SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 338 - Sep/18/24

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

Sep/18/24 3:25:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with some trepidation based on comments made in question period. I have been diving through the Standing Orders to see what order I find has been offended. You might find it in Standing Order 11(2) under “order and decorum”. Of course, Standing Order 16 protects members of Parliament, the royal family and other parts of the Government of Canada from disrespectful comments and, well, the commentary is there. However, I find it worrying that we may be setting a pattern of being able to abuse with offensive nicknames people who are respected Canadians, Canadian citizens who have not been elected. I therefore suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and you can rule on whether it is appropriate, that to say a slur like “carbon tax Carney” might offend Standing Order 11(2). Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Ms. Elizabeth May: I am sorry. I cannot be heard.

160 words

The Speaker

Sep/18/24 3:27:06 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for her intervention. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker: Order. I appreciate the hon. member's raising this point of order. The Chair will take a look at the points that she raised and the particular subsections, and will come back if it is necessary to do so.

54 words

Subsections

The Speaker

Sep/18/24 3:27:20 p.m.
Watch

Colleagues, following discussions among representatives of all parties in the House, I understand there is an agreement to observe a moment of silence in memory of Cathy Merrick, grand chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. I invite hon. members to rise. [A moment of silence observed]

47 words

The Speaker

Sep/18/24 3:29:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-379

It being 3:29 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-379 under Private Members' Business. Call in the members.

38 words

The Speaker

Sep/18/24 3:42:52 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion defeated. I would like to have the members' attention. As I mentioned in my statement on Monday, September 16, the volume of earpieces will now be reset. Members using their earpiece at this time will have to readjust the volume. I thank them for paying particular attention to the sound level.

55 words

Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Sep/18/24 3:44:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-76

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑76, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act.

19 words

Mr. Ben Carr (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

Sep/18/24 3:45:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 68th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding the membership of committees of the House.

39 words

Orders

Mr. Ben Carr (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

Sep/18/24 3:46:10 p.m.
Watch

If the House gives its consent, I move that the 68th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.

24 words

Procedure

The Speaker

Sep/18/24 3:46:25 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

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

Sep/18/24 3:46:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to present a petition in respect to the Lets'emot Regional Recreation and Aquatic Centre. Lets'emot means one heart, one mind in the Halq’eme’ylem language. Local first nations, the District of Kent and the village of Harrison Hot Springs are looking for more support from the federal government. Indigenous Services Canada has told local first nations that when it wants to partner with the community, it is not possible under our Treasury Board guidelines. Why can the Treasury Board not enact policies that respect first nations, that are working hand in hand with their partners and communities to build the infrastructure we need in Canada? The petitioners want to see some action.

123 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Sep/18/24 3:47:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a petition today that is signed by Canadians who are very concerned about a film that has come out, which was funded by the Government of Canada through the Canada Media Fund and by TVO, called Russians at War. The film paints a nice picture of the Russians fighting in Ukraine without laying out all of the war crimes that they are committing and the illegal invasion that they have started. The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to get back all of the taxpayers' money, the $345,000, that went to the film's producer, Ms. Trofimova, who was employed by Russia Today in the past, which is sanctioned by the Government of Canada. She used those monies to bring out this misinformation campaign. The petitioners are calling on the government to audit all the programs that they have currently, like the Canada Media Fund, to see how taxpayer dollars were used to further the Russians' interest right here in Canada. They are requesting that both CSIS and the RCMP do an investigation on whether or not there was any international or Canadian law, or Ukrainian law for that matter, that was violated. Finally, they want the RCMP to seize all material so that it can be used to go forward with the investigation on any war crimes that she may have captured on film but did not actually put into the documentary. The documentary is being aired now at the Toronto International Film Festival and other places in Canada.

260 words

Ms. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.)

Sep/18/24 3:49:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition that has been signed by 1,844 Canadians regarding crisis pregnancy centres. Over 150 anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centres in Canada work to dissuade those who are pregnant from having abortions via medical misinformation and emotional manipulation. This petition calls on the government to take action on these crisis pregnancy centres and to review their charitable status.

66 words

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

Sep/18/24 3:49:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this petition that I am presenting has attracted the signatures of over 1,236 Canadians who are very concerned about an issue relating to the culture of South India, Sri Lanka and the Tamil diaspora here in Canada. They are finding that, due to the monopolistic behaviour of movie chains, South Indian movies are not available and that some movie theatres have been subjected to recurring acts of vandalism. Specifically, Cineplex and Landmark do not play South Indian movies in their cinemas, and in the absence of these two top chains, South Indian movie lovers are made to watch these movies in substandard theatres, paying higher ticket prices. The petitioners are asking that the Government of Canada direct law enforcement to get to the bottom of the vandalism that is occurring, which seems only to affect Cineplex and Landmark; direct the Competition Bureau to investigate this cartel-like behaviour; direct Cineplex and Landmark to start playing South Indian movies; and provide recourse with respect to law enforcement so that we fully embrace the whole tapestry of the wealth that is brought to Canada through multicultural, South Indian and Tamil diaspora here in Canada.

195 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Sep/18/24 3:51:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table today. The first petition is from constituents of mine; they signed it during the Auburn Bay Stampede breakfast. It is about the Auburn Bay Calgary Co-op. It is specifically about the single-use plastics ban introduced by the government in December 2023. In Calgary, we have a compostable green bag that is only used by the Calgary Co-op. These are the facts that constituents want to draw to the attention of the Government of Canada. First, there is no plastic in the bags. They are fully compostable in the City of Calgary's composting system. They have received information from the federal government saying they are forbidden from using the bags. Now they are being handed out only if someone purchases them at tills, as opposed to being given out when purchasing groceries at the store. This is done at a huge cost. The City of Calgary supports the Calgary Co-op's use of compostable bags, stating that they fully break down in their composting facilities. Further, the federal ban, as it stands now, allows for Calgary Co-op to sell its compostable bags on store shelves but prevents them from selling these same bags a few feet away at the checkout. This makes little sense and, they say, does very little to limit their actual use. They are asking for the Government of Canada to recognize that compostable bags do not constitute single-use plastic and, therefore, are worthy of an exemption to the upcoming ban.

258 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Sep/18/24 3:52:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my next petition is from constituents of mine. While I was door knocking, this was being filled out, and they asked for the following: They would like the House of Commons to call for a vote of non-confidence and for a federal election 45 days after that successful vote.

52 words

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

Sep/18/24 3:53:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

24 words

Stand

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

Sep/18/24 3:53:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

29 words

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Sep/18/24 3:53:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on behalf of the Bloc Québécois regarding the question of privilege raised by the House leader of the official opposition. I will be brief. Everything has already been said more than once in the House. Parliament's authority to compel the production of government documents is very clearly established. The only limit to the House's ability to demand whatever information it deems necessary from the government is the good judgment of the House, not the goodwill of the government. Otherwise, the very principle of responsible government is meaningless. On June 10, the House made its position clear. It ordered the government to hand over a series of documents to the law clerk of the House so that he could forward them to law enforcement. The volume of documentation may have been huge, but the order was still clear. The government failed to comply, thereby breaching the privilege of the House. There may be a good reason for this, but it does not change anything. I invite you to find a prima facie breach of privilege, so that the House can then deal with it. As I was saying, the only limit to the House's ability to demand information is the House's good judgment, not the government's goodwill. Rest assured that the Bloc Québécois intends to use its good judgment as usual. The Conservative House leader stated that he intends to move a new motion to compel the production of these documents within eight days. Is eight days reasonable? I am not in a position to judge. If the government needs a few more days, we can talk about it. If the government has a good reason for not producing all the documents, it should say what it was. The House can then exercise its judgment. In his speech on September 16, the House leader of the official opposition blamed the Auditor General. Let me be clear: This is not about the Auditor General. She is a highly respected officer of Parliament. It is our duty to protect her from the government and the opposition, not to put her between a rock and a hard place. The documents she had access to for her own performance audit are government documents. The government's refusal to comply with an order from the House put her in a delicate position, but it is the government that is at fault. The government is the one required to produce what the House demands. The government is the one in breach of parliamentary privilege. It is a serious issue and I invite parliamentarians to work on it seriously. In particular, we need to avoid making sweeping accusations. Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, may be appallingly mismanaged, but we have no evidence at present that the companies that received support did anything wrong. That is precisely why we want the RCMP to have access to all the information. Given the highly partisan nature of our work these days, we need to make sure we avoid tarnishing the reputations of people who may not have done anything wrong. However, if there has been corruption, if an investigation finds that the companies obtained money in a questionable manner, then they will need to pay it back. For that, the investigation would need to proceed. Obviously, it is possible that the RCMP does not want the documents. It is possible that evidence obtained in an unusual way may be harder to use in court. That is possible. If that is the case, then the RCMP can refuse the documents. It is as simple as that. This does not change the fact that the government has an obligation to comply with an order of the House. The motion does not compel the RCMP to accept the documents if it does not want them. It is not our style to do something harmful just to score political points. We in the Bloc Québécois are not like that. The Bloc Québécois will not employ a scorched-earth strategy for partisan purposes. We will not engage in a mudslinging exercise that would sabotage all environmental programs or undermine justice. For this to happen, the House would have to deal with the issue. That is why I invite you to find that the government has committed a prima facie breach of the privilege of Parliament. Then Parliament can do its job, I hope, responsibly and wisely.

763 words

Hon. Karina Gould (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Sep/18/24 3:58:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am also rising to respond to the question of privilege raised on September 16 by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, respecting the motion adopted by the House on June 10. I would like to start by stating that this does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege, as the House has overstepped its authority in this instance. The motion, as adopted by the House, does not order that the documents be provided to members of Parliament. It simply states that they be provided through the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to a third party. While the House has the right to order the production of documents for its own use, it does not have the right to do so for the exclusive use of a third party. This point is made clear in the report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections from 1991, which states, “It is well established that Parliament has the right to order any and all documents to be laid before it which it believes are necessary for its information.” The key words here are “laid before it” and “necessary for its information”. For this reason alone, the Chair should not find that this constitutes a prima facie question of privilege. Having said that, I want to take this opportunity to provide the government's perspective on this motion. The government has grave concerns about potential charter violations that may result from turning over some of the information of the government, SDTC and the Auditor General to the RCMP, as outlined in the motion. The motion, as adopted, appears to be unprecedented and creates a troubling model that would enable the House of Commons to exempt law enforcement from the requirement to seek judicial permission to obtain a broad production of information free from charter constraints. As members will know well, section 8 of the charter protects persons against unreasonable government interference with their reasonable expectations of privacy. Government action that interferes with this expectation must be authorized by a law that satisfies section 8's reasonableness standard. Ordinarily, proceedings in Parliament, including responses to motions adopted by the House of Commons, would be protected by parliamentary privilege and would not be admissible in other proceedings. As I have indicated, in the circumstances, the House of Commons has not even asked for the documents to be provided to members of Parliament in the course of their work; rather, it has expressly referred the information to the RCMP. This goes beyond the authority of the House to order the production of documents. Even if one were to accept that the motion is within the authority of the House, which the government does not, the motion does not displace the legal obligations that would potentially inform the lawfulness of the RCMP's access to and use of materials received from the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, including those under the charter. Should the RCMP wish to engage with the materials received, it will follow its own process and protocols to determine whether and how these materials may be used in a lawful way. As members well know, the RCMP requires lawful authority to invade privacy for the purpose of furthering any criminal investigation. In requiring that the information be turned over to the RCMP, the House of Commons appears to have appropriated the role of the judiciary in authorizing RCMP access to information, presumably to further a criminal investigation, but without replicating or observing any of the constitutional safeguards that normally constrain the police in such activities. This highly unusual approach may invite judicial scrutiny of both the use of any of the information by the RCMP and the legal underpinnings of how the information came to be in the RCMP's possession. It is not just the government that has this view; the RCMP itself has expressed this to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. In a July 25, 2024, letter from RCMP commissioner Mike Duheme to the law clerk and parliamentary counsel, he stated: I am writing to you regarding the Opposition Motion that was passed in the House on June 10, 2024, which requires the production of documents from the government, the Auditor General, and Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel with the intention of providing these documents to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Subsequent to the motion, the RCMP undertook a review and examination of the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) tabled report on SDTC, along with additional administrative reports by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and publicly available information. The RCMP has concluded that the available reports do not identify any criminal offences or evidence of criminal wrongdoing at this time, whether in relation to any specific individual or organization. The OAG and the RCMP are governed by well-established processes that consider their respective mandates. These processes ensure compliance with applicable legal standards in order to preserve the viability of any potential criminal investigation and prosecution. The OAG has broad powers to compel information in a manner that is not possible in a criminal investigation. There are therefore safeguards in place to ensure information obtained by the OAG is not used to circumvent the legal obligations required for criminal investigations. If the OAG finds evidence of criminality during an audit, they have the authority to advise the RCMP. To date, the RCMP has not received any referral from the Auditor General or her office in relation to the SDTC matter. The RCMP has also reviewed the implications of the Motion in a potential criminal investigation. Before taking any investigative steps to access documents that may give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, the RCMP must comply with applicable legal standards to preserve the viability of any potential criminal investigation or prosecution. The Parliamentary production order does not set aside these legal requirements. For the reasons set out above, the RCMP's ability to receive and use information obtained through this production order and under the compulsory powers afforded by the Auditor General Act in the course of a criminal investigation could give rise to concerns under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is therefore highly unlikely that any information obtained by the RCMP under the Motion where privacy interests exists could be used to support a criminal prosecution or further a criminal investigation. Given the risks associated with receiving information under the Motion or other compulsory authorities, practices need to be put in place to identify the nature and the source of information, with a view to determining whether it contains Charter-protected information. Any information obtained through the Motion or other compulsory authorities would need to be segregated from an RCMP investigation. There is significant risk that the motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections. The RCMP will continue its review of available information that does not give rise to concerns under the Charter to determine if sufficient evidence exists to launch a criminal investigation. I would like to emphasize as well that the RCMP is operationally independent and strictly adheres to the principle of police independence. In a free and democratic society, this ensures that the government cannot direct or influence the actions of law enforcement and that law enforcement decisions remain based on the information and evidence available to police. Yours sincerely, Mike Duheme Commissioner This letter speaks for itself. Personally, I do not want to live in a country where politicians can use their power to trample on the privacy rights of Canadians and bypass the legal protections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to provide information to law enforcement without any due process or judicial oversight. Given the concerns expressed above, the government must take every care to ensure we are adequately protecting sensitive information that would be inappropriate to disclose, which prompts the necessity to review all records carefully and with restraint, redact information and then provide, in a staggered manner, that immense volume of material to the law clerk and parliamentary counsel. I would like to raise the issue of the interpretation of the motion adopted on June 10, 2024. The motion states, in part: That the House order the government, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) and the Auditor General of Canada each to deposit with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, within 30 days of the adoption of this order, the following documents, created or dated since January 1, 2017, which are in its or her possession, custody or control.... The motion as adopted is silent on whether the documents requested should or should not be redacted. The practice in this place for document motions is that, if they are to be provided unredacted, this is stated in the motion. In this instance, this was not included in the motion. As members well know, the government, through its officials, is bound by certain statutes to protect certain information from disclosure. In fact, in the past when the House has insisted that documents be produced in unredacted form, governments of both stripes have worked constructively with other parties to establish appropriate mechanisms to protect the disclosure of information that would otherwise not have been disclosed due to their protections offered by statute. While the motion is unusual in that it does not require that the documents be produced to the House itself, rather to the RCMP through the law clerk and parliamentary counsel, the government interpreted that these documents could be redacted to abide by statutory protections. This is especially the case in this instance, and the government could not in good conscience interpret the meaning of this motion such that it would trample on the Charter rights of Canadians and exempt law enforcement from judicial oversight. This would be an extremely reckless and dangerous interpretation for the government to take, so while the government believes that the motion exceeds the authority of the House, it did try to comply in good faith in a way that respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Furthermore, as I have stated, the order did not explicitly state that documents could not be redacted, and second, since these documents were being transmitted to the RCMP, the police force, should it wish to investigate this matter, could use its investigative powers to compel any information that had been redacted if it deemed it material to any potential investigation. Furthermore, the Auditor General of Canada, who is an independent officer of Parliament, appointed by Parliament, raised her own concerns about the production of documents in the motion adopted by the House. In her response to the request from the law clerk and parliamentary counsel, the Auditor General stated: I share the view that Commissioner Duheme expressed to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts (PACP) on June 18, 2024—the OAG has a strong working relationship with the RCMP that is grounded in a well-established process to access information in our audit files. This is important because of the rights established in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that apply to criminal proceedings, and because the courts play an important role in ensuring that information obtained by law enforcement respects those rights. In the past, the RCMP has obtained production orders to ensure that information from the OAG has been obtained legally and can be used when a criminal prosecution is launched. This is precisely the approach that is being taken by the government. If the government is of the view that activities may be of a criminal nature, the government has ensured and will always ensure that any information that may be material to criminal investigation is forwarded to the RCMP. That is how our system works. There are separate branches of government for very good reason. The Auditor General states this clearly with respect to its relationship with law enforcement: Where the OAG is of the view that activities may be of a criminal nature, we promptly inform the RCMP. As we did not reach this conclusion in our audit of SDTC, we did not engage with the RCMP about our audit findings before my report was presented to Parliament. Based on recent communications with the RCMP about this order, we confirmed that the RCMP would seek a production order before requesting any documents should they deem them necessary to any investigation. This would be consistent with well-established past practice. While the government understands that the Speaker does not rule on questions of law or on the appropriate functions of other branches of government, it is for the House to pronounce itself with restraint in such matters. Many members of the House have legal training and know the divisions of power between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. This is the bedrock upon which our democracy operates. To blur these boundaries is irresponsible and, quite frankly, reckless. We are in uncharted territory with this matter. I have made the case that the House has exceeded its authority in ordering the production of documents, not for its own use or the use of members of Parliament, but rather exclusive to and for the use of a third party. I hope the Speaker will consider this point very carefully. Should the Speaker agree that the proposition before the House does in fact exceed the authority of the House, I submit that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs should undertake a study to determine the appropriateness of motions that order the production of documents that are not for the express purpose of informing the House and its members, but rather of being used as an instrument to refer documents to organizations that are outside the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of government. Procedural authorities clearly suggest the privileges of members and of the House relate to its own proceedings within the ambit of the legislative branch and cannot exceed the powers and jurisdiction of this branch of government. This principle is clearly articulated on page 190 of the second edition of Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, which states: The only limitations, which could only be self-imposed, would be that any inquiry should relate to a subject within the legislative competence of Parliament, particularly where witnesses and documents are required and the penal jurisdiction of Parliament is contemplated. This dovetails with the right of each House of Parliament to summon and compel the attendance of all persons within the limits of their jurisdictions. However, even if the motion were to be considered within the authority of the House, which I submit it is not, the appropriate course of action in the handling of this matter, if you find a prima facie question of privilege, would be to limit the motion proposed by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle to refer this unusual matter to the procedure and House affairs committee for study. This would provide an opportunity for members of that committee, who are well versed in parliamentary privilege, to call witnesses and experts who may help shed light on this matter and report back to the House with its findings. This is entirely consistent with the approach that Speaker Milliken took in his decision on the Afghan detainee documents on April 27, 2010, where he provided the parties some time to discuss the issue and find a resolution. Sending the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee would do just that. Finally, I would like to table, in both official languages, the two letters I cited in my intervention: the letter from the RCMP commissioner to the law clerk and parliamentary counsel, as well as the letter from the Auditor General to the Clerk of the House of Commons.

2645 words

The Speaker

Sep/18/24 4:16:33 p.m.
Watch

I thank the government House leader and the hon. member for La Prairie for their interventions on this question of privilege, which was raised first by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. I appreciate that they both came back to the House in a relatively short order of time so the Chair can move quickly with an assessment as to whether there is a prima facie case. The Chair will take some time to review the material that has been brought forward by the hon. government House leader and by the hon. member for La Prairie and will try to get back to the House as soon as possible. I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 15 minutes. 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 Oxford, Mental Health and Addictions; the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, Taxation; the hon. member for Nunavut, Northern Affairs.

186 words