Debates of March 12th, 2026

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

Putting of Questions

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The Chair would like to take a few moments to make a statement on the procedure for putting the question and clarify for the House its interpretation of Standing Order 45(1).

To preserve its impartiality, the Chair must intercede as little as possible and, whenever it can, be guided by the will of the House.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am trying to read a statement, so the Chair requests respect. I do not want to have to ask a member to leave.

I will start again from the top.

To preserve its impartiality, the Chair must intercede as little as possible and, whenever it can, be guided by the will of the House.

Two recent events have put these limits to the test. On Friday, February 13, 2026, when the question was put on one of the report stage motions for Bill C‑14, by the Assistant Deputy Speaker, members did not indicate if the question should be carried or negatived, nor did anyone ask for a recorded vote. In this unusual situation, the Assistant Deputy Speaker relied on a relevant precedent from the United Kingdom and declared the motion negatived. Then, on Thursday, February 26, during the putting of the question on the motion to read Bill C‑15 a third time, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who is not a member of a recognized party, asked the Chair for a recorded division. The Chair reminded the member that she could not make such a request, as this ability is reserved for members of recognized parties, under Standing Order 45(1).

That provision of the Standing Orders has been in effect since June 2023 and stems from changes the House has made to its procedures since September 2020, including an end to the practice of calling for “yeas” and “nays”. Prior to that change, any five members could rise to ask for a recorded vote further to the Chair's assessment of the result of the voice vote. Members could also indicate that a question be carried “on division” to denote that the matter was not decided unanimously, without resorting to a recorded vote.

That provision also states fairly clearly the options available to the House, as follows:

When a question is put on a motion, any member participating in person may ask that the motion be carried or carried on division. Any member of a recognized party participating in person may ask that the “yeas” and “nays” be entered in the Journals.

In other words, any single member of a recognized party can trigger a recorded vote. The provision continues:

A request for a recorded division shall take precedence over a request for adoption.

However, as we discovered on February 13, the Standing Orders in current practice are silent on what can happen if the House chooses none of the options on offer. Moreover, the Standing Orders do not seem to offer a way to negative a motion other than by recorded division. Some clarifications are in order.

If the House remains silent or if only one request to negative a motion is made, on or without division—that is, if no member clearly asks that the motion be carried—the Chair will declare the motion negatived.

Conversely, and to be clear, if the Chair hears requests to both negative and carry a matter, in the absence of a request for a recorded division, the Chair would have no alternative but to declare the motion carried, consistent with the options set out in Standing Order 45(1).

A member of a recognized party may still request a recorded division, which would take precedence over any other request. In all these circumstances, the requests must, of course, come from members participating in person.

Note also that members of unrecognized parties and independent members cannot request a recorded division. This is a rule that the House has given itself. It is, of course, the prerogative of the House to change this rule if it sees fit.

The Chair hopes that these clarifying remarks will guide members when questions are put in the future. I thank all members for their attention.

Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

moved:

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, the House respectfully disagrees with the amendment made to the bill by the Senate because Parliament should be the body that decides the rules that govern communication by federal parties with Canadians, the amendment constitutes a substantive reversal of the principle of the proposed amendments to the Canada Elections Act in Part 4 of Bill C-4, the government intends to bring forward additional privacy provisions in legislative changes to the Canada Elections Act within this parliamentary session, and furthermore, there is a long tradition of the Senate deferring to the House of Commons on amendments to the Canada Elections Act, particularly those which have unanimous support of all recognized parties in the House and which govern the operations of candidates representing political parties seeking election to the House of Commons.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so disappointed that the government is not willing to consider sober second thought, having put forward such a scandalous abuse of omnibus budget bills as is found in Bill C-4.

What we have in Bill C-4, which is titled the affordability act, are many measures that are mostly about affordability, but magically, there is this bizarre inclusion of amendments to the Canada Elections Act.

Part 4 of this bill contains amendments to the Canada Elections Act. What does the Canada Elections Act have to do with the cost of living?

It is not just bizarre that we find in part 4 of Bill C-4, which is the affordability act, unaccountably, changes to the Canada Elections Act. The content of those changes is, and I will use the word again, scandalous. Canadians will be scandalized, and it is unfortunate that the way of going in this Parliament has been for things to be passed so quickly that people do not even know what they have passed.

Part 4 of Bill C-4 is all about one thing: removing any thought that there is any requirement on the part of any federal political party in this country to protect the personal private information of Canadians. The bill is a bit of overkill, one might say. At one point in part 4 of Bill C-4, it says that any of the provisions for protection of privacy are “deemed never to have come into force and is repealed.”

If they were deemed never to have come into force, I suppose it is a bit of overkill to also make sure they are repealed, but it gets worse. The bill then says that part 4 of Bill C-4 will come into force in the year 2000.

I remember the day this bill was tabled in June. I took around the hard copy of Bill C-4 to various friends on the side of the House of the Liberal Party and said, “Look at this. Why does this bill have to come into force in the year 2000?” People would say that it must be a typo, and I would say, “No, that is not a typo, my friend. That is a time machine.”

I have never seen before in this place that a bill in the future tense would come into force 26 years ago.

There is nothing extraordinary about the fact that there are things I have never seen before.

I am not the only one who has never seen this.

However, for the moment, this is a part of the bill that strikes me as odd.

The Senate looked at it and asked why, buried in the affordability act, there were amendments to the Elections Act. It is all well and good that, in the preamble the Speaker just read, the government says it is sending this back to the Senate and that they have no business in this, letting them slap them on the wrist for thinking they can presume to tell anybody in this place about the Elections Act, but the government had this coming and was well overdue to start looking at sections of omnibus bills. I think it is scandalous that we did not.

I know a lot of senators were disturbed by Bill C-12. They looked at Bill C-12 in committee, and they said that it had not been properly studied and that it would abuse the rights of refugees, but they held back. They thought that the government would not want to accept their amendments, so they did not make amendments, but they did put on the record that a subcommittee was concerned.

It would have been tough for the Senate to make amendments because the pressure was on them to not make amendments. In fact, the leader of the government in the Senate went so far as to misstate to other senators that Bill C-4 had been carried unanimously in this place.

I noticed they were careful in the preamble we just heard to refer to unanimous support from recognized parties. The Liberals, the Conservatives and the Bloc were happy to carry this unanimously, but my objections were recorded on the record, even in the so-called unanimous consent motion. It says, “that the opposition of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands be noted”.

Why do I dig in my heels? Why do I say hurrah for the senators who put forward some common-sense amendments? What is wrong with the government that it will not accept the Senate amendments?

If one has not looked at the Senate amendments, standing by what I have said, it is extraordinary that the Government of Canada would say it is bringing into effect a bill that would take effect 26 years ago. What kind of offence has the Liberal Party committed in the last 26 years that would require a time machine to say that laws that we might have had to protect the personal information of Canadians did not ever exist, were never carried and, on top of that, took effect in the year 2000?

The Senate amendment just says that three years from when Bill C-4 takes effect, three years from now, the government must come up with a way of protecting the personal and private information of Canadians held by federal political parties.

This was not that long ago, so I will cite the source, but there was an iPolitics news story from March 3 of this year where the leader of the government in the House, and of course I will not say his name but we know it, said, after citing that he was the former national director of the Liberal Party, “I can assure you that, for our part, and I assume all parties follow the same basic standard, we essentially comply with PIPEDA”, referring to the acronym for the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

There is currently a court case in British Columbia because the privacy commissioner for British Columbia has said that this is a matter of law. Provincial political parties in British Columbia have to abide by the protection of privacy information for Canadians.

We know that there was a study before the ethics committee back in 2018. The study was entitled “Breach of Personal Information Involving Cambridge Analytica and Facebook”.

That particular case study should make us, as parliamentarians, and as people who believe in democracy, deeply concerned that the personal and private information of Canadians can be misused in the hands of those who develop systems, such as Cambridge Analytica did, to target, use algorithms, distort and deliver information that is misinformation directed to particular people who are likely to believe, as they are pre-inclined and predisposed to believe, that misinformation. In that case, in that study, the committee pointed to the need of protecting the personal information of Canadians held by federal political parties.

I will not disagree with the government for one minute, but it would be far better to not bury in an omnibus bill on affordability the taking away of rights regarding the personal and private information of Canadians held by federal political parties. It would be far better to be open about it and say that they are going to amend the Canada Elections Act and talk about the personal and private information of Canadians.

I think the government should be ashamed. Every Liberal, and every floor crosser who has joined this gang, should be ashamed of being associated with a piece of subterfuge as vile as saying that this is an act on affordability, to not look over there at part 4, that it has nothing to do with us, that it is something they are doing about privacy information and they are making sure that it took effect 26 years ago.

If they had nothing to be ashamed of, why would they not bring forward a bill that, on its own, is about updating the Canada Elections Act and that clearly asks Canadians what they want us to do with their personal and private information, those of us who are federal political parties? Certainly, the Green Party tries very hard to abide by all the personal and private information protections, as though the law already applied to us clearly, and we will continue to do so.

This is an abomination. This is a very reasonable amendment from the Senate that, three years from now, once the bill is passed, we would have a better plan of action. The government's motion today said it is planning to bring forward something soon. Will that be sooner than three years from now?

How can the government possibly object to an amendment from the Senate that says to get its act in order within the next three years? We should, in this place, absolutely refuse to accept the government's advice to reject Senate amendments. If there ever was a time for sober second thought, it is now. This is embarrassing. Are all recognized parties, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc, okay with passing a law that turns the clock back 26 years? Come on. This is embarrassing. I ask members to please accept the Senate amendments.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I ask that it carry on division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

(Motion agreed to)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C‑13, An Act to implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

An Act to Implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I ask that it be carried on division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

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

Madam Speaker, it is such a pleasure to be able to rise to speak to an important piece of legislation. It is a part of a much larger picture that the Government of Canada has entered into since the last federal election.

In the last federal election, members will recall that the debate during the election, and the greatest concerns Canadians had, were with respect to economic security and a sense of sovereignty. I would argue that we had the right person, at the right time, leading the Liberal Party. We had a prime minister who understood how important it was to secure an economy that was going to deliver for Canadians even at a difficult time, when we had issues with President Trump and the negotiations and discussions around trade with Canada's single greatest trading partner. That was the issue in the last election, and we had a prime minister who articulated exceptionally well just how important it was that we, as a government, look at opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S.A. borders when it came to trade.

Following that election, we had a prime minister and a government that were focused on that issue. Part of that focus was to build toward a stronger one Canadian economy. That is why members will recall Bill C-5, which was all about taking down provincial barriers, working with provincial governments and building infrastructure, so that we would be in a better position to be able to export. That is what Bill C-13 is all about. It is a reflection of the need for us to have trading partners that go beyond Canada and the U.S.A. As a prime minister, someone who has been the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Governor of the Bank of England and has impeccable economic credentials, he understood just how important that was.

That is the reason we have seen our Prime Minister, along with a number of different ministers, including the minister responsible for introducing this legislation, aggressively look outside of Canada for export opportunities. I have been a parliamentarian for many years and can say that I have never witnessed such a motivated Prime Minister and cabinet, solely focused on increasing exports and building a stronger and healthier Canada.

What I see in Bill C-13 are tangible results with respect to Northern Ireland and England as economic trading partners. Let us look at one aspect many people may not be aware of. We export gold to England. Virtually every region of our country participates in gold exports. Securing markets matters and also assists in building relationships. Whether it is the Prime Minister or virtually any minister who has been travelling on behalf of Canadians, looking to expand that market and to diversify our exports, every single one has commented on how the world wants more Canada, because Canada really and truly has so much potential.

That is one of the reasons I disagree so much with the Conservatives who say that Canada is broken when they tour the country. All they need to do is to go anywhere, to virtually any one of our allied countries, any of the G7 countries or any of the G20 countries, to find that there is a strong desire to have Canada involved or engaged in their respective economies and to build a stronger and healthier relationship.

If we were to put partisanship aside and just look at the number of countries that the Prime Minister has been to, it is a fairly lengthy list. I would ultimately argue that the greatest asset any country has when it comes to expanding exports is its leader. That is why I say we have the right person at the right time, someone who really and truly understands the economy, how it works, the advantages of international trade, and why it is so very important that we expand beyond the Canada-U.S.A. relationship and that the Prime Minister travels.

Today we are talking about an agreement with England and Northern Ireland. One of the industries in Canada that would benefit is the gold industry, but there are other industries as well. It is important that we expand that trade file into the many different industries that are before us.

Yesterday, a member of the Conservative Party was talking about trade and the pork industry. That is an $8-billion industry for Canada, with tens of thousands of good jobs throughout Canada, in particular in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba. In Manitoba, we have Maple Leaf, HyLife and other producers, not to mention the hundreds of farmers who support that particular industry in indirect jobs.

I raise that because the Conservative member was talking about a trade agreement with Indonesia, the legislation that we had before us. Some other Conservative members were saying that it is a relatively small percentage of trade, but we have to look at the cumulative total. In Indonesia alone, with the trade agreement that was being debated yesterday, we are talking about billions of dollars in merchandise trade. That is one of the faster-growing economies in an area of the world where we are looking for more opportunities.

The member opposite was talking about the pork industry and saying that there are concerns in Europe, and I agree. There are some concerns with regard to Europe, but we also need to recognize that we have a Prime Minister who has been proactive in virtually all areas of the world.

Representatives of the pork industry in Manitoba were quite pleased to hear about the Prime Minister going to Japan. HyLife has a wonderful processing centre in the community of Neepawa. HyLife is bringing a lot of economic opportunity back to a small, beautiful community in rural Manitoba. I can assure members that the community of Neepawa sees Japan as a wonderful opportunity to continue to grow and expand and be the beautiful community it is.

I could talk about Maple Leaf, which has a huge plant in the city of Winnipeg. The best bacon in the world comes out of that Maple Leaf plant in Winnipeg. Actually, 50% of all bacon consumed in Canada comes from that plant in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

[An hon. member]

What about Neepawa?