SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 297 - Apr/10/24

Apr/10/24 3:35:34 p.m.
Watch

Colleagues, it is my turn to rise and pay tribute to our very dear colleague, my predecessor as Speaker, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel. We have known each other for a very long time. In 1988, when I first came to the House of Commons as a page, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel already had four years of experience under his belt. I had the pleasure of bringing him water and messages. He was a gentleman and an upstanding man; he still is. He has set a record for years of service, but he has also set records for kindness, wisdom and, of course, sense of humour. He is known among MPs for his sage advice. For example, if someone announces that they are running for a leadership position, the member will whisper back that they have his support, but not to tell anyone. I am certain he made an exception for me when I ran for Speaker. It is that kind of practical and far from cynical approach that has enabled him to spend 40 years in this place. The people of Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel are very well served by this gentleman. He is dedicated to working for them. His success among voters boils down simple mathematics, a subject he taught before becoming an MP. He follows a simple formula: He talks to at least 10 people a day in his riding, five days a week. At the end of the year, that adds up to 2,500 people who have had direct contact with him, or 2,500 people who know their MP. If we keep going with the math, we see that our colleague has had 100,000 personal contacts over the past 40 years. The lesson to be learned here is to never forget our roots and the reason we serve in this place. I thank the hon. member for his outstanding service and congratulate him on 40 incredible years. I see the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston rising on a point of order.

354 words

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC)

Apr/10/24 3:38:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about our colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, who has served our country and the people of his riding for 40 years. It is a matter of coincidence that the man whose record the member is breaking is a man named John Graham Haggart, who was a Conservative member of Parliament elected in Canada's second election, in 1871, and who served until his death in 1913 under every prime minister from Sir John A. Macdonald to Sir Robert Borden. By coincidence, John Graham Haggart served in the ancestor of my own riding, and by an even more extraordinary coincidence, he lived in the same house that I now live in. Therefore I feel I am better qualified than anybody else to channel his ghost, so on behalf of the man whom he is bettering today, John Graham Haggart, let me just say “well done” to our colleague. I congratulate him. May he serve much longer indeed, and do so as nobly as he has done in the past.

184 words

The Speaker

Apr/10/24 3:39:52 p.m.
Watch

It being 3:40 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion of the member for Carleton relating to the business of supply. Call in the members.

41 words

The Speaker

Apr/10/24 3:41:49 p.m.
Watch

The question is on the amendment. May I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of amendment to House]

20 words

Dispense

The Speaker

Apr/10/24 3:59:09 p.m.
Watch

I declare the amendment carried. The next question is on the main motion, as amended. Shall I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of motion as amended to House] The Speaker: If a member participating in person wishes that the motion as amended be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

80 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Apr/10/24 4:00:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I believe we should have a recorded division on this.

12 words

The Speaker

Apr/10/24 4:13:54 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion, as amended, carried.

7 words

The Speaker

Apr/10/24 4:26:41 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion defeated. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker: Order. I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 44 minutes.

34 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/10/24 4:27:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the questions of privilege raised by the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola and the member for Lethbridge respecting the government's response to two similar Order Paper questions, Question Nos. 1425 and 1445. The members alleged that the government's response to these two Order Paper questions deliberately misled the House. I submit that this is, in fact, not the case. The government stands by its responses to these Order Paper questions. Question No. 1425 reads in part, “With regard to government requests to censor information, since January 1, 2016: (a) how many requests has the government made to social media companies to censor information...?” In the case of Question No. 1445, it reads, “With regard to the government requests to remove, edit, or alter information in the media, since January 1, 2016: (a) how many requests has the government made to social media companies, including for any article, post or reply...?” Both questions deal with whether the government initiated a request for action. As part of the written submissions and testimony before the public inquiry on foreign interference, officials spoke about the Declaration on Electoral Integrity Online, to which social media platforms voluntarily signed on. In accordance with its terms, these social media companies would identify inauthentic activity on their platforms and consider taking down information they considered to be violations of their community standards. In early 2019, platforms had signed on to a framework agreement, the Canada Declaration of Electoral Integrity Online. Under this framework, Facebook engaged the Privy Council Office on an article from The Buffalo Chronicle, which contained misinformation. As noted in the testimony, the Privy Council Office agreed with Facebook that, in their opinion, the article contained misinformation and agreed with their proposal to remove it, pursuant to the declaration. At this point, Facebook ultimately reached the conclusion that the article represented a violation of its community standard and took action of its own accord. I submit that, at best, the matter raised by both members constitutes a debate as to the facts, which is a normal part of debate in this place. The government stands by the accuracy of the responses to Order Paper Question Nos. 1425 and 1445; in no way did it seek to mislead the House on this matter. The facts stand: A social media company engaged PCO about a posting on its platform that violated its own policy regarding its community standards on misinformation, and after notifying PCO of the situation, removed the offending post. That is a key point for the Speaker to consider in making a determination on matters relating to the responses to both Order Paper Question No. 1425 and Order Paper Question No. 1445. It is a long-standing practice of this place to take members at their word. Moreover, there are numerous precedents to demonstrate that the Speaker is not empowered to judge the quality of the answers provided, as you stated in your ruling of February 29. Having said that, I want to assure the House that the government takes seriously its commitment to providing accurate and truthful information to ensure that members have the information they need to discharge their parliamentary duties.

544 words

Ms. Lianne Rood (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC)

Apr/10/24 4:32:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege, and this is concerning false information contained in the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 2340, which was filed by the NDP member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. While it may seem unusual for me, as a Conservative member, to be rising about a government response to a question filed by the NDP, this is not just about the member who filed the question but about all members of the House who suffer and whose rights are infringed upon when the government tables information which is clearly false and inaccurate in the House. The response to Question No. 2340, which was tabled by the government on Monday, contains information that is clearly false, which is proven by the government's own records. The question asked was: ...since January 1, 2006: how much federal funding has been provided to (i) Loblaws, (ii) Metro, (iii) Walmart, (iv) Sobeys, (v) Costco, broken down by company, year, and type of funding? The response, signed by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, says: ...since January 1, 2006, no federal funding has been provided to Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys or Costco. We know that this is not true. The government took a lot of pride in announcing millions of dollars for fridges for Loblaws. If one types the word “Loblaws” into the government's proactive disclosure portal, under grants and contributions, one will see that there are three separate listings for government grants and contributions to Loblaws between November 7, 2019, and April 26, 2021. The most significant of these is a contribution for $12,019,723 on November 7, 2019, from Environment and Climate Change Canada for low global warming potential refrigerant conversions in supermarket systems. In other words, it was $12 million to Loblaws to buy new fridges. That one entry, by itself, listed in the proactive disclosure database, proves that the government's response to Question No. 2034 contains false information. In addition, a quick search on the government's own website will show us that on October 24, 2019, it gave $15,803,515 to Costco for “Energy Savings Rebate Program Funding Regarding Canadian Appliance Source”. It is crystal clear, from the government's own data, that the response in the tabled document by the minister on Monday contains false information. This is not a matter of debate or opinion. This is proven by the government's own reporting on proactive disclosure. I had wished that the NDP member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford had raised the question of privilege on his own, but as we all know, his party has an agreement with the government that stunts its ability to criticize the Liberals or to point out the hypocrisy of the NDP supporting a Liberal government that is giving handouts to Loblaws and Costco. When the House of Commons is provided with untrue information or lies, all members of the House suffer and all members have the right to receive accurate information. What the government did here is a breach to all members' rights. On page 82 of Bosc and Gagnon, it clearly states that it is a prima facie case of contempt when someone “deliberately attempts to mislead the House or a committee”. While the record will show that Speakers have been reluctant to intervene on the basis of a quality of an answer or a non-answer, this is a case of the government deliberately withholding the truth from the House. On December 16, 1980, on page 5797 of Hansard, the Speaker said: While it is correct to say that the government is not required by our rules to answer written or oral questions, it would be bold to suggest that no circumstances could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an hon. member.... Should you find a prima facie case, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

675 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/10/24 4:36:57 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member, and it will be taken under advisement.

12 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Apr/10/24 4:37:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the tradition in the House has been to allow the opportunity for the member who has actually asked the question to raise the question of privilege. I find this a bit discourteous. That being said, we are currently looking at this, and I would like to reserve the opportunity for the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to rise on this question of privilege a little later on.

71 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/10/24 4:37:31 p.m.
Watch

The member's request is so noted. The hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame is rising on a point of order.

26 words

Mr. Clifford Small

Apr/10/24 4:37:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request unanimous consent to change my vote on our opposition day motion from nay to yea.

19 words

Nay

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/10/24 4:37:49 p.m.
Watch

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to change his vote? Some hon. members: No.

19 words

Change

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/10/24 4:38:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

35 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/10/24 4:38:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions 2024-25 departmental plan.

24 words

Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)

Apr/10/24 4:38:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to the motion adopted on Monday, December 11, 2023, regarding the Canada disability benefit.

49 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Apr/10/24 4:39:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on behalf of PROC members, I would like to thank the witnesses who appeared. I would also like to mentioned how much we appreciate our clerk, Michael, as well as the analysts Andre, Isabelle and Laurence, who has returned. We also want to give a shout-out to everyone who supports the committee, including those in food services, tech, interpretation, cleaning services and so many more. Today, I am very proud to present, in both official languages, the 63rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, entitled “Question of Privilege Related to the Member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other Members”.

109 words

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

Apr/10/24 4:40:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise to present the supplemental report of the Conservative members on the procedure and House affairs committee. Conservatives concur with the finding of the main report that Mr. Wei Zhao be held in contempt of Parliament for targeting the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and his family. However, it is our observation that the main report is incomplete in several respects. For one, it does not fully account for the colossal breakdown in the machinery of government under the Prime Minister's watch that resulted in the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and his family having been kept in the dark for two years while they were being targeted by Beijing. Second, the supplemental report outlines a campaign of obstruction by Liberal MPs to block the production of relevant documents to get to the bottom of how this breakdown in the machinery of government under the Prime Minister's watch occurred. It was clearly directed by the PMO as part of the continuation of the cover-up. Finally, our supplemental report provides evidence that the now Minister of National Defence was not entirely forthcoming in his testimony before committee. It is our assessment that the false and misleading testimony of the Minister of National Defence may rise to a level of a contempt of Parliament. Consequently, I will forthwith be putting on notice a question of privilege. I will have more to say on that later today.

242 words