Inside Politics

UPDATED: Who denied consent to a motion in support of Quebec's Bill 78?

by Kady O'Malley Posted: June 20, 2012 9:30 AM Last Updated: June 20, 2012 9:39 AM
UPDATE: Paradis and Cullen discussed the motion during separate appearances on CBC Power and Politics last night. Here's what they had to say:

Download Flash Player to view this content.


So it appears there is considerable ... confusion, let's call it, over what, exactly, happened earlier today when Industry Minister Christian Paradis attempted to seek the unanimous support of the House for a motion in support - albeit obliquely -- of the Quebec government's efforts to end the ongoing student protests with the (instantly contentious) Bill 78. 

The government claims that NDP MPs were among those to deny the necessary consent, a charge that the Official Opposition steadfastly denies, and maintains that they actually worked with the minister to tweak the wording into something that would be acceptable on both sides of the House. 

The truth? Well, I'd say it lies somewhere in the middle, but it's more complicated than that. (When is it ever not more complicated than that, really?)

Here is the motion as read aloud by Minister Paradis during a pre-Question Period press conference in the Foyer, which was heralded with no small ado by the Prime Minister's Office moments before it took place:

"That this house recognizes the duly elected National Assembly of Quebec's right to pass legislation such as Bill 78 within its area of jurisdiction."
Here is the motion as read aloud by the minister in the House of Commons after QP at approximately 3pm:

"This House recognizes the duly elected National Assembly of Quebec's right to pass legislation, such as Bill 78, within its areas of jurisdiction and in conformity with both the Canadian and Quebec Charter of rights and freedoms."
(Keep the above in mind, because it becomes important-ish later.)

The video of the minister's pre-QP scrum, followed by the results of his attempt to seek unanimous consent:

Download Flash Player to view this content.


Now, I was in the House for the voice vote, but as is often the case with such proceedings, was unable to see exactly what went down -- namely, who, specifically, yelled 'nay', thus rendering the effort moot. Motions for unanimous consent do not go to a recorded division -- if so much as a single person objects, that's the ball game, in effect: unless the mover can work out a behind-the-curtains for all-party support, it disappears from the House agenda, never to be seen again.

Luckily, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May was able to provide her eyewitness testimony as to who, exactly, had made their opposition to the motion clear: I was surprised, as I thought I had seen more nays -- including on the official opposition benches: And so, as is my wont, I asked the following question on twitter:

Here are the responses: A few minutes later: At the same time that Latendresse was correcting the record, NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen emailed me to let me know that his party had not opposed the motion, and had, in fact, worked with the Conservatives to "change the language of the text," which would explain the difference between the initial wording, and what was eventually put before the House.  Cullen confirmed that May and "some Bloc" had opposed the motion. 

Several hours later, the minister's office sent the following bulletin to the press gallery:

Minister Paradis issued the following statement upon his request for unanimous consent of the House in order to affirm very clearly the autonomy of Quebec's National Assembly in its fields of jurisdiction. 
 Yesterday, UN High Commissioner on Human Rights criticized legislation introduced by the Quebec Government. Our Government has been clear: we respect provincial jurisdiction and believe in the right of Quebec's National Assembly to pass their own laws.  
Today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Quebec lieutenant, Minister Christian Paradis, called for unanimous consent of all members to support provincial jurisdiction and the rights of provincial legislatures and the National Assembly to pass legislation within its jurisdiction. 
 NDP MP Alexandrine Latendresse confirmed on Twitter that several NDP members were opposed to this motion. These NDP members then rejected the right of Quebec's National Assembly to pass legislation in its field of jurisdiction. 
While Thomas Mulcair's NDP refuses to stand with Quebec's National Assembly, the Harper government respects provincial jurisdiction. Thank you,
Cullen's response:

They're showing the true intent of the motion (which we worked on with the Minister). Divide and conquer. The MP corrected her misunderstanding in minutes. So they only believe some tweets but not the next one. Petty. Welcome to the silly season done angry.
A few minutes later, NDP principal secretary Karl Belanger tweeted the following: And there, it seems, it stands. 

That consent was denied, thus dooming the motion to failure, is not in question. 

The only lingering issue -- which is, to be fair, a doozy, at least from a purely political perspective -- is whether the Official Opposition should take part of the blame (or, depending on one's opinion of the motion itself, credit) for doing so. As noted above, no recorded vote was taken, which means it is, ultimately, irreconcilable, at least by traditional methods.

That said, it's worth pointing out that the motion did, it seems, change between its original wording,  and what was read into the record in the House, which would seem to bolster the claim that it had been the object of cross-aisle negotiations. 

In any case, I hope that this additional context may aid readers in coming to their own conclusion.

Good luck! 

Update: Belanger pointed this out after reading my initial post: 


In response, I noted that I had included the text of both the original and amended motion, but figured it was worth adding his tweet to provide still more context to the debate.

Tags: bill 78, blackberry jungle, free the hostages, things that are impossible to figure out, unanimous consent