SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 214 - Jun/15/23

Jun/15/23 3:13:04 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for St. John's East.

8 words

Ms. Joanne Thompson (St. John's East, Lib.)

Jun/15/23 3:13:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that raising awareness is one of the most effective ways to combat elder abuse. With today, June 15, marking World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, could the Minister of Seniors provide an update to the House on the steps being taken by the government to increase awareness and prevent the mistreatment of senior citizens in Canada?

59 words

Hon. Kamal Khera (Minister of Seniors, Lib.)

Jun/15/23 3:13:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, any form of elder abuse is a despicable crime that we take very seriously. Our government is taking action by supporting over 600 community organizations that help seniors recognize and identity fraud and abuse by finalizing a definition of elder abuse, establishing new offences and penalties under the Criminal Code related to elder abuse, and investing in better data collection. To ensure that tragedies like the ones we saw in long-term care will never happen again, we welcome the national long-term care standards and are working toward delivering a safe long-term care act.

98 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Jun/15/23 3:14:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Pacheedaht First Nation in my riding does not have a school for kids from grade 6 to 12. Every day, children as young as 11 have to take a bus 75 kilometres each way between home and school on a windy and narrow highway. That is three hours a day. Chief Jones came all the way to Ottawa to plead with Indigenous Services and Infrastructure Canada to help. Will the minister honour reconciliation and start working with the Pacheedaht to get this community the school they desperately need?

90 words

Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, Lib.)

Jun/15/23 3:15:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, since this government was elected, we have worked tirelessly to close the gaping infrastructure gap left by the previous Conservative government. It underinvested in indigenous children, underinvested in indigenous infrastructure and did nothing about boiled water advisories for a decade, which left a massive gap of infrastructure across the country, including children's schools. Our government has reversed that trend. Of course I will work tirelessly to make sure that every community has a school that children can be proud of and safe to learn in.

88 words

Mr. Kevin Vuong (Spadina—Fort York, Ind.)

Jun/15/23 3:15:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on June 10, Canada seized a Russian aircraft at Pearson airport. Global Affairs Canada said it is working with Ukraine on “options to redistribute this asset to compensate victims of human rights abuses”. Why then is the government fighting the families of victims of flight PS752 from using an Ontario superior court ruling to allow them to seize assets and obtain compensation from Iran? Why is the government protecting a ruthless regime and its murderous IRGC terrorists? Why is the government standing with terrorists instead of grieving Canadian families?

93 words

Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)

Jun/15/23 3:16:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an important question, and it gives me the opportunity to talk about two things. The first is what we are doing to make sure the Russian regime is held accountable. Canada is the first country in the world now able to seize and forfeit important assets of the Russian regime. Indeed, we seized the Antonov plane, which has been stranded at the Pearson airport. When it comes to Iran, we will continue to make sure that the regime itself is held accountable. We have sanctioned the IRGC. We have also sanctioned key leaders. We will make sure that the families of the victims of PS752, with whom I have had numerous contacts and numerous meetings, are compensated and well supported.

124 words

The Speaker

Jun/15/23 3:17:09 p.m.
Watch

That is all the time we have for question period today.

11 words

Mr. Tony Baldinelli

Jun/15/23 3:17:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-342

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of this House, Bill C-342, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act regarding maximum security offenders, be deemed read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

88 words

The Speaker

Jun/15/23 3:17:54 p.m.
Watch

I have the honour to lay upon the table the House of Commons' “Report to Canadians 2023”.

19 words

Table

The Speaker

Jun/15/23 3:17:54 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay.

19 words

Nay
Opposed

The Speaker

Jun/15/23 3:17:54 p.m.
Watch

It being 3:18 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of Mr. Brock to the motion for concurrence in the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Call in the members.

56 words

The Speaker

Jun/15/23 3:48:52 p.m.
Watch

I declare the amendment defeated. The next question is on the main motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

53 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Jun/15/23 3:50:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Speaker

Jun/15/23 4:01:20 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

Jun/15/23 4:01:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know all members have been patiently waiting for the famous Thursday question. Could the government House leader please inform the House what business the government intends to bring before the House for the remainder of this week and into next week?

44 words

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

Jun/15/23 4:02:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8 Bill C-9 Bill C-42 Bill C-40 Bill C-35 Bill C-33 Bill C-18

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to respond on behalf of the government. This afternoon we will continue debate on Government Business No. 26, concerning amendments to the Standing Orders. When debate concludes later this evening, we will consider Bill C-35, respecting early learning and child care, followed by Senate amendments to Bill C-9, concerning the Judges Act. Tomorrow we will consider Bill C-42, respecting the Canada Business Corporations Act, at report stage and third reading, and Bill S-8, respecting sanctions. The priorities for next week shall include Bill S-8, on sanctions; Senate amendments to Bill C-18, respecting online news; Bill C-40, concerning the miscarriage of justice review commission act, also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's Law; and Bill C-33, which strengthens the port system and railway safety. Thursday shall be an allotted day. Finally, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the next sitting be 12 midnight, pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 15, 2022.

169 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Jun/15/23 4:03:11 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, November 15, 2022, the government House leader's request to extend the said sitting is deemed adopted.

23 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

Jun/15/23 4:03:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding evidence I have received through an ATIP request that demonstrates the government deliberately withheld information I sought from the Minister of Natural Resources through written question Question No. 974. Question No. 974 was also the subject of a point of order I raised on January 31, 2023. As background context, on November 3, 1978, the member for Durham—Northumberland raised a question of privilege and charged that he had been deliberately misled by a former solicitor general. The member had written a letter in 1973 to the solicitor general, who assured him that, as a matter of policy, the RCMP did not intercept the private mail of Canadians. On November 1, 1978, during testimony before the McDonald commission, the former commissioner of the RCMP stated that they did indeed intercept mail on a very restricted basis, and that the practice was not one which had been concealed from ministers. The member claimed that the statement clearly conflicted with the information he had received from the then solicitor general some years earlier. The Speaker ruled, on December 6, 1978, that there was indeed a prima facie case of contempt. I am in the same position today. I received information from a written question, and I am now in possession of new information from an ATIP that establishes that an answer from the Minister of Natural Resources was a deliberate attempt to deny me an answer. Instead of providing the House with accurate information, which, in your own words, Mr. Speaker, “is a fundamental one and it is a central accountability mechanism”, the information was based on the communication needs of the minister. The quote I just gave is pulled from the ruling you made on my original point of order on this matter, which you made on February 2, 2023. My claim of breach of privilege in this matter stems also from a ruling the Speaker made on December 16, 1980, at page 5797 of Hansard. The Speaker ruled, “ While it is correct to say that the government is not required by our rules to answer written or oral questions, it would be bold to suggest that no circumstances could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an Hon. Member.” This is clearly one of those circumstances. In the ATI response regarding the government's preparation of the response to Question No. 974, there is a departmental note beside it that reads, “There is some communications risk resulting from the use of high-level limitation language that does not answer the written question from an MP who is an effective communicator and former Natural Resources critic.” The ATI file outlines correspondence between dozens of staff involved in a strategy on how to deny me information, instead of working to provide it to me. I encourage members to read this whole thing; it is quite something. An email from Paige Ladouceur includes this description on the strategy behind the government's approach to Question No. 974: “IADT worked with CPS and PAU to land on this response, which relies on approved media lines. [Response] does not answer question directly....PAU has confirmed that this approach is appropriate.” This email in itself shows that the government was deliberately attempting to deny me information related to my question. It may be appropriate for the government to craft a political communications response to the information provided in an Order Paper question, after that information is produced for the member, but it is a breach of my privilege for government employees to craft a strategy designed to deliberately withhold information which I am to be afforded by way of the Standing Orders of this place. Again, to re-emphasize, the emails in this ATI file, of which I will not read all into the record though I am happy to table this with the House, show that there were numerous meetings and discussions purposely designed to withhold information from me. I am referenced personally. The ATI file number is A-2022-00489 for anyone who is interested, and I encourage members to read it. The government's approach to providing information to members appears to be based on defensive communications, and not on providing accurate information to members, which, as you, Mr. Speaker, said in your ruling on February 2, is fundamental and is a central accountability mechanism. That, and as per the 1980 Speaker's Ruling I mentioned above, should constitute a breach of my privilege. Mr. Speaker, I encourage you to review the ATI response. It shows that there are dozens of federal public servants, likely collectively paid millions of dollars, engaged in an exercise to decide how best to withhold information from me, and then approving it. However, there is another big problem that this ATI file outlines. The department's flippant views do not stop with me or other members of the House but are aimed at the Speaker's office. Allow me to explain. The Speaker's ruling of February 2, 2023 said: The right of members to seek information from the government is a fundamental one and it is a central accountability mechanism. Written questions are one of the means members possess to obtain the information that allows them to perform their parliamentary duties. Written question Q-974 was placed on the Order Paper on November 15, 2022. The government presented an answer on January 30, 2023, within the 45-day limit. The response provided appears in that day's Debates. The main point of contention raised by the member for Calgary Nose Hill regards the substance and completeness of the government’s response. In her view, the response fails to address many of the matters raised in her question. However, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 529, states, “There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions.” Apparently, officials in the minister's office are well aware of this passage, and I have email communications within the minister's office that suggest they are using this as some sort of loophole to deny answers to a member of Parliament. In the ATI, the minister's regional adviser for Quebec asks in an email, “What is the jurisprudence on those [types] of Points of Order?” The minister's deputy chief of staff, Kyle Harrietha, responds: “Thanks, heard it after QP and did the inbox search of Q-974. Already in touch with GHLO. I'm expecting the Speaker to tut tut and then say it is not for him to judge the quality of a response”. Again, we have government staff who are depending on the office of the Speaker to say that the strategy of high-level withholding of information is appropriate to withholding information from me. They are using government resources to withhold information from me as opposed to providing it to me, and that is a breach of my privilege. Should the Speaker take issue with the government's using this loophole to withhold information from me, it would not be the first time that a Speaker has taken departments to task for their attitude towards Parliament. On November 6, 1997, the Speaker ruled: ...the Chair acknowledges that this is a matter of potential importance since it touches the role of members as legislators, a role which should not be trivialized. It is from this perspective that the actions of the Department of Finance are of some concern.... This dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices.... I trust that today's decision at this early stage of the 36th Parliament will not be forgotten by the minister and his officials and that the departments and agencies will be guided by it. Again, as per my original point of order, the government purposely used, as revealed extensively and embarrassingly in this ATI, a strategy called “high-level limitation language that does not answer the written question” to deliberately withhold information from me. This ATI file also outlines several other MPs, and folks may want to look at this as there are several members who are mentioned in this ATI file, whose Order Paper questions were also subject to the strategy with a risk analysis based on the Speaker's assessment as to whether or not member are good communicators. I encourage you, Madam Speaker, to look at this part of the ATI file to see just how pervasive this strategy is. I find it atrocious that Canadian taxpayers are paying dozens of public servants to deliberately withhold information from members of Parliament. I also find it shameful that ministers are allowing this to happen. However, the bottom line, as per the 1980 Speaker's ruling I cited before, is that this ATI file squarely shows a deliberate attempt to withhold information I requested in an Order Paper question, and I argue that my privilege has been breached. If you, Madam Speaker, find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motions.

1556 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/15/23 4:12:32 p.m.
Watch

The Chair will take it under advisement and return to the hon. member with an appropriate answer if and when necessary. The hon. leader of the government in the House.

30 words

Advisement