44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 22, 2022 10:00AM
- Nov/22/22 2:24:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the real question is when the Liberals will have an environment plan, because they have not hit a single target they have set for themselves. That is not our opinion; that is the finding of their own departmental reports, and it was the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whom the Prime Minister appointed, who came to the conclusion that the vast majority of Canadians pay more in the carbon tax than they hope to receive in any rebate. Now, a report shows that Canada has come in 58th out of 63 when it comes to climate action, falling behind China and Indonesia.
When will the Liberals finally accept the science and admit they have a tax plan, not an environment plan?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 2:25:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, their entire premise is based on falsehoods.
The Liberals said the carbon tax would reduce emissions. They have gone up. The Liberals said it would be revenue neutral. Canadians pay more in carbon tax than they get back. The Liberals said the carbon tax would never go up. They plan to triple it.
Now, just in time for Canada Day, on a day when Canadians are supposed to come together and celebrate all that we have in common, the Liberals are going to make the carbon tax apply in three new Atlantic Canadian provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador, P.E.I. and Nova Scotia. Is that a part of some bizarre national unity strategy, to bring Canadians together by making sure Canadians in every region hate the carbon tax?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to add to this morning's point of order raised by the NDP House leader concerning the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-27.
In general, we have reviewed the hon. member's submissions and concur with them. That said, there are a couple of additional citations I want to put before the Chair for your consideration. I will not repeat the arguments, because you already have them before you, Mr. Speaker, but we do agree that the measures proposed in part 3 of Bill C-27 are significantly different from and unrelated to parts 1 and 2 such that they warrant a separate vote at second reading.
As my NDP counterpart articulated, the purpose of parts 1 and 2 of the bill concern privacy protections, the powers of the Privacy Commissioner and the establishment of a new government tribunal. Part 3, meanwhile, would create a whole new law respecting artificial intelligence. The mechanisms under the minister and department's powers are completely unrelated to those in parts 1 and 2. That last point is significant in view of another aspect of the March 1, 2018, ruling of Mr. Speaker Regan, which my colleague cited. Allow me to quote your predecessor, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Regan said:
As each of the first two parts of the bill does indeed enact a new act, I can see why the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé would like to see each one voted separately. However, my reading of the bill is that the regimes set out in part 1, the impact assessment act, and part 2, the Canadian energy regulator act, are linked in significant ways, reflected in the number of cross-references. For example, the impact assessment act provides for a process for assessing the impact of certain projects, but contains specific provisions for projects with activities regulated under the Canadian energy regulator act. There are also obligations in the Canadian energy regulator act that are subject to provisions in the impact assessment act. Given the multiple references in each of these parts to the entities and processes established by the other part, I believe it is in keeping with the standing order that these two parts be voted together.
Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton also encountered a similar situation in his June 18, 2018, ruling at page 21,196 of the Debates. Unlike the case that I quoted just now respecting the pipeline-killing former Bill C-69, Bill C-27 does not feature any significant or intertwining cross-references. In other words, Speaker Regan found that the two parts should be voted on together because of all the intertwining and cross-referencing in so many parts, and one part mentioning and referencing items in the first part.
This is not the situation we have today with part 3 of Bill C-27. In fact, part 3 of Bill C-27 does not explicitly cross-reference the personal information and data protection tribunal act, which part 2 would enact. Furthermore, there appears to be only one single, tiny, solitary cross-reference to the consumer privacy protection act, which part 1 would enact, and that is solely for the purpose of proposing a definition of personal information, which would be common to both of those laws. That is certainly not enough to warrant any kind of grouping when it comes to votes.
Part 3 is completely separate. It is its own independent section. There is not anywhere near the level of cross-referencing and intertwining that previous Speakers have ruled are justification for deciding not to have a separate vote. Therefore, it is clear in this situation that Bill C-27, should you, Mr. Speaker, agree with the arguments, should be dealt with in such a manner that there can be a separate vote on part 3.
Standing Order 69.1 is a relatively recent innovation. It has only been in the last number of years that Speakers have been given the authority by the House to separate aspects of bills for separate votes. I will read it:
(1) In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.
If we think about the context in which this standing order developed and was ultimately passed by the House, it was to allow members more flexibility and latitude to make their votes count on various aspects of the bill. It is important to think about why the House decided to adopt this measure. There had been, over the course of several Parliaments and across different governments at various times, more and more subject material being included in bills, and this was done at the time to give members the option of voting in favour of some aspects of a bill and oppose others and to clarify for their constituents and Canadians which parts of a bill they supported and which parts of a bill they opposed.
The reason I am talking about this context is I do not believe that at the time, the rationale and impetus for the inclusion of this measure in the Standing Orders was meant to be terribly restrictive. The whole point of the standing order was for it to be more permissive to allow greater latitude and flexibility. This is a relatively new innovation that has only been used a small number of times, and in parliamentary terms certainly a very small number of times, and I believe it would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent that was guiding members when we adopted it to start off, early on in its new use, with being very restrictive, because things around here tend to go in one direction and powers or flexibilities accorded the Chair over time often get more and more rigid as rules and precedents develop around them.
If the Speaker were to adopt a very restrictive interpretation of this standing order, I believe it would take away the point of this innovation, as it was proposed. I do not believe it would take a permissive interpretation of the standing order to agree with my hon. colleague from the NDP and the points that I raise here today. It is very clear that these parts are separate. Part 3 of Bill C-27 is completely independent, stands on its own and is not related, intertwined or cross-referenced in earlier parts of the act.
I only mention the point about restrictive interpretation as one further point to urge the Speaker to consider what the spirit, intent and purpose of this innovation was meant to do, which was to allow members to clearly differentiate which parts of legislation they support and which parts they do not. I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to keep that in mind as you study the arguments that were put before you. I hope you will find in our favour and allow members to vote separately on part 3.
1257 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
