44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 9, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to members talk about what is no doubt a very important issue.
I think of Canada and our great diversity. No matter where I have been in the world, I often boast about Canada's diversity, and a part of that diversity, the founding of our nation, is the fact that we are a bilingual nation. We are a nation that supports, from a federal perspective, English and French.
When I reflect on the province of Manitoba today, and compare it to the early 1970s, before Pierre Trudeau brought in such a heavy emphasis on learning French in our school system, Manitoba has benefited by having a national government that wants to recognize the importance of the French language and ensure that Canadians from coast to coast learn more French.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/22 12:02:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it does not give me any pleasure, but I am a rising on a question of privilege concerning an occurrence of misconduct that happened in the House of Commons late Friday afternoon by a member of the Liberal Party.
As it would happen, I had just left the chamber about 10 minutes prior, as I had to hit the road to make an important engagement in Barrie—Innisfil on Friday evening, so I am raising this at my earliest opportunity.
The facts are these: The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake rose on a point of order to inquire whether the Liberal member for Brampton Centre was participating virtually from an inappropriate location. A brief discussion arose, and at its conclusion, the The Assistant Deputy Speaker confirmed this to the House, which is documented at page 4931 of the Debates, when she said, “I have confirmation from the Table that a page has confirmed that there was a member who appeared to be in the washroom.”
I have subsequently been informed that those who witnessed the events saw quite clearly the Liberal MP enter what appeared to be a toilet stall in one of the mens' washrooms located on this very floor of this building. The visible stonework, the wooden door, the stainless steel door hinges and the coat hook on the back of the door, which is part of the long side of the stall, looked quite familiar to all, I am told. Based on the angle, I am informed that it appeared that the camera was mounted on the ledge or ridge on the wall just above the back of the toilet. The member of Parliament was literally using the washroom while participating in a sitting of the House of Commons, the cathedral of Canadian democracy. I cannot believe I actually just said those words.
You might think that this is an unprecedented situation, but sadly and unbelievably, it is not. In fact, there is a recent precedent that is practically identical. The former member for Pontiac Will Amos also used the washroom on camera during a sitting of the House just last May. In his case, he urinated into a coffee cup for all to see.
The Chair ruled on June 7, 2021, at page 8034 of the Debates, that this was a prima facie contempt and invited my colleague, the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, to move a motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee did not have the opportunity to take up the matter and report its reflections on what was then an unprecedented situation during the two sitting weeks between the ruling and the dissolution of Parliament. In light of Mr. Amos's subsequent retirement, the matter was not pursued further in the current Parliament.
The Chair's words in making last spring's ruling are, I think, equally pertinent today. He said:
The Chair has on many occasions reminded members that virtual sessions are an extension of the proceedings of the House and that their conduct must respect our rules and practices, even if they are participating remotely. I want to reiterate, yet again, the importance of everyone adjusting to the temporary measures put in place in response to the pandemic and exercising continued vigilance to prevent such incidents from recurring. As soon as a member connects to a virtual sitting and opens their camera, they are considered to be, for all intents and purposes, in the House.
There is no dispute about the facts in question, and they constitute a serious breach of the rules of decorum and an affront against the dignity of the House. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states, at page 60, “Any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the House...is referred to as a contempt of the House.”
Frankly, we have now had two years of Zoom meetings in a hybrid Parliament. Surely to God we have figured out when and where to turn our cameras on and off. It is the Liberal Party, the party that keeps shoving hybrid procedures down our throats, that cannot seem to get its act together.
On Friday, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader did not react with the shock and contrition that one might naturally expect in this situation. Instead, he tried to present this as a positive thing when he said:
When people are in their offices, working virtually, sometimes it can be very easy to shy away from the camera to do something else, much like we might shift over a couple of seats. I believe the most important thing is that members have the camera on and are in the room.
I cannot believe that. The most important thing is that the member for Brampton Centre's camera was on and he was in the shot. The room in question was a toilet stall, for crying out loud. The Liberals simply do not get it.
If you ask me, given the blatant disrespect the Liberals have shown Parliament over the past couple of years, from playing games with the resources available for committees to posing grave health risks for our dwindling ranks of simultaneous interpreters, to quite literally urinating in the House, the answer here is to shut down the hybrid parliament and end this remote participation. It is time we all get back here, in our places in this chamber. On top of the disrespect shown to the House, there is also the matter of the potential consequential effects here on Parliament Hill.
Under the Canada Labour Code, each of us is required to have an occupational health and safety officer. My health and safety officer has impressed upon me some very legitimate concerns that, when entering any given washroom in the West Block, parliamentary staff now have to wonder whether any of the MPs they may encounter, Liberal in this case, are carrying an active video camera connected to a live, televised broadcast.
Government Motion No. 11 has already put enough burdens and strain on all the staff of this place, who support the functions of the House. The last thing we need is now to add the stress that their privacy might be compromised by some Liberal MP desperate not to incur the wrath of the chief government whip by not contributing to quorum, at least until 6:30 when Motion No. 11 lets them go have patio drinks down on Sparks Street with their coalition partners in the NDP, while the rest of us are here carrying on the nation's business.
In conclusion, just like last year, there is no dispute about the facts in question. They were, as I said, confirmed by the chair occupant, the Assistant Deputy Speaker, on Friday afternoon. A clearly relevant, precisely on point and well-remembered precedent is on our books. This case, I believe, is open and shut.
Therefore, if you agree that this incident amounts to a prima facie contempt, I am prepared to move the following motion, “That the prima facie contempt concerning the misconduct of the member for Brampton Centre committed in the presence of the House be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.”
That motion is, in fact, identical to the one the Speaker allowed on June 7, 2021, with, of course, the substitution of the riding name for the offending Liberal member of Parliament.
On the strength of undisputed facts and a clear precedent, I invite you to rule now from the chair, so that the House may pronounce itself on the disappointing and contemptuous conduct of yet another Liberal MP.
1295 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/22 12:10:13 p.m.
- Watch
I appreciate the additional information that was provided on this particular matter. I, as Assistant Deputy Speaker, was not in the chair on Friday and, therefore, am not prepared to rule immediately. What I will do, though, is to take the additional information the hon. member has provided into consideration along with the info to the point that was raised on Friday.
In addition, I would like to remind all members that, when they join virtually, they are, in fact, always considered to be in the room. When I am, in particular, sitting in this chair, there is always someone who is probably unaware that their screen is right in front of me. I want to remind members to be extremely respectful of Parliament. As well, members should ensure that, if they need to leave their screens for whatever reason or have an interruption that they need to tend to, they should make sure they log off or ensure that their screens are completely off.
I am deeply concerned by this matter, given the fact that there have been other incidents in the past. It is certainly something that the chair occupants and the Speaker himself will take into consideration and come back to the House with a ruling on.
210 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/22 12:12:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Simcoe—Grey on May 5, 2022. In our view, it is deeply concerning.
The email discussions referred to by the member do indeed amount to interference by the executive in parliamentary work that is the sole responsibility of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. There was an email chain concerning the preparation of drafting instructions for a report on a study the committee has been conducting on differential outcomes in Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada decisions.
In our view, it is deeply concerning that the chair communicated with employees of the executive branch to receive guidance on how the committee report should be drafted by non-partisan analysts, who must be impartial and independent in their professional duties.
However, contrary to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons alleged last Friday on the matter, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Privy Council Office could in fact be trying to interfere with the work of the committee in this situation.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government said that the emails chains make it clear that the advice from the minister's office was to suggest an approach to the drafting of the report to ensure that the government's position was understood by the Liberal members on the committee. The very fact that ministers are suggesting how parliamentary committee reports should be drafted is what is troubling and disturbing.
I remind members that the committee is required to be completely independent from the government and that it is meant to monitor what the department and the government are doing. It is rather ironic that the department and the Privy Council Office can give opinions on certain findings and recommendations that could cause embarrassment for the government. The House recognizes that the government must not see a draft committee report before it is approved by the committee members. That said, the committee and committee staff cannot be instructed by the federal public service, cabinet or the government. We understand how this might not be viewed as a breach of a specific privilege.
However, according to Bosc and Gagnon in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, beginning at page 81, “any action which...tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions...or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House” may be found as a contempt of Parliament.
It is up to the House itself to consider any misconduct as contempt and to deal with the situation as it sees fit.
In this case, the email chains informing the immigration minister's office of the committee's work and the replies from his staff giving instructions raise concerns about the independence of the House in managing its own business.
We must not forget that, initially, as the member for Simcoe—Grey mentioned in referring to Bosc and Gagnon at page 62, parliamentary privileges were considered and established “to protect the House and its Members...from the power and interference of the King and the House of Lords”.
It is important to remember that the House must oppose any attempt or action by the government suggesting interference in the work of parliamentary committees, which must remain independent in accordance with their mandate.
The Bloc Québécois believes that the facts raised require the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to be mandated by the House to conduct a broader study on the real or potential issues of government interference in the reports of parliamentary committees.
620 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/22 12:16:52 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît for elaborating on the question of privilege. This issue has been raised before. We will examine the additional information provided by the member today and get back to the House with a ruling.
44 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/22 12:18:44 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.
I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.
Questions and comments, the hon. opposition House leader.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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?
260 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not know what forces drove the member opposite to come to office and to be in this chamber. I know him well enough to know that he is a good and honourable individual who has good intentions for this place. However, I cannot imagine that his desire when he came here was to basically, day after day, obstruct the business of the House. If the member opposite and his party really wanted more debate, I would think they would not move concurrence motions every day.
The fact of the matter is that we tried, with Bill C-8, to engage the party opposite over more than four months, every day over four months asking how many more speakers the Conservatives wanted. What we ended up seeing was that they had no interest in debate. What they had interest in was obstruction.
In fact, if we take a look at what we are dealing with in front of us here today, in only two days of debate the Conservatives have proposed an amendment that would not even allow the budget implementation act to be scrutinized, which is an integral role of the parliamentary process. They used motions of concurrence for two House reports to delay and obstruct debate in the House. They put forward subamendments to create further delays. What they have done all through this process is show that they have no interest. They basically want to hijack, as one party, the entire Parliament and not allow it to function, and then they are surprised that we would object to this.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
270 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/22 12:23:13 p.m.
- Watch
I want to remind the official opposition House leader that he had an opportunity to ask a question, and if he has more, there will be an opportunity to ask more. It is not polite to interrupt the government House leader while he is responding.
The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
249 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is very important to have debate in the House. At every stage of a bill, it is important to have time to ask questions and seek information.
In the case of Bill C-19, time is allocated in the House, but also during the committee stage. Then the bill will come back to the House. Therefore there will be many opportunities to talk about this bill and ask questions, and I encourage members on the other side to participate at every stage.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, over the last couple of months we have seen a total blocking of important legislation by the Conservatives.
Teachers and farmers were basically being stopped from getting the important measures that were in Bill C-8, and that continued on for months. Now we have the budget implementation bill, which does a number of things that the NDP has pushed the government to put into place, including the first stage of national dental care. Thousands of people in the official opposition House leader's riding, Barrie—Innisfil, would benefit from that, and yet the Conservatives do not want to let it go through.
We have not seen any real, substantive action by the federal government on affordable housing for decades, and now, finally, in the budget implementation bill and in the budget this year, because of the confidence and supply agreement with the NDP, we are seeing tens of thousands of affordable housing units that could be built, including in Barrie—Innisfil. Right across the country people could benefit.
Why does my colleague, the government House leader, feel the Conservatives have been blocking everything? Why have the Conservatives disrupted every single Routine Proceedings now for almost two weeks, and why are they being so stubborn about refusing to allow important legislation to get through the House, legislation that would help people?
225 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite enumerates a number of things that are exceptionally important within this bill, things that we need to make progress on and that Canadians expect us to make progress on.
Frankly, I am confused. I have tried with the official opposition on numerous occasions to find opportunities, to find out how many speakers they want and to work with them, and it has just come back with no level of co-operation whatsoever. I look at this bill as a case in point. Conservatives say they want to have more debate, and yet they move concurrence motions that kill debate. It means that less debate occurs.
At some point, I would say that obstruction could be a temporary tool and on that basis could be called strategy, but if the only gear they have is obstruction, that is not really a strategy; it is just obstinance. I am really confused as to its aim.
158 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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?
148 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the reality is that there is lots of opportunity. We are talking about five days. Unfortunately, all of the obstruction and concurrence motions by the Conservatives have vastly reduced the amount of debate that is available, and I recognize that.
I am sure the member would be sympathetic to the fact that as we are trying to take action on climate change, increase our economic outcomes and take action on housing, there are a lot of bills, and all of this obstruction means that there is an enormous backlog. Canadians would rightfully expect that this Parliament, in its majority representation from many different parts of the country and certainly different parties, would take action on those items. It would not sit idly by, allowing one party to hijack the House and stick it in mud period after period.
I am hopeful that the Conservatives will rethink this strategy. I do not think it would resonate with Canadians. I cannot imagine Conservatives going to the doors and saying they had great news: that, day after day, they had stuck everything in the mud and not let Parliament do anything. I do not think that is a very effective message for them to take to the doors.
Instead, I would say members should work creatively with us. The committee stage is coming up after this, and the bill has to return to the House. There are multiple phases where they could participate. Hopefully they will do so constructively, but that has not been the case so far.
257 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
287 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I can only reflect that, unfortunately, in all of the conversations I have had with the opposition House leader, there just has not been any interest in engaging to talk about the calendar or moving things forward. Every time we talk, it is more obfuscation. That is disappointing to me, because I have to say that I was hoping for more and I continue to hope for more.
It is important to reflect on two things. One, I was here in opposition. It is a little difficult for me to listen to the Conservative Party, which used time allocation not as a tool, but as a hammer to hammer the opposition every day that it was there. It literally created a playbook 200 pages long talking about how to control committees and shut them down, and telling its members exactly how to puppeteer all of these committees: to object now, after four months of blocking any government legislation from moving forward; to object now, when we have all of these important issues for Canadians that are expected to be dealt with; and to object now, when we are utilizing these tools so that this place can get its business done.
The Conservatives represent only a small fraction of the members in the House. They do not have the right to hijack all of Parliament. If they were to win a majority government, they could go back to using a cudgel to hammer the opposition and ram things through and not allow debate, as they did before. They could do that.
They do not have a majority. We do not have a majority. We are attempting to work with other parties. I would say to the party members opposite that if they want to be constructive, and if they want to get things done and if they do not want to spend the next three years simply blocking everything that moves, they should talk to us. We want to work with them to move things forward.
337 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the government House leader could provide his thoughts on the fact that we have a legislative agenda, which incorporates the changing of laws, and we have budgetary measures. It is a government agenda that does ultimately need to get through. There is nothing wrong with opposition parties critiquing it and offering amendments: changes and so forth. I am not in opposition to that. It is the official opposition's attempt to frustrate all things in all ways; for example, on Bill C-8.
Could he provide his thoughts on Bill C-8, which was the fall economic statement? It ultimately passed the House after the budget was released, a couple of weeks back. The Conservatives did that through frustrating, filibustering and concurrence reports. They even attempted to adjourn the House. They had different ways to prevent the bill from being debated. I am referring to Bill C-8.
Can he provide his thoughts in regard to Bill C-8?
165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, after more than four months of dealing with Bill C-8, which was dealing with the previous fall, it became apparent that we would be lucky to get to the coming fall if we had not used measures to move it forward.
There were critical supports there for teachers and for workers. Similarly, regarding the budget implementation act, it is not just that there are important measures in it to be taken on everything from housing, to banning foreign investment, to labour mobility and reducing, by half, corporate and small business tax breaks. There are so many things that are essential here. It is everything that also flows behind it. We have a responsibility to that.
I would say that at the onset of my time as House leader, going back to December, the Conservatives came forward with good proposals on Bill C-3, and we were able to work together. We had an opportunity when they came forward on Bill C-4 to move it forward because we recognized it.
We are in a minority government, and how we comport ourselves is a choice for each of us. As the government House leader, I recognize the minority status that we are in and that we are going to be in the House for a period of time. I would imagine that Conservative MPs want to do some things here and want to get some things done.
I can imagine that standing up every day on dilatory motions and obfuscating has to get pretty old for you guys at some point. You want to take some things back to your constituencies, and I am willing to work with you on that. Come forward with stuff.
287 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
