SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 212 - Jun/13/23

Jun/13/23 3:17:24 p.m.
Watch

That is all the time we have for Oral Questions today. The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord on a point of order.

25 words

Jun/13/23 3:17:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: Whereas French is one of Canada's two official languages and the Constitution Act, 1982, enshrines the equality of both official languages within the Parliament of Canada; whereas documents tabled in the House of Commons and in committees must be made available to the members of those parliamentary bodies; the House therefore calls on the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency to suspend all business until the documents produced by the Public Order Emergency Commission chaired by the Hon. Paul Rouleau are translated and made available in both official languages to the members of the committee.

126 words

The Speaker

Jun/13/23 3:18:43 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. An hon. member: Nay.

18 words

Nay
Opposed

The Speaker

Jun/13/23 3:19:16 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo is rising on a point of order.

16 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/13/23 3:19:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands just said something unparliamentary to me about having a thin skin and about being offended given what the Minister of Justice did, which was to threaten my professional future and threaten my legal reputation. This is not funny. He should be apologizing and withdrawing that comment forthwith.

56 words

The Speaker

Jun/13/23 3:19:51 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

8 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/13/23 3:19:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for reflecting on the fact that the member has a thin skin.

16 words

The Speaker

Jun/13/23 3:20:02 p.m.
Watch

That is not an apology. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker: Order. That is more of a mockery than an apology. I am going to ask the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands to apologize like he means it.

41 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/13/23 3:20:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I apologize.

4 words

Apologize

The Speaker

Jun/13/23 3:20:25 p.m.
Watch

It being 3:20 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Call in the members.

59 words

The Speaker

Jun/13/23 3:33:16 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

The Speaker

Jun/13/23 3:33:35 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix on a point of order.

27 words

Mrs. Caroline Desbiens

Jun/13/23 3:33:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I honestly had an issue with my phone, which is defective. I am waiting for a replacement one. I was unable to vote remotely. I would like to ask for unanimous consent to apply my vote.

39 words

The Speaker

Jun/13/23 3:33:56 p.m.
Watch

Does the House agree with the member's proposal? It is agreed. The hon. member is therefore voting in favour of the motion.

23 words

The Speaker

Jun/13/23 3:35:13 p.m.
Watch

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on June 5 by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes concerning the vacancy in the position of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. In his intervention, the member alleged that the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner had been hampered in conducting investigations by the government’s failure to appoint a new commissioner. By extension, the member contended that the ongoing vacancy impeded him and the House in the performance of their parliamentary duties. To support this assertion, he referenced proceedings in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, where officials from the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner indicated that they are limited in their ability to initiate or conclude investigations, until the position of commissioner is filled. As described at pages 239 to 241 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is appointed by the Governor in Council, after consultations with the leaders of all recognized parties in the House. This appointment process is clearly defined in the Parliament of Canada Act. The House and its committees do play a role in the ratification process in accordance with Standing Order 111.1, but not in the initiation of the appointment process. This authority clearly belongs to the government by statute. The commissioner is an officer of this House who plays an important role in the administration of the conflict of interest regime prescribed by law and by our Standing Orders. It would, of course, serve the interests of all members to have the position filled promptly. As to whether the ongoing vacancy constitutes a prima facie question of privilege, it is a well-established practice that the Chair needs to be satisfied that the matter is raised in the House at the earliest opportunity, while clearly illustrating what breaches of privilege or contempts have occurred. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 145: The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House. Therefore, the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation. When a Member has not fulfilled this important requirement, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is not a prima facie question of privilege. The Chair did not hear an explanation as to why this matter should take priority of debate now. The vacancy referenced has been an ongoing matter for some time. Therefore, I cannot find a prima facie question of privilege at this time. I thank members for their attention.

476 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/13/23 3:41:30 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for his information and will certainly take it into consideration with the other information that was previously provided.

23 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/13/23 3:41:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised yesterday by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo respecting the message that was sent to him by the Minister of Justice. I would start off by providing some context. The members across the aisle have had no qualms at all about casting aspersions to attempt to destroy the integrity of any member or private citizen who may not agree with their stance on any given issue. They do this virtually on a daily basis in this place. The member rose to applaud an attack on the integrity and the impartiality of the Hon. Justice Iacobucci. Not only is the justice a former member of our highest court and an eminent Canadian, but he is also a respected member of the Italian Canadian community who serves as a role model for many aspiring lawyers but specifically Italian Canadians. When the member rose to applaud disparaging remarks concerning Justice Iacobucci during Italian Heritage Month, the Minister of Justice sent a message to the member to tell him that this disrespect would be shared with members of the Italian Canadian community. What happens in question period is public and viewable by all Canadians. The minister has stated publicly that his message was in respect of telling Italian communities about this flagrant example of disrespect for an eminent Canadian. Members must be taken at their word in this place. What the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo believes about the motives of the Minister of Justice is pure speculation and is easily dismissed by the public statement about these events in public. Speculation does not amount to a prima facie question of privilege. The facts are indeed clear. A member opposite directly attacked the integrity of the Hon. Justice Iacobucci, who is not here to defend himself. That member's colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, rose to applaud his abhorrent attack. Instead of reflecting on his actions, the member jumped to conclusions without any facts in his possession. That is not something lawyers normally do. Lawyers seek out the facts. A simple conversation with the minister would have cleared this matter and the intentions of the minister. A public display of disrespect is public. A member may share this with members of his cultural community. This is yet one more example of the thin skin of the members across the aisle and of their attempts to impute motives to other hon. members designed for the sole purpose of weaponizing questions of privilege to delay the government's legislative agenda. This allegation has no basis in fact and is pure speculation. Members must be taken at their word. Any unsubstantiated allegation has been refuted by the minister.

462 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/13/23 3:42:04 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind members that if they want to have a debate, they do not have the floor. If they want to have a conversation— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Order on both sides of the House. It is not helpful when members are trying to have debates on issues that are not currently before the House. If they want to have discussions on that, they should take them out. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver East.

87 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Jun/13/23 3:42:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise to enter into debate with respect to Bill S-8. People may ask what Bill S-8 would do. The bill would make changes to sanctions related to immigration enforcement by bringing the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act into line with the SEMA. It would make sanctioned individuals, including previously sanctioned individuals, inadmissible to Canada. Ukraine has also asked Canada to take this step with regard to Russians on our sanctions list. At present, the great breach of international peace and security is the primary mechanism that Canada is sanctioning Russian individuals under, and that does not currently trigger the inadmissibility provisions. That is why we have Bill S-8 before us, which is meant to fix this. I should note, though, that what Bill S-8 would not do is address the absence of parliamentary oversight of our sanctions regime or enforcement in areas that are not immigration related; that is, the seizing of assets. Therefore, a lot of work needs to be done to fix our sanctions regime if Bill S-8 is to pass. The bill would not fix the challenge of clarity either, for example, why the government adds some names but not others and for what reasons. Further, public communication and access to sanction lists is still subpar. We need a comprehensive review of Canada's sanctions regime. The NDP has proposed a study at the foreign affairs committee on Canada's sanctions regime, and we hope that study will take place this winter. Canada's foremost expert on sanctions policy, Andrea Charron, has said: While there is nothing wrong with highlighting in the Immigration and Refugee Act that inadmissibility due to sanctions is possible, this repeats a pattern whereby Canada tinkers on the margins of legislation without addressing core policy and process issues. If we are to continue to sanction autonomously with allies, we need to fix fundamental issues of policy and process. This has been put on the public record by experts, so the bill is a step in the right direction, to be sure. We are debating a bill that is supported by all the parties in the House, but what is happening is the Conservatives are trying to use parliamentary tools to delay progress of the work in the House. Not only are we debating this bill that everybody supports and wants to get done, but the Conservatives have moved an amendment to change the title of the bill. This is a tactic. In fact, at this moment, what we are technically debating is a motion to change the title of the bill. I have seen this play over and over again in this Parliament. Last week, we had debate on the child care bill. What did the Conservatives want to do? We were debating the child care bill until midnight, a bill that we wanted to move forward to ensure that child care provisions were made available to Canadians. Instead of doing that, we were debating a motion to change the title of the bill. That is what we are doing again. I find it distressing that those are the tactics on which the Conservatives repeatedly rely. The sole purpose of that is not to talk about the substance of the issues and the importance of the issue and how we can improve the legislation or how we can improve the situation for the people who need the changes, but, rather, it is a tactic that is deployed by the Conservatives to upset progress in the House, all for partisan politics. It is all for the Conservatives' own political motivation. It has nothing to do with the work that is really important for the people. With respect to the issue around sanctions, why is this so important? We need to ensure that inadmissibility is in place. We are talking about Russians who have waged this illegal war against Ukrainians. We are also talking about other countries that are faced with sanctions as well. However, the ineffectiveness of our sanction regime has been highlighted over and over again. In addition to the inadmissibility piece, we need to also look at the issue around sanctioning that applies to assets as well. So far, what we have seen with respect to that arena is that very little effort has been made. It has not been effective. We are now talking about foreign interference as it relates to China. For members of Parliament, including myself, who have been targeted by the Communist Chinese Party, there is a question about sanctions applying to China as well that needs to be in play. There are a number of different countries for which we need an effective sanctioning regime. I would urge the members of the House, the Conservatives included, to stop playing games. Let us get on with the work. We are here to do this work and move forward. It is important to pass this bill and bring forward accountability measures for sanctioning regimes.

836 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/13/23 3:49:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate a number of the member's comments. For me, it is very much about human rights and the role that Canada can play in regard to that. What I have witnessed over the years is that Canada far exceeds, based on the population, the type of influence we have on the international scene. That is one of the reasons why it is important we support legislation of this nature and provide the sanctions. Could the member provide her thoughts on that issue?

86 words