SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 294 - Mar/22/24

Mar/22/24 12:28:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I present this petition on behalf of the nearly 4,000 people of Newfoundland and Labrador who signed it in 30 days.

24 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Mar/22/24 12:28:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-270

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to present a petition from Canadians across the country, including many of my own constituents, who are concerned about the consent and age verification of those depicted in pornographic material. The petitioners ask for the government to follow recommendation 2 of the 2021 Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics report on MindGeek. This requires that all content-hosting platforms in Canada verify age and consent prior to uploading content on platforms that operate on a commercial basis. Bill C-270, the stopping Internet sexual exploitation act, would add two offences to the Criminal Code. The first would require age verification and consent prior to distribution; the second would require the removal of that material if consent is withdrawn. As such, the petitioners are calling for the quick passage of Bill C-270, the stopping Internet sexual exploitation act.

150 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Mar/22/24 12:30:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition to the Government of Canada. The petitioners recognize that, although it has been many years since the first use of nuclear weapons demonstrated their awesome powers, we remain under the constant threat of warfare today. This could result in devastation from which the world would never recover. The petitioners also recognize that the Government of Canada has published statements saying it is committed to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. They recognize that Canada, as a member of the UN Conference on Disarmament and the Stockholm Initiative for Nuclear Disarmament, has an obligation to promote the elimination of nuclear weapons internationally. They recognize that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has been signed by 86 countries and ratified by 66, but not by Canada. Finally, the petitioners recognize that, as a non-nuclear state, Canada is in the best position to comply with the articles of the TPNW and to guide its allies and other nations towards a world free from nuclear weapons. Therefore, these petitioners call on the Government of Canada to sign and commit to ratifying the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and to urge allies and other nations to follow suit.

211 words

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

Mar/22/24 12:31:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions this morning. They are both of critical concern to members of my constituency. I had the honour of hosting 12 community meetings recently in different parts of the riding. There was not a single meeting where the issue of the crisis of access to family doctors was not raised. I put forward a petition where the petitioners note that, according to Statistics Canada, approximately 4.8 million Canadians do not have a regular doctor. Moreover, 92% of physicians are working in urban centres and just 8% in rural areas. In Victoria and Sidney, B.C., within Saanich—Gulf Islands, average wait times for a walk-in clinic are 92 minutes and 180 minutes, respectively. The petitioners call on the government to work with the provinces and territories to come to a holistic and fair solution to deal with the family doctor health care provider shortage.

155 words

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

Mar/22/24 12:32:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my second petition deals with the critical habitat requirements of a rare and threatened bird, the marbled murrelet. This bird nests in the roots of old-growth forests. That is the only place where it is found, although it spends most of its lifetime out on the open ocean. The petitioners are calling for the Government of Canada to immediately protect all the critical old-growth habitat that is needed by the marbled murrelets and to recognize that this habitat is also protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, to which Canada is a signatory. This matter is urgent. The number of birds is down to a precious few.

111 words

Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Ottawa Centre, Lib.)

Mar/22/24 12:33:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am bringing forward this petition on behalf of my constituents in Ottawa Centre. It recognizes that there is a grave humanitarian crisis taking place in Gaza because of the war. It acknowledges that Canada is recognized for its historic leadership in humanitarian actions in the global community. It also recognizes the fact that Canada really stepped forward in helping Ukrainians come to Canada on a temporary basis to flee from the war. It is asking for similar action in order to extend the same special immigration measures that were granted to Ukraine nationals to Palestinians and to allow Palestinians in Gaza to apply for the special immigration measure, so that they can come here and work until the war comes to an end in Gaza.

128 words

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

Mar/22/24 12:34:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have two certified petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36. The first recognizes long wait times and inconsistent standards of service delivery, which have a significant negative impact on the physical and mental well-being of Canadian Armed Forces veterans, as well as current and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The petitioners ask that the Minister of Veterans Affairs commit to remedying the situation, which has been allowed to exist for too long.

78 words

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

Mar/22/24 12:35:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I have harmonizes with work done at the fisheries and oceans standing committee. Basically, the undersigned citizens of Canada call on the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to immediately prohibit any transfer of commercial fishing licences and quotas to foreign interests or beneficial owners who are not Canadian.

58 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Mar/22/24 12:35:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions. The first is with respect to environmentalists throughout the country, who are calling upon the Government of Canada to move forward immediately with bold emissions caps for the oil and gas sector that are comprehensive in scope and realistic in achieving our targets as set out for 2030.

54 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Mar/22/24 12:35:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I have is a petition from my community, in particular, residents of the Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington region, who are calling upon the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to prioritize the national school food program through budget 2024 for implementation in the fall of 2024. They specifically draw to the attention of the government that Canada is the only G7 country without a national school food program.

88 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Mar/22/24 12:36:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, for the third petition, the majority of the residents are from a riding to the north of mine, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. These residents are drawing attention to the fact that, at the federal Joyceville Institution, the abattoir has been closed for about two years. They indicate that beef farmers are now waiting six to nine months, and in many cases up to a year, to advance to have their cattle processed at other facilities. The abattoir located at Joyceville Institution on Highway 15 in Ontario closed in September 2022, and the closure has put even more strain on processing abattoirs, negatively impacting the process of wait times. They also highlight the negative economic impacts as a result of this abattoir closing. Therefore, they are calling upon the Government of Canada to explore all options to ensure the abattoir located at Joyceville Institution is reopened to address the issues noted above.

154 words

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Mar/22/24 12:37:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by Canadians. As it stands, convicted murderers are eligible to apply for parole annually after serving their minimum sentence. The petitioners observe that such frequent parole hearings retraumatize the families of murder victims. The bill that the petitioners are urging Parliament to pass is Bill S-281, known as Brian's bill, named in honour of Brian Ilesic, who was murdered at the University of Alberta. He and three of his colleagues were shot point-blank in the back of the head. The bill would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act so convicted murderers would only be eligible to apply at the time of their automatic review.

117 words

Ms. Lisa Hepfner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, Lib.)

Mar/22/24 12:38:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2265, 2267, 2269, 2272, 2273 and 2278.

17 words

Mar/22/24 12:39:16 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 2265—

Questioner: Colin Carrie

With regard to Health Canada’s authorization of COVID-19 vaccines, at the time of approval through the Interim Order Respecting the Importation, Sale and Advertising of Drugs for Use in Relation to COVID-19 in 2021: (a) was there evidence that the vaccines stopped people from transmitting the virus to others and, if (i) affirmative, what is the evidence, (ii) negative, what is the evidence for public messaging suggesting that herd immunity was achievable through mass vaccination; (b) why was the early initiative to track seroconversion of Canadians against SARS CoV 2 abandoned and the task force for this dissolved; and (c) why was naturally-acquired immunity not considered an appropriate form of immunity against SARS-CoV-2?

Question No. 2267—

Questioner: Laurel Collins

With regard to Canada’s G20 commitment to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies and the self-review assessment framework released in July 2023: (a) which tax measures were identified as fossil fuel subsidies and found to be (i) efficient, (ii) inefficient; and (b) which non-tax measures were identified as fossil fuel subsidies and found to be (i) efficient, (ii) inefficient?

Question No. 2269—

Questioner: Tom Kmiec

With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the family-based humanitarian pathway for Sudanese and non-Sudanese nationals due to the ongoing conflict in Sudan, since the December 28, 2023 announcement: (a) how many applications have been (i) received, (ii) accepted, (iii) denied, (iv) pending or under review; (b) what is the breakdown by male and female; (c) what is the breakdown by age range; (d) how many were study permits; (e) how many were open work permits; (f) how many were temporary visitor visas; and (g) how many IMM 5992 statutory declaration forms have been filled out?

Question No. 2272—

Questioner: Dan Albas

With regard to March Madness expenditures where government managers make extra purchases in an attempt to spend their entire budget allotment before the end of the fiscal year: what specific measures, if any, are in place to prevent or discourage such spending ahead of the end of the 2023-2024 fiscal year, broken down by the measure that each department or agency is taking?

Question No. 2273—

Questioner: Melissa Lantsman

With regard to government funding of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA): (a) what are the transaction dates and amounts of all funding the government provided to UNRWA since January 1, 2023; and (b) what are the scheduled dates and amounts for future transactions of government funding to UNRWA for the remainder of 2024 that will no longer take place due to the government's pause on funding?

Question No. 2278—

Questioner: Daniel Blaikie

With regard to audits conducted by the Canada Revenue Agency, broken down by fiscal year from 2015-16 to present: (a) what is the total number of audits conducted on (i) people with disabilities, (ii) First Nations, Inuit, or Métis peoples, (iii) people over the age of 65, (iv) individuals whose net worth is more than $50 million; (b) what is the total number of audits conducted due to (i) excessive health claims, (ii) excessive health travel claims; (c) what is the total value of those audits; and (d) for each of the audits in (a) and (b), what is the total number of audits that resulted in (i) prosecutions, (ii) convictions?

2753 words

Ms. Lisa Hepfner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, Lib.)

Mar/22/24 12:39:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2266, 2268, 2270, 2271 and 2274 to 2277 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately in an electronic format. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

44 words

Mar/22/24 12:39:16 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 2266—

Questioner: Colin Carrie

With regard to the government authorization of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines: (a) when did Health Canada (HC), the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), and the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI), receive documentation from Pfizer acknowledging the presence of SV40 enhancer promoter sequence and SV40 poly(A)tail signal sequence in their vaccine BNT162b2; (b) with respect to the documentation related to (a), (i) how can the documentation be accessed, (ii) when was it received by HC, PHAC and NACI, (iii) was this documentation obtained before or after the BNT162b2 vaccine was authorized; (c) has HC asked Pfizer about the safety of the SV40 enhancer promoter sequence and SV40 poly(A)tail signal sequence in their vaccine, and, if not, why not; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what are the risk analyses that Pfizer did, if any, regarding these SV40 sequences; (e) what amount of SV40 sequences is considered safe (i) in a single Pfizer mRNA vaccine dose for distinct age groups, (ii) for repeated vaccine injections over time per each age group considered; (f) what were HC’s regulatory guidelines surrounding SV40 sequences in a vaccine prior to 2019; (g) what are the current (relevant for the period of 2019-2024) regulatory guidelines surrounding SV40 sequences in a conventional vaccine and in an mRNA vaccine; (h) how does HC know the SV40 fragments are inactive and have no functional role in mRNA vaccines; (i) has HC verified the amount of SV40 enhancer promoter sequence and SV40 poly(A)tail signal sequence in any of the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines, including the Pfizer XBB, and, if not, why not; (j) if the answer to (i) is affirmative, what was the outcome of this verification and how was this verification done; (k) what is HC’s official position with respect to the increased risk of DNA contaminants getting into human cells, including the cell nucleus, when encapsuled in liposomes, as is the case with the mRNA vaccines; (l) how has HC confirmed with certitude there is no genetic integration (i.e. in vivo transfection into the nucleus of human cells) of DNA plasmid fragments, which may or may not contain SV40 sequences, as found in either mRNA vaccine; (m) does the publicly undisclosed presence of SV40 sequences or any other adulteration (e.g. reverse open reading frames [ORF]) violate the terms and conditions of the Pfizer and Moderna contracts, and, if not, why not; and (n) if the answer to (m) is affirmative, what are the consequences?

Question No. 2268—

Questioner: Laurel Collins

With regard to cleantech transactions signed by Export Development Canada (EDC), broken down by fiscal year since 2018-19: (a) what are the details of each transaction, including, the (i) date of signing, (ii) country of transaction, (iii) principal counterpart, (iv) EDC product, (v) industry sector, (vi) financial range; and (b) of the transactions in (a), which transactions were intended to support (i) carbon capture, unitization and storage technologies, (ii) blue hydrogen, (iii) grey hydrogen?

Question No. 2270—

Questioner: Tom Kmiec

With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the temporary special measures for extended family in Gaza due to the Israel-Hamas war, since the December 21, 2023 announcement: (a) how many applications have been (i) received, (ii) accepted, (iii) denied, (iv) pending or under review; (b) what is the breakdown by male and female; (c) what is the breakdown by age range; (d) how many were study permits; (e) how many were open work permits; and (f) how many IMM 5992 statutory declaration forms have been filled out?

Question No. 2271—

Questioner: Tony Baldinelli

With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) transferring refugees to Niagara Falls, Ontario, between February 1, 2023 and February 1, 2024: (a) how many have been transferred to Niagara Falls in total; (b) what is the monthly breakdown of the number of refugees transferred to Niagara Falls; (c) which hotels is the government using to lodge refugees in Niagara Falls; (d) how many hotel rooms are currently being occupied by refugees in Niagara Falls; (e) what is the capacity of each hotel room that is being occupied by refugees in Niagara Falls; (f) how many refugees are staying in each hotel room in Niagara Falls; (g) what is the average length of time IRCC expects (i) an individual refugee, (ii) a refugee family, to be lodged in a Niagara Falls hotel room; (h) for all refugees being lodged in government funded Niagara Falls hotel rooms, without identifying names or other personal information, how many days has each refugee stayed; (i) what is the average cost per night that IRCC pays per refugee for staying in a Niagara Falls room; (j) for the night of February 1, 2024, what was the total cost IRCC paid hoteliers to house refugees located in Niagara Falls; (k) what is the average cost that IRCC pays per refugee who lives in a Niagara Falls hotel room for daily meals and refreshments; (I) for the month of January 2024, what was the total cost IRCC paid hoteliers to feed refugees located in Niagara Falls; (m) what are the countries of origin for refugees who have been accommodated in Niagara Falls; (n) what is the breakdown of refugees transferred to or accommodated in Niagara Falls by each country of origin; (o) how much funding was transferred by the federal government to the municipality of Niagara Falls to deal with the influx of refugees in the city; (p) how much funding has been transferred by the federal government to the Region of Niagara to deal with the influx of refugees in the region; (q) how much funding was transferred by the federal government to local not-for-profit, charitable, and nongovernmental organizations in Niagara Falls to deal with the influx of refugees in the city; (r) what are the names of the specific not-for-profit, charitable, and non-governmental organizations who have received federal government funding; (s) what is the breakdown of funding for each organization to date; (t) how many more refugees does IRCC currently plan to transfer to or accommodate in Niagara Falls; (u) how many refugees have moved out of government funded hotel rooms in Niagara Falls and into personal accommodations; (v) when does the federal government plan to stop paying for refugee hotel rooms in Niagara Falls; and (w) what are the terms and conditions of the financial agreement that IRCC has with each hotelier located in Niagara Falls that houses refugees and receives federal monies to provide this service?

Question No. 2274—

Questioner: Kelly McCauley

With regard to properties sold by the government since January 1, 2021: what are the details of all properties which have been sold by the government, including, for each, the (i) street address and land location, (ii) city or municipality, (iii) province or territory, (iv) type of property (residential, commercial), (v) description of property, including size of land and square footage of buildings, (vi) date of sale, (vii) price that the property was sold for, (viii) value of the last known municipal property assessment as performed by the province or territory where the property was located in, (ix) buyer?

Question No. 2275—

Questioner: Gary Vidal

With regard to the approximately $602 million that Indigenous Services Canada spent on medical evacuations in 2022: what is the breakdown of the spending by (i) province or territory, (ii) community, (iii) reason for the evacuation (heart attack, prenatal care, child delivery, cancer treatment, etc.)?

Question No. 2276—

Questioner: Damien C.

With regard to the regional development agencies, since January 1, 2020: what are the details of all contracts awarded to vendors located outside of Canada, broken down by (i) regional development agency, (ii) vendor, (iii) vendor location, including the postal code, the municipality, and the province, (iv) value, (v) description of the goods and services, including the volume, if applicable, (vi) the date the contract was signed, (vii) start and end dates?

Question No. 2277—

Questioner: Daniel Blaikie

With regard to the tax rate paid by corporations to the Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA), broken down by fiscal year from 2015-16 to 2022-23: (a) what was the average effective tax rate paid by financial corporations broken down by revenue (i) above $100 million (ii) above $500 million, (iii) above $1 billion in revenue; (b) what was the average tax rate paid by oil and gas corporations, and oil and gas extraction corporations, broken down by revenue (i) above $10 million, (ii) above $100 million, (iii) above $500 million, (iv) above $1 billion; and (c) what was the average tax rate paid by real-estate corporations broken down by revenue (i) above $10 million, (ii) above $100 million, (iii) above $500 million, (iv) above $1 billion?

1439 words

Ms. Lisa Hepfner

Mar/22/24 12:39:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, finally, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

22 words

Stand

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Mar/22/24 12:40:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am rising to respond to questions of privilege. I have some comments, and I appreciate the House's acceptance to allow me to introduce those now to contribute to the previous question of privilege that has been raised here. This is specifically in response to two questions of privilege raised on March 20. The first matter was raised by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes respecting the 17th report from the Standing Committee on Government Operations, and the second concerns the deliberations on an NDP opposition day motion considered on March 18. The matter raised by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes concerns a potential breach of privilege concerning witness testimony at a Standing Committee on Government Operations in its study of the ArriveCAN application. As the member notes, the committee unanimously agreed to adopt a motion to present a report to the House outlining the potential breach of privilege concerning Kristian Firth's refusal to answer questions from committee members and his prevarication in answering those questions. If the Speaker finds that this is a prima facie question of privilege, the government supports sending this matter to the procedure and House affairs committee for study. The standard modern practice of dealing with breaches of privilege of the House or of individual members has to be to move a motion to refer a matter to the procedure and House affairs committee. In the case of contempt, the most recent example, which was cited by the member, was to summon the individual to the bar of the House of Commons for reprimand. These are two avenues that have been pursued by the House for the last 100 years. As the chamber that is based on practice and procedure, these are the two most well-characterized ways of dealing with such affronts to privileges of the House and its members. I suggest that there is nothing with the current situation that suggests that we now take a different approach. I also find it somewhat bizarre that the only precedence that the member used to try to make his case for his proposed motion dates back hundreds of years. I would submit to the House that times have changed since 19th century England, and so have the rules and practices of the House. On March 21, the member for Beauport—Limoilou intervened on the matter and concluded that a prima facie question of privilege be found and that the member had referred to the procedure and House affairs committee. I agree with the member on both points. The procedure and House affairs committee is the appropriate committee to which this matter should be referred. Page 966 of the third edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, in relation to the specific mandate of the procedure and House affairs committee, states, “The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs deals with...the review[ing] of the Standing Orders, procedure and [House] practice[s] in the House and its committees.” The footnote attached to the quote states, “Should the Speaker find prima facie grounds, it is established practice for the House to refer matters of privilege to the Committee for further study. In his ruling of March 9, 2011, Speaker Milliken reminded the House of this practice”. I would like to refer to the ruling of Speaker Milliken on March 9, 2011, in which he states: Before I invite the member for Kings—Hants to move his motion, however, the Chair wishes to explain the procedural parameters that govern such motions. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at pages 146 and 147 states: In cases where the motion is not known in advance, the Speaker may provide assistance to the Member if the terms of the proposed motion are substantially different from the matter originally raised. The Speaker would be reluctant to allow a matter as important as a privilege motion to fail on the ground of improper form. The terms of the motion have generally provided that the matter be referred to committee for study or have been amended to that effect. I hasten to add that the powers of the Speaker in these matters are robust and well known. In 1966, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, having come to a finding of prima facie privilege on a matter, ruled a number of motions out of order. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, tells us at page 147, footnote 371, in doing so, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux “more than once pointed out that it was Canadian practice to refer such matters to committee for study and suggested that this should be the avenue pursued”. The Chair is of course aware of exceptions to this practice, but in most if not all of these cases, circumstances were such that a deviation from the normal practice was deemed acceptable, or there was a unanimous desire on the part of the House to proceed in that fashion. In cases of contempt, a similar approach has been taken and is supported by precedent for the past 100 years. The most recent example is the Speaker's Ruling on June 16, 2021, with respect to the alleged non-compliance with an order of the House. The Speaker ruled in this case: As a result, in the opinion of the Chair, the failure to comply with the order of the House of June 2, 2021, constitutes a prima facie question of privilege. There is one last point to settle. The Chair has read the wording of the motion suggested by the member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent in his written notice. It departs considerably from established practice. The scope of this type of motion is limited, as indicated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 150, and I quote: “The terms of the motion have generally provided that the matter be referred to committee for study....” A review of the rare exceptions shows that there was a certain consensus on the procedure to follow and, thus, on the wording of the motion.... There are also precedents that support censure. In short, given that the parameters for such motions are clear and that the practice is well established, the proposed motion should be a motion of censure or to refer the matter to the appropriate committee for study. Even if it were procedurally admissible or if there was a unanimous consent to have these witnesses appear before the bar to be questioned, it is unlikely to yield a different result. Then, the only recourse for the House to take in the matter would be to censure the individual, as in the situation described in the Speaker's Ruling of June 16, 2021. The Conservatives are trying to set up a new trend. We think that before proceeding with calling the individuals to the bar, and certainly before we start talking about questioning witnesses at the bar, which has not even been contemplated in more than 200 years, the matter should be referred to PROC so that its members may, firstly, review the evidence and make recommendations on procedures, safeguards and criteria for calling and questioning individuals before the bar. This is a very serious matter, and we cannot operate on an ad hoc basis. We need some clarity on how we should proceed. The House is, therefore, faced with two well-established options in my opinion, to refer the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee or to summon this individual to the bar for censure. That is for the Speaker to choose and the House to decide upon.

1298 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Mar/22/24 12:53:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29 Bill C-13

The second matter relates to the deliberation on the NDP opposition day motion that took place on Monday, March 18. The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier alleges that his privileges were breached when the government House leader moved an amendment to the motion during the debate and the translation delays prevented members from considering the amendment in French. I submit that there are two matters to be considered in this case. The first is that the events took place on Monday, March 18 and the member raised the argument two days later. This was not the first opportunity to raise the matter. Second is the fact that the events of the debate of March 18 simply do not support the allegation raised by the member. The member did not raise his question of privilege at the first opportunity, as required. Page 145 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states: The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House. Therefore, the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation. When a Member has not fulfilled this important requirement, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is not a prima facie question of privilege. There was no requirement for the member to have time to marshal sophisticated arguments or to substantiate his allegation. If I were to speculate, the member either did not take the matter seriously or did wait to raise the argument on Wednesday for the simple objective of disrupting proceedings related to the consideration of Bill C-29 on that day. There is no procedural limitation on when an amendment may be proposed to a motion before the House while it is under consideration. The House was under Government Orders when the amendment was proposed. It is a well-established practice that amendments may be moved in either official language. Citation 552, subsection (3), of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms was addressed this matter. It states, “Every motion that is duly moved and seconded is placed before the House by the Speaker as a question for the decision of the House. All motions must be presented to the Speaker in writing in either of the two official languages.” I will concede that the amendment was moved later in the day, but this was the result of good-faith discussions between members of Parliament that lasted until shortly before the motion was moved, which is why it was moved in one language. That is how the House of Commons is supposed to work: rigorous debate and discussions to come to consensus. It is always the practice of the government to provide all parties with information in both official languages. However, in this case, it was not possible to provide a written copy in both official languages in the time provided, which is why the members of the House were provided with simultaneous interpretation of the proceedings of the House in both official languages. Third, while the House was suspended to the call of the Chair, the table officers circulated to all parties the text of the amendment in French to ensure that members could understand what had been proposed as an amendment and what they were voting on. Finally, when the House resumed, after the amendment had been made available in both official languages, the Speaker entertained additional points of order on the admissibility of the motion, which would have offered the opportunity for any member to intervene on the amendment in either official language. When the Speaker put the question to the House on the amendment, it included text of the motion in French, clearly demonstrating that the text was available in both official languages. The government strongly believes in the importance of both official languages in the Parliament of Canada. To demonstrate this, the House passed amendments to the Official Languages Act in Bill C-13. Bill C-13 would implement a series of proposals that promote the progression toward the equality of status and the use of English and French. Several provisions of the enactment are therefore concrete illustrations of the constitutional principles set out in subsection 16(3) of the charter. The facts contradict the assertion by the member that he did not have access to the text of the amendment in both official languages, nor did he meet the test that the matter must be raised at the first opportunity. Therefore, I submit that the matter does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.

789 words

The Speaker

Mar/22/24 12:53:13 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for his input on two important questions before the Chair, and the Chair will hasten to come back to the House with a decision, at least on one of those issues.

41 words