House of Commons Hansard #99 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was hate.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Amendments to Bill C-8—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules that three Conservative-proposed amendments (CPC-2, CPC-5, and CPC-15) to Bill C-8, concerning cybersecurity, are inadmissible because they exceed the bill's scope by transferring executive authority to the judiciary, thus declaring them void. 1300 words.
Combatting Hate Act Third reading of Bill C-9. The bill, Bill C-9, aims to address hate crimes by strengthening the Criminal Code and protecting community spaces. Liberal Party members argue the targeted legislation is essential for security. Conversely, the Conservative Party and members of the NDP criticize the bill, warning that its language is dangerously vague and threatens freedom of expression. The House passed the bill following the defeat of a Conservative amendment. 12200 words, 3 hours.
Adjournment Debate - Public Safety Conservative MP Andrew Lawton criticizes the government for appealing court rulings that found the invocation of the Emergencies Act unlawful and a violation of Charter rights. Liberal MP Patricia Lattanzio defends the government's actions regarding the 2022 blockades, stating the matter is before the courts and shouldn't be debated. 1500 words, 10 minutes.
Bill C-243 Corrections and Conditional Release ActPrivate Members' Business
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-243 under Private Members' Business.
Bill C-243 Corrections and Conditional Release ActPrivate Members' Business
The House resumed from March 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Bill C-242 Jail Not Bail ActPrivate Members' Business
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-242 under Private Members' Business.
Bill C-242 Jail Not Bail ActPrivate Members' Business
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I declare the motion defeated.
I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 47 minutes.
Amendments to Bill C-8—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderPrivate Members' Business
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on March 23 by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader concerning amendments adopted at committee to Bill C-8, an act respecting cybersecurity, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other acts.
In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader contended that, during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, three amendments, CPC-2, CPC-5 and CPC-15, were adopted by the committee after having been ruled inadmissible by the chair. He argued that the three amendments were inadmissible on the grounds that they exceeded the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading, and requested that the Speaker review the amendments and, if found to be out of order, that they be struck from the bill.
The member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, in her intervention on the matter, suggested that the Speaker should reject the arguments of the parliamentary secretary on the basis that no reasoning was offered to support that the amendments were inadmissible. She then stated that the amendments in question should not be viewed as beyond the scope of the bill because they seek to impose conditions on executive decision-making by requiring prior judicial authorization for certain orders. Citing several precedents, she contended that this type of limitation to the authority of ministers has been found to be acceptable and within the scope of bills in the past.
The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands also intervened briefly on the matter, questioning the validity of the point of order, suggesting that determinations about amendments are ordinarily made by the committee chair and are not subject to review by the House.
While the Speaker generally refrains from intervening in matters that fall within a committee's authority, once a bill is reported back to the House, members may challenge the procedural admissibility of amendments adopted in committee. As is explained in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, section 16.96:
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 its 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 the Speaker's own initiative.
When specific amendments are brought to its attention, the Chair considers whether the committee acted beyond its authority in adopting the amendments and assesses amendments against the established rules governing their admissibility.
The member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake is quite right in pointing out the importance of providing sufficient context when raising a point of order concerning amendments in a committee report. While the Chair is obliged to review the matter once it is raised, explanations as to why the amendments fall outside the scope of the bill assist the Chair in conducting a thorough and accurate review.
In the present case, the amendments in question were initially found by the committee chair to be inadmissible on the grounds that they exceeded the scope of the bill. As explained in section 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
The Chair has therefore carefully reviewed Bill C-8 as adopted by the House at second reading and the amendments in question to ascertain how they relate to the bill's principle and scope. The principle or main legislative objectives of the bill include strengthening Canada's national cybersecurity and providing new legal authorities to protect critical cyber systems and secure the telecommunications sector. The amendments in question relate to part 1 of the bill, which amends the Telecommunications Act.
Whereas the bill as introduced would give the minister or Governor in Council new authority to make orders to accomplish the bill's legislative objectives, CPC-2 modifies the bill by requiring the Governor in Council or the minister to first obtain authorization from a Federal Court judge before issuing orders under sections 15.1 and 15.2 of the act. The amendment would also allow the judge to attach any conditions to the order that they consider appropriate.
The bill as introduced also provides that an order made under section 15.1 by the Governor in Council may include a provision prohibiting the disclosure of its existence or of its contents. CPC-5 amends the bill to require that the Governor in Council make an application to the Federal Court should the Governor in Council wish to prohibit the disclosure of the content of an order made under section 15.1. Where the bill would allow the Governor in Council to determine the necessity of such a prohibition, the amendment transfers the actual ability to prohibit to the Federal Court, instead of it being part of the order made by the Governor in Council.
CPC-15 effects the same transfer of authority to a Federal Court judge, but in cases where the minister is seeking to include non-disclosure provisions to orders made under section 15.2.
In the Chair's view, these amendments relate to the overall objective, broadly stated, of strengthening Canada's national cybersecurity systems. The question, therefore, is whether they exceed the scope of the bill.
While the concept of judicial oversight appears in the bill, its purpose is to review decisions already taken by the Governor in Council. The three amendments instead transfer the authority to make certain orders, or to prohibit the disclosure of the content of certain orders, from the executive branch to the Federal Court. In doing so, they confer new powers on the judicial branch that were not contemplated in the bill as adopted at second reading.
The Chair finds there to be important distinctions between this case and the precedents raised by the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. In the case cited from 2006, the amendment in question did not affect the Minister's power to act; rather it introduced a power to appeal after the fact. In the more recent example relating to Bill C‑483, the amendments to the bill maintained the role for the National Parole Board already conceived of in the legislation, but in a more limited form than was originally proposed. Both of these cases can accurately be viewed as a constraint on decision-making authority already found in each bill. In the current case, the Chair views the amendments as going beyond the imposition of a condition on the exercise of authority by the minister or Governor in Council, transforming what were ministerial powers into judicial powers instead.
Consequently, the amendments proposed appear to the Chair to contain new concepts that are beyond the scope of the bill and lead the Chair to conclude that the amendments were correctly ruled inadmissible by the chair of the committee.
Therefore, I order that the aforementioned amendments, CPC-2, CPC-5 and CPC-15, be declared null and void and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House. Furthermore, I am ordering a reprint of Bill C-8 with the removal of the inadmissible amendments. This reprinted version will stand as the official version of the bill for consideration at report stage.
I thank all members for their attention.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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 10 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Health.
The report concerns Bill C-234, an act respecting the establishment and award of a living donor recognition medal. The committee studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.
I also have the honour to present in both official languages the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Health entitled “Supplementary Estimates (C), 2025-26: Vote 5c under Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Vote 10c under Department of Health, Votes 1c and 10c under Public Health Agency of Canada”.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, I hereby table petition e-6836, which has been duly certified by the clerk of petitions.
The petition, signed by 810 people, responds to the House of Commons vote on October 8, 2024, in support of the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, entitled “Reducing the Impact of Commercial Shipping on Shoreline Erosion in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Corridor”, which was tabled during the 44th Parliament.
Despite a unanimous vote in the House of Commons, the government has still not implemented the recommendations contained in this report. The petitioners place particular emphasis on the first recommendation: “That the Government of Canada re-establish a shoreline protection program...where erosion is due in large part to shipping, in particular where the channel is narrow and more exposed to wake...”. This is a major issue in my riding, particularly in the municipalities of Varennes, Verchères and Contrecoeur.
The petitioners therefore call on the government to take appropriate measures to address this issue and to establish a relationship of trust and collaboration between the federal government, users of the seaway and shoreline communities.
Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petition e-6951 on behalf of 1,786 Canadians, including children of the veterans buried in the Last Post Fund's National Field of Honour, plus other descendants of Canada's war veterans and friends of the cemetery.
Petitioners highlight the national significance of the historic military cemetery, Canada's largest, located in Pointe-Claire, Quebec, and express concern over the ongoing financial challenges faced by the not-for-profit Last Post Fund, which is responsible for its maintenance. They call on the Government of Canada to honour and implement the “Canada Strong” campaign commitment to assume ownership of the cemetery, to direct Veterans Affairs and Canadian Heritage to develop a clear action plan with the Last Post Fund and a timeline for its transfer to the Crown, like all of our other military cemeteries, and to announce the plan by November 11, 2026, as a tribute to the service and sacrifice of all our veterans.
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today, again, on Bill C-9. I may sound like a broken record here, but some truths just bear repeating.
Petitioners in my community are calling on the government to reverse course and not remove long-standing protections from the Criminal Code that protect people of faith, Canadians of faith, reading sacred texts like the Bible, the Torah and the Quran. The proposal by the Liberals and the Bloc would subject those Canadians to potential criminal prosecution for the simple fact of believing in a faith and expressing that belief publicly. Therefore, residents in my riding are calling on the government to withdraw this proposal and, secondly, to protect and promote religious freedom in Canada.
Gaétan Malette Conservative Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON
Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition that will be circulated throughout northern Ontario, calling for Trans-Canada Highway 11 to be designated as a critical project of national interest to support the economic stability and security of all Canadians.
I present this petition on behalf of Canadians living along Trans-Canada Highway 11 in order to designate it as a project of national interest and ensure the highway's safety and reliability for all Canadians.
Terry Dowdall Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Simcoe—Grey to present a petition.
People in Clearview Township were shocked and surprised when the Department of National Defence bought a farm of 750 acres from one farmer and proposed an over-the-horizon radar system. We are very supportive of our military, as Canadian Forces Base Borden is within our border. The concern is that the department needs another 2,600 acres, and people are extremely worried that the government, if needed for phase two, will expropriate those lands.
No one is interested in selling, so the petitioners are asking that the government stop the building of the over-the-horizon site on the already purchased property, prevent future acquisition of prime farmland for the building of the over-the-horizon site on the prime farmland in Clearview Township, and preferably register the previously purchased property with the Ontario Farmland Trust to preserve its agricultural status. We are definitely opposed to expropriation of these properties.
Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today regarding Bill C-9. Canadians are concerned that Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts.
The state has no place in religious texts or teachings of any faith community. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. Therefore, the petitioners call on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, to uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and to prevent government overreach into matters of faith.
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of London—Fanshawe and also on behalf of my fellow Canadians with concerns about Bill C-9. The concern is that Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from religious texts, including the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved.
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, I also bring forward a petition addressing Bill C-9, which will be voted on later today.
The petitioning Canadian citizens wish to bring to the attention of the government the fact that the Liberals have proposed removing from the Criminal Code safeguards that protect good-faith expressions of sincerely held religious beliefs, including those based on religious texts like the Bible, the Quran or the Torah.
Canadians share the Liberals' desire to combat acts that propagate and normalize hate, but the proposal would not achieve that goal and would instead result in the persecution of people who hold and express in good faith sincerely held religious beliefs. Violence and threats are by definition excluded from the scope of that protection for freedom of expression and could never be expressed in good faith. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental freedoms worthy of protection and promotion, not persecution.
Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the government to withdraw this proposal and oppose any similar proposals in the future, and to protect and promote the religious freedoms of all Canadians, uphold their right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into all matters of faith.
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition regarding Bill C-9. The Canadians who have signed this petition want to remind the government that it has no authority over sacred texts or teachings of any faith community. That boundary is not negotiable. Bill C-9 would overstep the boundary, stripping away long-standing protections that have allowed Canadians to speak and live their faith in good faith.
This is what the petitioners have said. Canadians are concerned that Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other texts. The state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. Therefore, the petitioners call on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, to uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and to prevent government overreach into matters of faith.
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, dozens of constituents from the riding of Waterloo have signed the petition I am presenting, and many of these applicants have lived in Canada for several years, maintaining lawful status, contributing to the economy and the research sector, and repeatedly passing previous security verifications. Many of these constituents are actually Iranian nationals holding Canadian masters degrees and Ph.D.s.
The petitioners are raising to the Government of Canada that they feel and believe that the security screening process is disproportionately unfair for people who come from certain parts of the world, so they would like to bring this matter to the government's attention.
The petitioners make the point that they have been here for an extended period of time, sometimes even 10 to 15 years, before they are invited to apply for the provincial nominee program to have permanent residence. They would like the Government of Canada to look into this process and the scrutiny under the security process. They want Canada to be safe, but they also want to have a fair chance to be able to establish themselves and to continue contributing to the Canadian economy as Canadian citizens.
William Stevenson Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Grand Cache, in my wonderful riding of Yellowhead.
People are calling on the government to do one thing: restore fairness to the community. It is a remote and isolated town where everything costs more. While these are exactly the kinds of challenges the northern residents deduction is meant to address, a line on the map that was drawn by a bureaucrat in Ottawa has excluded Grand Cache from the program. My constituents are simply asking for fair treatment. If Grand Cache were reclassified, a typical family with children would save about $1,200, which should be left in its pocket. Exceptions have been made in the past for other remote communities, including, recently, Haida Gwaii in British Columbia.
The petitioners therefore call on the government to include Grand Cache in the northern residents deduction program. I support their call and will continue to advocate on their behalf in the House.
Northern Residents DeductionPetitionsRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
Before I continue with Routine Proceedings, this is just a reminder to members that typically when we are tabling petitions, they are all supposed to be done together. It is not the normal practice to go back to a member who has already tabled a petition.
Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am asking for grace to table a petition. I did not do it in my first standing, but I do have another one today.
Northern Residents DeductionPetitionsRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
Do I have unanimous consent from the chamber in order that the member may table the petition?