SoVote

May/3/23 9:26:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Uqaqtittiji, first of all, I do not know what the education system is like in the member's riding of Dufferin—Caledon, but simple mathematics is what should be expected in Bill S-6. I know that this legislation covers about 30 pieces of legislation to try to help reduce red tape. I wonder if the member agrees that, because the bill covers at least 30 pieces of legislation and the summary says, “repeal or amend provisions that have, over time, become barriers to innovation and economic growth”, the bill is actually a good way to make sure we reduce red tape.

105 words

All Topics

Mr. Kyle Seeback

May/3/23 9:27:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, it is a good question. It would actually make some difference, and I did say that. The challenge is that it is not ambitious enough. As I pointed out, the Government of Canada's forward regulatory plan from 2021 to 2023 is to actually bring in 270 new regulations. Therefore, if it is going to take out 30, as the member said, or 46, as I said, and then bring in 270 new regulations, it is defeating the purpose. The government should be more ambitious. The government should be working harder to reduce red tape, and that is the real problem with this piece of legislation.

108 words

All Topics

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

May/3/23 9:27:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, to build on the comment that the member made toward the end of his speech, I will say that I found it interesting that he was complaining that there are too many regulations in the country, but then said that the Conservative approach would be that, for every new regulation the Conservatives added, they would eliminate one. Would that not just result in the same number as already exist, which he is complaining is too high?

78 words

All Topics

Mr. Kyle Seeback

May/3/23 9:28:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I feel like I am preparing for the LSATs and this is a logic games test. If we are bringing in a new regulation, we actually have to eliminate one. However, if we are just eliminating regulations, which is the plan, we take out a whole bunch. That is the difference. That is the trick that the member did not pick up on. We would actually take a whole bunch out, but if we do have to bring in a new one, we would also take one out. Regulation in this country would always shrink under a Conservative government.

101 words

All Topics

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

May/3/23 9:29:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I did actually put forward, in a previous Parliament, a private member's bill called “think small first”, but have not been able to get it back through the legislative drafting. It was designed for small businesses, to ensure that there would be a regulatory review of any new regulation and to consider specifically how it would affect small businesses. It is based on a similar bill that was brought forward by the Green Party in the European Union. Therefore, I have a lot of sympathy, but not for cutting deeply without figuring out where we need regulations, because they help protect health and safety. I just met with representatives of the College of Family Physicians, and they pointed out that there is a federal regulatory burden that costs our health care system because of forms that doctors have to fill out for the federal government. I wonder why that is not in this bill, and whether the member has any thoughts.

166 words

All Topics

Mr. Kyle Seeback

May/3/23 9:29:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that that is exactly why I have said the bill is not ambitious enough. That is a great example. We should not just randomly cut regulations. We have to streamline regulations in a way that protects consumers and protects the environment but also protects those small and medium-sized businesses so they can grow and add to the economic prosperity of the country.

68 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

May/3/23 9:30:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be in the chamber once again, and I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-6. The stated purpose of the bill is to “reduce administrative burden for business, facilitate digital interactions with government, simplify regulatory processes, make exemptions from certain regulatory requirements to test new products, and make cross-border trade easier through more consistent and coherent rules across governments.” The proposed measures were a result, I am told, of a public consultation by the Treasury Board Secretariat as well as a call-out to federal departments on what changes they required in order to further streamline the regulatory process. The regulatory modernization bill would be instituted, I believe for the first time this year, to optimize regulatory processes between departments. This is the second regulatory modernization bill, with the first instance of this legislation having been introduced in 2019, under the Budget Implementation Act. The stated purpose of this legislation is to “reduce administrative burden for business, facilitate digital interactions with government, simplify regulatory processes, make exemptions from certain regulatory requirements to test new products, and make cross-border trade easier”. In all, Bill S-6 proposes 46 minor changes to 29 acts that are administered by the following 12 organizations: the Canadian Food Inspection Agency; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; Natural Resources Canada; Environment and Climate Change Canada; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; Fisheries and Oceans Canada; the Canada Border Services Agency; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada; Health Canada; Transport Canada; and Parks Canada. The first part of Bill S-6 would remove the requirement that a notice of bankruptcy be published in a local newspaper and allow the superintendent of bankruptcy to issue directives regarding how the notice will be published. That is actually a pretty interesting regulation. I cannot remember the last time I saw an advertisement in The Abbotsford News, the Mission City Record or The Ashcroft-Cache Creek Journal outlining that someone was bankrupt. I think I might even follow up with a question to the Library of Parliament to find out the last time this regulation was used. Perhaps in the 21st century economy we can outline people's bankruptcy over Facebook. The second regulation that Bill S-6 seeks to amend is to allow the application for mediation to be withdrawn, and for the trustee to proceed with an automatic discharge of the bankrupt, where an agreement had been breached between the trustee and the bankrupt before a scheduled mediation. The third change that the bill would bring into effect is to make changes to the Weights and Measures Act to provide a temporary permission mechanism allowing the minister to permit temporary permissions for devices for use in trade, set terms and conditions, and allow the minister to revoke such permission. The next regulation that the bill would deal with is to repeal the regulation regarding authority related to the requirement for contact information on vending machines that dispense liquids. The next one is to repeal the requirement for dealers and traders to notify Measurement Canada when they import a measuring device for use in their business. I guess that, with the onset of Amazon and the ease with which we can find a scale these days, it is probably a good regulation to repeal. The next regulation would be to revise the coming-into-force date for recent amendments to the act in 2018's budget implementation act. The next one would be to change the term “annual return” to a term that is less confusing for stakeholders. I am not quite sure exactly what bill that would refer to. Bill S-6 would update language pertaining to the handling of hazardous products in the workplace to ensure alignment with the Hazardous Products Act. I would be remiss if I did not mention another government bill, coming from the independent Senate on CEPA, and how changes to the Hazardous Products Act may intertwine with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The next area of regulation this bill seeks to change is to amend the Agricultural Products Marketing Act to simplify the regulatory system for provincial agricultural marketing boards. I look forward to hearing from government members as to how, by simplifying the regulatory system for provincial agricultural marketing boards, we might see more local produce in our grocery stores. I come from a riding with the highest farm gate sales per capita in Canada and there is broad unanimity among the constituents in my riding that we need to see more local produce on the shelves. After the floods last year, this was of particular concern. Many of the prime blueberry fields in the province were flooded out when the Nooksack River in Washington state washed away the agricultural lands on Sumas Prairie. I look forward to seeing how the minister would enact such regulations to improve the way local produce is marketed in Canada. The next regulation is to amend the Health of Animals Act to enable the minister to approve a program elaborated by a third party for the purposes of preventing the introduction of any vector, disease or toxic substance or for controlling, eradicating or preventing the spread of vectors, diseases and toxic substances. Similarly, earlier this week in Parliament, we debated the private member's bill of the member for Foothills, which also talked about the Health of Animals Act in the context of biosecurity on farms and the challenges that many agricultural producers are facing with respect to the avian flu and other diseases that are impacting agricultural sectors. I will note that, in the United States, perhaps because its biosecurity provisions on agricultural properties and its health of animals act were not as robust as the ones we have in Canada, the avian flu led to a massive increase in poultry prices and the destruction of hundreds of thousands of birds meant for consumption. Therefore, I am happy to see this amendment, to ensure that we do the best to protect our farmers and the consumers of their food. Another amendment in Bill S-6 also touches upon the Health of Animals Act, to enable the minister to make an interim order that may be used when immediate action is required to deal with significant risks to protect animal and human health and the environment. This is a good-sense regulation that speaks to my previous point that we need to give the Canadian Food Inspection Agency the tools it needs when there is another outbreak of avian flu or another disease impacting our agricultural products, like foot-and-mouth disease, which has also impacted production in the Fraser Valley in previous times. The next amendment in Bill S-6 would make changes to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act that “would allow the agency to deliver services and businesses to interact with CFIA through electronic means rather than having to rely solely on paper-based transactions. This change would reduce administrative burden for businesses and allow them greater flexibility in their interactions with government.” Any time any government agency is taking a step forward to digitize its interactions with Canadians, it is a positive step. A member from Kingston and I had a debate a few months ago about the immigration services MPs provide in our constituency offices. We both agreed that sometimes we take on too much of this work on behalf of public servants. In many cases, the constituents who come to my office and talk about their interactions with Citizenship and Immigration decry the fact that so much of what they need to do is still based on paper forms that are anachronistic. I am happy the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is making the relevant regulatory changes to allow people to communicate by email in the 21st century. That is a good change. The next regulation in Bill S-6 I would like to discuss is the proposed amendment to the Safe Foods for Canadians Act to amend the definition of “food commodity” to align it with the definition of food in the Food and Drugs Act, as amended in 2019. The next change would provide authority to make regulations as a result of Canada entering into a free trade agreement. We would not know the context of this specific regulation until it is enacted and put into practice by the Minister of International Trade upon this bill hopefully receiving royal assent. There are a number of amendments related to the Canada Transportation Act that would enable new mechanisms to be used to integrate regulatory changes stemming more quickly from updates to international transportation safety standards. This would ensure our transportation sectors meet the most up-to-date safety standards and keep pace with changes in technology and innovation. Abbotsford is home to Cascade Aerospace. I was able to speak on a concurrence motion to a regulatory change that might be covered in Bill S-6, and that is the fact that when students are taking the test to be an airplane mechanic or to work in the aviation sector, the training manuals still require students, in the 21st century, to go through a module on cloth wings. I do not think there are many planes in Canada made with cloth any longer. Cascade Aerospace specifically said that the aerospace industry at large has asked for many years that Canada's regulatory process be more in line with the FAA in the United States to stay competitive and allow for companies like Cascade to bid on contracts with American companies to provide the types of manufacturing and high-tech jobs we are looking for in Canada. Hopefully this amendment to the Transportation Act will help us get there. The next regulation would revise the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act to broaden the type of sampling that could be used as the basis for verification or reverification of meters beyond only statistical sampling. The next one would make changes to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act to provide flexibilities to update regulations for miscellaneous technical or administrative changes. The next regulation would make changes to the Canada Land Surveyors Act to modernize the legislative framework that regulates the Canada land surveyors profession. On this side of the House, we have been speaking a lot about the designation of skilled workers in Canada. Hopefully, this is a positive change that would allow more immigrants, for example, to work as surveyors in our communities. Like many professions, we are seeing a shortage of workers, especially in skilled fields such as this one. Hopefully, this regulation would encourage more people to become surveyors in Canada and do the necessary work to build our roads and prepare neighbourhoods for development as we look to see more housing construction in Canada. In fact, I had to hire a surveyor recently in Abbotsford for my own house. I was very pleased with the service they provided, but, due to the shortage of workers I could not believe the bill I had to pay at the end. However, that is a debate for another time. Let me just conclude by looking over some of the remarks made by Senator Woo, who sponsored this bill on behalf of the government. Senator Woo is one of five senators from the province of B.C. When he sponsored this bill, it almost felt to me that he was a member of the Liberal government. He talked about looking ahead and that the Treasury Board Secretariat would be considering more proposals for another regulatory modernization bill. He talked about his close working relationship with the Treasury Board Secretariat, as if he were a member of the Liberal government and not an independent. This is particularly challenging for me, because I actually think this bill is really important and would do a lot of things that stakeholders and deputy ministers across the Government of Canada have been asking for, for a long time. That is to clean up the balance sheet, so to speak, so government can function more effectively on behalf of Canadians and provide the services that we collectively need and the regulation that is required to run different sectors of our economy and our consumption of goods and produce. However, I would be remiss if I did not mention that it was hard for me to see that it was the government not tabling this directly in the House of Commons but instead it went through the Senate. British Columbia right now has a population of just over five million. That means every senator we have represents, effectively, one million people. In Ontario, it is not much better. It is at 592,000. On Prince Edward Island, it is 38,000. The government should not be doing its important work through its Liberal senators in the other chamber. It should be doing the important work here in this chamber. With respect to the Senate, as a British Columbian, I hope one day we will have a more effective voice in the Canadian Confederation. When I go door knocking during elections, almost every day someone raises the fact that Ottawa does not adequately represent the interests of my province. This is largely due to the fact that we only have six senators allotted to us, with five in place right now. We pay equalization payments to other provinces and we have the third-highest population. In the years ahead, indigenous people are going to take more control of their lives through natural resources development. There are a number of amazing companies that are partnering with indigenous people in the natural resources sector. I am very optimistic about trade and commerce on Canada's west coast in the years ahead. I hope, by the economic growth that we are going to see that is going to drive the Canadian economic growth in the 21st century, and that one day we are going to have a sufficient number of senators or equal representation in Ottawa. British Columbians deserve it.

2369 words

All Topics

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

May/3/23 9:49:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, if the member wants to understand why certain provinces such as P.E.I. have very different representation in the Senate, he should probably pick up the Constitution and have a look at it. Perhaps that will help to inform him on that. To be honest, the last 30 or 45 seconds of his discussion were probably the most passionate of his entire 20-minute speech. He seemed to speak a lot about how much he is in favour of the bill and rhetorically speak about the need or lack of need for a lot of the regulations. Conservative after Conservative have indicated their support for this. I wonder if the member can inform the House as to when we might be able to get on with the vote on it. If he could do that and at the same time spare me the rhetoric of needing every Conservative to represent their constituents and speak to this specific bill, that would be great too.

166 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis

May/3/23 9:50:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, in response to the member opposite's good-faith question, the reality is that it is the Liberal House leader who will ultimately make the decision when each of the bills before Parliament is brought to a vote. It is a negotiation with the Liberals' coalition partners, the NDP, and the official opposition, the Conservatives. I spoke in good faith to Bill S-6. Many of the regulations related to the Health of Animals Act on biosecurity, I think, are really relevant. It is a good bill, but ultimately, in terms of its passage and when we come to a vote on it will be determined by whether or not the Liberal House leader is willing to work with the official opposition to make sure that bills are properly scrutinized and debated accordingly.

135 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

May/3/23 9:51:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I still find it rather ironic to hear my colleague say that he is prepared to move to a vote on the bill when he feels so inclined, while also making a rather convincing plea for public servants to be more efficient when it comes to bureaucracy. There is a bit of a contradiction there. How does my colleague feel about that? Does he not think we could move on to the next item on the agenda and move forward to set an example for our government with regard to improving bureaucracy?

95 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis

May/3/23 9:52:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, that is right, we need to streamline regulations where necessary and strengthen regulations to protect our food here in Canada. We have a lot of work to do. Sometimes we need to streamline regulations. Other times, we need to strengthen them to meet demands and bring our economy into the 21st century.

54 words

All Topics

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

May/3/23 9:52:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I rise just to give recognition to the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. He seems to have a certain je ne sais quoi, a certain flair that the hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière seems to have. I have appreciated that in his delivery of petitions. It seems to me, based on his speech, that he has a newfound passion for an elected Senate, one that has mixed member proportional representation, one that allows for true democracy to happen. I would love to hear the member talk about ways in which we can make the Senate more accountable, beyond the patronage appointments of the past Conservative and Liberal governments.

119 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis

May/3/23 9:53:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, let me just say equal, elected and effective. The first action I ever took as a Canadian in a democratic process was to put a wonderful reform party of Canada sign on my dad's front lawn. From that day on I learned about how the Senate has under-represented my province since its inception into Confederation and that one day, through economic reconciliation with first nations, we might see British Columbia gain its proper place in this federation. However, we cannot do it without working with indigenous Canadians so they can take control of their lives. Get the Indian Act out of the way. Let them flourish through resource development and partnering with businesses to create a new life and new opportunity for young people, especially young indigenous peoples across our great country.

136 words

All Topics

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

May/3/23 9:54:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I think we are all astonished by the turn this debate has taken on modernizing regulations. I just wanted to express to the member some degree of sympathy that the electoral boundary redistribution will deprive him of representing the town of Ashcroft and the extraordinarily vital and engaged citizenry. As well, I think he is losing Lytton, which we already lost in action. It has not moved. I am not being facetious about losing Lytton. We shall never lose Lytton. It must be rebuilt. Does the hon. member think it is inevitable that his boundaries are redrawn in that fashion?

102 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis

May/3/23 9:55:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for the good-faith question. On the redistribution process, the member knows that Fraser Canyon and all of those communities have a special place in my heart, as they do for her. I think Ashcroft is like the Sedona of Canada. It has such a bright future. There are so many amazing things going on there. It is one of the few ecological zones in Canada that are actually a desert. It is beautiful and I encourage everyone to visit the village of Ashcroft. I would be remiss if I did not mention Cache Creek. There is flooding going on in Cache Creek, which has increased every year since the 2017 Elephant Hill fire. In fact, since that time, we have lost the fire chief to a previous flood. It just goes to show how much work we have to do on climate mitigation and adaptation for small communities like Cache Creek in order to give them a future, so they are not subject to these annual floods, which tear apart businesses and people's homes. My staff will continue working hard to support Lytton. We have made progress. We are working in good faith with all parties. Building permits can be issued now, but we have so much more to get done.

224 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

May/3/23 9:56:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, seeing that my hon. colleague is so enthusiastic, I would like to ask him if he is ready to entertain the idea of separatists being appointed to a reformed Senate. I am not saying that we would go there. I am curious if he would be ready to entertain even that idea. It does represent the opinion of a significant number of Quebeckers.

65 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis

May/3/23 9:57:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, every Canadian, even Quebeckers who do not believe in Canada, has the right to vote according to their conscience, and to even vote for an elected Senate.

29 words

All Topics

Mr. Matthew Green

May/3/23 9:57:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the turn this has taken. I am learning so much about the hon. member. In his passionate remarks, he used a phrase that Conservatives like to use, which, quite frankly, is made up. It is this idea of “economic reconciliation”. If the member wants to have true reconciliation, I would love for him to put on the record the ways in which his government, if elected, would remove the red tape in its entirety by just giving land back. That would be true reconciliation with first nations on all the legal fictions that were made under the treaties.

105 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis

May/3/23 9:58:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I think my hon. colleague forgot to point out that we need to abolish the Indian Act. I also said that in my debate tonight. We have so much work to do. It is not me stating that they want economic reconciliation. It is the Stó:lo Nation pushing to have more control over forestry tenure so that it can take control of its own resources. That is why I am pleased to outline again that the Conservative Party is taking an indigenous-led process to develop a new way to reconceive how we develop natural resources in Canada. Many of the first nations constituents I represent, like those in Lytton, benefit a lot from some of the economic development already taking place and receive large sums of money. One member was telling me that the Lytton tribal council receives over $1 million a year in remittances. It entered that agreement in good faith with Teck Resources. We have so much to do, but ultimately, we are not going to get there until, as the member pointed out, the indigenous people of Canada have more control over their lands.

192 words

All Topics

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

May/3/23 9:59:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am speaking to the question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. As my colleague from Ontario mentioned, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following at pages 107 to 108: In order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, Members should be able to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed.... Any form of intimidation of a Member with respect to the Member's actions during a proceeding in Parliament could amount to contempt. This is long-standing and well-established procedure and principle of the law of parliamentary privilege, tracing its roots back to an April 12, 1733, resolution of the British House of Commons, which states: That the assaulting, insulting, or menacing of any member of this House in his coming to or going from the House or upon the account of his behaviour in Parliament is a high infringement of the privilege of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament and an high crime and misdemeanour. Of course, there is a difference between exercising the fundamental democratic right to enter into political debate and criticizing elected members of the House for the stands they take. As members know, Joseph Maingot, at page 235 of his work Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, articulates the appropriate balance between free debate and intimidation and coercion. ...all interferences with Members' privileges of freedom of speech, such as editorials and other public comment, are not breaches of privilege even though they influence the conduct of Members in their parliamentary work. Accordingly, not every action by an outside body that may influence the conduct of a Member of Parliament as such could now be regarded as a breach of privilege, even if it were calculated and intended to bring pressure on the Member to take or to refrain from taking a particular course. But any attempt by improper means to influence or obstruct a Member in his parliamentary work may constitute contempt. What constitutes an improper means of interfering with Members' parliamentary work is always a question depending on the facts of each case. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 109, observe that: In order to find a prima facie breach of privilege, the Speaker must be satisfied that there is evidence to support the Member's claim that he or she has been impeded in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions and that the matter is directly related to a proceeding in Parliament. In our opinion, that is definitely the case here. A “proceeding in Parliament” is a technical term for which Bosc and Gagnon, at page 90, refer to two definitions. The first is from Erskine May, and the second is from Australia's Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. Erskine May's definition at page 235 of the 24th edition of Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament states the following: An individual Member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also by various recognised forms of formal action, such as voting, giving notice of a motion, or presenting a petition or report from a committee, most of such actions being time-saving substitutes for speaking. The Australian statutory definition, meanwhile, contains the expression “all words spoken and acts done in the course of, or for purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of a House”. Speaker Lamoureux, on September 19, 1973, said, at page 6709 of the Debates, that he had “no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation.” This is quite obviously an attempt at intimidation. On May 1, 1986, Speaker Bosley held, at page 12847 of the Debates, “If an Hon. Member is impeded or obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties through threats, intimidation, bribery attempts or other improper behaviour, such a case would fall within the limits of parliamentary privilege.” Subsequently, Speaker Parent, on March 24, 1994, commented, at page 2706 of the Debates, “Threats of blackmail or intimidation of a member of Parliament should never be taken lightly. When such occurs, the very essence of free speech is undermined. Without the guarantee of freedom of speech, no member of Parliament can do his duty as is expected.” More recently, on March 6, 2012, a prima facie contempt was found, arising from an intimidation campaign of YouTube videos from the Internet, by hacking collective Anonymous, largely targeting a former colleague and his family members as a consequence of legislation this colleague tabled in the House. In so ruling, the Speaker said, at page 5834 of the Debates: “Those who enter political life fully expect to be able to be held accountable for their actions to their constituents and to those who are concerned with the issues and initiatives they may advocate. In a healthy democracy, vigorous debate on issues is encouraged. In fact, the rules and procedures of this House are drafted to allow for proponents and opponents to discuss, in a respectful manner, even the most difficult and sensitive of matters. However, when duly elected members are personally threatened for their work in Parliament, whether introducing a bill, making a statement or casting a vote, this House must take the matter very seriously.” I would echo those words, “this House must take the matter very seriously.” Just as it is a novel concern in this recently surfaced story, which is still unravelling, that is not a procedural impediment to the Speaker finding a prima facie case of contempt here. On this particular point, Bosc and Gagnon comment, at page 81: “The House of Commons enjoys very wide latitude in maintaining its dignity and authority through the exercise of its contempt power. In other words, the House may consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly.... This area of parliamentary law is therefore extremely fluid and most valuable for the Commons to be able to meet novel situations.” I therefore support the question of privilege raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I hope the Chair will make a ruling on this important matter soon.

1068 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 190