Journals
 
 
 
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
2019-06-20 [p.5728]
By unanimous consent, it was ordered, — That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order or usual practice of the House:
(a) the amendment to the motion respecting the Senate amendments to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, be deemed negatived on division and the main motion be deemed carried on division; and
(b) the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill C-100, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, be deemed negatived on division and that the Bill be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade.
2019-06-19 [p.5722]
Mr. Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly), seconded by Ms. Trudel (Jonquière), moved the following amendment, — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Abolition of Early Parole Act, be now read a second time and concurred in.”.
Debate arose thereon.
2019-06-17 [p.5643]
The Order was read for the consideration of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coast.
Mrs. Jordan (Minister of Rural Economic Development) for Mr. Garneau (Minister of Transport), seconded by Mr. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence), moved, — That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coast, the House:
agrees with amendment 1 made by the Senate;
proposes that, as a consequence of Senate amendment 1, the following amendment be added:
“1. Clause 2, page 1: add the following after line 15:
“Indigenous peoples of Canada has the meaning assigned by the definition aboriginal peoples of Canada in subsection 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982. (peuples autochtones du Canada)”;”;
proposes that amendment 2 be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:
“32 (1) During the fifth year after the day on which this section comes into force, a review of the provisions and operation of this Act must be undertaken by any committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that is designated or established for that purpose, including a review of the impact of this Act on the environment, on social and economic conditions and on the Indigenous peoples of Canada.
(2) The committee referred to in subsection (1) must submit a report of the results of the review to the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, on any of the first 15 days on which the Senate or the House of Commons, as the case may be, is sitting after the report is completed.”.
Debate arose thereon.
2019-06-17 [p.5664]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Murray (President of the Treasury Board), seconded by Mr. Sohi (Minister of Natural Resources), — That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the House:
agrees with amendments 1, 2, 4, 5(b), 6, 7, 8(b), 9, 10, 11, 13, 14(b), 15(a), (b) and (d), 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 made by the Senate;
respectfully disagrees with amendments 3 and 12 because the amendments seek to legislate matters which are beyond the policy intent of the bill, whose purpose is to make targeted amendments to the Act, notably to authorize the Information Commissioner to make orders for the release of records or with respect to other matters relating to requests, and to create a new Part of the Act providing for the proactive publication of information or materials related to the Senate, the House of Commons, parliamentary entities, ministers’ offices including the Prime Minister’s Office, government institutions, and institutions that support superior courts;
as a consequence of Senate amendment 4, proposes to add the following amendment:
1. New clause 6.2, page 4: Add the following after line 4:
“6.2 The portion of section 7 of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
7 Where access to a record is requested under this Act, the head of the government institution to which the request is made shall, subject to sections 8 and 9, within 30 days after the request is received,”.
proposes that amendment 5(a) be amended to read as follows:
“(a) on page 5, delete lines 31 to 36;
(a.1) on page 6, replace line 1 with the following:
“13 Section 30 of the Act is amended by adding the”;”;
as a consequence of Senate amendment 5(a), proposes to add the following amendments:
1. Clause 16, page 7: Replace line 37 with the following:
“any of paragraphs 30(1)(a) to (e), the Commissioner”.
2. Clause 19, page 11: Replace line 28 with the following:
“any of paragraphs 30(1)(a) to (e) and who receives a re-”.
proposes that amendment 8(a) be amended by deleting subsection (6);
proposes that amendment 14(a) be amended by replacing the text of the English version of the amendment with the following: “the publication may constitute a breach of parliamen-”;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 15(c) because providing the Information Commissioner with oversight over proactive publication by institutions supporting Parliament and the courts has the potential to infringe parliamentary privilege and judicial independence.
The debate continued.
2019-06-14 [p.5587]
Mr. Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George), seconded by Mr. Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap), moved the following amendment, — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
“the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, be now read a second time and concurred in.”.
Debate arose thereon.
2019-06-14 [p.5593]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilkinson (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard), seconded by Mr. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence), — That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, the House:
agrees with amendments 1(b), 1(c), 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 made by the Senate;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 1(a) because it is contrary to the objective of the Act that its habitat provisions apply to all fish habitats throughout Canada;
proposes that amendment 3 be amended by deleting “guaranteed,” and, in the English version, by replacing the word “in” with the word “by”;
proposes that amendment 9 be amended by deleting section 35.11;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 11 because the amendment seeks to legislate in respect of third-party, or market-based, fish habitat banking, which is beyond the policy intent of the Bill that is to provide only for proponent-led fish habitat banking;
And of the amendment of Mr. Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George), seconded by Mr. Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap), — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
“the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, be now read a second time and concurred in.”.
The debate continued.
2019-06-14 [p.5594]
The question was put on the amendment and, pursuant to Order made Tuesday, May 28, 2019, the recorded division was deferred until Monday, June 17, 2019, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
2019-06-13 [p.5576]
Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil), moved the following amendment, — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the words “the House” and substituting the following:
“agrees with amendments 1(a) to 1(y), 1(z)(ii) to (v), 1(aa) to 1(bc), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 made by the Senate;
proposes that amendment 1(z)(i) be amended by deleting the words “conducted by a review panel”;
proposes that amendment 2 be amended to read as follows:
2. Clause 6, page 94:
(a) replace line 19 with the following:
“site — establish the panel’s terms of reference in consultation with the Chairperson of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and ap-”; and
(b) delete lines 34 and 35;
proposes that amendment 3 be amended by adding the following:
“(c) delete lines 23 and 24”.”.
2019-06-13 [p.5577]
The question was put on the amendment and it was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 1358 -- Vote no 1358) - View vote details.
YEAS: 54, NAYS: 166
2019-06-11 [p.5531]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), seconded by Ms. Gould (Minister of Democratic Institutions), — That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-59, An Act respecting national security matters, the House:
agrees with amendments 3 and 4 made by the Senate;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 1 made by the Senate because the intent of the legislation is to ensure ministerial responsibility and accountability, and the legislation provides that the Intelligence Commissioner must review whether or not the conclusions of the Minister of National Defence, when issuing a foreign intelligence authorization, are reasonable; additionally, subsection 20(1) already requires the Commissioner to provide the Minister with reasons for authorizing or rejecting a foreign intelligence authorization request;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 2 made by the Senate because it would limit the scope of subsection 83.221(1) and would create inconsistencies with the general counselling provisions contained in section 22 and paragraphs 464(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code;
And of the amendment of Mr. Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles), seconded by Mr. Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier), — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
“the order for the consideration of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-59, An Act respecting national security matters, be discharged and the Bill withdrawn”.
The debate continued.
2019-06-11 [p.5531]
The question was put on the amendment and it was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 1351 -- Vote no 1351) - View vote details.
YEAS: 86, NAYS: 162
2019-06-07 [p.5472]
Mr. Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles), seconded by Mr. Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier), moved the following amendment, — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
“the order for the consideration of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-59, An Act respecting national security matters, be discharged and the Bill withdrawn”.
Debate arose thereon.
2019-06-07 [p.5473]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), seconded by Ms. Gould (Minister of Democratic Institutions), — That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-59, An Act respecting national security matters, the House:
agrees with amendments 3 and 4 made by the Senate;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 1 made by the Senate because the intent of the legislation is to ensure ministerial responsibility and accountability, and the legislation provides that the Intelligence Commissioner must review whether or not the conclusions of the Minister of National Defence, when issuing a foreign intelligence authorization, are reasonable; additionally, subsection 20(1) already requires the Commissioner to provide the Minister with reasons for authorizing or rejecting a foreign intelligence authorization request;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 2 made by the Senate because it would limit the scope of subsection 83.221(1) and would create inconsistencies with the general counselling provisions contained in section 22 and paragraphs 464(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code;
And of the amendment of Mr. Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles), seconded by Mr. Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier), — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
“the order for the consideration of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-59, An Act respecting national security matters, be discharged and the Bill withdrawn”.
The debate continued.
2019-06-07 [p.5474]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), seconded by Ms. Gould (Minister of Democratic Institutions), — That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-59, An Act respecting national security matters, the House:
agrees with amendments 3 and 4 made by the Senate;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 1 made by the Senate because the intent of the legislation is to ensure ministerial responsibility and accountability, and the legislation provides that the Intelligence Commissioner must review whether or not the conclusions of the Minister of National Defence, when issuing a foreign intelligence authorization, are reasonable; additionally, subsection 20(1) already requires the Commissioner to provide the Minister with reasons for authorizing or rejecting a foreign intelligence authorization request;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 2 made by the Senate because it would limit the scope of subsection 83.221(1) and would create inconsistencies with the general counselling provisions contained in section 22 and paragraphs 464(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code;
And of the amendment of Mr. Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles), seconded by Mr. Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier), — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
“the order for the consideration of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-59, An Act respecting national security matters, be discharged and the Bill withdrawn”.
The debate continued.
2018-12-13 [p.4469]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Gould (Minister of Democratic Institutions), seconded by Ms. Monsef (Minister of Status of Women), — That the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments, be now read a second time and concurred in;
And of the amendment of Mrs. Kusie (Calgary Midnapore), seconded by Mr. Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier), — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
“the order for the consideration of the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments, be discharged and the Bill withdrawn”.
The debate continued.
Results: 1 - 15 of 111 | Page: 1 of 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
>
>|