44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 4, 2023 10:00AM
- May/4/23 2:14:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr Speaker, I rise today to honour the coronation of our sovereign, King Charles III, and the beginning of a new reign of service to his 15 realms and the Commonwealth.
Fulfilling a uniquely subliminal contract with the millions of citizens who rely on His Majesty to provide a continuity that is so difficult to define, I would like to offer King Charles III my sincerest wishes for a happy and productive reign.
For as long as I can remember, the principle of constitutional monarchies has attracted and engaged me. The state, as represented by the Crown, facilitates societal evolution in historical continuity.
The new King of Canada, His Majesty Charles III, will have to more tightly weave the bonds of affection and trust that he has developed over the years, and I am convinced that he will know how to do so.
“Long live the King.”
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 4:10:48 p.m.
- Watch
Can we have some order, please?
The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 4:11:45 p.m.
- Watch
Can we let the hon. member ask his question without interruptions, please?
An hon. member: After he apologizes.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Can we let the hon. member ask his question?
The Speaker made a ruling, and we will wait until the Speaker comes back to the House.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 4:26:43 p.m.
- Watch
I have to interrupt the hon. member.
The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has a point of order.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 4:27:04 p.m.
- Watch
The Speaker has made a statement on this matter, and the Speaker will come back to the House.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 4:32:06 p.m.
- Watch
Order. 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 Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Labour; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Democratic Institutions; the hon. member for Nunavut, Justice.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 4:42:58 p.m.
- Watch
May I remind the hon. member that the Speaker addressed that issue right after question period. We will resume—
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 4:43:17 p.m.
- Watch
Yes, please, from the top.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 4:48:35 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 5:03:48 p.m.
- Watch
We will leave it at those questions.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 5:13:31 p.m.
- Watch
On a point of order, the member for Winnipeg North.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 5:13:41 p.m.
- Watch
The Speaker has ruled on the issue right after question period and will come back to the House if necessary.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 5:14:02 p.m.
- Watch
I remind the member that this issues was dealt with right after question period.
The hon. member has the floor.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 5:15:19 p.m.
- Watch
It being 5:15 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 that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 5:16:55 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Monday, May 8, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 19, by the deputy House leader of the government regarding Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, adoptive and intended parents.
On March 30, in a statement on the management of private members’ business, the Chair pointed out that Bill C-318, standing in the name of the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, may infringe on the financial prerogative of the Crown. The Speaker then invited members to make arguments regarding the need for the bill to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.
In her point of order, the deputy House leader of the government noted that Bill C-318 would add a new employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. This benefit is not currently contemplated in the act and would result in a new and distinct charge on the consolidated revenue fund.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 838, and I quote, “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.”
The Chair has reviewed Bill C‑318 and found that clause 5 adds new section 22.1 to the Employment Insurance Act to create a new type of special benefit, namely, a 15-week attachment benefit for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. The bill also provides for the duration of this new benefit to be extended for various reasons.
Implementing Bill C-318 would create a new type of benefit, and therefore, lead to increasing public expenditures for purposes not currently authorized by the act. As a result, a new royal recommendation is required for the bill to receive a final vote in the House at third reading.
In the meantime, the House is about to start debate on the second reading motion of the bill. This motion will be allowed to be put to a vote at the conclusion of that debate.
I thank all members for their attention.
373 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 5:19:41 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-7
Madam Speaker, I rise to respond to the question of privilege raised Tuesday by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills concerning the alleged foreign intimidation.
Before beginning my remarks, I want to make some things very clear. When a foreign government attacks one of us, it attacks all of us. We must remain united against it.
I want to reiterate what my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, said on May 2 in the House to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. We express our solidarity to him and his family and we will continue to work with him and all parliamentarians to make sure he and all parliamentarians get the support they need.
As the Minister of Public Safety has said, since we formed government, we have been vigilant in fighting against foreign interference and ensuring we have in place the people, resources, tools and oversight to defend our institutions, Parliament and Canadians. We will continue to do that work together.
On the specifics of what the member for Wellington—Halton Hills raised, I cannot comment, of course, on an intelligence leak that was the basis of the Globe and Mail's reporting on the alleged allegations by the Chinese government. However, I will raise a few points.
I will use an example of the situation of the question of privilege raised by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent respecting the alleged premature disclosure of Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying from a previous session. The member raised his question of privilege the day after the other members had raised other questions of privilege the day earlier. The Speaker at that time ruled that the member did not raise the question of privilege at the earliest opportunity and, therefore, declined to find a prima facie case due to this fact.
The member for Wellington—Halton Hills, in his intervention, stated that he had not raised the matter at the earliest opportunity and stated:
Our authorities refer to the need for questions of privilege to be raised at the earliest opportunity in the House. While the Globe and Mail report was published yesterday morning, this afternoon is the first opportunity I have had to raise this point of privilege. In fact, this afternoon is the first time I have been up in the House since the report was published in The Globe and Mail.
I would like to examine whether, in fact, the member was not able to raise this matter earlier. The day the Globe and Mail story broke, in the morning of May 1, the leader of the Conservative Party was able to ask at least 10 questions in Oral Questions on this matter. During Routine Proceedings on the morning of May 2, the House leader from the Conservative Party requested an emergency debate on the matter respecting foreign intimidation, which had been raised in question period earlier. The leader of the Conservative Party then ostensibly challenged the Speaker on his ruling to not allow the emergency debate to proceed. That afternoon, after the matter was raised repeatedly during question period, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills then finally, at 3:30 p.m., raised his question of privilege.
Given these facts, the statement that the member made that the afternoon of May 2 was the earliest opportunity to raise his question of privilege clearly stretches the limit of credulity. I take all members in this place at their word, but the sequence of events over Monday, May 1, and the morning May 2 raises serious questions about the veracity of the statement that 3:30 p.m. was, indeed, the earliest that this question could have been raised.
Although I cannot refer to the presence or absence of members in the House, I would note that, now that we are in hybrid mode, there is no reason the member could not have raised the matter at the earliest opportunity, which would have been Monday morning, particularly as he stated that this matter is serious and grave.
If a member believes an issue is serious enough to constitute a prima facie case of privilege, he or she has an obligation to raise it at the earliest opportunity. The delay cannot be justified by a member wishing to conduct research to supplant his or her argument with various precedents to support, or to consult legal counsel.
The Speaker has, at his disposal, all relevant procedural precedents and access to procedural authorities to deal with this matter. The precedents are crystal clear. A member must raise the issue at the earliest opportunity. This did not occur in this instance.
The actions that allegedly took place, according to a leaked document as it relates to the member's family abroad, outside of Canada, beyond the jurisdiction of Parliament to deal with.
Finally, since these are uncorroborated statements that were allegedly leaked by a member of Canada's security services, it is impossible for the House to confirm the facts in this instance. As the Globe and Mail story stated, the individual would not disclose their identity so as to not breach the Security of Information Act. Allegations that the House cannot corroborate can never serve as a determinative means to establish a prima facie case of privilege.
Moreover, on Monday, May 1, the Prime Minister asked senior officials to consider the matter immediately.
I therefore conclude that this matter was not raised at the earliest opportunity, and uncorroborated allegations should not be seen as meeting the high threshold for a Speaker to find a prima facie case of privilege.
Before I conclude, I would also like to set the record straight about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills' assertion that the government did not tell him about the Chinese government's alleged actions.
The Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister became aware of the matter following the story that appeared in The Globe and Mail on May 1. On May 2, security officials also briefed the member on all the information that could be provided.
Additionally, the member has received briefings from CSIS on a number of occasions regarding the fact that his work makes him a target of foreign governments. Unfortunately, we live in a time when many foreign governments are targeting democratically elected members of the House. Going forward, we have made it clear to CSIS that, in cases of threats to an MP or their family, regardless of a level of concern, the MP should be briefed quickly and thoroughly.
This is not a partisan issue. We must all work together to defend our institutions, the communities and, most importantly, the parliamentarians who serve on behalf of their communities to protect our democracy.
1127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
