Statement by Elizabeth May, O.C.
, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands, Leader of the Green Party of Canada
The pattern was established by C-5, Parts 1 and 2. Neither Parts 1 or 2 were properly studied. I was the only MP to vote against both. Never in Canadian history has a Canadian PM used the Henry the 8th clause to make new legislation established within its legislative language deliberately capable of violating other existing acts of Parliament. Worsening that abuse was the “programming motion” that allowed the bill to move from Second Reading through every stage of debate and study between Monday, June 16 to Third Reading by Friday of that same week. None of this would have been possible without Conservative support and whipped votes to push it through.
Also in June, C-2, the Strong Borders Act, was tabled. Its abusive provisions—allowing postal mail to be opened without warrant and internet service providers being required to turn over personal information, without warrant, plus reducing refugee rights—led to the creation of a large and broad coalition organized over the summer months. Everyone from the United Church, Open Media, civil liberties and refugee rights groups, migrant rights groups, and others joined a public campaign. Led by the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG), the group attracted widespread public support.
When Parliament resumed in September, I identified stopping C-2 as a Green Party top priority. Second Reading debates occurred on only two days in September and the Liberals left it on the back shelf.
Meanwhile, through the fall we have seen an unprecedented rise in bills passing quickly without recorded votes. This is happening whenever the three recognized parties decide to move quickly, allowing debate to collapse and then passing bills “on division.” Whereas pre-COVID five MPs from non-recognized parties could stand and force a recorded vote, during COVID this procedure was removed. Now it is the rule that only a recognized party can demand a recorded vote. So increasingly bills pass through Second Reading without a recorded vote. Then bills are passed through Report Stage and Third Reading by unanimous consent. All the large parties are willing to push through legislation without proper review. This is unquestionably anti-democratic but receives virtually no media scrutiny because it is taking place quietly and with no public outcry.
Sticking with C-2, we have more strange practices. On October 8, it briefly seemed the effort to stop C-2 had won, when the Liberals introduced Bill C-12. Virtually identical to C-2 but without the portions on warrantless access, it still attracted the opposition of human rights groups and those protecting refugee rights. The combined force of the Liberals, Conservatives, and Bloc pushed it through, without any recorded votes.
Another unprecedented anti-democratic move occurred on February 13, when amendments at Report Stage were tabled and seconded and accepted to C-14 (Jail Not Bail). With no debate or objection on the floor of the House, we heard this interjection from the Speaker:
Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): I would like to make a brief statement for the benefit of all members. The member in whose name the report stage motion is standing is not in a position to indicate that it should be adopted. No other members have indicated that it should be either adopted or negativized. Our own practice is silent as to what to do in such a situation. However, the issue has come up in the British House of Commons. Erskine May, 25th edition, in paragraph 20.56, states the following, “When, on the question being put, no member has said either ‘aye’ or ‘no’, the Deputy Speaker has declared the question negatived.”
At that point the bill was rushed through all remaining stages by unanimous consent, while I was unable to object to unanimous consent as I was with the PM in Tumbler Ridge. The Senate was deeply troubled by the infringement on refugee rights. It has tabled a strong rebuke, but stepped back from amending C-12. The Senate made it clear the House had not properly studied C-12.
The fast-tracking of C-4, not properly studied in the House, included Part 4 and changes to the Elections Act, to enter into force in the year 2000.
As of yesterday, Wednesday, February 25, the Senate, following questions and speeches against Part 4 by Senators Wallin, Miville-Déchênes, Deacon, Arnot, and Clement, it was moved by Senator Clement and seconded by Senator Dalphond, “That Bill C-4 not be read a 3rd time but amended by deleting Part 4.” After some initial discussion, the Senate suspended debate at 4 p.m. Senate debate on this motion resumes Friday at 1:30 p.m.
I can only hope the Senate shows sober second thought on C-4, Part 4.
Having served in this place for nearly 15 years, I have never experienced such egregious power grabs from the governing party, nor have I experienced such offensive fast-tracking, bulldozing the role of individual MPs.
Ironically, while the big parties work together, the Liberals complain the Conservatives are trying to obstruct them. Other than on Bill C-9, I have seen no evidence of Conservatives filibustering or obstructing.
I hope Canadians will let this government know that bulldozing legislation through the House, without proper study, concerns them.