SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 117 - Oct/25/22

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Oct/25/22 4:56:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to participate in this debate. My question for my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is almost the same as the one the parliamentary secretary asked. Early in the debate, this morning, I asked the leader of the Bloc Québécois the same question: What alternative is the Bloc proposing? I did not get an answer. I guess the Bloc did not have an alternative in mind when they wrote today's motion. I am surprised. I should mention that the member for Rivière-du-Nord at least went to the effort of responding that the Bloc Québécois would rather have a president. I want to ask my colleague if that is true. Is that what is now advocated by the Bloc Québécois, instead of this morning's position?

148 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Oct/25/22 4:57:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think what the member for Rivière-du-Nord said and what all the Bloc Québécois members would say is that an elected president is better than a king. That is undeniable. That part is settled, everyone agrees on that. The Canadian members of Parliament are pretty much the only ones who disagree. That said, as my colleague was saying, she was picking up on the question from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, so I will give her the same answer I gave him: the whole reason the sovereignty of the people exists is to define—

114 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/25/22 4:57:43 p.m.
Watch

Order. Before resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Public Safety; the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Taxation; the hon. member for Nunavut, Indigenous Affairs.

61 words

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

Oct/25/22 4:58:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today in this House to debate this opposition day motion. When it is a Bloc Québécois or NDP opposition day motion, the Conservative Party gets remarkably few speaking spots. This is only our second speaking slot today on this motion and, as luck would have it, I get a full 20 minutes. I think colleagues may regret allowing me to have the floor for the full 20 minutes as I do have a lot to say on the motion at hand. I think it is a happy coincidence and convergence that today's debate is what we call an opposition day or supply day debate. If we look at the chyron on the screen right now it says “Business of Supply”, which is somewhat of an antiquated way of speaking. I believe most Canadians probably do not understand what supply may mean in the context of Parliament, but it means money. It means granting the government the ability to spend money. In our Canadian parliamentary context, each opposition party has the opportunity to raise debates during the business of supply through opposition day motions before we, in December, grant the government the cold, hard cash. Before December 10 we have the opportunity to debate things. It is like the airing of grievances. We, as opposition parties, get the chance to air our grievances in this House. Why I say this is a happy convergence and coincidence is that the ancient roots of the business of supply rest with the monarchy, so here today we have a fun coincidence where we can talk about the cold, hard cash, about the business of supply and also about the monarchical roots of this process. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the concept of grievance before supply and its ancient roots. I will quote from the late eminent scholar C.E.S. (Ned) Franks, formerly of Queen's University in Kingston, who wrote, “Parliament demanded and obtained the right to set its own agenda and it placed the expressions of grievance before the King's business. Only in this way could the Commons be assured of a sympathetic and attentive ear. Grievance before supply became one of the key principles of parliamentary government. The Commons also insisted that it could discuss the King's business as long as, and in such a manner as, it wished. From this comes the principle the House is alone responsible for its own proceedings and its own rules and procedures. These are not the King's business, but the Commons'.” When it comes to the question of supply and the questions we ought to speak of, here we are debating the monarchy. I am very proud to be part of an opposition party with a leader who believes in putting the people first, their families, their homes, their paycheques, their country. I want to read the preamble to the motion before us. It states, “(i) Canada is a democratic state”. That is correct. It goes on to state, “(ii) this House believes in the principle of equality for all”. That is agreed. Let us talk about economic equality and where we are right now in this country where families are struggling to make ends meet and finding it challenging to put food on the table. I received an email from a senior citizen from near Arthur, Ontario, which of course is Canada's most patriotic village. She wrote that balancing a budget was incredibly difficult before COVID, but now it is beyond her. Speaking for herself, she said that basic essential groceries absorb at least half of her income. Here we are debating the monarchy, something the Bloc knows full well will not change, is unable to change, based on our constitutional system. That is the issue that it sees fit to debate, not the families in Perth—Wellington, not the families who are struggling right now across the country, not the families who each and every day are sitting down at the kitchen table, often late at night or early in the morning, going through their numbers and wondering how they are going to make ends meet. People are wondering how they are going to make sure that the end of the month does not come before they have enough of their paycheque left to pay those final bills. I want to talk very briefly about Perth—Wellington. Perth—Wellington is one of the great agricultural places in the country. We are very proud of our agricultural heritage. One of the things we could be talking about right now is the impact the Liberal government is having on Canadian farm families and on the challenges that are facing them, one of which is the carbon tax, which is driving up the cost on Canadian farmers. This is Business of Supply, and this is an opposition day motion that is just ripe for the taking. We could be talking about how farm families in Perth—Wellington or in any of the Quebec ridings are being impacted by the government's mishandling of the carbon tax or the government's mishandling of the tariff issue on fertilizer. No one in the House would disagree that we need to take strong action against Vladimir Putin and his thugs, but when the government slapped a tariff on fertilizer which was purchased before March 2, it impacted no one except Canadian farmers. An individual came into my Harriston office recently and gave me a copy of his bill from one of the local farm supply stores. The impact alone on fertilizer purchased prior to March 2 for a relatively small amount was $1,376.20. That is $1,300 that has been taken out of our rural economy for no good purpose, no benefit whatsoever and no impact on the Russian regime, yet it has been taken out of the local economy. If we are looking at what could be discussed in an opposition day motion when we are talking about the Business of Supply, I think that colleagues in our party and most parties would choose the impact of the housing crisis. The housing crisis is preventing young families from moving into their first home and young university graduates from moving out of their parents' basement. Families are looking for a place to rent. The rental housing crisis is a challenge, and people can no longer afford to actually buy a house. I have an email from a local councillor in the town of St. Marys. She wrote that there are little to no options. In her small town, she knows of families with four kids that are in jeopardy of being homeless, and also a single dad with children, and young adults that cannot move away from their parents' home, because there is simply nothing available to rent. She said that some families are being displaced, because the owners of homes they now rent want to sell them for profit in a hot market. These are the issues that are impacting Canadians. These are the issues that are impacting us every single day. These are the issues that we hear of in our ridings across the country, yet we are debating this issue for political and partisan means rather than focusing on a number of the issues that matter. There are issues such as the cost of Internet and the availability of rural broadband. I see my friend from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa is in the House today, and one of his challenges now as our shadow minister for rural economic development and connectivity is the fact that across Canada, there are massive amounts of our country that are in dead zones and do not have access to reliable high-speed Internet. Even in my area of rural southern Ontario, which is not that far in the grand scheme of things from places like London, Kitchener and Guelph, we have massive areas of our community that cannot access rural high-speed Internet, and those who can are paying through the nose. I have heard stories of families and farm businesses having to pay tens of thousands of dollars to get fibre down a quarter-mile stretch of a concession road. These are the types of issues that resonate with Canadians. These are the types of issues that each and every day we as Canadians are hearing about and that we want to focus on. Those are the issues we were sent to this place to focus on, but again, here we are discussing this issue. There are two final issues that have been brought to my attention by my constituents which should merit discussion. One is food insecurity. I have the great benefit of having amazing organizations in my riding that go above and beyond the call of duty in ensuring that families, community members and persons living with disabilities have food on their table each and every day. I think of the Stratford House of Blessing. I think of the local community food centre. I think of the Salvation Army. All of them go above and beyond the call of duty. I get emails like this: “One critical challenge is food insecurity. The shocking reality is in Canada, one of the richest countries in the world, over 4.4 million people can't afford the food they need. In communities across Canada, one in eight households and one in six children are affected by food insecurity.” The fact of the matter is that with the rising cost of groceries and the impact inflation is having on groceries, these numbers are going to rise. These numbers are going to rise and have that impact on families, on folks in my riding and across the country. They simply can no longer afford to put food on the table. This leads me to another email I have had, about the family doctor shortage. We all know that when people are food insecure, it causes other challenges in the health care system. The fact of the matter is there are far too many Canadians living in Canada without access to a family doctor. I have received a number of emails bringing this issue to my attention and urging me to act on the health care workforce issue, specifically on the inability for families to have a primary care physician. They need an individual who can help care for their family and ensure that there are measures in place to prevent the need for urgent care in an emergency department or other matters, to prevent it from ever happening. We all know, going back to food insecurity, that when someone is food insecure, it has an impact on their overall livelihood and health. I raise these issues because that is where we are today. We are having this debate in the House, discussing the business of supply, and no debate is ever wasted when we can raise the issues that affect our constituents. It is unfortunate that in this specific example we are not specifically debating and eventually voting on food insecurity, on rural broadband, on support for families, on support for cutting the cost of living, or on support for ensuring that every Canadian has a family doctor. To the issue at hand in this debate, and I promise I will not speak at too much length, I have some thoughts on this motion, not the least of which is the error in the motion itself. The motion refers to the British monarchy, but as members will know, we pledge allegiance to the Crown in Canada. We can reflect on what is said in what we refer to as “the green book”, Bosc and Gagnon, about the oath of allegiance. Let us be clear on where this motion is coming from. This motion is coming from the Parti Québécois in Quebec. This motion is coming from the PQ, the cousins of the Bloc Québécois. I should point out that despite the efforts of the 32 Bloc Québécois MPs, they helped elect only three PQ MNAs in Quebec, so I question, frankly, the motivation there. This is all driven by the oath of allegiance that we all take when we are sworn in as parliamentarians. In Bosc and Gagnon, it says the following: When Members swear or solemnly affirm allegiance to the Sovereign, they are also swearing or solemnly affirming allegiance to the institutions the Sovereign represents, including the concept of democracy. Thus, Members are making a pledge to conduct themselves in the best interests of the country. The oath or solemn affirmation reminds Members of the serious obligations and responsibilities they are assuming. That is what we are talking about. That is what we need to be focusing on: our duties as parliamentarians and our devotion to our country, our commitment to our country. That is what the oath of allegiance is talking about. That is what the oath of allegiance is focusing on. It is not focusing on the British monarchy. It is focusing on our duties as parliamentarians. Frankly, I find it somewhat troubling when parliamentarians from a certain party keep referring to the British monarchy. In fact, if we go as far back as 1947, in a classic Corry and Hodgetts text, they wrote: The British Government and Parliament no longer have any control over its members. The Dominions are autonomous and independent. They are bound to Britain and to one another only by the invisible ties of a common tradition.... We do have a common tradition with our British counterparts, but we also have a common tradition with the first French monarch of 1534, when what is now considered Canada was in fact a French royal province, so we do have a history that is reflected in this place and in this concept. I want to focus once again on the concept of the Crown in right of Canada, a distinct and separate entity from the British monarchy, and I would quote from Philippe Lagassé and James Bowden, who talk about the Canadian Crown as a corporation sole: However antiquated or abstract it may appear, it remains that the Crown is the concept of the state in Canada, and that the state is a legal person known as Her Majesty in Right of Canada by virtue of the Crown's status as a non-statutory corporation sole. Claims that the laws governing this Canadian corporation fall under the authority of the British Parliament, or that the legal personality of the Canadian state is still the same as the legal personality of the British state, undermine the independence and sovereignty that Canada began to enjoy after 1926 and could fully claim after 1982. There we have it. The Canadian Crown, His Majesty in right of Canada, is a separate and distinct legal entity from that of the British monarchy. In fact, if we want to have a more lengthy conversation on where we go as a Parliament and where other Commonwealth countries may go, we will find that it is indeed possible that other countries, including the United Kingdom itself, could do away with their monarchy, but Canada itself, as a distinct corporation sole, the monarchy of Canada, the Crown of Canada as a corporation sole, is a separate and independent institution beyond that of the British monarchy. My friend from Chatham-Kent—Leamington earlier referenced some of the benefits and some of the added specificity of the Canadian Commonwealth tradition and the parliamentary democracy we have here in Canada, and one of the great scholars, Walter Bagehot, talked about the beauty of a constitutional monarchy. He talked about how it worked and how it has benefited not only the United Kingdom, but in our case our tradition. Bagehot talked about both the efficient and the dignified parts. The dignified parts are the monarchy, the Crown and the august nature of that part. The efficient part is that of the cabinet. We may from time to time debate how efficient a particular cabinet or a particular government may be, but the important part is recognizing the distinction between the two. The benefit of a constitutional monarchy is that the embodiment of the Crown and head of state does not rest with the partisan deliberations of the day-to-day political struggles of the House of Commons or of other legislatures. That is the benefit: dividing the efficient and the dignified parts and thus allowing us to have a head of state, represented in Canada by Her Excellency the Governor General, but also a separate and distinct efficient part that focuses on the day-to-day running. I know for a fact that other countries where those two are merged, where the head of state and the head of government are one and the same, are not ones we would like to emulate. As my time is running out, I want to make one final point. Parliament consists of three parts. We often think of Parliament as two houses, which is correct, but it is three parts. It is the House of Commons; it is the Senate, and it is the Crown. Those are the three parts of Parliament, and those are the three processes through which bills become law: through first reading, second reading and third reading in both houses, and finally through royal assent. Those three elements were combined once together in the Speech from the Throne in 1957, when Her late Majesty The Queen delivered the Speech from the Throne from the Senate chamber during her visit to Canada.

2981 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Oct/25/22 5:18:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are some things that my colleague said in his speech that I want to understand. That is the message that we have been hearing since this morning, that this is not a real issue and that there are so many more important issues. Let us say that I understood that criticism earlier this morning, but at this point in the day, I see it as a sign that nobody really has any real arguments against what we are saying. Also, why was this considered to be important and a real issue when the Conservative government was bragging about putting portraits of the Queen and the word “royal” everywhere?

113 words

Mr. John Nater

Oct/25/22 5:19:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot for his question. I believe that I spoke about the monarchy in Canada in my speech. I spoke about the two parts of cabinet and the monarchy in Canada. That is important. Yes, I am proud to be a Conservative who sees the importance of our traditions, like the monarchy, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and now King Charles III. Of course, it is important that we recognize the challenges of the monarchy. In the House, we heard stories and negative things about the monarchy and past kings. That is important, especially for indigenous people and for reconciliation with first nations.

118 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Oct/25/22 5:20:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, wow, it is always nice to hear and see people come in here carrying the receipts. The member from the Bloc Québécois who just made the comment that the member for Perth—Wellington was not actually addressing the motion should really review the Hansard. In the second half of his speech, he literally shut down every argument for this motion. It is incredible. Sometimes, the stars align perfectly and I am in perfect sync with Conservative members and their position on things, and this is certainly one of those times. I know he hinted at it earlier in his speech, with the motive of this being to be in line with the provincial party, but I am wondering if the member can reflect on why he thinks the Bloc Québécois would waste an entire supply day, when it gets only three a year. Why would it waste it on this? What is the motive behind this, in his opinion?

170 words

Mr. John Nater

Oct/25/22 5:21:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an odd day when I agree entirely with the member for Kingston and the Islands, but he is absolutely right. When there are so few opportunities to air grievances in this place and when we have so many issues affecting our constituents, our ridings and the people across the country, to see this debate taking this angle rather than being on the cost of living is truly unfortunate. I think we know the impetus. We know the motivation, and it is unfortunately trying to bring a provincial legislative debate into the House of Commons. If we were to survey Canadians from coast to coast to coast, I think their number one issue would be the cost of living, probably followed closely by the cost of housing. Those are the issues that we, as Canadians, need to be focusing on.

143 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Oct/25/22 5:21:49 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I agree very much with both the Conservatives and the Liberals that the arguments have been made not to have this motion go forward. I also really appreciated the member of Parliament for Perth—Wellington's indicating all of the social indicators that we could have discussed and tried to address in this motion. I wonder if the member agrees that maybe the party could have done better to advocate for its indigenous communities. For example, we do not hear very much about the 14 Inuit communities in Nunavik, and maybe the party could have done better to make sure the Inuit in northern Quebec could have been better represented by this party.

115 words

Mr. John Nater

Oct/25/22 5:22:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an exceptionally important question. There are so many things we could be focusing on. The member mentioned the 14 indigenous communities in northern Quebec. I am sure there are issues that are affecting her communities in Nunavut as well. Frankly, the fact that there are still indigenous communities across the country without clean drinking water is a crying shame, and we, as Canadians, should be incredibly disappointed in ourselves, in the government and in all sides of things that this is still happening. In a country as rich and as bountiful as Canada, the fact that communities do not have clean drinking water is a crying shame and completely unacceptable.

114 words

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Oct/25/22 5:23:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a shame that it seems my colleague is required to deliver such an eloquent education on some of the basics of the Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian monarchy. I am glad that he did so and had a chance to wax Walter Bagehot. I felt he did not quite get to the end of where he wanted to go with that part of his speech, so I will give him a few moments to expand on any point that might have been lacking for lack of time.

92 words

Mr. John Nater

Oct/25/22 5:23:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think of the phrase “be careful what you wish for” because it might actually happen. The member for Calgary Rocky Ridge raised Walter Bagehot, and I think all Canadians would be well served to read about the traditions of our parliamentary system. I think too often the House is seen as a museum, but this is an active place of discussion. It is an active place of debate. If we look at our Canadian traditions and where they came from, we should never see this place as a museum of democracy. This place ought to be an active debating chamber, an active place to debate issues of the day. When we talk about defining and differentiating those two parts, as Bagehot talked about, that is one of the points I want to focus on and make sure we raise all the time. This place will never be a museum of democracy.

156 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Oct/25/22 5:24:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it really is a pleasure to put a question to the hon. member for Perth—Wellington, who is, as ever, knowledgeable and thoughtful in putting forward his views. I am very grateful to him for stressing that when we take our oath as members of Parliament to His Majesty, we are taking an oath to Canada, not to any one person. In the past, I took my oath to Her Majesty the Queen. I was not making an oath to one individual but to Canada, and that oath is important. I also think it was very helpful to canvass what it would mean if we changed our system of government, which is what this motion proposes. Briefly, I will say that I grew up in the United States and watched what I think is human nature to elevate even elected people to royal status and to venerate not just the elected president but his wife as the first lady and even the whole family and the royal dogs. I note that it has always been to this point the pronoun “his”. Would the hon. member agree that human nature is better served by having a monarchy that is ceremonial rather than venerating average human beings who are elected?

213 words

Mr. John Nater

Oct/25/22 5:26:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is the ceremonial element of the monarchy that allows it to be separate and apart from the political day-to-day hustling we see in this place and across the country. I think it is important that we have a distinction between the head of state and the head of government. It allows political actors to do their jobs while remaining a dignified part of the monarchy, represented here in Canada by the Governor General.

78 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/25/22 5:26:30 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:26 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. member for Drummond.

76 words

Mr. Martin Champoux

Oct/25/22 5:27:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/25/22 5:27:28 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 26, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on a point of order.

47 words

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

Oct/25/22 5:27:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-290

Madam Speaker, I will be responding to a point of order and a question of privilege. One of them will take longer than the other. I am rising on a point of order in response to the Speaker's statement on September 26, 2022, respecting the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, standing in the name of the member for Mirabel. I will not comment on the substance of the proposal, but I would like to put forward a submission that the bill would seek to authorize spending for a purpose that is being significantly altered. In 2005, when the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act was promulgated, it was accompanied by a royal recommendation. The royal recommendation was required because it set the mandate, purpose, objects and qualifications for a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoing in the public sector. In 2006, Parliament adopted a bill that amended the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to strengthen protection for whistle-blowers, including through the creation of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal. The creation of the tribunal and its mandate was seen as a new and distinct charge upon the consolidated revenue fund and was accompanied by a royal recommendation. Bill C-290 seeks to significantly alter the mandate of the public servants disclosure protection regime. The first change relates to whom the regime applies. Section 2 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act defines “public servant” as: public servant means every person employed in the public sector, every member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and every chief executive. Bill C-290 would add an entire new class of persons who would be subject to the regime. Subclause 3(3) of the bill states: public servant means every person employed in the public sector, every person retained under contract to perform services for the public sector, every member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and every chief executive. Even the factual summary of the bill acknowledges that this proposed change represents an expansion of the mandate. The summary states: This enactment amends the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to, among other things, expand the application of the Act to additional categories of public servants Allow me to highlight other changes proposed in Bill C-290 that would alter the mandate of the regime and the duties and functions of the commissioner and the tribunal. Clause 6 would extend the protections provided under the regime to former public servants, which is not contemplated in the act. Clause 4 of the bill seeks to expand the types of wrongdoings to include new elements, namely the abuse of authority and political interference, and removes requirements such as the individual applying in good faith. Clause 30 would remove the definition of “investigation”, which is set out in section 34 of the act. It states: If the Commissioner is of the opinion that a matter under investigation would involve obtaining information that is outside the public sector, he or she must cease that part of the investigation and he or she may refer the matter to any authority that he or she considers competent to deal with it. By proposing to remove section 34 of the act, the bill seeks to expand the mandate of the commissioner to obtain information that is outside the public sector, which, under the act, is clearly outside the scope of the commissioner's duties and functions. Bill C-290 also seeks to amend subsection 19.3(1) of the act to remove the ability of the commissioner to refuse to deal with a complaint if the complaint has been adequately dealt with or could be more appropriately dealt with according to the procedure provided for under an act of Parliament other than this act or a collective agreement, or if it was not made in good faith. Clause 24 would add a new responsibility for the commissioner to assess internal disclosure procedures in organizations and to review disclosure procedures upon request or on his or her own initiative. Clause 19 of the bill would also add a new function for the tribunal by removing a power conferred upon the commissioner in the act. Clause 19 states: A complainant whose complaint is dismissed by the Commissioner under section 20.5 may apply to the Tribunal for a determination of whether or not a reprisal was taken against him or her and, if the Tribunal determines that a reprisal was taken, the complainant may apply for an order respecting a remedy in his or her favour and an order respecting disciplinary action against any person or persons...who took the reprisal. Bill C-290 seeks to significantly alter the mandate of the public servants disclosure protection scheme and the duties and functions of not only the commissioner but the tribunal in a manner not authorized under the act or any other act of Parliament. Page 834 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice 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. I believe this is the case with Bill C-290. The amendments proposed would significantly alter the objects and purposes of the public servants disclosure protection regime in a way that exceeds the royal recommendation originally obtained when the statute was enacted and the royal recommendation attached to amending legislation.

979 words

All Topics

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

Oct/25/22 5:37:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am responding to the question of privilege raised on Friday, October 21, by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle respecting comments made by RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki. There is a long and important tradition of the House to take members at their word. The Minister of Public Safety has consistently stated that neither he nor his staff ever directed RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki to ensure the release of the models of firearms that were used in the mass casualty incident that took place in Nova Scotia. The weight of the member opposite's argument is that the RCMP commissioner noted she had a text message from the Minister of Public Safety that he would like to speak with her and that she knew exactly what the minister wanted to discuss with her. This is simply conjecture. The RCMP commissioner is a highly qualified individual but she is not a mind reader. This clearly demonstrates the weakness of the argument put forward by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. The Minister of Public Safety has confirmed in this House that neither he nor his staff directed the RCMP commissioner to do anything. The RCMP commissioner has testified that she was never directed to do anything by the minister or his staff. What the member has brought to this House is nothing more than conjecture and innuendo. There are no facts that contradict statements made by the minister or by the RCMP commissioner. As a result, I submit that conjecture should never be a sufficient ground to find a prima facie question of privilege. I believe that is the case in this situation. I therefore submit that this matter is a question of debate not supported by facts and that it does not reach the high bar required to find a question of privilege. Madam Speaker, I appreciate your time, and that is it with regard to my points. The only thing I would add is that I suspect you might find it is the will of the House to call it 5:41 p.m. so we can begin private members' hour.

356 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/25/22 5:37:33 p.m.
Watch

I want to thank the hon. member for the information provided. We will certainly take it into consideration. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:41 p.m.? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): We have a point of order from the Minister of International Trade.

57 words

All Topics