SoVote

Apr/25/22 3:29:32 p.m.
Watch

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 31, 2022, by the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman concerning the events reported in the third report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. First off, the Chair wishes to briefly describe the events that led to the member raising the question. In June 2021, the committee presented its second report to the House. The report described the difficulties encountered during its study of the questions of conflict of interest and lobbying in relation to pandemic spending. Subsequently, the 43rd Parliament was dissolved, which put an end to the business of the House and its committees. No action was taken by the House during the previous Parliament with respect to this report and the allegations found therein, including the question of privilege raised on June 10, 2021. Members may refer to the ruling of December 9, 2021, found at pages 953 and 954 of Debates for further context. The Committee recently presented its third report, reiterating its support for the conclusions of the report from the previous parliament, which led the member from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman to raise his question of privilege. He argued that, while dissolution ended the orders for the appearance of witnesses, it did not allow the contempt that was allegedly committed to be purged. The presentation of the report would now allow the House to rule on these questions. For his part, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons responded that the orders of the previous parliament expired with its dissolution. He argued that, in order to raise a question of privilege, a committee should first order the appearance of witnesses during this Parliament, then those witnesses should refuse to appear and, finally, a report detailing this refusal should be presented. He said that the presentation to the House of a report from a previous parliament is not enough to trigger the process related to a question of privilege. To deal with this issue, the Chair must determine whether the issues raised in the committee’s report warrant the House to be seized of the matter and give it priority over other business during a new Parliament. Dissolution put an end to all business of the House and its committees. Consequently, the order adopted by the House on March 25, 2021, expired and the persons summoned to appear were relieved of their obligations. The order to appear from the previous Parliament mentioned in the committee’s report is no longer before the House. The Chair has no doubt that the House or its committees can order a particular witness to appear. Any such order must be respected as long as it is in effect. However, a new question of privilege may not be raised regarding a failure to testify unless the witnesses fail to comply with a new order to appear adopted by the House or one of its committees during the current session. The question that now arises is concerning the alleged contempt and dissolution's effect on it. Only the House can determine that contempt has been committed and decide to punish in accordance with its gravity as it sees fit. Until the House has ruled, the facts remain alleged. As was mentioned previously, and in the ruling of December 9, 2021, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 81, “Instances of contempt in one Parliament may even be punished during another Parliament.” This sentence is taken from an earlier edition of Erskine May, the procedural authority in the United Kingdom. However, the Chair would like to point out once again that the circumstances in which a question of privilege may be raised on an alleged case of contempt that occurred during a previous Parliament are much more limited than this quote suggests. The rare instances in which this concept was invoked by my predecessors always involved incidents that were brought to the attention of the House for the first time in light of new facts. They were not a continuation of proceedings interrupted by dissolution. A 1967 report from the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege of the U.K. House of Commons clearly illustrates the rare circumstances in which this concept could apply. It states, at page 95 of the report: However flagrant the contempt, the House can only commit to the close of the existing session. If, however, the House consider that an offender, who has been released on Parliament being prorogued, has not been punished sufficiently, it may commit him again in the following session. Thus, when an allegation of contempt is brought to the attention of the House, it must be dealt with during the session in which it was raised. Any sanction applied by the House is valid only until the end of the session. However, in the very specific case in which contempt was recognized by the House and punished, but prorogation or dissolution put a premature end to the punishment or sanctions, the House may decide to continue its efforts in the subsequent session to remedy it. The issue would not therefore be to reopen a discussion on the merits of the allegations raised in the previous parliament, but rather to decide to reimpose a sanction that had not been fully applied. In the case before us, the issues raised in the committee’s third report do not constitute new facts. The report raises the same elements that were presented in June 2021. In fact, this third report, reiterating the committee’s second report from the previous Parliament, deals with the proceedings of the 43rd Parliament, which all ended with dissolution. Since the House did not have the opportunity to decide on the merits of the alleged instances of contempt nor to reprimand them before dissolution, it now seems to be too late to do so in this new Parliament. By itself, the presentation of the committee's third report is not sufficient to conclude that this question must have priority over other House business. Consequently, the Chair cannot conclude that there is a prima facie case of privilege and give it priority over other House business. I thank the members for their attention.

1057 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/25/22 3:38:37 p.m.
Watch

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 4, 2022, by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan concerning the government's response to written Question No. 351. When he raised his point of order, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan argued that the government response tabled the same day was incomplete and did not respond to all elements of his written question. According to the member, the government is required to respond not only to the question in general, but to the specific elements contained in that question. Written questions are one of the means that members have at their disposal to gather detailed or technical information from the government. Over the years, a number of interventions have been made in the House about the quality, accuracy and completeness of the government’s responses to written questions. The Chair is of the view that ruling on the completeness of responses to written questions is tantamount to ruling on their content, and that is not the Chair's role. At page 529 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, it states, “There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions.” In a ruling on a similar issue rendered on April 3, 2012, found at pages 6856 to 6858 of Debates, one of my predecessors also indicated that it is not the Chair’s role to determine whether the content of these documents is “complete”. On February 15, 2017, Speaker Regan mentioned the following in a ruling found at page 8,974 of Debates: “By raising their dissatisfaction with the responses to their written questions, both members are in effect asking the Chair to assess the quality and completeness of answers provided to written questions.” The Chair continues to encourage communication and co-operation between members and the responsible ministers as a way of obtaining more information. I thus consider this matter closed and thank members for their attention.

344 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/25/22 3:38:46 p.m.
Watch

When this was last before the House, we were two minutes into questions and comments of the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

34 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Apr/25/22 3:38:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have many concerns about the budgetary policy of the government. I wonder if the member could comment specifically, though, on the issues around the government's intention with respect to direction and control regulations. The government has finally recognized that there is a problem with direction and control, but there is still a lot of concern among stakeholders about what remedy the government will put forward. The budget refers to changes that are in the spirit of Bill S-216, which is a bill sponsored by a colleague of mine in the Conservative Party, but it does not address the specific measures. I wonder if the member, who I know has some expertise in this area, can clarify for the House, and for stakeholders in the development community and elsewhere who are following this issue with great interest, what precisely the government intends to do on direction and control and when we will see those changes formally brought in.

162 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Apr/25/22 3:40:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the direction and control issue, obviously our government listens to stakeholders and consults with stakeholders. That is what we will continue to do. There was a nod in the budget to do that. We will continue to do that and go down that path. As for a specific time period, I cannot answer that. I would defer to the parliamentary secretary or the minister on that direct question. It is great to see that from day one, we consult, we listen and we will get to a solution that is optimal for all stakeholders.

99 words

Mr. Jake Stewart (Miramichi—Grand Lake, CPC)

Apr/25/22 3:40:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before I start my speech today, I will inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Simcoe North. It is always nice to rise in this House to speak on behalf of Miramichi—Grand Lake. A lot of times when I am in my riding, it is nice to go into Tim Hortons or one of the arenas or public facilities and learn that my constituents like the fact that I get up on my feet a lot. I am doing it all for my constituents and it is an honour to do it. It is always an honour to rise in this House, but today I come with a sobering message from coast to coast to coast. Canadians cannot afford just inflation. No matter what this Liberal neo-democratic budget claims, we cannot spend our way—

146 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/25/22 3:41:39 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

16 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/25/22 3:41:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member just used a term that the Conservatives have decided to coin around the Prime Minister's first name and “inflation”. This has been ruled not to be admissible parliamentary language in this House. The Speaker, on a previous point of order that I raised, reconfirmed that. I would ask that you ask the member to withdraw that comment.

64 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/25/22 3:42:06 p.m.
Watch

It has been confirmed that it has been declared inadmissible, so I would like the hon. member to withdraw the comment.

21 words

Mr. Jake Stewart

Apr/25/22 3:42:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to stand on the point of order, if I could. I did not say the Prime Minister's name. I said “just”, which is one word, and “inflation”. I could have put a hyphen in there and I could have spelled that out too, I suppose, but I believe it is “just inflation”. I do not believe that has anything to do with—

75 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/25/22 3:42:39 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

4 words

Secretary

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/25/22 3:42:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, perhaps we will give the member the benefit of the doubt that he might be new, but we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. It is very clear that he is indirectly trying to do that. If the member disagrees with the ruling of the Chair, he has an option to challenge that ruling, and he should perhaps exercise that, but in the meantime, if he is not going to do that, he should accept that ruling, a ruling that was made by our Deputy Speaker, a member from his party, and a ruling that you just reinforced.

102 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/25/22 3:43:11 p.m.
Watch

I would remind all members that when we are sitting in this chair, we have no parties and we do not belong to any party. To go back to the point in question, yes, we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly, and it has been determined that the expression can lead to interpretation. I would like the hon. member to withdraw it, please.

65 words

Mr. Jake Stewart

Apr/25/22 3:43:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, any time I say something wrong, I will withdraw it. Just so I get this right, because I want to do right by you as the Speaker, are you asking me to withdraw the words “just inflation”?

41 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/25/22 3:43:56 p.m.
Watch

I am asking you to withdraw the expression that you just used, because it does lead to interpretation. It has been ruled as such. Thank you.

26 words

Mr. Jake Stewart

Apr/25/22 3:44:07 p.m.
Watch

Then, Madam Speaker, I would retract the words “just” and “inflation”. I thank you for that. We cannot spend our way out of this historic inflation. This budget before the House is a classic Liberal tax-and-spend budget. Canadians know that they are the ones on the hook for this $50 billion of brand new Liberal spending in this budget. This is not what Canadians signed up for when they voted Liberal this past summer. Canadian citizens did not vote for an NDP-Liberal government. They voted for a Liberal government, sadly, but now they are getting an NDP-Liberal budget. No one voted Liberal-NDP on the ballot box, yet this is exactly what Canadians have at this moment. It is shameful. In Miramichi—Grand Lake, we rely on something to get things done: trucks. We rely on trucks to get things done. I live on a street with about 17 houses. There are at least four truck drivers and one transport company right on my residential street in Blackville, on Digby Street. That is why my office has been inundated with constituents concerned about the net-zero advisory body's annex of the Liberals' 2030 emissions reduction plan, where on page 192, it chooses trucks, vans and SUVs as public enemy number one. This NDP-Liberal government is doubling down on the people who drive trucks, vans and SUVs. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Jake Stewart: The member across knows that, and he should be ashamed because he has constituents who drive trucks and SUVs and vans. My constituents cannot afford inflation, paired with a tax on trucks. What my constituents and I believe all Canadians want is for the Liberal government to get its hands out of Canadians' pockets, take them out of there and give people the break they deserve. When I reviewed this budget with my staff, we were floored by the exorbitant amount of new spending that the Liberal-NDP government is planning on handing out. This is despite the fact that Canadians are experiencing a 31-year inflationary high. How bad does it have to get for the government and its multiple prime ministers, at this point, to address the reality that Canadians are facing every single day? I know the people of Miramichi—Grand Lake cannot afford another inflationary budget that adds to the crisis we are facing across this country. The fact that home prices have doubled since the Liberals formed government should be enough to call for a non-confidence vote, a vote that could never happen now that the NDP has been, what do we call it, bought off by the Liberal Party of Canada. After seven years of Liberal policies, Canadians are facing record-high inflation and a skyrocketing cost of living, leading to higher grocery and gas prices and a growing housing affordability crisis. More than half of Canadians are $200 or less away from not being able to pay their bills or rent, with three in 10 already falling behind at the end of the month. It is heartbreaking to hear the stories of families, in Miramichi—Grand Lake and across the country, being forced to go from shopping at the grocery store to now visiting the food bank. These are hard-working Canadian parents, struggling to feed their families. Now is not the time to add an emission tax on to farmers, yet that is exactly what the government is doing. What is this fixation on farmers, construction workers, oil and gas workers, and people who drive trucks, vans and SUVs? This is the type of government that is literally zeroing in on certain groups of Canadians and making their lives twice as miserable as the inflationary times we are already faced with because of the government's decision-making to begin with. These costs are being passed on to the consumer, driving higher costs in the grocery store aisles, and Canadians are feeling it. People in Miramichi—Grand Lake are feeling it. History is repeating itself. As we saw in the late 1970s and early eighties, Canada's government is spending outside of its means, and Canadians are paying for it at the gas pumps, grocery stores and every time we buy anything. Inflation is currently 6.7% nationwide, but in my home province of New Brunswick, inflation is 7.4%, with no sign of slowing down. Moncton, New Brunswick, has the highest MLS listing hike in home prices year over year, at almost 60%. At what point will the government start working with the different levels of government to get a proper solution, instead of trying to spend its way out of the crisis? That just does not work. The Liberal-NDP spending solution is one of the major reasons we are in this mess in the first place. This budget is adding $3,500 per household in national debt. How is passing the buck on to taxpayers having their backs? I would like the explanation for that. When looking at the budget and seeing how the government is planning on approaching the housing crisis, all I saw was a macroplan that will take many years to see any results. Many of those results will not be positive, if there are any, and there is no plan for immediate action. This will only add fuel to the inflationary fire, with no immediate help for Canadians trying to buy their first home. There are constituents calling me asking how a new registered savings plan would help them get into their first home when they are scraping by to pay their current bills. The Liberal-NDP government currently does not have Miramichi—Grand Lake's back. It does have its hands directly in both of our pockets, and probably the front pockets too. It is a government focusing on the perfect headline. What it really needs to be doing is focusing on a solution that will work. The government needs to get off its high horse, roll up its sleeves and get to work. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak. This is a bad budget for Canadians. The Conservatives have a better plan, as always, and I am happy to speak against this budget. The Liberals do not have Canadians' backs.

1059 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Apr/25/22 3:52:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not entirely surprised to hear the Conservatives be so critical about different political parties within this chamber working together. After all, that is what we are here to do. Unlike the Conservatives, who just whine and complain day after day after day, the NDP has actually looked for an opportunity to use its leverage to do better for Canadians. Perhaps the member and the Conservative Party should do the same. Is the member aware of the fact that our health care system came in during a minority Parliament and that the CPP, the Canada pension plan, came in during a minority Parliament? We would not have the Canadian flag had it not been for a minority Parliament, which approved and adopted our national flag. The member talks about trucks. He says that somehow this government is against those who own large trucks or vehicles. Is he aware that $550 million in this budget is to particularly incentivize the electrification of trucks and medium and large vehicles?

170 words

Mr. Jake Stewart

Apr/25/22 3:53:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, number one, if it was so amazing, why would it need the incentive? To a couple of points the member opposite made, I was a provincial MLA not long ago when the Prime Minister, who is still the Prime Minister today, offered New Brunswick a lowball number for health transfer payments, and a weak, young Liberal premier accepted the deal when no other province in Canada would. My home province's health care system is in disarray currently because of a decision by the prior government. The member opposite needs to look at that. He needs to look at how critical and dire the situation in my province is because of his own party and his own decisions.

120 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Apr/25/22 3:54:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my question for my colleague is one that I will repeat many times for many of his colleagues within the Conservative Party. They have made it very clear that they do not support spending on things like pharmacare, dental care and supports for seniors, and I am wondering how he justifies that to his constituents in New Brunswick. How does he justify that he does not think the people in his constituency deserve dental care?

77 words

Mr. Jake Stewart

Apr/25/22 3:54:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would ask why the member supports a multi-tiered senior system. Are the NDP MPs, who are now in the Liberal caucus, supporting moving the age of a senior from 65 to 70, like the Liberals and their Prime Minister have already talked about? Are they supporting that? I would like to know.

56 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 57