44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 28, 2023 10:00AM
- Nov/28/23 4:39:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, here we are having another debate on carbon pricing. It feels like the only thing we talk about here in the House is carbon pricing. Some claim that it is a “carbon tax”.
I know all about taxes. Taxes generate revenues that the government pockets. In the case of the price on carbon, all revenues, all the funds generated are returned to individuals or, in some cases, to businesses to allow them to invest in the transition to a clean economy.
I have been sitting here, day after day, listening to what I consider to be a false narrative on the price on carbon. First of all, it has been given an incorrect name. It is not a carbon tax. A tax is something that generates revenues that go to the government coffers. When one talks about a price on carbon, and this is the beauty of it, as it is extremely effective, all of the monies received from the price of carbon are returned to Canadians or Canadian businesses. As a matter of fact, if the price on carbon were removed, the climate action incentive payment would disappear and a vast majority of Canadians would be worse off. We do not hear that truth from the Conservative Party.
What we hear is what my former colleague and Canadian hero and hockey great Ken Dryden used to call “truthiness”. Truthiness is something that sounds true, but it is just not true. Day after day, we are treated to a simplistic but false chain of causation that the Conservatives trot out. It sounds true and anyone listening would say, “Yes, that sounds very logical”, but the chain breaks all along the length of it if one spends any time thinking about what is being said.
Every day in question period, it sounds like the ankle bone is connected to the shin bone, which is connected to the knee bone, which is connected to the thigh bone, except they say, “If one has a price on carbon, it costs a trucker a little more to ship. That means the distributor has to pay a little bit more, and that means that the retailer pays a little bit more, and then Canadians pay a little bit more.”
That is not how it works at all. As a matter of fact, studies, and we know that the Conservative opposition is not keen on academic studies or rigorous studies of any kind, have shown that the price on carbon contributes very little, an minuscule or infinitesimal amount, to the food price inflation. Although we would not want to let academic studies get in the way of a good “truthy” argument coming from the other side.
I think the Conservative Party is using the price on carbon as a red herring. I get very frustrated when constituents write to me and say, “Please take the price on carbon off”, and I write back to say, “Sir, madam, the price on carbon does not apply in Quebec.” Quebec has been pricing carbon since 2007, and B.C. has been pricing carbon since 2008. It does not apply in Quebec.
I have had other people come to me, and I guess they listen to Conservative propaganda because they say, “Where is my climate action incentive payment?” I have to say to them, “Sir, madam, I am sorry. You do not get the climate action incentive payment because you do not pay the price on carbon.” They write back and thank me for explaining it to them. They did not realize. That is a bit of the job of a member of Parliament, which is to explain the facts about government policy and why government policy is the desired policy.
I have talked about this before in the House, but I will mention it again. The Leader of the Opposition fancies himself to be a great monetarist economist in the tradition of the Chicago school of economics, the school that was made famous by Milton Friedman. However, Milton Friedman thought that the price on carbon was a wonderfully simple and effective policy instrument for pricing pollution. It is what we call an externality, which is something that is not priced and is therefore not reflected in the market, so it leads to a greater use of something that is not necessarily a societal good, which is what the price on carbon is really all about.
We can keep talking about this, I am sure, until the cows come home, and I am prepared to stand up in the House over and over again to set the record straight about the price on carbon. However, let us face it, we are going through an affordability crisis in Canada and around the world, as a matter of fact. Fortunately, in Canada we have one of the developed world's lowest inflation rates. As I said, the challenges remain, but I think we have to look at the international context and see where we fit within it.
Now, the government recognizes that we have an affordability crisis, and it is acting to help Canadians weather this crisis. Fortunately, we have seen the inflation rate come down recently, and this was predicted a couple of years ago. I wanted to wait and see because we want to see the reality, but many economists were telling us a year and a half to two years ago that, by this time, inflation would start to come down. In fact, it seems to be happening, but we will wait and see over the long term. In the meantime, the government is acting, and I will give members an example of one of the inflation relief measures that our government instituted to help Canadians weather the inflationary storm.
Budget 2023 introduced a new, one-time, targeted grocery rebate to provide inflation relief for 11 million Canadians and families who needed it most, which is over a quarter of the Canadian population. That is not peanuts. The grocery rebate provided $2.5 billion in targeted support, with eligible couples with two children receiving up to an extra $467 and single Canadians without children receiving up to an extra $234, which included single seniors. Now, the Conservatives may say that is not enough and does not really count, but they can tell that to somebody who is dealing with the high cost of food as a result of international developments, such as the war in Ukraine. I do not think it is something to sneeze at.
The government, of course, is doing other things. For example, it is addressing junk fees. Junk fees are taking a real bite out of Canadians' incomes, and they are having a disproportionate impact on lower-income Canadians. Through budget 2023, we announced our government's intention to work with regulatory agencies, provinces and territories to reduce junk fees for Canadians and continue to ensure that businesses are transparent with prices to help make life more affordable for Canadians.
At this point, I want to digress a little bit because we have noticed that the price of automobiles has been rising. It is not because of the price on carbon that the new car a person is leasing or buying has gone up a tremendous amount of money. I will explain why this has happened, and it is related to the pandemic. That is not a novel idea. On the other side of the House they seem to have forgotten the pandemic and the impacts of it, but there is a lot going on in the economy still today that is related to the pandemic. What happened in the pandemic with the sales of automobiles is that supply chains were interrupted for car dealers.
I was just getting going, but I am out of time, so I will stop there. Maybe some other day I will talk about why the price of cars has gone up, but it has nothing to do with the price on carbon.
1353 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 4:49:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, the member opposite talked about academic studies. I would challenge that member to actually table academic studies showing that there is no correlation. In fact, Sylvain Charlebois of The Food Professor Podcast has actually specifically said there has not been that. He says, “It is imperative that we conduct a rigorous evaluation of how carbon pricing affects food affordability for Canadians and the long-term competitiveness of our industries.” So much for the member saying that he is on the side of academics and that the science is done and settled.
I would like him to actually name the researchers. While we are on the subject of junk fees, I have raised in the House how shippers are utilizing the carbon tax. There is a food processor in my riding who receives bills that shows carbon levies in addition, which are added on. I have raised it with this chamber. Does the member believe the government has a duty to try to keep these prices down by tackling junk fees such as the carbon tax? He should just get rid of the whole thing all together.
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 4:50:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bank of Canada has said that the price on carbon is not contributing in any significant way to food inflation. Now, I do not know, maybe the hon. member does not accept studies and analyses by the Bank of Canada as legitimate academic studies. I know his leader does not think much of the Bank of Canada and puts the blame of everything on the shoulders of the Bank of Canada.
There is a price on carbon. It is being added to the cost of things. The point is that it is not responsible for the biggest chunk of the rise in food prices.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 4:51:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I would have liked to question the Conservative members about this in particular. We are in the midst of the 12 days of action to end violence against women. In the coming days, we will hear all sorts of fancy speeches by every political party on the importance of fighting violence against women.
All this while a certain political party is bullying female politicians. That is what some women senators have shown us. It is important to be consistent. Whenever we talk about violence against women, we should begin by looking at ourselves. We need to set an example by behaving much more respectfully.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 4:52:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it unfortunate that some people appear to want to use tactics to draw partisan attention. These tactics can have consequences. That is what happened when two women senators were targeted. Unfortunately, some people react badly when they see things like that on social media. Fortunately, in this case, there were no serious consequences, but it could have encouraged angry people to do things that could hurt someone. We need to be careful. These types of tactics do not work in the long run.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 4:53:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, part of the discussion today is around governance and partisanship and how the Senate has largely become a non-partisan body. We still have Conservative caucus members in the Senate. Could the hon. member talk about how, when one puts partisanship aside and focuses on the needs of Canadians, one can actually get more done?
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 4:54:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is another thing we have been hearing ad nauseam, which is the idea that there are Liberal senators in the Senate. I have been here for quite a while, and I remember, and the hon. member from Winnipeg remembers as well, when we decoupled from the Senate. Now the senators are appointed there by the Prime Minister because they are independent spirits. They are independent thinkers who are highly qualified and, quite frankly, have minds of their own.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 4:54:57 p.m.
- Watch
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon, Automotive Industry; the hon. member for Kenora, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, Carbon Pricing.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague the hon. member for Oxford.
I am rising today on behalf of my constituents in Beauce, whom I have had the privilege of representing for over four years. Today's subject is fairly simple, as my colleagues before me so clearly explained. The Senate needs to pass Bill C-234 as quickly as possible.
I find it unfortunate that the Prime Minister and his cabinet are delaying the passage of this important bill in the Senate. This bill is supported by all parties in the House, except for one, the Liberal Party of Canada.
It is very simple. Food prices have never been so high in our country, and the government needs to find a way to lower them. The simplest way to do that is to start on the farm.
This legislative measure has the support of all the agricultural industry stakeholders across the country with whom I spoke. These farmers need a break from the crippling carbon tax that is decimating their businesses and making food prices skyrocket.
I also spoke to a number of producers in my region, and their support for the bill is unanimous. Above all, it needs to be adopted as soon as possible. Winter is at our door, and they are very worried about how they are going to be able to heat their poultry and hog barns.
As Conservative critic for agriculture, and a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, I personally attended every meeting about this bill, and I heard the various testimonies attesting to its importance.
I also went out to speak with citizens in my region who are not even farmers and who want the bill to be adopted as soon as possible.
Last Friday, I worked with volunteers at Moisson Beauce, a food bank in my region. We prepared Christmas baskets for families that do not have enough food for the holidays. Moisson Beauce reports record demand at the food bank and, right now, it is not receiving enough donations to meet that demand.
This is not the Canada I remember. We are at a point where it is cheaper to import food than to produce our own food locally.
Something I hear far too often from the Liberals, Bloc Québécois and New Democrats is that the carbon tax does not apply to Quebec. That is absolutely false. I repeat that the carbon tax applies to Quebec, both directly and indirectly. I can show my colleagues piles of farmers' bills indicating the amount of propane used to heat their buildings, for example, that include the federal price on pollution.
The carbon tax is also paid indirectly when we import goods from other provinces. As far as I know, Quebec is not self-sufficient. We import many products from provinces that pay the full carbon tax, and that tax is passed on to us, either in higher prices or high transportation costs.
When the government taxes the farmers that produce food, the truckers that transport it and, especially, the grocers that sell it, food becomes unaffordable.
The Liberal government has lost control. It has exempted a minority of Canadians from the carbon tax on heating oil, which helps the Liberals in a part of the country where their poll numbers are dropping. However, they do not exempt farmers from the carbon tax, which would help all Canadians feed their families.
Who can forget what the Minister of Rural Economic Development said? She said that, if Canadians want a break, they should elect more Liberal members. It is outrageous.
Another comment that makes me laugh is when the government says that senators are “independent”. Most senators who voted against this legislation were appointed by the current Prime Minister. That is shameful.
Canadian farmers protect our land. They are concerned about their animals and the environment. They work very hard to feed Canadian families and grow our economy. The Liberals' lack of support for this bill is dumbfounding.
I have to say something about the rural members of the Liberal caucus. I cannot believe that only three Liberals voted in favour of the bill. I suppose that only three of them want to get re-elected next time around. Just look at the polls. If the rural members think that farmers will ever vote for them again, they are sadly mistaken.
The Conservatives will always defend farmers and, more importantly, common sense. Canadians are suffering. Many of them are on the brink of insolvency. How can the government turn its back on them when all they want is to be able to afford to feed their families?
That is what this bill will do. It will reduce the price of food for Canadian families. It will also help farmers be more competitive and be the economic driver they have always been for our country.
If the government does nothing, our farming families, villages and small communities will continue to disappear. Our country will become even more dependent on food imports.
If the government has not yet noticed, everything it is doing right now is endangering the environment. Here is a very simple example: In grocery stores, vegetables grown in Mexico are now less expensive than vegetables grown here at home in Canada. It feels like the Liberal ministers are living under a rock somewhere. Can they not see how much we could reduce pollution if we supported our Canadian farmers instead of importing airplanes, ships and trucks full of food that could be grown locally at home?
Farmers can no longer bear the brunt of the government's poor economic management. Its lack of budgetary discipline has led Canada to this point. It is simply not worth the cost. The Prime Minister should step back and allow the Senate to pass Bill C‑234 as soon as possible.
Before I conclude, I would like to take a moment to thank my colleagues from Huron-Bruce and Foothills for their hard work in getting this bill to the Senate.
It is time this bill was passed so that farmers can do what they do best, and that is feed our Canadian families. Canadians can count on the Conservatives to keep on fighting for farmers, for more affordable prices and, above all, for common sense.
In closing, I hope that all my colleagues will support the Conservative motion today. We really want to pass Bill C‑234 as quickly as possible, as a first step in the right direction to help our farmers produce high-quality products, which they do, but also at a more affordable price.
1126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 5:05:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are two components to what is being proposed today. The first is in regard to the fixation that the Conservatives have with the price on pollution, which ultimately led them to vote against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. The second part is also very disturbing. It is a form of intimidation that we have seen that comes from the former leader of the Conservative Party, reinforced by the current leader of the Conservative Party, intimidation that saw a senator being uncomfortable returning to her home, messaging her staff not to answer the phones and so forth. It is in fact an intimidation factor.
Many look at the general direction in which the leader of the Conservative Party is going, in terms of his actions. Does the member support the type of actions being taken by the former leader of the Conservative Party and the current leader of the Conservative Party with respect to intimidation and bullying? It seems to be a pattern of behaviour.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague opposite that we really are talking about the possibility of passing Bill C‑234 as quickly as possible. People have been talking about pressure that was put on certain senators, even if they are supposedly independent. My understanding is that some cabinet members, and maybe even the Prime Minister himself, exerted considerable pressure. It is important to be clear about the context.
I would like us to talk frankly about the passage of Bill C‑234 and why it is being blocked in the Senate. Perhaps the first stone should not be thrown at the Conservative Party.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 5:07:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is true that the holdups in the Senate are frustrating. That is why I think the simplest solution would be to abolish it. We know the Conservatives promised Senate reform when they had a majority government, but that did not happen.
Anyway, our colleague says that his party stands up for farmers. I remember the obstructionism our bill to protect supply management faced. I know the member for Beauce always voted with us on that in both this and the previous Parliament, and I thank him for that. I imagine he was pretty embarrassed by his colleagues when they were being obstructionist, and I am guessing things got pretty lively in the Quebec members' caucus.
Now, can he share his thoughts on the Conservative senators' behaviour in connection with this bill, which was democratically passed in the House of Commons?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today's motion is on Bill C‑234. I agree with my colleague on Bill C‑282 and I hope that it will get through every stage of the legislative process in the House. Bill C‑234 is much further along in the entire process in the Senate. I hope that we will be able to adopt Bill C‑234 as soon as possible. Bill C‑282 will take its course and we will see what happens.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 5:09:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have certainly indicated that the NDP would support this motion, which recognizes that farmers in Canada need support these days, and indirectly recognizes that Canadians also need help.
Can my colleague speak to how this motion might help farmers in western Canada?
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 5:09:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, adopting this motion would encourage the government a bit more to stop pressuring the Senate to delay passage of Bill C‑234. The best thing to do is to vote in favour of this motion tomorrow.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak today to such an important motion. I represent the great riding of Oxford, a farming community with a long, proud farming legacy. It is home to nearly 1,900 farms that feed our families from coast to coast to coast. Our farmers are doing extremely hard work. They are doing God's work. Generations are helping out on the farms, making sure our food goes from the farm to our dinner table.
However, the Prime Minister's carbon tax coalition with the NDP is making that task nearly impossible. To feed families, we need need energy. Farmers need to dry their grain, run their operations and heat and cool their barns for their livestock, but the carbon tax makes everything more expensive for farmers to produce the food that we eat.
The Prime Minister’s appointed senators are delaying the passage of Bill C-234. This costly, unnecessary delay is hurting our farmers this harvest season. Corn moisture in Oxford was up to 30% this year. A lot of farmers are still harvesting, which means the corn has to be dried. Farmers are firing up their dryers to bring down moisture levels, and that is driving up the input costs. Winter is also on its way. There was snow today in southwestern Ontario, and farmers across Canada are turning on the heat in their barns for their livestock. They are again being punished by the carbon tax that is driving up their input costs.
The numbers do not lie. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was very clear that Bill C-234 would save farmers $1 billion by 2030. That is not small change. Throughout today’s debate, I heard stories from my colleagues that I have heard in my riding, stories of farmers getting bills in the hundreds of thousands of dollars thanks to the carbon tax. Before I stood to speak today, I spoke with a farmer in my riding, who is still out harvesting, by the way, and who said that the carbon tax is more than just a kick to the shin; it is a drop kick to the face.
Let me share the story of another farmer in my riding, just south of Highway 401 in Salford He is an asparagus farmer, a great farmer whom I visit regularly at the local farmers' market on Saturday mornings. Thanks to the carbon tax, he has seen the cost of his asparagus become triple that of what Mexicans sell in grocery stores. Let me get this straight: It is now cheaper to buy Mexican asparagus shipped 3,800 kilometres than it is to buy locally grown asparagus here in Canada, driven to a local market a few kilometres away. How do we expect our farmers to compete? How do we expect them to survive? Because of the carbon tax, we continue to see more food produced by foreign farmers in countries with horrendous environmental standards. The message the government wants to send is to go ahead and buy foreign-grown food from a country with lower environmental standards and that burns fossil fuels to ship it across a continent. That is complete nonsense.
We also have to look at the compounding effect of the carbon tax, which affects the supply chain and the cost of our groceries. When we tax the farmer who grows the food, the trucker who ships the food, the processor who manufacturers the food and the retailer who sells the food, guess who pays for that? It is the Canadians who buy the food. That is why one in five Canadians is now skipping meals. There are a record number of Canadians at food banks, two million in a single month. Just yesterday, Feed Ontario released its report, stating that over 800,000 people in Ontario accessed a food bank in Ontario just last year. These are not just numbers and statistics; these are our friends, neighbours and family members. They are veterans, seniors, students, working-class Canadians and now, more commonly, professionals who never had to do so in the past but are now being forced by the government's reckless policies to go to a food bank. This past week—
708 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 5:15:04 p.m.
- Watch
It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. member for Foothills.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 5:16:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we would like a recorded vote.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 5:16:05 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 29, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order challenging the admissibility of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 concerning the fall economic statement implementation bill, which was tabled earlier today by the Deputy Prime Minister. It is my submission that the motion offends the rule against anticipation, sometimes also known as the “same question rule”. That rule is described on page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which reads as follows:
The rule is dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If a decision is taken on the first bill (for example, to defeat the bill or advance it through a stage in the legislative process), then the other may not be proceeded with...If the first bill is withdrawn (by unanimous consent, often after debate has started), then the second may be proceeded with.
The rule against anticipation has been building a significant number of precedents in the past few years in light of the NDP-Liberal government's growing pattern of stealing common-sense Conservative private members' bills to add to their own legislative agenda. While our authorities suggest that such points of order should be raised only when the second question is actually proposed from the Chair, I recognize that in light of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 being an omnibus proposal, exceeding 500 pages in length, you, Madam Speaker, might appreciate having the evening to reflect on the issues I am about to discuss before the government intends to call it for consideration tomorrow.
In the present case, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 includes provisions that the House has already adopted in principle at second reading through two private members' bills.
On September 20, the House passed second reading Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, sponsored by the Conservative hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. The summary printed on the inside cover of the bill reads:
This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act to introduce a new type of special benefits: an attachment benefit of 15 weeks for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. It also amends the Canada Labour Code to extend parental leave accordingly.
Last week's fall economic statement on pages 43 and 42 states that:
The 2023 Fall Economic Statement proposes to introduce a new 15-week shareable EI adoption...Surrogate parents will also be eligible for this benefit.
The 2023 Fall Economic Statement also proposes to make amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, as well as corresponding changes to the Canada Labour Code, to ensure that workers in federally regulated industries have the job protection they need while receiving the EI adoption benefit.
Those provisions appear as clauses 342 to 365 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19. While the legislative language used varies, the ultimate policy objective and therefore the principle of the matter remains the same as a close examination of the two passages I quoted reveals.
The second private member's bill stolen by the government this week is Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, mental health services, sponsored by the Conservative member for Cumberland—Colchester, which the House passed at second reading on September 27. My colleague's bill would amend sections 1 and 7 of part II of schedule V of the Excise Tax Act to exempt psychotherapy and mental health counselling from GST. Clause 137 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 would do the exact same thing, except that the government refers to “counselling therapy” instead of Bill C-323's “mental health counselling”. That is, I would submit, a distinction without a difference.
Indeed, I would draw the Chair's attention to clause 144 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 that makes coordinating provisions if each is enacted, which demonstrates the government also sees these as identical measures, but what is especially galling is subclause 144(5), “For greater certainty, if this Act receives royal asset then the other Act [Bill C-323] is deemed never to have produced its effects.” The government would prefer to toss my colleague's important bill down the memory hole. That is just shameful.
Your predecessor, on February 18, 2021, at page 4256 of the Debates, ruled that government Bill C-13 could not be proceeded with further following the House's adoption of Bill C-218, citing the rule against anticipation. In so ruling, the Chair said:
The House is now placed in an unusual situation where a decision was made on one of two very similar bills standing on the Order Paper.
The Chair recognizes that both bills are not identical; they are, however, substantially similar as they both amend the exact same provision of the Criminal Code for similar purposes....
Consequently, as long as Bill C-218 follows its course through the legislative process during this session, Bill C-13 may not be proceeded with.
As for the technical differences between those two bills, the Speaker offered a common-sense solution to reconcile them: “the Chair notes that other avenues would be open to the House to achieve those same ends, such as through amendments proposed to Bill C-218 during the committee's study.”
I would respectfully submit that if the government has any concerns about the drafting of Bill C-318 or Bill C-323, the solution is to bring amendments to committee, not to bigfoot them by throwing them into an omnibus budget bill, but that is exactly what happened here. It is what happened last year when Bill C-250, sponsored by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, was scooped up by the government and placed in Bill C-19, a budget implementation bill.
In a May 11, 2022, ruling at page 5123 of the Debates, the Deputy Speaker held:
Bill C-19 was adopted at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance yesterday. The House is now placed in a situation where a decision was made on one of the two bills that contain very similar provisions....
The Chair recognizes that these bills are not identical, as Bill C-19 is much broader in scope and contains other provisions related to the implementation of the budget.
However, in adopting Bill C-19 at second reading, the House has also agreed to the principle of that bill, and consequently, has agreed, among other things, to amend section 319 of the Criminal Code dealing with hate propaganda. As I explained a few moments ago, these are provisions substantially similar to the ones contained in Bill C-250.
Therefore, the question for the Chair is, should Bill C-250 be allowed to proceed further in the legislative process at this time? In the Chair's opinion, it should not be allowed. The House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.
In the case of Bill C-250, the Deputy Speaker directed that it be held as pending business until the final fate of Bill C-19 could be determined. On September 20, 2022, your predecessor ordered Bill C-250 to be discharged and dropped from the Order Paper, given that Bill C-19 had by then received royal assent. A similar pair of rulings occurred on June 6, 2022, and May 11, 2023, in respect of Bill C-243 in light of its overlap with Senate Bill S-211.
While these rulings are all quite recent, they were not novel. Speaker Michener, on March 13, 1959, at page 238 of the Journals, reached the same conclusion for managing this sort of legislative traffic jam:
Thus I have come to the conclusion that this bill must stand, as well as the other bill in the same terms, or at least in terms for exactly the same purpose, until the bill which was first moved has been disposed of either by being withdrawn, which would open the door for one of these other bills to proceed, or by way of being approved, which would automatically dispose of these bills because the House would not vote twice on the same subject matter any more than it would debate the same subject matter twice.
Standing Order 94(1) empowers and directs the Speaker to, “make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members’ Business”. That standing order, I would submit, behooves you to safeguard the process of Private Members' Business as much as possible by drawing a firm and bright line for the government to stop poaching common-sense Conservative bills and claiming them as their own.
One final consideration I want to place before the Chair is one that did not arise in the context of the pairs of bills and the precedents I have cited. We are dealing here with a ways and means motion, not a bill. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 568, explain the relevance of this distinction in the role against anticipation:
According to this rule, which applied to other proceedings as well as to motions, a motion could not anticipate a matter which was standing on the Order Paper for further discussion, whether as a bill or a motion, and which was contained in a more effective form of proceeding.
The associated footnote points readers to other authorities for a fuller explanation, such as the U.K.'s Erskine May. That book's 25th edition, at paragraph 20.13, explains:
...a matter must not be anticipated if contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it was sought to be anticipated, but it might be anticipated if contained in an equally or less effective form. A bill or other order of the day is more effective than a motion....
This principle was explained matter-of-factly by Speaker Casgrain on February 24, 1936, at page 68 of the Journals: “A Bill has the right-of-way and cannot be sidetracked by a Motion.”
In the circumstances, if the precedents and procedural authorities of this House are to be applied consistently, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 must be put into abeyance pending the outcome of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323. I would urge you, Madam Speaker, to so rule.
1823 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
