44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 27, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/27/22 3:08:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Ataklti is a permanent resident in my community who applied for a travel document last February to join his wife in Sweden for the birth of their daughter. Eight months later Ataklti's request still has not been processed, even though it was marked urgent. We are working with dozens of refugees and permanent residents who are waiting months or even a year for the travel documents they need to travel and return to our country.
Can the immigration minister commit to a timeline for Ataklti to meet his daughter?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 3:09:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Kitchener Centre for his advocacy. We are taking measures to reduce wait times and we will be doing more to tackle the backlog in the short term, while making our system more sustainable in the long term.
We are doing that by hiring up to 1,250 new employees to increase our processing capacity by the end of fall. We are aiming to process 80% of all new applications within service standards. Modernizing our immigration system is about putting people at the heart of everything we do, and that is exactly what we are doing.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 3:10:06 p.m.
- Watch
I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Moussa Faki Mahamat, Chairperson of the African Union Commission.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 3:10:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in both official languages, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, indicating that 40% of the Liberal government's COVID spending was unrelated to COVID. I would ask for unanimous consent that I be allowed to table it now.
46 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 3:10:42 p.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 3:11:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations with the other parties and, if you seek it, I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government must recognize what happened in Canada's Indian residential schools as genocide, as acknowledged by Pope Francis and in accordance with article II of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 3:11:34 p.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. member’s moving the motion will please say nay.
It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
38 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 3:13:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to mislead the House, but I wanted to ensure that the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock did not mislead my constituents. I want my constituents to know that I love to represent them. I love our country, I love our party, and I am not going anywhere.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at report stage of the bill.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
Call in the members.
38 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I declare Motion No. 1 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
14 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I declare Motion No. 2 carried.
7 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 3:42:16 p.m.
- Watch
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. opposition whip.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 3:42:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we would request a recorded division.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I declare the motion carried.
When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
21 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 3:56:27 p.m.
- Watch
I would like to return to the point of order raised on October 25, 2022, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons regarding the oath of allegiance of the member for Beloeil—Chambly.
We are all required to take and subscribe an oath or make a solemn affirmation before taking our seats in the House and voting. By swearing an oath or making a solemn affirmation of allegiance to the Crown, members are swearing an oath to the constitutional principles of our country. A member’s role includes important duties and responsibilities, and the oath reminds us of them.
When the question was raised, I quoted the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, and I referred to a similar situation that arose in 1990. The Chair would like to reiterate the conclusions of the decision Speaker Fraser made on this subject on November 1, 1990. I will now quote from page 14970 of the Debates:
Your Speaker is not empowered to make a judgment on the circumstances or the sincerity with which a duly elected member takes the oath of allegiance. The significance of the oath to each member is a matter of conscience and so it must remain.
All members of this House are honourable members and the Chair expects that they act accordingly, in words and in deed.
In the same ruling cited from November 1, 1990, Speaker Fraser reminded the House, at the same page of Debates, that “only the House can examine the conduct of its Members and only the House can take action if it decides action is required”.
It is therefore the House itself that has authority over its members. It is for the House, not the Chair, to pass judgment on their conduct. That said, some matters should be approached with a great deal of caution. We may have here a convincing example of such an issue, on both sides.
I thank members for their attention.
341 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 3:58:24 p.m.
- Watch
I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on October 21, 2022, by the House leader of the official opposition concerning allegedly misleading statements made by the President of the King's Privy Council for Canada and Minister for Emergency Preparedness.
In his intervention, the member referenced the minister's answers to questions in the House earlier this year in which he stated that the government did not interfere with operational decisions of the RCMP. These remarks were made in parallel to the investigation of the April 2020 Nova Scotia mass shooting. He contended that a recording of a conference call between the commissioner of the RCMP and other high ranking officials, submitted as evidence at the Mass Casualty Commission, demonstrated the minister knowingly misled the House.
The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that it was the tradition of the House to take members at their word and that the minister had consistently stated that there was no interference. He claimed that the allegations against the minister were conjecture and that the recordings did not contradict statements he had made.
In submitting his question of privilege to the House, the House leader of the official opposition correctly referenced the three criteria that need to be met when assessing a case of this nature. First, whether the statement was in fact misleading. Second, whether the minister knew the statements to be incorrect when they were made. Third, whether there was an intent to mislead the House.
At issue is a recorded conference call in which the commissioner of the RCMP appears to reference a promise made to the minister that a line regarding the types of firearms used in the April 2020 Nova Scotia tragedy would be included in prepared remarks to the media. The House leader of the official opposition maintained that the statement made by the minister in response to questions denying any interference in the investigation were, in fact, misleading.
The parliamentary secretary, for his part, argued that the minister confirmed that neither he nor his staff interfered in the investigation and that the commissioner has testified to this.
The House leader of the official opposition points to comments made by the commissioner on the recording in which she mentions the minister wanting to speak with her and that she knew about what. The parliamentary secretary’s assertion was that the topic of discussion was never explicitly stated and is therefore, conjecture. It is his contention that no facts contradict the statements of the minister or the commissioner.
The Chair has carefully reviewed the arguments presented and the relevant precedents. The House leader of the official opposition referred to the ruling by Speaker Jerome from December 6, 1978. In that ruling, the Chair found that a prima facie contempt of the House existed because an official explicitly stated that the minister was deliberately misled. In that instance, the admission was unequivocal, leaving no room for doubt. He stated at page 1857 of the Debates:
I can interpret that testimony in no other way than meaning that a deliberate attempt was made to obstruct the member in the performance of his duties and, consequently, to obstruct the House itself.
In the present case, the matter is not as clear. To the House leader of the official opposition, the minister’s statements were knowingly incorrect and made with the intent to mislead the House. The minister, for his part, has repeatedly maintained that there was no interference and that his replies were based on statements made by the commissioner herself.
As members know, it is a tradition of the House that members be taken at their word. It would appear to the Chair that there is a dispute as to the facts. Indeed, as noted by a previous Speaker in a ruling on a similar matter made October 30, 2013, at page 596 of the Debates, “many of my predecessors in the chair have reminded the House that in most instances, claims related to disputed facts are not grounds for prima facie findings of privilege.”
In that same ruling, we can find at page 597 of the Debates:
...that the Chair is bound by very narrow parameters in situations such as this one.
Previous precedents make it clear that the threshold, when considering these situations, is high. In the view of the Chair, this threshold has not been met and, accordingly, I do not find there to be a prima facie question of privilege.
I thank the members for their attention.
762 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 4:05:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is the time of the week we have all been waiting for. I would like to ask the government House leader if he can inform the House of what we might expect.
Given some of the conversations around this place over the last few days responding to the deficit-induced inflation crisis that is hurting Canadians so much, I would like to signal to him that he could introduce legislation to cancel the government's plan to triple the carbon tax, or could introduce legislation to adopt a “pay as you go” system so that any new dollar of government spending is accompanied by a dollar of savings. If he were to bring forward either of those two ideas in the form of legislation, I can assure him that the official opposition would fast-track that legislation so it could be enacted as quickly as possible.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand on a Thursday and answer the Thursday question.
To my hon. colleague across, perhaps he is not aware or perhaps he has not had the opportunity to peruse headlines from around the world, but inflation is in fact a global phenomenon. I might also note that inflation is actually much higher in the U.S., the U.K. and the eurozone. What we need to do is vote for measures. I was disappointed that the Conservatives did not support the legislation we had today, Bill C-31. They had an opportunity to support families with dental care and to support housing.
I do not think it will come as a surprise to the member opposite that we will under no circumstances abandon the cause of climate change. We will under no circumstances stop the work we are doing to put a price on pollution and give eight out of 10 families more money back than they pay for that price on pollution.
In terms of the matters that are immediately before the House, although I do encourage the member opposite to continue forwarding his ideas and look forward to those conversations, this afternoon we will complete third reading debate of Bill C-31 with respect to dental care—
218 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 4:05:54 p.m.
- Watch
So you're saying there's a chance.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
