Dominic LeBlanc Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
Part 1 enacts the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act , which establishes a statutory framework to remove federal barriers to the interprovincial trade of goods and services and to improve labour mobility within Canada. In the case of goods and services, that Act provides that a good or service that meets provincial or territorial requirements is considered to meet comparable federal requirements that pertain to the interprovincial movement of the good or provision of the service. In the case of workers, it provides for the recognition of provincial and territorial authorizations to practise occupations and for the issuance of comparable federal authorizations to holders of such provincial and territorial authorizations. It also provides the Governor in Council with the power to make regulations respecting federal barriers to the interprovincial movement of goods and provision of services and to the movement of labour within Canada.
Part 2 enacts the Building Canada Act , which, among other things,
(a) authorizes the Governor in Council to add the name of a project and a brief description of it to a schedule to that Act if the Governor in Council is of the opinion, having regard to certain factors, that the project is in the national interest;
(b) provides that determinations and findings that have to be made and opinions that have to be formed under certain Acts of Parliament and regulations for an authorization to be granted in respect of a project that is named in Schedule 1 to that Act are deemed to have been made or formed, as the case may be, in favour of permitting the project to be carried out in whole or in part;
(c) requires the minister who is designated under that Act to issue to the proponent of a project, if certain conditions are met, a document that sets out conditions that apply in respect of the project and that is deemed to be the authorizations, required under certain Acts of Parliament and regulations, that are specified in the document; and
(d) requires that minister, each year, to cause an independent review to be conducted of the status of each national interest project.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-5s:
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
Mr. Speaker, the CSN is also speaking out against Bill C‑5 and how it will impose energy projects on Quebeckers. The CSN said, and I quote:
The use of closure to pass Bill C‑5 is an undemocratic tactic supported by the Conservative Party of Canada that will open the door to irreversible mistakes...
I will repeat word for word the question that is troubling the CSN: If Bill C‑5 is so good for workers, why not take the time to study it properly?
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, June 21, is National Indigenous Peoples Day. Let us draw inspiration from the summer solstice and celebrate the cultures, languages, and contributions of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples from time immemorial to the present day, and especially to tomorrow and for the next seven generations.
This is also an opportunity to build relationships and talk about mutual respect, a conversation that was ignored with Bill C-5. This bill was designed so that Ottawa can impose energy projects on indigenous peoples and then inform them of already irreversible decisions through bogus consultations. In Bill C-5, the Liberals have replicated the condescending and colonialist attitude that the federal government had toward the first peoples in the last century.
Today, we will find out whether the Bloc Québécois's amendment will make it possible to correct the situation at the last minute because we want to remove the Indian Act from schedule 2 of the bill. Bill C-5 shows how indigenous peoples, but also all Quebeckers and Canadians who care about—
Voting Pattern for Report Stage of Bill C-5Points of OrderGovernment Orders
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order with respect to the upcoming votes at report stage on Bill C-5. Page 788 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states:
When the Speaker selects and groups motions in amendment, he or she also decides on how they will be grouped for voting, that is, the Speaker determines the order in which the motions in amendment will be called and the effect of one vote on the others. The purpose of the voting scheme is to obviate any requirement for two or more votes on the same issue.
The Speaker delivers his or her decision regarding the grouping of motions in amendment after the order for the consideration of report stage of the bill has been read. The Speaker informs the House of the motions in amendment that he or she has selected and grouped for debate, the voting arrangements, and, where applicable, the motions in amendment that have not been selected, stating the reasons for this. Speakers have sometimes intervened at a later stage of the debate to revise the selection and grouping for debate of the motions in amendment.
It is with respect to this latter point I am now rising. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, you have grouped Motions Nos. 18 and 19. Motion No. 18, sponsored by my Bloc Québécois colleague, seeks to add the Canada Labour Code to the list of laws that are carved out from the scope of clauses 21 and 22 of the proposed building Canada act, the so-called Henry VIII clauses in the bill. Motion No. 19, sponsored by the Green member, would seek to add the Species at Risk Act to that same list. One concerns workers' rights, and the other is environmental in nature. These are, I would suspect, very distinct policy fields and merit separate votes.
Moreover, on procedural grounds, I would note that the Species at Risk Act is already listed in the building Canada act's proposed schedule 2. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands had proposed a companion amendment in Motion No. 26, which would have removed it from the list, but this motion was not selected for debate today.
This means that the substantive effect of the motion concerning the Canada Labour Code, if adopted, would be that this law may never be added to schedule 2. On the other hand, the combined effect of the rulings on Motions Nos. 19 and 26, if Motion No. 19, respecting the Species at Risk Act, is adopted, would be that this law may not be added back to schedule 2, should it ever be removed by the Governor in Council at some point in the future.
In summary, Motions Nos. 18 and 19 are two separate motions proposed by members from two separate parties concerning very different subject matter and with two different procedural implications. In other words, separate votes on Motions Nos. 18 and 19 would not amount to two votes on the same issue.
Accordingly, I would respectfully submit that this is a textbook instance for the Chair to exercise the authority described in Bosc and Gagnon to revisit and revise the voting pattern established for the report stage of Bill C-5.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Speaker's ruling on the Bloc Québécois's motions in amendment at report stage of Bill C-5 states that Motions No. 2, 3, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 20, which I moved, seconded by the member for Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, would not be selected by the Chair because they could have been presented in committee.
In actual fact, they could not have been presented in committee because it was after midnight when we proceeded to clause-by-clause consideration. Since it was after midnight, we could no longer vote separately on the various clauses, so I could not force a vote on the clauses in question.
The purpose of these motions is to identify certain clauses on which the House must hold a separate vote.
I hope that you will reconsider your decision in light of this information.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order regarding the government's Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act.
Standing Order 69.1(1) states:
In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.
In the case of Bill C-5, the bill would enact two separate laws. Part 1 would establish the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and part 2 would create the building Canada act. As stated in Bill C-5, part 1, “establishes a statutory framework to remove federal barriers to the interprovincial trade of goods and services and to improve labour mobility within Canada.”
I want to pause here for a minute. A member just crossed in front of me twice as I was speaking, which is against the rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, I take it that you will note that for later on. I will continue on with my point of order.
Part 1 states, “It also provides the Governor in Council with the power to make regulations respecting federal barriers to the interprovincial movement of goods and provision of services and to the movement of labour within Canada.”
The purpose of part 1 is to remove domestic trade barriers. In other words, it is an act to promote free trade and labour mobility within Canada. This was reinforced in the Minister of Transport's speech in reference to part 1 of the bill, when she succinctly said, “This is why it is so essential for us to press ahead with a project that costs nothing and can be accomplished at the stroke of a pen, delivering...free trade in Canada.” She also stated, “Free trade in our own country is a great idea whose time has come.”
Part 2, on the other hand, would be established so that projects deemed to be of “national interest are advanced through an accelerated process”. It is about the development of large-scale projects and the following is stated in the bill:
The purpose of this Act is to enhance Canada’s prosperity, national security, economic security, national defence and national autonomy by ensuring that projects that are in the national interest are advanced through an accelerated process that enhances regulatory certainty and investor confidence, while protecting the environment and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples.
The government House leader, in his speech, stated, “Through the building Canada act, this bill will simplify federal review and approval processes for major infrastructure projects.” Part 2 of Bill C-5 has nothing to do with internal trade. These two parts of the bill should be treated as two separate bills.
In a ruling by Speaker Regan on March 1, 2018, he quoted the following: “The principle or principles contained in a bill must not be confused with the field it concerns. To frame the concept of principle in that way would prevent the division of most bills, because they apply to a specific field.”
The former House leader of the Bloc Québécois and former member for La Prairie—Atateken knew of this since it is from page 400 of Parliamentary Procedure in Québec.
Speaker Regan continued as follows:
While their procedure for dividing bills is quite different from ours, the idea of distinguishing the principles of a bill from its field has stayed with me. While each bill is different and so too each case, I believe that Standing Order 69.1 can indeed be applied to a bill where all of the initiatives relate to a specific policy area, if those initiatives are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate decision of the House.
We find ourselves in a similar situation here. While the measures in Bill C-5 are broadly related to Canada's economy, part 1 is distinct from part 2. Therefore, it would certainly be appropriate to divide part 1 and part 2 of this bill for the vote.
The Speaker has that authority, and that would make it possible for members to better represent their constituents by voting separately on these bills, which are quite different from one another.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to your ruling.
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, just two months ago, Canadians were fully tuned into an election campaign set against the backdrop of a tariff war and uncertainty about Canada's relationship with our largest trading partner. Looking for a solution, they saw a Liberal leader who claimed to be a fresh face, declaring that he would be different from the last decade of inaction on the nation-building projects that we desperately need. He said he would be a change in direction from the Liberal policies that made it impossible to get anything built in this country, the very policies that he championed as Trudeau's economic adviser.
Last night on Power Play, his House leader basically admitted that the previous system was too onerous and Canadians have voted them in to now do big projects, another admission of 10 years of intentional sabotage of our energy resources, which the world needs and asks for.
It is important to note that the roles of the provinces, territories and indigenous leaders need to be respected, and Canadian workers and investors need to be prioritized. I want to give a shout-out to the excellent work of the transport committee into the wee hours of this morning to agree to 13 significant amendments to Bill C-5 that provide oversight, access to information, conflict of interest compliance, timelines, consultations and protections that will increase the confidence of Canadians moving forward.
However, there is still a glaring failure that will continue to inhibit the restoration of our economy and growth to become the energy superpower that we must become. The “no new pipelines” law or Bill C-69, the shipping ban that applies only to vessels carrying oil and gas, the job-killing oil and gas production cap and the industrial carbon tax, which will raise the cost of everything on all projects, remain in place.
Giving a free pass to a few federally controlled projects obviously fails to generate the private sector growth that we need to restore powerful paycheques that should stimulate individual prosperity in every corner of this country long into the future. Sixteen major energy projects have been delayed or denied under the Liberal government, projects that could have brought in over $176 billion. These are not merely devastating numbers; these are lost paycheques, lost opportunities and lost hope for thousands of Canadian families.
Canadians overwhelmingly rejected political parties at election time that, time and again, refused to recognize the vital importance of our resources and the prosperity they create. However, the Liberal Bill C-5 would marginally improve our ability to move projects forward, and yes, Conservatives will support any measure, no matter how small, if it would help one single project break ground.
So far, Bill C-5 is largely a symbolic move to make minor improvements to interprovincial trade and regulatory clarity. It would provide clearer or more streamlined regulatory guidance for designated resources and infrastructure projects, but the Prime Minister will need to do more to free his dream projects from the existing laws he helped create to choke development. With Bill C-5, the overall environment for free market private sector development remains restrictive.
Meanwhile, it was Conservatives who put forward the only credible plan to reignite energy investment in Canada. Canadians need to know that we are still committed to our plan: to repeal Liberal anti-development laws and regulations that have cost them half a trillion dollars in lost investment over the last lost decade; to build a national energy corridor to rapidly approve and build critical infrastructure and end our dependence on the Americans; to create one-and-done approvals to accelerate priority resource projects through one application and environmental review; to scrap the industrial carbon tax; and to lower costs for Canadians while boosting our economy and allowing our companies to become competitive again with the U.S. We would repeal Bill C-69 and the west coast tanker ban to build the infrastructure needed to export our clean, responsible energy overseas.
The Prime Minister is known to have a fondness for Conservative ideas, although he has watered each one down, with a minuscule tax cut, a very confined GST break and a sleight-of-hand huge increase in carbon tax measures. For the sake of our country, those who go to work every day to power Canada and the world and those who desperately want to do so, I implore the Liberal government to continue to follow our lead. If not, we are on the doorstep.
Steven MacKinnon LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, that is a backhanded compliment if I ever heard one. I can think of one internal combustion engine that my hon. colleague could maybe come help me with, and I could go help him with his, and that is the lawnmower. We will be ripping the cord on that after a long session. We will be ripping the cord on the internal combustion lawnmower and getting caught up on some household duties.
I want to echo everything that my hon. colleague said and thank all the parliamentary staff, the Speaker, the clerks, all the personnel who support the table, the cafeteria, the food service staff and, of course, the PPS. I congratulate them on their 10th anniversary and echo everything said about the pages. I thank them for their service and thank them for their time here. We have been delighted to have them and wish them well as their studies progress.
I also want to thank the members of the official opposition, the official opposition chief whip and the opposition House leader.
I also want to thank the House leader of the Bloc Québécois and the whip of the Bloc Québécois. There is also the former whip whom I still see in the House, and I know that she is giving very good advice to her successor. I also thank the NDP and the Green Party and all their teams. There are a lot of people who support us in our respective roles, and that is very important.
I want to single one person out. I am sure the opposition House leader will indulge me.
I want to thank Sarah Leclair. Thank God she was there. I thank her for supporting the Liberal caucus, the Liberal government for these years. We wish her well as she relocates to another part of our great nation.
Returning to the matter at hand, this afternoon we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C‑3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. As per our solemn promise to the people of Canada, tomorrow we will begin the debate at report stage and at third reading of Bill C‑5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act, which hopefully will be delivered to Canadians in time for Canada Day, along with the income tax cut, which will benefit 22 million Canadians as of July 1.
I wish a happy Canada Day to our great country and all the people who call it home.
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, indigenous rights holders and civil society groups have been clear: Bill C-5 would violate constitutional rights, escalate the climate crisis and endanger workers' health and safety , but the Liberals and Conservatives are teaming up to pass the bill without proper consultations. The AFN, the ITK and NAN have indicated that it is an ungracious invitation to the Supreme Court. This will stall our economy and the creation of good jobs.
Will the Liberal government uphold its constitutional obligations and keep the bill out of the courts?
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal and Conservative coalition joined hands to fast-track Bill C-5 to bypass environmental reviews, ignore provincial jurisdiction and trample on the constitutional rights of indigenous peoples.
Ontario chiefs are rejecting Bill C-5. UBCIC Grand Chief Stewart Phillip called it a “complete betrayal of Canada’s commitments under the UN Declaration [on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples]”. The assembly unanimously condemned the bill and is calling for its immediate withdrawal. Chiefs across the country are saying, “nothing's off the table” if the bill is passed.
Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and withdraw Bill C-5?
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, the minister says she is speaking on behalf of workers, but perhaps she does not know that the Confédération des syndicats nationaux has spoken out against Bill C‑5.
If the Prime Minister were transparent about his assets, nobody would be asking these questions. Unfortunately, we have no other choice than to challenge the closure motion because the Prime Minister himself stands to benefit from this bill. He should be the first to demand a thorough study of Bill C-5. He should be the first to refuse to exempt developers, such as Brookfield, from laws by order in council. He should be the first to tackle any perceived conflict of interest.
Will he let Parliament do its job?
Mélanie Joly LiberalMinister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you who is proud of Bill C-5, and that is aluminum workers in Quebec, who are represented by 44 members of this government from Quebec. Steel workers in Ontario are also proud of this bill, since their jobs are currently at risk because of a tariff war with the Americans.
Rather than pointing fingers, the Bloc Québécois should acknowledge that we are in a tariff war and help us come up with solutions.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, guess who is thrilled about Bill C-5, apart from the Conservatives and the oil companies. Brookfield is thrilled. The Prime Minister's former firm is getting quite the assist from the Liberals. Brookfield owns a company that produces nuclear reactors. Bill C-5 deals with that. Brookfield owns natural gas processing plants. Bill C-5 deals with that. Brookfield own pipelines and has interests in the oil sands. Bill C-5 deals with that.
Is the Prime Minister imposing a gag order on Bill C-5 in order to please Brookfield shareholders of which he is one?
Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when talking about the connection between tariffs and bulldozer Bill C-5, two of the Prime Minister's colleagues responded by spewing nonsense, trying to come across as charming and funny, which they are not.
I do not believe that there is any connection between the tariff crisis and the time needed for Bill C-5 to eventually take effect.
I would like the economist and Prime Minister to explain the connection between the immediate tariff crisis and Bill C-5.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her election.
If this bill is passed, an injustice will certainly be corrected. Yes, these things take time. Sometimes, however, they do not take long enough. Would my colleague like to talk about Bill C‑5? It makes no sense. That kind of bill should take plenty of time. Unfortunately, the government decided otherwise.
That said, I believe that Bill C‑3 should be passed quickly, but it should still go through all the usual stages of a bill.
Alleged Misleading Minister Testimony in Committee of the Whole—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I am now ready to rule on the questions of privilege raised on June 11 by the member for Mirabel and on June 13 by the member for Lakeland concerning allegedly misleading statements made in committee of the whole.
The issues they brought forward relate to answers provided by the Minister of Finance and National Revenue during a meeting of the committee of the whole considering estimates on June 10 and by the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources on June 11, respectively.
As both questions pertain to answers provided by ministers during their questioning on estimates, they have been grouped for the purpose of rendering a decision.
In his intervention, the member for Mirabel alleged that the Minister of Finance and National Revenue intentionally misled the House by affirming in a response to a question that the Canada carbon rebate, issued as part of the federal carbon pollution pricing proceeds program during the election, was paid from funds collected by the program. He argued that the minister stated this, knowing that the timing of the Prime Minister's announcement to suspend the consumer portion of the program, and the issuing of the rebate weeks later during the election campaign, suggests that a different source was used to fund the rebate.
The Minister of Finance and National Revenue defended his response, denying having misled the House. According to the minister, he had responded in the negative to a question making an allusion to the buying of votes, not about the timing for the collection of funds.
For her part, the member for Lakeland contended that the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources had misled the House in denying that politicians would be empowered to select specific projects of national interest under Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act. According to the member, several provisions of the bill seem to contradict the minister’s responses, a text that he ought to have known. The member argued that the criteria used to determine whether a statement was deliberately misleading was met and that this situation amounted to contempt. Quoting from a ruling made by Speaker Rota on July 22, 2020, she ended her intervention by explaining the difficulties relating to questions of privilege arising in committees of the whole, due to their usual format as single-event bodies, which complicates the raising of such questions.
In response to this second question of privilege, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader provided a different interpretation of the exchange. He stated that the format of the committee of the whole is not designed to receive informed and contextualized answers. He argued that in no way did the minister deliberately mislead the House in responding to the member. The selection process in identifying projects will involve various consultations and will involve engagement with diverse groups. He apologized on behalf of the government for any confusion the debate may have caused.
As this is my first ruling on a question of privilege, and for the benefit of the members newly elected to this place, I will ask for their indulgence in reiterating and explaining some key concepts.
The Chair would like to first address what may seem to some as a technical element, namely, that the statements in question were made during proceedings in committee of the whole.
When the House resolves itself into a committee of the whole, it is, for all intents and purposes, functioning as a committee to consider a matter the House has referred to it. In this regard, the practice for raising questions of privilege emanating from a committee of the whole is the same as that of a standing, special or legislative committee. As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 157:
The Speaker will entertain a question of privilege in regard to a matter that occurred in a Committee of the Whole only if the matter has been dealt with first in the Committee of the Whole and reported accordingly to the House.
It also says, at pages 933 and 934:
The Chair [of the committee of the whole] has no authority to rule that a breach of privilege has occurred. The Chair hears the question of privilege and may receive and put a motion that certain events which occurred in the Committee should be reported to the House. If the Committee decides that the matter should be reported, then the Chair rises, the Speaker takes the Chair, and the Chair of the Committee reports the question of privilege. The Speaker then deals with the matter. If a prima facie case of privilege is found by the Speaker, a Member may move a motion dealing with the matter.
In his July 22, 2020, ruling, found on pages 2701 and 2702 of the Debates, to which the member for Lakeland briefly referred in her intervention, Speaker Rota acknowledged the challenge surrounding the committee of the whole format. He also highlighted the particular nature of the situation he had been asked to adjudicate. A chronological review of events shows that this specific question of privilege had been first raised in committee of the whole and taken under advisement by the Speaker, who was also chairing the committee. It is also worth mentioning that an order of the House was limiting the committee's ability to consider and report on questions of privilege. These exceptional circumstances had led to Speaker Rota's decision to rule on the matter, even though no report had been presented by the committee of the whole.
The Chair recognizes that there may sometimes be challenges with the committee of the whole format, in particular during the consideration of estimates. They, however, do not exempt members of their obligation to raise their concerns there first. The two cases presented last week by the members for Mirabel and Lakeland are no exception to this rule and are not akin to the 2020 precedent.
That being said, the Chair nonetheless reviewed whether the specifics of the two present questions of privilege would warrant a deviation from our normal practice and considered the points raised by the members on their merits before discarding them on technical grounds.
Accusing a member of having misled the House is quite serious as it may touch on their integrity. The threshold for determining if it constitutes a prima facie question of privilege is therefore very high. There must be little or no doubt left as to the validity of the claim made.
The members for Mirabel and Lakeland rightfully referred to three criteria the Chair assesses when dealing with such allegations, namely, whether the statement is in fact misleading, whether the member making the statement knew it to be incorrect and, in making the statement, whether the member intended to mislead the House.
Disagreements over facts, or how they are presented, are not uncommon in our proceedings, and members often believe that responses they receive from the government either are not correct or contradict other information they have. However, a perception of incorrect statements is not equal to a clear and deliberate intention to mislead the House.
As Speaker Regan indicated on May 18, 2017, at page 11389 of the Debates:
As members will know, the exchange of information in this place is constantly subject to varying and, yes, contradictory views and perceptions. This, of course, heightens the risk that, inadvertently, a member making a statement may be mistaken, or, in turn, that a member listening may misunderstand what another has stated.
The Chair acknowledges the dissatisfaction members expressed about the responses they received in committee of the whole. After all, the consideration of estimates is an essential accountability exercise, but taking into account the explanations provided by the minister and the parliamentary secretary, there indeed seems to be a dispute as to the facts.
If every disagreement is to be raised as a question of privilege, the House would spend its time doing little else. There are many opportunities in our debates for members to challenge each other on the facts of a particular case, and that is the correct way of dealing with such disagreements. For there to be a prima facie question of privilege, members must also present some evidence of a deliberate attempt to mislead. I have not seen any such evidence in this case.
Furthermore, and before closing, as Speaker, I am bound to accepting members at their word, a long-standing tradition of this place. As one of my predecessors, the current Leader of the Opposition, indicated on April 29, 2015, at page 13198 of the Debates:
as your Speaker, I must take all members at their word. To do otherwise, to take it upon myself to assess the truthfulness or accuracy of Members' statements is not a role which has been conferred on me, nor that the House has indicated that it would somehow wish the Chair to assume, with all of its implications.
Accordingly, the Chair does not find there to be prima facie questions of privilege in either case.
I thank all members for their attention.