Bill C-19 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures by
(a) providing a Labour Mobility Deduction for the temporary relocation of tradespeople to a work location;
(b) allowing for the immediate expensing of eligible property by certain Canadian businesses;
(c) allowing the Children’s Special Allowance to be paid in respect of a child who is maintained by an Indigenous governing body and providing consistent tax treatment of kinship care providers and foster parents receiving financial assistance from an Indigenous governing body and those receiving such assistance from a provincial government;
(d) doubling the allowable qualifying expense limit under the Home Accessibility Tax Credit;
(e) expanding the criteria for the mental functions impairment eligibility as well as the life-sustaining therapy category eligibility for the Disability Tax Credit;
(f) providing clarity in respect of the determination of the one-time additional payment under the GST/HST tax credit for the period 2019-2020;
(g) changing the delivery of Climate Action Incentive payments from a refundable credit claimed annually to a credit that is paid quarterly;
(h) temporarily extending the period for incurring eligible expenses and other deadlines under film or video production tax credits;
(i) providing a tax incentive for specified zero-emission technology manufacturing activities;
(j) providing the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) the discretion to accept late applications for the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy and the Canada Recovery Hiring Program;
(k) including postdoctoral fellowship income in the definition of “earned income” for RRSP purposes;
(l) enabling registered charities to enter into charitable partnerships with organizations other than qualified donees under certain conditions;
(m) allowing automatic and immediate revocation of the registration of an organization as a charity where that organization is listed as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code ;
(n) enabling the CRA to use taxpayer information to assist in the collection of Canada Emergency Business Account loans; and
(o) expanding capital cost allowance deductions to include new clean energy equipment.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Excise Tax Act , the Children’s Special Allowances Act , the Excise Act, 2001 , the Income Tax Regulations and the Children’s Special Allowance Regulations .
Part 2 implements certain Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) measures by
(a) ensuring that all assignment sales in respect of newly constructed or substantially renovated residential housing are taxable supplies for GST/HST purposes; and
(b) extending eligibility for the expanded hospital rebate to health care services supplied by charities or non-profit organizations with the active involvement of, or on the recommendation of, either a physician or a nurse practitioner, irrespective of their geographic location.
Part 3 amends the Excise Act, 2001 , the Excise Act and other related texts in order to implement three measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 implements a new federal excise duty framework for vaping products by, among other things,
(a) requiring that manufacturers of vaping products obtain a vaping licence from the CRA;
(b) requiring that all vaping products that are removed from the premises of a vaping licensee to be entered into the Canadian market for retail sale be affixed with an excise stamp;
(c) imposing excise duties on vaping products to be paid by vaping product licensees;
(d) providing for administration and enforcement rules related to the excise duty framework on vaping products;
(e) providing the Governor in Council with authority to provide for an additional excise duty in respect of provinces and territories that enter into a coordinated vaping product taxation agreement with Canada; and
(f) making related amendments to other legislative texts, including to allow for a coordinated federal/provincial-territorial vaping product taxation system and to ensure that the excise duty framework applies properly to imported vaping products.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the excise duty exemption under the Excise Act, 2001 for wine produced in Canada and composed wholly of agricultural or plant product grown in Canada.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Excise Act to eliminate excise duty for beer containing no more than 0.5% alcohol by volume.
Part 4 enacts the Select Luxury Items Tax Act . That Act creates a new taxation regime for domestic sales, and importations into Canada, of certain new motor vehicles and aircraft priced over $100,000 and certain new boats priced over $250,000. It provides that the tax applies if the total price or value of the subject select luxury item at the time of sale or importation exceeds the relevant price threshold. It provides that the tax is to be calculated at the lesser of 10% of the total price of the item and 20% of the total price of the item that exceeds the relevant price threshold. To promote compliance with the new taxation regime, that Act includes modern elements of administration and enforcement aligned with those found in other taxation statutes. Finally, this Part also makes related and consequential amendments to other texts to ensure proper implementation of the new tax and to ensure a cohesive and efficient administration by the CRA.
Division 1 of Part 5 retroactively renders a provision of the contract that is set out in the schedule to An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway , chapter 1 of the Statutes of Canada, 1881, to be of no force or effect. It retroactively extinguishes any obligations and liabilities of Her Majesty in right of Canada and any rights and privileges of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company arising out of or acquired under that provision.
Division 2 of Part 5 amends the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act to give force of law to the entire Nisga’a Nation Taxation Agreement during the period that that Taxation Agreement is, by its terms, in force.
Division 3 of Part 5 repeals the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act .
It also amends the Income Tax Act to exempt from taxation under that Act any income earned by the Safe Drinking Water Trust in accordance with the Settlement Agreement entered into on September 15, 2021 relating to long-term drinking water quality for impacted First Nations.
Division 4 of Part 5 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of addressing transit shortfalls and needs and improving housing supply and affordability.
Division 5 of Part 5 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act by adding the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and one other member to that Corporation’s Board of Directors.
Division 6 of Part 5 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize additional payments to the provinces and territories.
Division 7 of Part 5 amends the Borrowing Authority Act to, among other things, count previously excluded borrowings made in the spring of 2021 in the calculation of the maximum amount that may be borrowed. It also amends the Financial Administration Act to change certain reporting requirements in relation to amounts borrowed under orders made under paragraph 46.1(c) of that Act.
Division 8 of Part 5 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to, among other things, permit the establishment of a solvency reserve account in the pension fund of certain defined benefit plans and require the establishment of governance policies for all pension plans.
Division 9 of Part 5 amends the Special Import Measures Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that assessments of injury are to take into account impacts on workers;
(b) require the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to make inquiries with respect to massive importations when it is acting under section 42 of that Act;
(c) require that Tribunal to initiate expiry reviews of certain orders and findings;
(d) modify the deadline for notifying the government of the country of export of properly documented complaints;
(e) modify the criteria for imposing duties in cases of massive importations;
(f) modify the criteria for initiating anti-circumvention investigations; and
(g) remove the requirement that, in order to find circumvention, the principal cause of the change in a pattern of trade must be the imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing duties.
It also amends the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act to provide that trade unions may, with the support of domestic producers, file global safeguard complaints.
Division 10 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things, modernize corporate governance communications of financial institutions.
Division 11 of Part 5 amends the Insurance Companies Act to permit property and casualty companies and marine companies to not include the value of certain debt obligations when calculating their borrowing limit.
Division 12 of Part 5 enacts the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act . The Act prohibits the purchase of residential property in Canada by non-Canadians unless they are exempted by the Act or its regulations or the purchase is made in certain circumstances specified in the regulations.
Division 13 of Part 5 amends the Parliament of Canada Act and makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts to, among other things,
(a) change the additional annual allowances that are paid to senators who occupy certain positions so that the government’s representatives and the Opposition in the Senate are eligible for the allowances for five positions each and the three other recognized parties or parliamentary groups in the Senate with the greatest number of members are eligible for the allowances for four positions each;
(b) provide that the Leader of the Government in the Senate or Government Representative in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader or Facilitator of every other recognized party or parliamentary group in the Senate are to be consulted on the appointment of certain officers and agents of Parliament; and
(c) provide that the Leader of the Government in the Senate or Government Representative in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader or Facilitator of every other recognized party or parliamentary group in the Senate may change the membership of the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Division 14 of Part 5 amends the Financial Administration Act in order to, among other things, allow the Treasury Board to provide certain services to certain entities.
Division 15 of Part 5 amends the Competition Act to enhance the Commissioner of Competition’s investigative powers, criminalize wage fixing and related agreements, increase maximum fines and administrative monetary penalties, clarify that incomplete price disclosure is a false or misleading representation, expand the definition of anti-competitive conduct, allow private access to the Competition Tribunal to remedy an abuse of dominance and improve the effectiveness of the merger notification requirements and other provisions.
Division 16 of Part 5 amends the Copyright Act to extend certain terms of copyright protection, including the general term, from 50 to 70 years after the life of the author and, in doing so, implements one of Canada’s obligations under the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement.
Division 17 of Part 5 amends the College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents Act to, among other things,
(a) ensure that the College has sufficient independence and flexibility to exercise its corporate functions;
(b) provide statutory immunity to certain persons involved in the regulatory activities of the College; and
(c) grant powers to the Registrar and Investigations Committee that will allow for improved efficiency in the complaints and discipline process.
Division 18 of Part 5 enacts the Civil Lunar Gateway Agreement Implementation Act to implement Canada’s obligations under the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America concerning Cooperation on the Civil Lunar Gateway. It provides for powers to protect confidential information provided under the Memorandum. It also makes related amendments to the Criminal Code to extend its application to activities related to the Lunar Gateway and to the Government Employees Compensation Act to address the cross-waiver of liability set out in the Memorandum.
Division 19 of Part 5 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to restrict the use of detention in dry cells to cases where the institutional head has reasonable grounds to believe that an inmate has ingested contraband or that contraband is being carried in the inmate’s rectum.
Division 20 of Part 5 amends the Customs Act in order to authorize its administration and enforcement by electronic means and to provide that the importer of record of goods is jointly and severally, or solidarily, liable to pay duties on the goods under section 17 of that Act with the importer or person authorized to account for the goods, as the case may be, and the owner of the goods.
Division 21 of Part 5 amends the Criminal Code to create an offence of wilfully promoting antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust through statements communicated other than in private conversation.
Division 22 of Part 5 amends the Judges Act , the Federal Courts Act , the Tax Court of Canada Act and certain other acts to, among other things,
(a) implement the Government of Canada’s response to the report of the sixth Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission regarding salaries and benefits and to create the office of supernumerary prothonotary of the Federal Court;
(b) increase the number of judges for certain superior courts and include the new offices of Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick and Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan;
(c) create the offices of prothonotary and supernumerary prothonotary of the Tax Court of Canada; and
(d) replace the term “prothonotary” with “associate judge”.
Division 23 of Part 5 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to give instructions establishing categories of foreign nationals for the purposes of determining to whom an invitation to make an application for permanent residence is to be issued, as well as instructions setting out the economic goal that that Minister seeks to support in establishing the category;
(b) prevent an officer from issuing a visa or other document to a foreign national invited in respect of an established category if the foreign national is not in fact eligible to be a member of that category;
(c) require that the annual report to Parliament on the operation of that Act include a description of any instructions that establish a category of foreign nationals, the economic goal sought to be supported in establishing the category and the number of foreign nationals invited to make an application for permanent residence in respect of the category; and
(d) authorize that Minister to give instructions respecting the class of permanent residents in respect of which a foreign national must apply after being issued an invitation, if the foreign national is eligible to be a member of more than one class.
Division 24 of Part 5 amends the Old Age Security Act to correct a cross-reference in that Act to the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 .
Division 25 of Part 5
(a) amends the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act to set out the consequences that apply in respect of a worker who received, for a four-week period, an income support payment and who received, for any week during the four-week period, any benefit, allowance or money referred to in subparagraph 6(1)(b)(ii) or (iii) of that Act;
(b) amends the Canada Emergency Student Benefit Act to set out the consequences that apply in respect of a student who received, for a four-week period, a Canada emergency student benefit and who received, for any week during the four-week period, any benefit, allowance or money referred to in subparagraph 6(1)(b)(ii) or (iii) of that Act; and
(c) amends the Employment Insurance Act to set out the consequences that apply in respect of a claimant who received, for any week, an employment insurance emergency response benefit and who received, for that week, any payment or benefit referred to in paragraph 153.9(2)(c) or (d) of that Act.
Division 26 of Part 5 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things,
(a) replace employment benefits and support measures set out in Part II of that Act with employment support measures that are intended to help insured participants and other workers — including workers in groups underrepresented in the labour market — to obtain and keep employment; and
(b) allow the Canada Employment Insurance Commission to enter into agreements to provide for the payment of contributions to organizations for the costs of measures that they implement and that are consistent with the purpose and guidelines set out in Part II of that Act.
It also makes a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act .
Division 27 of Part 5 amends the Employment Insurance Act to specify the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers and to extend, until October 28, 2023, the increase in the maximum number of weeks for which those benefits may be paid. It also amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 to add a transitional measure in relation to amendments to the Employment Insurance Regulations that are found in that Act.
Division 28 of Part 5 amends the Canada Pension Plan to make corrections respecting
(a) the calculation of the minimum qualifying period and the contributory period for the purposes of the post-retirement disability benefit;
(b) the determination of values for contributors who have periods excluded from their contributory periods by reason of disability; and
(c) the attribution of amounts for contributors who have periods excluded from their contributory periods because they were family allowance recipients.
Division 29 of Part 5 amends An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) shorten the period before which an employee begins to earn one day of medical leave of absence with pay per month;
(b) standardize the conditions related to the requirement to provide a medical certificate following a medical leave of absence, regardless of whether the leave is paid or unpaid;
(c) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations in certain circumstances, including to modify certain provisions respecting medical leave of absence with pay;
(d) ensure that, for the purposes of medical leave of absence, an employee who changes employers due to the lease or transfer of a work, undertaking or business or due to a contract being awarded through a retendering process is deemed to be continuously employed with one employer; and
(e) provide that the provisions relating to medical leave of absence come into force no later than December 1, 2022.
Division 30 of Part 5 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to, among other things,
(a) require certain corporations to send to the Director appointed under that Act information on individuals with significant control on an annual basis or when a change occurs;
(b) allow that Director to provide all or part of that information to an investigative body, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada or any prescribed entity; and
(c) clarify that, for the purposes of subsection 21.1(7) of that Act, it is the securities of a corporation, not the corporation itself, that are listed and posted for trading on a designated stock exchange.
Division 31 of Part 5 amends the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) to, among other things,
(a) create regimes allowing for the forfeiture of property that has been seized or restrained under those Acts;
(b) specify that the proceeds resulting from the disposition of those properties are to be used for certain purposes; and
(c) allow for the sharing of information between certain persons in certain circumstances.
It also makes amendments to the Seized Property Management Act in relation to those forfeiture of property regimes.

Opposition Motion—Measures to Lower Food Prices

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate on the NDP motion submitted by the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford in relation to the price of essential foods and the conduct of grocery giants, such as Loblaws, Metro and Sobeys.

The proposed motion is timely, because by voting in favour of Bill C-59 last week, this House approved the latest initiative in the government's comprehensive modernization of the Competition Act. The relevant clauses were approved unanimously, showing the strong consensus here in this chamber on these issues.

The truth of the matter is that the government has been extremely active in promoting competition in all sectors of the economy, including in the grocery retail industry. It begins with resourcing. In budget 2021, the government increased the Competition Bureau's budget by $96 million over five years and $27.5 million ongoing thereafter. The increase in resources was a much needed boost to the bureau's capacity, and in its own words, “These funds enhance our ability to enforce the law and advocate for more competition. They help ensure we have the right tools to deal with Canada’s competition challenges now and in the future.”

Needless to say, law enforcement will not be effective if the enforcers are not able to carry out their tasks, and that is why this extraordinary increase was crucial to the bureau's functioning. The next step had to do with the legal framework under which the bureau operates, the Competition Act, which was aging and falling short compared to our international partners.

Through the 2022 budget bill, Bill C-19, we took the first step in remedying this, correcting some of the obvious issues. This included criminalizing wage-fixing agreements, allowing private parties to seek an order for abuse of a dominant position and raising maximum penalty amounts to be based on the benefits of anti-competitive conduct. This ensures that sanctions would no longer be a mere slap on the wrist for today's largest economic actors.

The government knew, however, that much more remained to be done. Where the solutions were less readily obvious, the minister turned to the public process, launching a comprehensive public consultation on the future of Canada's competition policy. The process ran from November 2022 through March 2023.

In response to a consultation paper released by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, over 500 responses were received. This consisted of over 130 from identified stakeholders like academics, businesses, practitioners and non-government organizations.

While this feedback was being received, government officials also met with stakeholders in round table groups, allowing them to voice their views and to interact with each other as well. Stakeholders were not shy about sharing their opinions with us. They knew what sorts of outcomes they wanted to be delivered.

There was no shortage of proposals made, some highly concrete and detailed, others more directional in nature. What we heard, however, is that Canadians wanted more competition. Across many domains, the desire to strengthen the law, to enable the bureau to act and to align with international counterparts was evident.

Of course, many also expressed reservations about ensuring we get the details right and warned about overcorrection. The government took those to heart as well, taking inspiration from examples in other jurisdictions and recognizing the careful balancing that must be done when developing new legislation.

All told, the results of the consultation can be seen in two pieces of government legislation.

First, Bill C-56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, was adopted in December 2023. It took some of the largest issues off the table. It eliminated the “efficiency exception”, which allowed anti-competition mergers to withstand challenge. It revised the law on abuse of dominant position to open up new avenues for a remedial order. It broadened the types of collaboration the bureau can examine, including those that are not formed between direct competitors. It established a framework for the bureau to conduct marketing studies, including the possibility of production orders to compel information. Work on this last amendment is already under way, as the bureau has announced an intention to launch a study into the passenger air travel industry.

Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023, is the second legislative effort following the consultation. As we know, it is currently before the Senate, and the government looks forward to its quick adoption. The amendments to the Competition Act that it contains are incredibly comprehensive. I will provide some of the highlights.

The bill makes critical amendments to merger notification and review to ensure that the bureau is aware of the most important deals and would be able to take action before it is too late. It significantly revamps the enforcement framework to strengthen provisions dealing with anti-competitive agreements, and it broadens the private enforcement framework so that more people could bring their own cases before the Competition Tribunal for a wider variety of reasons; in some cases, they could even be eligible for a financial award.

Bill C-59 also helps address important government priorities by making it harder to engage in “greenwashing”, which is the questionable or false representation of a product or a business’s environmental benefits. It facilitates useful environmental collaboration that might otherwise have been unlawful. It helps to make repair options more available for consumers by ensuring that refusals to provide the necessary means can be reviewed and remedied as needed.

Finally, overall, Bill C-59 makes a number of critical but often technical updates throughout the law to remove enforcement obstacles and make sure that the entire system runs smoothly.

I cannot overstate how important these measures are. The competition commissioner has referred to this as a “generational” transformation. It is by far the most significant update to the law since the amendments in 2009, following the recommendations of the competition policy review panel; arguably, it is the most comprehensive rewrite of the Competition Act since it first came into effect in 1986. Our world has changed since then, and it became clear that the law needed to keep pace to enable institutions that can oversee fast-changing markets and landscapes.

After the passage of Bill C-59, we can guarantee that our competition law will work for Canadians in markets such as the one under scrutiny here, as well as the many other markets throughout our economy.

I am thankful for having been given the opportunity to share a few words.

Ways and Means Motion No. 19—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I am now ready to provide the House with an explanatory ruling on the admissibility of Ways and Means Motion No. 19. On November 29, 2023, I ruled that the order for consideration of the motion, and the subsequent bill based thereon, be allowed to proceed further.

On November 28, 2023, the House leader of the official opposition challenged the admissibility of the motion. He pointed out that Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents), and Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services), both currently in committee, were substantially the same as provisions covered in Ways and Means Motion No. 19, tabled earlier that day.

Concurrence in a ways and means motion constitutes an order to bring in a bill based on the provisions of the motion. This is indeed what happened with the subsequent introduction of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

The House leader argued that the two private members’ bills had already been the subject of decisions of the House at second reading. The ways and means motion and Bill C-59 would violate a procedural concept, the rule of anticipation, which he described as the “same question rule”. Quoting from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 568, the member seemed to suggest that a ways and means motion could not anticipate a matter already standing on the Order Paper and which was contained in another form of proceeding. He asserted that Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 were more effective tools to accomplish the desired intent than Ways and Means Motion No. 19. As such, both these bills should have priority over the motion.

He also cited precedents in relation to bills that could or could not proceed further, based on the fundamental principle that the same question cannot be decided twice within a session.

The member further suggested that Ways and Means Motion No. 19 be put in abeyance pending the outcome of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, based on the rule of anticipation.

For his part, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that further consideration of Ways and Means Motion No. 19, as well as subsequent proceedings on an associated bill, was in order. He referenced past precedents about similar bills. He made the point that the provisions in Ways and Means Motion No. 19 contained numerous elements that are not found in Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, which indicates that the principle and scope of the ways and means motion are broader than what is found in either of the bills. As such, Ways and Means Motion No. 19, and the bill based thereon, constituted different questions.

In his intervention, the House leader of the official opposition quoted from page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on the rule of anticipation. The Chair would like to read, from the same page, prior to the quoted passage. It states:

The moving of a motion was formerly subject to the ancient “rule of anticipation” which is no longer strictly observed.

Further down on the same page it says, “While the rule of anticipation is part of the Standing Orders in the British House of Commons, it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons. Furthermore, references to past attempts to apply this British rule to Canadian practice are inconclusive.”

Even though the notion of anticipation is described in our procedural authorities, and the expression is sometimes colloquially used in points of order and even some past rulings dealing with similar items, it is indeed a very difficult concept to apply in our context.

Establishing a hierarchy between bills and motions, or between categories of bills, and giving precedence to some, may prove difficult, except in very specific cases, detailed in House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Bills and motions are different by nature and achieve different ends.

What the Chair is seized with in reviewing the current matter is the rule forbidding the same question from being decided twice in the same session. It is different from the concept of anticipation and, in the view of the Chair, the one that should apply.

In his submission, the House leader of the official opposition cited various recent precedents, and the Chair thinks it pertinent to describe some of their procedural subtleties.

The first example, from the last Parliament, pertained to two bills not identical, but substantially similar: Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sports betting, a private members' bill, and Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding single event sport betting, a government bill. Both were at second reading and both were very short bills touching the same section of the Criminal Code.

By adopting Bill C‑218 at second reading, the House had agreed to the larger principle of repealing the very portion of the Criminal Code that Bill C‑13 also sought to amend. This sequencing left the House with a situation where Bill C‑13 could not move forward as long as Bill C‑218 continued its course.

The second example, from earlier this session, described a budget implementation bill, Bill C-19, and a votable private members’ bill amending the Criminal Code regarding the promotion of anti-Semitism, Bill C-250. The latter, introduced on February 9, 2022, contained provisions that were subsequently included in Bill C-19, introduced on April 28, 2022. However, of the two bills, the government bill was the first to be adopted at second reading and referred to committee. One of the key differences was that the two bills were not substantially identical. Bill C-19 was much broader in scope than Bill C-250. By agreeing to Bill C-19, the House de facto agreed with the principles presented in C-250. No decision having yet been made on Bill C-250, the Chair ordered that it be held as pending business until such time as royal assent be granted to Bill C-19.

Finally, the member referenced rulings dealing with two votable Private Members’ Business items, Bill C-243, an act respecting the elimination of the use of forced labour and child labour in supply chains, and Bill S-211, an act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff. The two bills had the same objective and only one was allowed to proceed further. The Chair indicated at the time that the case involved an unusual set of circumstances, since normally one of them could have been designated as non-votable by the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business had the sequence of events been different.

The House leader's main argument hinged on the question of whether provisions contained in Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and therefore Bill C-59 are similar or identical to Bills C-318 and C-323.

Bills C‑318 and C‑323 have been both read a second time and referred to committee, while no decision has yet been made on Bill C‑59. An exhaustive review of its provisions shows that it does contain some similar provisions found in the two aforementioned private members' bills. However, Bill C‑59 cannot be described as substantially similar or identical to them.

Its scope is vastly broader, containing many more elements than what is included in Bills C-318 and C-323, including taxation legislation and provisions requiring a royal recommendation

The bills are similar in part, but are not substantially the same. The principles of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, as adopted at second reading, are indeed included in the broader Bill C-59, but the reverse is not true. Therefore, the decision the House will take on Bill C-59 will not be the same. Accordingly, there is no procedural reason to stop the bill from continuing its journey through the legislative process.

To be clear, when a government bill and a private member's bill or when two private members' bills are substantially similar, only one of them may proceed and be voted on. Once one of the two has passed second reading, a decision cannot be taken on the other within the same session. Where bills are only similar in part, the effect of adopting one might have a different impact on the other depending on their principle, scope and, of course, which bill is adopted first.

I note that the House leader of the official opposition rose earlier today on a different point of order considering the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-59. I wish to inform the member and the House that I am reviewing the matter closely and I do intend to come back with a ruling in a timely manner.

Nonetheless, for the time being, the Chair sees no reason to rule that Bill C-59 be put in abeyance. As for the two Private Members' Business items currently in committee, it seems premature for the Chair to intervene at this time.

I thank all members for their attention.

Ways and Means Motion No. 19

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

Madam Speaker, the second point of order is a little more detailed.

I rise to respond to a point of order raised on Tuesday, November 28, by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle respecting the inadmissibility of the notice of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and two items of Private Members' Business.

The crux of the argument by the member opposite is on the principle of a bill at second reading stage. This is the heart of the argument. I would humbly point to the purpose of the second reading debate and the vote at that stage, which is on the principle of the bill.

Before I get into the specific matters involved in the member's argument, I would like to remind my colleagues across the aisle of what a debate and vote on the principle of a bill entails.

Members of the House know that our Standing Orders and practices derive from those of Westminster. If a member would like to look into how debates at Westminster are handled at the second reading stage, they might be surprised. The British House of Commons has 650 members, yet the debate on any government bill at the second reading stage very rarely exceeds one sitting day.

Now I will go to the specific argument raised by my colleague across the way. The two bills in question that are subject to certain provisions containing Ways and Means Motion No. 19 are Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, and Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services).

With respect to the first item, Bill C-318 requires a royal recommendation which would govern the entire scheme of a new employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents. As a result, the bill cannot come to a vote at third reading in the absence of a royal recommendation provided by a minister of the Crown.

The bill was drafted by employees of the law clerk's office who would have notified the sponsor of this requirement. While I would not want to speculate on the intentions of the member who sponsored this bill, there is little doubt that the member knew this bill would not pass without royal recommendation.

As a result of a ministerial mandate commitment to bring forward an employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents with an accompanying royal recommendation, the government has brought forward this measure for consideration of the House in a manner that raises no procedural obstacle to providing this important benefit for Canadians. It is the sole prerogative of the executive to authorize new and distinct spending from the consolidated revenue fund, and that is what is proposed in the bill that would implement the measures contained in Ways and Means Motion No. 19.

Now I will go to the point of a similar question. The example my colleague raised with respect to the Speaker's ruling on February 18, 2021, concerns Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 respecting single sports betting. Both bills contain the same principle, that being to allow certain forms of single sports betting. The approaches contained in Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 were slightly different, but achieved the same purpose. As a result, and rightly so, the Speaker ruled that the bills were substantially similar and ruled that Bill C-13 not be proceeded with.

The situation with Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 bears no resemblance to the situation currently before the House, and the member opposite has been again helpful in making my argument. The member cites the situation with Bill C-19 and Bill C-250 concerning Holocaust denial.

The case with this situation, and the case currently before the House, is instructional for the question faced by the Speaker, which is whether the principle of the questions on the second reading of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, and the question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19, are the same.

The answer is categorically no. The question on both Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question should Ways and Means Motion No. 19 be adopted on the implementing of a bill are vastly different. The questions at second reading on Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 are specific questions on the principle of measures contained in those private members' bills.

The question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question at second reading on the bill to implement those measures is much broader. As the member stated in his intervention yesterday, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 contains many measures announced in the 2023 budget as well as in the fall economic statement. While the measures to implement the fall economic statement are thematically linked to the issue of affordability, they contain many measures to address the affordability challenges facing Canadians. As a result, the question at second reading on implementing legislation is a very different question for the House to consider.

In conclusion, while there have been precedents respecting similar questions on similar bills which propose a scheme for a specific issue, namely Bill C-13 and Bill C-218, this and other precedents do not in any way suggest that the questions at second reading on Bill C-323 and Bill C-318 in any way resemble the question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question at second reading on the implementing bill for the measures contained in the 2023 budget and the fall economic statement.

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

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order challenging the admissibility of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 concerning the fall economic statement implementation bill, which was tabled earlier today by the Deputy Prime Minister. It is my submission that the motion offends the rule against anticipation, sometimes also known as the “same question rule”. That rule is described on page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which reads as follows:

The rule is dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If a decision is taken on the first bill (for example, to defeat the bill or advance it through a stage in the legislative process), then the other may not be proceeded with...If the first bill is withdrawn (by unanimous consent, often after debate has started), then the second may be proceeded with.

The rule against anticipation has been building a significant number of precedents in the past few years in light of the NDP-Liberal government's growing pattern of stealing common-sense Conservative private members' bills to add to their own legislative agenda. While our authorities suggest that such points of order should be raised only when the second question is actually proposed from the Chair, I recognize that in light of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 being an omnibus proposal, exceeding 500 pages in length, you, Madam Speaker, might appreciate having the evening to reflect on the issues I am about to discuss before the government intends to call it for consideration tomorrow.

In the present case, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 includes provisions that the House has already adopted in principle at second reading through two private members' bills.

On September 20, the House passed second reading Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, sponsored by the Conservative hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. The summary printed on the inside cover of the bill reads:

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act to introduce a new type of special benefits: an attachment benefit of 15 weeks for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. It also amends the Canada Labour Code to extend parental leave accordingly.

Last week's fall economic statement on pages 43 and 42 states that:

The 2023 Fall Economic Statement proposes to introduce a new 15-week shareable EI adoption...Surrogate parents will also be eligible for this benefit.

The 2023 Fall Economic Statement also proposes to make amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, as well as corresponding changes to the Canada Labour Code, to ensure that workers in federally regulated industries have the job protection they need while receiving the EI adoption benefit.

Those provisions appear as clauses 342 to 365 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19. While the legislative language used varies, the ultimate policy objective and therefore the principle of the matter remains the same as a close examination of the two passages I quoted reveals.

The second private member's bill stolen by the government this week is Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, mental health services, sponsored by the Conservative member for Cumberland—Colchester, which the House passed at second reading on September 27. My colleague's bill would amend sections 1 and 7 of part II of schedule V of the Excise Tax Act to exempt psychotherapy and mental health counselling from GST. Clause 137 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 would do the exact same thing, except that the government refers to “counselling therapy” instead of Bill C-323's “mental health counselling”. That is, I would submit, a distinction without a difference.

Indeed, I would draw the Chair's attention to clause 144 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 that makes coordinating provisions if each is enacted, which demonstrates the government also sees these as identical measures, but what is especially galling is subclause 144(5), “For greater certainty, if this Act receives royal asset then the other Act [Bill C-323] is deemed never to have produced its effects.” The government would prefer to toss my colleague's important bill down the memory hole. That is just shameful.

Your predecessor, on February 18, 2021, at page 4256 of the Debates, ruled that government Bill C-13 could not be proceeded with further following the House's adoption of Bill C-218, citing the rule against anticipation. In so ruling, the Chair said:

The House is now placed in an unusual situation where a decision was made on one of two very similar bills standing on the Order Paper.

The Chair recognizes that both bills are not identical; they are, however, substantially similar as they both amend the exact same provision of the Criminal Code for similar purposes....

Consequently, as long as Bill C-218 follows its course through the legislative process during this session, Bill C-13 may not be proceeded with.

As for the technical differences between those two bills, the Speaker offered a common-sense solution to reconcile them: “the Chair notes that other avenues would be open to the House to achieve those same ends, such as through amendments proposed to Bill C-218 during the committee's study.”

I would respectfully submit that if the government has any concerns about the drafting of Bill C-318 or Bill C-323, the solution is to bring amendments to committee, not to bigfoot them by throwing them into an omnibus budget bill, but that is exactly what happened here. It is what happened last year when Bill C-250, sponsored by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, was scooped up by the government and placed in Bill C-19, a budget implementation bill.

In a May 11, 2022, ruling at page 5123 of the Debates, the Deputy Speaker held:

Bill C-19 was adopted at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance yesterday. The House is now placed in a situation where a decision was made on one of the two bills that contain very similar provisions....

The Chair recognizes that these bills are not identical, as Bill C-19 is much broader in scope and contains other provisions related to the implementation of the budget.

However, in adopting Bill C-19 at second reading, the House has also agreed to the principle of that bill, and consequently, has agreed, among other things, to amend section 319 of the Criminal Code dealing with hate propaganda. As I explained a few moments ago, these are provisions substantially similar to the ones contained in Bill C-250.

Therefore, the question for the Chair is, should Bill C-250 be allowed to proceed further in the legislative process at this time? In the Chair's opinion, it should not be allowed. The House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.

In the case of Bill C-250, the Deputy Speaker directed that it be held as pending business until the final fate of Bill C-19 could be determined. On September 20, 2022, your predecessor ordered Bill C-250 to be discharged and dropped from the Order Paper, given that Bill C-19 had by then received royal assent. A similar pair of rulings occurred on June 6, 2022, and May 11, 2023, in respect of Bill C-243 in light of its overlap with Senate Bill S-211.

While these rulings are all quite recent, they were not novel. Speaker Michener, on March 13, 1959, at page 238 of the Journals, reached the same conclusion for managing this sort of legislative traffic jam:

Thus I have come to the conclusion that this bill must stand, as well as the other bill in the same terms, or at least in terms for exactly the same purpose, until the bill which was first moved has been disposed of either by being withdrawn, which would open the door for one of these other bills to proceed, or by way of being approved, which would automatically dispose of these bills because the House would not vote twice on the same subject matter any more than it would debate the same subject matter twice.

Standing Order 94(1) empowers and directs the Speaker to, “make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members’ Business”. That standing order, I would submit, behooves you to safeguard the process of Private Members' Business as much as possible by drawing a firm and bright line for the government to stop poaching common-sense Conservative bills and claiming them as their own.

One final consideration I want to place before the Chair is one that did not arise in the context of the pairs of bills and the precedents I have cited. We are dealing here with a ways and means motion, not a bill. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 568, explain the relevance of this distinction in the role against anticipation:

According to this rule, which applied to other proceedings as well as to motions, a motion could not anticipate a matter which was standing on the Order Paper for further discussion, whether as a bill or a motion, and which was contained in a more effective form of proceeding.

The associated footnote points readers to other authorities for a fuller explanation, such as the U.K.'s Erskine May. That book's 25th edition, at paragraph 20.13, explains:

...a matter must not be anticipated if contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it was sought to be anticipated, but it might be anticipated if contained in an equally or less effective form. A bill or other order of the day is more effective than a motion....

This principle was explained matter-of-factly by Speaker Casgrain on February 24, 1936, at page 68 of the Journals: “A Bill has the right-of-way and cannot be sidetracked by a Motion.”

In the circumstances, if the precedents and procedural authorities of this House are to be applied consistently, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 must be put into abeyance pending the outcome of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323. I would urge you, Madam Speaker, to so rule.

Sitting Resumed

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C-47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf-sur-Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-8 and C-10, as well as Bill C-11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C-12, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-19, C-24, C-25, C-28, C-30, C-31, C-32, C-36 and C-39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C-43, C-44 and C-46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C-9. Bill C-22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C-13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C-18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C-21, C-29 and C-45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C-47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

Senate Amendments to Bill C-11

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order this morning respecting the government's Motion No. 2 concerning the Senate amendments to Bill C-11.

In my view, the notice of motion engages the rule of anticipation and cannot be proposed to the House later today.

Normally such a point of order should be raised when the motion is actually proposed to the House, but given that it is listed on the Projected Order of Business for consideration in an hour's time, the complexity of the issues involved and as a courtesy to you to find some time to prepare a ruling, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise as soon as the House opened this morning.

On March 8 and March 9, the House considered a government motion concerning the Senate's amendments, a motion which is now referred to as Motion No. 1 on the Notice Paper, to which my colleague, the hon. member for Lethbridge, has moved an amendment.

Flash forward to Friday evening, when today's Notice Paper was published, we see this new motion, Motion No. 2, from the Liberal government. They are both very long motions, so I will spare the Speaker and the House from hearing them each read out loud.

Suffice it to say, I studied them very closely to see what might be different between them. Lo and behold, the English versions of the motions are absolutely identical. When one refers to the French versions, one spots the difference, which is a single instance of a “1” and a “2”, in Roman numerals, being transposed. That is it.

Let me explain for the House briefly what that means. The Liberal government made a drafting mistake; it got its motion wrong. Now it wants a do-over. If one is a golfer, one might call it a mulligan. All this is on a policy Liberals are mistakenly pursuing on a bill they keep botching and on amendments they keep flubbing, and now a motion they cannot even get right, and those people want to control the Internet.

Setting that aside, I will get back to the procedural concern. The substantive effect of these two motions is identical. Indeed, the text in one official language is identical. The words used in the other official language are all the same. It is just two numbers that are transposed.

Having established these motions are, for all intents and purposes, identical, let me refer to page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which explains the rule of anticipation. It reads:

According to this rule, which applied to other proceedings as well as to motions, a motion could not anticipate a matter which was standing on the Order Paper for further discussion, whether as a bill or a motion, and which was contained in a more effective form of proceeding (for example, a bill or any other Order of the Day is more effective than a motion, which in turn has priority over an amendment, which in turn is more effective than a written or oral question). If such a motion were allowed, it could indeed forestall or block a decision from being taken on the matter already on the Order Paper.

It goes on to say:

The rule is dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If the first bill is withdrawn (by unanimous consent, often after debate has started), the second may be proceeded with.... A point of order regarding anticipation may be raised when the second motion is proposed from the Chair, if the first has already been proposed to the House and has become an Order of the Day.

Though the government House leader might argue that questions about this rule do not come up often, there are a series of precedents through the years that are relevant to the issue before the Chair today.

Mr. Speaker Michener, on March 13, 1959, at page 238 of the Journals, held, in relation to the rule of anticipation concerning nearly identical pieces of legislation:

...I first considered whether the motion should be accepted to stand on the Order Paper at the same time. I am satisfied that this was quite in order, but I came to the conclusion that it would be quite improper to permit a second debate on identically the same subject matter as the subject matter of a debate which was already proceeding. In other words, the House is not going to occupy itself on two separate occasions under two separate headings with exactly the same business. That would not be reasonable, and I can find no support or authority for following such a course. Thus I have come to the conclusion that this bill must stand, as well as the other bill in the same terms, or at least in terms for exactly the same purpose, until the bill which was first moved has been disposed of either by being withdrawn, which would open the door for one of these other bills to proceed, or by way of being approved, which would automatically dispose of these bills because the House would not vote twice on the same subject matter any more than it would debate the same subject matter twice.

Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, on July 7, 1969, said, in a ruling found at page 1317 of the Journals, concerning a government motion to amend the Standing Orders, anticipating a motion to concur in a report of the former standing committee on procedure and organization:

I might say, having taken into account the arguments advanced by members of the opposition, that if the honourable Member for Grenville-Carleton had moved his [concurrence] motion I would have recognized that the rule of anticipation would have given his motion precedence...to the motion that is now before the House in the name of the President of the Privy Council. I would have so ruled...

A much more recent predecessor of yours, Mr. Speaker, considered the matter of two committee instruction motions that varied by a difference of just five words. The Chair ruled, on June 11, 2014, at page 6649 of the Debates:

Upon examination of the section of O'Brien and Bosc, upon which both House leaders have relied extensively for their arguments, it seems to the Chair that the key concept is the question of whether or not the motions are substantially the same.

Upon examination of both motions on the notice paper, it does seem that the motions are substantially the same and that the principles cited by the government House leader as to the practice of the House are persuasive to the Chair. Accordingly, we will not be proceeding with the motion at this time.

The rule of anticipation is a concept which is not unheard of in the current Parliament, or to you, Mr. Speaker, for that matter.

On May 11, 2022, the Deputy Speaker, at page 5123 of the Debates, ruled that Bill C-250, the private member's bill proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, could not be debated and would be rendered pending, following the second reading of Bill C-19, a budget implementation bill that contained clauses similar to my friend's bill, because:

The House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.

After Bill C-19 had received royal assent, you made a further ruling, Mr. Speaker, on September 20, 2022, at page 7341 of the Debates, to discharge Bill C-250. In doing so, you said:

...there is a long-standing principle to keep or avoid having the same question from being decided twice within the same session

A similar case can be found in your June 6, 2021 ruling, at page 6142 of the Debates, whereby Bill C-243, sponsored by the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, could not be proceeded with following the second reading of a Senate public bill, Bill S-211. Bill C-243 has been listed on the Order Paper every sitting day since, under the heading “Pending Business”.

To recap the current case, the government's Motion No. 1 concerning the Senate amendments to Bill C-11 was moved, as I mentioned, on March 8, and then became an Order of the Day. Therefore, Motion No. 2 may only be proceeded with if Motion No.1 has been withdrawn, as the various authorities would observe. Otherwise, proceeding with Motion No. 2 would offend the rule of anticipation and cannot be proposed to the House, as forecasted, at noon today.

Mr. Speaker Casgrain's ruling on February 24, 1936, at pages 67 and 68 of the Journals, explains a possible way forward for the government concerning its Motion No. 1:

The adjournment of the debate, last Thursday on the second reading of Bill No. 2...meant that the question shall again be considered at a future sitting when the order for Public Bills will be reached. This is what is called, in parliamentary procedure, appointing a matter for consideration by the House. [Erskine] May...gives many precedents showing that the discussion of an appointed matter cannot be anticipated by a motion...There is sufficient similarity in the Bill and the Motion to confine them to one debate...The difference in details between the two propositions may be dealt with by moving amendments... but it is not sufficient to justify a duplication of the debate. It is a well known principle that the same question cannot be raised twice in the same session.

The difference between the government's Motion No.1 and Motion No. 2 could be addressed by an amendment to Motion No. 1. It is that simple, really.

All the Liberal government needs to do is allow the debate to continue on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lethbridge. Once that debate has eventually concluded and the vote taken, the government could, in the event that my colleague's thoughtful amendment is not adopted by the House, of course, once debate resumes on the main motion, move its own amendment to achieve the change Motion No. 2 contains, which would be up to the House to discuss and decide.

If you were to find my point of order to be well taken, Mr. Speaker, it would not be the first major procedural error the government has made in pursuing its flawed policy to control the Internet. On June 15, 2021, you ruled out of order many committee amendments made to Bill C-11's predecessor in the previous Parliament because the Liberals on the Canadian heritage committee had run roughshod over the rules and broke several of them in trying to rush the bill through Parliament before the opportunistic and unnecessary early election the Prime Minister called that August.

Now it seems that the Liberals are equally hasty in ramming their Internet control bill through the House once again. It is almost as if the government is in a rush to clear the decks for something to come.

I hope you will find in favour of my point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to your response.

Income Tax Act

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

Mr. Speaker, in the statements the member has made, there are some aspects I agree with, and others I disagree with. When we talk about Bill C-241 itself, there are issues with tax fairness within the legislation. There is a lack of safeguards within the legislation that the member talks about supporting. There are some technical deficiencies within the legislation.

I think that, if we take a look, if I may, at Bill C-19, which was the federal legislation that was brought forward, we would see that, in moving forward with the labour mobility tax credit, it does allow for workers in the building and construction trades to deduct up to $4,000 in eligible travel and temporary relocation expenses, giving them a tax credit of up to $600 a year.

The labour mobility tax credit goes a long way in being supportive of an industry. The member made reference to the construction industry in the province of Quebec, and the construction industry in the province of Quebec is, in fact, very important to the government. We recognize that there are many ways and many areas in which, throughout the country, we can look at how we can further enhance and support the construction industry. There is a labour shortage. The member made reference to the kind of actions, and the number of jobs the government created. I think it is worthy of note.

Do members know that over 800,000 jobs have been created if we look at the number of jobs in Canada prepandemic? We can take a look at the number from before the pandemic started, and we can add about 825,000 or 830,000 new jobs since that time. I would ultimately argue that the government has been very successful at ensuring that Canada is in a great position to come back in a better and healthier way when it comes to the whole issue of jobs.

Yes, there is a huge demand for employees in the different regions of the country. There are certain sectors, and the construction area is one of them. That is one of the reasons why we look at other mechanisms we could put into place to support. Whether it is forgiving the interest for apprentices on federal loans, the enhancement of the labour mobility tax credit, or other initiatives, I believe that it is contributing and making a difference.

We also recognize that immigration can play a critical role in meeting our labour demands, not only for today but also into the future. Further to that, I have always argued that, if we look outside Canada to supply workers, we should also, at the same time, look at ways we can enable those workers to become landed immigrants to Canada. That is something that has been very important to the government.

We have been looking at ways in which we can add to the workforce by bringing in international students. This has had a positive impact in Canada, in many different ways, not only filling literally tens of thousands of jobs, but also adding to the social fabric in which we all live in and have grown to appreciate.

The numbers of, and I use this as an example, international students today, compared to what it was seven, eight years ago, have multiplied significantly, from the 35,000 or 40,000 to closer to 350,000. There are significant numbers of international students who are studying a wide spectrum of issues. The member spoke prior talked about construction jobs, and many of students are taking those types of construction jobs. They are getting an education at our colleges and, in some cases, universities, to work either directly or indirectly in the construction industry.

We are looking at ways to further enhance opportunities for those who want to enter the occupation. There are many examples of low-income families working in the industry. I am very pleased with the fact that we have the federal refund tax credit for the Canada workers benefit program. Tens of thousands of Canadians are directly benefiting from that credit. It is significant. An individual receives just over $1,400 and a family unit receives up to $2,400 to assist workers with a lower income.

We can look at the basic tax exemption. I talk about this because taxation policy does matter and does make a difference. The government has looked at the labour mobility tax credit within Bill C-19 and has addressed many of the shortcomings I pointed out in regard to Bill C-241. I had the opportunity to look into what Bill C-241 is proposing, and I would suggest there are too many technical deficiencies. There is an issue of taxation fairness in some of the areas. There is, in fact, a lack of safeguards, as I pointed out. The sponsor of the legislation can maybe sit down with ministers or others and expand on some of those points.

When it comes to apprenticeship programs and ways we can support labour enhancement, the government has been very progressive in trying to deal with that and enhance it. I have been with the Prime Minister in Manitoba on one or two occasions to look at how we can contribute to enhancing trade and labour in the province of Manitoba. We have wonderful organizations out there that are developing programs.

Earlier today we heard the Conservatives finally get on board with the idea of national opportunities for individuals to be recognized in health care professions and have mobility rights across Canada. They refer to it as a “blue seal”. I suspect they are taking that idea in part from the Red Seal program, which is for tradespeople. Whether it is someone international or someone who takes culinary arts to achieve the Red Seal, it has a profoundly positive impact for that individual.

When we look at the construction industry, there is potential growth in that area with regard to getting recognition from a national perspective. The government, through taxation policies, has been there and continues to be there for the construction industry in particular, but also, as I pointed out, for those who are on the low-income scale. Not all construction workers are able to collect the annual money necessary to provide for a full family or even themselves. That is why we have provided the enhancement of the Canada workers benefit program.

I believe it is important that we use our taxation policy as a mechanism to support families and individuals in different situations. One of those situations is looking at ways we can enhance our labour market and support the people who are working so hard to get ahead in life, particularly by upgrading their skills. Apprenticeship programs are an excellent example of that.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great honour to stand in this place to speak on behalf of the residents and constituents of Edmonton Strathcona. I am particularly delighted to stand today to speak about our sanctions regime and the work that needs to be done to strengthen it and ensure it is as adequate and as strong as it can be.

We know that sanctions are one of the tools we have to hold governments and individuals around the world to the rule of law, to human rights, to democracy and to fairness and justice for their citizens. For a very long time, many members in this place have worked very hard and well together to try to increase the effectiveness of our sanctions regime and the ability of sanctions to do what we hope they will do, which is to change the course of governments and individuals, to change their behaviour and punish them for the harms they have caused without harming and punishing innocent people and citizens.

The act we are debating today is Bill S-8. This act would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.

The proposed legislation amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or the IRPA, and it provides Canada with much-needed abilities to better link government sanctions with authorities related to immigration enforcement. I think we can all agree that this means that not only will foreign nationals sanctioned due to the invasion of Ukraine be inadmissible to Canada, but it will also stop all previously sanctioned individuals from places like Iran, Myanmar or Burma, South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe among others.

I and the NDP are very supportive of the bill, but we need to consider, and most of my comments today will be on this, that this is a small piece of what needs to be done to strengthen Canada's sanctions regime.

The bill would not fix some of the things for which we have been calling for some time; for example, the absence of parliamentary oversight. We have very little parliamentary oversight of our sanctions regime, and I will speak to that a bit later.

This would also not fix the enforcement in areas that are not immigration related, for example, the seizure of assets. Again, I will speak to this in more depth later on, but I would raise again in the House that to date about $121 million has been seized from Russian oligarchs as part of our sanctions regime to force Russia to stop its illegal war in Ukraine. While that $121 million is an awful lot to me and probably an awful lot to most of us in this room and in the country, it is not an awful lot for Russian oligarchs.

The bill would also not fix the challenge that we as parliamentarians have with clarity. We still do not have a good system in this place that explains why the government chooses to add some people to the list to be sanctioned, how those decisions are made and how the timing of those decisions is determined. We know we work with our allies and other countries. That is very important for sanctions to be effective. However, as parliamentarians, we need to have more clarity on how those decisions are made.

As we go forward in looking at strengthening the sanctions regime, there are people in the House who have been doing very important work on this. I have to call out my colleague from the Conservative Party, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, for his excellent work on the Magnitsky sanctions. The Deputy Prime Minister also did great work on ensuring the Magnitsky act was put in place. Of course, as some people have mentioned before, and my colleague from the Bloc mentioned just previously, the challenge is that putting a law in place does not actually matter if we do not enforce it or if we do not ensure it is adequately applied.

A perfect example of this is that with the Magnitsky sanctions, we are supposed to do a five-year review. Five years is 2022. There is some review being done in the Senate, but we have not done any review within the foreign affairs committee or within this Parliament. For me, that is the challenge we have.

I spoke briefly about the need to strengthen our sanctions regime. For years, the NDP has been pushing for a stronger sanctions regime. We are happy to see some of the important changes that this bill would bring forward, but there are things we have been asking for for years, including in the 2017 foreign affairs committee study on Canada's sanctions regime. Many of the recommendations from that study have not been implemented. We look forward to the government moving somewhat faster than it has to date to make sure those are implemented, especially considering that right now what we are seeing in Ukraine is a vital need for sanctions to be a key piece of our response to the Ukrainian war.

Another example of why our sanctions regime has not been as effective as it could be is the waiver. We saw the government in the summer, in the middle of July, put a waiver in place that would cancel some of the important sanctions we put in place against Russia. I am not going to stand here and pretend that would not have been a very difficult decision for the government to make. Our German allies and Ukrainian allies were asking for different things, and that is a very difficult situation to be in. While I did not agree with the decision that was made by the government, I do accept it was a difficult decision to make.

That said, first of all, the pipeline the waiver was supporting was a piece of equipment returned to Germany to be returned to Russia, and Russia did not pick it up. The second thing is that the pipeline it was meant to be used on has now been blown up. There is no reason whatsoever for us to still have this waiver in place and still have this lessening of our sanctions against Russia, yet we still do.

The Government of Canada has still not cancelled the waiver, which is appalling. It is something it should be doing immediately. I know the foreign affairs committee will be recommending that, if we can get out of the filibuster that has been put in place by some of our colleagues in the Conservative Party.

The other piece of our sanctions regime that I want to know about is how we can double-check it to see that what is happening is adequate and being done properly. I have talked a bit about sanctions oversight, and we know that after Russia invaded Ukraine in February, sanctions were put in place. However, we also know that those sanctions trickled out after months and months. We learned that many oligarchs had the opportunity to move their assets from Canada so they would not have those assets seized. That is a missed opportunity since those assets were supposed to help rebuild Ukraine and help with the rebuilding initiatives.

We also know that the government has failed to provide the clarity on sanctions that we have hoped for. For example, I have asked about this multiple times in the House and through Order Paper questions to get more information and details on who is being sanctioned, what is being sanctioned, what has been seized, how it is being seized and what processes are being used. However, I have never been able to get an adequate answer from the government.

In fact, one of the Order Paper questions was returned to me with a response that said the government was not 100% sure that it would be able to give me accurate information, so it provided me with no information at all. That is an interesting tactic. I would love to see somebody try to say in a high school or university course that since they are not sure they are giving all the information, they will give none at all. That is something we have problems with. We still do not have that level of clarity.

I have another concern. When the government introduced the last budget implementation act, there was a change to the way that sanctions were dealt with. In the past, there was parliamentary oversight because the government needed to record the use of the sanctions regime or the sanctions act and needed to report it to Parliament. It needed to be tabled with Parliament.

In the Budget Implementation Act, that requirement was removed. Therefore, it is now no longer the government's obligation to tell Parliament what those sanctions are or what has been seized. We could find out if we took the government to court and used a judicial remedy, but we cannot find out just through parliamentary processes.

This is taking away the right of all parliamentarians to have that transparency and to have that understanding of how our sanctions are being chosen, how they are being enforced and if they are working. A sanction is not that useful if it is not being enforced. A sanction is not that important if countries or individuals understand that it will not be enforced in Canada.

There is an interesting thing I found out as I was doing some digging around sanctions. If we want to find out what goods are coming into Canada from Russia, we can look at Russian shipping records. We cannot find that out by looking at Canadian shipping records.

It is very interesting to me that there is transparency that can be found in the U.S., the U.K., the EU and Russia, but we cannot find it here.

That is another challenge I have with our sanction regime. As I said at the beginning, this particular bill would help with some aspects of our sanction regime. I am very happy to support this legislation. I am very happy to see that it would be fixing some of those holes around our sanction regime. However, this seems very much, to me, like tinkering around the edges.

We have heard from the Senate. One of the key quotations from the Senate hearings on Bill S-8, from Canada's foremost expert on sanctions policy, Andrea Charron, was this:

While there is nothing wrong with highlighting in the Immigration and Refugee Act that inadmissibility due to sanctions is possible, this repeats a pattern whereby Canada tinkers on the margins of legislation without addressing core policy and process issues. If we are to continue to sanction autonomously with allies, we need to fix fundamental issues of policy and [fundamental issues of] process.

I believe that we have many things we still need to do. We need to have a comprehensive review of Canada's sanction regime. The NDP has proposed a study at the foreign affairs committee on Canada's sanction regime. That study was meant to have taken place during this fall's session. We are very hopeful that it will take place very quickly once the winter session begins. I urge my colleagues in the Conservative Party to stop filibustering our committee so that we can get on with the very important work of foreign affairs.

We can ensure that our sanctions are being more effectively applied. We can bring forward legislation that would align with the recommendations in the 2017 foreign affairs committee report that called for greater transparency. It called for a review of our sanctions regime and called for a parliamentary body of all parties that would assist in identifying which names and which individuals should be on the Magnitsky list and should be sanctioned by the Government of Canada.

One of our biggest problems, and I have said this many times, is that if we cannot fix our sanction regime, our sanction regime very quickly becomes not as effective and not as useful as we need it to be.

I think that members of the House have brought up circumstances where that is the case. We know that, for example, in Ukraine, sanctions are one of the key tools we have to hold Russia to account for its illegal invasion in Ukraine. It is one of the key levers that Canada can pull to force the Russian Federation to rethink this horrific and illegal attack on civilians.

It is also one of the things that we can use when other human rights abuses are raised around the world. We are seeing horrific attacks on protesters in Iran. Just this morning, I woke up to another horrific example of a protester being executed because he was fighting for his freedom. We know that there are many Iranians who are in grave danger right now. If this sanction regime can be fixed and can help the people in Iran even a little bit, it has to be done.

I am interested in looking at sanctioning a whole range of characters around the world who we know have been responsible for atrocious human rights abuses, such as what we see in Yemen and from members of Saudi Arabia. We need to be ensuring that, as a country, we are standing up for human rights, using the tools we have at our disposal for those efforts.

I also want to point out that the sanctions regime is a tool we also have to use for our feminist international assistance policy and for the feminist foreign policy that we certainly hope the government tables in Parliament very soon. We know that a huge percentage of the people who are identified by the Magnitsky sanctions and the other SEMA sanction measures are perpetrating human rights abuses that are disproportionately impacting women and girls around the world. We know that sexual violence and gender-based violence have been used as a tool to silence journalists and human rights defenders around the world. We know that rape has been used. This violence does not align with a country like Canada, which has a feminist foreign policy and a feminist international assistance policy, and we need to be looking at our foreign responses through that lens.

I would like to end my comments with this. As I was travelling here from Edmonton yesterday, I took some time to read some of the speeches from the Nobel Peace Prize winners, and I want to read a quote to the House. It is by Oleksandra Matviichuk from the Center for Civil Liberties, the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize winner. She spoke to me about the need for sanctions and why it was so important that we work with our allies to make our sanctions regime stronger.

She stated:

Peace, progress and human rights are inextricably linked. A state that kills journalists, imprisons activists, or disperses peaceful demonstrations poses a threat not only to its citizens. Such a state poses a threat to the entire region and peace in the world as a whole. Therefore, the world must adequately respond to systemic violations. In political decision-making, human rights must be as important as economic benefits or security. This approach {must} be applied in foreign policy...

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I am sharing my time with my colleague from Jonquière.

I rise today to speak to Bill C‑32, on the 2022 fall economic statement. Unfortunately, this bill seems more impressive in form than in substance. Bill C‑32 contains maybe 25 various tax measures and a dozen or so non-tax measures. It may seem like a lot at first glance, but these are in fact two kinds of measures. Some are just minor amendments, like the ones this Parliament adopts on a regular basis, while others were already announced in the spring budget but had not been incorporated into the first budget implementation bill in June, Bill C‑19. In cooking we call that leftovers.

Simply put, like the economic statement of November 3, Bill C‑32 does not include any measures to address the new economic reality brought on by the high cost of living and a possible recession. This is a completely missed opportunity for the federal government. This bill will not exactly go down in history and its lack of vision does not deserve much praise either.

However, it does not contain anything “harmful” enough to warrant opposing it or trying to block it. The government often tends to bury harmful measures in its omnibus budget implementation bills, hoping they will go unnoticed, but that is not the case here. The bill contains no surprises, either good or bad.

As my colleagues can see, I am trying very hard to show some good faith. Bill C‑32 contains some worthwhile measures, but they were already announced in the last budget. I will go over them briefly.

An anti-flipping tax has been implemented to limit real estate speculation. That is a good thing. A multi-generational home renovation tax credit has also been created for those who are renovating their home to accommodate an aging or disabled parent. The Bloc has been calling for such a measure since 2015, as have many seniors' groups that have contacted me many times about this issue. I commend the government for introducing it.

There is also a first-time homebuyer tax credit to cover a portion of the closing costs involved in buying a home, such as notary fees and the transfer tax. It is hard to be against apple pie. There is also a temporary surtax and a permanent increase to the tax rate for banks and financial institutions, as well as the elimination of interest on student loans outside Quebec. Quebec has its own system, so it will receive an unconditional transfer equivalent to the amount Quebeckers would have received had they participated in the federal program.

In addition, a tax measure that supports oil extraction has been eliminated. It is just one drop in the bucket of subsidies, but it is a start. A tax measure is being implemented to promote mining development in the area of the critical minerals that are needed for the energy transition. In addition, assistance can be provided to a particular government. That is interesting. A total of $7 billion to $14 billion will be available for all foreign countries, when previously, it was $2.5 billion to $5 billion. While we are still far from the United Nations goal of 0.07% of gross GDP, the government is enhancing Canada's international aid, something the Bloc has been calling for for some time. As the status of women critic, I am regularly reminded that Canada can and must do more and better to safeguard the health of women and girls internationally.

Bill C‑32 sidesteps the big challenges facing our society, but there is nothing bad in it. It puts forward a few measures and does some legislative housekeeping that was necessary under the circumstances.

As such, I will reiterate, half-heartedly, what other Bloc members have said: We will vote in favour of Bill C‑32 even though the economic statement was disappointing. We take issue with an economic update that mentions the inflation problem 115 times but offers no additional support to vulnerable people and no new solutions despite the fact that a recession is expected to hit in 2023. The government seems to think everything will work out with an “abracadabra” and a wave of its magic wand.

Quebeckers concerned about the high cost of living will find little comfort in this economic update. They will have to make do with what is basically the next step in the implementation of last spring's budget, even though the Bloc Québécois did ask the government to focus on its fundamental responsibilities toward vulnerable people.

For the rest of my speech, I will therefore focus on the lack of increased health transfers, the lack of adequate support for people aged 65 and over, and the lack of much-needed genuine reform to EI, which, I should note, is the best stabilizer in times of economic difficulty. Sadly, the government dismissed our three requests, even though they made perfect sense. We can only denounce this as a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers deal with the tough times that they are already going through or may face in the months to come.

First, the Bloc Québécois asked the federal government to agree to the unanimous request of Quebec and the provinces to increase health transfers immediately, permanently and unconditionally. ER doctors are warning that our hospitals have reached breaking point, but the federal government is not acting. It clearly prefers its strategy of prolonging the health funding crisis in the hope of breaking the provinces' united front in order to convince them to water down their funding demand. It is the old tactic of divide and conquer.

I want to remind my colleagues that yesterday, at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, on which I sit, during our study on the mental health of women and girls, the ministers of Women and Gender Equality and of Mental Health acknowledged that the national action plan concept, which seeks to impose national standards, was slowing down the process. Meanwhile, the women and girls who are suffering are being held hostage. The government's feminist posturing must end.

Second, people between the ages of 65 and 74 continue to be denied the increase to old age security, which they need more than ever before. Seniors live on fixed incomes, so they cannot deal with such a sharp rise in the cost of living in real time. They are the people most likely to have to make tough choices at the grocery store or the pharmacy, yet the government continues to penalize those who are less well-off and who would like to work more without losing their benefits. Unlike the federal government, inflation does not discriminate against seniors based on their age.

Currently, Canada's income replacement rate, meaning the percentage of income that a senior retains at retirement, is one of the lowest in the OECD. We cannot say that the government is treating seniors with dignity.

There is also the increase to old age security, which should prevent demographic changes from significantly slowing economic activity. Contrary to what the government says, starving seniors aged 65 to 75 will not encourage them to remain employed. That is done by no longer penalizing them when they work.

Not a day goes by that I do not receive a message from citizens about this. This morning, I again received comments from important seniors' groups such as AQDR and FADOQ, and they can be summarized in one word: disappointment. I do not even want to talk about the brilliant decision-makers who want to delay the pension process for 10% of seniors.

Third, let us remind the government that employment insurance is an excellent economic stabilizer in the event of a recession. While more and more analysts fear the possibility of a recession in 2023, the Canadian government seems to be backtracking on the comprehensive employment insurance reform that they promised last summer.

Essentially, the system has been dismantled over the years. Currently, six of 10 workers who lose their jobs do not qualify for EI. That is significant, it is a majority, it is 60%. Seven years after the government promised reform, time is running out. We must avoid being forced to improvise a new CERB to offset the shortcomings of the system if a recession hits.

During the pandemic, we saw that improvised programs cost a lot more and are much less effective. Above all, the government's financial forecasts show that it does not anticipate many more claims. In fact, the government is forecasting a surplus of $25 billion in the employment insurance fund by 2028, money that will go to the consolidated fund rather than improve the system's coverage. As for the 26 weeks of sick leave, the measure was in Bill C‑30 to update budget 2021, passed 18 months ago, even before the last elections. All that is missing is the government decree to implement it, but those who are sick are still waiting.

One last important thing: Last weekend, I attended the Musicophonie benefit concert for a foundation in our area, the Fondation Louis-Philippe Janvier, which helps young adults suffering from cancer. I was told that the organization does indeed have to make up for the government's lack of financial support. That adds to the unimaginable stress on those who are sick, who should instead be focusing on healing with dignity. Even 26 weeks is inhumane. A person cannot recover properly in that time frame.

In closing, the government is acknowledging the rising cost of living without doing anything about it. It is warning of difficult times ahead this winter without providing a way to get through them. It makes some grim economic predictions without ever considering any of the opposition's proposals as to how to prepare ourselves.

As a final point, I want to talk about supply chains. We learned how fragile they are during the pandemic. Last spring's budget document mentioned the problem 71 times. The budget update mentioned it another 45 times. Neither one includes any measures to tackle the problem, leaving business owners in limbo. The new Liberal-Conservative finance minister missed the opportunity to send a clear message of leadership and instead raised fears about potential austerity. The government is rehashing past measures, implementing what it already announced in the April budget, but there is no indication that it has a clear sense of direction, leaving the people who really need it out in the cold.

For those who lose their jobs, we need EI reform. For those who are sick, we need to increase health transfers. For our seniors, we need to give them more money so they can age with dignity.

Statement Concerning the Similarities Between Bill C-250 and Bill C-19—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I would like to provide a short update regarding a statement I made on May 11, 2022, concerning similarities between two bills that were before the House at that time. They were Bill C-250, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prohibition—promotion of antisemitism), standing in the name of the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, and Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, and other measures.

As members will recall, clause 332 of Bill C-19 contained near identical text to Bill C-250. To be more specific, the two bills sought to amend section 319 of the Criminal Code pertaining to hate propaganda, for similar purposes. Both made it an offence to wilfully promote antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust through statements communicated other than in private conversation. There was only a minor difference in the wording of one of the acceptable defences.

As indicated in my earlier statement on this matter, there is a long-standing principle to keep or avoid having the same question from being decided twice within the same session. On May 11, 2022, the Chair had therefore ordered that, pending the fate of Bill C-19, Bill C-250 may not be called for its second hour of debate at second reading.

Bill C-19 received royal assent on June 23, 2022. Accordingly, I am ordering that the order for the second reading of Bill C-250 be discharged and that the bill be dropped from the Order Paper.

I thank all the members for their attention.

Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

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

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, beginning on Friday, June 24, 2022, and ending on Friday, June 23, 2023:

(a) members may participate in proceedings of the House either in person or by videoconference, provided that members participating remotely be in Canada;

(b) members who participate remotely in a sitting of the House be counted for the purpose of quorum;

(c) provisions in the Standing Orders to the need for members to rise or to be in their place, as well as any reference to the chair, the table or the chamber shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the virtual and hybrid nature of the proceedings;

(d) the application of Standing Order 17 shall be suspended;

(e) in Standing Orders 26(2), 53(4), 56.1(3), and 56.2(2), the reference to the number of members required to rise be replaced with the word “five”;

(f) the application of Standing Order 62 shall be suspended for any member participating remotely;

(g) documents may be laid before the House or presented to the House electronically, provided that:

(i) documents deposited pursuant to Standing Order 32(1) shall be deposited with the Clerk of the House electronically,

(ii) documents shall be transmitted to the clerk by members prior to their intervention,

(iii) any petition presented pursuant to Standing Order 36(5) may be filed with the clerk electronically,

(iv) responses to questions on the Order Paper deposited pursuant to Standing Order 39 may be tabled electronically;

(h) should the House resolve itself in a committee of the whole, the Chair may preside from the Speaker’s chair;

(i) when a question that could lead to a recorded division is put to the House, in lieu of calling for the yeas and nays, one representative of a recognized party can rise to request a recorded vote or to indicate that the motion is adopted on division, provided that a request for a recorded division has precedence;

(j) when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, or a motion to concur in a bill at report stage on a Friday, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 78, but excluding any division in relation to the budget debate, pursuant to Standing Order 84, or the business of supply occurring on the last supply day of a period, other than as provided in Standing Orders 81(17) and 81(18)(b), or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or

(ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday,

provided that any extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) shall not exceed 90 minutes;

(k) if a motion for the previous question under Standing Order 61 is adopted without a recorded division, the vote on the main question may be deferred under the provisions of paragraph (j), however if a recorded division is requested on the previous question, and such division is deferred and the previous question subsequently adopted, the vote on the original question shall not be deferred;

(l) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday, provided that such recorded divisions be taken after the other recorded divisions deferred at that time;

(m) for greater certainty, this order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(n) when a recorded division is to be held, the bells to call in the members shall be sounded for not more than 30 minutes, except recorded divisions deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions, when the bells shall be sounded for not more than 15 minutes;

(o) recorded divisions shall take place in the usual way for members participating in person or by electronic means through the House of Commons electronic voting application for all other members, provided that:

(i) electronic votes shall be cast from within Canada using the member’s House-managed mobile device and the member’s personal House of Commons account, and that each vote require visual identity validation,

(ii) the period allowed for voting electronically on a motion shall be 10 minutes, to begin after the Chair has read the motion to the House, and members voting electronically may change their vote until the electronic voting period has closed,

(iii) in the event a member casts their vote both in person and electronically, a vote cast in person take precedence,

(iv) any member unable to vote via the electronic voting system during the 10-minute period due to technical issues may connect to the virtual sitting to indicate to the Chair their voting intention by the House videoconferencing system,

(v) following any concern, identified by the electronic voting system, which is raised by a House officer of a recognized party regarding the visual identity of a member using the electronic voting system, the member in question shall respond immediately to confirm their vote, either in person or by the House videoconferencing system, failing which the vote shall not be recorded,

(vi) the whip of each recognized party have access to a tool to confirm the visual identity of each member voting by electronic means, and that the votes of members voting by electronic means be made available to the public during the period allowed for the vote,

(vii) the process for votes in committees of the whole take place in a manner similar to the process for votes during sittings of the House with the exception of the requirement to call in the members,

(viii) any question to be resolved by secret ballot be excluded from this order,

(ix) during the taking of a recorded division on a private members’ business, when the sponsor of the item is the first to vote and present at the beginning of the vote, the member be called first, whether participating in person or remotely;

(p) during meetings of standing, standing joint, special, special joint, except the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, and legislative committees and the Liaison Committee, as well as their subcommittees, where applicable, members may participate either in person or by videoconference, and provided that priority use of House resources for meetings shall be established by an agreement of the whips and, for virtual or hybrid meetings, the following provisions shall apply:

(i) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(ii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iii) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of a chair or a vice-chair of a committee, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted,

(iv) public proceedings shall be made available to the public via the House of Commons website,

(v) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(vi) notices of membership substitutions pursuant to Standing Order 114(2) and requests pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) may be filed with the clerk of each committee by email; and

(q) notwithstanding the order adopted on Wednesday, March 2, 2022, regarding the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, until the committee ceases to exist and where applicable,

(i) the committee shall hold meetings in person only should this be necessary to consider any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act,

(ii) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(iii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iv) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(v) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of the House vice-chairs, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted;

that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House has passed this order; and

that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to undertake a study on hybrid proceedings and the aforementioned changes to the Standing Orders and the usual practice of the House.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on this motion and talk about the extension of hybrid provisions for one year and the opportunity for the procedure and House affairs committee members to study the issue of either the use or the non-use of those provisions as they deem through their process and their recommendations thereafter.

I will take us back for a moment to March 2020. As the whole business of the pandemic was unfolding, it was about a week before this House shut down when I had a conversation with the House administration at that time asking what the pandemic plan was and what we had on the books. Of course, those who wrote it had put something together, but it became apparent very quickly upon looking at it that the intersection of what was planned with what happened in real life meant that the plan, frankly, was not of much use.

We then began a process, and I want to thank members from all parties, reflecting back on those early days in March 2020, as we attempted to find a way for Canada's Parliament to continue to do its business and to make sure that, notwithstanding the fact that we had this incredible public health emergency that sent people to their homes, Canadians knew that the seat of their democracy continued to function, continued to get bills passed and continued to put supports out there for them.

Before I talk about some of those supports, I want to take a moment to thank the House administration and officials who worked with us to create these tools and innovations to allow our democracy to continue to function. In an incredibly short period of time, an ability was developed to participate and vote virtually. This eventually led to a voting app and other refinements that have enabled members, whether or not they are sick, whether or not they are unable to be at the House for medical or other reasons, to continue to participate in the proceedings of the House and to make sure they are not disenfranchised and their constituents continue to be represented.

Members would remember that Canadians and businesses were reeling in those early days of COVID, and some three million jobs were lost. There was a real state of folks not knowing where things were going to go. Small businesses were left unable to serve their customers and wondering what their future would be. It was specifically because of the provisions we put in place, which all parties worked on with the House administration, that we were able to still get those supports adopted and make historic support available to make sure that businesses and individuals did not fall through the cracks.

Now we see the economy roaring back, and 115% of jobs lost during the pandemic have come back, compared to below 100% for the United States. We see us being a world leader in economic growth, number two in the G7 and trending towards being number one next year. It is absolutely evident that the supports that were put in place to make sure that Canadians did not fall through the cracks were what got us there.

When we think of the bravery of people opening a small business, taking a chance and putting themselves out in the world, putting their shingle out and hoping to survive, there are a lot of things they have to prepare for, such as the possibility that their product may not be as popular as they had hoped, or the long hours that they, and the people they employ, will have to put in to try to make the business successful. Of course, it is not reasonable for folks to expect that a global pandemic will be the thing that shuts them down. It was, in fact, those hybrid provisions that enabled people to get that work done.

The pandemic continues, but before I talk about the continuing pandemic, I will take a moment to talk about all the things that we got done, and not just those historic supports.

As the pandemic came and went, as we thought it was over last November and we thought that things might be returning to a sense of normalcy but we got hit by omicron, the flexibility of Parliament meant that we were able to continue to get the job of the nation done. We can take a look at how much Parliament was able to accomplish from January to June: 14 bills, not including supply, were presented, and we introduced seven bills in the Senate on a range of important issues. Many of the bills that we are passing now or that have just passed through the House are going to the Senate, and it is our hope and expectation, particularly with the great work that was just done on Bill C-28, that the Senate will be able to get that done as well before it rises for the summer. This was all done using the hybrid provisions.

Let us take a look at some of those bills.

Bill C-19 is critical to grow our economy, foster clean technology, strengthen our health care system and make life more affordable for Canadians in areas such as housing and child care.

Bill C-18 would make sure that media and journalists in Canadian digital news receive fair compensation for their work in an incredibly challenged digital environment.

Bill C-11 would require online streaming services to contribute to the creation and availability of Canadian stories and music to better support Canadian artists.

Bill C-21 would protect Canadians from the dangers of firearms in our communities, making sure that we freeze the market on handguns, attack smuggling at the border and implement red flag provisions to address domestic violence.

Bill C-22 was brought forward to reduce poverty among persons with disabilities in Canada and is part of a broader strategy that has seen more than one million Canadians lifted out of poverty. That is particularly remarkable when we think that it was this government that set the first targets ever for poverty reduction. After we set those goals, we have been exceeding them every step of the way, and Bill C-22 is a big part of that strategy.

Bill C-28, which I talked about a minute ago, deals with the extreme intoxication defence. It is a great example of Parliament in a hybrid environment being able to work collaboratively to ensure that we close an important loophole to make sure that the extreme intoxication defence is not used when murder has been committed.

These are just some of the bills that we have been able to put forward, and we have been able to do so in a way that empowered all members of Parliament to be able to participate, whether they had COVID or not.

To give members a sense of the challenges, not only was all of this done using the hybrid system and during the middle of a pandemic, but it was done while dealing with obstruction. We saw all the times the Conservatives obstructed government legislation. In fact, 17 times over the past 14 weeks, the Conservatives used obstruction tactics, using concurrence motions and other tactics to block and obstruct, in many cases, legislation that was supported by three out of the four official parties here. They took the opportunity to obstruct, yet despite that, we have been able to make great progress.

The Conservatives support Bill C-14, yet we ended up spending a night because they were moving motions to hear their own speakers. At the MAID committee looking at medical assistance in dying, where there was incredibly sensitive testimony, witnesses were not able to testify because of the tactics and games that were happening here in this place. However, despite all that, in a hybrid environment we have been able to move forward.

Let us look at last week. Last week there were five members of the Liberal caucus who had COVID, and one of these people was the Prime Minister. I do not know how many members there were in other caucuses, but all were still able to participate in these proceedings. Every day, unfortunately, thousands of Canadians across the country continue to get COVID. Sadly, many of them are in hospitals and, even more tragically, many of them are dying. This pandemic is still very much a reality.

What we have seen over the last two years is that every time we try to start a parliamentary session, we spend weeks debating whether we should or should not continue using the hybrid system. Parliament deserves stability. People are still getting COVID. They have the right to be able to participate in this place, and as has been demonstrated by the incredible amount of work we have been able to get done during the pandemic, from historic supports in the deepest, darkest time of the pandemic to the more recent times dealing with a whole range of legislation that is absolutely critical to Canadians, these provisions allow us to continue to do the work of this nation in extraordinary times.

I do not think we should be in a position such that every time we start Parliament, we continue to have this debate. Canadians need predictability, as we do not know where this pandemic or public health circumstances are going. Canadians need predictability until the House of Commons, through a committee process, can evaluate the utility and usefulness of the provisions outside of a pandemic reality to see if they should be extended or used. We need to have a proper, thorough debate in that venue, hearing from witnesses, hearing from parliamentarians, taking a look at what was accomplished and at what could be done better or differently.

We are already seeing big improvements in everything, from the services that are being delivered to interpretation. I look forward to PROC's work to see whether or not these provisions have utility, but until then, this measure would give us the stability for PROC to do its report and for Parliament to continue to function in incredibly challenging times.

That is why I think it is only prudent to pass this measure now. It is so that Parliament will have the stability to do its work, so Canadians will know this work will not be interrupted, and so we can focus instead on the business of the nation.

Government Policies

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, airports are in chaos. The passport office is snowed under. Inflation is out of control. Ministers are misleading Parliament. The government's current priorities are an incoherent mess.

Bill C-5 would drop sentencing requirements on violent offenders and drug traffickers and open the door for sex offenders to serve community sentences near their victims. Bill C-21 pretends to address gun violence, but literally only affects people who obey Canada's existing strict firearms laws. Bill C-19 would remove any pretense of fiscal control from the undisciplined and unserious government. Bill C-11 is a bill that would give the CRTC the power to control what Canadians find and post on the Internet. None of these bills would do anything to fix any of Canada's serious problems.

If these are the government's priorities for the next two weeks, I suggest it quit now and spend the summer coming up with a real agenda to help Canadians.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Justice

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite is having a difficult time following the logic here, I would suggest that she leave the chamber or not listen, as opposed to interrupting.

This is in fact very relevant. We have the opposition focusing their attention on an issue, but the government of the day is focused on the issues that are facing Canadians. Whether it is today or during the budget debate or debate on Bill C-19, we have been consistent on these types of issues. It is the official opposition that has not been consistent. The opposition has not been focused on these important budgetary measures because it has been focused on other issues to try to stir the pot.

I am using the issue of the mandates as a tangible example. The wannabe leader of the Conservative Party was out saying, “Let us end the mandates”, and the minions within the chamber who are supporting that leader are espousing the same policy. To say that this issue is not relevant is ridiculous, because those are the types of issues they were talking about during the budget debate. Even when the Province of Quebec still had a curfew in place, the Conservatives were focused on ending mandates.

The member for Carleton made reference to the Bank of Canada and its governor. It was very discouraging. When we talk about issues of inflation and what is happening in our economy today and the person who is likely the new leader of the Conservative Party is going around diminishing the value and the importance of the Bank of Canada and its governor, we should all be concerned. That person has not won yet, and maybe he will not win, but he is definitely supported by a majority of the members opposite in the Conservative Party, and these are important budgetary-type issues, because the Bank of Canada does play an important role. It is supposed to be arm's length.

The Conservatives are more interested in playing political games than in dealing with the issues. We have indicated very clearly that we are going to deal with the real issues that Canadians are facing day in and day out. When Conservatives talk about inflation, they try to give the impression that the sky is falling and that Canada is going straight downhill. They put their collective heads in the sand, not recognizing what is happening in the world.

Conservatives talk about inflation. The Prime Minister and every member of the Liberal caucus are all concerned about inflation, and we all understand the reality of what is happening in our environment that goes beyond our borders. It is affecting our inflation rate. If we could stop the war in Europe, we would do that. We do not have that kind of influence. We do have a great deal of influence in working with our allied countries. However, to deny the impact of what is taking place in Europe in the illegal Russian war that is happening to Ukraine is highly irresponsible. That war is having an impact on inflation.

To try to click our heels and think that mandates and the coronavirus would be gone and we would have nothing more to worry about would again be irresponsible. We just have to take a look at what is happening internationally.

Even today some members will say that someone can be on a boat for 24 hours but that cannot be done on a plane. Have members ever been a boat, compared to a plane? There is a big difference between being in a fuselage, where there are 220 people or whatever number of people, and being on a ferry between, let us say, Vancouver Island and the city of Vancouver.

We within the government benches continue to review and look at the situation, listen to what science is telling us and work with health experts. That is what is dictating our policies. Remember, the Conservatives have been saying to end mandates for months now.

Opposition Motion—Measures for Immediate Financial Relief

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I have a great deal of respect for him.

I am disappointed because today the Conservative Party has an omnibus motion for us after they slammed Bill C‑19 for being an appalling mammoth of a bill, and that was echoed by the Bloc Québécois. Now they present us with this motion in a sort of giant lump. There is so much in there that I am surprised it does not say “build more pipelines” somewhere. It is mind-boggling.

There are a bunch of issues we agree on, such as fertilizer and the real estate market. It really upsets me that we cannot vote on those issues because they are all lumped together with many other things, such as scrapping the carbon tax, for example.

Here is my question for the member: Does he really expect to get support for this motion, or is this just a ploy to make all the other parties look like the bad guys?

Bill C-19—Time Allocation Motion

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the work and the time in this chamber are precious. If the Conservatives decide to waste it and slow down the work on behalf of Canadians, Canadians will decide their fate in a future election. They can hold us to account for the work we are doing for them. That is why Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, is so important. Affordability, growing the economy, making sure that Canadians can make ends meet and making sure we are at the top of the G7 are what the BIA is all about.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, these are the greatest hits from the Conservative choir: obstructing us at Bill C-8 and trying to delay the work on behalf of Canadians, while we are making sure that we get the work done on behalf of the people of Canada. Once again, the Conservatives proposed an amendment at second reading that would even prevent scrutiny of the bill, so I do not know which the member wants: scrutiny or no scrutiny. His own people said not to look at the bill.

We need Bill C-19 passed. That is why we are here today. We will get the work done on behalf of Canadians.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, making sure that my hon. colleague and his constituents and the whole ecosystem for Pacific salmon are addressed is a critical component of this budget implementation act.

I think the Conservatives might be taking inspiration from colleagues to the south of the border, where gridlock seems to be the flavour of the day. In this place, Canadians sent us here to work together. I heard it very clearly, right in Edmonton, where the hon. member for Edmonton West was also elected from. They said, “We will vote for you now, but we do not want to see you back here in two years, so make sure you make that place work.” That is exactly what we are doing.

There is $4 billion on the table for a housing accelerator fund, as well as a tax-free first home savings account, a home builders' bill of rights and banning foreign buyers from owning property. The list goes on, including labour mobility and a deduction for tradespeople to grow our cities and towns. That is what we are doing. We need to get Bill C-19 passed.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, once we are able to get through this motion today and move on with the business of the people through Bill C-19, we can make sure that the supports that are in the BIA get to the people. It is thanks to the obstructionist techniques and tactics of the Conservatives that we are where we are today.

Again, let me go through what is at risk here: $2 billion for provinces and territories to reduce backlogs in surgeries and procedures; a labour mobility deduction for tradespeople, which is critically needed at this time; a doubling of the maximum amount of the home accessibility tax credit; a reduction, by half, for the corporate small business tax rates for businesses that manufacture zero-emission technologies; and more measures that matter to our residents from coast to coast to coast.

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

Madam Speaker, under the Standing Orders, the government can use time allocation, but there is a difference between using it and abusing it.

Bill C-19 is not a small inconsequential bill. It is over 430 pages long and makes a lot of changes to existing legislation. We need some time to study it.

We know that the Standing Committee on Finance was rushed. We had time to present amendments, which were debated. They were good amendments. Were it not for the work of the committee, the bill could have been passed without any improvements, when that is the whole point of committee work. The Standing Committee on Finance worked extremely hard.

I challenge any party in the House to say that the Bloc Québécois is filibustering. We have not filibustered in committee or in the House. On the contrary, we worked hard to improve Bill C-19, which is a massive bill that amends a number of important laws. I think it should be known that we did not have time to review it properly, even if there were 80 speeches on the subject.

My question is quite simple. Does the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance not agree that we should have had more time to further improve this bill so that it would better respond to the needs of Canadians and businesses?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will talk about the state of the Canadian economy all day long, and we will continue to do so once we get Bill C-19 passed.

Our economy grew at a rate of 3.1% annualized in quarter one of this year. The IMF has predicted that Canada will have the highest growth rate in the G7 this year and next year. Canada posted the fastest growth among G7 economies in Q1. Building upon our results in the last quarter, our AAA credit rating is intact, and 115% of the three million jobs lost during the pandemic have been recovered, faster than in the U.S. economy. Our unemployment rate is 5.2%, the lowest it has been since I was six years old in 1976. Our balance of international trade is a $5-billion trade surplus. Bankruptcies are lower than before the pandemic.

The Conservatives are doom and gloom. They want to obstruct Bill C-19, but we know the facts, and so do Canadians. The economy is doing well, and Bill C-19 will help make life more affordable.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for responding to the needs of his constituents, as we are doing for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Making life more affordable is a central focus of our government and is one of the pillars of budget 2022. We have a short-term inflationary cycle. We know that it is pinching Canadians and hurting Canadians at the grocery store. The illegal war in Ukraine is contributing to it, and the China zero-COVID policy is also gumming up supply chains.

In the BIA and in budget 2022, what we are doing is making sure that we make life more affordable. The sooner we can get this legislation passed, the sooner we can respond to the concerns of the constituents of my hon. colleague. The budget includes $5.3 billion over five years for dental care for families making less than $90,000, doubling the support of the first-time homebuyer's tax credit, a multi-generational home renovation tax credit and $475 million to give Canadians $500 if they are having housing pressures.

These are real measures and real affordability. We need to get Bill C-19 passed.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have had robust debate in this chamber. We have had robust debate at committee. There have been many amendments and subamendments, and the voting process has taken place.

What I can say, just for the record, is that the Conservatives proposed an amendment at second reading that would not have allowed the BIA even to be scrutinized, which is an integral role of the parliamentary process. They used motions of concurrence in two committee reports to delay and obstruct debate in this House at second reading. They have done this again now at report stage. They attempted to use multiple unanimous consent motions to delay debate, but the Speaker ruled that they had not appropriately consulted parties, and now we are seeing them move 62 amendments at report stage.

Bill C-19 is about making life more affordable for Canadians. It is a prudent fiscal plan to get the economy to continue to grow and it is the right thing to do. We have had lots of time to debate this motion and it is time to move on for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I have to say to the hon. minister that I am very disappointed that we are once again seeing time allocation in this place. In the days of the previous Parliament from 2011 to 2015, when the Conservatives had a majority, we began to see time allocation used in a routine fashion and we knew at that time, as did the Liberals, who were then in opposition, and I, as the Green Party leader in opposition, that the constant use of time allocation for limiting debate was wrong, wrong in principle and wrong for parliamentary democracy. I do not doubt for one second the frustration, and legitimate frustration, on the government side at delays in legislation, but this place, Parlement, c'est pour parler, to be able to debate. This is an enormous bill. Now we are at report stage and we should have time to debate and discuss it.

I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary and minister to please consider that there are other ways to make sure that bills are dealt with expeditiously in this place without constantly using this bâillon, this guillotine, on debate. I urge the government party to rethink this.

I will definitely be voting against time allocation on Bill C-19.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the answer to my colleague's question is that the Conservatives are hard-wired to oppose, and they cannot stand that we are actually making life more affordable for Canadians.

I will build on what my hon. colleague had to say. Our budget, and by extension, the BIA, includes $4 billion to accelerate work in closing gaps in indigenous housing. It also has the dental program, which is extremely important for lower-income Canadians, and a one-time $500 payment to those facing housing affordability challenges.

Let us put on the record exactly what the “block everything” party done has done. There were 80 speakers at second reading, and that was not enough. There were 42 hours of debate, yet that was not enough. Parliamentarians have done meticulous work at committee. What was the response of the Conservative Party? It was to throw all of that away and move 62 motions to obstruct.

That is not what Canadians have asked us to do in the House. We will do what Canadians expect of us and get the work done. We will pass Bill C-19.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sure to address my comments through you in this august chamber.

Facts really matter in this debate. We heard from 80 people at second reading of Bill C-19, budget implementation act, 2022, No. 1, for a total of 42 hours of debate, including 15 hours at second reading and 27 hours in committee.

Despite all this meticulous work by parliamentarians, the Conservatives' response was to throw it all away by presenting 62 amendments with the sole aim of blocking the process. As for our Bloc colleagues, they also had the right to present amendments in committee, which were debated for hours and voted down by a majority. That is the normal process.

Today, we want to move this bill forward.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, budget 2022 does three main things. It invests in economic growth and innovation. It invests in people, and it invests in the green economy. All three of these things are about creating jobs and building the economy, but they will also help make life more affordable.

Bill C-19 is so critical to making sure the government is able to implement our budget. Some of the things in the budget implementation act include a two-year ban on foreign investments in Canadian housing; $2 billion for provinces to boost their health care investments for Canadians to get rid of the backlog in surgeries and procedures; a labour mobility deduction for tradespeople, which is something people in my own riding of Edmonton Centre asked for; a luxury tax on new luxury cars, planes and boats; and a reduction by half to the corporate and small business tax rates for businesses to manufacture zero-emission vehicles.

The Conservatives proposed an amendment at second reading that would not even allow the BIA to be scrutinized. They are playing games; we are moving forward.

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

Madam Speaker, well, it is no surprise, commensurate to what is a decline in democracy in this country, we are actually seeing in lockstep a decline in the amount of time that debate happens in this place, despite the fact millions of people voted for an opposition party to hold the government to account and make it transparent and accountable with pieces of legislation.

It is not surprising we are moving to time allocation. In this Parliament alone, more time allocation has been called than in the previous Parliament. We are just eight months into this one, and we were a year and a half into the previous Parliament. Of course, we would be hard pressed to find any opposition party that would have supported time allocation in the manner it has been proposed by the government more so than the coalition partners of the NDP, who used to rail against time allocation as being anti-democratic and anti-institution, but here we are. No doubt NDP members will be rising to support the government.

Bill C-19, through committee stage, went through significant motions. It went through significant amendments. There are perhaps, as it comes back to report stage, more amendments in the debate that could happen here, but we have had one hour of debate on this important piece of legislation.

I am wondering how the minister can justify to Canadians this further decline in democracy we are witnessing. The public faith in our institutions is in decline as well.

Bill C-19—Notice of Time Allocation

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of the said bill.

Taxation

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, the luxury tax in Bill C-19 misses the mark. Rather than targeting wealthy people who are buying private jets, it taxes Quebec's aerospace industry. My Liberal colleague knows this. Two weeks ago she promised “to ensure that this does not hurt our manufacturers”, but since then, her government has voted against all of our amendments that would fix the problem.

Taxing the rich is fine, but taxing the flagship of the Quebec economy instead is out of the question.

When will the Liberal members from Quebec get to work and protect our aerospace sector?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, let me join my colleague opposite in welcoming you in your return to the role of Speaker. It is wonderful to see you there. I almost cannot see you because of the monument. I guess it is a homage to Fenway Park. It is our own green monster that has been constructed in this chamber. I can kind of see your head over it. It is wonderful to see you back in this place and in such fine form and good health. Welcome back.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin debate on Bill C-19, the budget legislation, which was reported back to the House from the finance committee yesterday. I want to take the opportunity to thank all members for their hard work on getting it back so quickly. Tomorrow afternoon, we will commence second reading debate of Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. Our priorities for next week will be report stage and third reading of the budget bill, and Bill C-5 regarding mandatory minimum sentences. Finally, I would like to inform the House that Tuesday, June 7 shall be an allotted day.

Certain Amendments Made to Bill C-19

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Following the presentation yesterday of the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, the Chair wishes to draw the attention of members to a procedural issue related to two amendments adopted by the committee during clause-by-clause study of the bill.

As the House knows, the Speaker does not normally intervene in committee matters. However, in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, particularly in relation to bills, the Speaker has a responsibility to ensure that certain fundamental rules and practices are properly observed. As Speaker Fraser explained on April 28, 1992, at page 9801 of the Debates:

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, ... no matter how tempting that may be.

The first questionable amendment modified clause 6 of the bill in order to amend the Income Tax Act and allow individuals with type 1 diabetes to automatically qualify for a tax credit. Some uncertainty was raised about whether this amendment required a royal recommendation, and the chair of the committee ruled it inadmissible. This decision was challenged and subsequently overturned. The committee then debated and adopted this amendment.

The second amendment seeks to amend clause 135 of Bill C-19 to modify the select luxury items tax act. With respect to subject aircraft, the coming into force is changed from September 1, 2022, to a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council. Here again, the chair of the committee ruled the amendment inadmissible because it lacked a needed ways and means motion. This decision was also challenged and overturned, and again the committee then debated the amendment and adopted it.

Both amendments bring up different, but equally important, questions about the admissibility of amendments and their compliance with certain financial procedures. Page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, reminds us that:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation. An amendment is also inadmissible if it exceeds the scope of the ways and means motion on which a bill is based, or if it imposes a new charge on the people that is not preceded by the adoption of a ways and means motion or not covered by the terms of a ways and means motion already adopted.

Given the potential consequences rising from these amendments and the way they were considered in committee, the Chair felt it necessary to review the relevant evidence together with the rules relating to financial procedure.

With respect to the first amendment related to clause 6, the Chair is unclear as to how it constitutes a new and distinct charge on the public treasury. In fact, based on the information the Chair has before it, it appears that this amendment allows a tax credit that in its application is non-refundable. Accordingly, while the chair of the committee determined that the amendment required a royal recommendation, I am of the view that it does not need one.

With regard to the amendment to clause 135, the Chair agrees with the committee chair that this amendment, by changing the date of the coming into force of the clause, could oblige certain entities to bear an additional charge. Consequently, given this possibility, this amendment needs to be preceded by a ways and means motion.

While the Chair appreciates the difficulties that can arise when examining a bill in committee, it is important to remember that a committee must carry out its mandate without exceeding its powers. In the Chair’s view, by adopting an amendment that infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown, a committee ventures beyond its powers.

Consequently, the Chair must order that the amendment to clause 135, adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance, be declared null and void, and that the amendment no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House.

I want to thank all members for their attention.

Finance

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank our legislative clerks Jacques Maziade and Émilie Thivierge, finance committee clerk Alexandre Roger, and all our committee staff, interpreters, services, members of the committee, witnesses and department officials for their hard work in getting this report completed.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

While I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.

Taxation

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, the luxury tax in the budget bill is flawed.

Rather than taxing billionaires who buy private jets, the government is taxing our aerospace industry and putting it at a disadvantage in relation to its foreign competitors. Everyone agrees on that.

The government is working hard to get us to pass Bill C‑19 as quickly as possible, but there is nothing to indicate that the government is working just as hard to remedy the problems with its luxury tax.

Will the government commit to making changes to Bill C‑19 to prevent it from undermining Quebec and its leading industry?

Effective and Accountable Charities Act

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House to speak to Bill S-216, an important bill supporting the good work in the charitable sector.

I will begin by expressing what we have seen over the last few years, particularly during this pandemic, and how important the work of so many has been, including the many who have gone above and beyond in the charitable sector in our communities to support people in this very difficult time. We saw during this pandemic that many were forced to turn to food banks and soup kitchens and needed help during this crisis. We know that thanks to the volunteering and contributions of many, Canadian charities across various sectors were able to step up.

I recognize the important work that has been done in northern Manitoba and across the country during this very difficult time. Many charities in our communities share values, such as the importance of community, justice and partnership, and the sense of solidarity that is critical to us moving forward during times of crisis.

I also want to talk about how the government, especially over the last two or more decades, has turned to charities to take over the work that government should be doing. The government should be foremost responsible for the social well-being of all in our country. It is clear that government must be doing its part to ensure the collective good, rather than overly relying on charities to do its work. The reality is that inequality in Canada has increased over the last number of years in significant ways. Instead of the government stepping in to address that shocking inequality and the rise in inequality, it has often turned to philanthropy and the charitable sector to try to fill in the gaps, and that is not okay.

The charitable sector cannot and should not replace the government's social mission. It should have effective tools to be able to accomplish its work. The charitable sector should not be seen as the solution to government programs, particularly government programs targeted at closing the inequality gap in our country. If social justice were fully realized through effective government policies, particularly at the national level, we would not need to rely on charities to do the critical work of feeding people, clothing people and supporting people who are on the margins. Charity is relied on by government and is not a substitute for social justice policy.

As Paul Taylor, a great activist in Toronto fighting back against food insecurity, has said, “The most effective remedy for food insecurity is also the simplest: provide people with income to purchase food”. This shows clearly that the federal government is not doing enough for people. Food banks, for example, are helping so many, not because food is unavailable in many communities, but because poverty is so high in so many places that people cannot afford to get the food they need. We must recognize that food is a right, not a privilege, and beyond food security, social well-being is also a right, not a privilege.

Because of inadequate social assistance rates provided by governments and because our social safety net has been cut and privatized, many more people in Canada in recent decades have been pushed into poverty, forced to choose between dangerous housing conditions and homelessness and between paying basic bills and the groceries they need. As we have seen during the pandemic and now with the rise in inflation and the increased cost of living, the reality is that people are suffering and families are crying out for help.

While charities help and do important work, we cannot rely on them to replace our collective responsibility in government. It is the federal government that should be stepping in to eradicate poverty in our country and close the growing inequality gap here in Canada.

The solution is clear: Give more to those who have less. I urge the government to take responsibility for helping those in greatest need and to help the most vulnerable with direct support. We saw that take place during the pandemic. I am proud of the work that we did in the NDP to push the government to invest in CERB and to expand supports to students, to seniors and to people living with disabilities. Unfortunately, those supports were only temporary. The reality is that Canadians are suffering and need direct income support now.

I want to acknowledge the important work of my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who has pushed for a guaranteed livable income, and the support of many in this regard. I also want to acknowledge the important work of many in pushing for tax fairness and recognizing that the richest among us in our country are not paying their fair share. The rich and corporations ought to be paying their fair share so that money can be reinvested in the social programs that are necessary to close the growing inequality gap in our country.

Let us turn to the charitable sector as well. It has been clear, in consultations undertaken by the government and the House of Commons, that charities are subjected to outdated, restrictive and onerous rules. Their funds come from donations that are tax-deductible. However, as the rules are now, charities can spend their charitable dollars only on activities that they undertake themselves. In short, a charity must maintain a “direction and control” role in the activities carried out on its behalf and in the use of its resources by the intermediary.

These restrictions were implemented during the 1950s to ensure that these tax deductions were not diverted to other means than the charitable ones, but it is necessary to recognize that the “own activities” requirement is inefficient and unrealistic. Canadian charities must expend significant time and money to provide their direction and control requirements when they deal with what are known as non-qualified donees.

As a result, charities do not have flexibility. They have limited resources to fulfill their missions, and they are restricted in entering partnerships with other non-profits as a result. As a consequence, charities cannot fully focus on the essential mission that they have defined for themselves.

Bill S-216 addresses these shortcomings. It is a step forward in reforming the charitable sector and it should significantly improve the legislative framework for public and social well-being. It would give charities the flexibility they need on how they can enter into partnership to accomplish their charitable purpose.

Bill S-216 would eliminate the “direction and control” requirement, which would allow charities to transfer their resources to non-qualified donees as long as required measures are taken to ensure that these resources will be used only to fulfill a charitable purpose. This includes the collection of information on the identity, experience and activities of third party recipients before providing resources.

We believe that this bill can address the challenges that the charitable sector is facing. I want to acknowledge those who have come forward to support this proactive solution.

Let us be clear: The federal government has failed to meet charitable organizations' needs with what has been proposed in Bill C-19. We believe that Bill S-216 is a step in the right direction. Let us also be clear that the government's work must remain primary, and we must catch up on the gaps we have created that are pushing so many Canadians through the cracks. It is up to the government to act to address inequality and end poverty in our country.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this particular issue. As I said in my question earlier, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in my mind of the good work done by charities. After discussions with many of my colleagues within the Liberal caucus, and I am sure this is true of MPs on all sides belonging to all political parties, I can share endless examples of the good work and the deeds of charities not only here in Canada but also around the world.

If we were to look at it, what we would find is that Canadians on a per capita basis have to be one of the most generous groups of people in the world. I really believe that. I would like to cite a couple of examples. However, before I do that, I would like to recognize Bill S-216 and thank the senator for the fine work she has done in ensuring that it comes for debate in this chamber.

What we are debating today is in good part being discussed in one of our standing committees. The Prime Minister and the government recognized a while back that we wanted to make some modifications, believing that the charitable legislation in place for Revenue Canada for income tax is a fairly comprehensive system of taxation and the need for modifications in certain areas has been well demonstrated. During the pandemic, the Prime Minister, in particular, and other members of this chamber have talked about what we can learn from the pandemic so we can continue to build a better system. One of the things that has come out of that is the need to look at ways in which we can enable more power to our charitable organizations.

Today, Bill C-19, the budget implementation bill, happens to be in a committee, which provides opposition members and all members, through House leadership teams and their colleagues, the ability to contribute to the debate on how we can make some changes to the legislation that will better enable charities going forward. An opportunity for this has been made available for us because the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance brought forward a budget document through the budget implementation legislation. I would encourage members of all political stripes to contribute. As we have seen in the past, and as we will no doubt continue to see in the future, the government is open to changes and modifications to improve legislation. In fact, I understand some charitable organizations are having that dialogue now to see if there are ways in which we can improve it.

One of the charities I want to highlight concerns Ukraine. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the reaction around the world was fairly profound in the sense that Ukrainian solidarity, if I can put it that way, went well beyond the borders of Ukraine. In fact, Canada's population of Ukrainian heritage is estimated at over 1.3 million people. It captured the imagination of people from coast to coast to coast, even those who are not of Ukrainian heritage, in what we can do as a community here in Canada to support our brothers and sisters in Ukraine, the war heroes in Ukraine. We have organizations, such as the Ukrainian Canadian Congress or Canadian Red Cross, which have charitable tax receipts.

Canadians turn to those organizations by the thousands, and they have contributed millions of dollars. Those charitable organizations are providing humanitarian aid to Ukraine. In fact, the federal government matched funds for donations to the Red Cross. I think initially the cap was $10 million for matching donations, which was quickly used up, so we increased the cap to $30 million, and I believe it hit that also.

This demonstrates a couple of things for me, personally, as I know it does for my colleagues. One is that the fine work our charitable organizations is doing, in this case, for Ukrainian people in Ukraine and the bordering countries, where Ukrainians are fleeing for a safe haven, has absolutely been astounding. Arguably, it is second to very few others. That is one of the reasons Canadians have opened their hearts, wallets and purses, and that is done through charitable organizations.

I understand what the debate is today. What about those who want to be able to contribute? Staying on the topic of Ukraine, there is a new organization recently established in Manitoba called Manitoba Operation Blue Skies. My understanding is that it is 80 volunteers who have all come to the table in the last number of weeks, saying they want to participate and help the people who are looking to relocate and possibly come to Canada, at least for the short term and possibly even the long term.

Manitoba Operation Blue Skies does not have a charitable tax number, so it goes to the Canadian Ukrainian Institute Prosvita, an organization that has been there for many years and given a great deal of support in many different ways. Through the co-operation and indirect support of that organization, and there is a high sense of accountability, Prosvita is able to support Manitoba Operation Blue Skies in some of its initiatives. I do not think there is anyone inside this chamber who would not recognize the value of that.

The idea that there are organizations out there, and I use Ukraine as an example, but it is just one example of many, shows that there are a lot of people who want to do good work, whether here in Canada or internationally. They have demonstrated that, both financially and by providing resources.

The Canadian government does have a role to play, and we recognize that role. That is why it was so important that we incorporated the idea we are talking about today in the budget implementation bill, which will pass. With support, both from opposition members and from government members, the budget implementation bill, I believe, will pass.

We will see some changes, and we are going to see changes because members on all sides of this House recognize the true value and contributions made by the charitable organizations that are rooted here in Canada. Those who want to support those organizations want to be able to continue to play a vital, critical role, not only here in Canada, but also throughout the world.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear the thoughts of my colleague on how Bill C-19 ought to be amended to better reflect what has been put forward in Bill S-216 and how important it is to make sure that good work can be done in this sector.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Following the point of order raised by the member for Joliette, I would like to provide clarification concerning Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

The member noted that the paper copy of the bill obtained in the lobby differed from the version found on the parliamentary web site. It would seem that there are some pages missing. Consequently, he asked which version is the correct one. He asked the Chair for clarification concerning the rules.

The Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel was consulted, and I would like to assure members that the first reading copy that was signed by the minister and the Clerk contains all the clauses of the bill.

The problem seems to be with the reproduction of the advance copies available in the lobbies. The Speaker notes that these copies are provided by the government so that members can read the key provisions of the bill. After first reading, the bill is published officially, which might change the pagination and line numbers of the version used for the purposes of the House of Commons.

The copy placed in the lobby is therefore not the official version published under the authority of the Speaker. The version available on the LEGISinfo website is verified by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel before it is put online.

Different Versions of Bill C‑19

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few words in support of the point of order raised by the member for Joliette. I think he is right.

If it is true that there are differences between the copies of Bill C‑19, then there is a major problem in terms of respect for this institution. On behalf of the Green Party, I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will make a wise and fair ruling.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I want to thank the hon. member for bringing to your attention exactly what happened.

We, as Conservatives, experienced the same situation. The information that was received by us in the lobby was not complete, so it would obviously call into question whether we received the accurate information.

As the hon. member said, it is a 440-page omnibus bill, despite the fact that the government said it would never introduce an omnibus bill. We have and share the exact same concerns, not the least of which is its contents, whether in fact we have received the proper contents and whether we are able to disseminate those contents in our work at committee and in the House as well.

I will speak to the broader issue, which is that this is a pattern on the government side of not having the ability, for some reason, to manage providing this type of information in an appropriate way to the opposition.

I would add as well that, in spite of the information we received, which we deem as incomplete, and as the hon. member argued, we were only allowed five hours of debate in this place on Bill C-19, which amounted to a total of 11 speakers. Obviously, the privileges of the members in the House are paramount and we should be receiving exactly identical information, particularly on an important piece of legislation such as the budget implementation act, which is 440 pages. Several of those pages were missing from what the opposition parties received, and it was therefore incomplete.

I ask that you look at this judiciously, and come back with what I would expect to be a favourable ruling on the hon. member's point of order.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on April 28, the government introduced Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, at first reading. Although the bill passed at second reading under time allocation on May 10, the printed version of the bill presented in the House and received in the lobby differs from the one on the House of Commons' LEGISinfo site.

Members may therefore have received two different versions of Bill C‑19. The paper version contains 477 clauses on 421 pages and actually ends abruptly under the heading “Commission” at paragraph 68.2(b).

The virtual document contains 502 clauses on 440 pages and includes three schedules. That means pages 422 to 440, which include clauses 477 to 502, are missing. Either the wrong version was provided to opposition members when the bill was introduced in the House, or the wrong version is being provided to members and the public on LEGISinfo. I believe the correct version is on LEGISinfo, but I would like confirmation from the government on that.

The paper version clearly states that it is an advance copy that must be formatted and reprinted by Parliament, but still, it is missing roughly 20 clauses and 20 pages. We are talking about an omnibus bill of over 400 pages. We are accustomed to using the copies provided by the government, clearly for environmental reasons, but also because we have, and we want to maintain, confidence in the consistency of the documents tabled and printed in the House.

The opposition parties must simply trust the government on a number of occasions, including when bills are introduced, when budgets are tabled and when the business of supply is being considered. It is therefore important for us to check the content of the bill and ensure that there are no hidden surprises between the hard copy provided to the opposition and the one found on the House website.

When a government bill is tabled, it is customary for the government to publish the contents of the bill immediately after tabling it. However, if the paper version the opposition receives is incomplete, how can we comment on the bill? Could the government manipulate the information provided to the media? Which version of the bill should we now use for the committee study?

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states at page 728: “In the past, the Speaker has directed that the order for second reading of certain bills be discharged, when it was discovered that they were not in their final form and were therefore not ready to be introduced.”

Are we at that point? I do not think so, but there has been a real mix-up involving the hard copies provided to the opposition and the printing of the bill.

On April 22, when the bill was tabled for first reading, the Deputy Speaker clearly stated, as is customary in the House, “Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed”. I ask that the Speaker provide clear rules for ensuring that the printed copy provided to the opposition is complete when the bill is introduced in the House, given that this has a direct impact on our ability to answer questions from reporters.

Online Streaming Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that the cultural aspect of our lives is extremely important. For years, we have had the means to allow Canadians across the country to hear the voices of other Canadians, to listen to music, to watch movies, to watch television and to experience a Canadian culture that is extremely complex and very diversified.

When I think of Quebec culture, for example, I remember the first time I listened to Robert Charlebois, on a Sunday evening, because we could listen to French radio at home, in New Westminster, British Columbia. He was the first Quebec artist who forged my understanding of the diversity of Quebec's cultural life.

What artists are telling us is that there is currently a real imbalance in the system. Consequently, as talented as they may be, artists cannot fully reap the benefits of all their potential, as artists, to create and to promote our cultural life and to make it so complex and so profound.

That is really the message tonight. Our artists across the country are saying there is something wrong with the system. We have web giants, these massive companies, that are foreign-owned and the Conservatives support them to the detriment of Canadians and Canadian artists. These companies make these enormous profits while paying scraps to Canadian artists.

As we know, the reality is when we are talking about the word “censorship”, we are throwing it around so loosely when it comes to Bill C-11, and I will come back to that in just a moment. The reality is the censorship that takes place now with the web giants is the algorithms that withhold Canadian content from Canadians. Even Canadians trying to access that content cannot do it because of the algorithms that are not shared or not transparent that censors what Canadians can see and what Canadians can hear. That is the reality.

As members well know, other countries are putting forward legislation so that these web giants, these massive foreign-owned corporations, that pay no taxes in Canada and do not show the responsibility they should be showing in Canada, actually have to be transparent on the algorithms that control what people see, what people watch and what people can hear.

The idea that we put in place an update to the Broadcasting Act makes sense, because it establishes a level playing field so we do not see the situation we are seeing now. We see that Canadians musicians have lost 80% of their income as more and more of their product goes online and they get paid less and less by the massive web giants that are supported, for reasons I do not understand, by some members of this House.

As that happens, it is important for Canadian MPs to step up and try to level the playing field. Musicians losing 80% of their income should be something that all members of Parliament should be concerned about. About $3 billion has been taken out of musicians' pockets. That should be something that all Canadians are concerned about.

I talked earlier about listening, for the first time, late one evening in New Westminster, British Columbia, to a Quebec artist, Robert Charlebois, and understanding the incredible depth of Québécois culture. When I was growing up, I was able to listen to Rush, Gordon Lightfoot and Bachman-Turner Overdrive and so many other Canadian artists that would not have been able to get into the market if the American record companies and the American broadcasters had told Canadians what they could or could not listen to. That is the reality here.

When we have foreign companies deciding what Canadians can watch and listen to, we need to establish a level playing field so our Canadian artists can shine through.

The Conservatives, who are opposed to this legislation moving forward, even to get answers on it, should understand that not one of them has quoted a Canadian artist or musician tonight. They cannot, because artist associations, everyone from the Canadian Independent Music Association to ACTRA, are all very supportive of the legislation. What, then, should we be doing tonight in this debate?

My Conservative colleagues, and I have respect for them, have said that they simply do not want this legislation to move forward, just as they have been saying for months that they do not want any other legislation to move forward. We have seen it with Bill C-8. Teachers were asking for their tax credit and the Conservatives said they would not pass it. We have seen it with Bill C-19 and dental care, which the NDP pushed forward. For the first time, there was an affordable housing platform, and the Conservatives said they did not want that to move forward either.

On Bill C-11, as we have heard in the debate tonight, the Conservatives have talked about three concerns. First off, they reference a bill that no longer exists and say they did not like it. That is fair enough, but that is not the bill we are debating. Then they talk about a bill that may be coming in a year or so that deals with online harms, and they say they do not like that bill either. Well, that debate will be in a year.

Then they say, about this bill, that they believe in a level playing field, but they have some questions. At the same time, however, they do not want this bill to go to committee, where we can get answers to the questions they have asked. Some of the questions they have asked around the CRTC are legitimate. How it defines its powers is a legitimate question, and I have that question too.

We would love to have the bill come to committee, because the committee, as part of our legislative process, is the place where we get answers to questions. We could sit here to midnight every single night, but we are not going to get the ministry and the CRTC to answer our questions until the bill gets to committee.

This is where it becomes passing strange. We have had debate now for a number of days. We should be referring the bill to committee. If Conservative members do not want to vote for the bill they do not have to vote for it. However, for them to say they are going to stop any member of Parliament from getting the answers they are asking around the bill by refusing to have it go to committee does not make any sense at all.

It is also not respectful to the artists from coast to coast to coast who have been asking for years to have a level playing field. They have been asking for years for us, as members of Parliament, to play our role and establish a level playing field to allow them, finally, to have some presence in the online world so that Canadian content can shine and the web giants will not decide what Canadians get to see and hear.

This is really the challenge this evening. We will be sitting until midnight, but the Conservatives will say they want to keep sitting and sitting and will say the same things. As I mentioned earlier, they have debated a past bill that no longer exists and a future bill that may or may not exist, and on this bill, they say they have questions.

We should all agree that the way to get answers to those questions is to refer the bill to committee and allow the heritage committee to sit down and get answers from the minister and the CRTC. In that way, we could respond to our legislative role, which is to make sure that as we pass this legislation, it is done in the most effective way possible and actually does what it purports to do: level the playing field for Canadian artists so that our musicians, actors and all of the Canadian cultural and artistic sphere can shine.

We know that when there is a level playing field, it is not the web giants deciding what Canadians can see and hear. When there is a level playing field, Canadian artists will shine. My message to the Conservatives is to let Canadian artists shine. Let us get answers to the bill. Let us get this bill to committee.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast to coast sent us here to get work done for their benefit and to move legislation forward. I am very happy to see that the NDP is working constructively with us to do that, whether it is on this bill, Bill C-19 or other pieces of legislation.

We need to bring online streamers within the system. They benefit from access to the Canadian market, but they do not contribute to the creation of Canadian content. We need to change that, and part of Bill C-11 would do that. We also need to level the playing field, which Bill C-11 would do as well.

Similarities Between Bill C-250 and Bill C-19

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I would like to make a statement concerning similarities between two bills that are currently before the House. These are Bill C-250, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prohibition—promotion of antisemitism), standing in the name of the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, and Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, and other measures.

Clause 332 of Bill C-19 contains near identical text to Bill C-250. To be more specific, the two bills seek to amend section 319 of the Criminal Code pertaining to hate propaganda, for similar purposes. Both make it an offence to wilfully promote antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust through statements communicated other than in private conversation. There is only a minor difference in the wording of one of the acceptable defences.

Bill C-19 was adopted at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance yesterday. The House is now placed in a situation where a decision was made on one of the two bills that contain very similar provisions.

There is a long-standing practice that prohibits the same question from being decided twice by the House during the same session. As stated at page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition:

...two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If a decision is taken on the first bill (for example, to defeat the bill or advance it through a stage in the legislative process), then the other may not be proceeded with.

The Chair recognizes that these bills are not identical, as Bill C-19 is much broader in scope and contains other provisions related to the implementation of the budget.

However, in adopting Bill C-19 at second reading, the House has also agreed to the principle of that bill, and consequently, has agreed, among other things, to amend section 319 of the Criminal Code dealing with hate propaganda. As I explained a few moments ago, these are provisions substantially similar to the ones contained in Bill C-250.

Therefore, the question for the Chair is, should Bill C-250 be allowed to proceed further in the legislative process at this time? In the Chair's opinion, it should not be allowed. The House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.

Government and private members' bills belong to different categories of items and are governed by different sets of rules and precedents. Standing Order 94(1) provides the Speaker with the authority to “make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members' Business”.

Applying this authority, I am ordering that the status of Bill C-250 remain pending and that it not be called for its second hour of debate. This leaves open the possibility that Bill C-250 could be reinstated in the next session, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, should by any chance Bill C-19 fail to be enacted in this session.

I thank all members for their attention on this matter.

Bill C-19—Time Allocation Motion

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I share concerns with how long it took to get Bill C-8 through this place. I also recognize and appreciate that the government House leader is a reasonable person.

However, let us be honest about what is in Bill C-19. Climate is mentioned only with respect to the climate action incentive's being delivered once a quarter as opposed to once a year. I do not see a section in here that implements dental care.

If this does move through time allocation, does it mean we will see more substantial climate legislation? Does it mean we will see legislation for the Canada disability benefit? Over 100 MPs from all parties in this place have made clear they want to see the government move forward fast on that.

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

Here are the facts, Madam Speaker. Two concurrence motions have been moved: one on fisheries and one on ethics. There was an important issue with respect to fisheries coming out of committee and, of course, important issues as they relate to the scandalous behaviour of the government on ethics.

Bill C-8 was introduced December 16, and we had 10 weeks when the House was not sitting. What did the Liberals expect for the fall economic statement, when we are not going to have debate on this?

The other thing we are seeing is that before the coalition agreement with the NDP, the NDP sided with the government 89% of the time on votes. Since that coalition agreement, it has sided with the government 95% of the time. It is not surprising to me that I am hearing the NDP House leader parroting the talking points of the government.

The fact is that we are seeing a decline in democracy. This is the government's attempt to seize complete control over this place on important legislation, such as Bill C-19, when members have the right to speak and members have the right to move motions. We have those rights because these are important issues to Canadians.

Will the government House leader just admit that he is contributing to a further decline in democracy in this country, and that Canadians did not vote for a coalition agreement between the NDP and the Liberals? They actually voted for an effective opposition, including the Conservative Party, which, by the way, is the official opposition: Her Majesty's loyal opposition. We will continue to do our job, despite the fact that the government does not want us to do it.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by noting that I have supported time allocation motions in the past and we had a sufficient number of speakers. I will also mention, on the point by the government House leader, that I have been similarly concerned by some of the motions for concurrence we have seen here over the past week. That being said, my understanding is that we have had 11 speakers so far on Bill C-19 at second reading, out of 338 members in this place. This is a substantial piece of legislation. As we have heard from the Bloc, there are 452 pages.

How can we ensure that sufficient debate is provided? If the government House leader is concerned with some tactics from opposition parties, why is the response to those tactics to further erode the quality of debate that we can have in this place?

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

Madam Speaker, I knew that this time allocation motion was coming, but I did not think it would be moved so soon. It is important for people to know that we have not yet even had five hours of debate on Bill C-19, which is a big bill with numerous measures. Many sectors have been calling us after seeing the budget. We need to debate this big, important bill, and five hours is not enough time.

I am surprised because I think this demonstrates carelessness and contempt on the part of the government. The Liberals are saying that we have debated this long enough, and they are eager for the bill to be passed. We, too, are eager for it to pass, but debating bills is part of our job. I am therefore very surprised, and even appalled, that this motion was moved today when I was not expecting it until later.

I think that is an exaggeration. I think the government is counting on its tacit agreement with the NDP to prevent meaningful and thorough debate, especially in the case of Bill C-19. This is not a small bill; it is 452 pages long and the Standing Committee on Finance has already begun its study.

This is not a question, but I will say to my colleague that it is a bit discouraging to see that the leader continues to be contemptuous of the legislative work that we have to do here in the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not quite surprised by this. The only thing surprising me is that the motion was not seconded by the NDP House leader.

This is just amazing to me. This is a government that argued with its coalition partners in the NDP about Motion No. 11. What Motion No. 11 was going to do was expand the time, give more opportunities for members to speak by expanding the hours, and yet, with just two and a half days of debate, the government moved time allocation on an important piece of legislation, doing the exact opposite of what it argued Motion No. 11 was going to do.

Before the Liberals spare us the false indignation of obstruction, in fact what the government is doing is utilizing this motion to obstruct members of Parliament from doing their job, which is providing oversight and scrutiny on important pieces of legislation. Therefore, it is not surprising to me that we are at this point. I know the opposition House leader is going to go on about Friday and about the movement of a motion to committee, splitting up a bill. We called a vote. There was no reason for Bill C-19 not to be debated, except the filibuster by the government.

My question is a simple one. Is it not true that the government House leader and the Prime Minister, in fact, because of this tag-team partnership with the NDP, actually have exactly what they want and need in this Parliament, and that is an audience, not an opposition?

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second 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 shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Justice

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

Madam Speaker, in the short time that I have, I will just remind the House that all of today could have been avoided had the question been put. We would have had a vote on Monday. We could have resumed the government legislation and debated Bill C-19, but instead, in a shockingly funny situation, the government moved time allocation on itself.

I know that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby showed his complete indignation to the fact that petitions have not been read. The member supported the government moving to orders of the day all week. That is why they were not.

I am seeking unanimous consent, and I hope that the others will agree, to move that the House proceed to presenting petitions today.

Bill C-19—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Furthermore, I am tabling the government's responses to Questions Nos. 409 to 417.

Justice

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that I am very disappointed that we are at this juncture today. Bill C-5 is a very important piece of legislation, and I can walk the House through my perspective on this.

I want to confirm that I will be splitting my time with the member for Whitby.

When Bill C-5 was introduced back in December, we heard from a number of different organizations and people who had been directly impacted by systemic racism. I realize that not everybody in this House understands, and not every party in the House recognizes what systemic racism is, but it is a lived reality for many Canadians.

All I have to say is that if we look at what The Globe and Mail has reported over the last three days, we will find a very coherent set of news pieces that talk about systemic racism. For example, it included that 50% of women who are incarcerated within the criminal justice system are indigenous, whereas indigenous people only make up 4% of Canada's population. If we look at Black Canadians, we know they are disproportionately represented within the criminal justice system.

This is one of the reasons why we brought forward Bill C-5. It includes a number of mandatory minimum penalties that were struck down by the Supreme Court for their unconstitutionality. We have also brought forward very important amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

After several days of debate, including at committee, we are at a stage now where Bill C-5 will be going through what is called clause-by-clause as of May 17 and May 20. We have three more meetings, the first of which is supposed to start in about 10 minutes, and we will have two subsequent meetings next Tuesday and Friday. As of two days ago, all parties represented, the Liberal Party, the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives, agreed that we would have two more meetings as of this week to conclude the study on Bill C-8, so as of next Friday we will conclude the study.

We have had so many witnesses come and speak about the impacts of the criminal justice system, especially with respect to mandatory minimum penalties, on racialized and indigenous people. We had the president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers speak about his personal experience: It was very powerful testimony of how he felt he was impacted by the criminal justice system.

At this stage of the game, to have the bill split into two parts is completely unacceptable. It is not a routine motion on a Friday afternoon. This warrants debate. This is a bill that is fundamental to who we are, as Canadians.

We may reject the notion of systemic racism, and I respect that because I am not here to educate people on what systemic racism is: It is a lived experience for many people in this country. Our legacy of colonialism, and what has happened with indigenous and many racialized people in Canada, will speak to systemic racism. It is a lived experience. It is not up for debate. I am not here to educate, but the reality is that people came to committee, they shared their lived experiences, they showed us and demonstrated why this has had a harmful impact on particular groups of people.

That is why it is so disingenuous for the Conservative Party to bring this forward today. This is after we had consensus. We were very particular not to have a vote on this, because the bill is so important and so fundamental. We did not vote on it, but we compromised. In fact, the Conservatives wanted eight meetings, we wanted six, so we compromised and said seven in the interest of getting consensus. That is how we are here today.

After today, we have two more meetings to conclude the study. We have very important witnesses who are going to speak about the bill in its totality. If we split the bill, we will essentially lose what we are trying to achieve here. It is not a frivolous PMB or a frivolous issue for us to dispose of on a Friday afternoon without any debate.

For us to be here at this juncture on a Friday is completely disappointing. We do have a budget implementation act, and I spoke to it just before we broke about an hour ago for question period, and I, in fact, have several minutes more to speak to C-19.

With respect to Bill C-5, the way that this has transpired, I believe, just speaks to the fact that the Conservative Party is absolutely not ready to deal with systemic racism. It is not ready to deal with smart criminal justice policies. If we look at places where they have implemented mandatory minimum penalties, such as the United States, which had, at the height of it, the largest number of mandatory minimum penalties, they are now rejecting this notion because it is something that impacts racialized people. It particularly affects Black communities in the United States.

Today, we have an opportunity in Canada to address this issue in a very meaningful way and in a balanced way. While I know that Bill C-5 may not have gone far enough for many, it is one that fundamentally will change the criminal justice system and make sure that we have smart policies, one that ensures that people are able, if they do not pose a danger to the public, to continue their sentence in a community with supervision. It also ensures that they are able to get the right supports in order to continue with their lives, so that their lives are not disrupted, and they are not in a maze of criminality among those who are in prison.

This is very smart and balanced criminal justice policy, one that I believe Canadians want us to embrace, and one that has, for far too long, impacted vulnerable communities.

I believe that the splitting of this bill will be fundamentally wrong, and it will be the wrong approach. I would say it would be a complete failure on the part of the House to address something that has been so pronounced in our country. All we have to do is look at the annualized reports from the office of the correctional investigator, who painstakingly, year after year, demonstrates that the numbers of those who are in penitentiaries in Canada are, increasingly, young Black men, indigenous men and indigenous women who, as of last December, surpassed 50% of the prison population.

What I ask today, and what I ask the House, is that we continue on pursuing Bill C-5 in its entirety as one bill, and that we continue to have our witnesses, who have been very thoughtful. While I may not agree with all of them, I think they have been very thoughtful in the way they presented this, and we look forward to ensuring that the matter comes back to the House. I welcome the opposition to have a robust debate on this and continue the debate on Bill C-5 that we had earlier this year and be able to come to, hopefully, a consensus, if not a vote, that can make sure the bill passes through the House and the Senate.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, to follow on the question from the member for Barrie—Innisfil, I wonder if we should not have just quickly put the question.

I hear the parliamentary secretary speaking not to the motion, but to Bill C‑19, so he is preventing us from debating Bill C‑19.

Does that not show that we should have simply gone directly to putting the question on the motion before the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister would be proud of this member for his intervention today. The Prime Minister refers to spreading disinformation quite a bit.

Let us go back to what actually happened here. The member for St. Albert—Edmonton, who is a member of the justice committee, proposed the motion during Routine Proceedings to split Bill C-5 at committee to allow the committee to effectively do its work. I then stood up and said that we want to put the question, which means we want to put it to a vote. That vote would have happened on Monday. There would have been no need for debate. There would have been no need for the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to stand up and do this filibuster, and I suspect there are going to be others as well. They could have easily gone to Bill C-19 to debate it. I am guessing that maybe either the whip of the Liberal Party or the House leader has called the House leader of the NDP to prepare him to speak to this just to filibuster this.

Let us be very clear about what happened. We put the question. We could have voted on this on Monday and we could have gone to Bill C-19.

This is not a question, but more of a comment. I am curious as to why the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has decided to filibuster his own piece of legislation to delay time so that we cannot get to Bill C-19. It just does not make any sense.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, having gone through that, I should be given a bonus five minutes, I would suggest.

At the end of the day, the Conservatives like to play their games, and we saw that just now. They do whatever they can to play a game, cause distractions and lose the focus on what I believe and the government believes is important to Canadians, such as the budget and the budget implementation bill. We do not get very many bills that are more important than the budget implementation bill, something that invests billions and billions of dollars into supporting Canadians in all sorts of different ways. That is what we were supposed to be debating today. On a Friday afternoon, the Conservative Party, Canada's official opposition party, wants to play games.

As much as the Conservatives want to focus on their games and their character assassinations, I can say that all members of the Liberal caucus will continue to have their focus on Canadians and the people of Canada first. That is the reason why we are very excited about Bill C-19, no matter what sorts of games might be played by the Conservative opposition. We understand how this budget is going to have a profoundly positive impact on building a stronger, healthier Canada. We will continue to support the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, and push aside the games. That is the assurance that I would give members.

I do not support this motion. Bill C-5 should stay as one bill, as was the intent.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member were actually listening, it is 100% purely relevant. Prior to their cousin in the Bloc's interruption, I was speaking specifically to the motion. After the Bloc's interruption, I made references to why the Conservatives are trying to change the topic to prevent us from being able to talk about C-19, and my Conservative friend got all upset and stood up to say that I am not being relevant. The Conservatives really need to start putting on their thinking caps.

At the end of the day, what we should be debating today is the good-news budget. There is no doubt that there are many things within it which they can raise, but they are the ones who have chosen not to want to debate it today. Instead, they want to have a discussion or a debate on a motion dealing with why we should split into sections a government piece of legislation through this particular motion.

It is interesting because, as I was pointing out, there are different approaches to justice. There is a Conservative approach versus our Liberal government's approach to justice.

I highlighted the one difference regarding incarceration, but that is not the only one. We have confidence in our judicial system. We recognize the independence of our judges and the judicial system. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have a difficult time with that. They really and truly do.

They believe that if we cannot trust judges, we put in minimum sentences. The legislation they are attempting to split up, and increasing the number of votes for, is a reflection of some of the reforms the Minister of Justice has been working for a good period of time now. He has been looking and listening to the different stakeholders, working with different jurisdictions, provincial or others, within the civil service.

I know that we just have to listen to question period and we can understand that the Conservative Party has a lack of faith and trust in our civil service, but that is not shared universally. We recognize the hard work and the efforts that our civil servants put in, whether it is in passport offices or in ministerial offices formulating legislation and ensuring the type of legislation we bring forward is ultimately for the betterment of Canada.

That is what we are seeing here. I have had the opportunity, in the days in which I was an MLA, not only as a provincial justice critic, so I have fairly significant experience in dealing with justice-related issues, but also as the chair of the Keewatin youth justice committee for a number of years. The youth justice committee was where I learned a great deal about how communities can be involved in ensuring that justice is not just being seen as being done, but is in fact done.

One of the best ways I have seen this is through restorative justice, where we get the victim and person who committed the offence together, and that does happen. When it does happen, we see it as a good thing, because often through that process, we see that the victim will get a greater sense of satisfaction. Now, obviously, that does not work in all situations.

The youth justice committee would often have young offenders come before it. Committee members would listen to what the young offender has to say and come up with a disposition in terms of what the consequences should be for that young person for whatever offence was committed. To give a specific example, let us take shoplifting. We all know that shoplifting is a bad thing. However, because of the justice committee, it is personalized so that the victim, a store in this case, would have the opportunity to provide input from the victim's perspective, and then the offender would come before individuals in the community who are, in essence, honorary probation officers.

I raise this because, even at that level, there is a certain amount of expertise that is provided from constituents, from people who live and work in our communities. They get a good assessment of the environment that this young person was in, and through that assessment, they are able to give a disposition that is more fitting for the individual. I use this as an example because we can take some of the principles from that example and apply them even to a courtroom, where there are a judge, lawyers, a victim and an offender.

When we take a look at the legislation that the Conservatives want to divide, they are saying that if person X commits crime Z, that person has to serve a minimum amount of time. They want to override everything that has been said in the courtroom. They are saying to the judge that they do not have the confidence in the judge to get an evaluation of the situation that might have ultimately caused the crime and led to the actual offence itself.

When I think of minimum sentences, I think in terms of limitations. At times, there is a need for minimum sentences. However, the idea that we need to review them and make some changes is long overdue. We need to recognize that there is systemic racism within our communities. Not to consider our courts and our institutions when we think of the issue of racism would be a huge mistake.

I was not in committee during the discussions on second reading of the bill, but I suspect we would find a number of witnesses who recognized that systemic racism is found within our courts, and one of the ways we can minimize some of that racism is by looking at ways in which we can address the issue of minimum sentences.

When we really stop and think about it, the motion being brought forward by the Conservative Party does two things. One, it addresses the specifics of Bill C-5 in wanting to divide it up. One could question the motives of trying to do that. Is it as simple as having—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, we now have the “double blue”, the “true blue” and the “light blue”, with the Bloc being the “light blue”, as one of my colleagues called them. They kind of like to work together to cause a little bit of mischief. On the one hand there is the Conservative Party, the leading party of the “double blue coalition”, moving a motion to prevent debate, and on the other we have the “light blue” or the “mini blue” trying to look at ways in which we can end the session for the day.

It is amazing, truly amazing just how much the Bloc and the Conservatives feel that we do not need to debate Bill C-19. Think about it. The Conservatives are saying they want to change the topic today, as they do not want to talk about the budget. I can appreciate why. I can appreciate why because, at the end of the day, there is so much good news in this budget that the Conservatives do not want to talk about it, and that is—

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

Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised the Conservatives would choose to move a motion of this nature. My understanding is that, once again, we are seeing the Conservatives hoping to be able to cause a little confusion and frustration with government legislation. That does not necessarily surprise me, but I must say that I am somewhat disappointed in the official opposition.

We started by talking about the importance of Bill C-19. It is the budget implementation bill. That is something that I think Canadians, as a whole, are very much interested in. After question period, we would normally go through routine proceedings and then get back to debate. The purpose of debate today, I had thought, was to continue the discussion on the budget implementation bill. Instead, the Conservatives went into the procedures of the day and pick Motion No. 78, which I will read to see what they are hoping to achieve by this particular motion. It states:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that, during its consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the committee be granted the power to divide the bill into two pieces of legislation....

Why would the official opposition move a motion of that nature on a Friday afternoon? It is surprising. The members opposite are very much aware of what was supposed to be debated today. Instead, they want to change the topic. They want to discuss separating out a bill and causing more votes on legislation that would ultimately make some significant changes to our justice system.

There is a significant gap between the approaches of the government of the day and the Conservative Party on the issue of incarceration. When we think of incarceration, we on the government benches, the Liberal Party, recognize that in a very real and tangible way there is a high percentage of people who become incarcerated in our jails who will ultimately come out of jail. To that degree, we need to recognize that it is better to have a system in place that ensures there is a greater likelihood of those people remaining in our communities and contributing in a positive way.

It is important that we recognize that. The Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to want to give an impression that the best way to keep Canadians safe is to put people in jail who break the law and keep them in jail. That is their speaking point. That is why we will often hear Conservatives talk about minimum sentences—

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand my hon. colleague has a birthday coming up next week, so I wish him a very happy birthday between now and the next Thursday question.

On the question with respect to the ministers the member is requesting be present in the committee of the whole, I will be happy to get back to him on that.

With respect to extending sitting hours, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the sitting on Wednesday, May 11, be 12 o'clock midnight, pursuant to an order made Monday, May 2. I am learning that this is the member's birthday, so he gets an opportunity to celebrate in this august place.

This afternoon, we will resume second reading debate on Bill C-11 on broadcasting. Tomorrow and Monday, we will be continuing second reading debate of Bill C-19, the budget implementation act. Next Tuesday and Thursday will be opposition days, and we will return to the second reading of Bill C-11 on Wednesday.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I like hearing the member, even when he gives the same speech three times in a row. All members are honourable, except that he said a number of things that are factually incorrect. He contradicted you on a number of rulings that you have already made. I think the official opposition House leader has a responsibility to respect the Speaker's rulings, which have been repeatedly contradicted by what Conservatives have been saying in the House.

For two months, we have had the Conservatives block everything in the House of Commons. When they are not putting up this committee report, and this is the third time the member has given the same speech on this one-paragraph report, they put up other reports. They have blocked Bill C-8. Teachers and farmers implored Conservatives to let it get through the House, yet for months they blocked it.

Now we have the budget implementation act, which puts into place two important things for the good people of Barrie—Innisfil. As colleagues well know, national dental care, which the NDP pushed for and forced the government to put into place, would actually help 29,000 people in Barrie and the immediate area. The national housing that the NDP has forced the government to finally invest in would also have significant positive impacts.

My question is very simple. The ethics committee has a responsibility, of course, to do its good work, but why are the Conservatives systematically blocking all pieces of legislation in the House of Commons? Why will they not allow good things to happen for Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member missed what I proposed. What I proposed was that we get to a vote on this, that we move concurrence on this, get it back to committee and extend the hours so that we can do the work on Bill C-19.

Conservatives are willing to work. We are willing to work, and that is why I put that proposal. Only a Liberal would think that accountability and transparency are a character assassination or a personal attack.

We are responsible, all of us on all sides, to Canadians for the way money is spent in this place. If money is spent in an inappropriate manner, then the Liberals, for the sake of all Canadians, should want to get to the bottom of this as much as we do, as well as any member of the NDP and the Bloc.

I encourage the government to accept the proposal. Let us move to a vote on concurrence. We will stay late till midnight tonight to debate Bill C-19.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member indeed reminds me that Conservatives, whether inside or outside the House, seem to have fallen in love with blocking and blockades.

We are here because we have many other pieces of legislation, including a budget. There is not just Bill C-8, which, as we have mentioned, has had 12 days of debate and obstruction and concurrence motions and everything else that the Conservatives can throw up in order to delay it, but also Bill C-7, which we have not debated yet, and Bill C-9, which we have not debated yet. There is Bill C-18 and there is Bill C-19.

There are all kinds of things that we have yet to debate, as well as the budget, and that is because the official opposition simply wants to run out the clock; delay, delay, delay; and use every tactic at its disposal to throw this government off its agenda. Canadians do not want that. They want us to work together.