Debates of April 11th, 2024

Government Response to Petitions

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary 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 16 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

While I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is rising on a point of order.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the government has just moved a motion, but the Chair had given notice that a ruling on a question of privilege would be forthcoming. Because it is a question of privilege, that always supersedes everything else that goes throughout the day. I was wondering if the Speaker would be delivering his ruling on the question of privilege before entertaining this motion.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member. I will consult with the table officers to ensure that is the case.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the only concern I would express is that we actually now have a motion on the floor, and I think the motion has to be dealt with before anything else. That would be my interpretation.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary and I would like to thank the hon. House leader for the opposition for raising the point.

Questions of privilege, once accepted, do supersede other considerations, but the Chair has not given his response to the question of privilege. Yes, the Chair did give indication to the opposition House leader that we will be providing a response to the question of privilege, and I will endeavour to do that as soon as possible, once this matter is dealt with.

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

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Call in the members.

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

Vote #686

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I declare the motion carried.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Given the large number of report stage motions for Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act, the Chair would like to explain some of the principles applied in the selection and grouping of these motions. In arriving at this ruling, I have sought to be guided by precedents established by my predecessors, especially Speaker Milliken, whose landmark ruling on March 21, 2001, serves as the basis for our modern report stage practice, as well as one of my predecessors, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who faced a number of lengthy and complex report stages when he was Speaker.

In general, the motions most often selected for debate at report stage are those that delete clauses of a bill and those that further amend clauses that were amended at committee. Regarding motions to delete, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle remarked in decisions rendered on June 11, and December 12, 2012, the Chair frequently groups as many of them as possible and applies the vote on one to as many others as possible.

As for motions that further amend changes made in committee, the Chair often faces a dilemma in deciding how to group them in a way that ensures members can clearly express their point of view while appropriately managing the House's time. Where possible, the Chair has endeavoured to group motions that are similar or that deal with a similar subject matter.

Finally, the Chair would like to draw members' attention to the note to Standing Order 76.1(5), which states, and I quote:

For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage.

The Chair notes that, in several cases, the same member or members from the same party have submitted a variety of different proposals to amend the same line or lines of the bill. In some cases, each proposal is a slight variation on the other. It would be impossible to apply the results of the vote on one motion to the others, as a line can only be amended once. The Chair has sometimes provided for a distinct vote on each, but in cases where the above-mentioned note seems applicable, the Chair has selected only one proposal per party. I would refer members to a ruling delivered by Speaker Milliken on February 18, 2002, for an example of such an approach being adopted.

There are 207 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-50.

Motions Nos. 13, 43, 46, 50, 55, 62, 63, 65 to 68, 70, 72, 73, 81 to 89, 92 to 94, 98 to 100, 103 to 105, 107, 109 to 111, 114 to 116, 120 to 122, 124 to 126, 133, 135, 139, 150, 156 to 158, 167, 168, 170, 173 to 175, 179, 186, 195 to 198, 201 to 203 and 205 to 207 will not be selected by the Chair because they are similar proposals that affect the same lines in the bill.

All of the other motions will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put the following motions to the House.

Motions in amendment

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

moved:

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting the preamble.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

moved:

That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 15 on page 2 with the following:

“fostering the creation of sustainable jobs;”

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 2 with the following:

“fostering the creation of sustainable jobs and, given an anticipated 170,000 immediate job losses plus a further 2,700,000 disrupted jobs, imple-”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 2 with the following:

“menting measures to assist workers;”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 41 on page 2 with the following:

“ing good-paying, high-quality jobs — including, but not limited to,”

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

moved:

Motios No. 6

That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 43 and 44 on page 2 with the following:

“trade union — as well as job security, social pro-”

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended

(a) by replacing line 48 on page 2 with the following:

“and potential of workers and communities, and”; and

(b) by replacing lines 2 to 7 on page 3 with the following:

“sive economies and societies;”

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 7 on page 3 with the following:

“(v) advance the well-being of workers;”

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 3 with the following:

“(v) recognize the anticipated 170,000 immediate job losses and 2,700,000 other jobs which will be disrupted and, therefore, advance the well-being of workers and”

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

moved:

That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 7 on page 3 with the following:

“communities;”

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

moved:

That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 3 with the following:

“communities, recognizing that 93% of the oil and gas sector is composed of small businesses each employing fewer than 100 individuals, as well as the achievement of”

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

moved:

That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 25 and 26 on page 3 with the following:

"communities and provinces and territories, which all"

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

moved:

That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 3 with the following:

“communities, non-unionized workers, non-governmental organizations and”

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

moved:

That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 29 to 31 on page 3.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

moved:

That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 3 with the following:

“tories have their own constitutional jurisdiction relevant to the shift to a net-zero economy;”

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am hesitant to interrupt you, as I was the Speaker. I have had my hand up for quite a while, but I did not want to interrupt. I am looking for unanimous consent to see my vote as yes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is there consent?