Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 1727
View Blake Richards Profile
CPC (AB)
View Blake Richards Profile
2021-06-23 15:17 [p.9059]
Mr. Speaker, as we are approaching the end of our session for the summer, I note that there are four outstanding questions of privilege.
There is a question of privilege from the member for Timmins—James Bay, in relation to the government ignoring a House order regarding taking indigenous children to court.
There is a question of privilege from the member for Carleton, regarding the government's inflation tax; and from the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, regarding the ethics committee and the fact that the government has ordered staff there to disobey the order to appear.
Then, of course, there was a question of privilege from our opposition House leader as well, related to the documents related to the Winnipeg lab, after the appearance at the bar by the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada on Monday.
While I appreciate that obviously you, Mr. Speaker, have to have some deliberations on some of them, and that is understandable, in particular the one from the opposition House leader, I would note, first of all, that there is some new information that has come to light, which is that the government has now filed an order in Federal Court with you as the defendant, Mr. Speaker, where the government is seeking to have those records and those documents sealed so that they can be hidden from Canadians. That obviously adds a very significant element of timeliness to this. When we have that being done by the government and the government has gone to that length to actually go to the Federal Court against you, Mr. Speaker, to try to see those documents sealed so that they cannot be seen by Canadians, that would add a very important element of timeliness to this.
I do believe that, on that question of privilege in particular, it does seem like there is a pretty clear set of facts there. You brought the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada to the bar and you admonished him. The documents were supposed to come with him. They did not. That is very clear. That is a very clear set of facts and very well established. We now have the government going to court to try to seal those documents, and that is shameful. I would think that there is very clear evidence there that we do have a prima facie case, so I would have expected us to see a ruling from you prior to the summer adjournment of Parliament.
Therefore, I just want to ask a three-part question so that we can get some clarity on where things are at with these questions of privilege.
Will you, Mr. Speaker, be delivering a ruling now, particularly on that question of privilege, given the timeliness of that matter, and on the other questions of privilege as well that I have raised here? If not, can you tell the House why not? In addition, what would happen with those questions of privilege should the government, as has been very widely speculated, go ahead and dissolve Parliament for an election? What would happen then to those questions of privilege?
I certainly hope, given that the government has now gone to Federal Court against you as the defendant, Mr. Speaker, trying to seal documents, that you will deliver a ruling prior to the summer. Could you answer those questions, please?
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I want to thank the hon. member for his question, and it certainly is a fair question.
Unfortunately, over the last week, the amount of resources required from the clerks and me has limited the resources that we have to put to the points of order and the questions of privilege.
One of the things I have prided myself on in being here is putting out a well-thought-out response that merits the position that I am in. One of the things that I did not want to do is to rush through that with limited resources and give a ruling that was not up to the level that is expected by members and that members have been used to.
Therefore, should Parliament dissolve today, I will not be able to do it right away. It will be done at the next sitting of the House, whenever that does happen, and we will have something that is very robust, something that makes sense and something that all members can have confidence in.
View Blake Richards Profile
CPC (AB)
View Blake Richards Profile
2021-06-23 15:22 [p.9059]
Mr. Speaker, in relation to the last question I had, I have more of a point of clarification than anything.
First, what would happen with those points of privilege should the government choose to dissolve this Parliament and go to an election? Would those points of privilege carry forward into the next Parliament?
Second, what bearing does the fact that the government has applied to the Federal Court to have those documents sealed have on this? Does that change anything about this point of privilege and about your ruling? Are you concerned about the fact that the government has applied to have those documents sealed and the effect that would have on this place and its ability to follow through on its orders?
It is a very serious matter when a government is taking the Speaker of the House of Commons to Federal Court in order to try to seal documents so that it can avoid being held accountable to Canadians. That is something that we all must take incredibly seriously in this place, because the very heart of democracy is at stake.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I want to thank the member for Banff—Airdrie. I just want to make sure that we got everything the way it should be and that the answer is correct.
The points of privilege and the points of order will be carried over, and it will be up to the Speaker at the time to look at it and take all the information as it evolves and make a decision at that time. I would not want to take that away from whoever the next Speaker is.
On the second point, we were told by the government House leader. He announced it in the chamber, and it is in the process. We will be taking that under consideration as we proceed.
The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-06-23 15:39 [p.9061]
Mr. Speaker, we are still reeling from the shock of the recent announcement about how the government is going to court against the House of Commons. As such, we would like some time to consider the motion the government leader just moved, which we agreed upon initially. However, that was before the events that just transpired. We will get back to you shortly.
View Mélanie Joly Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I was having technical problems, not with the vote we just had, but with the previous vote on the motion moved by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I would like to change my vote and vote in favour of the motion.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2021-06-23 17:07 [p.9070]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I seek the consent of the House to deliver a reply on behalf of the Green Party of Canada.
View Randall Garrison Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am rising virtually to ask for unanimous consent to make a few short remarks in tabling an NDP supplemental report to the justice committee's report on elder abuse just tabled by our very able chair, the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2021-06-23 17:09 [p.9070]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I am a member.
I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make a few remarks. I have tabled a supplementary report, and I would like to outline the basis for it, if my colleagues in the House do not object.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to clarify that the motion adopted to give the member special permission to present a supplementary report was to present the report, not to read the entirety of the report.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I was getting there. I would like to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary to be as concise as possible. I will let her continue.
View Blake Richards Profile
CPC (AB)
View Blake Richards Profile
2021-06-22 10:14 [p.8936]
Mr. Speaker, I understand that you are attempting to give the member some latitude here, but this time is intended to present a dissenting report or supplemental report. There have been attacks on other parties, and there have been all kinds of commentary here. I really do think, Mr. Speaker, it might be time to consider that it has been enough.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I understand the parliamentary secretary is wrapping up, so I will give her a bit more time and then we will go from there.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.
I seek the unanimous consent of the House, in all fairness, for the member for Lakeland to be able to share a few more comments about the Conservative dissenting report. I am sure she also has more to say. I wonder if there is unanimous consent to do that.
View Derek Sloan Profile
Ind. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I mentioned in my question, I had a parliamentary press conference that was censored by Facebook. People have reached out to me to say that they are unable to share it. That is problematic. Anything that goes on in the House should be able to be shared freely by Canadians.
I would like to seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House recognize that the House of Commons itself and the Parliament of Canada are a bastion of democracy and free speech; that members of Parliament enjoy special parliamentary privileges overseeing their ability to speak freely in Parliament, to discharge their duties freely and without constraint; that any Canadian seeking to share digital content of parliamentary functions should be able to do so freely and without constraint; that the government must strongly defend the rights of parliamentarians against the outside interference of social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter; and I call on the government to recognize that any potential suppression of information or censorship of parliamentary events, such as official press conferences, must not be allowed to happen and to officially sanction Facebook and Twitter for their actions.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
An hon. member: Nay.
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Greg Fergus Profile
2021-06-22 15:15 [p.8983]
Mr. Speaker, I had technical difficulties and could not complete my S.O. 31 as a result. I would ask for unanimous consent to do it now.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
All those opposed to the hon. member's request for unanimous consent will please say nay.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, in the past, you have not required unanimous consent to allow a member redo his or her statement. I expect you would apply the same logic this time.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I do not have a problem with it. The hon. member asked for unanimous consent. If he wants to retract that, I will allow him to go ahead.
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Greg Fergus Profile
2021-06-22 15:16 [p.8983]
I would be happy to retract that, Mr. Speaker.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Since there were technical difficulties, we will allow the member to go ahead.
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to clarify the record. The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations in question period talked about $48.8 million being given to Saskatchewan first nations. That number is incorrect. It is in fact—
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
That is beginning to turn into debate. A point of order is for referring to one of the Standing Orders and how it is contravened. Members often forget that and we get caught up, and that is fine. I thought I would point that out to remind hon. members.
View Alain Therrien Profile
BQ (QC)
View Alain Therrien Profile
2021-06-22 15:45 [p.8986]
Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to the question of privilege raised yesterday by the House Leader of the Official Opposition, who alleged that the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada did not fully comply with the order adopted by the House on June 17.
This question of privilege is quite appropriate. We are of the opinion that the order of the House was not followed in its entirety and that the House must act accordingly. It is time for it to act.
Last week, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel Philippe Dufresne sent a document to the Standing Committee on Finance regarding the committees' power to send for papers, since the committee was finding it difficult to get documents from KPMG on its study of tax havens. This letter from Mr. Dufresne provides some thoughtful clarifications on the question of privilege we are discussing today. Regarding the refusal to produce the documents, he said, and I quote:
Only the House of Commons has the disciplinary powers to deal with this type of offence. The disciplinary powers of the House include, for example, the power to reprimand a person who is not a Member (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 983, n. 164). In cases where the author of or the authority responsible for a record refuses to comply with an order issued by a committee to produce documents, the committee essentially has three options. The first is to accept the reasons put forward to justify the refusal (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 986). The second is to seek an acceptable compromise to obtain the information with certain measures in place. This could entail putting measures in place to ensure that the record is kept confidential while it is being consulted, such as in camera review, limited and numbered copies, and/or putting in place arrangements for disposing of or destroying the copies after the committee meeting (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 986, notes 180, 181, 182). It could also include having proposed redactions to the documents provided to the Committee or to my Office for review before any information is made public. The third option is to reject the reasons given for denying access to the record and insist on the production of the entire record (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 987). If a witness does not provide requested documents, the committee’s recourse is to report the matter to the House (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 983, n. 165; p. 987, n. 183). Once seized with the matter, the House takes the measures that it considers appropriate (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 983, n. 166; p. 987).
The letter from Mr. Stewart's lawyer was tabled in both official languages in the House this morning. Mr. Stewart has no intention of complying with the order of the House for the time being, which brings us back to the third option I just mentioned.
The House has already considered what action should be taken against the Public Health Agency of Canada as a result of Mr. Stewart's refusal to table the unredacted documents before the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.
The order adopted by the House on June 17 was adopted by a majority vote, and therefore the point of order raised by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is inappropriate. The Chair must rule on the solution, the remedy to be applied with respect to the documents that were requested but have still not been tabled in the House.
I will not repeat all the rulings and precedents that the House Leader of the Official Opposition referred to yesterday. However, I would like to come back to some of the fundamental issues he raised about the importance of decisions that are made by the House, and I quote:
If the House does not respect its orders, who will respect the laws adopted by the House? Who will respect the regulations adopted by the House? Who will respect the political decisions made after debates, albeit spirited ones, but decisions that were voted on by the individuals who were duly elected by the public?
Therefore, we ask that you take one of the conclusions proposed yesterday by the House Leader of the Official Opposition.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-06-21 15:11 [p.8855]
Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, when a member rises to move a motion in the House, they must always have the proper equipment. We saw that the leader of the Bloc Québécois did not have the necessary equipment. That being said, I think that all parties know what the leader of the Bloc Québécois wants to talk about, and I seek the consent of the House to let him continue.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-06-21 15:11 [p.8855]
Mr. Speaker, I think we all recognize that the member for Beloeil—Chambly is not set up correctly to address the House of Commons. We also know what he wants to talk about today.
What I would suggest to my colleague for Beloeil—Chambly is that he first make his presentation in French and then after that, if he can, translate it to be sure that every member will have access, in both official languages, to his proposition of the day.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The problem with the interpretation is due to the fact that the member does not have the proper equipment. Does the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly agree to proceed as the member for Louis-Saint‑Laurent suggested?
View Yves-François Blanchet Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about the nature of the request because I cannot simultaneously interpret—
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The problem is that we cannot hear the member for Beloeil-Chambly properly because he is not using the official equipment provided by the House.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Order. I would ask for the attention of the House.
Even if we could understand—barely— what the hon. member for Beloeil-Chambly was saying, it was not clear enough for the interpreters. It was therefore suggested that the member start in one official language and then repeat the same thing in the other official language so that everyone could understand. Is that agreeable to everyone?
Hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: That is how we will proceed. The hon. member for Beloeil-Chambly will start in the official language of his choice and then repeat the same thing in the other official language. The hon. member for Beloeil-Chambly.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-06-21 15:19 [p.8856]
Mr. Speaker, I will make myself clear so everyone understands what I am saying.
We have to follow certain rules. Yes, there are technical considerations, but location matters too. I completely understand what motivated the member for Beloeil—Chambly, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, to do this on National Indigenous Peoples Day and to do it in an indigenous centre. That puts us all in a positive frame of mind. Plus, his proposal, which he read in both official languages, was unanimously adopted.
I invite the Speaker to issue a recommendation about whether we are supposed to be in the House, in our parliamentary office or in our riding office. If it should so happen that we are not in one of those three places, I believe, although we would have to reread what has been said about this, that we are expected to inform the House in advance so officials can make sure everything is working properly.
For today, it is understandable. I would be the first to agree, because Wendake is in my riding. We can move symbolic motions like the one moved today. However, I think we need a rule, should a member choose to speak from somewhere other than the House of Commons.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I thank the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who raised a very good point.
I would like to remind all members that the House is a neutral place, as free of symbols as possible. Sometimes, we do not notice it at all, but it is very important to make sure that the House is as neutral as possible.
It being 3:22 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 17, it is my duty to ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to admit Mr. Iain Stewart.
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2021-06-21 15:26 [p.8857]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House how the government believes we can move forward on the the issue of the document order from June 2. Today, I wrote a letter to you in which I go into some detail on this issue, and I would like to explain to the House what I proposed in this letter, if I may.
The House of Commons adopted a motion on June 17, 2021, which states, “That the House find the Public Health Agency of Canada to be in—”
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-06-21 15:26 [p.8857]
Mr. Speaker, we shall follow the rules step by step. You were talking about the June 17 decision. There is someone here, and we are asking this person to table documents. Do what you have to do, and after that we will see if there are any documents. If there are none, we will address it.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I have made my statement. I ask all members to sit and wait while we consult. It is a matter that we must go over. As I said, this is a very unique situation. I want to make sure that we get it right on all sides. This is not to show any favouritism to one side or the other; I just want to go over it.
The Chair is in the hands of the House. Nothing in the order of June 17 provided for the possibility of taking measures, nor does the order give the Chair the authority to respond to the situation the House is currently facing. It is up to the House to decide.
I will go back to the hon. government House leader and ask if the point of order he is raising is directly related to what we are discussing now. If it is not, I would ask him to please inform the House and we shall continue.
The hon. government House leader.
View Blake Richards Profile
CPC (AB)
View Blake Richards Profile
2021-06-21 15:30 [p.8858]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe you were interrupted while trying to finish the statement you were making. You were admonishing the Public Health Agency of Canada, and I think you should be able to finish your statement before there is a point of order responding to that statement. I think you should have the right to—
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
To correct the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie, I was done and about to dismiss Mr. Stewart when the hon. government House leader rose on a point of order to bring information forward. It was brought after. Right now we are dealing with that to see if it is directly related.
This is what I am going to do. I will listen to what the government House leader has to say and then determine relevance afterward. If it is way out of whack, I will stop him, but I believe what he has to say is related.
I stopped the hon. member because what he brought up was not exactly correct.
Mr. Blake Richards: I have a point of order.
The Speaker: I think we will listen to what has to be said and then we will deal with that after.
The hon. government House leader.
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2021-06-21 15:31 [p.8858]
Mr. Speaker, it is totally related.
The president of the Public Health Agency of Canada has worked diligently to try to comply with the order of June 2, 2021. He has done so in a manner that balances the rights of parliamentarians to have access to information with the duty of the government to protect information related to national security and privacy.
The Parliament of Canada Act states in section 4 that the privileges, immunities and powers of the two Houses are to be those that were held in 1867 by the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, and such privileges, immunities and powers as are defined by an act of the Parliament of Canada.
The Parliament of Canada, in exercising its legislative authority to define the privileges of the Houses, may circumscribe those privileges and has done so. A statute may be made expressly applicable to the Senate and the House of Commons or may apply implicitly, by necessary intendment.
As well, statutes of Parliament may impose duties of non-disclosure on government officials. As the Supreme Court observed in Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid in 2005, “Legislative bodies created by the Constitution Act, 1867 do not constitute enclaves shielded from the ordinary law of the land.”
Furthermore, in Chagnon v. Syndicat de la fonction publique et parapublique du Québec, Justice Rowe, in concurring with the majority of the court, added, “...expecting a legislature to comply with its own legislation cannot be regarded as an intrusion on the legislature's privilege. It is not an impediment to the functioning of a legislature for it to comply with its own enactments. Accordingly, when a legislature has set out in legislation how something previously governed pursuant to privilege is to operate, the legislature no longer can rely on inherent privilege so as to bypass the statute.”
Parliamentary privilege has been circumscribed by valid statutes, and the House of Commons cannot now choose to relieve itself from their application.
As we know, the Minister of Health referred the matter and provided unredacted documents to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, given the expertise of the members of the committee in matters of national security. The committee has a broad mandate to review Canada's legislative, regulatory, policy, administrative and financial framework for national security and intelligence. It may also—
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2021-06-21 15:34 [p.8858]
Mr. Speaker, the connection to the matter before us will soon be clear.
Of course the government wants to collaborate. That is what it has been trying to do from the start, in a way that respects parliamentary privilege and extremely important national security issues.
I am going to skip a whole section of my presentation and jump right to my proposal.
We are putting various options before you, all of them valid, in my opinion. I think it would be worth your while to read them so that we can find a solution that works for all parliamentarians and all parties.
I will not be very long.
The first option relates to what I call a memorandum of understanding regarding Afghan detainee documents. In response to the ruling by Speaker Milliken in 2010, the government and the opposition agreed to a memorandum of understanding that created an ad hoc committee of parliamentarians to review national security documents. It included safeguards and a panel of arbiters to determine how the relevant and necessary information could be made available to MPs and the public without compromising national security. A similar memorandum of understanding could be used for the review of the documents that the House has ordered.
As a second option, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel could be assisted by national security specialists.
The motion adopted by the House on June 2, 2021, states, in part:
(d) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall confidentially review the documents with a view to redacting information which, in his opinion, could reasonably be expected to compromise national security or reveal details of an ongoing criminal investigation, other than the existence of an investigation;
(e) the Speaker shall cause the documents, as redacted pursuant to paragraph (d), to be laid upon the table at the next earliest opportunity and, after being tabled, they shall stand referred to the special committee;
While the government accepts that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel has the appropriate security clearance to review the information, we do not believe he has the necessary training or expertise in national security-related information to make the necessary assessment. Disclosing sensitive information could have a number of negative side effects for our intelligence agencies. These include, inter alia, revealing covert methods of operation and tradecraft and investigative techniques; putting at risk human sources and their families; and identifying or helping to identify employees, internal procedures and administrative practices. Finally, it could have a severe impact on Canada's reputation as a responsible security partner.
Assessing the damage caused by disclosure of information cannot be done in the abstract or in isolation. Seemingly unrelated information can be used to develop a more comprehensive picture or “mosaic effect” when added to information already known, thereby revealing further tradecraft. Declassification of documents needs to undergo a review which takes into account the potential impact on covert methodologies, sources and relationships.
The government is open to providing the unredacted documents to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel if the House of Commons agrees that national security specialists can assist him in this process and that other appropriate safeguards be put in place.
It is our hope that the government and the opposition can come to a reasonable solution that ensures that the government can continue to respect its obligations to protect national security, and the House of Commons can effectively do its work.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have now had Mr. Stewart here for about half an hour. He has been standing diligently at the bar. I think it would be appropriate for the Speaker to allow him to leave now, so he can get back to the important work he has been doing over the last 15 months looking to protect this country.
I would ask that the Speaker allow Mr. Stewart to leave at this time. I think the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc have proven their point, and now it is time for him to be able to depart.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I do not believe that is a point of order.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Order, please.
I would like to point out that I had discussions with the Sergeant-at-Arms prior to Mr. Stewart's coming here to ensure that, should Mr. Stewart want to sit, there would be a chair for him there. There is one there, so he can be comfortable, if he prefers to sit.
View Mel Arnold Profile
CPC (BC)
View Mel Arnold Profile
2021-06-21 17:30 [p.8872]
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure how it showed up on the broadcast, but someone else's image appeared on the screen as I was presenting the complementary report. If that is the case, I would like to present it again so it can be recorded properly.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
We are verifying that now. Since, we are still checking, in the interest of time, the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap can again present his complementary report.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
View Heather McPherson Profile
2021-06-21 19:02 [p.8890]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if the member actually accused the NDP of lying. We are not supposed to do in the House. I wonder if he wants to take that back.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, I believe the minister questioned if something that was said could have been a lie. He did not specifically call anybody a liar. He was trying to understand. It seems to me as though he was trying to personally rationalize the situation.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2021-06-21 19:03 [p.8890]
I thank hon. members for their interventions. I did not hear the minister's words in this case as I was taken aside for a moment on an administrative matter. For general purposes, references to lying is always a tricky area. Generally, if it is not applied to an individual member, group and so on, although it is not advisable, it is not an unparliamentary reference.
The hon. minister can finish his response.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-06-21 22:09 [p.8905]
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois did not get its turn to rise in this debate. I think there must have been some mistake.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
I apologize, but only one hour was provided for debate. It depends on the manner in which the debate unfolds. Right now, we need to move on to the votes.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
View Jody Wilson-Raybould Profile
Ind. (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I had my hand up for the previous vote and I was not acknowledged by the Speaker.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
We will finish this and I will go back and see what we can do.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the chair.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
View Jody Wilson-Raybould Profile
Ind. (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I was waiting to be acknowledged on the previous vote. When that did not happen, I raised my hand to be acknowledged. I was voting for the previous motion.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
We have finished the vote. We have to have unanimous consent.
I just want to remind hon. members to raise their hands to be acknowledged. It does not just happen. I have to be aware that they are in the chamber or here virtually.
Could the hon. member for Vancouver Granville clarify if that was a yea or nay? The table just wants to confirm.
View Jody Wilson-Raybould Profile
Ind. (BC)
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among the parties and if you seek it, I hope that you will find consent for the following motion: That in light of the uncovering of unmarked graves at residential schools, the House call on the government to establish an independent commission with the resources to establish standards and provide oversight in the searches of records, in ground searches and investigations in accordance with the wishes of communities, as well as invite international experts including the International Commission on Missing Persons to work with first nations, Inuit and Métis communities to bring their children home.
View Peter Schiefke Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Peter Schiefke Profile
2021-06-18 12:09 [p.8777]
Madam Speaker, immediately following the conclusion of my S.O. 31, I received a message from AV services and translation saying that unfortunately because of my mike they were unable to properly translate my S.O. 31, half of which was done in French and half in English. I therefore am requesting kindly that I be able to redo my S.O. 31.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2021-06-18 12:10 [p.8778]
Madam Speaker, I just wanted to clarify. I did not quite hear it, but it was the Liberal Party that turned down the support for indigenous people in finding the bodies—
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
That is not a point of order.
On another point of order, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, the precedent was set, as you will recall, a few years ago. We had unanimous consent to put the motion. That was accepted. Then you asked for unanimous consent to adopt the motion. That was declined. What that means is because the motion was accepted, we now have to have a parliamentary vote on that. You can check the precedents back to 2015, but that is indeed the case. When the House allows the presentation of a motion, then subsequent to that, if unanimous consent for adoption of the motion is denied, it does mean that we then go to a vote.
The member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski moving the motion, having had the House accept the presentation of the motion, we would normally go to a vote. I would suggest though you might want to ask for unanimous consent to adopt again because that would very clearly the second time around avoid a vote. I think you would probably find unanimous consent, but if consent is not given for adoption, we have to proceed to a vote on it.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
On the point of order from the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, I want to remind him on the procedure that is before the House when tabling these types of motion under a point of order. My first intervention was asking whether someone was against the hon. member moving the motion to please say nay and there were no nays on moving the motion. Then the following step is asking if the House has heard the terms of the motion and whether or not they agree with the motion, which is all those opposed to the motion, will please say nay, and it was not carried.
Therefore, it is not a point of debate at this point.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has another point of order.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, just on this point of order, I would ask the Table to very clearly check the precedent from 2015. The Speaker ruled at that time, and that is the precedent and the jurisprudence, that when the motion is allowed to be moved unanimously and then the adoption of the motion is denied, then the House proceeds to a vote on adoption of the motion. That is the clear precedent. I will give the Table time to look at the precedent, but it has been clearly set and I would ask you, through the Table, to look at that precedent and then come back with an ulterior ruling.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
I appreciate the additional information that the hon. member has provided. We will certainly look into this some more and will get back to the House briefly, if need be.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-06-18 12:15 [p.8778]
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, as we have known with the virtual Parliament, when a member, for technical reasons, was not able to complete their S.O. 31, the Speaker has had the ability to indicate to the member to start again. When that does not occur, for whatever reasons, members have stood up and explained themselves.
This is something that is beyond the member's control and there might have been some confusion. The member was not asking to repeat because of something that he had said; he was asking to repeat the S.O. 31 because there was a technical problem. In the past, we have always granted leave for that, so I just want to make sure the members understood it was not the member, it was a technical problem from the system.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
The hon. member is correct. After reviewing the request, I will grant the hon. member's request to redo his S.O. 31.
View Sean Fraser Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Sean Fraser Profile
2021-06-18 12:17 [p.8778]
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the same point of order. You seem to have granted what is an appropriate remedy.
I would only point out that it may actually impinge on a question of privilege if, due to problems with translation, a member is unable to give their statement. However, I believe you have granted the appropriate remedy, so thank you.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I, too, await with great interest the question of privilege from my colleague from Timmins—James Bay. However, we have not yet resolved the issue that was raised earlier on the motion that was moved by the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the member sought and received unanimous consent to move her motion, and then when the Speaker asked whether that motion could be adopted, the request was denied. I cited at the time a precedent dating back and asked the table to look into this. I have found the precedent. It is a ruling by former Deputy Speaker Comartin, on June 12, 2014.
On June 12, 2014, the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Philip Toone, moved a similar motion and there was unanimous consent to present the motion. Then when the Speaker asked if there was unanimous consent to adopt the motion, that was denied. At that time, there was a series of procedural questions, which I will not go into, but essentially Deputy Speaker Comartin ruled very clearly that in a case when consent was provided for moving the motion and then consent was denied for adoption of the motion, the member then had the right to move the motion, debate was not precluded and ultimately the House was called upon to vote on that question.
I think that the government member who denied adoption may have done that by mistake and the first opportunity should be to allow the motion to be adopted by unanimous consent. However, if it is not adopted by unanimous consent, the precedent is very clear.
This is a rare occurrence, and the last Speaker ruling that we have is very clear that because consent was given for moving the motion, the motion is now on the floor and adoption can either be done by unanimous consent or by a vote. I think all members would probably agree that it is much simpler just to adopt it by unanimous consent. Again, the precedent is very clear and I would ask you to uphold that ruling, Mr. Speaker.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-06-18 12:47 [p.8785]
On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the issue and the problem I would have with what is being suggested is that, when the Speaker made the original ruling, we have no idea whether the member who said no is still in the chamber. There was a ruling. I would be very reluctant to ask, once again, for unanimous consent, given that the time and the dynamic have changed considerably since then, and there was already a ruling.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2021-06-18 12:48 [p.8785]
I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his additional comments, and thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who always frames his arguments in a well-informed way. I have the utmost of appreciation to my predecessor as well, Mr. Comartin, who I greatly admired in the House. He was a great chair occupant.
For the familiarity of the House, there is a two-step process for a unanimous consent motion. The first part is indeed to seek consent for the member to move the motion, thereby waiving the usual notice requirement to put the motion before the House. Then, as members all know, if the waiving of the notice is accepted, the member can propose the motion for the consideration of the House. However, the unanimous consent motion process was only ever intended to be for taking an immediate decision in the House, and can in no way interrupt the daily proceedings of the House. This is why all of the rules say that for members to properly consider business, debate and take votes on questions, they must be put before the House in an orderly manner.
The unanimous consent process is an immediate reflection of the House. It is an up or down, yea or nay. It is two steps. If the second step does not succeed, in other words, if the second time around the House says no, it does not want to accept the motion that has been proposed, then that is the end of it.
Admittedly, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has found a precedent, an absolutely valid one, and there have been three other occasions when the same decision has been put before the Speaker. However, we have decided, in keeping with the comments that I just reflected upon, that unanimous consent requires an immediate decision to be taken, and if there is a no on either of the two steps, the matter is finished until such time as another member may wish to propose it in a different way or indeed use other rubrics of the House to bring it before the House. That is where we stand on this.
Now we will go to the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
View Christine Normandin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2021-06-18 13:12 [p.8788]
Members certainly have the right to express comments and arguments in relation to questions of privilege raised in the House.
The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to offer comment with respect to the question of privilege from the member for Timmins—James Bay.
With the hon. member for Carleton about to rise, is now the appropriate time to do that?
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2021-06-18 13:12 [p.8788]
I would say not.
Certainly it is a member's right to add some comments on these matters. In the normal course, notice to the Chair around the interventions respecting questions of privilege is helpful, so I would ask the hon. member to consider that, as I explained to the hon. member for Saint-Jean.
The member's interest is noted. I will now go to the member for Carleton for his comments, and ask the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to think about perhaps doing that at another time.
The hon. member for Carleton has the floor.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has been on the same question of privilege now for about 50 minutes if we include the 45 minutes prior to today. If you listen to the content of what he is discussing, it has nothing to do with a question of privilege, which is what he originally raised at that time. More importantly, I think if you would consider in your ruling the fact that the earliest opportunity he had to continue this question of privilege was yesterday, he chose not to do it yesterday. That should give some indication, being that it was an opposition day, why he chose not to do it yesterday.
Therefore, I think it is clear that what is going on here is filibustering in order to prevent a discussion on government legislation. Indeed, the member is not contributing to a question of privilege, which is what is to be discussed right now. I understand you have given him latitude, I think that is fair, but he really has never come to discuss what the actual question of privilege is. Maybe you want to give him two or three more minutes to do exactly that, but then I think it is fair to use your powers as the Speaker to cut him off, to say you have heard what you have heard and have what you need and that you will come back with a ruling later.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-06-18 13:19 [p.8789]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are three elements to consider when you make your decision on the question of privilege.
First, the member for Carleton respected the rules we have in this House of Commons when he raised his question of privilege two days ago and when he raised it again today, and he will conclude it today.
Second, the decision belongs to you and no one else. I know that you will make your decision, and I will respect that decision because you are the Speaker of the House and you have no lessons to take from both sides of the House. The decision is yours to make.
Third, as my colleague from Kingston and the Islands raised the issue of filibustering, I would remind him that his party is super efficient at filibustering, because in five parliamentary committees the Liberals spent 177 hours filibustering. We are peewees compared to them.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2021-06-18 13:20 [p.8789]
I thank the hon. members for their additional comments.
Before I go back to the hon. member for Carleton, I will let him know that members who bring questions of privilege before the House should indeed take the appropriate time to explain the reasons they believe a breach of privilege has occurred. In fact, the convention we take as Chair occupants on these matters is to listen long enough to have an appropriate comprehension of the member's proposition and his or her concern about the breach of privilege to render a decision on it. Therefore, it really is an individual member making a case to the Speaker that in fact a prima facie case of privilege exists. That is why it generally follows with the opportunity for, if the Speaker should wish, the member to put the motion, after which a debate on the matter can ensue. However, initially, it is really an individual member making his or her arguments to the Speaker.
I recognize the hon. member for Carleton has already been diligent in presenting on this particular point uninterrupted for more than 30 minutes. It is a complex point, so I will listen to him further, but I will also ask him to bring his presentation around to the specific area where he believes there has been a breach of his privileges.
We will go back to the hon. member for Carleton.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-06-18 13:31 [p.8791]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. I would ask you to please allow me a brief moment, hopefully only two or three minutes, to emphasize what I believe the Speaker needs to look into.
The issue is this: What is a breach of privilege?
I would like to get a clear understanding that goes beyond what our Standing Orders say because I believe that, at a time when Canadians need Parliament to work to help them through this pandemic, we are seeing an opposition tactic being used that is very toxic in terms of partisanship. The issue is that of privileges and points of orders and to what degree they can be used as a tool to filibuster.
So, without me contributing beyond that, I would be very much interested in a ruling coming from the Speaker's chair. Is there a limit, and how far is too far? I am concerned about the limited amount of time and how privileges are actually being used. As a parliamentarian, I am very much interested in this issue.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2021-06-18 13:33 [p.8791]
I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary.
On the face of what he has suggested, it does refer back to my earlier comments. Typically, when a member is posing a question of privilege for the consideration of the Chair, it is on them to present their arguments so the Speaker may decide whether a breach of privilege has indeed occurred. If it has, then a motion is moved and the debate can be taken.
To the hon. parliamentary secretary's question, the amount of time is completely at the discretion of the Speaker. Once he or she has heard enough and are convinced that they have been provided enough information with which to render a decision on the proposition, as has been seen here this afternoon, the limit has been reached and we move on to other business.
The opportunities to raise questions of privilege are an important privilege of hon. members, but they can only interrupt the process of debate and the day's business to the extent that conventions and practices permit, and ultimately, the chair occupant, the Speaker who hears the intervention, decides what that is.
I think we will leave it at that.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with you. I would submit further that, as you said, it is a right of members to present their point of privilege, and it is indeed a sacred and very important right, but it is also the responsibility of all members not to abuse that right. From time to time it would be your job to determine if such an abuse is occurring.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2021-06-18 13:35 [p.8791]
That is indeed correct.
The hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook.
View David Sweet Profile
CPC (ON)
View David Sweet Profile
2021-06-18 13:35 [p.8791]
Mr. Speaker, in that vein, I am wondering whether the parliamentary secretary actually gave you the requisite notification that he would be raising that point of privilege, which is a concern as well.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2021-06-18 13:35 [p.8791]
That is a good question, but when the parliamentary secretary initially raised his point of order, I was not too sure whether it was a new question of privilege. Indeed, I received it as, if you will, almost a follow-up intervention with respect the two earlier questions of privilege the House has been involved with.
However, it is a good reminder for hon. members that, if they wish to bring something like that before the House, a one-hour notice is required, and I urge hon. members to do that.
I see that we are six minutes into our time for private members' business, so we will start debate on that now.
We will start with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe after someone puts forward a motion in the middle of their speech, they do not get to continue speaking after. I think the proper rule would be to go to the next speaker, would it not?
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2021-06-18 13:38 [p.8792]
In the normal context, yes. Given that the motion was proposed in such a way that it would be acted upon at the end of today's debate, the expectation is that it would go the full hour, and members who are scheduled for debate would participate in it. In the normal course, a motion, for example, an amendment, would be proposed at the end of one's speech. If the amendment carries at that point, the debate would then continue on the amendment, and the member would have used all their time to do that.
In this particular case, because the proposition was to essentially take effect at the end of the hour, I will accept that the members would normally have their time remaining for their remarks.
Did the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan want to add to that point of order, or would he like to pick it up from here?
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the member is able to confirm I am the individual who said no, I would love for him to be able do that, but in the meantime, perhaps he should not suggest it until he is somehow able to confirm it.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2021-06-18 13:40 [p.8792]
I think we heard this earlier today. When yeas and nays are provided in the House, they are general in nature and not necessarily assigned to individual members.
I am going to go back to the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to finish up his remarks. He has 13 minutes remaining if he wishes to use all of that, and then we will continue in the usual way. It appears as though the hon. member is finished.
We will now go to questions and comments.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
View Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to be debating Bill S‑204. From what I understand, the Liberals do not want this bill to pass quickly.
It is very nice and all to want to thank everyone, but the member's comments have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order, when we come toward the end of a session like this, it is not uncharacteristic for us to allow members a brief opportunity to thank people. She spent half the time thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for the incredible work you have done before departing on your retirement. She was thanking a few members of her staff. She was literally just getting started when the member interrupted her. It was entirely appropriate and we should allow the member to continue now so she can get on with her speech.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2021-06-18 13:46 [p.8793]
I thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean.
The question of relevance certainly applies to all debates in the House. At the same time, however, there are always members who take the liberty of making a few comments on other matters. I am sure the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek will quickly come back to the relevant subject before the House.
The hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.
View Warren Steinley Profile
CPC (SK)
View Warren Steinley Profile
2021-06-18 13:58 [p.8795]
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague.
Because of the numerous points of orders that were brought during private members' hour, I was wondering if that time will be added to the end of the hour.
Standing Order 30(7) states:
If the beginning of private members’ hour is delayed for any reason, or if the hour is interrupted for any reason, a period of time corresponding to the time of the delay or interruption shall be added to the end of the hour suspending as much of the business set out in section (6) of this standing order as necessary.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
To the hon. member's point, the points of order that were brought were not counted as part of the hour of debate on this. That should clarify the hon. member's point of order.
We will continue with the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.
View Warren Steinley Profile
CPC (SK)
View Warren Steinley Profile
2021-06-18 14:08 [p.8796]
Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North has talked about how much he knows about the parliamentary practices and procedures of this House. I have been listening intently, and he really has not talked about human trafficking—
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
That is a point of debate and not a point of order.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2021-06-18 14:28 [p.8799]
Madam Speaker, the member asked if we have ever seen a horse. We have seen part of one, but my point of order is different from that.
Government members are now filibustering this private member's bill and have done so for half an hour now, which is pushing back debate on the budget. We were anxious to get working on the budget. Had Liberal members not been filibustering this particular bill, would that have allowed us to get through the time-allocated portion of the debate on the budget? That is my question.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
Unfortunately, that is not a point of order; therefore, the hon. parliamentary secretary may continue his speech.
Results: 1 - 100 of 1727 | Page: 1 of 18

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data