House of Commons Hansard #117 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was content.

Topics

The EnvironmentOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

North Vancouver B.C.

Liberal

Jonathan Wilkinson LiberalMinister of Environment and Climate Change

Mr. Speaker, the focus is on addressing affordability concerns in the context of actually working to reduce carbon emissions from all sources.

The $5,000 subsidy is focused very much on enabling homeowners to retrofit their homes, to increase energy efficiency, to reduce carbon emissions and to ultimately reduce their energy bills. That is certainly an element of a broader program to address the crisis that is climate change in a manner that will enable economic progress.

Indigenous AffairsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT

Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced the appointees to the first Office of the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages.

The Indigenous Languages Act is historic and demonstrates this government's commitment to support the efforts of indigenous people to reclaim, revitalize, maintain and strengthen indigenous languages. The establishment of the Office of the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages achieves a concrete milestone in the implementation of the act.

Could the minister tell us how the commissioner and the directors will support the efforts of indigenous peoples?

Indigenous AffairsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Laurier—Sainte-Marie Québec

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Northwest Territories for his tireless advocacy on this issue.

Language is at the heart of cultural identity. It shapes who we are and our perspective. When we speak our language, we share stories, pass on knowledge and create bonds for generations.

This morning, I had the pleasure and honour to announce the appointment of Commissioner Ronald Ignace and directors Joan Greyeyes, Georgina Liberty and Robert Watt to the very first Office of the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages. This is a historic day. I have every confidence that the office will bring exceptional strength that will effectively support the aspiration of indigenous people—

Indigenous AffairsOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

HealthOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

Mr. Speaker, here we are in National Blood Donor Week, again, with the ban on blood donations from gay men, men who have sex with men, and trans women still in place. As always, I continue to call on friends and family to step up and donate in the place of those of us who remain banned.

On Friday, the Liberals lost in federal court in their attempt to have themselves excluded from responsibility for the ban. The Minister of Health claims she is waiting for Canadian Blood Services and Héma-Québec to give her a recommendation to lift the ban.

On what date did she explicitly request a new policy from CBS and Héma-Québec, and what deadline did she give them for a response?

HealthOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Thunder Bay—Superior North Ontario

Liberal

Patty Hajdu LiberalMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member opposite that there is no place for discrimination against the community.

It is important that we continue to press on. We have done more in the last five years than had been done in the previous 10. Of course, until 2013, Canada had a lifetime restriction on blood donation from men who have sex with men. In 2019, it was reduced to three months.

There is more to do, and we will continue to push Canadian Blood Services and Héma-Québec until we can end this practice.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Independent

Jody Wilson-Raybould Independent Vancouver Granville, BC

Mr. Speaker, recent rumblings over the Constitution are not without significance, causing some to ask if we are necessarily heading towards renewed constitutional talks.

If so, the environment must be top of mind. In 2008, Ecuador's Constitution gave nature legally enforceable rights to exist, flourish and evolve, the first country to do so. In 2014, Te Urewera, the home of the Tūhoe people, became the first natural feature in New Zealand to be recognized as a legal person with rights.

Like New Zealand, and prior to any possible constitutional change, will the government consider granting legal personhood to significant natural features in Canada?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard—Verdun Québec

Liberal

David Lametti LiberalMinister of Justice

Mr. Speaker, our government has recognized the importance of preserving the environment, fighting greenhouse gas emissions and fighting global warming. It is a priority, as my colleagues in that ministry have put before the House, and we have fought that battle all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

We will look at all options. I am not going to commit to any specific thing suggested by the hon. member, but I thank her for her question, and we certainly will always consider all options that will help us advance the cause of fighting climate change.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

That is all the time we have today for question period.

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Malpeque.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a personal point of privilege. I will not take much of the House's time because I know that time is very precious in this place. However, I believe strongly that it is in this place, the House of Commons, that announcements that affect members should be made.

Today, I am announcing that I will not be re-offering as the candidate in the riding of Malpeque in the next federal election. Tomorrow evening, I will be joining with others not running for speeches and to give heartfelt thanks.

As members know, the election is scheduled for October 2023, but rumours abound there may be one before then. Certainly, the media seems to be pushing that rumour. On the off chance that an election is held before then, I want to give others ample time to consider representing my party in the riding of Malpeque.

It is close to 28 years since I was first elected to this chamber, and when there in person, I am always in awe of its traditions, its history and the opportunity it provides for members to have a say in the legislative mandate and governance of this country.

I am proud to be a Canadian. Yes, there have been moments, as recent events showed, that none of us are proud of in our history. However, I do believe we learn and move forward. We are recognized as one of the best places to live in the world. As stated in our daily prayers, we have the “freedom, opportunity and peace that we enjoy.”

It has been my honour to work with and serve the residents of Malpeque for nine terms. I am thankful for the opportunity to say these few words, and I will join with others tomorrow evening.

The House resumed from June 10 consideration of Government Business Motion No. 8, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

It being 3:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the subamendment of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands to the amendment to the motion to extend the sitting hours of the House.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #141

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I declare the amendment to the amendment carried.

The next question is on the amendment as amended.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The member for Kingston and the Islands.

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a recorded division.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #142

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I declare the amendment as amended carried.

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The next question is on the main motion, as amended.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion as amended be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a recorded division.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #143

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I declare the motion as amended carried.

Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in relation to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report it back to the House with amendments.

Admissibility of Amendments in the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian HeritagePoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

The point of order concerns the report that was just tabled: the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage respecting Bill C-10. I would respectfully submit that several of the amendments contained in that fifth report must be struck out because the committee exceeded its authority.

Last Monday, June 7, the House adopted a time allocation motion limiting committee deliberations to only five further hours. The part of the House's order that is relevant to this point of order says, at pages 104.3 and 104.4 of the Journals:

That, at the expiry of the time provided in this order for the committee stage, any proceedings before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on the said bill shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

At the committee's second meeting, on Thursday, June 10, those five hours had expired and the Canadian heritage committee proceeded to the disposal of the committee stage of the bill, in accordance with the House's order.

The chair of the committee, the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, informed the committee that, by the terms of the House's order, the amendments that had been placed on notice could not be moved and therefore could not be voted upon by the committee. The Liberal-Bloc-NDP majority on the committee, however, then overturned the chair's ruling, thereby forcing the committee to consider these amendments without any debate, without any opportunity to question expert witnesses from the department of Canadian Heritage and without any opportunity to hear the wording of the amendment read aloud.

Those events are recorded in the relevant minutes of proceedings for the committee's second meeting on June 10. The amendments subsequently considered by the committee are recorded in those minutes of proceedings, as well, for the committee's meeting on Friday, June 11. Both sets of minutes, as noted in the comment in the fifth report immediately preceding the chair's signature, have been laid upon the table, among others.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition says, at page 779:

Since a committee may appeal the decision of its Chair and reverse that decision, it may happen that a committee will report a bill with amendments that were initially ruled out of order by the Chair. The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on his or her own initiative.

That is why I am rising today on this point of order. In overturning the committee chair's ruling and forcing amendments that had not been properly moved to be voted upon, I respectfully submit that the committee exceeded its authority by contradicting the House's order, which required that “every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.”

To be clear, the questions necessary to dispose of the clause by clause consideration of the bill are questions on the clauses themselves, not amendments that have simply been placed on notice.

The Chair has previously considered a similar case, from which I believe in the current circumstances a distinction may be drawn.

On November 29, 2012, Mr. Speaker, one of your predecessors, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, made a ruling at page 12,609 of the Debates, concerning the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance respecting Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012. In that case, the committee had adopted a time-tabling motion concerning its study of the bil. It contained language that was similar to that which the House adopted last week in its time allocation motion concerning Bill C-10.

In the case of the finance committee, the chair made a similar ruling to the one made by the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame and, again, the committee had overturned that ruling.

Following a point of order in the House concerning the finance committee's report on the former Bill C-45, the former Speaker did not set aside the committee's report on the bill. The distinction between these two cases, I would argue, is that the finance committee was interpreting a motion that the committee itself had adopted. In the current case, seven members of the Canadian heritage committee substituted their own judgment for how an order of this House, voted upon by the entire House, should be interpreted.

We often refer to committees as masters of their own proceedings, but Bosc and Gagnon put that in a very important context at pages 1057 and 1058, which state:

The concept refers to the freedom committees normally have to organize their work as they see fit and the option they have of defining, on their own, certain rules of procedure that facilitate their proceedings.

These freedoms are not, however, total or absolute. First, it is useful to bear in mind that committees are creatures of the House. This means that they have no independent existence and are not permitted to take action unless they have been authorized or empowered to do so by the House.

While the case of former Bill C-45 was of a committee majority preferring its own interpretation of a committee motion, the current case of Bill C-10 is of a committee majority seeking to override the House's instruction. It was, to borrow the words of Bosc and Gagnon, taking an action that it was authorized or empowered by the House to do. Therefore, I would respectfully submit that the amendments made to clauses 8 through 47 of Bill C-10 must be ruled out of order and therefore struck from the fifth report.

I would further ask that the committee's consideration of amendments after the proceedings had been interrupted under the provisions of the time allocation order be disregarded by the Chair for the purposes of applying the note attached to Standing Order 76(1)(5) respecting the criteria considered by the Chair in the selection of motions at the report stage.

I do not make this point of order lightly. In fact, one of those amendments that I refer to was sponsored by my own party and several others were voted for by my colleagues, but that is beside the point. Our rules must be followed. Parliamentary procedure is not a body of play pretend rules that can just be set aside at the first moment of inconvenience. It does not matter whether these flawed decisions were taken by majority vote or even with unanimity because the rules of the House must be followed.

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, in a different ruling on May 1, 2014, at page 4787 of the Debates, concerning Bill C-30, the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, found that amendments that were adopted by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, without procedural objection and without dissent, had to be struck from the bill because the committee had acted outside of its authority in adopting them, commenting:

The Chair has no difficulty agreeing with the parliamentary secretary that the amendment is relevant to the subject matter of the bill. Indeed, as a fellow Saskatchewan MP who represents a large number of grain producers, I can certainly agree on the importance of this issue. As Speaker, however, not only can I not simply act according to my personal beliefs, I must respect House of Commons precedents which, in the case before us, are only too clear.

The correct place to put forward the amendments to clauses 8 through 47 of Bill C-10, in light of the proper application of a time allocation order, is at the report stage here on the floor of the House.

Additionally, and in the alternative to the matter I have already raised, I would also draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the amendment known as amendment LIB-9.1 that was made by the Canadian heritage committee to clause 23. The Chair ruled the particular amendment out of order for exceeding the scope of the bill and that it breached the so-called “parent act” rule, which is explained by Bosc and Gagnon at page 771, by proposing to amend a section of the Broadcasting Act which was not touched by the provisions of Bill C-10. The committee, however, voted to overturn the Chair's ruling in that regard as well.

In that particular case, the Chair may simply have to regard the fifth report and note that the amendment on its face does something which the committee was not permitted to do and therefore should be ruled out of order and struck from the fifth report.

The solution for the government here is, like the case of the former Bill C-30, to propose an amendment at third reading to recommit Bill C-10 to the Canadian heritage committee so it may, once properly instructed and empowered, make Liberal-9.1 amendment in the proper manner.

Admissibility of Amendments in the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian HeritagePoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I thank the hon. member for his point of order. I will be returning quickly with a decision prior to the report stage of that report.