Stephen Harper brought forward motions of this nature to extend hours. I will let the member opposite know, as I am sure he knows, that the answer to that is yes. It is important that we recognize that at the very beginning, because I can prophesize to a certain degree that we are going to hear the Conservatives note how bad this motion really is.

Speaker, when we take a look at the details of this motion, we see that the core of the motion does two things. One, it enables the House of Commons to sit later in the evenings, and that means we could be sitting until midnight. Well, why is there is a need for us to sit until midnight? It is because there is a substantial legislative agenda. There is legislation the House needs to be able to debate.

To facilitate that debate, we have to extend the hours or we have to put even more limits on the amount of debate inside the House. We often see the reaction from the Conservatives when we try to say this legislation needs to pass: They will debate and debate and then argue for more debate time.

Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite says that it is called democracy. That is what this bill is doing: providing additional time so that members opposite will be able to debate. We can think of the arguments they have put forward over the last number of weeks and months, saying that they want more debate on government legislation. Well, what the heck? This is the motion they should be voting for.

This is the motion they should be supporting so that it passes quickly, because it is going to enable us to have additional hours and hours of debate.

Is it because they do not want to put in the effort? I can assure members that every member of the Liberal caucus, due to the support from the New Democratic caucus, will give a commitment to do the work that is necessary to pass the type of legislation that Canadians expect the House of Commons to pass.

At the end of the day, the member across the way is wrong in his assertion because of what we have seen from the Conservative Party. We saw it earlier today, just an hour ago. We were supposed to be talking about the issue of how we can accommodate additional hours so that members of the opposition and government would be able to contribute to debate on important legislation.

However, the Conservatives brought forward a concurrence motion, as they continue to do to try to frustrate the legislative agenda. It was difficult for me not to speak when that motion came before us, and I can assure members of that, because I did have a number of thoughts with regard to the behaviour of the Conservative Party by bringing forward such a motion.

As we have seen, the Conservatives have somewhat of a hidden agenda here. They try to tell the public that they want to co-operate, want to do things with the government and want to assist the government in doing the types of things that need to be done, but when the tire hits the road, what ends up happening is that the Conservative Party continues to look at ways to prevent things from happening.

Let me give members a good example of that. The one that comes to my mind is Bill C Speaker, the opposition House leader says he is glad that I mentioned it, so let me share some thoughts. We are talking about the fall budgetary measures. Bill C-8 , the fall economic statement follow-up, is there to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way. It is hard to believe this, but it is true: That bill is still before the House.

The number of days we have debated that bill is more days than we have debated the budget of The content of Bill C-8 is of a substantial nature. We are talking about legislation that directly supports Canadians in a very real and tangible way. I could talk about, for example, the enhancement of school ventilation. If we think about the pandemic, that is very much needed and there is support for that. There was the first go-round of the rapid tests. We will remember that back in December and January, when people were saying they needed rapid tests, we were able to get record numbers of these rapid tests so that the provinces and territories would have them for distribution.

There are also direct supports for small businesses in Bill C-8, supports that small businesses are very much depending on. Bill C-8 is a piece of legislation that should have been passed long ago, but when the government brings it up for debate, the Conservatives look at ways to prevent it from being debated. I made reference to what happened today when the opposition brought forward a concurrence motion. It has brought forward other concurrence motions, even to prevent debate on Bill C The Conservatives will go out of their way to prevent members from debating.

The opposition party will often put up roadblocks, no matter what the legislation is. We have even seen that on legislation that it supports. We have an official opposition that has an agenda that says it does not want the government to pass anything, period. Kevin Lamoureux: They call it accountability. That is not accountability, my friend. Speaker, preventing the government from passing everything it brings into the House of Commons is not accountability.

We have a different approach when it comes to accountability. That, my friend, is not accountability. What Canadians voted for was to ensure that the government works with opposition parties, but there is an obligation for opposition parties, in particular the official opposition Conservative Party, to recognize that they too have a mandate.

Their mandate is to make the House of Commons a better place to serve the Canadian people. I would challenge members opposite to go to any sort of real forum, like maybe a university class or something of that nature, and enter into the same discussion we will be having today on this issue and talk about it. I suspect there will be no acceptance by any member of the Conservative Party to deal with that issue, because on one hand, the Conservatives will try to frustrate and prevent debate from occurring, and on the other hand, they will say they need more debate time.

They want more people to speak on this bill, that bill or the other bill. They are sending very mixed messages. Today we are going to hear Conservative after Conservative, and, as I understand, the opposition House leader in particular, say they do not need this motion and there should have been more co-operation. The House leader is going to talk about the support from my New Democratic friends for the motion.

No doubt, he is upset with that fact. The only time the government can get things through the House is when we have cooperation from at least one opposition party. It does not take much to stop government legislation. Give me a dozen high school students from the R.

Russell school, Sisler, St. John’s, or the Maples, put them on the floor of the House of Commons, and I could prevent any bill from being able to proceed. It does not take much to stop legislation.

It takes an effort to be able to contribute to the debate to the degree in which one can make the modifications one feels are necessary and, for those pieces of legislation that one is in real opposition to, look at ways to allow for more healthy debate in the chamber. There is not one Liberal member of Parliament who would try to support that when there is good will coming from all sides of the House to have a debate.

That is why we will see, when it comes time to vote on this motion, that every Liberal member of Parliament will vote in favour of it. One does not need to even whip the vote, as this will ensure there are additional hours of debate—. Gabriel Ste-Marie :. Speaker, one never knows. It might be the member who just stood. He is right. Often, when someone rises on a point of order, it interrupts our train of thought. Here, we are talking about the Conservatives wanting to be able to have that additional debate on bills.

The House would normally adjourn today at Once this motion passes, all it would take is any opposition House leader, even the Conservative opposition House leader, and a government minister to come to an agreement before to say that we would like to be able to continue on until midnight. What is wrong with that? The legislation is there. When I look at some of the legislation, on some of it I suspect there is going to be a great deal of interest.

The one that comes to my mind is the budget implementation act. I suspect that there will be a good number of people who want to be able to speak to the budget implementation act. If members want to contribute to that debate, I would like to see them contribute to that debate, if it is possible, on that piece of legislation.

The House is now saying that, if there is an agreement between any opposition House leader and a minister, they could then bring it forward so we can sit until midnight, but we have to do that before of that day.

Let us think in terms of the time opportunities and the splitting of speeches. For example, more often than not we see members split a speech, so it is then a minute speech with five minutes for questions and answers. That gives the opportunity for four other people to speak to a bill or, in the case as I mentioned, to the budget implementation act. In extending from until midnight, one can quickly do the math, and we are talking about plus additional speakers.

Those are the individuals who have the full 10 minutes. That does not include the individuals who will stand up and have the opportunity, indirectly, to ask those questions on issues they might have about a piece of legislation or a budget.

That is what Motion No. It is about enabling those plus other members of Parliament to be able to contribute if the need or the desire is there. As I say, if we factor in those three questions per speech on four speeches, there are 12 per hour. We are looking at over five hours. That is a lot of opportunity for members on all sides of the House, if they choose, to get up and provide comments, ask questions and do whatever else they might have to do.

That is why I believe it is important. Bill C-8 is the legislation that has been debated now on 10 separate occasions in the House. If we applied that same principle to the rest of the government legislation, it would not be possible. We would not be able to get it done. We would have to bring in a time allocation motion that is very wholesome in its approach. We would have to look at ways to try to pass the legislative agenda in a very, very tight timeframe. We know, and we can anticipate, that the official opposition will bring in concurrence reports.

It has demonstrated this and shown it. We know the Conservatives will bring in adjournment motions and other activities to frustrate the legislative process. That does not serve Canadians well. The Prime Minister was very clear yesterday. The message he gave yesterday is something I would like to emphasize today.

My take on the message the Prime Minister gave yesterday is that the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition, has its own agenda, whatever that agenda might be. More often than not, it is one of personal attack. We saw that yesterday in question period. We saw today before this motion. That is the issue it wants to talk about. On character assassination, one of the colleagues from across the way stood up and talked about Bill Morneau. He was talking about the French villa the then minister of finance had, trying to make it impressive by saying it was in located in France and highlighting this morning that he did not declare it to the commission.

The first thing that came across my mind as the member was talking about that was that, a few days after the election, when the minister of finance was elected, the cottage in France was reported in the newspaper.

I do not believe the minister of finance was trying to hide anything from his constituents, let alone Canadians. It was actually in the newspaper days after he was elected. However, it does not prevent the Conservatives from focusing their attention on character assassinations. Yesterday the Prime Minister gave a very clear message. The message was very simple. Opposition parties will do what they do, but from the Government of Canada’s perspective, the Prime Minister, cabinet and Liberal caucus, at times with the support of the New Democratic Party and, even at times, members from the Bloc, the focus is on Canadians first and foremost.

We have seen that in the many different budgetary actions that have been brought forward, whether it is actions to support seniors, which there are many of, or whether it is actions that have been ongoing to support small businesses in Canada. For example, there is Bill C-8 , which is the one we have not been able to pass. These are the types of things Canadians want us to get through the House of Commons.

Canadians want to see a House of Commons that is much more productive on the issues of the day. That is what I believe we, as a government, will continue to focus on. I am concerned about the cost of housing, inflation, health care and long-term care. I am concerned about the dental plan and making sure we can put that into place.

I am concerned about pharmacare and the cost of pharmaceuticals. I am concerned about our environment, and I am looking at initiatives such as the greener home build program and zero-emissions incentives, such as the incentives for electric cars and purchasing.

The other day, one of the Speaker’s colleagues raised that the Province of Quebec is providing an incentive for people to buy electric vehicles. Now, Ottawa is doing the same, which is an additional incentive. Back then, I had put forward that this was the type of debate that I would love to see all members participate in. We all come from provinces and territories, and can all contribute to that. I take what the province of Quebec is doing as a very strong positive. My challenge to Heather Stefanson, the Premier of Manitoba, would be to do something of a likewise nature.

Those are the types of debates that we could be having. At times, we see that debate taking place. That is all a part of allowing for the extension that we are requesting through this particular motion.

How many speeches have been given here in this place where we talk a great deal about Ukraine and the war that is taking place in Europe? We have already had take-note debates on it this year. I believe we have also had an emergency debate, but it could have been two take-note debates.

The point is that those were debates about a matter that Canadians are generally concerned about, as they are about a multitude of different economic issues. Canadians want to know what the government is actually doing going forward. If there is a silver lining, in terms of the line of questioning that the Conservatives have been putting forward to the government, I would suggest it is that they do not really have much to say about the budget itself, which tells me—.

I am trying to figure this out now. Is the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader actually trying to filibuster his own motion here? I just need to know because I am hungry. I could go for lunch and then come back later. All I am trying to do is convince the member opposite, his colleagues, my friends in the Bloc and the NDP, why it is so important that we recognize that this is a motion that every one of us should be supporting.

By supporting this motion, what we are saying to Canadians is that we are prepared to work the extra hours. Who in here does not want to work the extra hours? I am prepared to work the extra hours. Who in here does not want to enable more debate time on legislation and budgetary matters? Members can put their hands up if they do not want to.

I believe that all members in the House are open to it. Having said that, why would someone not support the legislation? It was raised in the form of a point of order earlier, in regard to the issue of quorum calls and dilatory motions. We have seen these types of things on the floor of the House of Commons on many occasions, whether it is one day or extended periods of time.

Even to be able to initiate the extension of the number of hours in a day takes more than the government. We have to go back to an opposition party. It could even be the House leader of the official opposition. These are the types of things that are built into the motion. I mentioned that there are two aspects to the motion. We have the special joint committee dealing with medical assistance in dying. I know my friends in the Bloc have been following that discussion very closely, and understandably so.

I believe my friends in the Bloc initially wanted to see this put off until October or to not recess before the summer. There are opportunities for us to ensure that the report comes back to Parliament.

We are now setting a date within this motion that it be October 17, , in terms of getting that final report. Given the nature of that special committee, and the requests and comments coming from members on all sides of the House regarding it, it seems to me that is also something that could be supported in the motion. If we continue to go through the motion, there are some simple, straightforward things.

When members choose to stand up, they should tell me specifically, even in the question and answer session, what would cause someone to vote against the motion. When that is done, keep in mind and reflect on the fact that these types of motions have been introduced by different levels of government and by different prime ministers, including Stephen Harper.

If they could do that, it would be very helpful. I think making that amendment to the Standing Orders is a very good thing. Are there members in the chamber who would oppose that?

I suspect members would actually support that aspect of the motion. I would suggest that is something all members of the House would support.

I suspect that some members might have some concerns with respect to the clause that allows a minister to move a motion to adjourn the House until Monday, September 19, The motion does not require notice and has to be voted on immediately.

There could be some concerns in regard to that. It is interesting that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has made it clear that a motion like this would not be moved before the last week the House sits in June. We have no intentions of that.

The House leader has made that indication. I have full intentions of being here on June I plan to participate and be engaged until the very end. Whether it is myself or the member for Kingston and the Islands , I suspect one of us will always be inside the chamber because we want to ensure, as much as possible, that people are engaged in the debates that are taking place. However, that cannot happen without the support of at least one other recognized party in the House.

The opposition House leader is speculating as to who that might be. I will make a suggestion. There is nothing wrong with the member opposite deciding to become engaged. John Brassard :. Damien Kurek :. I will ask the parliamentary secretary to continue his speech and to clarify his thoughts on that part of the motion.

However, if he is moving an amendment to his government’s motion, I am sure the House would be happy to entertain that, but I would not want the issue to be confused as we debate this very important motion, which has a significant impact on the way this place, the centrepiece of Canadian democracy, is able to do business. I hope we can get absolute clarity on this issue before we continue with the debate.

Chris Bittle :. I know I enjoy hearing from the hon. The Conservatives will have an opportunity to respond, and I look forward to hearing that, but all of this back and forth is truly just debate.

When it comes to the content of the motion to which the other member has alleged, that is not us debating the substance. That clearly has to do with whether the House is able to accurately debate the substance of this motion, so it has nothing to do with the perspectives of different parties. It has nothing to do with the debate on the motion itself, but truly the substance at the heart of what creates the foundation for any debate within this place.

At the end of the day, there is a motion that has to be moved by the government. That motion does not require other members or opposition parties to sign off on it before it is actually introduced. The member needs to be aware that if the government moves a motion to adjourn for September 19, at the end of the day a vote takes place once it is moved. I suspect that getting that motion passed is going to require more than the government of the day.

It is going to require at least one other opposition party. Hopefully that provides clarity, but the member can seek more clarity during questions and answers. I made a commitment to the opposition House leader in terms of the length of my comments.

I said we would have to take a look at who speaks longer. My commitment was to speak less than the official opposition House leader. I know he was concerned about that, so this is really important to me. I want to be able to speak less than the opposition House leader. I am going to wind up my comments. In an appeal to all members, but specifically members of the Conservative caucus, I want you to think in terms of what it is that is within the motion.

The motion does two things, in essence. One thing is that it extends the special standing committee to deal with MAID, and I trust no one is opposing that. If you are, please stand and let me know or come over and tell me that you oppose that. To the best of my knowledge, that is not the case.

I am going to believe that is not a reason why someone would vote against this. The other thing that the motion does is it extends the number of hours in which members on all sides of the House will be able to debate. That is something that historically and traditionally has taken place in provincial legislatures and here in Ottawa.

Why would someone not allow for more time for debate, unless there is of course a hidden agenda behind it? I think there is a responsibility to tell us why it is. As opposed to just being critical, tell us why it is specifically that you feel you do not think we should be working a few extra hours in the evening.

Tell us why it is that we should not be allowing more members to be able to participate in debate. If you vote against this legislation, I suspect that any future argument you have, asking for more time to debate on legislation the government brings forward, will lack credibility.

As members will know, I hang out in this place a lot. I will be sure to remind members of the way in which they voted on this motion if they end up criticizing the government because we are not allowing more time for debate.

We are doing what other governments have done. Let us put Canadians and the people of Canada first. Let us allow the motion to pass. Let us put in a little more effort working in the evenings, allow for more debate, and allow for that special committee being dealt with. Always remember it is a minority government, and Canadians expect us all to work co-operatively.

Working co-operatively ensures there is a lot of accountability and transparency. It does not mean that you have to vote with us all the time, but it does mean that there has to be recognition that there is a legislative agenda. I did not even go through the details of all the legislation, but I can assure you there is a lot of good stuff that we are waiting for.

I want to make a couple of points. He spoke specifically about Bill C The bill was first introduced on December 15, It got approval at second reading on February 10, went to committee and got committee approval on March 1, and now it is at report stage.

We have had four weeks off in that time, yet the government suggests that somehow the opposition is obstructing. The other thing is that on April 4, the government put on notice a motion of time allocation.

It was the NDP that refused to support that notice of time allocation. In fact, the government has mismanaged its legislative agenda, and that is why we are seeing the hammer fall as it is with Motion No. The member spoke about specific examples of other governments.

The Standing Orders are very clear that there is a specific timeline in which we can extend debate. Those are in the Standing Orders, and the schedule was agreed to by all of the parties. Can the member give examples, specifically, of where other levels of government, as he says, actually did this: extending hours at this point in time?

I would be very curious and interested to hear about that. In order to have a legislative agenda get through, we need that sense of co-operation. I hope that helps the member better understand the importance of working collaboratively.

It does not mean colleagues must listen to everything we say and obey everything we say. No, there is give-and-take. I suspect that if there was more give-and-take between the government and the official opposition there would probably be a higher sense of gratification on all sides of the House, as we want to try to do what is right for the people of Canada.

We have worked hard at parliamentary committee and saw that we would not have enough time to do all the work that such a sensitive topic demands. The other parties, some of which were not convinced, dragged their feet.

The government decided to include this in a motion that muzzles the opposition, when it was unnecessary to do that since Standing Order 27 allows sitting hours to be extended. That is like the government asking us if we like honey and us saying yes, but then the government adds arsenic to the honey and tells us to eat up.

Why did the government choose to muzzle the opposition when it could have simply used Standing Order 27? I do not understand. For the life of me, I believe that a vast majority of Canadians would not object to Parliament sitting until midnight. While I was in the Manitoba legislature, I would sit until two o’clock in the morning at times. Sometimes there is a need to work. I think about today being a very important day, the National Day of Mourning.

Today, on April 28, we know that workers, families, employers and people in our communities gather together at events, including in my riding, in Courtenay and in Port Alberni. They are held across the country, so that we remember those who have lost their lives on the job or who have been injured on the job, and we renew our commitment to creating safer workplaces. The government, in terms of hiring people with disabilities, is the worst for any equity group in the federal public service.

I have to raise this today, that with the federal accessibility legislation now in place and employment for persons with disabilities identified as a key priority, recognizing the explicit interface between disability, poverty and employment, I need to know this: What are the federal government’s key strategies in accommodating employees who acquire a mental or physical health impairment and who are unable to carry on their duties?

Maybe the member could speak to that and the importance of that, because I have not seen enough on the action that needs to happen. On the issue of people with disabilities, our minister has been very proactive in trying to bring forward progressive legislation to deal with some of these issues. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. I am sorry, but I just do not have the details to provide to my friend that I know he was hoping for. Can the member for Winnipeg North share, should this motion pass, whether this would allow time for critical legislation like the Canada disability benefit act to be introduced and debated?

Unlike government legislation, there is programming that takes place with private members’ bills, which will ultimately see it brought to the floor, debated and voted upon.

I do not know where that particular issue is at, in regard to Private Members’ Business, but I do hope to see a healthy discussion on the guaranteed annual income, because I know there is a great deal of interest out there. While he does not mind if we are here all night, which is not a problem, the fact of the matter is that they will be putting on their pyjamas as soon as the House rises here at , and not even tuning into Zoom.

Here we go again. I honestly do not know what to say after hearing the parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government in this chamber. As I said in my question to him, what I heard was a lot of justification with little accountability on why the Liberals are introducing what I would deem a draconian motion, Motion No. There is nothing under this coalition with the NDP, even up to the point and in advance of the coalition being announced, that the Liberals have not been able to put forward as part of their legislative agenda.

So far, of the 18 bills that have been introduced, eight have received royal assent. There is no question that there may be some other outstanding pieces of legislation that the government wants to put forward, but there is no reason why it cannot do that in the time specified in the Standing Orders and the schedule that was agreed to by my predecessor and the other House leaders last year.

The Standing Orders talk about the possibility of extending hours. We have seen that. I have been here for six and a half years, certainly not as long as my hon. She has seen it all, through government and now through opposition. There has never been an example like this, at least in the history of this Parliament, and I suspect in the history of legislatures across the country in all of the provinces and territories, where on April 28 we are debating a motion that gives the government ultimate power to extend hours at this particular point of this parliamentary session.

I am going to talk later on about the consequences of that, because I think there are significant consequences to the administration of this place, to the lives and the health, mental and physical health, of those who work in this place, but what I want to focus on initially is why we are at this point, a point that I believe we certainly do not need to be at. I have heard from the government House leader and the parliamentary secretary that they are focusing on Bill C-8 as one of the reasons why they are proposing this ham-fisted Motion No.

The reality on Bill C-8 is that, as I said earlier, it was only introduced on December It received second reading in February, went to committee in March and came back to the House at report stage.

There were some other issues of debate that were required as a result of its coming out of committee. In fact, I recall having a conversation with you, Mr. Those concerns were certainly moving through the process. Within that timeline specifically on Bill C-8 , there are some important measures, measures that have already been implemented, such as purchasing rapid tests. The government has the authorities, when it issues a ways and means motion, to accelerate the spending within the piece of legislation.

When we look back, we have had four weeks where we have been off. I am sure we all agree to that timeline. This is effectively a mismanagement of the legislative agenda as to why Bill C-8 has not been put forward. As I said in my question to the parliamentary secretary , and this is important to understand because Liberals have been accusing us, the opposition, of obstructing this piece of legislation, it was on April 4 that the government put a notice of time allocation on the Notice Paper.

That was the week of the budget. The budget was introduced on April 7. The motion was not moved. When I asked the government House leader why he did not move the motion, the reason he gave me was that the NDP did not want to move that motion.

How are we obstructing that? If the Liberals’ coalition partners did not want to move a notice of time allocation, then their issue on Bill C-8 is not with the opposition but with their coalition partners, because they did not want to move the motion. If the parliamentary secretary wants to, he can confirm that with the government House leader.

Hopefully he gets the truth, but that was the basis of the conversation that we had. In fact, it was brought up at the House leaders’ meeting the next day. The government suggests, specifically on Bill C-8 , that somehow we are obstructing the passage of that piece of legislation. Yes, we had some people who wanted to speak to it when it came out of committee, because there were important issues. However, I would suggest, respectfully, that it was the Liberals’ coalition partners who prevented the notice of time allocation from being moved, which, as I said, was introduced on April 4.

We could have been dealing with this at third stage even back before the budget in that first week. We certainly share those concerns, particularly from an agriculture standpoint as it relates to the carbon tax rebate and taxes. I know there are teachers who are waiting for that bill.

It is not lost on me, and it should not be lost on anybody in the House, that it is the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners who are stopping this. The other thing that is concerning, and I know the member brought this up as well, is the issue of medical assistance in dying and the extension within this motion on medical assistance in dying, which would push it to October There was a requirement for a legislative review to be held on this bill.

We went to an election in September. We were reconvened around November. However, it was not until the end of March, in the timeline that is required for this legislative review, that the government even started talking about the Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying and the requirement for this legislative review. In fact, this review was required to be done legislatively by May, so we had discussions.

I understand my colleague from the Bloc and I understand as well that there are very serious issues with medical assistance in dying that are required to be looked at, but with regard to the legislative review that was to be done in May, we actually agreed, as the opposition, to extend the timeline by another six weeks. It was not our fault that the government delayed the legislative review. It pushed it off until March, and then we agreed to go beyond the extension. Initially, I was a little concerned about it, but we do not control the legislative agenda in this place.

It is not the opposition’s job to sit here and determine what is going to happen in this place. It is the government’s job. When we were in government, we determined the legislative agenda that was to occur in this place. The Liberals’ failure, not just on Bill C-8 but on medical assistance in dying and the required legislative review and the timeline related to that, is their fault.

It is completely on them, and that is why we agreed. I respected the concern of the Bloc House leader , and I know there are very deep and personal issues within the Bloc caucus on the issue of medical assistance in dying.

That is why we agreed to extend the timeline by another six weeks and to provide the committee with what we believe was an appropriate amount of time, six weeks extra, to deal with this. We actually also committed to having the committee sit more than what was regularly scheduled.

That would have required moving resources from other committees to this committee, but we were committed to allowing that extended timeline to June 23, which all of us, including me and our party, agreed to. Again, that is the government’s prerogative.

We do not control the administration of this place. We do not control committees. We do not control virtual sittings. The Assistant Deputy Speaker Mrs. Michael Barrett Michael Barrett. Division 60 Government Orders. Jean-Yves Duclos. The Acting Speaker Mr.

Gabriel Ste-Marie Gabriel Ste-Marie. Kevin Lamoureux John Brassard Damien Kurek. Chris Bittle Statements by Members. Retirement Congratulations. Michael Wilton. David Barber. Terry Duguid Winnipeg South, Lib. Day of Mourning. Infertility Awareness Week. Jenna Sudds Kanata—Carleton, Lib. Carole Wardell. Indigenous Law Graduates. Yvonne Jones Labrador, Lib. Avon River Rick Perkins South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC.

Legion Awards Ceremony. Postal Codes in Indigenous Communities. Blood Donation. Peter Schiefke Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib. National Day of Mourning. Yom HaShoah. Martin Champoux Drummond, BQ. Marty Morantz Charleswood—St. Yom HaShoah Ya’ara Saks York Centre, Lib. Marco Mendicino. The Economy. Agriculture and Agri-Food. Foreign Affairs. The Environment. Hedy Fry Vancouver Centre, Lib.

Employment Insurance. Carbon Pricing. Arielle Kayabaga London West, Lib. Digital Services. Passport Canada. Fisheries and Oceans.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. Salma Zahid Scarborough Centre, Lib. Commemoration of the Holocaust. Business of the House Ways and Means. John Brassard. Division 61 Chrystia Freeland. Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, Bardish Chagger Waterloo, Lib. Tom Kmiec. Division 62 Private Members’ Business. Clifford Small. Carol Hughes Margarets, CPC Adjournment Proceedings. Cheryl Gallant. Bryan May. Public Safety Alistair MacGregor.

Pam Damoff. The House met at 10 a. The procedure that I am seeking to invoke is not referenced in any specific standing order. Rather, it falls under the general structures of Standing Order 1, which states:. In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chair of Committees of the Whole, whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada As to those customs and precedents, I would refer the Chair to page of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , third edition, which states:.

When a complicated motion comes before the House for example, a motion containing two or more parts each capable of standing on its own , the Speaker has the authority to modify it in order to facilitate decision making in the House. When any Member objects to a motion containing two or more distinct propositions, he or she may request that the motion be divided and that each proposition be debated and voted on separately. Government Motion No. Looking at the motion on the Order Paper, it could, I think, be divided into at least seven separate questions.

First, we have paragraphs a and b and subparagraph c ii , which concern extending sitting hours and consequential arrangements. Second, we have subparagraph c i , which contains voting on the main estimates and supplementary estimates in the current supply period. Third, we have subparagraph c iii , which would waive the one-sitting-day waiting period between the report stage and third reading stage. Fourth, we have subparagraph c iv , which would allow the Prime Minister , with the votes of his coalition partners in the NDP, to shut down the House for the summer whenever the political heat gets to be too much for him.

Fifth, we have paragraph d , which would make provisions for voting on government business on June 22 and June 23, if the House is even still sitting then. Sixth, we have paragraph e , which would change the mandate of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. Seventh, we have the final paragraph, which would permanently amend the Standing Orders to include the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation among the named holidays when the House would not sit.

The final part of government Motion No. Every party and every member of the House understands and believes in the importance of reconciliation with indigenous peoples. To try to stitch the House’s own internal act of recognition and implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s call to action number 80 to a procedural motion with such a crassly partisan motivation to be able to ram bills through the House and then shutter our elected legislature is a nakedly cynical manoeuvre.

Is there any wonder why reconciliation efforts continue to stumble and stall under the Liberal government? It is because of political tactics and stunts like this. If ever there was a reason to draw upon this special practice among the House procedure, it is for exactly this particular situation. As Mr. Speaker Macnaughton explained on June 15, , at page of the Journals, this practice can be traced to the April 19, , ruling given by the United Kingdom’s Mr.

One of the Speaker’s predecessors, the hon. In adjudicating cases of this kind, the Chair must always be mindful to approach each new case with a fresh eye, taking into account the particular circumstances of the situation at hand.

Often, there is little in the way of guidance for the speaker and a strict compliance with precedent is not always appropriate. I would observe that, in point of fact, most of the situations where the Chair did undertake an intervention of some variety occurred on procedural types of motions not dissimilar to the one that will come before the House today.

In , a motion to make a series of amendments to the Standing Orders was divided for voting purposes. In , a motion concerning government bills, the business of a special committee and the modification of the finance committee’s pre-budget consultations was divided for debating purposes and then further divided for voting purposes. In , a motion concerning the reinstatement of government bills and committee business, along with the temporary management of the House and committee business, was divided for voting purposes.

Of these precedent cases, today’s motion comes closest, I believe, to the situation the House faced 20 years ago. I will admit there are some parts of government Motion No.

Take, for example, the provisions on extended sitting hours and on votes demanded on June 22 and However, there are other portions that are simply stitched together for apparent efficiency by a government that continues to mismanage its parliamentary agenda and the House’s time.

We have, on the one part, temporary measures to structure the rest of the spring sitting. Then there is the extension of the special joint committee’s work through the summer and autumn. Finally, as I discussed earlier, there is a permanent standing order amendment as part of the reconciliation process. Procedurally, distinct debates and votes are justifiable for these matters, I would submit. Morally, the proposal for the House to discuss and acknowledge reconciliation with indigenous peoples should be kept far away from the political controversy baked into the other components of government Motion No.

Reconciliation between the House of Commons and indigenous peoples should be acknowledged in a mature manner, appropriate to the gravity of the issue and the common cause, which I hope all hon.

The Liberal government, however, along with its new New Democrat coalition partners, wants to wedge and divide Canadians time and again. This time, it is to try to leverage deeply objectionable proposals to ram a divisive legislative agenda through Parliament as an opportunity to claim that some members of the House oppose reconciliation.

In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, the only thing that should be divided is government Motion No. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to do the right thing and exercise the authority vested in you by Standing Order 1 and the precedents of the House to divide government Motion No. As members will know, there have been many motions before the House that were lengthy and dealt solely with the business of the House.

Let me draw members’ attention to the motions the House adopted to meet in a hybrid sitting and to require members to be fully vaccinated or have a valid medical exemption to participate in the proceedings of the House.

That motion and other motions the House has adopted since the beginning of the pandemic have been subject to a single debate and a single vote. I believe that should be the approach taken with respect to government Motion No. The motion has a clear unifying theme: organizing the business of the House.

The House has seen many such motions in the past, and precedents suggest that this type of motion has not been divided for the purpose of either debating or voting. The Deputy Speaker :. We have another point of order, from the hon. My point of order will challenge the admissibility of the motion, since the quorum in this House is a requirement of the Constitution Act, section Some may point out that certain proceedings in this chamber have proceeded under the unanimous agreement of the House that quorum calls not be heard, but I would like to point out that in those instances, such as late shows, emergency debates and take-note debates, these debates do not result in decisions of this House.

The current motion is an unprecedented departure from this usual practice, in that it seeks to remove the quorum requirement for the debate of government legislation on items that could become law should the House vote to support them. The requirement for quorum has never been challenged before, and the quorum requirement of the House is a fundamental component of our rules entrenched in the Constitution. I also recognize that the quorum necessity of 20 members is not altered directly.

The inability to bring to the attention of the Chair the lack of quorum in this House indirectly waives the constitutional and procedural requirement of quorum. Since a quorum call is the only means by which quorum is enforced during the sitting, the inability to call a quorum is, in essence, the same as waiving the quorum requirement.

Speaker, as you and your predecessors have reminded this House numerous and countless times, we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. If the House were to adopt Motion No. There are similar precedents regarding committees that ought to be considered. On June 20, and November 7, , the Speaker ruled that:.

While it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House. If we are to be consistent, I would point out that while the House is a master of its own proceedings, it cannot establish procedures that go beyond the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in that the requirements of section of the Constitution Act, and of section 23 of the Manitoba Act, , respecting the use of both the English and French languages in the records and journals of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada, are mandatory and must be obeyed.

Accordingly, the House can no longer depart from its own code of procedure when considering procedure entrenched in the Constitution. On page of the second edition of Joseph Maingot’s Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , in reference to the case, he lists those constitutional requirements regarding parliamentary procedure that must be obeyed and includes in that list section 48, which deals with the quorum of the House of Commons.

While these requirements are amendable by the Parliament of Canada, they cannot be amended only by one House of Parliament.

This House cannot unilaterally change or suspend the quorum requirement by a majority decision. While it is said that the Speaker does not normally rule on constitutional matters, the constitutional matter of quorum is also stated in our Standing Orders, as are the financial privileges of this House.

It is our responsibility to ensure that procedural requirements are observed before a bill leaves this place to become law, since the courts have the legal power to inquire into the procedural history of a bill that has been assented to.

The official opposition rejects this procedure being forced upon the minority by the majority in this House. If the House were to adopt this motion without the unanimous consent of the members, and I have my doubts whether we should have been circumventing this rule in the past by unanimous consent, we could be casting doubt upon the legitimacy of our proceedings and placing the entire institution under a cloud.

Among the first principles of our democracy is that legislation should be tested through rigorous debate. Allowing for significant portions of debate on government legislation that could become law without requiring a single government or coalition member to be present to contest and debate the legislation is a fundamental abdication of duty on behalf of the government. As many Speakers have stated numerous times in this place, the Speaker is the servant of this chamber and the guardian of the members’ rights and privileges.

I implore you to find out of order the provision that would remove the ability of the Speaker to ensure quorum present in this chamber.

We will try to return to the House as soon as practical. We know this motion is coming up for debate soon after business here, so we will try to come back with some responses as soon as is practical. He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. It is an honour to rise today on behalf of the victims and survivors of companies like MindGeek, which have victimized women and girls across this country and across the world.

It is great to reintroduce this bill. I introduced it in the last Parliament as well. For years, online pornographic platforms in Canada have published sexually explicit material without satisfying any requirement for verifying the age or consent of those depicted in it.

As a result, horrific videos of sex trafficking, child exploitation and sexual assault have proliferated on Canadian pornographic websites. This has to stop. The SISE act would implement recommendation 2 of the ethics committee report on MindGeek by requiring those making or distributing pornographic material for a commercial purpose to verify the age and consent of each person depicted.

It would also prohibit the distribution of this material when consent has been withdrawn. Consent matters. If a website is going to profit from the making or publishing of content, the SISE act would ensure that they must verify the age and consent of every individual in every video. Once a video of exploitation has been uploaded, it is virtually impossible to eliminate.

We must prevent these videos from ever reaching the Internet in the first place, and the SISE act would help put the burden of due diligence and corporate responsibility on companies rather than survivors. Just so everyone knows, he lives in Brockville.

He has one of the biggest handles in the entire chamber. In my role as shadow minister for ethics, a position that I have had for just a few weeks, it has been an incredibly busy time.

It comes down to the fact that the Liberals have had quite the record of scandals during their tenure in government. We were reminded earlier this week of the unethical behaviour of the Prime Minister in that he was found, four times, by the former Ethics Commissioner, Mary Dawson, being in contravention of the Conflict of Interest Act. He was guilty of violating and contravening sections 5, 11, 12 and 21 of the Conflict of Interest Act for taking an illegal vacation.

We now know, from the beginning of this week, that the Prime Minister was also investigated by the RCMP for fraud against the government under paragraph 1 c of the Criminal Code for that illegal vacation on a private island.

We also know that the Prime Minister was found guilty of contravening section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act over his interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin and the unnecessary interference and his concerted campaign to pressure the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Jody Wilson-Raybould, into offering SNC-Lavalin a special plea deal, what is called a deferred prosecution agreement.

We have to remember that Jody Wilson-Raybould stood on her principles, stood up for justice, refused to interfere and, because of that, lost her job as the Attorney General of Canada. The Treasury Board president of the day, Jane Philpott, was also fired from cabinet. Both of them were kicked out of the Liberal caucus by the Prime Minister. We know that this scandal in itself had huge overreaching impacts on the Liberal Party.

We know that the principal secretary to the Prime Minister, Gerald Butts, had to resign, along with the Clerk of the Privy Council at the time, Michael Wernick, who also resigned in disgrace. When we talk about Mr. Morneau, the contents of the report that the ethics committee did, tabled here a month ago, and the report tabled in the previous Parliament, concentrated on Bill Morneau and the WE scandal, but even going into that, Bill Morneau as the finance minister was also found guilty of contravening the Conflict of Interest Act for failing to disclose that he had a luxurious villa in the French countryside.

He refused to disclose that to the Ethics Commissioner for two years. As we just witnessed with the Prime Minister ‘s failure on the issue of his private vacation and being four times guilty under the Conflict of Interest Act and investigated for fraud against the government under the Criminal Code, we do not know if the RCMP investigated Bill Morneau over the WE scandal and the contents of the report that we tabled on March 31, on which I also got up on a question of privilege, as you may recall, Mr.

We have to remember that Mr. Morneau failed to recuse himself from the cabinet table when decisions were made about awarding the WE Charity over half a billion dollars, and gave it preferential treatment. Morneau allowed his ministerial staff to work directly with the WE Charity, help them develop their proposals and intervene on behalf of WE at federal, provincial and municipal levels to deliver a program that was beyond WE’s capabilities, as we found out through testimony.

Additionally, Mr. Morneau failed to talk about how his own daughter worked for the WE foundation. In the wake of this WE scandal, and in the wake of the work that was done by the ethics committee in the previous Parliament, Mr. Morneau was removed from cabinet. However, it was not just Mr. He always says he is working here for all Canadians.

That was a promise to soon-to-be voters, and it was clearly a political message he used in those videos paid for by the WE Charity. Just weeks before that, WE was given a contract for half a billion dollars to deliver the Canada student service grant: something that was specifically designed by the Government of Canada, orchestrated by Bill Morneau and implicated by the Prime Minister in ensuring that it was delivered through the WE Charity, which was an organization that had never done anything working with students at this scale during a pandemic.

These facts appear a clear conflict of interest, and have severely damaged public confidence in our democratic institutions, especially here in the Parliament of Canada. During our testimony, there were calls to bring a number of witnesses who refused to attend.

Chin responded to Mr. Ben Chin refused to comply with the order of the House to appear. Rick Theis, who is also in the Prime Minister ‘s office as the director of policy and cabinet affairs, met with the Kielburger brothers from WE on May 5, , regarding this new program, and Amitpal Singh, who was an adviser to Bill Morneau in early April, suggested a youth services program would eventually be developed into a tailor-made, half-a-billion-dollar WE Charity program.

All three witnesses were instructed to comply, but instead the ministers told them not to. That is contempt, and that election we just had and this new Parliament do not purge those witnesses from being held in contempt. I also want to point out that the MP for Waterloo , who at the time was the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, also perjured herself at committee.

She testified that she did not discuss the half-billion-dollar program with the Kielburgers, yet in documentation submitted to the ethics committee, it was clear that she and her staff were working with the WE foundation. As members can see, when we put in the litany of scandals the current government has been plagued with, and we look at the WE Charity and the scandal here, it is important we look again at this report as well as have the ethics committee do more to study this issue.

As the Prime Minister indicated in question period yesterday very clearly, while the Conservative Party’s focus is purely on character assassination and attacking, we will continue to have our focus on the interests of Canadians. We just finished having a serious debate on the budget bill, and there is so much more that is out there. I am wondering this. Will the member reflect on the types of political games that he is playing?

These are at the expense of having good, sound debate on a wide variety of issues, whether it is the war in Europe, budgetary measures or even what it is we were supposed to be debating today.

James Bezan :. Kevin Lamoureux :. The Conservatives are delaying having really important conversations, and they have not brought forward any solutions around the issues that I have talked about, whether it is climate change, whether it is the important need to fast-track reconciliation or the failure of the government to deliver on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and the calls to justice. My question to the member is this. Why are the Conservatives continually delaying and not bringing forward solutions to solve these really important issues?

A debate about WE Charity is clearly a debate about ethics. I wonder how the NDP-Liberal coalition works, what is really going on behind the scenes and what we here in Parliament are not aware of.

I wonder about the importance of being publicly accountable to the House of Commons. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the current ethics situation, in , in the House of Commons. This government, this Liberal-NDP coalition, refuses to be held to account and to allow Canadians to look underneath this veil of secrecy of what exactly this Prime Minister has done, whether it comes down to his private vacations or his involvement in the WE scandal.

Canadians deserve to know exactly what is up, and people need to be held accountable. If the NDP want to be here giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to the Liberals, shame on them. I gesture this way because I talk about the government and I talk about the executive branch. It is important.

We are all temporary occupants and guardians of the offices that we hold. When that is called into question, and when those offices are brought into disrepute by actions or allegations of actions, it is incumbent upon us that there be transparency and a fair hearing of that information.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman laid it out very well. We have seen this pattern of behaviour by the Prime Minister over a number of years: He believes that the rules do not apply to him. It is the wrong message to send to Canadians, it is the wrong message to send to parliamentarians and it is also the wrong message to send to the world when we hear condemnations that have come from groups such as the OECD, when it comes to legislators from other countries, who are concerned about the appearance of corruption or corrupt practices by members of the government.

In this case, specifically with respect to hearings that were had on the WE Charity scandal, we had a number of witnesses who were duly ordered to appear by a parliamentary committee. They were instructed by members of the executive, by federal cabinet ministers, not to appear at committee. They were instructed to defy a lawful order of the House.

What is the precedent that sets? I can tell colleagues that on its face it is a bad one. It is that we have a government so afraid of letting the light of transparency shine that it would unroll hundreds of years of precedent and undermine the traditions, customs, practices and legal authority of this place and say those rules do not matter because they make things uncomfortable for it. That puts us in a really tough spot.

I heard questions and comments to my colleague for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman asking why we would talk about this and not talk about that. This issue was then pushed forward through the fall and into the spring of , and before the issue was resolved to come back in the fall of , he called an election, although just that spring he had committed to not call one.

All members in the House undertook to continue advocating for the priorities of Canadians, but in this case the Prime Minister had a different priority and was protecting himself from uncomfortable questions. The individuals named in that order to appear at committee must appear. It is incumbent on all members of the House to see to the completion of that work. It is an abdication of our responsibility as members, as the House of Commons, and as the Parliament of Canada not to complete our work.

Are there other important issues facing this country? We can bet on that. There is fiscal mismanagement and failure to work with the provinces on important things like health care.

The member for Courtenay—Alberni was talking about his coalition partners and a need for action on the opioid crisis facing this country. Hear, hear, I agree. His party had direct input and impact on what this budget looked like. New Democrats are the ones who are going to carry this budget across the goal line for the government.

We can talk about that. We continue those consultations. Conservative members are continuing work on this important file, challenging the government on issues like addiction and mental health and what resources it is committing to the provinces.

Is it collaborating with the provinces? Has the Prime Minister finally met with the first ministers, the premiers, to talk about what the future looks like for health care in this country? No, he has not. However, unlike the Prime Minister , we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

We can do both of those things. We are talking about the budget; we are talking about addiction and mental health; we are talking about reconciliation with Canada’s first people. We are doing a lot of things, but we are not going to forget just because the Prime Minister took the walk up to Rideau Hall, contrary to what he said he was going to do, breaking his word, breaking a promise and acting against the will of all members of this House when we passed a motion saying there would not be an election.

That is part of the pattern, so we are back, dealing with it again. Liberals hope that water under the bridge and time on the clock are going to be enough that Canadians will forget, but it is about those precedent-setting behaviours that we take. When we decide that it is okay for ministers to instruct individuals who are duly and lawfully ordered to appear at committee not to appear because they do not like what they might say, what does that say?

It says that we are going to cast aside all the traditions of this place. We should have gotten this done in Liberals have delayed and obstructed this from being completed.

We have formed a new Parliament since then. We had an election. Most of us find ourselves in different roles. I know the member for Winnipeg North continues in his role, as was pointed out by my colleague, as the defender or apologist in chief. I have other things that I am working on, but I can also do this at the same time. It is incredibly important. In concluding my remarks, I want to underscore for all members in this place that this is important.

It is important that we not allow games by the government to distract from the important role that we have as the guardians of this institution, of the rights of Canadians and of what they hold sacred, and that is trust in these democratic institutions. Questions and comments, the hon. What would Motion No. Why are Conservatives playing the game today?

It is because Motion No. It is nothing new. It happens all the time, whether it is in Ottawa or the many different provincial legislatures. The reality is that the Conservatives do not want that additional time. They do not want to work. Why is my colleague across the way afraid to sit a few extra hours? I ask him to recognize how important debate is inside this chamber.

Michael Barrett :. Further, what is interesting about Motion No. It is just like what we saw in the last Parliament, when they would have only one person in this place, who was the member for Kingston and the Islands , because they were too afraid their members might erupt with some concern about the activities of the government and the Prime Minister , which would reflect very poorly on them. If they had not called an unnecessary election during a pandemic, we could have dealt with this two years ago.

I think ethics is an issue that has an impact on Canadians. I think that confidence in institutions is an issue that has an impact on Canadians. If we are going to talk about lobbying, since my colleague mentioned it in his presentation, the king of Canadian lobby groups is the oil and gas industry.

It is the biggest lobby in Canada and controls a considerable portion of our economy. We can go further still. The emissions reduction fund was launched during the pandemic solely to support the oil and gas sector.

I wonder if my colleague is as concerned as I am by oil and gas sector lobbying. That type of behaviour between a lobbyist and a government official is incredibly concerning, and I hope the Prime Minister will co-operate fully with the RCMP in a case like the one I mentioned. I know for the hon. This is something that I want to make sure we are speaking about on a regular basis.

As for the housing and climate crisis, we might feel differently about that, but to me this place should be focused on those kinds of issues. In his view, why is this more important than getting at the kinds of issues from housing to the poisoning crisis to the climate crisis?

The hon. The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:. Division No. That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House,. Tuesday to Thursday, p. A all remaining motions to concur in the votes for which a notice of opposition was filed shall be deemed to have been moved and seconded, the questions deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested,.

B the Speaker shall have the power to combine the said motions for voting purposes, provided that, in exercising this power, the Speaker be guided by the same principles and practices used at report stage,. When St. John the Baptist Day, Canada Day or the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation fall on a Tuesday, the House shall not meet the preceding day; when those days fall on a Thursday, the House shall not meet the following day.

It is important that I emphasize at the very beginning of the debate on this motion that we need to recognize that this is nothing new. I have been a parliamentarian since I have gone through minority and majority governments, and I have been in opposition and am now in government. More often than not, it is likely the case that we have extended hours during the winding up of a session going into the month of June, and that is the essence of this particular motion.

We are likely going to witness the Conservatives stand up and, in some righteous way, try to say that this motion is something it is not. However, it is a very straightforward and simple motion. The opposition House leader , when he stands up, will get the opportunity to tell me which governments in particular did not bring in motions of this nature. In my experience, the NDP government in Manitoba, the Progressive Conservative government in Manitoba, Stephen Harper as the Prime Minister of Canada and Prime Ministers before Stephen Harper brought in motions that enabled members to contribute more during debates, and that is the essence of what this motion is all about.

People need to realize that. We are often reminded about being in a minority government, and justifiably so. The first time I was elected, it was a minority government.

I was part of the official opposition, and I remember Reg Alcock, who was then the opposition House leader, indicating that we had a role to play in being creative and assisting where we could to contribute positively to legislation. This was to see if we could make changes to legislation and ensure that legislation was ultimately getting through so we had the opportunity to have debates on some of the more important pieces of legislation.

That was back in , and just eight months ago, last September and October, Canadians gave us a third mandate that was greater than our second mandate.

More members of Parliament were elected in the third mandate than in the second mandate, and we recognize that it is a minority government.

Canadians want us to be working for Canadians, which means that at times we have to put partisan politics to the side. As members know, sometimes I can be somewhat partisan, and I will admit to that. However, at times, it is important that we put partisanship to the side. I welcome comments from the opposition House leader. He should tell Canadians in the House today whether Stephen Harper brought forward motions of this nature to extend hours. I will let the member opposite know, as I am sure he knows, that the answer to that is yes.

It is important that we recognize that at the very beginning, because I can prophesize to a certain degree that we are going to hear the Conservatives note how bad this motion really is. Speaker, when we take a look at the details of this motion, we see that the core of the motion does two things. One, it enables the House of Commons to sit later in the evenings, and that means we could be sitting until midnight.

Well, why is there is a need for us to sit until midnight? It is because there is a substantial legislative agenda. There is legislation the House needs to be able to debate. To facilitate that debate, we have to extend the hours or we have to put even more limits on the amount of debate inside the House.

We often see the reaction from the Conservatives when we try to say this legislation needs to pass: They will debate and debate and then argue for more debate time. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite says that it is called democracy. That is what this bill is doing: providing additional time so that members opposite will be able to debate. We can think of the arguments they have put forward over the last number of weeks and months, saying that they want more debate on government legislation.

Well, what the heck? This is the motion they should be voting for. This is the motion they should be supporting so that it passes quickly, because it is going to enable us to have additional hours and hours of debate.

Is it because they do not want to put in the effort? I can assure members that every member of the Liberal caucus, due to the support from the New Democratic caucus, will give a commitment to do the work that is necessary to pass the type of legislation that Canadians expect the House of Commons to pass. At the end of the day, the member across the way is wrong in his assertion because of what we have seen from the Conservative Party. We saw it earlier today, just an hour ago. We were supposed to be talking about the issue of how we can accommodate additional hours so that members of the opposition and government would be able to contribute to debate on important legislation.

However, the Conservatives brought forward a concurrence motion, as they continue to do to try to frustrate the legislative agenda. It was difficult for me not to speak when that motion came before us, and I can assure members of that, because I did have a number of thoughts with regard to the behaviour of the Conservative Party by bringing forward such a motion.

As we have seen, the Conservatives have somewhat of a hidden agenda here. They try to tell the public that they want to co-operate, want to do things with the government and want to assist the government in doing the types of things that need to be done, but when the tire hits the road, what ends up happening is that the Conservative Party continues to look at ways to prevent things from happening.

Let me give members a good example of that. The one that comes to my mind is Bill C Speaker, the opposition House leader says he is glad that I mentioned it, so let me share some thoughts. We are talking about the fall budgetary measures. Bill C-8 , the fall economic statement follow-up, is there to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way.

It is hard to believe this, but it is true: That bill is still before the House. The number of days we have debated that bill is more days than we have debated the budget of The content of Bill C-8 is of a substantial nature. We are talking about legislation that directly supports Canadians in a very real and tangible way. I could talk about, for example, the enhancement of school ventilation. If we think about the pandemic, that is very much needed and there is support for that.

There was the first go-round of the rapid tests. We will remember that back in December and January, when people were saying they needed rapid tests, we were able to get record numbers of these rapid tests so that the provinces and territories would have them for distribution. There are also direct supports for small businesses in Bill C-8, supports that small businesses are very much depending on. Bill C-8 is a piece of legislation that should have been passed long ago, but when the government brings it up for debate, the Conservatives look at ways to prevent it from being debated.

I made reference to what happened today when the opposition brought forward a concurrence motion. It has brought forward other concurrence motions, even to prevent debate on Bill C The Conservatives will go out of their way to prevent members from debating.

The opposition party will often put up roadblocks, no matter what the legislation is. We have even seen that on legislation that it supports. We have an official opposition that has an agenda that says it does not want the government to pass anything, period. Kevin Lamoureux: They call it accountability. That is not accountability, my friend. Speaker, preventing the government from passing everything it brings into the House of Commons is not accountability. We have a different approach when it comes to accountability.

That, my friend, is not accountability. What Canadians voted for was to ensure that the government works with opposition parties, but there is an obligation for opposition parties, in particular the official opposition Conservative Party, to recognize that they too have a mandate.

Their mandate is to make the House of Commons a better place to serve the Canadian people. I would challenge members opposite to go to any sort of real forum, like maybe a university class or something of that nature, and enter into the same discussion we will be having today on this issue and talk about it.

I suspect there will be no acceptance by any member of the Conservative Party to deal with that issue, because on one hand, the Conservatives will try to frustrate and prevent debate from occurring, and on the other hand, they will say they need more debate time.

They want more people to speak on this bill, that bill or the other bill. They are sending very mixed messages. Today we are going to hear Conservative after Conservative, and, as I understand, the opposition House leader in particular, say they do not need this motion and there should have been more co-operation. The House leader is going to talk about the support from my New Democratic friends for the motion.

No doubt, he is upset with that fact. The only time the government can get things through the House is when we have cooperation from at least one opposition party. It does not take much to stop government legislation. Give me a dozen high school students from the R. Russell school, Sisler, St. John’s, or the Maples, put them on the floor of the House of Commons, and I could prevent any bill from being able to proceed. It does not take much to stop legislation. It takes an effort to be able to contribute to the debate to the degree in which one can make the modifications one feels are necessary and, for those pieces of legislation that one is in real opposition to, look at ways to allow for more healthy debate in the chamber.

There is not one Liberal member of Parliament who would try to support that when there is good will coming from all sides of the House to have a debate. That is why we will see, when it comes time to vote on this motion, that every Liberal member of Parliament will vote in favour of it. One does not need to even whip the vote, as this will ensure there are additional hours of debate—.

Gabriel Ste-Marie :. Speaker, one never knows. It might be the member who just stood. He is right. Often, when someone rises on a point of order, it interrupts our train of thought.

Here, we are talking about the Conservatives wanting to be able to have that additional debate on bills. The House would normally adjourn today at Once this motion passes, all it would take is any opposition House leader, even the Conservative opposition House leader, and a government minister to come to an agreement before to say that we would like to be able to continue on until midnight.

What is wrong with that? The legislation is there. When I look at some of the legislation, on some of it I suspect there is going to be a great deal of interest. The one that comes to my mind is the budget implementation act.

I suspect that there will be a good number of people who want to be able to speak to the budget implementation act. If members want to contribute to that debate, I would like to see them contribute to that debate, if it is possible, on that piece of legislation. The House is now saying that, if there is an agreement between any opposition House leader and a minister, they could then bring it forward so we can sit until midnight, but we have to do that before of that day.

Let us think in terms of the time opportunities and the splitting of speeches. For example, more often than not we see members split a speech, so it is then a minute speech with five minutes for questions and answers. That gives the opportunity for four other people to speak to a bill or, in the case as I mentioned, to the budget implementation act. In extending from until midnight, one can quickly do the math, and we are talking about plus additional speakers. Those are the individuals who have the full 10 minutes.

That does not include the individuals who will stand up and have the opportunity, indirectly, to ask those questions on issues they might have about a piece of legislation or a budget.

That is what Motion No. It is about enabling those plus other members of Parliament to be able to contribute if the need or the desire is there. As I say, if we factor in those three questions per speech on four speeches, there are 12 per hour.

We are looking at over five hours. That is a lot of opportunity for members on all sides of the House, if they choose, to get up and provide comments, ask questions and do whatever else they might have to do. That is why I believe it is important. Bill C-8 is the legislation that has been debated now on 10 separate occasions in the House. If we applied that same principle to the rest of the government legislation, it would not be possible.

We would not be able to get it done. We would have to bring in a time allocation motion that is very wholesome in its approach. We would have to look at ways to try to pass the legislative agenda in a very, very tight timeframe. We know, and we can anticipate, that the official opposition will bring in concurrence reports.

It has demonstrated this and shown it. We know the Conservatives will bring in adjournment motions and other activities to frustrate the legislative process. That does not serve Canadians well. The Prime Minister was very clear yesterday. The message he gave yesterday is something I would like to emphasize today. My take on the message the Prime Minister gave yesterday is that the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition, has its own agenda, whatever that agenda might be.

More often than not, it is one of personal attack. We saw that yesterday in question period. We saw today before this motion.

That is the issue it wants to talk about. On character assassination, one of the colleagues from across the way stood up and talked about Bill Morneau. He was talking about the French villa the then minister of finance had, trying to make it impressive by saying it was in located in France and highlighting this morning that he did not declare it to the commission.

The first thing that came across my mind as the member was talking about that was that, a few days after the election, when the minister of finance was elected, the cottage in France was reported in the newspaper.

I do not believe the minister of finance was trying to hide anything from his constituents, let alone Canadians. It was actually in the newspaper days after he was elected.

However, it does not prevent the Conservatives from focusing their attention on character assassinations. Yesterday the Prime Minister gave a very clear message. The message was very simple. Opposition parties will do what they do, but from the Government of Canada’s perspective, the Prime Minister, cabinet and Liberal caucus, at times with the support of the New Democratic Party and, even at times, members from the Bloc, the focus is on Canadians first and foremost.

We have seen that in the many different budgetary actions that have been brought forward, whether it is actions to support seniors, which there are many of, or whether it is actions that have been ongoing to support small businesses in Canada. For example, there is Bill C-8 , which is the one we have not been able to pass.

These are the types of things Canadians want us to get through the House of Commons. Canadians want to see a House of Commons that is much more productive on the issues of the day. That is what I believe we, as a government, will continue to focus on. I am concerned about the cost of housing, inflation, health care and long-term care. I am concerned about the dental plan and making sure we can put that into place.

I am concerned about pharmacare and the cost of pharmaceuticals. I am concerned about our environment, and I am looking at initiatives such as the greener home build program and zero-emissions incentives, such as the incentives for electric cars and purchasing.

The other day, one of the Speaker’s colleagues raised that the Province of Quebec is providing an incentive for people to buy electric vehicles. Now, Ottawa is doing the same, which is an additional incentive. Back then, I had put forward that this was the type of debate that I would love to see all members participate in. We all come from provinces and territories, and can all contribute to that.

I take what the province of Quebec is doing as a very strong positive. My challenge to Heather Stefanson, the Premier of Manitoba, would be to do something of a likewise nature. Those are the types of debates that we could be having. At times, we see that debate taking place. That is all a part of allowing for the extension that we are requesting through this particular motion. How many speeches have been given here in this place where we talk a great deal about Ukraine and the war that is taking place in Europe?

We have already had take-note debates on it this year. I believe we have also had an emergency debate, but it could have been two take-note debates. The point is that those were debates about a matter that Canadians are generally concerned about, as they are about a multitude of different economic issues. Canadians want to know what the government is actually doing going forward. If there is a silver lining, in terms of the line of questioning that the Conservatives have been putting forward to the government, I would suggest it is that they do not really have much to say about the budget itself, which tells me—.

I am trying to figure this out now. Is the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader actually trying to filibuster his own motion here? I just need to know because I am hungry. I could go for lunch and then come back later.

All I am trying to do is convince the member opposite, his colleagues, my friends in the Bloc and the NDP, why it is so important that we recognize that this is a motion that every one of us should be supporting. By supporting this motion, what we are saying to Canadians is that we are prepared to work the extra hours.

Who in here does not want to work the extra hours? I am prepared to work the extra hours. Who in here does not want to enable more debate time on legislation and budgetary matters? Members can put their hands up if they do not want to.

I believe that all members in the House are open to it. Having said that, why would someone not support the legislation? It was raised in the form of a point of order earlier, in regard to the issue of quorum calls and dilatory motions. We have seen these types of things on the floor of the House of Commons on many occasions, whether it is one day or extended periods of time.

Even to be able to initiate the extension of the number of hours in a day takes more than the government. We have to go back to an opposition party. It could even be the House leader of the official opposition. These are the types of things that are built into the motion.

I mentioned that there are two aspects to the motion. We have the special joint committee dealing with medical assistance in dying.

 

– Canada day vancouver island 2048 xcel solutions federal

 
This was to see if we could make changes to legislation and ensure canada day vancouver island 2048 xcel solutions federal legislation was ultimately getting through so we had the взято отсюда to have debates on some of the more important pieces of legislation. The opposition party will canwda put up roadblocks, no matter what the legislation is. That vancouvwr why we agreed to extend the timeline by another six weeks and to provide the committee with what we believe was an appropriate amount of time, six weeks extra, продолжение здесь deal with this. Of course, they were trying to provide cover for themselves, a cover that only a majority government would provide.

 
 

Things to Do in Vancouver on Canada Day – Inside Vancouver BlogInside Vancouver Blog.Debates (Hansard) No. 60 – April 28, () – House of Commons of Canada

 
 

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the Canada day vancouver island 2048 xcel solutions federal.

The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items. For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool. If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible parl.

Motion No. Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed. Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.

Report Stage. National Defence. Смотрите подробнее Safety. Skip to main content. Parliamentary Business Parliamentary Business – Home. The House. Procedural Information Library of Parliament. Parliamentary Vay. Members – Home. Members and Roles. Related Information. Participate – Home. About the House – Home. Основываясь на этих данных and accountability.

Arts and Heritage. In pictures. Employment – Home. Career opportunities. Youth Opportunities. Working at the House.

Search Search. House Publications The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. To access Debates and Canada day vancouver island 2048 xcel solutions federal from toplease visit the Vancojver Parliamentary Historical Resources portal.

Retrieving Calendars Status of House Business. Points of Order. The Deputy Speaker The Deputy Speaker. Government Response to Petitions. Scel Internet Sexual Exploitation Act. Committees of the House James Bezan.

Kevin Lamoureux. The Assistant Deputy Speaker Mrs. Michael Barrett Michael Barrett. Division 60 Government Orders.

Jean-Yves Duclos. The Acting Speaker Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie Gabriel Ste-Marie. Kevin Lamoureux John Brassard Damien Kurek.

Chris Bittle Statements by Members. Retirement Congratulations. Michael Wilton. David Barber. Terry Duguid Winnipeg South, Lib. Day of Mourning. Infertility Awareness Week. Jenna Sudds Kanata—Carleton, Lib. Carole Wardell. Indigenous Law Graduates. Yvonne Jones Labrador, Lib. Avon River Rick Perkins South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC.

Legion Awards Ceremony. Postal Codes in Indigenous Communities. Blood Donation. Peter Schiefke Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib. National Day of Mourning. Yom HaShoah. Martin Champoux Ссылка на продолжение, BQ. Marty Morantz Charleswood—St. Yom HaShoah Ya’ara Saks York Centre, Lib. Marco Mendicino. The Economy. Agriculture and Agri-Food. Foreign Oslutions. The Environment. Hedy Fry Vancouver Centre, Lib. Employment Insurance. Carbon Pricing. Arielle Kayabaga London West, Lib.

Digital Services. Passport Canada. Fisheries and Oceans. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. Salma Canada day vancouver island 2048 xcel solutions federal Scarborough Centre, Lib. Commemoration of the Holocaust. Business of the House Ways and Means. John Brassard.

Division 61 Chrystia Freeland.

Blair Dane

BICA BankInformations
La BICA Banque est à ce jour actionnaire de PME et ETI (Entreprise de Taille Intermédiaire) à travers l’Europe, l’Amérique du Nord et l’Afrique, réalisant des chiffres d’affaires entre 10 et 500 M€ dans des secteurs d’activité très diversifiés.
NOS EMPLACEMENTSOù nous trouver ?
https://bica-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/img-footer-map.png

Copyright by BICA Banque. Tous droits réservés.

Copyright by BICICA Banque. Tous droits réservés.

Ads Blocker Image Powered by Code Help Pro

Ads Blocker Detected!!!

We have detected that you are using extensions to block ads. Please support us by disabling these ads blocker.

Powered By
100% Free SEO Tools - Tool Kits PRO

Please disable your adblocker or whitelist this site!