SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 104 - Sep/28/22

Sep/28/22 4:43:44 p.m.
Watch

The member for North Island—Powell River is rising. Was there a technical problem?

15 words

Sep/28/22 4:43:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-252

Mr. Speaker, we have two members who are not on the dashboard who are in the room who voted, so I am wondering if the Table could review that to make sure the numbers are correct.

36 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Sep/28/22 4:44:00 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member.

4 words

The Speaker

Sep/28/22 4:46:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-252

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

16 words

All Topics

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

Sep/28/22 4:48:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, for which I gave notice earlier this same day, regarding the conduct of the member for St. Catharines, who attempted to intimidate Scott Benzie, a witness appearing before a committee of the Senate studying Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, as reported yesterday by the Globe and Mail. While I appreciate that this attempt to intimidate relates to proceedings of a Senate committee currently studying Bill C-11, the culprit in this case is a member of the House, and that same witness appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage during its deliberations on Bill C-11, an appearance where Mr. Benzie, no doubt, first established himself as an undesirable witness for the government on the merits of Bill C-11. Normally, it is members who bring to the attention of a committee of the House the matter of outside actors intimidating witnesses before committee, but this case is unique in that it is a member of the House of Commons doing the intimidating in another jurisdiction, the Senate. In addition, it relates to a bill, for which I have responsibility for as the shadow minister of Canadian heritage, that originated in the House of Commons and is now before the Senate. While this type of offence may not fall within one of the specifically defined categories of privilege, the category of contempt allows the House to deal with the unorthodox nature of this case. On pages 81 to 82 of Bosc and Gagnon, they state: Throughout the Commonwealth most procedural authorities hold that contempts, as opposed to privileges, cannot be enumerated or categorized. Speaker Sauvé explained in a 1980 ruling: “...while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred”. Another perspective of parliamentary privilege is the notion that the behaviour of members falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of this House. At pages 181 to 183 of Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, it clearly states that the House of Commons' jurisdiction over its members is absolute and exclusive, whereby the House has the power to enforce discipline on members of the House of Commons. Page 76 of Bosc and Gagnon refers to one of the rights of the House recognized by the Supreme Court, which is disciplinary authority over its members. The next question is why the House would exercise its disciplinary authority over a member in this case. Simply put, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Attempts by anyone to intimidate a witness before a committee is considered a contempt. It is particularly offensive that it is a member of the House who is attempting to interfere with the work of a committee in a manner that would be considered a contempt, had it been attempted by a member of the public. The Globe and Mail story I referred to earlier reports: A Liberal MP has asked the lobbying commissioner to investigate an outspoken critic of the federal government's online-streaming bill for failing to immediately disclose funding from YouTube and TikTok. The Heritage Minister's Parliamentary secretary...asked Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger to launch an investigation into Digital First Canada, an organization that advocates for YouTubers and people posting videos on platforms. The article continues: [Executive director] Mr. Benzie questioned the motivation of the minister's parliamentary secretary in referring him to the lobbying commissioner. He said the MP had not asked for a probe into organizations receiving outside funding, both public and private that had given evidence in favour of Bill C-11.... Mr. Benzie said that he was speaking out about the bill because no other group was representing the views of individuals posting videos on YouTube — including “creators making $16 a month” — and he was concerned about the impact of the legislation on their livelihoods. A similar situation occurred on December 4, 1992. The then member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell rose in the House to bring to the attention of the Speaker the intimidation of a witness appearing before a committee of the House for remarks she made during testimony at that committee. The CBC threatened a lawsuit against the witness because of evidence she presented at the committee. The Speaker ruled the matter to be a prima facia question of privilege. Also noteworthy in that case is that the Speaker came to this conclusion without a report from a committee. In this case, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage is threatening an investigation against a witness because of evidence he presented to a committee. Page 267 of the 24th edition of Erskine May states, “Any conduct calculated to deter prospective witnesses from giving evidence before either House or a committee is a contempt.” Similar statements are made at page 82 of Bosc and Gagnon, which explains that witnesses are protected from threats or intimidation. Paragraph 15.23 of Erskine May, 25th edition, states, “Both Houses will treat the bringing of legal proceedings against any person on account of any evidence which they may have given in the course of any proceedings in the House or before one of its committees as a contempt.” On April 13, 2000, the Senate Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders presented its fifth report dealing with allegations about reprisals against a witness. The report stated, in part, as follows: The Senate, and all senators, view with great seriousness any allegations of possible intimidation or harassment of a witness or potential witness before a Senate committee. In order for the Senate to discharge its functions and duties properly, it must be able to call and hear from witnesses without their being threatened or fearing any repercussions. Any interference with a person who has given evidence before a Senate committee, or who is planning to, is an interference with the Senate itself, and cannot be tolerated. Our privileges are necessary to allow us to perform our duties and to defend against threats against the authority of this Parliament. The fact that this threat came from within this place is particularly distressing. Mr. Speaker, even if you have some doubts about this case involving a Senate committee and the conduct of a member of the House of Commons, I urge you to give this case the benefit of the doubt. I refer the House to Maingot, second edition, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, page 227, which I will quote for everyone's benefit. It states: In the final analysis, in areas of doubt, the Speaker asks simply: Does the act complained of appear at first sight to be a breach of privilege...or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should...leave it to the House. In a ruling on October 24, 1966, at page 9005 of the Debates, the Speaker said: In considering this matter, I ask myself, what is the duty of the Speaker in cases of doubt? If we take into consideration that at the moment the Speaker is not asked to render a decision as to whether or not the article complained of constitutes a breach of privilege...and considering also that the Speaker is the guardian of the rules, rights and privileges of the house and of its members and that he cannot deprive them of such privileges when there is uncertainty in his mind...I think, at this preliminary stage of the proceedings the doubt which I have in my mind should be interpreted to the benefit of the member. Further, on March 27, 1969, page 7182, the Debates states the following: [The member] has, perhaps, a grievance against the government in that capacity rather than in his capacity as a member of parliament. On the other hand, hon. members know that the house has always exercised great care in attempting to protect the rights and privileges of all its members. Since there is some doubt about the interpretation of the precedents in this situation, I would be inclined to resolve that doubt in favour of the hon. member. Mr. Speaker, there are ample precedents to allow you to put this matter to the House and to have it decide on the best course of action and what it might be. If you do give this matter the benefit of the doubt and find a prima facie question of privilege, I am of course prepared to move the appropriate motion.

1473 words

All Topics

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

Sep/28/22 4:57:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity to hear this question of privilege and would like to get back to you with some comments. If you would be so kind as to give us a couple of days to do that, it would be greatly appreciated.

46 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Sep/28/22 4:57:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing this to our attention and the NDP reserves the right to reply.

20 words

All Topics

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Sep/28/22 4:57:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, we have duly noted my colleague's comments and we reserve the right to reply or respond at a later date.

23 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/28/22 4:57:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

I thank everyone for their interventions. We will take this under advisement and come back to the House as soon as possible. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Health; the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Persons with Disabilities.

85 words

All Topics

Mr. Joël Lightbound (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)

Sep/28/22 4:59:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology entitled “How Can Canada Remain a Leader in the Global Quantum Marathon?”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

55 words

Hon. Mona Fortier (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)

Sep/28/22 5:00:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

moved that Bill S‑5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, be read the first time.

40 words

Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)

Sep/28/22 5:00:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, presented on Monday, June 20, be modified to append the dissenting opinion of the Bloc Québécois.

58 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/28/22 5:00:53 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member'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

Mr. Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC)

Sep/28/22 5:01:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today I want to talk about brain stem glioma. This incurable disease is the leading cause of brain tumour death in children. Together with my colleagues, the member for Toronto—Danforth, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, the member for Sault Ste. Marie and the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, I am presenting a petition signed by more than 13,000 people. The petitioners are calling on us to designate May 17 of each year as national brain stem glioma awareness day in order to raise awareness about this disease, give hope to Canadian families, ensure that there is enough research funding and save young lives. On behalf of Isabelle and the little warrior, Florence, let us unite for the young children who suffer from this rare disease.

139 words

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)

Sep/28/22 5:02:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today to present petition e-3940, which has been signed by over 800 Canadians who are calling on the Liberal government to cancel the planned fertilizer reduction policy. Canadians understand limiting fertilizer would decrease food production and, therefore, further increase the cost of food at a time of record inflation. They also know limiting fertilizer would increase the costs to farmers and hinder economic growth. This also comes at a time when Canadians are using food banks at record rates. Canadians want their government to stand up for Canadian farmers and cancel the fertilizer reduction plan. I wholeheartedly support them.

105 words

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

Sep/28/22 5:03:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and present a petition on a burning issue for my constituents, which is the plight of Pacific salmon. It is a species on the brink. Petitioners call on the Government of Canada to remove the conflict of interest found within the Fisheries Act, which calls on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as a promoter of salmon aquaculture and also a regulator of salmon aquaculture. They call for the mandate of DFO to be specifically the promotion of sustainable fisheries and protecting the habitat of salmon. Petitioners call on the government to implement all the recommendations of the commission on salmon of Mr. Justice Cohen and also to ensure the government lives up to the Liberal election promise to get these toxic fish factories out of the water.

136 words

All Topics

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

Sep/28/22 5:04:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of a number of my constituents in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. Specifically, they are identifying that, on April 29 of this year, the Liberal government introduced an order to provide further restrictions on licensed firearms owners, specifically via a shadow registry. They point out that the previous gun registry cost taxpayers over a billion dollars, and they point out that this unfairly targets Canadian firearms owners who possess legitimate possession and acquisition licences and restricted possession and acquisition licences. They are already the most vetted and daily-screened Canadians, and it is proven statistically that they are much less likely to commit a crime than non-PAL or RPAL holders. They, therefore, call upon the government to immediately repeal the order that was passed on April 29, 2022.

140 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Sep/28/22 5:05:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

14 words

Stand
Ask

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/28/22 5:05:30 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Sep/28/22 5:05:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand at this time.

22 words