Debates of June 19th, 2023

Bill C-42—Time Allocation Motion

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, I am the only member in this chamber who participated in the amendment stage of Bill C-42. I will point out that we worked in good faith with all members of this House of Commons to put forward common-sense amendments to the legislation.

The hour before we had clause-by-clause, we had some of the most critical witnesses appear on this bill. They were from Transparency International. One of their key recommendations, in the hour before we had the amendment stage, was to adopt language from Bill 20, the Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2023, of British Columbia, which would have strengthened the provisions in the legislation regarding identity, specifically noting, “The records, information or proof must be provided under subsection (1) in the prescribed form and manner.” It also would have required that the bill strengthen the ability of the director of Corporations Canada to receive information on identity and citizenship so the bill could work clearly.

What is problematic in this case is that we wanted to bring forward good amendments. The NDP even brought good amendments forward, but the government voted against them simply because it had witnesses appear the hour preceding clause-by-clause. If we are going to have good legislation, we cannot have a parliamentary practice where witnesses appear the hour before. We limited ourselves from making the bill as good as it could have been simply because of that tactic by the government.

No, we have not stalled on the bill. We have worked in good faith to get the best legislation possible for Canadians, even to achieve the government's objectives of better interoperability, better standards and better threshold requirements. However, unfortunately, the government voted against all that and is now bringing in closure at the last minute instead of getting the bill right.

Whatever has been said by the minister and the parliamentary secretary so far has been false. We have been there to move the legislation along, and the government has used tactics to delay work to get the best clauses possible and to improve it in good faith for all Canadians.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for his passion on this bill.

I know the committee worked very hard on this bill. I know there was a lot of back-and-forth on this bill. I know there were a lot of amendments on this bill, including amendments, as he mentioned, on which the Conservatives and the NDP agreed. A number of those amendments were accepted and a number of them were not after robust debate. It was a healthy process. I thank the hon. member for having participated in it.

What we have as a result is a balanced bill. It is the first bill that balances the need to get certain things on the record and on the register, like identity, citizenship and other elements, against privacy, working with other jurisdictions and with other mechanisms of inquiry within the Canadian government, which will have access to that information. Then there is the public facing part of the register for anyone to have access to some of the information on that register.

It is a series of balances, and I am sorry the hon. member does not agree with all of the balances that were finally agreed to before we reached this stage. However, I thank him for the work he has done, and I thank all members of this House for the work they have done, because the bill was amended in order to get here and was amended through the hard work of hon. members at committee.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my party's whip made what I felt was a mature comment. In my opinion, her comment did not receive a fitting response. I will therefore pick up where she left off.

We said that the Bloc Québécois supported the bill. The answer is yes, of course. That is not the issue. The issue is the repeated gag orders and backroom deals, as I will call them. It is high time that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons started talking with the opposition House leaders. We need to have a constructive discussion, gather all these fine people together in an office and talk about ways to manage the House in the lead-up to the summer break, so that the game-playing stops.

I have denounced the Conservative filibustering many times, but it comes from somewhere. It comes from the repeated use of closure motions, the lack of communication, even the choice of dates for opposition days. I think we can and should work like adults. I urge the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to meet with the other House leaders to talk things out so that we can get some constructive work done and rise for the summer on a high note, because this is hurting everyone. It is hurting our constituents most of all, because bills are not getting passed.

Does the minister think this is a good idea, and will he talk to his House leader?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the House leaders of the other parties meet at least once a week, if not every day, to discuss House procedure and practice. I can assure my colleague that we are not the ones blocking the business of the House. It is the Conservatives.

The Conservatives change their minds at every turn. They are moving dilatory motions every day, as we saw again today. We cannot have agreements that keep getting broken by an opposition party. We have no choice but to invoke closure so that we can serve the Canadian public by enacting legislation, which is our job.

We are not afraid of debate. We want debate, and we want the other parties to be able to propose amendments. What we do not want, however, are pointless tactics whose sole purpose is to slow down or block legislation. This is unacceptable.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to share some things that happened in my riding this weekend and why it is so important that in this chamber, we understand how our decisions impact people on the ground.

On Friday, a caller from outside of my riding, from Victoria, phoned in and said they considered taking their life on Wednesday of last week. It was only because the House passed Bill C-22 that they felt hope. That kept them going.

On Sunday, I was at a community event and a similar situation happened. A woman approached me and said that if it was not for the support of her family and her parents around her as she managed the system of income supports for the disability she is dealing with right now, she would have taken her life by now.

Today, the newspaper in British Columbia talked about 100,000 renting families being at risk of losing their home in our community. Some of that is due to corporate ownership of housing.

I wonder if the member opposite would share some of the impacts of being able to get work done in this House. That matters to people on the ground. As we talk about our privilege, we are not at risk of losing our housing and we are not at risk of not having coverage when we get a disability. People in Canada are. It actually turns my stomach and makes me feel a little ill to think that we would sit here while people consider taking their life because we do not want to advance legislation.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sharing the stories and narratives from people in her riding. It is very important that we remind ourselves exactly what the impact of obstructionism does in this place.

I have a constituent who constantly texts me about the progress of Bill C-22. It is a bill that I have supported from the beginning. She is living with a disability. She too is waiting for us to get the job done. I have supported the minister proposing that bill in every way I possibly can, formally and informally. It would wipe out a swath of poverty. I am hoping the letter that goes to the Senate will be accepted by the other place so we can put that in place.

I mentioned the example of Glen Assoun a moment ago and Bill C-40, another important bill that I have put forward to correct miscarriages of justice in the Canadian system. They exist; mistakes happen. However, this is a way to correct them more efficiently, more effectively and with greater access. I am sad that Glen Assoun, who worked for this result, did not live to see this bill get through Parliament.

I am hoping that we can eliminate all of these various delays so we can debate, as the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon wants us to do, the substance without all the other tactics that just grind this place to a halt.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by recognizing that there are plenty of partisan games being played in our Parliament right now and that the governing party has every right to advance its legislative agenda.

When it comes to limiting debate on Bill C-42, though, we just began it last sitting day. I believe there have been four speeches so far. That is fewer than the number of parties represented in this House. If we take a further step back, this is the eighth time that debate will be limited since May 1. In fact, I could only find four instances where we have not had debate limited.

Is it not a concern to the minister and others in the governing party that by moving forward in this way and by mismanaging the agenda to this extent, it is enshrining an approach that allows others to do the exact same thing when are be power?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I share that frustration, but this bill has been in gestation for a number years with respect to the background work, the research work and the consultation work that have been done on it. There has been a robust committee study of the bill, and there is a widespread degree of support, in substantive terms, for the major provisions in this bill. They cut across party lines. They also cut across governments and levels of government across Canada. Everyone is moving in sync in the same direction.

We need to pass this bill. It will help us in the fight against money laundering, which Canada is sadly becoming a host to. They call it “snow washing”. The bill would help us in that area and in many other areas. As I mentioned before, it would also give us better corporate governance. It is worth the effort to get it through right now.

To be honest, the other side will put up speaker after speaker with the same speaking notes saying the same thing over and over again. That is not debate. Debate is about cut and thrust and actually responding to things that have been said. Repeating the same speech over and over again does not amount to that.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a few things come to mind as the government once again drops the hammer on closure. There are three things in particular.

We are starting to see a decline in our democracy and the relevance of its institutions, and I take offence to what the Minister of Justice said with respect to debate. It is from debate, from the diverse ideas that come from right across the country, that we are able to produce good legislation. The challenge that we have now is that the government wants an audience, not an opposition.

I will remind the minister that in September 2021, the Liberal government was voted in with a minority, and if not for the coalition agreement the Liberals have with the NDP, this legislation would be further debated. However, instead, the government House leader does not speak to the leader of the official opposition and does not speak to the Bloc. It just does an end-around to the NDP House leader and says, “Look, I want to invoke closure and this is what we are going to do.” They are ramming this legislation through.

This is Parliament, which is from parler, or to talk. We debate diverse ideas from right across the country, and anything but that is happening in this place.

Canadians are taking notice. I get a lot of eastern Europeans come to me in my office and say that they saw the same thing happen in their countries, this decline in democracy, this rise of authoritarianism, the government wanting an audience, not an opposition. Canadians are taking notice. Those people who come into my office say this: “Don't let what happened in my country happen to Canada, because it is.”

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the rise in populism is something the Leader of the Opposition, for example, constantly promotes by either handing out coffee to convoy protesters or using misogynistic hashtags in his publications online. That kind of thing is exactly what people in eastern Europe and others are complaining about.

I am open to debate. I believe debate has to be wide, varied and diverse. However, repeating the same topic and the same dilatory tactics over and over again is not debate by any stretch of the imagination.

What we would like is a focus on the issues, and when the official opposition is ready to do that, we will do that too. However, for the time being, we are going to debate with the NDP and the the Bloc moving forward in good faith, as well as members from the Conservative Party moving forward in good faith. That is what we have to do while others in that party try to slow everything down.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on my concern earlier that instead of debate, we are seeing one long whinefest from the Conservatives about how their feelings have been hurt.

I will follow up on what the previous Conservative said, which I thought was very interesting. He did not want authoritarianism to come to Canada, yet the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan invited to our Parliament one of the legislators who voted to bring the death penalty to LGBTQ people. Think about that for a moment. The Conservative Party is supporting those in authoritarian jurisdictions who would put to death people because of their sexual orientation. We learned about that at the same time that the Conservatives are putting out anti-gay hate mailings in an election. This is their election strategy.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague this. How important is it that Canada send a message to the world that, despite the efforts of the Conservative backbench, we will not go down the road of Uganda or any of the other authoritarian countries, like Russia, that are attacking LGBTQ rights, and that everybody's right to be who they are will be protected? That is actually the fundamental principle of freedom. We as New Democrats will fight for that any day of the week, regardless of what the Conservative backbench will do with their authoritarian friends.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I share with the hon. member the deep desire to protect all of our citizens and to work around the world so that we protect the rights of LGBTQ+ people in Canada and around the world, allow them to live in peace and dignity and allow them to flourish as human beings. That is part of the responsibility that we all have.

I was particularly proud to have introduced a bill in this country banning the torture-like practice of conversion therapy and I was proud to have gotten, in a shining moment, unanimous consent in this House. I really want to thank Erin O'Toole for the support that he gave with respect to that bill. That was critically important.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is rising on a point of order.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we all know very well that we cannot refer to sitting members of this House of Commons by their name. It is the member for Durham.

[An hon. member]

He resigned.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I do not think the paperwork has been sent in. It is apparently at the end of this session.

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I thank the hon. member for having corrected me.

Just to complete that point, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Durham for the leadership that he showed. However, after that, we have seen not just across Canada but around the world a serious rise in anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, laws and measures. It is something, therefore, of increased importance and increased relevance. We need to stand up and show our very colourful colours in standing up for the LGBTQ+ community and standing with them in order that their rights are protected.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. A member of the NDP just made some verifiably false claims about me. In the interest of preserving reality in this House, it is important to note that I think he refers to a case in which a female opposition legislator was invited by the foreign affairs committee, not by me, to appear and provide testimony on a different study, and during the course of the discussion, I specifically said on the record at that time that I oppose the new law proposed in Uganda by the government, not by the opposition.

The member clearly does not know the basic facts of this situation, since he referred to the individual in question as a “he”. He said the person was invited by me, when in fact that was not the case, and he is unaware of the testimony that was provided, in which multiple members of the committee at the time, even though it was not the subject of the study, expressed their opposition to Uganda's new law.

Therefore, I would encourage the member to take seriously his own reputation and to not say obviously verifiably false things in the House. I know he says a lot of nonsense here, but I think he can do a little better.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I will concede that I got the pronoun wrong, and certainly the Conservatives noted that, but we will also note that the Conservative member did invite that person and that this person did vote for the death penalty. Anyone who plays with that kind of politics should be ashamed of themselves, and the rest of the record stands.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I would say that is a good point of clarification and not a point of order, and I want to thank the members for their interventions.

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote, please.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Call in the members.

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

Vote #384

Canada Business Corporations Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

Business of the House

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Orders, special order or usual practice, the House now proceed to Statements by Members followed by Oral Questions and that the usual allotment of time be accorded for each rubric.