SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 178 - Apr/17/23

Mr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, Ind.)

Apr/17/23 3:09:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister whether he approved of the expenses incurred by the Governor General during her four-day trip to Germany, which cost more than $700,000, and another to the Middle East where she spent, believe it or not, more than $2,600 on in-flight meals for each of the 30 people in her delegation. The response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister was disconcerting. His justification was that these expenses were similar to those of past governors general. I repeat my question to the Prime Minister. Is he okay with this outrageous spending, yes or no?

108 words

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

Apr/17/23 3:10:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and my colleagues have been very clear. We believe that Rideau Hall, like all federal government institutions, should manage taxpayers' money properly. We know that Rideau Hall has reviewed this type of spending with its partners, whether it be with the armed forces or Global Affairs Canada. We will continue to ensure that all these expenses are reasonable and necessary.

65 words

The Speaker

Apr/17/23 3:10:58 p.m.
Watch

That is all the time we have today for Oral Questions. I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of the Right Honourable Alison Johnstone, presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament. Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

42 words

The Speaker

Apr/17/23 3:13:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-34, under Government Orders.

38 words

The Speaker

Apr/17/23 3:25:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

18 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Apr/17/23 3:26:02 p.m.
Watch

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.

21 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

Apr/17/23 3:27:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Following question period on March 31, the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake rose on a point of order and accused me of making statements about her. I want to unequivocally again deny that any such remarks were made by me, but in reaction to that assertion, I used unparliamentary language. While I hope everyone can understand why my reaction was so strong, I have the utmost respect for this House, for the rules that govern it and for all hon. colleagues. That is why I rise to withdraw, and apologize for, the inappropriate use of the word “lie”.

111 words

The Speaker

Apr/17/23 3:28:15 p.m.
Watch

I want to thank the hon. member for her apology. She is rising on a question of privilege, as well.

20 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

Apr/17/23 3:28:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise a question of privilege in relation to the incidents that occurred on March 31 between me and the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. During question period, the member and I had an exchange. Subsequent to question period, the member rose on a point of order and made accusations that I believe constitute a prime facie case of privilege. Under House of Commons Procedure and Practice, members are not to make statements that are to intentionally mislead the House. I submit that there is a prima facie case to find that the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake intentionally misled the House, and as a result my privilege was violated. I refer you to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017, edited by Marc Bosc and André Gagnon, specifically under the section “Misuse of Freedom of Speech”. It reads: The privilege of freedom of speech is an extremely powerful immunity and on occasion Speakers have had to caution Members about its misuse. Ruling on a question of privilege in 1987, Speaker Fraser spoke at length about the importance of freedom of speech and the need for care in what Members say:... “Such a privilege confers grave responsibilities on those who are protected by it. By that I mean specifically the Hon. Members of this place. The consequences of its abuse can be terrible. Innocent people could be slandered with no redress available to them. Reputations could be destroyed on the basis of false rumour. All Hon. Members are conscious of the care they must exercise in availing themselves of their absolute privilege of freedom of speech. That is why there are long-standing practices and traditions observed in this House to counter the potential for abuse.” I would also like to draw your attention to the section under the heading “Freedom from Obstruction, Interference, Intimidation and Molestation. It is this section that outlines the grounds for a prima facie case of privilege by the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake when she made intentional and misleading statements about me. In this section, it reads as follows: It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and, as such, constitute prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters found to be prima facie include the damaging of a Member’s reputation, the usurpation of the title of Member of Parliament, the intimidation of Members and their staff and of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading information. The unjust damaging of a Member’s good name might be seen as constituting an obstruction if the Member is prevented from performing his or her parliamentary functions. In 1987, Speaker Fraser stated: “The privileges of a Member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfilment of his or her duties and functions. It is obvious that the unjust damaging of a reputation could constitute such an impediment. The normal course of a Member who felt himself or herself to be defamed would be the same as that available to any other citizen, recourse to the courts under the laws of defamation with the possibility of damages to substitute for the harm that might be done. However, should the alleged defamation take place on the floor of the House, this recourse is not available.” There are several examples and rulings regarding matters of privilege being raised by members that constitute prima facie cases of privilege. I would like to quote one of these examples, as I believe it relates to the question of privilege here today. In the section under “Debates”, on October 6, 2005, pages 8,473 to 8,474, in particular on page 8,474, the matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In this report to the House, the committee stated, “Members of Parliament are public figures, and their reputations and integrity are among their most valuable assets. We are all cognizant of the public cynicism that exists regarding our political system.” In the rulings determining whether or not a prima facie case of privilege has been demonstrated, the statements or actions in question had to be done so in an intentional manner to mislead, and therefore causing the intimidation or interference of a member to perform their duties. I would like to outline why I feel the actions of the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake were intentional and, in fact, manufactured. Let me first acknowledge that if members are shouting across the aisle and statements are misheard, and then repeated incorrectly, I do not believe this constitutes an intentional misleading of the House. For the most part, I think hon. members accept when they have perhaps said things they should not have or if they have misheard, and they rise and clarify. This was not the case on March 31 between the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and me. Several members who were sitting around me throughout Question Period rose and confirmed that the statement, nor a statement even remotely like the one alleged by the member, was not heard to be said by me. Further to this, I immediately responded to the allegations made, and unequivocally informed the House that I never made such statements or statements even remotely similar to the one alleged. In the House, we consider each and every one of us to be honourable. As such, I would have expected that after I clarified what had actually been said, the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake would have accepted that as truth and retracted her statement. As a result of these allegations made against me, my office received several phone calls, emails and social media reactions that were threatening and aggressive. The incident has left not only me but also my staff vulnerable to threats. This is why the drafters of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice correctly acknowledge that acts of intimation or any impediment to a member being able to perform their duties can come in many forms, including through the act of intentionally making misleading statements in an effort to damage a member's reputation. This intimidation serves to make a member think twice before using their voice to call out the actions of others, out of fear that if they are seen to be challenging, then they might be subject to accusations that put them or their staff in danger of threats and harassment. I have spent my career advocating for more women to enter politics. I did not grow up thinking this is a place for someone like me. I hope future generations see a different version of political service, one that is more representative of the diversity of this country. Women in this place are constantly reminded that this place was not actually built for them. We are reminded of this fact when we walk these very halls. I have spoken out on many occasions against misogyny in this place, including calling out the Leader of the Opposition's use of embedded hashtags that target anti-women groups and spread messages of violence against women. I believe that these misleading statements against me could have been an act of retribution, an attempt to damage my reputation in order to intimidate and silence me. This place is to hold vigorous debates, challenge opinions and represent our communities. What we should never accept is the manufacturing of statements for the sole purpose of maligning another member's reputation for pure political gain. This is why I raise the question of privilege today. This conduct is an offence to this House, to all members in it, as misleading accusations could be made about any one of us, without recourse. I believe a prima facie case of violation of privilege occurred here. In hopes to resolve this matter and get on with the work on behalf of Canadians, I would find the matter satisfied should the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake retract her statements and apologize to this House. I appreciate the Speaker's attention in hearing this question of privilege. I will conclude by saying that despite the efforts by some, I will not be intimidated and I will not be silenced, because that would only serve to reward the bad-faith actions and does nothing to encourage more women and overall more diversity in this place, which I firmly believe would make this place better and benefit all Canadians.

1443 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Apr/17/23 3:38:20 p.m.
Watch

I will take the matter under consideration and come back to the House, should I see fit. The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is rising on the same point.

31 words

All Topics

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Apr/17/23 3:38:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to signal to you we would like to reserve the right to come back on this point after having time to analyze what the member just raised.

33 words

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

Apr/17/23 3:38:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the NDP as well reserves the right to intervene later in this case.

15 words

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

Apr/17/23 3:39:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I have the honour to table a notice of ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, and other measures. Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

70 words

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

Apr/17/23 3:39:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

35 words

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

Apr/17/23 3:39:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Arctic Parliamentarian Summit — Nordic and North American Collaboration, from September 11 to September 13, 2022.

51 words

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

Apr/17/23 3:40:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to present a petition from a number of my constituents concerned about the establishment of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act. Many veterans have suffered significant injuries over service and are not adequately compensated. The petitioners call upon the Minister of Veterans Affairs to remove any statutory limits on back pay eligibility on the disability allowances they are entitled to and work with individual veterans to ensure just and due compensation for disability allowance, and in a timely manner.

95 words

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

Apr/17/23 3:41:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1256, 1259, 1261, 1263, 1265, 1267, 1270 and 1271.

19 words

Apr/17/23 3:41:43 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 1256—

Questioner: Rachel Blaney

With regard to disability benefit payments provided by Veterans Affairs Canada, and broken down by province or territory and by fiscal year since 2019-20: (a) how many individuals receiving disability benefit payments have had their payments clawed back because they received compensation under the Merlo Davidson class action lawsuit; (b) how many notifications of the claw back were sent, including by (i) letter, (ii) email, (iii) phone call; (c) what is the total amount of disability benefit payments that have been clawed back, including the (i) total dollar value, (ii) percentage of benefits distributed to individuals in (a); (d) how many appeals have been made to restore or reverse claw backs by individuals in (a); (e) for each appeal in (d), how many appeals (i) were successful, (ii) were denied, (iii) are still under consideration; and (f) what is the total amount of costs incurred by Veterans Affairs Canada to (i) issue notices of claw backs to veterans, (ii) perform audits of benefits received by individuals in the Merlo Davidson class action lawsuit, (iii) challenge appeals made by individuals having their compensation clawed back?

Question No. 1259—

Questioner: Tom Kmiec

With regard to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), since June 18, 2019: (a) how many Canadian businesses are investing in projects in the AIIB, broken down by year; (b) how much Canadian money is spent on projects in the AIIB, broken down by year; and (c) of the projects listed in (a), how many of these businesses are operating through, either directly or indirectly, the Canadian government?

Question No. 1261—

Questioner: Richard Bragdon

With regard to inquiries and reports received by the RCMP in a language other than English or French, broken down by year for each of the last five years: (a) how many oral inquiries or reports did the RCMP receive, broken down by language; (b) how many written inquiries and reports, including emailed or online, did the RCMP receive, broken down by language; and (c) of the items in (b), how many were translated?

Question No. 1263—

Questioner: Adam Chambers

With regard to the statement by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) Commissioner, Bob Hamilton, at the House of Commons Standing Committee of Public Accounts on January 26, 2023, that it "wouldn't be worth the effort" to fully review $15.5 billion in potentially ineligible Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) payments: (a) did the Minister of National Revenue sign off or agree with this decision and, if not, why did the minister not intervene; (b) did the CRA perform a cost-benefit analysis prior to making the decision not to review these payments and, if so, (i) who conducted the analysis, (ii) what were the results; (c) how many recipients and what total dollar amount is represented by the potentially ineligible CEWS payments that the CRA considers to be (i) worth the effort, (ii) not worth the effort, to review; (d) what dollar amounts are represented by the amounts in (c) (i) and (ii); and (e) what is the estimated cost to the CRA of fully reviewing the $15.5 billion of payments?

Question No. 1265—

Questioner: Louise Chabot

With regard to processing delays for applications for employment insurance benefits, as of February 10, 2023, broken down for Canada and Quebec (as a number, not a percentage): (a) how many unprocessed employment insurance applications had a processing time of over (i) 28 days, (ii) 60 days, (iii) 90 days; and (b) how many unprocessed employment insurance applications were attributable to fraud or attempted fraud?

Question No. 1267—

Questioner: Lindsay Mathyssen

With regard to the government’s response to the Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review on the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, prepared by the Honourable Louise Arbour in May 2022: (a) what is the total number of working groups and internal committees formed to respond to the recommendations; (b) what are the details of all working groups and committees formed, including the (i) title or name, (ii) recommendations being examined, (iii) number of anticipated or scheduled meetings, (iv) date of the first meeting, (v) number of members, (vi) names and titles of all individuals participating; and (c) for each committee or working group in (b), is the Minister of National Defence a member and, if so, what is the expected role of the minister?

Question No. 1270—

Questioner: Adam Chambers

With regard to the government's early learning and child care plan: (a) what is the breakdown in the number of affordable (i) spaces, (ii) daycares or similar facilities, that have been created or signed into the program, broken down by each federal riding; and (b) if a breakdown of (a) by federal riding is not available, what is the breakdown by municipality or metropolitan region?

Question No. 1271—

Questioner: Scot Davidson

With regard to government expenditures on home Internet services for public service employees: (a) what is the government's policy on which employees are eligible to have their home Internet service paid for; (b) as of January 1, 2023, how many employees have had their home Internet service paid for by the government, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity; and (c) what was the total in expenditures by the government related to home Internet services for employees during the (i) 2022 calendar year, (ii) 2021-22 fiscal year?

3814 words

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

Apr/17/23 3:42:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1254, 1255, 1257, 1258, 1260, 1262, 1264, 1266, 1268, 1269, 1272-1280, 1283 and 1284 could made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

36 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/17/23 3:42:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, finally, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time, please.

18 words