SoVote

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Feb/1/22 10:07:34 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in today's debate. However, I want to raise a very serious concern about what we call a question of privilege. I am rising on a question of privilege regarding the premature disclosure of the content of Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19, by the Prime Minister himself while it was on notice and before it was introduced and tabled in the House of Commons. On Saturday, a special Order Paper was published that contained the notice for Bill C-10. As members know, according to our Standing Orders, notices of bills must be very succinct. In this case, the notice was. It gave the title of the bill and the number, Bill C-10. Yesterday at noon, the Prime Minister held a press conference in front of his house. Incidentally, we were able to see that, despite the fact that he and his two children have COVID-19, he is doing well. That is good. However, he said a lot more about Bill C-10 than what was written in the notice. In fact, CTV, in a publication following the press conference, noted that the Prime Minister provided a bit more detail about the bill's contents beyond its title. Those details provided by the Prime Minister were as follows: “We'll be introducing legislation to ensure we continue providing as many rapid tests as possible to the provinces and territories.” Yesterday, after question period and the Prime Minister's press conference, Bill C‑10 was introduced during Routine Proceedings. At that very moment, it became clear to us and to all Canadians that what the Prime Minister had said was exactly what was in the bill. The bill authorizes the Minister of Health to make payments of up to $2.5 billion out of the consolidated revenue fund in relation to the coronavirus disease 2019, well known as COVID-19, tests. It also authorizes the Minister of Health to transfer COVID-19 tests and instruments used in relation to those tests to the provinces and territories and to the bodies and persons in Canada. The Prime Minister talked about Bill C‑10 in detail at the press conference before the bill was introduced. In our view, that is a breach of trust under the rules that govern us. The Prime Minister's disrespect for Parliament goes beyond just the premature disclosure of a bill. The Prime Minister, having wasted so much time with a prorogation, followed by an expensive and unnecessary election, is trying to play catch-up by leaning on the opposition to co-operate and fast-track his bill. In an attempt to show some goodwill, his House leader provided embargoed copies to the House leaders of the opposition. For our part, and for the part of all opposition parties, we did respect the fact that we cannot make any comment publicly about the bill. That is the way to do it. Unfortunately, yesterday the Prime Minister did not respect that situation. On March 10, 2020, you commented on the premature disclosure of Bill C‑7 on medical assistance in dying. You said the following: ...based on a reading of the Canadian Press article on Bill C‑7 on medical assistance in dying, and in the absence of any explanation to the contrary, I must conclude that the anonymous sources mentioned were well aware of our customs and practices and chose to ignore them. It seems clear to me that the content of the bill was disclosed prematurely while it was on notice and before it was introduced in the House. ... The rule on the confidentiality of bills on notice exists to ensure that members, in their role as legislators, are the first to know their content when they are introduced. Although it is completely legitimate to carry out consultations when developing a bill or to announce one's intention to introduce a bill by referring to its public title available on the Notice Paper and Order Paper, it is forbidden to reveal specific measures contained in a bill at the time it is put on notice. On April 19, 2016, the Speaker found there was a prima facie question of privilege regarding a similar bill, namely Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts, respecting medical assistance in dying. He said the following: As honourable members know, one of my most important responsibilities as Speaker is to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, individually and collectively. Central to the matter before us today is the fact that, due to its pre-eminent role in the legislative process, the House cannot allow precise legislative information to be distributed to others before it has been made accessible to all members. Previous Speakers have regularly upheld not only this fundamental right, but also expectation, of the House. Another question of privilege was raised on March 19, 2001, regarding the media being briefed on a bill before members of Parliament. In that ruling, Speaker Milliken said, at page 1840 of the House of Commons Debates: In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. Once a bill has been placed on notice, whether it has been presented in a different form to a different session of parliament has no bearing and the bill is considered a new matter. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation. The Speaker at that time found another case of contempt on October 15, 2001, again involving the media being briefed on the contents of a bill prior to the legislation being introduced in the House. The precedents are very clear in these matters. The Prime Minister is in contempt of the House for disclosing the content of Bill C-10 while it was on notice and prior to being introduced in the House. In conclusion, I would like to point out that this issue of COVID tests was part of the opening round of questions during the first question period my leader attended in September 2020 after becoming the leader of the official opposition. This issue is a really serious one and we care about this situation. It may have taken the Prime Minister a while to get it and I understand he now needs help to hurry things along, but he does himself no favours by thumbing his nose at the privileges of this House and the goodwill of the opposition parties by playing by his own rules. This practice has gotten him into trouble before. On more than one occasion, he ran into difficulty with the Ethics Commissioner. The commissioner found in 2019 that he breached ethics rules. The Prime Minister had tried in 2018 to undermine a decision by federal prosecutors allowing a construction company, the SNC-Lavalin Group, to face a corrupt trial. The Ethics Commissioner also sanctioned him in December 2017, ruling that he broke conflict of interest rules when he accepted a vacation on the Aga Khan's private island in 2016. I could go on and on, but to quickly get to the point and pursue a resolution to this matter, I ask, Madam Speaker, that you find a prima facie case of privilege. I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

1295 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 21 - Feb/1/22

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Feb/1/22 2:21:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, all Canadian families are struggling to keep up with the ever-increasing cost of living. Canadians have not seen 4.8% inflation in 30 years. The Parliamentary Budget Officer does not hold back in his most recent report. He says that the government's plan to spend $100 billion on economic stimulus is having the exact opposite effect. Not only will this spending not help the economy, but it will actually make inflation worse. Why is the government not listening to the Parliamentary Budget Officer?

88 words

Context: House Hansard - 21 - Feb/1/22

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Feb/1/22 2:23:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, after question period, I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister would come with me to a mall or grocery store here in Gatineau and tell people who are paying 8% more for their groceries that the GDP has just gone up by 0.8% and everything is fine. Or will the Deputy Prime Minister speak directly to Canadians and tell them we are going to tackle inflation?

70 words

Context: House Hansard - 21 - Feb/1/22

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Feb/1/22 2:24:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, again, I would urge the Deputy Prime Minister to go to the IGA in Gatineau and tell Madame Tremblay not to worry because the IMF says all is well in Canada. Like all other Canadians across the country, Madame Tremblay is paying more for her groceries. That is what is having a direct impact on Canadians. Why is the Deputy Prime Minister looking down on Canadian families who are actually paying for Liberal inflation?

79 words