SoVote

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/16/22 3:10:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, regarding government financing of the TMX pipeline, in written answers to Questions on the Order Paper, the government is claiming that BMO and TD reviews make this project financially viable, but due to commercial confidentiality it will not release them. Previous TD reports on TMX were public. Why hide them now? It is entirely likely that the government plans to write off financial risks and debt and leave us financially exposed. If it is so commercially viable, why can we not see the reports?

86 words

Hon. Randy Boissonnault (Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Jun/16/22 3:10:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know how important it is to get our product to market and to tidewater. The government does not intend to be the long-term owner of the Trans Mountain pipeline. This is a project that has led to 12,700 jobs, and once completed, Canadians will enjoy full price for our oil on the world market. A divestment process will be undertaken once this project is essentially de-risked and once consultations with indigenous people conclude.

79 words

The Speaker

Jun/16/22 3:11:28 p.m.
Watch

Canadian Forces Day is an opportunity for Canadians across the country to recognize the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform make on our behalf. It is my pleasure to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of five members of the Canadian Forces who are taking part in Canadian Armed Forces Day today: Master Warrant Officer Guillaume Durand, Chief Petty Officer 1st Class Pascal Gilles Harel, Master Corporal Michael Lee Moore, Master Bombardier Steeven Phillipe Ricard and Warrant Officer Éric Arthur White. Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

94 words

The Speaker

Jun/16/22 3:13:09 p.m.
Watch

It being 3:12 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion regarding the appointment of Philippe Dufresne as Privacy Commissioner. Call in the members.

35 words

The Speaker

Jun/16/22 3:26:43 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried. The House just adopted a motion to approve the appointment of Philippe Dufresne as Privacy Commissioner of Canada. I would like to take a moment to congratulate Philippe on his appointment and thank him for his seven years of excellent service to the House as Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. I always knew I could count on his expert opinion and tremendous professionalism. Philippe has given wise counsel and support to me, my predecessors, members, committees and the Board of Internal Economy. Over the years, he has made an invaluable contribution to the key legal and legislative issues of our day. Philippe's dedication to members, to the House of Commons and to Parliament is evident to all who meet him. His unwavering commitment to our parliamentary system is one of Philippe's core values and something that will serve him well in his new role. Philippe is also very committed to ensuring a safe and inclusive environment where everyone can fully contribute to society. That is something he clearly demonstrated during the years he served as the House of Commons' diversity champion. Please join me in congratulating Philippe. Although we will miss him at the House, we can take satisfaction in knowing that he will continue to serve Parliament and Canadians in his new capacity. We are grateful to Philippe.

227 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Jun/16/22 3:29:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise to add a few words to the well-deserved tribute to Mr. Dufresne. Some members may not be aware that Philippe's association with this place goes back well before his appointment as a law clerk. A few years ago, and I will not say how many, as he was known then, little Philippe or petit Philippe worked around here as one of our tour guides. His subsequent career has been one intertwined with this place ever since. After showing folks around, he showed up some of the folks here when he was counsel on the winning side of the unanimous 2005 Supreme Court of Canada decision which set the benchmark for parliamentary privilege in our country. We, of course, have had the real benefit of his wisdom and support since his appointment in 2015 in both the small issues, which never really come to light, as well as the large monumental issues, which can grip Parliament during a minority government. Had we not had that snap election last year, Philippe might well have added yet another landmark court case on parliamentary privilege to his record. His deep respect for this institution of the House of Commons and his ability to navigate diplomatically the very different political currents which motivate what happens around here showed in all of his work, and that alone deserves our respect and appreciation in these times. Now he will go on to be an officer of Parliament where he knows and we know that he will serve with distinction. As the Privacy Commissioner in an ever-increasingly digital world, his task will be a very busy one, but one where Canadians will be well served. We thank Philippe, wish him luck and we will see him at committee.

297 words

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/16/22 3:31:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend, on behalf of the government, our deep and sincere gratitude to Mr. Dufresne for his extraordinary work and counsel over the last seven years, as he has acted as the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel for the House of Commons, whether it was serving members or you, Mr. Speaker, or committees and certainly the Board of Internal Economy, where I had a phenomenal opportunity to see Mr. Dufresne in action and how he supported the administration in the House so powerfully. It has been a tremendous honour. I know that he will serve with incredible distinction as Privacy Commissioner. I wish Philippe all the very best in that new role and, on behalf of the government and the House, I thank him for his extraordinary work.

132 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Jun/16/22 3:32:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I, too, wish to salute Mr. Dufresne and congratulate him on his appointment. In the House, in committee and elsewhere, Mr. Dufresne was the epitome of diligence, honesty and integrity. Whenever we had a question or an interaction with him, we could be sure that he had done his homework, knew his files, and would tell the truth. I will not speak for very long, but I do want to extend my heartfelt thanks to him for all of the years that he has given to the House and for all of the work that he has done. Like the entire team of legislative clerks, he has worked tremendously hard. I will end with an anecdote. Shortly before the last election was called, if I am not mistaken, the Standing Committee on Finance was sitting during the weeks of the construction holidays at the initiative of the Hon. Wayne Easter. The government had chosen not to proceed with a bill that had originated with the opposition, but that had received royal assent. Mr. Dufresne appeared before the committee as an expert witness, and as soon as he finished explaining the role of legislators, the House and the government, that settled the matter and the government went ahead. That is another example of the profound rigour that we know he will certainly continue to bring to his new role as Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

251 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/16/22 3:33:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the NDP caucus and our leader, the member for Burnaby South, to congratulate Philippe Dufresne on his many years of service to Parliament. Mr. Dufresne has always measured up to Parliament's high standards. In his role as a servant of Parliament, he is hard-working and has always shown respect towards members. He keeps us up to date on the various procedures. He is detail-oriented and is always willing to answer our questions. He is always working to safeguard the rights of parliamentarians and the importance of Parliament. He is also a very open person, with an informal style, but he brings an extensive knowledge of parliamentary procedures and legal issues. There can be no doubt that Mr. Dufresne will make an excellent officer of Parliament. The vote held a few moments ago demonstrates the confidence that all parliamentarians have in him in his new role as an officer of Parliament. We are very grateful for his years of service to our democratic life and to our Canadian Parliament, and we congratulate him.

187 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/16/22 3:35:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to add our thanks to Mr. Dufresne and also say that I share all the sentiments of the other members of this place in thanking Mr. Dufresne for his extraordinary service as our law clerk. I also want to say that in the future, we know he will face enormous challenges. The new technologies pose such threats to our privacy. This is not a retirement but the beginning of a new and challenging future and we wish him all the best. Privacy rights are precious and we trust in him to protect them for us.

99 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Jun/16/22 3:36:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was going to heap more praise on Mr. Dufresne, but somehow I do not think he wants any more. I know he is a very humble man. We are rounding the corner on this session of Parliament, and before I get to the Thursday question, I want to thank a few people. I certainly want to thank the clerks, our deputy speakers, the administrative staff who support this place, the pages, and particularly the Translation Bureau, which has been through a lot over the course of the last couple of years with the hybrid Parliament. I sincerely believe that we have moved beyond the hybrid Parliament system and that we are going to return to this place in a normal fashion with a return to normalcy, and I look forward to that. I also want to thank the Parliamentary Protective Service, PPS, the Sergeant-at-Arms and everybody in charge of protecting Parliament. They have had a busy time as well. I thank everyone who supports this place, the cooks, the cleaners, the drivers and the maintenance staff. I thank everyone who works to ensure that this place functions properly and safely. This is all done with the greatest of respect in our symbol of democracy. I want to thank them all. I think they deserve a hand. As we approach the final days of this session, I ask the government House leader what the calendar of the House is expected to be as we get into next week.

252 words

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/16/22 3:37:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will start by echoing the comments of thanks by the opposition House leader. To all those who serve the House and for everything they have done, particularly over the last year, I offer our deep and sincere thanks. The opposition House leader rightfully named all those we rely on to do the jobs on a day-to-day basis that we do in serving Canadians. We will continue with the second reading debate of Bill C-9 concerning the Judges Act this afternoon. Tomorrow, it is our intention to call Bill C-11 on online streaming at report stage. On Monday, we will be returning to the second reading debate of Bill C-21 respecting firearms. In the afternoon, we will go back to Bill C-11 for debate at third reading. We will also focus on finding a way to expedite the bill currently on notice concerning the self-induced extreme intoxication defence standing in the name of the Minister of Justice. Finally, we have had discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That, notwithstanding the order adopted by the House on Thursday, November 25, 2021, with regard to the participation in the proceedings of the House and its committees, the provisions related to the COVID-19 vaccination be suspended beginning on Monday, June 20, 2022.

234 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Jun/16/22 3:39:19 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. minister's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

37 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Jun/16/22 3:40:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-10

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-10, an act to give effect to the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement, to amend the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act and the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

79 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Jun/16/22 3:40:28 p.m.
Watch

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 13 minutes. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, who has seven minutes remaining.

36 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

Jun/16/22 3:40:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, with regard to where I left off on speaking to Bill C-9, this provision has many things that the Conservatives will support. I was just outlining the substance of the changes to the judicial review process. Of course, if this bill passes, there will be a screening officer and then there will be a series of panels. We had gotten to the hearing panel, which would be the first review of the misconduct. The panel can direct it in one of three ways: One would be an outright dismissal; the second would be putting into place sanctions, which I outlined; the third would be sending it to a full hearing panel. One of the unique features of this particular process is that if a sanction less than full removal is done, there is a secondary appeal process, which is called the reduced hearing panel. This panel actually brings in all new evidence, so in many ways it acts like an appeal process to the sanctions from the original review panel, but it is all new evidence and all new process. It does not even rely on the work, so even though it is an appeal process, it is a new judicial process as well. What I find interesting, and I plan to ask about it at committee if I get the opportunity, is that what could actually happen is that, at the initial panel, the individual justice could be sanctioned, as I outlined earlier, to an apology or a public rebuke from the panel. The justice could appeal that and then be sent to a full hearing for the potential removal. Therefore, the appeal to get less of a sanction could actually go back and have more of an impact, and in fact eventual removal, which could have a chilling effect on justices who want to appeal the process. Perhaps I am misunderstanding that section. As I said, I look forward to potentially exploring that at committee. At the initial review panel, if the charges are serious enough to justify a potential full removal, it would go to what is called a full hearing panel. That full hearing panel would have full evidence and there would be a presentation of the evidence by what is called the presenting lawyer or presenting counsel, in many ways a prosecutor, and they will conduct that. From there, the process stems out and then it actually funnels all back in. Both the reduced hearing panel and the full hearing panel would then go back into one process, which would be a traditional appeal process, and the actual discussions and reasons are reviewed at that appeal process. If, in fact, that appeal process is unsatisfactory to either the presenting counsel or the justice subject to the complaint, there would be at that point a right to appeal to the Supreme Court. Once all of those rights to appeal are exhausted or expired or waived, it would then go to the Minister of Justice, who can bring it in front of Parliament to potentially have that justice removed. There are a couple of key elements to this, and I find this part quite well done. There is a move in here to increase the transparency. Much more of the hearings, the decisions, the reasoning, the discussions and the lawyers' debate would be public. Of course, sunlight is the greatest disinfectant. On that as well, there would also be annual reports. Obviously, justices have an incredibly important function in our society and in our legal system. What is nice is that there would be a publishing of reports saying how many complaints there are, how successful they are and what the eventual outcome of those complaints is. This is nice. This is a piece of legislation that is clearly designed. We will discuss it, hopefully pull it apart and make it even better at committee, but it is clear that it intends to improve government efficiency. When I look at the global landscape, I have to say that we are not winning when it comes to our government's effectiveness or efficiency. It takes us months to get passports. We have seen the SNC-Lavalin affair and the WE scandal. This continuous corruption and tiredness, this poor, antiquated system, the uncompetitive WE system, is holding Canadian business back and holding Canadian jobs back. Perhaps this is the beginning of a new leaf for the government. Maybe it will move on from being a tired, corrupt, inefficient government and actually go forward and try to be better for Canadians. Quite frankly, we are in a global race and we are losing when it comes to government effectiveness and efficiency. I always appreciate members on the other side trying to give me a helping hand. I look forward to having greater discussion. I would encourage all members to read Bill C-9. It is certainly not the most contentious piece of legislation we will read, but it is important. As final words, I would like to thank all the justices who are out there working hard trying to protect victims, trying to keep our cities and streets safe, and trying to make Canada a better place.

870 words

All Topics

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

Jun/16/22 3:47:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see that this is one of those days and one of those debates where we seem to unanimously be supporting a piece of legislation. The next logical step here is to send it to committee and to let the committee start to do its work so we can keep the process moving. Will Conservatives let us have a vote on this? Will they let the debate collapse so we can vote on it and let it go to committee to do that work? If the member does not have an answer to that, would he be willing to commit, once he has finished his speech, to go into his whip's lobby and talk to the whip about doing that so we can see this piece of legislation move forward, or will this be another one of those pieces of legislation that we all agree on but the Conservatives will just not let pass?

161 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Jun/16/22 3:48:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly go to our whip's office and tell him that we need important, diligent debate on this issue, as we need it on everything. I appreciate that. I thought I was fairly persuasive in the fact that I asked his colleagues two substantive questions about the bill, and they had no idea what was there. It is sad that the government does not know its own legislation. The speech I made was about 95% substance. I went through the procedure. It was not filibustering. It was meant to be a meaningful conversation to bring up issues for debate and discussion. I was hoping the questions might reflect that.

113 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Jun/16/22 3:49:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there will be much debate on Bill C-9. It appears to have unanimous support. However, my question for my Conservative colleague is about what comes next after this bill. Does he think that the next issue in line for amendments should be the process for appointing judges, so that we can improve the process?

62 words

All Topics

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Jun/16/22 3:49:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question and I intend to work with my colleague on judicial appointments. I have been troubled, as I think a lot of Canadians have been, by some of the news stories. It appears there is some connection or correlation between donating to the Liberal Party and being appointed as a justice. I appreciate this question.

62 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 90