SoVote

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

May/13/22 12:19:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-223

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today in support of Bill S-223. The people who have signed this are encouraging the government to support the bill, which is being debated this afternoon. It has passed the Senate three times. It has passed in the House in 2019 in the same form. It seeks to combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking. It would make it a criminal offence to go abroad and receive an organ taken without the consent of the person giving it.

85 words

All Topics

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

May/13/22 12:19:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-223

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to present, on behalf of many Canadians, a petition in support of Bill S-223, which we will be talking about later today. This bill seeks to combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking. It would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ without the consent of the person giving that organ. Bill S-223 has passed the Senate unanimously three times and passed the House unanimously in 2019 in exactly the same form as this current bill. We will be debating it this afternoon, and the petitioners hope this Parliament will finally be the one that brings the bill into law.

116 words

All Topics

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

May/13/22 12:20:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-223

Mr. Speaker, I usually rise in this place to correct the member for Kingston and the Islands for some of his words, but today I truly support them. I am here to submit a petition on behalf of Canadians in support of Bill S-223. This is an important subject. Most Canadians would be shocked and horrified to find out that there is not a law prohibiting a Canadian citizen from leaving Canada to receive an organ transplant without the consent of the person that the organ is from. This is an atrocious practice, and action needs to be taken. Canada is a moral country. I want to thank the member of Parliament for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his advocacy and Senator Ataullahjan for her leadership on this very important issue. I beg the government to consider the petitioners' request.

142 words

All Topics

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC)

May/13/22 12:21:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-223

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and present this petition in support of Bill S-223. Bill S-223 seeks to combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking. It would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ taken without the consent of the person giving the organ. Bill S-223 has passed the Senate unanimously three times. It passed the House unanimously in 2019 in exactly the same form as the current bill. I see today that there are many recognizing the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I would also recognize that my Liberal colleague across the aisle from Kingston and the Islands is in support of Bill S-223. As this bill comes before the House today, let us make sure it passes this time, since we are all in agreement.

144 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/13/22 12:22:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would love to express my position on this particular petition, but it is not appropriate, when presenting a petition, to express one's position on it. Therefore, I was just referring to the petitioners' request.

43 words

Mr. Fraser Tolmie (Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, CPC)

May/13/22 12:22:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-223

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Canadians, I would like to bring this petition forward on Bill S-223. I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his efforts and advocacy on this. We live by higher morals here in Canada, and this would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ without the consent of the person giving that organ. We know that this has passed in the Senate three times in the exact form it is in now. We will be debating it this afternoon and, on behalf of all Canadians who have signed this, I hope we will put this into law.

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Chris Lewis (Essex, CPC)

May/13/22 12:23:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-223

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to present a petition on behalf of the Canadians who have signed it. It is a petition in support of Bill S-223. First and foremost, I want to congratulate and thank my hon. colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for bringing this forward and for his advocacy. Bill S-223 seeks to combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking, and it would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ taken without the consent of the person giving the organ. This is important legislation. I hope to see it pass very shortly, and I will be in support of it this afternoon.

116 words

All Topics

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC)

May/13/22 12:24:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-223

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to present a petition on behalf of Canadians in support of Bill S-223, which is to combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking. I thank my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his good work on this. He has been a dogged supporter of this bill, which is needed because it would make it a criminal offence for a Canadian going abroad to receive an organ taken without the consent of the person giving the organ. Bill S-223 has passed the Senate unanimously three times and in this House once unanimously. It is similar to my Bill C-208 being passed in the House, which was put forward by former NDP House leader Guy Caron. When I put that bill forward, there was unanimous support by the opposition at that time, and Bill S-223 also has unanimous support. As it will be debated this afternoon with the support of other parties, I am sure that Bill S-223 will finally come into law.

173 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/13/22 12:25:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-223

Mr. Speaker, it is very moving that, on what happens to be Falun Dafa Day, a day when we remember the Falun Dafa community as being a particular victim of organ harvesting and trafficking in China, I can present this petition in support of Bill S-223, a bill to combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking. I want to thank all of the members who have spoken to this important issue. I particularly want to recognize the member for Kingston and the Islands for his hard work on the file. Some members have suggested that I am behind this, but I think he deserves a lion's share of the credit. I commend this important petition to the House, and the bill will be debated later today.

127 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/13/22 12:26:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 439, 441 and 442.

14 words

May/13/22 12:27:06 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 439—

Questioner: Lisa Marie

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' (DFO) announcement on June 29, 2021, to close 79 salmon fisheries: (a) how many fisheries closed (i) permanently, (ii) temporarily; (b) of the fisheries that remained open, what was the (i) reason to keep them open, (ii) total salmon catch; and (c) how many license holders took advantage of the DFO’s compensation program for leaving the industry?

Question No. 441—

Questioner: Lisa Marie

With regard to the international seabed and high seas: (a) does the government believe that protecting the high seas and seabed is crucial for mitigating climate change, addressing the biodiversity crisis and building ecosystem resilience; (b) does Canada have a written position on the protection of the high seas and international seabed, and does it include support for a precautionary approach to the pause, ban, or moratorium on deep seabed mining; and (c) what is the government’s position on the mining of hydrothermal vents, polymetallic nodules, or seamount crusts in Canada’s territorial waters?

Question No. 442—

Questioner: Lisa Marie

With regard to the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science, which began in 2021: (a) how is the government supporting research to better understand deep sea ecosystems; and (b) what programs has the government created or supported that aim to explore, map and understand the biodiversity of species associated with any seamounts, polymetallic nodules, and hydrothermal vents in Canadian waters?

1395 words

All Topics

May/13/22 12:27:17 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 440—

Questioner: Lisa Marie

With regard to the Oceans Protection Plan (OPP) announced by the government in 2016: (a) how much money has been allocated to the departments of (i) Transport, (ii) Fisheries and Oceans, (iii) Environment and Climate Change, under the OPP, since 2016, broken down by year; (b) how much money has been spent under the OPP by the departments of (i) Transport, (ii) Fisheries and Oceans, (iii) Environment and Climate Change, since 2016, broken down by year and program; (c) how much money from the OPP has been allocated to the Whales Initiative, since 2016, broken down by year; (d) how much money has been spent under the OPP on the Whales Initiative since 2016; (e) how much money has been spent under the OPP on efforts to mitigate the potential impacts of oil spills, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; and (f) what policies does the government have in place to ensure that the funding allocated under the OPP is spent on its stated goals in a timely manner?

Question No. 443—

Questioner: Tracy Gray

With regard to government expenditures with Amazon since January 1, 2020, broken down by department or agency: (a) what was the total value of expenditures, broken down by year; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of goods or services?

Question No. 444—

Questioner: Adam Chambers

With regard to expenditures on public relations or media training, or similar type of services for ministers or their offices, including the Office of the Prime Minister, since January 1, 2019: what are the details of each such expenditure, including the (i) date of the contract, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) individual providing the training, (v) summary of services provided, including the type of training, (vi) person who received the training, (vii) date of the training?

Question No. 445—

Questioner: Warren Steinley

With regard to government procurement and contracts for the provision of research or speechwriting services to ministers since January 1, 2018: (a) what are the details of all such contracts, including the (i) start and end dates, (ii) contracting parties, (iii) file number, (iv) nature or description of the work, (v) value of the contract; and (b) in the case of a contract for speechwriting, what is the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) audience or event, at which the speech was, or was intended to be, delivered, (iv) number of speeches to be written, (v) cost charged per speech?

Question No. 446—

Questioner: Tracy Gray

With regard to expenditures made by the government since October 1, 2020, under government-wide object code 3259 (Miscellaneous expenditures not elsewhere classified), or a similar code if the department uses another system: what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) vendor name, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of the goods or services provided, including the volume, (v) file number?

472 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/13/22 12:27:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 440 and 443 to 446 could be made orders for return, those returns would be tabled immediately. The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

37 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/13/22 12:27:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

23 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/13/22 12:27:23 p.m.
Watch

The member for Joliette on a point of order.

9 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

May/13/22 12:27:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Mr. Speaker, on April 28, the government introduced Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, at first reading. Although the bill passed at second reading under time allocation on May 10, the printed version of the bill presented in the House and received in the lobby differs from the one on the House of Commons' LEGISinfo site. Members may therefore have received two different versions of Bill C‑19. The paper version contains 477 clauses on 421 pages and actually ends abruptly under the heading “Commission” at paragraph 68.2(b). The virtual document contains 502 clauses on 440 pages and includes three schedules. That means pages 422 to 440, which include clauses 477 to 502, are missing. Either the wrong version was provided to opposition members when the bill was introduced in the House, or the wrong version is being provided to members and the public on LEGISinfo. I believe the correct version is on LEGISinfo, but I would like confirmation from the government on that. The paper version clearly states that it is an advance copy that must be formatted and reprinted by Parliament, but still, it is missing roughly 20 clauses and 20 pages. We are talking about an omnibus bill of over 400 pages. We are accustomed to using the copies provided by the government, clearly for environmental reasons, but also because we have, and we want to maintain, confidence in the consistency of the documents tabled and printed in the House. The opposition parties must simply trust the government on a number of occasions, including when bills are introduced, when budgets are tabled and when the business of supply is being considered. It is therefore important for us to check the content of the bill and ensure that there are no hidden surprises between the hard copy provided to the opposition and the one found on the House website. When a government bill is tabled, it is customary for the government to publish the contents of the bill immediately after tabling it. However, if the paper version the opposition receives is incomplete, how can we comment on the bill? Could the government manipulate the information provided to the media? Which version of the bill should we now use for the committee study? House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states at page 728: “In the past, the Speaker has directed that the order for second reading of certain bills be discharged, when it was discovered that they were not in their final form and were therefore not ready to be introduced.” Are we at that point? I do not think so, but there has been a real mix-up involving the hard copies provided to the opposition and the printing of the bill. On April 22, when the bill was tabled for first reading, the Deputy Speaker clearly stated, as is customary in the House, “Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed”. I ask that the Speaker provide clear rules for ensuring that the printed copy provided to the opposition is complete when the bill is introduced in the House, given that this has a direct impact on our ability to answer questions from reporters.

558 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

May/13/22 12:31:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I want to thank the hon. member for bringing to your attention exactly what happened. We, as Conservatives, experienced the same situation. The information that was received by us in the lobby was not complete, so it would obviously call into question whether we received the accurate information. As the hon. member said, it is a 440-page omnibus bill, despite the fact that the government said it would never introduce an omnibus bill. We have and share the exact same concerns, not the least of which is its contents, whether in fact we have received the proper contents and whether we are able to disseminate those contents in our work at committee and in the House as well. I will speak to the broader issue, which is that this is a pattern on the government side of not having the ability, for some reason, to manage providing this type of information in an appropriate way to the opposition. I would add as well that, in spite of the information we received, which we deem as incomplete, and as the hon. member argued, we were only allowed five hours of debate in this place on Bill C-19, which amounted to a total of 11 speakers. Obviously, the privileges of the members in the House are paramount and we should be receiving exactly identical information, particularly on an important piece of legislation such as the budget implementation act, which is 440 pages. Several of those pages were missing from what the opposition parties received, and it was therefore incomplete. I ask that you look at this judiciously, and come back with what I would expect to be a favourable ruling on the hon. member's point of order.

298 words

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

May/13/22 12:34:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few words in support of the point of order raised by the member for Joliette. I think he is right. If it is true that there are differences between the copies of Bill C‑19, then there is a major problem in terms of respect for this institution. On behalf of the Green Party, I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will make a wise and fair ruling.

75 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/13/22 12:35:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Following the point of order raised by the member for Joliette, I would like to provide clarification concerning Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures. The member noted that the paper copy of the bill obtained in the lobby differed from the version found on the parliamentary web site. It would seem that there are some pages missing. Consequently, he asked which version is the correct one. He asked the Chair for clarification concerning the rules. The Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel was consulted, and I would like to assure members that the first reading copy that was signed by the minister and the Clerk contains all the clauses of the bill. The problem seems to be with the reproduction of the advance copies available in the lobbies. The Speaker notes that these copies are provided by the government so that members can read the key provisions of the bill. After first reading, the bill is published officially, which might change the pagination and line numbers of the version used for the purposes of the House of Commons. The copy placed in the lobby is therefore not the official version published under the authority of the Speaker. The version available on the LEGISinfo website is verified by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel before it is put online.

239 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

May/13/22 12:36:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your ruling and your clarifications. However, I lament the fact that the courtesy copies we are given so that we can start studying bills cannot be relied on until they have been authorized and checked by the Speaker. This seriously undermines members' trust in the government. According to the Speaker's ruling, we should not rely on the documents given to us by the government. I will take note of that and I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

82 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 71