✘ C-203 (Supreme Court Act)
Voted nay. Motion defeated.
Bill
C-203: An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages)
Second reading.
Vote
Nay.
Rationale
The proposed amendment raises certain constitutional concerns as to its validity. Although Bill C-203 is consistent with the Government’s policy of appointing only functionally bilingual candidates to the SCC, the eligibility requirements for the SCC are entrenched in section 41 of the Constitution Act. This means that Parliament on its own may not have jurisdiction to amend the Supreme Court Act setting out additional criteria regarding who can be appointed, but may also require the approval of the ten provinces.
As a result, Bill C-203 would undoubtedly provoke significant controversy and tension between Parliament, the Court and the provinces, and the legislation could be overturned by a successful constitutional challenge to its validity. If a legislative requirement of bilingualism were to be struck down, this could harm the Government’s long-term objective of ensuring that all judges of the SCC are functionally bilingual.
Result
Defeated.
✘ C-342 (Excise Tax Act)
Voted nay. Motion defeated.
Bill
C-342: An Act to amend Excise Tax Act (carbon levy)
Second reading.
Vote
Nay.
Rationale
The current approach simplifies the vendor’s calculation of the amount of tax payable since the vendor is not required to back out other taxes, levies and charges at the point of sale in order to determine the amount of GST/HST payable. It is also easy for consumers to understand.
Given the various carbon pricing mechanisms that may exist in Canada, it would entail significant difficulty for vendors, especially those operating in multiple jurisdictions, to accurately calculate and back out all taxes or fees associated with carbon from the GST/HST base. The impact of removing GST/HST on carbon taxes or fees would be negligible for most fuels. Such relief would likely not be noticeable for consumers given that the GST/HST on a carbon tax or levy comprises a very small portion of the total fuel price.
As drafted, the Bill would result in forgone federal revenues of about $70 million in 2017. Removing all carbon pricing from the GST/HST base, the apparent intended purpose of the Bill, would cost about $260 million in 2018, increasing to about $810 million in 2022. Removing carbon taxes or fees from the GST/HST base would represent a significant policy precedent which could create or exacerbate pressures on the Government to remove other similar charges from the GST/HST base.
Result
Defeated.
✘ NDP Motion (Conflict of Interest Act)
Voted nay. Motion defeated.
Bill
NDP Motion: Conflict of Interest Act
First reading.
Vote
Nay.
Rationale
The Minister of Finance has recently announced different steps to ensure he is going above and beyond the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner’s recommendations, in order to maintain the public's trust as we continue our work towards a strong and growing middle class.
Result
Defeated.
✘ CPC Motion
Voted nay. Motion defeated.
Bill
CPC Motion: Support for Forestry Workers (Softwood Lumber)
First reading.
Vote
Nay.
Rationale
Despite the $867 million forestry support package our Government announced in June, Opposition parties continue to link any debate on support for the forest sector to the government’s perceived inability to re-negotiate a Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA). Opposition MPs have persistently and aggressively questioned the government on how they will support the forest industry and its work force, particularly in light of the expiration of the SLA. Since the expiry of the 2006 Canada-United States Softwood Lumber Agreement, our government has been working hard to negotiate a new deal with the US. Minister Freeland raises the issue whenever she speaks with Commerce Secretary Ross, and the Prime Minister has repeatedly discussed softwood lumber with President Trump, including as recently as October 16.
Result
Defeated.
✘ C-349 (Criminal Organization)
Voted nay. Motion defeated.
Bill
C-349: An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts (criminal organization)
Second reading.
Vote
Nay.
Rationale
There are a number of reasons why our Government opposes the proposed legislation:
Charter concerns: The listing process would likely contravene section 7 of the Charter (life, liberty and security of the person). By prohibiting people from wearing certain emblems, there is also a significant risk that the legislation would be inconsistent with section 2(b) (freedom of expression).
The proposed changes are unlikely to make organized crime easier to investigate or prosecute. This is because the type of evidence required to support successful organized crime prosecutions will also help to establish the existence of the criminal organization in any event.
The PMB would significantly undermine the current organized crime regime because it would have the effect of requiring all criminal organizations to be listed in order to rely on the organized crime provisions in the Criminal Code. In other words, criminals could not be convicted under the organized crime provisions unless they were already on the list – this would be an obstacle to successful prosecution.
Result
Defeated.
✘ CPC Motion
Voted nay. Motion defeated.
Bill
CPC Motion: Minister of Finance's documents submitted to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
First reading.
Vote
Nay.
Rationale
The Ethics Commissioner has full trust of the Parliament to carry out her duties impartially and with integrity.
Result
Defeated.
✘ NDP Motion (Universal Pharmacare Program)
Voted nay. Motion defeated.
Bill
NDP Motion: Universal Pharmacare Program
First reading.
Vote
Nay.
Rationale
A national Pharmacare plan is a good idea. The reason I voted against it relates to timing. The Health Committee has been studying this issue for weeks, has heard from close to 100 witnesses, and is nearing the point where they will be making recommendations to our government on a direction forward in this issue. The vote was triggered by the Opposition, but is too early to know what the right solution might be. My strong hope is that our government will move forward on this issue after considering the Committee's findings.
Result
Defeated.
✘ C-345 (Canada Labour Code)
Voted nay. Motion defeated.
Bill
C-345: An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (pregnant and nursing employees)
Second reading.
Vote
Nay.
Rationale
This bill would create an uneven playing field for federally regulated workers across the country, as legislation in the provinces varies in each jurisdiction. It may have the negative effect of allowing employers to shirk their responsibility to accommodate pregnant workers. Preventive withdrawal provisions already exist in the Canada Labour Code (sections 132 and 204-205.2) to allow a pregnant or nursing employee, if there is a risk to her health or that of her foetus or child, to be reassigned or have her job functions modified without loss in pay or benefits, or if this is not reasonably practicable for her employer, to take a leave of absence without pay for the duration of the risk. This bill does not identify which, or how provisions in provincial legislation would apply to federally regulated workers in those provinces.
Result
Defeated.
✔︎ S-231 (Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code)
Voted yea. Motion passed.
Bill
S-231: An Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code (protection of journalistic sources)
Third Reading.
Vote
Yea.
Rationale
On June 19, 2017, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) studied Bill S-231, and recommended certain amendments, which our Government wholly support. With these amendments in place, the Bill will provide robust and unprecedented protection for journalistic sources, all the while being improved by clarifying certain provisions to avoid confusion, by preventing conflict of law issues and by ensuring that the new safeguards proposed in the Bill will only apply in appropriate cases.
Result
Passed.
✔︎ S-226 (Special Economic Measures Act and Immigration and Refugee Protection Act)
Voted yea. Motion passed.
Bill
S-226: An Act to provide for the taking of restrictive measures in respect of foreign nationals responsible for gross violations of internationally recognized human rights and to make related amendments to the Special Economic Measures Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Third Reading.
Vote
Yea.
Rationale
There is currently no Canadian legislation that authorizes the imposition of sanctions specifically for violations of international human rights obligations in a foreign state or for acts of corruption. Bill S-226 seeks to address this gap.
Result
Passed.