Bill C-25 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Competition Act

Part 1 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act and the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act to, among other things,
(a) reform some aspects of the process for electing directors of certain corporations and cooperatives;
(b) modernize communications between corporations or cooperatives and their shareholders or members;
(c) clarify that corporations and cooperatives are prohibited from issuing share certificates and warrants, in bearer form; and
(d) require certain corporations to place before the shareholders, at every annual meeting, information respecting diversity among directors and the members of senior management.
Part 2 amends the Competition Act to expand the concept of affiliation to a broader range of business organizations.

Status of Women

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, because almost half of Canadian companies have no women on their boards, zero, Canadian women expected our self-proclaimed feminist Prime Minister to turn words into action. However, Liberals are using the failed, discredited comply and explain model of the Conservative Party in Bill C-25. The government should adopt my legislation, Bill C-220, to get gender balance.

Quebec legislated quotas, and in five years reached parity on crown boards. The same success came with legislation in France, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden.

Without quotas, Canadian women will wait 72 years for equity. As Caroline Codsi from La Gouvernance au Féminin said, “When we legislate, we find women. When we do not legislate, we find excuses.”

Let us no more excuses. It is time for the government to act on women's equality.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, this is the topic at hand. I mentioned that Bill C-25 has been stuck at report stage since early April. That is the point. We want to continue to make sure that we get through our agenda. The fact of the matter is that we have not been able to do so because of the opposition's tactics, so in fact we are here.

It is eight o'clock, and I am quite proud to be here and will continue to be here until midnight tonight, and again midnight tomorrow night if necessary, because I agree that it is important to continue to talk about the government's agenda and what we have to accomplish.

Of course, the budget is so important. There is so much that we have to get through so that we can, in fact, do what Canadians voted us in to do. It is so important that we continue the amount of work that we have. We have talked about the budget. We have talked about tax fairness and historic investments in infrastructure that we must move forward. If we do not, we will not be able to complete our agenda. That is what Canadians expect of us and that is what we will continue to do.

In fact, I will continue to read this. I know it is a speech that has been prepared, but it has important information that I think we all need to hear. I will pick up from where I left off, talking about Red Wilson's competition policy review panel.

I could possibly continue on, if you would like me to, Mr. Speaker.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can anticipate already what the parliamentary secretary will say. Once again we have a reprinted speech on another bill so that they can argue about how they are pushing their legislative agenda. The member is specifically referencing Bill C-25.

We were looking at who the next speakers would be, and some, including me, I dare say, actually have things to say about Motion No. 14, which is before the House.

I understand the leeway you give, Mr. Speaker. I have tried to benefit from that leeway myself, as we all have, but unfortunately, I think, we have talked so much in the last few months about the way this place works, that at the very least, if we are to invoke closure, it would be nice if we could actually deal with the motion in the limited time that we have.

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Science]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the motion to extend the sitting hours in the House.

Our government believes that good, corporate governance is one of the mechanisms that help support economic efficiency and growth. We recognize that our country is at its most prosperous when everyone has a fair chance at success. That is why, in September 2016, we introduced Bill C-25, enhancing business frameworks and promoting inclusive economic growth.

Bill C-25 makes important adjustments to the framework laws that govern the Canadian marketplace. It would increase shareholder democracy and participation, increase women's representation, as well as diversity, on corporate boards and in senior management, improve corporate transparency, reduce regulatory burden, and increase business certainty.

Both official opposition parties have expressed support for this legislation, as have many stakeholder groups. However, the bill has been stuck at report stage since early April. I would like to take this opportunity to share with the House some of the key elements of this important piece of legislation. Specifically, I would like to focus on competitiveness in our economy.

Bill C-25 makes a number of targeted amendments to our economic framework laws in an effort to bring them up to date for our modern economy. Keeping our laws relevant is beneficial in a number of ways. It allows us to embrace best practices, remove ambiguity and minimize regulatory burden, just to name a few.

Competitiveness is a word that we hear a lot when discussing the economy, but it is also one of those words whose meaning may change a fair amount, depending on the context. When Red Wilson's competition policy review panel undertook an examination of Canada's competition and investment policies in 2007 and 2008, it set out to provide recommendations to the government on how to enhance Canadian product—

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member confirming for the record that all members work hard in this place and that this place belongs to Canadians. That is exactly who we are here to represent. That is exactly the commitment we made to Canadians. That is why we encourage meaningful debate, and that is why we encourage all members to share the views of their constituents so that we can ensure it is good legislation that is advancing.

In the previous Parliament, when the government decided to extend sittings in June 2014, Liberal members supported that motion. None of us are strangers to hard work. We know that Canadians work hard, and we need to work hard for them.

Let us talk really quickly about some of the important pieces of legislation that we will be advancing by extending hours. We are talking about Bill C-44, which implements our budget 2017. The bill is about creating good middle-class jobs today while preparing Canadians for the jobs of tomorrow. I am sure the member will agree that is important work we all need to do together.

There is Bill C-25, which encourages federally regulated companies to promote gender parity on boards of directors and to publicly report on the gender balance on boards, and Bill C-24, which was referred to earlier and seeks to formalize equal status among the ministerial team and level the playing field to ensure a one-tier ministry, that a minister is a minister, recognizing the important work they do.

The list goes on, but I will respect that other members have questions to which I look forward to responding.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 23, 2017:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12:00 a.m., except that it shall be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (e), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2) or Standing Order 78, but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(c) notwithstanding Standing Order 45(6) and paragraph (b) of this Order, no recorded division requested after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 22, 2017, or at any time on Friday, June 23, 2017, shall be deferred, except for any recorded division which, under the Standing Orders, would be deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on Wednesday, September 20, 2017;

(d) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) or Standing Order 67.1(2);

(e) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(g) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(h) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(i) no dilatory motion may be proposed after 6:30 p.m.;

(j) notwithstanding Standing Orders 81(16)(b) and (c) and 81 (18)(c), proceedings on any opposition motion shall conclude no later than 5:30 p.m. on the sitting day that is designated for that purpose, except on a Monday when they shall conclude at 6:30 p.m. or on a Friday when they shall conclude at 1:30 p.m.; and

(k) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to government Motion No. 14. For the benefit of members, the motion would extend the sitting of the House until we rise for the summer adjournment.

We have much to accomplish in the coming weeks. Our government has an ambitious legislative agenda that we would like to advance in order to deliver on the commitments we made to Canadians in the last election. Let me reflect on our recent legislative achievements before I turn to the important work that lies before us over the next four weeks.

In our last sitting week, the House and Senate were able to reach agreement on securing passage of Bill C-37, which would put in place important measures to fight the opioid crisis in Canada. I would like to thank members of the House for the thoughtful debate on this bill and for not playing politics with such an important piece of legislation. In particular, I would like to thank members of the New Democratic Party for co-operating with the government to advance this bill when it was in the House and for helping us dispense with amendments from the Senate. This was a high watermark for the House and I hope that we can take this professional and courteous approach forward. I would also like to thank senators for their important contributions to this bill.

I would also like to point out the passage of two crucial bills related to trade. The first, Bill C-30, would implement an historic trade agreement with the European Union. The second, Bill C-31, would implement a trade agreement with Ukraine, a country that is dear to many members.

I am proud that our government continues to open the doors to trade and potential investment in Canada to grow our economy and help build a strong middle class.

In looking forward to the next four sitting weeks, I would like to highlight a few priority bills that our government will seek to advance. I will start with Bill C-44, which would implement budget 2017. This bill is about creating good middle-class jobs today while preparing Canadians for the jobs of tomorrow.

I will provide some examples of the initiatives that will contribute to building a strong middle class. The budget makes smart investments to help adult workers retain or upgrade their skills to adapt to changes in the new economy and to help young people get the skills and work experience they need to start their careers.

The budget also provides for investments in the well-being of Canadians, with the emphasis on mental health, home care, and health care for indigenous peoples.

Bill C-44 would provide financing to the provinces for home care and mental health care. It would also create leave for those who wish to care for a critically ill adult or child in their family. These initiatives help build stronger communities.

I would also like to point to initiatives in the budget that deal with gender equality. The first-ever gender statement will serve as a basis for ongoing, open, and transparent discussions about the role gender plays in policy development. Our government has other initiatives that aim to strengthen gender equality. For example, Bill C-25 encourages federally regulated companies to promote gender parity on boards of directors and to publicly report on the gender balance on these boards.

Another bill, which I will discuss in greater detail later in my remarks, is Bill C-24, a bill that would level the playing field to ensure a one-tier ministry. The bill has a simple premise. It recognizes that a minister is a minister, no matter what portfolio he or she holds.

Our government has committed to legalizing and strictly regulating the production, distribution, sale, and possession of cannabis. I look forward to the debate on this important bill tomorrow. I will note that the bill would provide strong safeguards and deterrents to protect young people from enticements to use or access cannabis.

The government has taken a responsible approach in seeking to legalize cannabis by ensuring that law enforcement agencies have approved methods to test the sobriety of drivers to guard against cannabis use while operating a motorized vehicle. This afternoon, the House will continue to debate this bill, which, I will happily note, has support from all opposition parties in the House. I hope that we can agree to send this bill to committee on Wednesday.

Now I would like to return to our government's commitment to improving gender equality. Bill C-24, which stands in my name, seeks to formalize the equal status of the ministerial team. This bill is very straightforward in its nature. It is fundamentally about the equality of all ministers. We strongly believe that the Minister of Status of Women should be a full minister. We believe that the Minister of Science and the Minister of Democratic Institutions should be full ministers.

I am disappointed that the Conservatives do not share this fundamental belief in equality. I think we should send this bill to committee for a detailed study of what the bill actually does.

I would like to draw members' attention to another piece of legislation, Bill C-23, regarding an agreement with the United States on the preclearance of persons and goods between our two countries.

This bill is currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The principle of the bill is simple. It is about ensuring a more efficient and secure border by expanding preclearance operations for all modes of transportation. This will increase the number of trips and the volume of trade, which will strengthen both of our economies.

As members may know, preclearance operations currently take place at eight Canadian airports, and immigration pre-inspection is also conducted at multiple locations in British Columbia in the rail and marine modes.

Once that bill comes back from committee, I hope that we can work together to send it to the other place.

In our last sitting week, our government introduced comprehensive modernization of our transportation systems. A strong transportation system is fundamental to Canada's economic performance and competitiveness. Bill C-49 does just that. The bill would enhance the utility, efficiency, and fluidity of our rail system so that it works for all participants in the system. Freight rail is the backbone of the Canadian economy. It moves everything from grain and potash to oil and coal, to the cars we drive, the clothes we wear, and the food we eat.

I would also like to draw to the attention of members provisions in Bill C-49 that would strengthen Canada's air passenger rights. While the precise details of the air passenger rights scheme will be set out in regulations, the objective is that rights should be clear, consistent, transparent, and fair for passengers and air carriers.

Finally, our government committed to creating a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. Bill C-22 seeks to accomplish two interrelated goals, ensuring that our security intelligence agencies are effective in keeping Canadians safe, while at the same time safeguarding our values, rights and freedoms, and the open, generous, inclusive nature of our country.

I appreciate the work that was done in the House committee to improve the bill. The bill is currently before the Senate national security committee, and I look forward to appearing before that committee with my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Sitting a few extra hours for four days per week will also give the House greater flexibility in dealing with unexpected events. While it is expected that the Senate will amend bills, it is not always clear which bills and the number of bills that could be amended by the Senate. As we have come to know, the consideration of Senate amendments in the House takes time. This is, in part, why we need to sit extra hours. I know that members work extremely hard balancing their House duties and other political duties. I expect that extending the hours will add to the already significant workload.

I wish to thank members for their co-operation in these coming weeks. As I reflect upon my time as government House leader, there were examples where members of the House came together, despite their political differences, and advanced initiatives that touched directly upon the interests of all Canadians. I hope that over the four remaining sitting weeks before we head back to work in our ridings, we can have honest and frank deliberations on the government's priorities and work collaboratively to advance the agenda that Canadians sent us here to implement.

In the previous Parliament, when the government decided to extend the sittings in June of 2014, Liberal members supported that motion. We knew then, as we know now, that our role as legislators is a privilege, and we discharge our parliamentary functions in support of our constituents.

There will be initiatives that the government will bring forward over the coming weeks that will enjoy the support of all members, and there will be issues on which parties will not agree. Our comportment during this time will demonstrate to Canadians that we are all in this together, despite our differences, for the good of this great country. Let us not lose sight of that.

I believe the motion before the House is reasonable. I hope opposition members can support sitting a few extra hours for four days a week for the next few weeks to consider important legislation for Canadians.

Gender Equality Week Act

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Mississauga—Lakeshore for bringing this incredibly important bill to the House. I had the privilege of sitting on the status of women committee when the bill came before our committee. I want to thank our colleagues on committee who worked hard on this as well.

When we talk about a gender equality week, what we are really talking about is bringing people together across the country, whether it is civil society, parliamentarians, researchers, or other groups to be able to multiply the conversation, to start a real engagement on gender equality in Canada.

We know from many studies that women and men in Canada are not equal today. We can see it here in the House where 27% of elected members are women. We see it in other kinds of leadership bodies and on corporate boards. I am very pleased at what our government is doing in Bill C-25 about women on corporate boards to make sure that companies have a comply or explain model. They have to have diversity policies.

I am particularly pleased at what the Minister of Science has done in the past week regarding women in research. Universities that do not have a diversity policy within the next two years and reach their targets will no longer get federal government research funding for Canada research chairs. We have tried many other ways. This is the kind of thing that is needed, because we have not seen significant increases in gender equality in Canada in several decades in many different fields.

We on the status of women committee right now are studying women's economic security. We have had a number of different groups come before us. We know that women in Canada today are not making the same amount of money as men do for the same kind of work.

I chaired the committee on pay equity. We came out with a very proactive report which calls for proactive pay equity legislation which recognizes that pay equity is a human right. I am very proud that our government has responded positively to our report and is going to be bringing in pay equity legislation. This is the kind of thing that will help in terms of people who are working in similar fields.

We also know that the wage gap includes a number of different factors that are not necessarily just about pay equity, for instance, precarious work. There are more women working in minimum wage jobs. There are more women working in part-time jobs. Today we heard in the status of women committee that in the bottom seven deciles, that is zero to $70,000, there are more women earning that amount and as soon as we get over $70,000 there are more men. It is clear that we have a long way to go, particularly when it comes to women in the STEM professions.

When it comes to the jobs that pay good money, when it comes to the kinds of good jobs that create Canadian prosperity, women are not choosing those jobs because of socialization or because of a lack of role models. There are a number of things we need to do to improve the situation for some of the young women in our communities.

I am very proud to have had the opportunity in my riding of Ottawa West—Nepean to meet with several girls in projects that allow girls to reach their full potential. I am speaking of projects like Girls World at the Pinecrest-Queensway Community Health Centre, or the Girl Guides, whom I met with. It was quite inspiring. These young girls are so articulate. They believe that they can be anything and do anything. This is something we need to make not just an aspiration for these young women, but an actual reality.

Later, one of the young girls, a 12-year-old, wrote to me and asked if I could create a junior youth council. Apparently, when she is playing with her dolls at home, she pretends the dolls are in Parliament. This is the kind of thing we need to promote. A young 12-year-old girl is dreaming of being in government, of being a member of Parliament, but at what point is that aspiration lost? At what point does that young girl think it is not something for her? We still do not see as many women winning nominations and being elected to this place as we ought to see.

I will use myself as an example. When I was in grade 10, I joined the science club. I decided I wanted to be an astrophysicist. I did an entire report on how to become an astrophysicist. I signed up for calculus and all of the science courses, but somehow between grade 10 and grade 12, I lost my interest in science. I received my highest mark in math, but I was telling people at that point “I hate math. I am terrible at math.” It is something that I continued to repeat over and over for decades, that I am terrible at math. I saw my report card. I had 93% in grade 12 math.

Somewhere along the way, young girls are socialized to think that science is not something they want to do. I am very pleased to have studied history and to now be in politics, but we need to create a world where young girls and young women have the same opportunities. We need to ensure that the barriers are no longer there so they can achieve the kinds of things they dream about when they are 12 years old and that somehow, along the way, we see that inequality end.

When I talk to young students and tell them that men make $1 for every 73¢ a woman makes, they gasp. They look and me and ask how that is fair. Even young children know that it is not fair.

I thank my hon. colleague for bringing this incredibly important bill before the House. I hope it will receive support across all party lines, because this is an opportunity for us to really make sure we are doing something about the gender gap in Canada.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Multiculturalism)]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South.

It is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to budget 2017. I want to address key parts of the budget that I know would have an important and lasting impact on my riding of Parkdale—High Park in Toronto.

Since October 2015, I have heard loud and clear from my constituents about the issues that matter to them most. I know that budget 2017 would help to address their concerns and the concerns of all Canadians.

One of the most important issues to residents in my riding is access to housing. Since being elected, I have met with the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association and the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. I have also heard about this issue knocking on doors and in meetings with constituents and key stakeholders in my riding.

In Parkdale—High Park alone there are five co-op housing units that provide much-needed accommodation for low-income residents. The members of Dufferin Grove Housing Co-operative, Swansea Village Co-operative, 55 Howard Park Co-operative Homes, 91 Spencer Avenue Housing Co-operative, and John Bruce Village Co-operative have spoken to me and my staff about the critical need to ensure affordable housing stock in our cities. I am acutely aware of how urgent the housing crisis is, not only in Parkdale—High Park but right around the country.

I also know that housing is foundational. What I mean by that is that if we address people's housing needs, they will have better health outcomes, better educational outcomes, and better economic outcomes.

On March 29th I held a standing-room-only town hall in my riding on housing. I heard first-hand from the residents of Parkdale—High Park about just how important it is for our government to resolve the affordable housing issue and to work with local partners to make that happen. I am proud that budget 2017 would start to do just that.

Budget 2017 would make a historic $11-billion commitment to housing in this country. Combined with $4 billion in base funding, it would bring the total to $15 billion our government has committed in the first two years of our mandate to launch a much-needed national housing strategy. That would mean access to more affordable housing for residents in Parkdale—High Park.

The $15 billion in the aggregate would include the following investments. There would be $5 billion for a national housing fund to address critical housing issues and to prioritize support for vulnerable citizens. Who are they? They are seniors, indigenous people, survivors fleeing situations of domestic violence, people with disabilities, those dealing with mental health and addiction issues, and veterans.

There would be $3.2 billion for a renewed federal and provincial partnership on affordable housing. There would be $2.1 billion to expand and extend the homelessness partnering strategy beyond 2018-19.

As my second component, I would like to underscore families and child care. I am the husband and father of two young children. My boys are three and six. My riding of Parkdale—High Park is home to countless families just like mine. These families have reached out to me to talk about our government's first act, which was to cut taxes for the middle class. They have also welcomed the Canada child benefit, which targets tax-free benefits to those who need it most.

For those raising children in Parkdale—High Park and around the country, our first budget last year provided an initial $500 million for early learning and child care. Building on this, this budget would invest an additional $7 billion to support the creation of high-quality child care spaces across the country. This would mean up to 40,000 new subsidized child care spaces.

What this would mean for Parkdale—High Park and ridings around the country would be more options for parents who are literally fed up. It is from personal experience and from others in my riding that I know about people who sign on to countless child care waiting lists, literally the moment they conceive a child. Those people need a greater supply of much-needed day care spots, and they need options that will make it possible for them to return to work, including for women to return to work. That is something our government firmly believes in. This unprecedented investment would both address the supply of child care spaces and help drive down costs by boosting the number of subsidized spots.

Budget 2017 would do even more for families. We fulfilled our campaign commitment to introduce more flexibility and choice for parents on parental leave. These changes would allow parents to choose to receive their current benefits over an extended period of up to 18 months, rather than 12, and spend more time with their young children in those key early months.

On women and gender parity, the third subject I would like to discuss, this budget was a historic first. For the first time in Canadian history, in 150 years, a federal budget included a gender statement. The statement reflects the impact of programs, across government, on women and reflects our commitment as a government to ensuring that the goal of gender equality permeates every single thing we do as a federal government.

As an example, we believe that women deserve to feel safe, supported, and protected in communities, so on top of our historic child care investment, I was heartened to see $100.9 million allocated in the budget over the first five years, and $20 million thereafter, to establish a national strategy to address gender-based violence.

In the past, I have supported work on this issue in my riding of Parkdale--Hyde Park, particularly at The Redwood shelter, a shelter for women and children fleeing violence. I have seen the amazing work being done in my community at places like The Redwood, but I have also seen first-hand the critical need for investment and resources to end gender-based violence.

Budget 2017 would do more. It would address the critical need for funding for women abroad. I am proud that our government has endorsed what is known as the Dutch initiative and would be dedicating $650 million in international aid to the education of women and girls and to empower women to maintain control over their reproductive rights.

I am proud to serve in a government with Canada's first ever gender-equal cabinet and in a government that has introduced Bill C-25, which would improve gender diversity on corporate boards in the private sector.

We know that more needs to be done, but budget 2017 is an important step in the right direction toward achieving true gender equality across all government programs.

The fourth area is indigenous persons. In my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I am committed to our goal of rebuilding and repairing our relationship with indigenous peoples and to supporting the preservation of indigenous languages and culture. The mandate letter of the Minister of Canadian Heritage has an express commitment to provide funding and to enact legislation to promote, preserve, and enhance indigenous languages. I am honoured that the hon. minister has asked me to assist her with this project.

Building on the significant investments in budget 2016, budget 2017 would continue the important work of true reconciliation with indigenous persons. We would establish a new fiscal relationship that would lift the 2% cap on annual funding increases and move towards sufficient and predictable funding for first nations communities.

Budget 2017 allocates $225 million to provide access to affordable and culturally appropriate housing for Indigenous peoples living off-reserve. It also provides $300 million for the construction of housing in Canada’s north, and support for territorial governments to improve housing conditions. These investments will help approximately 3,000 families find adequate, suitable, and affordable housing. Budget 2017 also provides $225 million for housing providers who serve Indigenous peoples not living on reserves

We would also dedicate $828 million to improving health for first nations and Inuit, including $305 million for the non-insured health benefits program.

We would target mental health for first nations and Inuit, with $204.2 million going toward improving mental health services. We would build on our commitment to home care by investing $184 million for palliative and home care for first nations and Inuit communities.

The fifth area is transit and infrastructure. In my riding of Parkdale-High Park, I have heard time and again about the need for infrastructure investments in Canada, particularly to get people moving to work and school. Budget 2017 would deliver on this important commitment.

In budget 2017 we have committed $20 billion over the next decade, in partnership with the provinces and territories, for public transit projects that will shorten commutes, decrease air pollution, and allow Canadians to spend more time at home with their families. What would that mean in Parkdale--High Park? It would mean more subways, more streetcars, and more buses. It would mean access to more transit and greener transit, because our budget commitment would also include $21.9 billion in greener infrastructure.

The last subject I want to talk about as I conclude is vulnerable Canadians. What would the budget do for vulnerable Canadians? There is a new health agreement. There is $5 billion for mental health around the country and $6 billion for long-term care.

For low-income families, a dedicated fund of $13 million would be established to provide affordable access to the Internet for low-income families.

What would it do for asylum seekers? There would be legal aid for refugee applicants. I hear time and time again in Parkdale—High Park that we want to establish an open and compassionate program, accessible to all. The money dedicated, $60 million over five years, to enhance people's access to the refugee system would do just that.

There would be money dedicated to those who are victimized by hatred. We would double the security infrastructure program.

There would be money dedicated to newcomers who have problems integrating because their foreign credentials are not being recognized. There would be $27 million dedicated to foreign credential recognition.

For the LGBTQ community, there would be $3.6 million to protect and promote equality for people of different sexual orientations.

This government reflects a commitment to progressive values, housing, indigenous persons, women, families, and our most vulnerable. I will be supporting this budget. I urge everyone in this House to do the same.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Yukon is very proud of Yukon and proud of his riding and I thank him for his comments.

However, I want to comment on what we just saw from the government House leader. After only one day of debate on this bill, she has given notice of time allocation. She has given notice of time allocation at the same time on Bill C-25 after very little debate.

She said that an agreement could not be reached through the usual channels. Well, it is tough to reach agreement when the government is ramming changes to the Standing Orders down the throats of the opposition.

She said that she wants us to have a conversation on the Standing Orders, yet there is a motion before the procedure and House affairs committee to have the guillotine at the end. It is a forced change.

Our party believes that to have a real discussion we need consensus from all parties in this House, as has been the tradition in this House. I think it is unfortunate that she has given notice of time allocation on two bills which have had one day of debate.

Bill C-25--Notice of time allocation

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of C-25, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Competition Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

Disposition of Prima Facie Question of Privilege

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate and understand the concern that the member across the way has brought forward in the form of a question of privilege. As much as I am sympathetic to the arguments presented, I do not believe that the member has a question of privilege, and I would like to expand on why I believe that to be the case.

If you were to look at House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it states at page 149:

If a motion to adjourn the debate or the House is adopted, debate on the privilege motion resumes the following sitting day. However, should the previous question be negatived, or a motion to proceed to Orders of the Day be adopted, then the privilege motion is superseded and dropped from the Order Paper.

I would suggest that what took place yesterday was indeed very much in order.

I would like to address a couple of the concerns that the member across the way has raised.

It goes without saying that unfettered access to the House of Commons means unfettered access, not just to the House itself but to the entire parliamentary precinct. That consists of this wonderful beautiful chamber in which we are having this discussion today, and our committee rooms, whether they are on or off the Hill, and our offices. We need to have unfettered access to all of these critical working environments. In most part, that is in fact what takes place. When I say “most part”, I would like to think that 99.9% of the time, we have unfettered access to these areas. However, I am aware that there are times, unfortunately, when our access has been challenged.

I have sat on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, as have members across the way. Unfortunately, I have had to deal with this issue at the committee on more than one occasion. I have heard many members talk in this chamber, and, rightfully so, about being denied access. I do not question the importance of it, and this government does not question it either. No member of the House of Commons would question the importance of our having unfettered access to this place. In fact, I was quite touched by one member of the NDP who stood in his place and pulled out his identification card. If one reads the back of the identification card, it reinforces that aspect.

I have been a parliamentarian for a number of years. One of the things I have learned over the last six years is the importance of our standing committees and the fine work they do. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has been a fairly active committee as of late. It sits twice a week, as do many other committees. Members on that committee have all sorts of things on their plate.

Yesterday, I spoke in the House about our unfettered access, and the issues raised by the member for Milton and other members. I highlighted the fact that the standing committee understands and appreciates the issue that we were debating. I suggested that at the end of the day, this committee can establish its own priorities. As a standing committee, it has the ability to do that. It could have a subcommittee look into the matter at hand to find out how to best deal with the issue.

It is not the first time that an access issue has occurred, and maybe it is because of the construction or other activities. I believe there are a number of reasons that have caused unfettered access to be violated.

I would look to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to see what it might want to do. I only say this as a recommendation. The committee can maybe establish a subcommittee to try to get a general overview of this, given the number of times in recent years that there has been a violation. That might be something it wants to do. I do not want to tie its hands in any way.

No member who stood to speak yesterday during the debate said that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs should not deal with the issue. I believe all members of the House recognize the value of the committee dealing with the issue. In recognizing the importance of unfettered access, we should also recognize that the procedure and House affairs committee has initiated some actions already that will deal with the question of privilege addressed yesterday by the Speaker. I believe that is very encouraging.

In fact, during the debate, a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs moved a motion. I understand there were concerns expressed last night with respect to that particular motion. However, another motion was moved, and I would like to share that motion with the House.

This motion was moved in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a), the Committee examine the subject matter of the Question of Privilege raised by the member for Milton regarding the free movement of Members within the Parliamentary precinct.

For clarification purposes, the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas gave notice of this motion yesterday, and it was ruled in order by the chair.

What we know for a fact is that the Speaker made a ruling yesterday and a debate ensued following that ruling. Then, according to our own rule book, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, a rule allowed us to go to orders of the day. There was no violation of our institution. We went to orders of the day and the day continued. Then, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs took it upon itself to deal with this. We should allow for the procedure and House affairs committee to do the fine work it does to address the issue.

With respect to the privilege that the member across the way raised, I understand and am sympathetic to what the member is talking about with respect to unfettered access. We, in government, agree with that. However, if the member were to look at our rules and procedures, he will find that what took place yesterday was in order. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is doing a fine job in trying to deal with this issue, and we should not attempt to usurp what the individual members of Parliament in that committee are attempting to do.

I believe the matter from yesterday will be addressed in a very timely fashion. As such, I do not believe that the member's question of privilege is valid, in the sense that the rules were followed yesterday that allowed us to go to orders of the day, and the issue that was raised yesterday is being dealt with at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

With those few thoughts, we are prepared to move forward to debate Bill C-25, if that is the desire of the House.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government firmly believes and agrees with the opposition that any instances of a member being impeded from attending the House of Commons, particularly for a vote, is an extremely serious situation that needs to be studied in detail.

Mr. Speaker, this morning you ruled that you believe there are sufficient grounds for finding a prima facie question of privilege. We support your findings.

The House has debated this important issue today, and I want to thank all members for their important contributions to this debate. However, I would like to draw to the attention of members what the consequences are of what the Conservatives have done with their amendment to their own motion. Their amendment seeks to direct the procedure and House affairs committee to drop whatever else it is working on. This amendment is highly unusual, and it has one purpose: to stop the procedure and House affairs committee from continuing the debate on the important issue of how we modernize the House of Commons. Our members on the committee have been hoping to debate the substance of these ideas, and this Conservative amendment is an attempt to block this important work.

We will not allow the Conservatives to play politics with the rights and privileges of members of Parliament. This is just too important. We will also not let them try to block a study on how we modernize the rules of the House of Commons. During the election campaign, we committed to modernizing Parliament and making it a 21st century workplace. As a direct result of the Harper government's approach to Parliament over the past 10 years, we promised Canadians we would bring a new approach to Ottawa to ensure their voices were also heard in this place. We will not allow the Conservatives to play politics with the rights and privileges of members of Parliament. This is just too important.

Therefore, the Liberal member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, who is a member of the procedure and House affairs committee, has today given notice of a motion that reads as follows: “That, the committee examine the question of privilege raised by the member for Milton respecting the free movement of members within the parliamentary precinct.” We look forward to this important debate at committee.

I believe we must now return to debating the important legislation scheduled for today, Bill C-25, which would help increase shareholder democracy and participation, and increase women's participation on corporate boards and in senior management. Therefore, I move:

That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, the bills on the agenda for the coming days are Bills C-25 on diversity in corporations, and C-17 on the Yukon.

I would like to note two things for next week.

Next week on Wednesday at noon, Malala Yousafzai will make an address to Parliament. Following the address, the House shall meet at 3 p.m. for statements by members and question period.

Last, for Thursday next week, the House will sit according to Friday hours.

[Members sang Happy Birthday ]

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is an honour and a privilege to stand to join the debate today. It is not exactly what I think most of us originally anticipated. Actually, I believed we would be talking about Bill C-25, a bill to modernize certain aspects of Canadian corporations, co-operatives, and the like. All the same, I am very proud to stand on behalf of the citizens of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

I have had some experience making a case to the Speaker of this chamber, asking for those views to be considered and receiving a response. Certainly, in the case of an Order Paper question, which I did not believe was answered factually or truthfully, I raised that directly with a Speaker. The Speaker came back and said that he had done a full examination of the issue. I felt it was a fair process. I felt heard, was happy to have had the opportunity, and was ready to move a motion. This was much the same as we saw this morning with the member for Milton, followed by an amendment from the member for Beauce, about their concerns with respect to the incident that happened on March 22.

Before I really get into my comments on this issue, I would like to address some of the concerns that were raised earlier, particularly by the member for Hull—Aylmer. He is perfectly capable of making those statements, as is the member for Elmwood—Transcona. It is important in a democracy that people can make their views known, and to have their constituents, as well as us, hear those words and be influenced by them.

However, before I begin to make any comments with respect to the motion or the amendment today, my comments do not undercut anyone involved. As a member of Parliament, sometimes we have to ask questions that may make others feel uncomfortable. Sometimes, as members of Parliament, we have to ask questions that may seem a little out of the box and may get a response from other people who are not necessarily happy with them.

I have complete faith in our security systems and the people who operate them. They are working within a system that is meant to protect us, not just our security but obviously to ensure Parliament can have those critical debates. However, like any system, sometimes hiccups happen. Sometimes it is a lack of training. Sometimes it is just a flood of events.

Speaking of a flood of events, I remember when the former member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada, Mr. Peter Stoffer, who is a fine and very genial individual, raised a concern in this place. We had a visiting dignitary, and he felt the security was disproportionate to the need and he was stopped. I believe he stood right behind where I sit today. He was given the chance to raise the concern. Regardless of whether the privilege was found to be in order and a prima facie case was found by the Speaker, by him standing up and raising it, it not only caused a discussion within this place but also a discussion among the officials who ran the systems to ensure members of Parliament were not impeded in the active consideration of and discharge of their duties.

That member made those concerns known, and I will give my personal opinion with respect to it. I was thinking that when we had a visiting dignitary, such as a president from another country, we expected there to be issues. Therefore, people should basically decide to make changes to their schedule to ensure things would go well. Personally, that is what I do. However, having now sat on the opposition side, I saw cases in the House where, and not yourself as the Chair, Mr. Speaker, the bearer of the title of Speaker in all things spoke to us and found prima facie cases of where members of Parliament were manhandled.

Since then, I have brought forward my own question of privilege. Therefore, my awareness of these things has increased. While a Speaker may not agree with Mr. Stoffer when he sat here as a member, or a Speaker did not agree with me, it made me feel my voice was heard and that we had a chance to deliberate and to think on our duties, and that is an important part of this conversation.

Again, I walk into this place with a great deal of respect. I also wear my ID wherever I go. The simple reason is that I want to make the job for those people who handle our security as efficient as possible. Despite all that, when we have members of Parliament who are unable to come to do the one thing that no one else can do, which is to stand in our places and vote yea or nay, or to abstain, then the voices of the people back home do not count.

Therefore, regardless of party, I would hope the members of the government and all members would agree we should stop, pause, and take note of it. Some members may take note of a particular motorcade was given as an explanation to the member for Beauce. Some may focus on a media bus. Some may focus on the fact that the prima facie case brought by the Speaker is enough for this place. We heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance say that more could be said. I am here to join that and to ensure we get as many views as possible and that when, as I really hope, this goes to PROC, my peers from parties on both sides of the House will be able to make representations, to hear witnesses.

Again, as a previous Speaker declared, and I am quoting from page 4 of the ruling, “The denial of access to Members of the House—even if temporary—is unacceptable and constitutes a contempt of the House.” A contempt of the House is a very serious thing. That is why we have committees, to bring people in to have an honest accounting from the different agencies. I asked questions specifically, saying that on page 2 the Speaker specifically laid out, “In fact, I have received two reports of the incident...Based on those reports”.

Again, we have a ruling that had an overall look at it, got some initial reports in, and said that there was a prima facie case. That is not being disrespectful of the Speaker. I would suggest it is asking if there could be more than just in a four-page summary. Absolutely I believe there could be, and that is why PROC can be there. It is not up to the Speaker to get into the intricate details. It is up to his or her peers and members of Parliament at the procedural and House affairs committee to examine these. It is the Speaker's job to say that there is a prima facie case. That is how our rules work, and they work very well.

The process we have set up is a good one. As many members have remarked, so many things happen on this precinct and the people working in it all want the same things. However, when these issues come up, where the member for Milton has said that she was unable to vote, we should take that very seriously.

How seriously should we take it? We should take it very seriously. In the centre of this room on the table is the mace. The mace represents your authority, Mr. Speaker, but it also represents the protection of your authority that is garnered through all our members. When it is here, it means the protection is here and that you are going to help us to coordinate our business.

That is because in some parts of our collective history some Speakers were not respected, and I am going back again to Great Britain hundreds of years ago. When Speakers would go to a monarch and say “Here's what the people have said about taxation”, they risked being beheaded or imprisoned, simply because the monarch of the day did not want to hear what the House of Commons, as it was back then, had to say.

I would just point out that we need to have safety for individual members as well as the proper processes that we trust our Speaker with to ensure those things are respected.

We have three forms of government: the executive, obviously embodied in the Prime Minister and his cabinet; the legislative function, which we are; and the judiciary.

I will read off the back under my card, which states, “Under the law of parliamentary privilege, the bearer has free and open access at all times without obstruction or interference to the precincts of the Houses of Parliament which the bearer is a member.” The reason why I raise this is the law. This is not just a simple privilege. This is actually law. We have the ability to say in this place that we will manage our own affairs. When members are somehow stopped through a process not of their own making, that is unreasonable, unreasonable meaning that the system or the people operating it stop them from fulfilling their functions, then it bears close examination. That is what the committee process is set up for, and I really hope government members will support that process.

There was an amendment proposed by the member for Beauce, and I will read in French:

That the motion be amended by adding the following: “and that the committee make this matter a priority over all other business including its review of the Standing Orders and Procedure of the House and its Committees.”

As we all know, that particular committee is seized with the issue of our rights. It is seized by the issue of how this place conducts itself. Some members on the government side do not want to hear those voices. They are not happy that the committee is seized with an issue of their own making. They are not happy that parliamentarians from various parties are standing up for those rights, not just our inherited rights but the rights that this place needs to maintain in order for those who come after us to enjoy. If those rights are not taken seriously in any place, whether it be in this House, the other chamber, or in our parliamentary committees, we have a problem.

The Liberal government says that it is all about discussion. Let us discuss members not being able to vote, things that are happening now that should not be happening. We understand that when things out of anyone's control happen, forgiveness is often given, explanations though should always be made.

Our primary responsibility is to scrutinize the spending of government, to authorize the spending of government. Supply is very important. When those concerns come up, we need to be able to deftly examine the issue and hear from the individuals responsible as well as their managers to give a proper accounting of what happened, what went wrong, what could be improved, and how this could be avoided in the future. Anything less is not taking those rights seriously.

We have heard Liberal government members say that they take this seriously. Good, let us take care of it now. Let us get this to PROC. Let us give the committee the ability to see the infringements of our rights and be able to right them. Maybe during that time some position of authority of the executive will have quiet conversations saying that they have been hearing from caucus members and opposition members, and that maybe the Liberals should change their minds on how they approach things.

Just like with Motion No. 6, maybe a little space on PROC to examine this issue would allow for some of those crucial conversations between those in authority, those who obviously have pushed to have their modernizing Parliament agenda at that committee. Maybe, like Motion No. 6, the Liberals will withdraw it, because they know that people on this side of the House are going to stand up, whether it be that inadvertently our rights were denied or whether this is a plan orchestrated to make life easier for those in power.

I believe that if we send this to PROC, perhaps those things might happen. I write to my constituents about those things, that there is a proposal to have us stop sitting on Fridays, that there is a proposal to pre-program motions so the government does not even need to move time allocation and just accepts it as being a default status quo, which is wrong. It is just as wrong as it is when members rise and say they were denied their rights to discharge.

Again, I believe that members of Parliament must be responsible. Obviously there are things that happen in day-to-day life where inadvertently those rights may be pushed, but members still have a right to come here, as Mr. Stoffer did, and to raise those concerns, and for those in positions of authority to hear the feedback from a member to make sure these things are being dealt with, that people are trained and knowledgeable about the very special institution we have.

I have no doubt that many members of the security service out there know more about the Criminal Code than I do, and I sat on the justice committee. I have no doubt. By the same token, they should also be versed in at least the basics of parliamentary procedure and our law, which again stands firm. We have the ability to make laws for how we conduct ourselves in this place. It is something that was hard fought for and maintained by your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, and through the Sergeant-at-Arms and his predecessors.

That is what I contend. I contend that this ruling is fair. I believe that had this ruling happened previously, the immediate result would have been that this would have gone to PROC right away so that the government could actually start moving forward and bring in its bills instead of getting lost in these things. However, it is interesting that we see a filibuster at the procedure and House affairs committee that the government does not want to interrupt with what the member for Milton and the member for Beauce have both said is an obvious issue that needs to be dealt with.

I just want again to thank the Speaker and his staff who definitely listen, who act quietly to ascertain the facts, to hear all of our voices, whether they be with the government or not, to ensure that this place always has a space to make sure that we are able to do our jobs. I humbly submit that if we support both the amendment and the motion, this will show faith in our parliamentary system and allow us to move forward. I plead with the government to have that conversation among its members asking if the way it is proceeding is good not just for the country but for this place, and whether this will, as the Rotarians like to say, build better friendships and a more fair use of our time.

Industry, Science and Technology

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology entitled “BillC-25, an Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Competition Act”.