SoVote

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Apr/28/22 10:01:03 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity. I am rising on a point of order related to government Motion No. 11, which is scheduled for debate later this morning. By rising today, I am asking that you divide the motion for debating and voting purposes. Recognizing that you will require time to consider the matter, I am rising now, as soon as the House opened today. 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 570 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. 11 is an omnibus motion that, in the words of Bosc and Gagnon, contains “two or more parts each capable of standing on its own”. 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. 11 is the most jaded and cynical part of the entire package. 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, 1964, at page 428 of the Journals, this practice can be traced to the April 19, 1888, ruling given by the United Kingdom's Mr. Speaker Peel: “It may be for the convenience of the House that the honourable gentleman's two propositions should be put together, but if any honourable gentleman objects to their being taken together, they will be put separately.” Indeed, there are very few cases to rely upon, but they are catalogued by Bosc and Gagnon at pages 570 and 571. One of the Speaker's predecessors, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, observed the following on October 17, 2013, at page 65 of the Debates: 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 1991, a motion to make a series of amendments to the Standing Orders was divided for voting purposes. In 2002, 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 2013, 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. 11 that might be convenient to group together for a common debate. Take, for example, the provisions on extended sitting hours and on votes demanded on June 22 and 23. 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. 11. 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. members can unite behind. 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. 11. 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. 11 for debating and voting purposes along the lines that I have laid out to you.

1265 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/28/22 10:09:51 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order from the member opposite, who claims that government Motion No. 11 is a complicated question and should be divided for the purposes of debating and voting. I submit that this is not the case. The motion's unifying theme is to organize the business of the House for the remaining weeks in the spring sitting period. 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. 11. 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.

215 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/28/22 10:11:10 a.m.
Watch

I thank the member for that intervention. I believe the hon. member for La Prairie would like to speak.

19 words

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Apr/28/22 10:11:20 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the point of order raised by my colleague, the House leader of the official opposition. I would like to reserve the right to respond at a later date.

36 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Apr/28/22 10:11:41 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that interesting intervention. I always appreciate the good debates that we have in this House. The NDP just wants to put on the record that it would have the ability to respond at a later time.

43 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/28/22 10:11:57 a.m.
Watch

I thank the member for that intervention as well. That finishes that point of order. We have another point of order, from the hon. whip from the official opposition.

29 words

All Topics

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC)

Apr/28/22 10:12:07 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in regard to government Motion No. 11, and in particular paragraph (b)(ii) of the motion, which states: after 6:30 p.m. the Speaker shall not receive any quorum calls or dilatory motions, and shall only accept a request for unanimous consent after receiving a notice from the House leaders or whips of all recognized parties stating that they are in agreement with such a request. 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 48. 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. In fact, page 598 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, says clearly, “Nothing done by unanimous consent constitutes a precedent.” 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. Mr. 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. 11, it would adopt procedures that go beyond the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution. There are similar precedents regarding committees that ought to be considered. On June 20, 1994 and November 7, 1996, 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 1985 that the requirements of section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and of section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, 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 295 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, in reference to the 1985 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. On page 186 of Joseph Maingot's second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, there is the claim that “the courts might be effective in ensuring the observance of procedural requirements imposed by the constitution with respect to the enactment of legislation.” 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.

918 words

All Topics

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Apr/28/22 10:17:33 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve the Bloc's right to respond at a later date.

17 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/28/22 10:17:39 a.m.
Watch

Does anybody else have an intervention? 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.

46 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/28/22 10:18:11 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition, and this return would be tabled in an electronic format.

36 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Apr/28/22 10:19:01 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-270

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-270, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (pornographic material). He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Calgary Shepard for seconding this bill today. I call it the SISE act, the stopping Internet sexual exploitation act. 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 2021 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.

279 words

All Topics

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Apr/28/22 10:21:33 a.m.
Watch

moved that the third report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, presented on Tuesday, March 31, 2022, be concurred in. He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. 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 121(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. As I go through this, I go to Bill Morneau, the former Minister of Finance, whom I am going to talk about in just a bit. Along with that, there is also the former Minister of Fisheries, who is now the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities and the MP for Beauséjour, who was caught up in the lucrative clam scam agreement when he ensured that family members, using nepotism, were awarded lucrative contracts worth over $24 million. 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. The Liberals have a long history of scandal. 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. Speaker. 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. Mr. 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. Morneau who was caught up in this scandal: We know that there were at least 10 videos made by WE that involved the Prime Minister, and we know those were produced by Door Knocker Media and were worth over $217,000, yet the Prime Minister was not investigated by Elections Canada on third-party endorsement and third-party expenditures for campaign-style video productions. We know for a fact that the Prime Minister made a campaign statement in one of the videos, where he said, “I pledge to work hard for all Canadians.” This is something we hear in the House every day and heard just yesterday during question period with the Prime Minister. He always says he is working here for all Canadians. He also said that he was going to “invest in our youngest leaders: you”. 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. We know that the Prime Minister's wife, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, received over $20,000 for a weekend getaway in London for the WE Day the organization held in 2020. 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. The House ordered, on Thursday, March 25, 2021, that Ben Chin, Rick Theis and Amitpal Singh all appear as witnesses. I want to remind everyone that Ben Chin is the senior adviser to the Prime Minister, and that he received a LinkedIn message from Craig Kielburger of WE that stated, “Hello Ben, Thank you for your kindness in helping shape our latest program with the government. Warmly, Craig”. Mr. Chin responded to Mr. Kielburger, “Great to hear from you Craig; let's get our young working”. 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, 2020, 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.

1418 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/28/22 10:31:45 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I am not surprised that the Conservatives moved concurrence on a report. I am not surprised that they chose, once again, to have personal attacks against ministers. 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.

142 words

All Topics

Mr. James Bezan

Apr/28/22 10:32:49 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the member for Winnipeg North wants to avoid accountability. I am not surprised that the member for Winnipeg North wants to be the chief cheerleader to help cover up the Prime Minister's, and this government's, unethical behaviour and the possibility that some of it may even be criminal these days, when we look at the investigation by the RCMP into fraud against the government by the Prime Minister himself—

79 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/28/22 10:33:33 a.m.
Watch

Would you say that outside?

5 words

All Topics

Mr. James Bezan

Apr/28/22 10:33:33 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am getting heckled by the member for Winnipeg North. Again, as the chief spokesperson for lack of accountability, for cover-ups and for the unethical behaviour of this government, we can always point to the member for Winnipeg North to stand up and be there shouting the loudest.

51 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Apr/28/22 10:33:42 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there are so many things happening right now in this country. There is an overdose crisis, and a toxic drug-supply crisis that is killing people. There is a housing crisis. There are so many problems and issues that have to be resolved, such as veterans who are still waiting for their disability payments because of the backlog that started with the Conservatives. 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?

149 words

All Topics

Mr. James Bezan

Apr/28/22 10:34:32 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as we see with this unholy alliance between the NDP and the Liberals, NDP members are standing here helping to support the Liberals and later today are going to push through a motion here that undermines this democratic institution. This motion is about a three-hour debate. I am talking about how the public confidence in our institutions, including the Parliament of Canada, is being undermined by this government, and the NDP is now enabling and allowing this government to cover up this failure of accountability and this unethical behaviour. Now there is this dictatorial approach on how they are going to ram through legislation in this very chamber.

111 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Apr/28/22 10:35:13 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when I see what is happening this morning, I feel that today's debate in the House should be about ethics. A debate about WE Charity is clearly a debate about ethics. Government Motion No. 11 also has me wondering 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 2022, in the House of Commons.

105 words

All Topics

Mr. James Bezan

Apr/28/22 10:35:44 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, here we are wanting to talk about ethics. At the very basis of what we do in this chamber, we have to have the trust of all Canadians, and right now there is a cloud of suspicion hanging over the head of the Prime Minister. 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.

129 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 60