✘ C-346 (Firearms Act)

Bill

C-346:  An Act to amend the Firearms Act (licences) 

Second reading.

Vote

Nay.

Rationale

The measures proposed in C-346 undermine a fundamental principle of the Firearms Act: ensuring public safety. By moving the requirement to update CFOs with licence information from every five years to every ten years it will be difficult for CFOs to determine if a person’s changing personal circumstances should make them ineligible to own a firearm. The concept of licence suspension would be a new addition to the Firearms Act and is not well developed as a policy raising numerous questions about what it would mean operationally.

Result

Defeated.

✔︎ M-108 (Ranchers and Farmers)

Motion

M-108: Contribution of ranchers and farmers

Second reading.

Vote

Yea.

Rationale

The language of the motion essentially reflects a long-standing position of the Government of Canada. Supporting M-108 demonstrates the Government’s recognition of the contribution and the critical role played by ranchers and farmers. Supporting  M-108 also provides an opportunity to highlight the expected contribution of the next agricultural policy framework in continuing to support “on-farm” stewardship and conservation activities, as well as many positive achievements of our government, such as Budget 2017 recognizing that Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector is a key driver of economic growth. 

Result

Passed.

✘ C-315 (Parks Canada Agency Act)

Bill

C-315:  An Act to Amend the Parks Canada Agency Act (Conservation of National Historic Sites Account)

Second reading.

Vote

Nay.

Rationale

 The Bill proposes to give the Victims’ Ombudsman far greater power than comparable ombudsmen for other issues. There is insufficient evidence to justify such a dramatic expansion. By creating a new federal department, implementation of the Bill would require significant funding. It would therefore engage the Prime Minister’s prerogative and would also require a royal recommendation from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. In addition, our Government is already reviewing the terms and conditions relating to the Ombudsman. A thorough analysis conducted in cooperation with the Ombudsman will produce better results than the measures proposed in Bill C-343.  

Result

Defeated.

✔︎ C-49 (Canada Transportation Act)

Bill

C-49: An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and other Acts respecting transportation and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

Third Reading.

Vote

Yea.

Rationale

 Impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death and injury in Canada. Our Government has committed to creating new and stronger laws to punish more severely those who drive while under the influence of drugs, including cannabis. Bill C-46 goes one step further by proposing to reform the entire impaired driving regime in the Criminal Code. It would strengthen existing drug-impaired driving laws and create a regime that would be amongst the strongest in the world. To support these measures, the Government will undertake a robust public awareness campaign so that Canadians are well informed about the dangers of driving under the influence of cannabis and other drugs. It will also work with provinces, territories, municipalities and local communities to train and equip law enforcement so that Canada’s roads and highways are safe for all Canadians. On that note, our Government is investing up to $274 million to support law enforcement and border efforts to detect and deter drug-impaired driving and enforce the proposed cannabis legalization and regulation. We have committed up to $161 million for training frontline officers in how to recognize the signs and symptoms of drug-impaired driving, building law enforcement capacity across the country, providing access to drug screening devices, developing policy, bolstering research, and raising public awareness about the dangers of drug-impaired driving. 

Result

Passed.

✔︎ C-46 (Impaired Driving)

Bill

C-46: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Third Reading.

Vote

Yea.

Rationale

Impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death and injury in Canada. Our Government has committed to creating new and stronger laws to punish more severely those who drive while under the influence of drugs, including cannabis. Bill C-46 goes one step further by proposing to reform the entire impaired driving regime in the Criminal Code. It would strengthen existing drug-impaired driving laws and create a regime that would be amongst the strongest in the world. To support these measures, the Government will undertake a robust public awareness campaign so that Canadians are well informed about the dangers of driving under the influence of cannabis and other drugs. It will also work with provinces, territories, municipalities and local communities to train and equip law enforcement so that Canada’s roads and highways are safe for all Canadians. On that note, our Government is investing up to $274 million to support law enforcement and border efforts to detect and deter drug-impaired driving and enforce the proposed cannabis legalization and regulation. We have committed up to $161 million for training frontline officers in how to recognize the signs and symptoms of drug-impaired driving, building law enforcement capacity across the country, providing access to drug screening devices, developing policy, bolstering research, and raising public awareness about the dangers of drug-impaired driving.

Result

Passed.

✘ M-131 (Carbon Pricing)

Bill

M-131: Carbon Pricing

First reading.

Vote

Nay.

Rationale

Reporting on Carbon Pricing is addressed through agreed Federal-Provincial Pan-Canadian Approach. Provisions for annual reporting, and for study and review of the pan-Canadian approach to carbon pricing have been agreed to by First Ministers as part of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (PCF). These provisions are listed in the Background section below. The PCF provides for annual reporting to First Ministers, transparent and regular public reporting to Canadians, and a comprehensive set of studies and reviews. Moreover, a separate study by the Standing Committee on Finance conducted in isolation would run counter to the collaborative approach agreed to by federal, provincial and territorial governments to implementing, reviewing and reporting on carbon pricing measures.

Result

Defeated.

✘ C-203 (Supreme Court Act)

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)

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.

MP John Aldag Tables Legislation Calling for Indigenous Representation on the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada

This is MP John Aldag's first Private Member's Bill

October 25, 2017 - Ottawa, Ontario

Today, Liberal MP John Aldag introduced legislation in the House of Commons seeking to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act to include three new representatives on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada; one each for the First Nations, Metis and Inuit.

Aldag’s Private Member’s Bill is titled C-374, An Act to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act (composition of the Board).

“I believe it is necessary to increasingly break down the walls of exclusion which have historically existed between the Federal Government and Indigenous peoples in
Canada.” 

- John Aldag, Member of Parliament for Cloverdale-Langley City

Currently, Section 4(d) of the Historic Sites and Monuments Act provides one representative from
each province and territory, and while there is an Indigenous Affairs and Cultural Affairs Directorate, there is no formal representation of Indigenous peoples, organizations or Governments on the Board.

“It is my belief that the restriction of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada to only recognize provinces and territories within our Canadian system is an outdated legacy of Canada’s historic mistreatment and structural exclusion of Indigenous peoples to full acknowledgement in Canadian society.”

- John Aldag, Member of Parliament for Cloverdale-Langley City

This bill is a direct result of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action Number 79-1,
which calls upon the federal government to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act to include First Nation, Inuit, and Métis representation on the Board and its Secretariat.

Learn more: https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=9155473&View=0

Stakeholder Statement

“The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation is an eager supporter of Bill C-374. As stated by
Senator Murray Sinclair at the closing event of the Truth and Reconciliation, the TRC has described the mountain, the calls to action issued by the TRC represent the path to the top. The Calls to Action represent the synthesis of one of the largest engagement sessions with indigenous peoples in the history of the country. We must understand these calls as the articulation of the collective voices of thousands upon thousands of Survivors, families and communities across the Country.

Central in the work of reconciliation is this is the recognition that Canada, as a nation, has not
accurately or effectively portrayed the perspectives of indigenous peoples in the telling of our
collective history. So long as this continues, Canadians and visitors to this country will be prevented from knowing not only who we were, but will be denied an understanding of what we can become.

Including indigenous perspectives and histories in commemorating national historic sites is
paramount. Ensuring there is a clear strategy to commemorate and honour community perspectives on the residential schools is in our national interest.

Through these collective steps, we have the potential to tell a much more accurate, richer and honest story of who we are and where we are going.

For these, and many other reasons, we offer our full support for this bill and encourage all
parliamentarians to do the same.”

- The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation

For more information:

Gunraj Gill
Office of John Aldag, Member of Parliament
778-389-6353
john.aldag.a1@parl.gc.ca

✘ NDP Motion (Conflict of Interest Act)

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.