Debates of June 19th, 2023

Upcoming Opposition Day

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order with respect to the upcoming opposition day, which is also the final allotted day in the current supply period, the day when we consider the estimates and appropriation bills.

Multiple notices of opposition to votes in the main estimates and the supplementary estimates appear on today's Notice Paper, meaning that subparagraph (c)(i) of the special order adopted on November 15, 2022, sometimes referred to as the midnight sitting orders, will need to be applied. It states:

(i) during consideration of the estimates on the last allotted day of each supply period, pursuant to Standing Orders 81(17) and 81(18), when the Speaker interrupts the proceedings for the purpose of putting forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the estimates,

(A) all remaining motions to concur in the votes for which a notice of opposition was filed shall be deemed to have been moved and seconded, the questions deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested,

(B) the Speaker shall have the power to combine the said motions for voting purposes, provided that, in exercising this power, the Speaker be guided by the same principles and practices used at report stage.

While the House has, in recent years, adopted special orders with provisions to this effect, it appears that this week's opposition day would be the first time the Chair might be called upon to interpret and apply the unprecedented provisions found in clause (c)(i)(B).

I am rising today to make representations in advance of your likely ruling, bearing in mind the words of Mr. Speaker Milliken from March 21, 2001, at page 1991 of the Debates, following an amendment in Standing Order 76.1(5), which state:

...from time to time when the House adopts new procedures, Speakers have seen fit to address the manner in which they will be implemented. Often this occurs when a certain amount of latitude or discretion is given to the Chair. In enforcing new procedures, the Speaker acts as a servant of the House, not as its master.

Therefore, in order that these new procedures function properly, I see it as my duty to make a statement on their operation now, before the House is seized with a bill at report stage.

In short, I do not believe the principles and practices of the report stage on legislation lend themselves well to the principles and practices necessary for the appropriations process, but allow me to explain.

First, I think we ought to put the estimates and opposed items into some context so that the House understands the situation at hand. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition explains, at page 864:

The main estimates provide a breakdown by department and program of planned government spending for the upcoming fiscal year. The estimates are expressed as a series of votes, or resolutions, which summarize the estimated financial requirements in a particular expenditure category, such as operations, capital or grants The votes are expressed in dollar amounts, the total of which, once agreed to, should satisfy all the budgetary requirements of a department or agency in that category, with the exception of any expenditures provided for under other statutory authority. Each budgetary item, or vote, has two essential components: an amount of money and a destination (a description of what the money will be used for).

Then, continuing at page 881, Bosc and Gagnon explain opposed items:

...any Member may give notice to oppose any item in the estimates before the House; such items are then referred to as opposed items in the estimates....Members give notice of opposed items to express opposition to the total amount of a vote or to a specified portion of that amount. A notice to oppose an item in the estimates is not a motion. Because the government may propose in one motion the concurrence in all the votes in the estimates, the notice to oppose an item is rather a mechanism by which Members force the government to propose a separate motion for the concurrence in each vote that is the subject of total or partial opposition. The wording of the general concurrence motion is then changed to exclude those votes.

It is essential for us not to lose sight of the supply process, which is not just some dusty, boring accounting exercise. The control of the purse is rooted in centuries of constitutional evolution dating back to the earliest parliaments and assemblies in England over 800 years ago. These historic origins are best summed up by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. In its sixth report, tabled in June 2012, at page 3, it states:

The principles underlying Canadian parliamentary financial procedures go back to the Magna Carta, signed by King John of England in 1215. When the King was not able to finance most public expenses out of his own revenues, he was obliged to seek funds by summoning the common council of the realm, or Parliament, to consider what taxes and tariffs should be supplied to support the Crown. It was generally recognized that, when “aids” or “supplies” were required, the King should seek consent not only to impose a tax, but also for the manner in which the revenues from that tax might be spent. In 1295, the writ of summons for one of these councils proclaimed: “What touches all should be approved by all.”

Bosc and Gagnon, at page 824, explain that:

The direct control of national finance has been referred to as the “great task of modern parliamentary government”. That control is exercised at two levels. First, Parliament must assent to all legislative measures which implement public policy and the House of Commons authorizes both the amounts and objects or destination of all public expenditures.

Josef Redlich offers some further historical context, at page 114 of volume 3 of the The Procedure of the House of Commons: A Study of Its History and Present Form, which states:

The whole law of finance, and consequently the whole British constitution, is grounded upon one fundamental principle, laid down at the very outset of English parliamentary history and secured by three hundred years of mingled conflict with the Crown and peaceful growth. All taxes and public burdens imposed upon the nation for purposes of state, whatsoever their nature, must be granted by the representatives of the citizens and taxpayers, i.e., by Parliament.

That struggle was not isolated to the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Bosc and Gagnon, at pages 11 and 12, remind us:

There was, however, endless conflict between the appointed governors and the elected representatives over who should control public spending (supply) and who should appoint public officials (the Civil List)....

Ultimately, discontent led to rebellions in both Upper and Lower Canada during the period 1837–38.

With the adoption of responsible government in Canada, the most acute conflicts simmered down, and established practices took root. Bosc and Gagnon note, at pages 826 and 827:

The manner in which Canada deals with public finance derives from British parliamentary procedure as practised at the time of Confederation. The financial procedures adopted by the Canadian House of Commons in 1867 were formed by the following principles, [including]...

that all legislation sanctioning expenditure or initiating taxation is to be given the fullest possible discussion, both in the House and in committee.

Bosc and Gagnon elaborate on this at page 834:

The cardinal principle governing Parliament’s treatment of financial measures was that they be given the fullest possible consideration in committee and in the House. This was to ensure that “parliament may not, by sudden and hasty votes, incur any expenses, or be induced to approve of measures, which may entail heavy and lasting burthens upon the country.”

They also refer, at page 845, to “the ancient tenet of parliamentary government which held that the Crown should respond to the grievances of the people before the people granted supply.”

Turning to an understanding of the report stage for legislation, its essence is explained by Bosc and Gagnon at page 781:

In recommending that report stage be restored, the 1968 Special Committee on Procedure believed that stage to be essential in order to provide all Members of the House, and not merely members of the committee, with an opportunity to express their views on bills under consideration and to propose amendments, where appropriate.

This point was emphasized by the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, better known as the McGrath committee, in its third report, tabled June 1985, at pages 38 and 39:

The report stage was designed to provide opportunities to members not involved in the committee stage of a bill to propose amendments when the committee reported the bill back to the House. Thus, an MP that was not a member of the committee dealing with a bill would not be deprived of the right to propose amendments....

According to Bosc and Gagnon, at page 784, “At report stage, a bill is examined as a whole and not clause by clause as is the case at committee stage.” Reconciling the principles and practices at report stage with those of the ancient process of the business of supply is a greatly unfair task that I think the Liberal-NDP coalition voted, through the November 15, 2022 special order, to give to the Chair. Compounding that difficulty is the matter that much of our jurisprudence on report stage concerns the admissibility and grouping of motions for debate at report stage. This is less so for the establishment of voting patterns.

Bosc and Gagnon explain, at page 784, the Chair's role in the selection process, stating, “The Speaker rules not on whether the purport of the amendment or its substance is worthy of debate, but rather on whether the amendment is procedurally acceptable within the framework of the rules established for the admissibility of amendments presented at report stage.” Nonetheless, for the purposes of the November 15 special order, all motions are selected. There is no discretion involved or permitted. All questions on the estimates must be put to the House. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 788, describe the grouping process:

The Speaker’s decision on the grouping of motions in amendment at report stage addresses two matters: the grouping for debate; and the voting arrangements.

Motions in amendment are grouped for debate according to two criteria: their content; and their position in the bill. Motions which could form the subject of a single debate are grouped according to content if, once adopted, they would have the same effect in different parts of the bill or if they relate to the same provision or similar provisions of the bill. Motions in amendment are combined according to the location at which they are to be inserted in the bill when they relate to the same line or lines. These motions in amendment will then be part of a single scheme for voting purposes.

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.

Many of these concepts articulated in the approach of the Chair to decisions taken at report stage are hardly applicable to the business of supply. Where does this leave us? I think the words of Bosc and Gagnon at page 317 must be borne in mind. They say, “Despite the considerable authority of the office, the Speaker may exercise only those powers conferred upon him or her by the House, within the limits established by the House itself.”

Mr. Speaker, as explained by your predecessor in his November 29, 2012, report stage ruling, at page 12611 of the Debates, “In the absence of any specific guidance from the House with regard to motions to delete and other matters raised in the points of order, the Speaker cannot unilaterally modify the well-established current practice.” In other words, in the absence of any expressed, specific direction from the House about how to interpret the November 15 special order, the Chair should adhere as closely as possible to the established procedures on the business of supply.

With that said, I have a few thoughts on how we can reconcile these concepts. If we are to take the premise that the report stage is not meant to be a repetition of the committee stage of a bill, and then import that concept to the consideration of motions to concur in the estimates, I think we should also reflect upon how the report stage practices for private members' bills that are deemed reported back to the House would relate to the estimates that have been deemed reported back to the House. In particular, each of the items in the main estimates that were referred to and deemed reported back from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, the Standing Committee on Finance, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women must be taken up, considered and voted upon separately, reflecting the fact that there was no committee vote on these estimates reported in the House.

Additionally, vote 1, under the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was also, by virtue of Standing Order 81(4)(a), deemed reported, and therefore should be similarly treated. Furthermore, as of Friday, only one committee, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, has presented a report on the spring—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am going to interrupt and ask how much more there is remaining. I think the hon. member has made her point. We are talking about history and what goes on in England and other places, and points of order are usually very concise and to the point. We will look into history and everything else, but I am sure she is able to wrap it up, or at least give us the salient points.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I did go into some history, but right now I am talking about the current state of the committees. I am talking about right now, including Friday, so I will continue for a bit.

While the deadline for the other committees to report would be today, the third sitting day prior to the final allotted day, or else they shall be deemed to have reported, I would urge the Chair to adopt the same approach as I laid out for the main estimates, which have been deemed reported back to the House.

Third, that leaves us with the estimates that were reported back from committee. When it comes to the report stage of legislation, Bosc and Gagnon observe, at page 787:

For the purpose of debate, the Speaker will also group motions that have the same intent and are interrelated. In so doing, the Speaker will consider whether individual Members will be able to express their concerns during the debate on another motion.

The concerns of Parks Canada are wildly different from those of the Communications Security Establishment, which in turn are quite different from the concerns of the Invest in Canada hub. To lump these disparate organizations together for a single vote would, I believe, do a great disservice to parliamentary scrutiny and control over appropriations. However, since I know you would not wish to see the House speak in vain, clause (c)(i)(B) of the November 15 special order must be interpreted to mean something. In this case, it would be appropriate to group, for voting purposes, the items in the estimates that have actually been reported back from a committee on the basis of each institution that is proposed to receive an appropriation.

I believe this balances the need to group only interrelated items, while keeping in line with the principles and practices enunciated by the Speaker's predecessor in a November 29, 2012 ruling, at page 12611 of the Debates. I will spare the House the quotation on that one. I have referred to the place to find it. Moreover, it would track with the approach customarily taken with clause deletion motions at the report stage of budget implementation bills, whereby they would typically be grouped according to the divisions of the bill; for example, clauses pertaining to the Excise Tax Act would be treated separately from those that might amend the Employment Insurance Act, or another provision.

Before the government might urge you to group these confidence motions based on the fact that the Liberals are being propped up in a parliamentary coalition by the New Democrats, through what they are calling a supply and confidence agreement, I would call to your attention the ruling of your predecessor on December 12, 2012, at page 13223 of the Debates, which reads, “Let me be clear: the Speaker does not make decisions based on who is in control of the House. Report stage motions are not, and never have been, selected for debate—”

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I feel like I am being lectured by different members today on how to do my job. I would just appreciate if the hon. member got to the point, and maybe just let me know what she is getting at, and then we will go on from there. I do not think that lecturing the Speaker on how they should do their job is appropriate, but please continue.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker, if you felt that that is what I was doing. I—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

There is another point of order.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would never lecture the Speaker on how to do the excellent job he is doing, but I do believe all these references to the supply and confidence agreement have nothing to do with whatever it is she has been talking about. She is dragging this out needlessly. I would never tell the Speaker to ask her to get to the point, but I—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I believe I have already done that, in a nice way.

The hon. opposition whip has the floor.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would observe that clause (c)(i)(B) of the November 15 special order does not require you to group votes, but rather simply authorizes you to have the discretion to do so. I am not trying to lecture you; I am sorry if it is coming across that way. I am simply trying to point out the authorities for what needs to happen here. Accordingly, I urge you to exercise the discretion the House vested in you, in a way that encroaches the least on the House's right to express itself over the government expenditures that taxpayers, current and future, must make good on.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I thank the hon. member for her very thorough presentation.

Bill C-42—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and the five hours provided for the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House 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 then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so that the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to speak to this closure motion. It is very disappointing, yet nothing new, that we are seeing this from government, since it has consistently used every opportunity it can, in coordination with its coalition partners, to silence not only members of the House but also the Canadians they represent.

We do not have enough time to present our opinions. I want to say that again for both English- and French-speaking Canadians because our debates are held in both official languages. Unfortunately, this process is not new to this House.

It is not surprising, unfortunately. We have seen this with a number of other bills. In addition to limiting speech, and we certainly know that we are going to have an opportunity to talk about the limitation of speech with Bill C-18 also coming forward in the House, we also see the limitation of democracy across the country, not only with foreign interference but also with Bill C-11.

The silencing of members of the House, as well as of Canadians, is nothing new, so I would like to say that it is very disappointing, especially as we go into the summer holidays. We are very limited in the amount of time that we have to have these important conversations for Canadians.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I see the deputy House leader is telling me to get to the point. This is another individual trying to silence me in this moment. I do not think I have to say any more. I see that their NDP coalition partner is chiming in as well. The member for Timmins—James Bay is also chiming in about how they need to silence not only people in the House but also Canadians.

With that, I guess my question would be this: When will they allow members of the chamber to have the opportunity to speak their minds freely on behalf of Canadians?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to silence anybody. We are trying to get the affairs of Parliament through a series of blockages and techniques. We have just heard a point of order with no point of order—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Order. We ask questions, and then we allow the member to answer.

The hon. Minister of Justice has the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said, we just heard a point of order with no point. The point of it was simply to delay time. This happens time and time again. We, as a government, need to do this because the majority of people in the House of Commons would like things to go forward.

We saw last week an important second debate on Bill C-40, which would establish a commission to correct wrongful convictions in Canada. It is something long overdue. We saw that delayed by a number of dilatory motions and procedures on the part of the other side. It is sad and it is tragic.

The Deputy Speaker will know, because he is from Nova Scotia, that Glen Assoun of Nova Scotia died without seeing this bill get to second reading. This is precisely why we need to use these kinds of motions. It is to combat the dilatory tactics being used by the other side.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating yet another closure motion, the latest in a long line. I do not really have a question for the minister, but I will make a comment on the mood in the House over the past few months. It is almost shameful to see how everyone in the House is behaving during this very intense period leading up to the summer adjournment.

There is retaliation going on. Maybe the minister will address that in his comments, but I get the impression that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is not reaching out to all the opposition parties. He is behaving as though the government has a majority, and he is getting on the nerves of several members in the House. Once again we are dealing with an eleventh-hour time allocation motion because no one is reaching out on either side.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I just said in English, what we are seeing are tactics being used to slow down the work of the House. We are reaching out to the opposition parties in Parliament. For this bill, I am sure that we have the support of not just the NDP, but also of the Bloc Québécois and several Conservatives, because it is good public policy. That is exactly what we are doing.

I would point out to the hon. member that we also worked with the provinces and with Quebec, which passed a similar bill in late March of this year. We are harmonizing our efforts with those of Quebec. That is a good thing. It will be a good thing for all of Canada because the provinces will be able to work with the federal government to tackle certain practices, such as money laundering.

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

Mr. Speaker, having spent my life in opposition, I do know that the one tool the opposition has is time. We have the time to speed things up and the time to slow things down. However, at the end of the day, time is about serving the Canadian people.

I see Bill C-42, which has the beneficial ownership registry. It is legislation to deal with Russian oligarchs. We could be debating that. Instead, we have been having to witness Conservatives with their long litany of whining, perceived slights and imagined microaggressions. It is always about them and their feelings. I get a feeling that European soccer teams might hire them over the summer to give them lessons on how to do the theatrics of lying on the grass and holding a knee.

Meanwhile, we have legislation to get done. We are staying until midnight, night after night. Instead of the Conservatives standing up for their constituents and talking about legislation that needs to get passed, they are talking about themselves, how bad they feel and how their feelings have been hurt.

I would ask the hon. member to give us a basic sense of the level of importance of getting this legislation through.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the frustration that many Canadians and many parliamentarians on both sides of the aisle share for the horrible delay tactics being used on the other side and the inflation of every single point becoming the end of the world.

This is a critical bill. It would help us in the fight against money laundering. It would help us in the fight against corruption. As the hon. member mentioned, it even helps us in the fight against Russian oligarchs. It would create a register that shows beneficial ownership, which is who is really behind the ownership structure of a company, such that we can then move forward, if necessary, to use that data, whether it is for the fight against money laundering, terrorism or anything else when the corporate structure is being used as a sham.

It would also allow us to protect whistle-blowers, who expose these kinds of measures. The legislation would basically create a best-in-class structure to mimic the best practices in other countries. It aligns with the best practices at the international level and with emerging best practices at the Canadian level, such as that in Quebec I mentioned a moment ago. We would be able to co-operate more easily with the provinces by creating this register, which would give access to law enforcement agencies and other agencies while still protecting the privacy of Canadians.

It is a good thing moving forward. There is widespread agreement and critical acclaim for this bill. We should just be getting it done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the tactics Conservatives are using and ask the minister to comment.

A good place to start is that it comes straight from their leader's office. The minister will recall not that long ago, a week or so ago, when the leader of the Conservative Party said, reflecting on the budget debate, that he was going to talk for hours until the Prime Minister changed the budget implementation bill. It took a few hours, but we were ultimately able to get it passed. The Conservatives will move a motion to have another member speak, which then causes the bells to ring. They will bring in concurrence motions. They have even attempted to adjourn debate in the House.

Does the member believe that the Conservative Party is using time wisely in the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his wise leadership in the House.

I agree with the member's comment. It is not just the dilatory tactics and the wasting of time. It is that the Leader of the Opposition is relishing in that in front of the media, being proud of the fact he is trying to grind Parliament down to a stop to prevent good pieces of legislation from moving forward. These are bills such as this one, Bill C-42, and Bill C-40, which I mentioned an hour ago. Over the last month, we have witnessed, time and time again, the misuse of time, the use of delay tactics and the real negativity these bring to the House of Commons.

We want to move forward with this bill because it is a positive bill for Canadians. We want to move forward with this bill because it would help us fight organized crime, money laundering and terrorist financing, and would give us better principles of corporate governance. We rely on the market to do many things in our country and in our economy. For that market to function properly, we need corporate governance structures that are transparent and that allow proper corporate decisions to be made, for the purposes of not only shareholders but also the Canadian public, to the extent that we allow the market to regulate these kinds of issues.

It is an important bill, and we need to pass it.