Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-04-14 15:49 [p.5570]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to you informally earlier today, I want to return to a point of order that we were discussing on February 23. It was on the question of not my original point around the right for independent members and members of non-recognized parties to pose questions on Wednesdays, but the more general problem of the distribution among many MPs and that the number has grown.

At the time, you said that you would take that matter under advisement, as the number of hon. members in the category of either independent or non-recognized members has, in fact, doubled within this Parliament. I certainly will not repeat the points I made earlier. I had citations going back to Speaker Macnaughton, Speaker Jerome, Speaker Gilbert Parent, Speaker John Fraser and so on, to the fact that we do have rights to ask questions in question period. It is a matter of the distribution. I been compiling some statistics, and I will be as brief as I can possibly be.

In the 41st Parliament, when Green MPs got their first seat in this place, it was one question a week at the beginning of the Parliament. We have gone from five members of Parliament in the category of independents or non-recognized parties. We had grown to 14 members. We went from one question a week to seven slots per week and we ended up with 0.86 questions per week as opposed to one.

In the 42nd Parliament, we started with 11 members in the category of independent or non-recognized parties. That number grew to 17 members over the lifetime of that Parliament. Again, the effect of that was to go for one question a week to each one of us having 0.82 questions per week. That happened because the Speaker and other parties added three questions to the slots available for members in our category.

In this 43rd Parliament, we started with four members and we had one question per week for each one of us. The number of members in the independent and non-recognized party category has doubled. It is now eight. No questions have been added to the available slots. The result is that rather than where we started after the last election, with one question per week for each one of us, the three Green MPs and the hon. member for Vancouver Granville each of us at the beginning of this Parliament having one question per week, with the addition of four more independents, we now have 0.50 questions, in other words roughly half of what we ever had since the 41st Parliament.

I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, we had near agreement yesterday on unanimous consent. We have a lot of support in the House. There should be more questions available for the category of independent and non-recognized parties. I would be very grateful if you could look at these numbers and these statistics and see if it is not time to add more slots to the available times in question period for members who fall into our category.

The post Elizabeth May rises on a Point of Order to request more questions be allocated to Greens during QP appeared first on Elizabeth May.

When Andrew Scheer introduced a private members bill to greater restrict the power of federal ministers to allow the release of untreated sewage, he used it as a platform for a long, very partisan speech, attacking the carbon tax, attacking the Liberals’ record on the environment. Introducing PMBs is, under our rules, a brief summary of the bill, and not a platform for a speech. Elizabeth joined in the objections, slamming both Liberals and Conservatives for their environmental records.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-02-18 10:18 [p.4211]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with some trepidation to support the point of order just made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

The former leader of the official opposition knows full well what he is doing. As a former speaker of the House, he must know this is a violation of our rules. By the way, I agree with him entirely about the terrible record of the current Liberal government. It is not as bad as that of the former Conservative government, but the introduction of a private member’s bill is not a time to deliver a partisan speech.

The post Tabling a Private Members’ Bill is not the time to make a partisan speech appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is not the first time I have risen on this point of order, but it is the first time I have risen on a point of order from my new vantage point in the House.

The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills is completely correct with respect to his point of order on decorum. Under Standing Order 16, none of the members in this place are to speak when another member is speaking, interrupt him or her or speak disrespectfully.

As impossible as it is for me to believe it to be the case, my vantage point in this corner of the House subjects me to more noise than when I was in the other corner of the House, and I cannot hear people speaking.

I am ashamed of my colleagues who cannot control themselves and perform in a way that would make their constituents proud. Think of your constituents before you shout with derision at our Speaker.

The post Elizabeth urges her colleagues to maintain decorum in the House appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post Elizabeth May: Why is the government continuing to use omnibus budget bills? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post We must stop heckling in this house, our constituents deserve better. appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post Bringing order to the House during votes appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post We must follow the Parliament of Canada Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am grieved by the disrespect that occurred during this question period.

It should not go unmarked that I have not ever seen, and I do not know if in the annals of this House any Speaker has ever seen, the disrespect shown by members of the Conservative Party, rising in unison against a ruling of the Speaker. It was unconscionable, undemocratic, and unparliamentary, and they should apologize as a group. The violations of the rules include interrupting a Speaker when speaking, standing when the Speaker is speaking, challenging a ruling of the Speaker, and doing so in a way that brings disrespect and dishonour to this place.

Geoff Regan

The post Never have I seen such disrespect towards the Speaker appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed in question period that occasionally I attempted to gesture to you. I would like to explain.

The Standing Orders make it clear that we are not supposed to heckle in this place. It would be a fool’s mission to try to get the volume down all the time. However, I do not recall the disrespect toward the Prime Minister and the front benches in the 41st Parliament that I am seeing in the 42nd Parliament. When I cannot hear the Prime Minister’s answers, even with my earpiece in, I would ask the hon. members on the opposition benches to at least show the courtesy of not heckling so loudly that other members cannot hear the answers.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Geoff Regan – Speaker of the House of Commons

Order.

I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her intervention. I regret that some members felt it necessary to make the point she was making by heckling while she was making her intervention, which is regrettable.

The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères on a point of order.

The post Point of Order: I cannot hear the Prime Minister’s answers appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Mr. Speaker, I will have an opportunity to address Bill C-63 in its substance very shortly in the speaking order in debate today, but I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on the question of whether the bill is appropriately put before us. It is the first real test of Standing Order 69.1 on omnibus bills.

I made many attempts in points of order in the 41st Parliament to argue for the splitting of omnibus bills, for setting them aside. The Speaker at that point, currently the leader of the Conservative Party, ruled that was not for the Speaker to decide, and the House had to speak to the matter of whether a bill was properly an omnibus bill or not.

By way of background, there is nothing wrong with an omnibus bill. In tradition, all the Speakers in this place have said if a bill has a central and primary purpose, in order to achieve that purpose, amendments or repeals to other bills are acceptable. What was unacceptable in the 41st Parliament was randomly putting in so many bills. It was not only in the 41st Parliament. It happened in 2009 and 2010. When a bill is a budget bill, to defeat it is to bring down the government, so in a minority government it became political leverage to push through unpalatable bills all at once, with inadequate study. In a majority Parliament, it became a way for the government of the day to move through things expeditiously.

It put us in mind of the statement from Speaker Lucien Lamoureux years ago, who said he supposed there would come a day where the business of the House would be one omnibus bill that goes through all at once.

In this case, we now have guidance. I agree with previous speakers that it is lamentable that the Standing Order changes were brought in by majority rule as opposed to by consensus. However, Standing Order 69.1 is helpful. It gives us guidance, and it gives the Speaker the discretion to separate out those sections that are not properly within the bill.

I will be speaking to this in Bill C-63 in my second reading debate to say this kind of omnibus budget bill bears no relationship to the kind of egregious abuse of process that we saw in Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 in 2012. Those were bills that achieved things that had nothing to do with the budget, were not mentioned in the budget, and were egregious in their impact. This is of an order that is quite different.

I do not find Bill C-63, as an omnibus budget bill, objectionable, but it is quite right, as the hon. NDP House leader has pointed out, that where there are provisions that were not mentioned at all in the budget, if we are to uphold Standing Order 69.1, the Speaker has the discretion to move those parts out and allow separate debate and study of those portions only.

Standing Order 69.1 is an improvement over our previous Standing Orders. It does give guidance. However, I would hate to see the debate in this place misunderstood by anyone observing as representing an abuse of process, abuse of Parliament, and an affront to democracy that we saw in previous Parliaments under the previous government.

Geoff Regan – Speaker of the House

I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for adding her arguments to those already presented by the members for New Westminster—Burnaby, Calgary Shepard, and of course Carleton, who made his arguments earlier.

I thank colleagues for their presentations. I will come back to the House on this issue.

The post Omnibus budget bills appeared first on Elizabeth May.