SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 215

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 16, 2023 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 215 - Jun/16/23
Ms. Ruby Sahota
  • Jun/16/23 1:01:37 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 215 - Jun/16/23
Ms. Ruby Sahota
  • Jun/16/23 2:32:32 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 215 - Jun/16/23
Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)
  • Jun/16/23 2:32:32 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Calgary Nose Hill on June 15, respecting the government's response to an Order Paper question, Question No. 974. I believe the Speaker's ruling of February 2, continues to stand in the case before this House. The government met the requirements of the Standing Orders by responding to the question within the prescribed time frame. Moreover, I would draw the attention of members to a part of the information the member obtained through her Access to Information Act request but did not reference in her intervention. Concerning why the government did not respond more comprehensively to the question asked, there are legitimate reasons. I will read from the response released from the access to information request: “The response notes the Government of Canada cannot disclose information on mining company meetings held within the U.S. DPA Title III program: the information involves international affairs and defense, scientific and technical information, commercial sensitivity and ongoing negotiations”. The government met the requirements of the Standing Orders in tabling its response to the Order Paper question. The response to the access to information request provides a legitimate rationale as to the reasons it was not in a position to include certain information in its response. The member raised a ruling respecting the RCMP intercepting mail from 1978, which in no way bears any relevance to the matter raised by the member. In that case, it was found that a minister deliberately misled the House and gave information that conflicted with the facts. This is not the case here. The response to the access to information request confirms that there were legitimate reasons not to include sensitive information, which have not been refuted in this House by a minister of the Crown. There was no valid point of order when this was first raised by the member earlier this year and, equally, there are no valid grounds upon which to determine that this matter constitutes a prima facie question of privilege.
347 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 215 - Jun/16/23
Ms. Ruby Sahota
  • Jun/16/23 2:38:15 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find there is agreement among the parties to see the clock at the beginning of Government Orders.
27 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 215 - Jun/16/23
Ms. Ruby Sahota
  • Jun/16/23 2:49:24 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.
7 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 215 - Jun/16/23
Ms. Ruby Sahota
  • Jun/16/23 2:49:33 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent among the parties to see the clock at midnight.
22 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border