SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 215

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 16, 2023 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 215 - Jun/16/23
Mr. Patrick Weiler
  • Jun/16/23 10:28:39 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I would say my riding is the most beautiful riding in the country. I talked quite a bit about the rationale for keeping the disclosure threshold at 25%. It is important for it to be seamless in order to operate and communicate with all jurisdictions around the world that are implementing this system. Making sure we are consistent would be very helpful and seamless for the sharing of that information. I think there are always opportunities to see if this might be changed down the road. I know some jurisdictions are actually now thinking of lowering the threshold. If that were to take place around the world, then I think there would be good rationale for us to emulate that; however, I think, as it stands right now, this is the standard, and it is important for us to be consistent.
143 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