SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 330 - Jun/12/24

Jun/12/24 5:23:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for part 1, part 2 and part 3, the coming-into-force provisions would be 60 days after the bill receives royal assent, which is a fairly reasonable timeline. What I think my colleague is alluding to is part 4, for which the coming into force would really be left up to a date determined by Governor in Council. If we do want to have a registry set up and operational, that, I would submit, is where time is of the essence. Public safety officials were not able to comment specifically on what kind of time frame they would need, but I think they understand from the questioning they received from members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that we treat the registry with seriousness and that we have high expectations of that. Again, I hope the other place, the Senate, understands the urgency and passes the bill so it can land on the Governor General's desk in short order.

167 words

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

Jun/12/24 5:24:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-70

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to speak to Bill C-70. A foreign influence registry is something we have wanted to have, but we also recognize that there are concerns that overbroad application of such a registry could in itself inadvertently result in stigmatization of diaspora communities within Canada. The bill needs to be carefully administered, and much of what remains of what we would be passing, in a breathtakingly expedited fashion, would be be left to further regulations. There are still a lot of questions as the bill moves forward. I have to say that, having the right, as any member of this place did, to say no to unanimous consent, I could have insisted that we have greater study. I have to say that I wish we did have greater study, but there was the timing and the consensus, and I am always inspired when I see members across party lines work together, because we do not see it often enough. I know that the member for Vancouver East in the NDP is working with the Conservative and very hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. We are working together, as was the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, also a New Democrat, so I stand here today very pleased that we are going to see the bill pass into law, but I am increasingly unnerved by the number of groups that have approached all of us. Certainly, as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I have received numerous concerns from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, from the National Council of Canadian Muslims and from Democracy Watch, and their points are important. However, especially given the climate in which we find ourselves and the numerous delays in implementing changes to actually confront foreign interference, we have perhaps moved too quickly. I am going to say for the record that I feel concerned that a number of these concerns are quite valid. For instance, when we consider that in subsection 20(3), the penalties for violating the act, and we still have to deal with the fact that there is some vagueness in how we are describing the offences, can amount to as much as imprisonment for life, these are very serious consequences and have a potential for a charter violation problem, as identified by some of the lawyers and legal organizations that have reviewed the bill and are asking whether it was wise to so infringe on the time in committee. The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford mentioned some amendments that the NDP would have liked but the Bloc did not like, but that is how democracy works in committee. As Greens, we were given a very short window, so short that we were not able to submit amendments in time to even have them voted down, with the expedited fashion in which we have studied the bill. I want to put on the record that we will continue to monitor it closely. There is an improvement, as mentioned, from the first reading version where the bill would have received parliamentary review five years after passage. It would now be much sooner. However, having made the decision that it was very important given the degree of efforts at foreign interference in this country, which are well documented, the expedited passage of the bill is important because we are increasingly aware of the threat. I should pause to say we are increasingly aware of the threat because of some excellent work that has been done by colleagues from all parties in this place and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. Their work is critical, and they have also been calling for measures such as those that are in Bill C-70. As we go forward though in the development of regulations, and as the bill would be further implemented, let us be mindful that the bill has received precious little study. I think it is important to say that I do not think I have ever seen a bill with so many substantial changes to critical areas of law pass so very quickly as this one. The concerns are also not just that the bill would have potentially charter-violating implications, as raised by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I was also taken by the commentary from Democracy Watch that we have left too many loopholes. If we want to deal with foreign interference, why have we left it possible for such issues as a foreign agent's using lobbyists as proxies and slipping past some of the scrutiny that would apply in other contexts? There are a number of points that Democracy Watch has made in relation to loopholes that should be closed. We are looking at concerns about the way in which the legislation would be rolled out. We do hope that it will receive royal assent and get through the Senate, but we have asked the Senate also to expedite it. Again, as much as I support implementing a foreign influence registry and keeping track of the activity of hostile governments, I am left disquieted by, and we must actually pay attention to, the fact that we have gone perhaps recklessly quickly in bringing the bill forward and getting it all the way through to third reading and over to the Senate. That, I have to say, I am concerned about even though I had the ability to object, and one member's objecting ends unanimous consent. I did not want to take that step, but I want to put on the record that we are going to have to be very careful from here and take every opportunity to ensure that we are not violating charter rights and that we are not creating additional hazards for members of diaspora communities that we had not considered before we moved so very quickly. Why are we concerned about foreign interference? Well, it is very clear that foreign interference, as in the case of the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills, has resulted in actual threats and intimidation of family members, things that any member of this place should not have to be concerned about as a Canadian citizen. Nor, for that matter, should a foreigner visiting our shores be concerned about them. We are not the only country, obviously, that is now recognizing that foreign governments interfere in our domestic affairs. Recently, of course, reading over the report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians put something back in mind. It was so long ago I had almost forgotten it, in 1983. It was European money that interfered in the Conservative Party leadership race in 1983, with Karlheinz Schreiber delivering a lot of cash to the anti-Joe Clark forces to secure a nomination more palatable to the forces from Europe providing that money, by nominating and electing Brian Mulroney as the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. That was 40 years ago, and we still have not closed that loophole, even with the legislation before us. We need to pay a lot of attention to how foreign governments interfere in our affairs. I take the point from the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and wish to agree that it is one of the bill's strengths that it would be agnostic as to whether a foreign government is one we like or one we do not like. It is important to ensure that Canadian democracy for Canadians operates in the interests of Canadians. We will obviously have to take more steps going forward, but certain countries rise up in our concerns based on CSIS concerns, based on our intelligence operations. Those countries we know; they are named and they are understood by us as being interested in undermining Canadian democracy. However, Canadian democracy is also undermined if we ignore our own values, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must make sure that we have not gone too far with draconian measures in an effort to ensure that we control foreign interference. I know this speech reflects my ambivalence, and for that I apologize. I know that I am very pleased that we would have a foreign influence registry. I would like to ensure that it would be effective but also would not accidentally trespass into areas that we would later regret. I thank my colleagues for the time to address these issues with regard to Bill C-70.

1421 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Jun/12/24 5:34:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, part 1 of the bill has pretty significant proposed upgrades to the CSIS Act, particularly with how CSIS handles its dataset regime. That is following a fairly scathing report from the NSIRA, which showed that CSIS had regularly broken its legislative guidelines with respect to datasets. As legislators, we are being asked to put a fair amount of trust into the executive branch and our intelligence agencies. I have no doubt that they do great work. However, is my hon. colleague satisfied that our existing accountability mechanisms, our oversight mechanisms, such as NSICOP, NSIRA and the intelligence commissioner, are sufficient enough to maybe avoid reading another NSIRA report about how CSIS has breached its statutory guidelines in a number of years?

123 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Jun/12/24 5:35:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, whenever we have a CSIS report that makes earth-shattering accusations, and parliamentarians assume CSIS is right, I always remember that CSIS is sometimes wrong. The accusations and information provided to members of cabinet in one era in this country told them that Maher Arar was a bad actor and that it was okay to allow extraordinary rendition, where he would be tortured in another country. CSIS is not always right, and we must ensure that we protect Canadians and those who are on our shores from the actions that occurred in such a dreadful episode as that. I am not sure that we have not left ourselves open to that happening again.

115 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.)

Jun/12/24 5:36:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech in the House and her insights on the bill. I want to ask the member about the provision to have the CSIS Act regularly reviewed every five years. Given that the legislation is almost 41 years old, one thing I always found challenging was the fact that there had not been a significant review to keep pace not only with the changing threat nature of foreign interference but also with security and privacy issues all around. Could the member comment on the ability to review this important legislation?

98 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Jun/12/24 5:37:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is important to be able to have periodic reviews, but I will not forget what we had done in the Harper era, where we gave CSIS kinetic powers that it had not had before. That was a mistake, but we have left it that way. The RCMP was supposed to act on intelligence; intelligence gathering was the exclusive job of CSIS. We still have silos in this country between intelligence gathering and law enforcement, and we need to break them down. We should also ensure that the executive branch does not have too much power over the way in which the intelligence and kinetic activities are orchestrated. We need more parliamentary involvement, and I certainly think the work of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians is a welcome step forward in this direction.

138 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/12/24 5:38:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-70

Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of Bill C-70, an act respecting countering foreign interference, are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Thursday, June 13, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

51 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/12/24 5:38:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:54 p.m., so we can begin Private Members' Business.

29 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/12/24 5:38:59 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Jun/12/24 5:39:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of a motion put forward by my learned colleague, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. The motion instructs the procedure and House affairs committee to undertake a study to consider a series of proposed amendments to the Standing Orders. The effect of these amendments, if adopted, would be to limit the ability of the government to amend the Standing Orders, absent broad consensus. This is consistent with a long-standing convention that the Standing Orders ought not to be amended, absent a broad consensus among parties and members across the House. It is a convention that has been literally trashed by the Prime Minister, but it is par for the course from a Prime Minister who, over the past nine years, has demonstrated his complete and utter contempt for this institution. Then again, this is a Prime Minister who, after nine years, has broken just about everything in Canada and has worked very hard to try to break this great institution of democracy, the House of Commons. It is a bit ironic because, during the 2015 election, the Prime Minister was criss-crossing the country, disingenuously selling Canadians on his so-called “sunny ways”, in which he said that he would set a new standard for respecting the institution of Parliament, if he was entrusted with the responsibilities of being the Prime Minister. It turns out that it was nothing more than phony election sloganeering. It did not take the Prime Minister long to break his word. Within months of the Prime Minister securing a majority government, he found himself in a situation where he almost lost a confidence vote. The Prime Minister, no doubt, was embarrassed. He was angry, and his response was one of revenge, in which he attempted to abuse his majority in a power grab. He attempted to do so by way of a motion that would have made radical changes to the Standing Orders, the effect of which would have been to literally remove just about every tool available to opposition parties to hold the government to account. In the end, the Prime Minister did back down, but he only backed down in the lead-up to the vote on the power-grabbing motion, when the Prime Minister, in a fit of rage, elbowed a female member of Parliament, disgracing himself. However, the Prime Minister was not finished in his attempt to abuse his power because, less than a year later, in 2017, the Prime Minister again sought to make a series of changes to the Standing Orders, unilaterally, the effect of which, again, would have been to remove, from opposition parties, tools available to hold the government to account. Fortunately, Conservative members at the procedure and House affairs committee fought back, standing up for parliamentary democracy and standing up against the Prime Minister's power grab. After two months, the Prime Minister finally backed down. He, again, was not finished because, last year, the Prime Minister rammed through some of the most significant changes to the Standing Orders, to make the hybrid parliament permanent, despite the fact that there was nothing near to a consensus among the parties. We know the Prime Minister did it so that Liberal MPs could mail it in. There are some members across the way whom I would barely recognize. Since hybrid parliament came about, they participate in Parliament via Zoom from the comfort of their living rooms. They just do not show up for work. They just do not. It is a fact. That is an example of how the Prime Minister has worked to hollow out this institution. Therefore, in the face of a Prime Minister who has demonstrated such utter contempt, who in an unprecedented fashion has three times disrespected a long-standing convention, who has attempted to abuse and has abused his power, this motion could not be more timely to put a check on that.

663 words

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

Jun/12/24 5:45:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker clearly has a selective memory. He must be forgetting the time that he, along with the NDP and the Green Party voted in favour of a motion to change the Standing Orders, on an opposition day nonetheless. That was to change the Standing Orders to allot each of those parties one more supply day in the supply period, so it is very interesting that my colleague is selectively choosing what he decides to remember about trying to change the Standing Orders in this House. I am glad to say that, like my colleague from Edmonton, we are going to vote in favour of this, because it is a really good proposal. There must be something in the Kingston water that encourages those from the area to present fair and reasonable solutions in this House, and that is what we are seeing here today. I want to congratulate my colleague from my neighbouring riding, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, for introducing this motion because I think that it is really important that PROC look at this issue. There are things that are happening. We need to make changes to our Standing Orders, like the member for St. Albert—Edmonton mentioned before me, with respect to a hybrid Parliament. He went on to say that people are skipping work. I would disagree with that. I would say that people are not present for various reasons, including those who are on maternity leave, which I know has happened on all sides of the House. A hybrid Parliament gives an opportunity for members of Parliament to be reflective of the Canadian population, for it not to be a man's sport, as it was 50 years ago, but to be more inclusive and to encourage more people to be members of Parliament. What we are seeing here with this motion is that it is asking PROC to study the changes that can be made. I look forward to inviting experts to PROC, as I sit on the committee, to hear some of the best practices on how we could move forward in a way that tries to take some of the partisanship out of the procedures. I come from a place where I believe that the procedures we have set up in this House should require unanimous consent in order to to be changed. The reality is, what we have seen over the years, or at least what I have witnessed and clearly I have a bias because I am going to reflect more on what I see from across the aisle, is delay tactics and tactics that are used in order to change procedure and allow things to occur. Not allowing opposition parties to, at will on a supply day when they are presenting an opposition motion, change the Standing Orders, like the Conservatives did with the help of the NDP and the Green Party a number of years ago, I think better serves our democracy and the functioning of this place. I hope we can all be reflective of the fact that changes need to occur when we are talking about inclusivity, trying to be more diverse as a Parliament and looking for ways to encourage more people to get involved. Whether that is a hybrid Parliament, which the previous speaker spoke so negatively about, or different Standing Order changes that allow us to better reflect the times we are in now, there needs to be a proper process in place to get us from where we are to there, hopefully removing a lot of the partisanship out of it. I do not need to fill the full 10 minutes today on this, believe it or not. I know people hear enough from me, so I will leave it at that. I thank my colleague from the neighbouring riding of Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston for bringing this forward. I think what he has proposed is reasonable. He has given good timelines to PROC in order to look into this. If we do get to vote on this and see it pass by next week, by my math that puts us somewhere around February for changes to be reported back from PROC. I think we could better serve Canadians and indeed the way this House functions by supporting this motion, so I will certainly be voting in favour of it.

737 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Jun/12/24 5:50:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be rising in the House today to share a few remarks on Motion No. 109, put forward by my colleague from Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. This motion specifically looks at the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. For constituents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford who might be watching this debate, I realize that whenever we talk about the Standing Orders, to people outside of this place it is a bit of inside baseball. However, the Standing Orders are extremely important, not only to the members who serve in this House but also to our constituents, because they are essentially the bylaws by which we operate. They spell out the procedure and practice of this place and set up the rules for debate, how voting can occur, how motions can be presented, and so on and so forth. They are extremely important, because while many Canadians may not be intimately aware of them or familiar with them, they are very important to allow me, as a member, and all of my colleagues to do our jobs in this place. Those rules are important because, in order to do our job properly, we need those rules. I have to be able to effectively represent the constituents of my riding, as every member does. The Standing Orders are important, and probably even more so for opposition members. When I was first elected to the House of Commons in 2015, my first four years in this place were in opposition to a majority government. The incredible amount of power that a majority government wields is quite awesome to behold because, of course, it has the votes to win on every motion and every bill. As the opposition, when we are faced with a majority government, knowing it has the votes necessary to prevail in every instance, the only thing we have left is the rules of the House, the Standing Orders. Majority governments have to walk a fine line. They cannot just barge their way through everything, because the opposition can use the Standing Orders of the House to create a real logjam. For every action, there can be an equal and opposite reaction. I recall that frequently, during those first four years of my time in the House of Commons, when the Liberal majority government behaved too much like a bully, there would be a reaction where we could tie up the House of Commons in procedural shenanigans. That is one of the options that an opposition can use to make its displeasure felt. One of the biggest instances of that would be back in 2017, which, of course, was the famous filibuster at the procedure and House affairs committee. At that time, the government was trying to unilaterally change the Standing Orders. We have often tried to change them based on a consensus model, but the changes that the Liberals were proposing to the Standing Orders at the time would have, effectively, neutered the opposition's powers to hold the government to account in this place. Of course, it was a non-starter for all of the opposition parties. One of the ways in which we protested against these proposed changes to the Standing Orders was to use the Standing Orders to launch our protest. I remember that, at that time, the procedure and House affairs committee went through a filibuster that lasted, I think, over 50 hours. There were frequent times in the House of Commons when the legislative agenda of the day was interrupted through dilatory motions and vote calls. It was all in an effort to make the opposition's displeasure known to the government. The Liberals did eventually back down, so the Standing Orders are quite important. I will now get to Motion No. 109 and what is being proposed by the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. Essentially, several changes are being proposed in this motion, but it is really about improving the way the House can amend the Standing Orders by making it harder for the majority of the House to impose its will on the minority. It comes down to the model where a consensus is important. I am proud to support this motion. This is a very legitimate and proper motion being proposed on the Standing Order changes. We fundamentally believe that no one party should be doing this without the consent of the opposition. Let us go through some of the details here. One of the first parts is that the government cannot use a provision that gives a minister the right to move a motion for which unanimous consent was denied. The government would not be able to use closure. A previous question could not be moved in order to prevent the tabling of amendments. The motion would also increase the amount of time in debate for concurrence of a committee report that contains changes to the Standing Orders. The motion would change how the House deals with private members' motions and opposition motions that propose amendments to the Standing Orders. Instead of the House voting on the motion, the vote would be on referral of the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, otherwise known as PROC, which would then have 75 sitting days to report on the matter. Motion No. 109 itself is going to be referred to PROC to study these changes and report to the House on the matter within that time frame. Again, all in all, this is a very reasonable proposal. For all the reasons I outlined, it is something that I am going to support. I realize that, for anyone listening to this debate, this is very much inside baseball. However, I can assure people outside the House of Commons that these kinds of changes are extremely important. They allow us to do our job, and I think that this is an important injection of fairness into how we amend the future.

1000 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jun/12/24 5:57:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion moved by the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. I enjoyed listening to him speak in support of his motion. When we look at the motion from a broader perspective, we see that it seeks to codify what has been done for decades, in other words, to systematically seek consensus when changing the rules of procedure of the House and, therefore, the rules that govern how we govern ourselves as a body. This consensus, which has been the custom and tradition for decades, was hard-won through many battles. My colleague pointed that out, and I found it interesting. He referred in particular to the period from 1834 to 1837-38, to the Patriots and the battles they fought to win the famous system of checks and balances, to ensure that all members of the House have a role to play without being relegated to the position of mere advisers, for example, and that we never experience any kind of tyranny of the majority. My colleague reminded us that the gains we enjoy today have come at the cost of many battles. Unfortunately, if we are debating this motion, if it needed to be moved, it is because we recently witnessed some major violations to this consensus which is so important. We saw this last year when, under closure, the rules of the House were changed significantly through the creation of the virtual Parliament. I was surprised to hear the member for Winnipeg North, in his speech on Motion No. 109, brag that the creation of the virtual Parliament was an important change, the likes of which had not been seen in decades, even a hundred years. He practically bragged about having done so under closure, which showed the ingenuity with which the government changes the rules without consensus. It is precisely for this type of situation that we need a remedy like Motion No. 109. While I am on my feet I would like to correct some of the statements that were made during the first hour of debate. The member for Winnipeg North said that gag orders, in other words closure or time allocation motions, are essential, that they speed up the legislative agenda for government bills, while private members' bills are already scheduled, in a way. We know when they will be debated. A certain number of hours are allocated. This motion is not intended to banish all closure or time allocation motions. We could have that discussion, but that is not the purpose of motion No. 109. Motion No. 109 strictly concerns changes to procedure and seeks to prevent us from making such changes under a gag order, forcing all of us instead to actually seek some form of consensus. I also heard the member for Winnipeg North and the member for New Westminster—Burnaby say that the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois members were a bit hypocritical by using remote voting to vote against the virtual Parliament project. In doing so, these members, both Liberal and NDP, are failing to see the forest for the trees precisely because, if we had had the opportunity to debate these procedural amendments, we might have reached a consensus focused exclusively on voting through the app, and not necessarily on the broader issue of the virtual Parliament. It is possible to be in favour of voting through the app without systematically being in favour of all the measures of the virtual Parliament, especially because they do not use the same resources. For example, interpretation is not needed for voting. We know that the hybrid Parliament is generating a lot more need for interpretation and the use of accommodation. That in itself is a concern and we should have debated it, but we were caught with only 11 hours of debate on that, without the possibility for amendments, because the government had used closure. Motion No. 109 seeks to correct the government's ability to become a sort of tyranny of the majority when it comes to changing rules as critical as the ones that govern us. When closure is invoked on a bill, its impact is not the same. The reason for closure also matters. Closure during consideration of a bill can generally be aimed at protecting a certain segment of the population and our communities. Generally, it concerns values that are specific to each party and over which we might disagree, whereas the rules of procedure in the House are our rules of the game. The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston gave a perfect example. He suggested imagining any sport, such as tennis, hockey, badminton or volleyball. If one of the two sides or teams could unilaterally change the rules in the middle of the game, would that be fair? That would make absolutely no sense. That is precisely what the motion seeks to correct, so that no one can decide more or less unilaterally how we govern ourselves. Perhaps the goal is also to prevent this kind of vicious circle in which the government changes the procedure under closure in order to give itself more power, so that it can later change the procedure even more and ultimately take away any power the opposition parties have that is necessary to hold the government to account. Unfortunately, this motion will not undo what was done in the past. It will not change the fact that the government invoked closure to fundamentally change the rules of procedure in the House, for example, to create a virtual Parliament. However, at the very least, this motion will serve as a sort of guarantee for the future. That is what is good about this motion. The way this motion works is also good. We do not want a majority to be able to change the ground rules. What the member is proposing is that we do not vote on the motion in the House right away. The motion seeks to send the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs so that we can hear from enough experts, fully debate the issue and then send the motion back to the House. In its wording, the motion lays out what should be done. For all of these reasons, I sincerely thank the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. I know that he is passionate about procedure. I also know that he is a staunch defender of the basic rules of democracy that govern us. That being said, I look forward to seeing how members will vote. I can already guarantee that the Bloc Québécois will support the motion for many reasons, including because of what happened last year. I am looking forward to seeing how the Conservative members vote on this. In a way, they may be tying their own hands, given that they could form the government in the not-too-distant future. One does not need to be Nostradamus to know that. Maybe they would be tying the hands of their own government. It will be interesting to see what happens. In any event, the substance of the motion perfectly reflects the democratic will that should govern how we do things in the House. For these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the motion.

1240 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/24 6:05:38 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston has five minutes for his right of reply.

17 words

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC)

Jun/12/24 6:05:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks I observed that the purpose of Motion No. 109 was “to ensure that no future government would be able to amend the Standing Orders without the consent of all recognized parties.” The mechanism laid out in the motion and the proposed additions to the standing order that are contained in the motion is to ensure that debate would continue as long as there is a meaningful body of individuals opposed to whatever change to the Standing Orders is being proposed. This would ensure that debate would simply continue ad infinitum unless a consensus is sought. This does not translate into meaning unanimous consent is required. In practice, it would mean that all-party consent is required. Let me turn away from the rationale for doing this and toward a discussion of how I think the process ought to proceed. There is a role model for this: a change to the Standing Orders that I proposed back in 2015 for changing how the Speaker is elected. Formerly, the Speaker was elected through what is known as an exhaustive vote. There would be multiple candidates. If no candidate secured a majority on a vote, we would have a second vote. We kept on doing this until we eliminated all the candidates. I proposed changing this to a preferential ballot, but I did not propose simply that the House vote on my motion. I said instead to send it off to the procedure and House affairs committee, where expert witnesses could be brought in to look at the preferential balloting system used in a number of other jurisdictions, most notably in Britain in their elections of speakers, both in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons. That is what we did. As such, the same language is incorporated into the motion proposed here. I just want to read it. Ignoring all the substantive content, the procedure part of the motion reads as follows: That...it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to undertake a study on the advisability of amending the Standing Orders as follows: The substantive part of the motion follows, of course, and then the last part of the motion says: [that] the committee report its findings to the House no later than 75 sitting days following the adoption of this motion. Assuming that the motion is approved at some point the next time we vote on Private Members' Business next week, it would be reasonable to assume that we would have this matter back before the House for a final vote on a report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in February. Let me say what that committee report would probably look like. I am now holding in my hands the procedure and House affairs committee's report from the 41st Parliament, its 21st report. I will read what is said here. I would anticipate something like this being said again. The report said: The Election of the Speaker is a matter for all Members to decide. The Committee does not oppose nor endorse motion M-489...and feels that the entire membership of the House of Commons should have the opportunity to vote on whether or not to change the Standing Orders in the manner suggested by M-489. In order to accomplish this purpose of having a vote in the House, the Committee recommends that Standing Order 4 be amended as follows: There is then the substance of the motion. That was respectfully submitted by the chair of the committee. I think the same process would allow us to act now as we did then. We took an issue that could have been treated in a partisan manner. Maybe this is not a matter of concern, because it sounds like all parties support this, but that process allowed for it to be dealt with by means, essentially, of free votes of all the party caucuses in a manner that normally is not dealt with this way. There was actually a free vote in the House. Every single party in the House actually wound up dividing, with some members for and some against. A majority was in favour. I think that was a really proper way of handling changes to the Standing Orders. I do hope it happens again. I guess I will get to say this again, but I do hope there will be a recorded vote on this, as opposed to seeking some other form of consent to the motion when we deal with this.

768 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/24 6:13:01 p.m.
Watch

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.

51 words

Mr. Scott Reid

Jun/12/24 6:13:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/24 6:13:31 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 19, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

23 words

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

Jun/12/24 6:13:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening in Adjournment Proceedings to pursue a question I initially asked the Prime Minister on February 28. Although the topic of the rubric announced earlier today was climate change, I was really asking about a series of related issues in terms of Canada's preparedness to respond to extreme weather events, such as extreme wildfires and flooding, as well as the need to quickly pursue the clean electricity regulations promised by the government. The Prime Minister's answer was certainly on point, but I am grateful for a chance to pursue more completeness where it was lacking. Of course, it is no surprise that, when reduced to less than half a minute to respond to questions, none of the answers are particularly complete. However, in talking about a net-zero grid, the Prime Minister did commit to it again. I agree with everything the Prime Minister said in that answer or those statements. Therefore, this is not a confrontational raising of the issue in Adjournment Proceedings; what I would like to pursue tonight is just the adequacy of what Canada is doing. As we increasingly see, one of the very best ways to respond to the climate crisis and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels is to shift to electrifying as much as possible, wherever we can, and to ensure that our source of electricity is 100% green and renewable. In that, we skip over a problem quite often. Perhaps I can just quote from the Prime Minister's response on February 28, where he said, “A net-zero grid will serve as the basis for climate actions across the economy”. That is true. The difficulty is that we have not really grasped a pretty sticky, unpleasant, thorny nettle, which is that we do not have a national grid in this country; province by province, we have a balkanized series of individual monopolistic utilities. Just as we have not yet solved interprovincial trade, we sure have not solved having an effective grid; I would point out that, in the European Union, believe it or not, 27 separate nation-states have a grid system with the ability to have national sovereignty at their borders. We would think that would mean they could not possibly do as good a job as Canada. One country with 10 provinces, three territories and one federal government should be wonderfully well-organized, but we are a shambles. We do not even think like a country compared with what the European Union has done, where it has a fully integrated grid. The members of the European Union were able, after Putin invaded Ukraine, to say that Ukraine deserves to have secure energy sources. It plugged Ukraine into the EU grid. We cannot plug the Maritimes into Hydro-Quebec. We have never had provinces at war with each other. France and Germany were at war with each other and collaborate better now than do Alberta and B.C. Somehow or other, we are going to have to figure out interprovincial-federal co-operation around an electricity grid that works north-south and east-west. Only then can we meet the Prime Minister's goal, the government's goal and Canadians' dream of an electricity grid that works.

550 words

Mr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages, Lib.)

Jun/12/24 6:17:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her years of advocacy on these issues. I want to be clear: Our government has no intention to delay or weaken the clean electricity regulations. On the contrary, these are regulations of national significance. Yes, there are challenges with provinces across the country, but we understand the importance of getting it right so that the regulations can pass the test of time moving forward. Canada will need more clean electricity to achieve a net-zero economy. Our population is growing. More and more Canadians are plugging in electric vehicles and using electrified public transit. More and more homeowners are switching to electric heat pumps. Companies are looking for ways to decarbonize their warehouses, offices and factories. A transition to a clean electricity grid will only be successful if provinces and utilities across the country can deliver significant emission reductions while continuing to provide Canadian industries, businesses and households with reliable and affordable electricity. For that, the regulations must be flexible. That is why we conducted extensive consultation following the publication of the draft clean electricity regulations last summer. We reached out to provincial and territorial governments and to indigenous representation. We engaged with the Canada Electricity Advisory Council, utilities, industry, environmental organizations and all interested Canadians. We have heard the concerns and criticisms from the electricity sector and from governments. We have heard about the challenges and the need for flexibility that some provinces have to face when generating electricity relies heavily on fossil fuels. We have made improvements to ensure that provincial operators have greater flexibility. We came to the table with more than $40 billion in federal support to help provinces and territories on their path to a cleaner grid. Right now, Environment and Climate Change Canada is analyzing the feedback we received on the proposed changes. Stakeholders had until March 15 of this year to submit their comments. Continued collaboration is crucial. As for all regulations, we will continue to engage, to understand any remaining concerns before publishing the final regulations before the end of the year. I know the hon. member has provided some feedback, and we will continue to push our government to do more. We are working to make sure that the clean energy regulations make sense so that they deliver significant emission reductions, reliability and affordability over the long term.

401 words