Parliamentary Speeches
4,697 speeches by Chris d'Entremont — Page 82 of 94
Each email link opens in your own email app using Chris's derived address — if it bounces, use their ourcommons.ca profile instead.
Oral Questions
I kind of feel like I am at a hockey game. Let us quieten down a little. The hon. member for Repentigny.
Oral Questions
Order. I would like to hear the minister. The hon. minister.
Government Orders
Order. Can we take the conversations outside, please? The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.
Oral Questions
Order. Let us get through the question. The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek may start again.
Oral Questions
As a Nova Scotian, I want to hear the answer to this one. If the hon. minister wants to take another 10 seconds, he can finish his comment.
Oral Questions
Following discussions among representatives of all parties in the House, I understand there is agreement to observe a moment of silence. I now invite the House to rise and observe a moment of silence in memory of the victims of the tragic event that happened two years ago in Nova Scotia. [A moment of silence observed]
Government Orders
That will finish our discussion of Bill C-14. We will come back when we have the opportunity. We will take a few moments for the minister to arrive in the chamber. It being 4:06 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Ways and Means Proceedings No. 3, concerning the budget presentation.
Government Orders
Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), the motion is deemed adopted and the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 4:52 p.m.)
Routine Proceedings
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. (Motion agreed to)
It being Wednesday, I will call on the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton to lead us in the singing of the national anthem. [Members sang the national anthem]
Statements by Members
I believe there has been agreement among the parties for a moment of silence on the loss of the players in the Humboldt crash. [A moment of silence observed]
Oral Questions
Just because we made it through 11 questions without a whole lot of heckling does not mean we have to start. The hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.
Routine Proceedings
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. (Motion agreed to)
Oral Questions
Order. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
Oral Questions
Order. Let us hear the answers, please. The hon. Prime Minister can start again.
Oral Questions
Order. Are we ready to continue? The right hon. Prime Minister.
Oral Questions
The parliamentary secretary should not be asking questions. There is no question. Therefore, there is no answer, so we are going to move on to the next one. The hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach.
Oral Questions
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
Government Orders
It being 3:18 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills relating to the business of supply. Call in the members.
Government Orders
I declare the motion carried. I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 13 minutes.
Routine Proceedings
The motion is transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Routine Proceedings
I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on March 22 by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader regarding Bill C-215, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), standing on the Order Paper in the name of the member for Lévis—Lotbinière. During his intervention, the parliamentary secretary argued that Bill C-215 seeks to increase the … Read full speechShow less
I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on March 22 by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader regarding Bill C-215, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), standing on the Order Paper in the name of the member for Lévis—Lotbinière. During his intervention, the parliamentary secretary argued that Bill C-215 seeks to increase the maximum number of weeks during which sickness benefits can be paid, which would entail a new and distinct charge to the consolidated revenue fund. He pointed out that, as there is currently no statutory authority or appropriation authorizing this new and distinct charge, a royal recommendation is required, as required by the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Standing Orders of the House. As indicated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 838, “Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative.” I have carefully studied Bill C-215. It would amend paragraphs 12(3)(c) and 152.14(1)(c) of the Employment Insurance Act in order to increase the maximum number of weeks during which benefits can be paid in the event of an illness, injury or quarantine from 15 to 52 to weeks. It seems clear, therefore, that the bill seeks to increase the duration of the period of employment insurance benefits. The Chair has already ruled on questions similar to the one that concerns us today. It was effectively the case in rulings on almost identical bills in 2006 and 2021. In the ruling of April 15, 2021, on Bill C-265, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), found at page 5691 of Debates, the Chair also indicated that the bill had to be accompanied by a royal recommendation since it sought to increase the maximum number of weeks during which benefits can be paid in the event of an illness, injury or quarantine from 15 weeks to 50. In light of the analysis of the bill standing in the name of the member for Lévis—Lotbinière and the precedents cited, the Chair is of the opinion that by amending the Employment Insurance Act to increase the maximum number of weeks during which benefits can be paid in the event of an illness, injury or quarantine from 15 weeks to 52, Bill C-215 would entail an increase in public spending in a way and to an end that is not currently authorized. As a result, the Chair concludes that it must be accompanied by a royal recommendation before it can proceed to a final vote in the House at the third reading stage. Meanwhile, however, the next time the House considers this bill, the debate will be on the motion for second reading, and that motion shall be put to a vote at the end of the second reading debate. I thank all members for their attention.
Routine Proceedings
I am now ready to rule on the points of order raised on March 1, 22 and 28 by the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the member for La Prairie regarding Bill C‑237, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act, standing on the Order Paper in the name of the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saur… Read full speechShow less
I am now ready to rule on the points of order raised on March 1, 22 and 28 by the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the member for La Prairie regarding Bill C‑237, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act, standing on the Order Paper in the name of the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel. During his intervention, the sponsor of Bill C‑237 argued that it entails no new expense and does not change the transfer amounts or its purpose nor does it change the beneficiaries or how the funding is allocated to them. He continued by saying that all C‑237 does is reduce federal control over the management of provincial programs in the provinces' own jurisdictions. The member added that his bill seeks to exempt Quebec, and only Quebec, from the application of the Canada Health Act. The member for La Prairie added to these arguments that a bill that amends a condition or qualification of an existing act should be accompanied by a royal recommendation only if that amendment entails an increase in these costs or changes the purpose, which he argued is not the case with C‑237. For his part, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader argued that the bill seeks to eliminate conditions and qualifications associated with the legislative spending power enacted by the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act. He thus contended that a new royal recommendation is needed for the purposes of the Canada Health Transfer to the provinces as proposed by Bill C-237. I reviewed the bill and I have reached the following conclusions concerning this impact on the royal recommendation. Section 1 of the bill provides that Quebec need not apply the conditions set out in paragraph 24(a) of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act in order to obtain the amounts referred to in subsection 24.1(1) of that act. Section 3 of Bill C-237 provides that Quebec receives the full monetary contribution provided for in the Canada Health Act without being subject to the various grant conditions set out in that act. In other words, the result of the mechanism proposed by Bill C-237 would be to exempt Quebec from having to fulfill the conditions to which it is currently subject in order to receive the Canada Health Transfer, which originate in the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act. The member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel argued that these changes have no financial effect in terms of either the amounts or their destination. However, these changes would amend the terms and conditions initially attached to the Canada health transfer, which were approved by Parliament. On this, page 838 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states: A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative. As the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel indicated in his intervention, the bill seeks to exempt Quebec from the application of the Canada Health Act. Thus, after analysis and in keeping with the precedents, including the rulings by Speaker Milliken on May 8, 2008, and by my predecessor on December 6, 2016, the Chair is of the opinion that the implementation of Bill C-237 would contravene the conditions initially provided for in the royal recommendation. Accordingly, the Chair is of the view that Bill C-237 must be accompanied by a royal recommendation. Consequently, the Chair will decline to put the question at the third reading stage of the bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received. When this item is next before the House, the debate will only be on the motion for second reading of the bill, and the question will be put to the House at the end of this debate. I thank all members for their attention.
Government Orders
I have to say, as the representative for 14 Wing Greenwood, that it was great to see that you had a good time in the beautiful riding of West Nova. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
Oral Questions
Order. I do not know who that was. We should be able to hear what is going on in the House. Are we ready to move on? I would like to hear the minister. The hon. Minister of Housing.
Oral Questions
Order. This is the fourth time I have to stand to allow the minister to answer so that I can hear what he is saying. I will ask the minister to answer. He has the floor.
Oral Questions
That is all the time we have for question period.
Oral Questions
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
Government Orders
We left off with the hon. member for Davenport, who had three minutes left, and I want to make sure that everybody takes their conversations outside. The hon. member for Davenport.
Government Orders
There is a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt. Folks, if we could take our conversations outside, that would be wonderful. Is that the hon. member's point of order? We have a point of order from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
Government Orders
Thanks for that. Also, I did forget to do one thing after question period, which was to remind members not to introduce people in the gallery when they are asking their questions or what have you. It is against the rules of the House of Commons. We are going to go back to the member for Davenport, and I am going to give her the three minutes because it is hard to get started again. The hon. member… Read full speechShow less
Thanks for that. Also, I did forget to do one thing after question period, which was to remind members not to introduce people in the gallery when they are asking their questions or what have you. It is against the rules of the House of Commons. We are going to go back to the member for Davenport, and I am going to give her the three minutes because it is hard to get started again. The hon. member for Davenport.
Oral Questions
I was having trouble hearing, so I will let the minister back up to answer that one.
Oral Questions
Order. I want to be able to hear the minister's answer. The hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
Oral Questions
Order. I am having trouble hearing the minister. I will ask him to start again with his answer.
Oral Questions
The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.
Oral Questions
Order. The minister is about to quote something from the plan. It is not appropriate for members to intervene during his answer. The hon. minister.
Oral Questions
All those opposed to the hon member's moving the motion to table the document will please say nay.
Oral Questions
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. Therefore, it is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. (Motion agreed to)
Oral Questions
Following discussions among representatives of all parties in the House, I understand there is an agreement to observe a moment of silence in light of the events that occurred in the city of Bucha, Ukraine. I now invite hon. members to please rise. [A moment of silence observed]
Government Orders
It being 3:13 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Abbotsford relating to the business of supply. Call in the members.
Government Orders
I declare the motion defeated. Before everyone goes, I would like to draw the attention of the House that today was the first vote called by our table officer, Danielle Labonté. We congratulate her on a job well done.
Government Orders
It being 3:14 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-5. Call in the members.
Government Orders
I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. (Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Government Orders
I hate to interrupt such an impassioned speech, but the member will have one minute remaining in his speech before we go to questions and answers.
Government Orders
We have time for a quick question and answer. The hon. member for King—Vaughan.
Government Orders
I will interrupt the proceedings, and we will come back to questions and comments after. The Chair has received notice of a question of privilege by the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.
Government Orders
I thank the hon. member for the question of privilege. We will review the information and get back to the House as soon as is practical.
Statements by Members
I will remind people about the use of props. The hon. member for Kanata—Carleton.
Oral Questions
The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.
Oral Questions
Maybe the member could back up and take away that “trash” comment.