SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 132 - Nov/22/22

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC)

Nov/22/22 3:08:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the NDP-Liberal coalition is breaking records. Inflation is at a 40-year high, food prices are rising at the fastest pace in 40 years and we are seeing the highest usage of food banks on record. Canadians want to take back control of their lives, but the NDP-Liberal government keeps fuelling the cost of living crisis. Will the Prime Minister quite making things harder for Canadians who just want to put food on the table?

79 words

Hon. Randy Boissonnault (Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Nov/22/22 3:09:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have a golden opportunity today, minutes from now, to do the right thing and support Canadians by helping first-time homebuyers, by making sure that students do not have any more interest on their student loans and by making sure that we reduce taxes on small businesses. Are they going to break the hearts of Canadians or do the right thing and support them? The choice is theirs. We will always stand on Canadians' side on this side of the House.

85 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Whitby, Lib.)

Nov/22/22 3:09:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we all know that community organizations and non-profits were hit hard by the pandemic, with charitable organizations stepping up to help their communities despite the financial pressures they have experienced. That is why our government announced, in budget 2021, that we would help them help Canadians in need. Could the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development update the House on the community services recovery fund and how our government is supporting the charitable sector from coast to coast to coast to get back on its feet as we move past the pandemic?

96 words

Hon. Karina Gould (Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.)

Nov/22/22 3:10:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today I was really pleased to announce the $400-million community services recovery fund for the charitable and not-for-profit sector here in Canada. We are going to be working with national funders, the Red Cross, community foundations in Canada and the United Way to deliver this to folks and organizations on the front lines of delivering the most important services right across this country. I encourage all members to let organizations in their communities know that they can—

83 words

The Speaker

Nov/22/22 3:11:25 p.m.
Watch

The member for Vancouver East.

5 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Nov/22/22 3:11:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today is National Housing Day, and one in five Canadians cannot afford a safe place to call home. The Liberals are completely out of touch. They are building homes that families cannot afford and have done little to end homelessness. The cost of rent has soared all over the country. The average one bedroom in Toronto is now over $2,500, and in Vancouver it is $2,600. The Liberals opened the door for housing profiteering, displacing seniors, people with disabilities and low-income renters. Why are the Liberals treating housing like a stock market instead of a necessity?

101 words

Ms. Soraya Martinez Ferrada (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing), Lib.)

Nov/22/22 3:12:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. We share the same goal, which is to make affordable housing available to all Canadians across the country. That is actually the goal of the first and only national housing strategy. We will keep working to make affordable housing available to all Canadians.

52 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Nov/22/22 3:12:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, two Saskatchewan first nation sisters have served nearly 30 years of a sentence resulting from a wrongful conviction. Tomorrow, the Quewezance sisters face a bail hearing, but Saskatchewan appears to be using every trick in the book to keep them in custody. Nearly 50,000 Canadians have signed a petition calling for their release. What is the Minister of Justice doing on this case, and how much longer will Canadians have to wait for the wrongful convictions commission we need for bringing an end to these injustices?

89 words

Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Nov/22/22 3:13:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I know that we share a passion for justice in criminal matters. I cannot comment on an active case of a wrongful convictions file because of the potential role that the Department of Justice, my office and I might have to play down the road. What I can say is that the creation of a miscarriage of justice commission or wrongful convictions commission is in my mandate letter. I have received a report from former justices Harry LaForme and Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré on the potential architecture for such a commission. I can assure the hon. member and can assure the House that I am working hard to make sure that the miscarriage of justice commission sees the light of day very soon.

133 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Nov/22/22 3:14:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That, given that international sporting governing bodies have a moral obligation to support players and fans in highlighting the fight for equality against homophobia, transphobia, and all forms of discrimination in sport, the House condemn the decision of FIFA to threaten to penalize players and teams who wear OneLove armbands at the World Cup in Qatar.

75 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Nov/22/22 3:14:52 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.

37 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Nov/22/22 3:16:35 p.m.
Watch

It being 3:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the member for Calgary Forest Lawn to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑32. The question is on the amendment. May I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of amendment to House]

72 words

The Speaker

Nov/22/22 3:29:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

I declare the amendment lost. The next question is on the main motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes the motion to be carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

51 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/22/22 3:29:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded division, please.

9 words

The Speaker

Nov/22/22 3:42:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance. The Speaker: I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 24 minutes.

40 words

All Topics

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Nov/22/22 3:43:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to add to this morning's point of order raised by the NDP House leader concerning the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-27. In general, we have reviewed the hon. member's submissions and concur with them. That said, there are a couple of additional citations I want to put before the Chair for your consideration. I will not repeat the arguments, because you already have them before you, Mr. Speaker, but we do agree that the measures proposed in part 3 of Bill C-27 are significantly different from and unrelated to parts 1 and 2 such that they warrant a separate vote at second reading. As my NDP counterpart articulated, the purpose of parts 1 and 2 of the bill concern privacy protections, the powers of the Privacy Commissioner and the establishment of a new government tribunal. Part 3, meanwhile, would create a whole new law respecting artificial intelligence. The mechanisms under the minister and department's powers are completely unrelated to those in parts 1 and 2. That last point is significant in view of another aspect of the March 1, 2018, ruling of Mr. Speaker Regan, which my colleague cited. Allow me to quote your predecessor, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Regan said: As each of the first two parts of the bill does indeed enact a new act, I can see why the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé would like to see each one voted separately. However, my reading of the bill is that the regimes set out in part 1, the impact assessment act, and part 2, the Canadian energy regulator act, are linked in significant ways, reflected in the number of cross-references. For example, the impact assessment act provides for a process for assessing the impact of certain projects, but contains specific provisions for projects with activities regulated under the Canadian energy regulator act. There are also obligations in the Canadian energy regulator act that are subject to provisions in the impact assessment act. Given the multiple references in each of these parts to the entities and processes established by the other part, I believe it is in keeping with the standing order that these two parts be voted together. Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton also encountered a similar situation in his June 18, 2018, ruling at page 21,196 of the Debates. Unlike the case that I quoted just now respecting the pipeline-killing former Bill C-69, Bill C-27 does not feature any significant or intertwining cross-references. In other words, Speaker Regan found that the two parts should be voted on together because of all the intertwining and cross-referencing in so many parts, and one part mentioning and referencing items in the first part. This is not the situation we have today with part 3 of Bill C-27. In fact, part 3 of Bill C-27 does not explicitly cross-reference the personal information and data protection tribunal act, which part 2 would enact. Furthermore, there appears to be only one single, tiny, solitary cross-reference to the consumer privacy protection act, which part 1 would enact, and that is solely for the purpose of proposing a definition of personal information, which would be common to both of those laws. That is certainly not enough to warrant any kind of grouping when it comes to votes. Part 3 is completely separate. It is its own independent section. There is not anywhere near the level of cross-referencing and intertwining that previous Speakers have ruled are justification for deciding not to have a separate vote. Therefore, it is clear in this situation that Bill C-27, should you, Mr. Speaker, agree with the arguments, should be dealt with in such a manner that there can be a separate vote on part 3. Standing Order 69.1 is a relatively recent innovation. It has only been in the last number of years that Speakers have been given the authority by the House to separate aspects of bills for separate votes. I will read it: (1) In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage. If we think about the context in which this standing order developed and was ultimately passed by the House, it was to allow members more flexibility and latitude to make their votes count on various aspects of the bill. It is important to think about why the House decided to adopt this measure. There had been, over the course of several Parliaments and across different governments at various times, more and more subject material being included in bills, and this was done at the time to give members the option of voting in favour of some aspects of a bill and oppose others and to clarify for their constituents and Canadians which parts of a bill they supported and which parts of a bill they opposed. The reason I am talking about this context is I do not believe that at the time, the rationale and impetus for the inclusion of this measure in the Standing Orders was meant to be terribly restrictive. The whole point of the standing order was for it to be more permissive to allow greater latitude and flexibility. This is a relatively new innovation that has only been used a small number of times, and in parliamentary terms certainly a very small number of times, and I believe it would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent that was guiding members when we adopted it to start off, early on in its new use, with being very restrictive, because things around here tend to go in one direction and powers or flexibilities accorded the Chair over time often get more and more rigid as rules and precedents develop around them. If the Speaker were to adopt a very restrictive interpretation of this standing order, I believe it would take away the point of this innovation, as it was proposed. I do not believe it would take a permissive interpretation of the standing order to agree with my hon. colleague from the NDP and the points that I raise here today. It is very clear that these parts are separate. Part 3 of Bill C-27 is completely independent, stands on its own and is not related, intertwined or cross-referenced in earlier parts of the act. I only mention the point about restrictive interpretation as one further point to urge the Speaker to consider what the spirit, intent and purpose of this innovation was meant to do, which was to allow members to clearly differentiate which parts of legislation they support and which parts they do not. I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to keep that in mind as you study the arguments that were put before you. I hope you will find in our favour and allow members to vote separately on part 3.

1257 words

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Nov/22/22 3:51:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Mr. Speaker, I will add to the what the hon. opposition House leader said on the point of order. We should understand a key point of difference in this bill. Parts 1 and 2 deal with the privacy of an individual's personal information and the powers of the Privacy Commissioner to review breaches of it and impose penalties, as well as the creation of a new tribunal. That is all related to an individual's personal privacy, whereas part 3 is about regulating an entirely new industry that has nothing to do with the Privacy Act and the replacement of PIPEDA in artificial intelligence. It gives all the regulatory, administrative, investigative and penalty power to the minister and has no connection whatsoever to the Privacy Commissioner or the new tribunal that the government would create. I add that for the Speaker's further consideration.

145 words

The Speaker

Nov/22/22 3:53:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

I thank the hon. members for their input. I will take it into consideration when making my ruling.

18 words

All Topics

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Nov/22/22 3:54:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member opposite for his speech on Bill C-20, an act to enact the public complaints review commission. This is going to include not only the RCMP, but also the CBSA. When we are talking about the CBSA, I think it is also very appropriate to ask whether the CBSA is properly financed and resourced for the demanding work we expect of it in stopping the smuggling of guns coming across the border. It is one thing to hold officers to account for misconduct. We should also expect them to be properly resourced so they can do their work. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

116 words

All Topics

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

Nov/22/22 3:54:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Madam Speaker, I am not sure how this question in particular relates to this piece of legislation. This legislation was specifically about bringing in oversight and review bodies to look at the work of the CBSA and the RCMP and to respond to the complaints out there. When it comes to properly resourcing our individual agencies and departments, yes, we have an obligation to do that and provide them with resources so they can deliver on our expectations and what we are asking them to do. I think it goes without saying, as I believe every member of the House would agree, that providing the proper resources is absolutely critical, in this case to the CBSA and the RCMP.

119 words

All Topics