44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 27, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/27/22 3:58:24 p.m.
- Watch
I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on October 21, 2022, by the House leader of the official opposition concerning allegedly misleading statements made by the President of the King's Privy Council for Canada and Minister for Emergency Preparedness.
In his intervention, the member referenced the minister's answers to questions in the House earlier this year in which he stated that the government did not interfere with operational decisions of the RCMP. These remarks were made in parallel to the investigation of the April 2020 Nova Scotia mass shooting. He contended that a recording of a conference call between the commissioner of the RCMP and other high ranking officials, submitted as evidence at the Mass Casualty Commission, demonstrated the minister knowingly misled the House.
The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that it was the tradition of the House to take members at their word and that the minister had consistently stated that there was no interference. He claimed that the allegations against the minister were conjecture and that the recordings did not contradict statements he had made.
In submitting his question of privilege to the House, the House leader of the official opposition correctly referenced the three criteria that need to be met when assessing a case of this nature. First, whether the statement was in fact misleading. Second, whether the minister knew the statements to be incorrect when they were made. Third, whether there was an intent to mislead the House.
At issue is a recorded conference call in which the commissioner of the RCMP appears to reference a promise made to the minister that a line regarding the types of firearms used in the April 2020 Nova Scotia tragedy would be included in prepared remarks to the media. The House leader of the official opposition maintained that the statement made by the minister in response to questions denying any interference in the investigation were, in fact, misleading.
The parliamentary secretary, for his part, argued that the minister confirmed that neither he nor his staff interfered in the investigation and that the commissioner has testified to this.
The House leader of the official opposition points to comments made by the commissioner on the recording in which she mentions the minister wanting to speak with her and that she knew about what. The parliamentary secretary’s assertion was that the topic of discussion was never explicitly stated and is therefore, conjecture. It is his contention that no facts contradict the statements of the minister or the commissioner.
The Chair has carefully reviewed the arguments presented and the relevant precedents. The House leader of the official opposition referred to the ruling by Speaker Jerome from December 6, 1978. In that ruling, the Chair found that a prima facie contempt of the House existed because an official explicitly stated that the minister was deliberately misled. In that instance, the admission was unequivocal, leaving no room for doubt. He stated at page 1857 of the Debates:
I can interpret that testimony in no other way than meaning that a deliberate attempt was made to obstruct the member in the performance of his duties and, consequently, to obstruct the House itself.
In the present case, the matter is not as clear. To the House leader of the official opposition, the minister’s statements were knowingly incorrect and made with the intent to mislead the House. The minister, for his part, has repeatedly maintained that there was no interference and that his replies were based on statements made by the commissioner herself.
As members know, it is a tradition of the House that members be taken at their word. It would appear to the Chair that there is a dispute as to the facts. Indeed, as noted by a previous Speaker in a ruling on a similar matter made October 30, 2013, at page 596 of the Debates, “many of my predecessors in the chair have reminded the House that in most instances, claims related to disputed facts are not grounds for prima facie findings of privilege.”
In that same ruling, we can find at page 597 of the Debates:
...that the Chair is bound by very narrow parameters in situations such as this one.
Previous precedents make it clear that the threshold, when considering these situations, is high. In the view of the Chair, this threshold has not been met and, accordingly, I do not find there to be a prima facie question of privilege.
I thank the members for their attention.
762 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 4:05:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is the time of the week we have all been waiting for. I would like to ask the government House leader if he can inform the House of what we might expect.
Given some of the conversations around this place over the last few days responding to the deficit-induced inflation crisis that is hurting Canadians so much, I would like to signal to him that he could introduce legislation to cancel the government's plan to triple the carbon tax, or could introduce legislation to adopt a “pay as you go” system so that any new dollar of government spending is accompanied by a dollar of savings. If he were to bring forward either of those two ideas in the form of legislation, I can assure him that the official opposition would fast-track that legislation so it could be enacted as quickly as possible.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand on a Thursday and answer the Thursday question.
To my hon. colleague across, perhaps he is not aware or perhaps he has not had the opportunity to peruse headlines from around the world, but inflation is in fact a global phenomenon. I might also note that inflation is actually much higher in the U.S., the U.K. and the eurozone. What we need to do is vote for measures. I was disappointed that the Conservatives did not support the legislation we had today, Bill C-31. They had an opportunity to support families with dental care and to support housing.
I do not think it will come as a surprise to the member opposite that we will under no circumstances abandon the cause of climate change. We will under no circumstances stop the work we are doing to put a price on pollution and give eight out of 10 families more money back than they pay for that price on pollution.
In terms of the matters that are immediately before the House, although I do encourage the member opposite to continue forwarding his ideas and look forward to those conversations, this afternoon we will complete third reading debate of Bill C-31 with respect to dental care—
218 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 4:05:54 p.m.
- Watch
So you're saying there's a chance.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is always a chance. I hear the member opposite saying there is a chance. Although we have many and great differences, there is always hope for us, and I look forward to that hope.
I am very pleased to say that this afternoon, we are going to complete third reading debate of Bill C-31 with respect to dental care and rental housing. Tomorrow, we will finish second reading debate of Bill C-9 concerning the Judges Act. On Monday, we will continue to the fifth day of the second reading debate for Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Tuesday, as members will be happy to note, is an allotted day. On Wednesday, we will commence debate on Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act (COVID-19 response and other measures). On Thursday, we will call Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission act. For next Friday, our plan is to start second reading debate of Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022.
I would also like to inform the House that next Wednesday during Routine Proceedings, under ministerial statements, the Minister of Veterans Affairs will be pleased to deliver a statement for Remembrance Day.
217 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 4:08:24 p.m.
- Watch
I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 39 minutes.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, October 18, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-31 at the third reading stage.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, be read the third time and passed.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, here we are on the third and final reading of Bill C-31. We just went through a voting process, and I suspect that most Canadians would likely be somewhat disappointed in the Conservatives and the Bloc for voting against Bill C-31 at report stage concurrence motion. It is concerning given the very context in which we are having this debate.
The members opposite talk about the issue of inflation and how we can help Canadians. This is legislation that will put money in the pockets of Canadians in all regions of our country in a very real and tangible way.
I have had the opportunity to listen to the debate for a number of hours, whether during second reading or earlier today at report stage. I can tell members that I believe that the arguments being presented by the Bloc and Conservative parties would disappoint a majority of Canadians. I think that both the opposition parties are not reflecting what the majority of Canadians want to see, especially if we factor in the issue of inflation.
For the last number of days, the Conservatives have talked about inflation, saying it is so bad in Canada that we need to do something. When it comes to actually taking action, they do not support the government in doing that. I hope to address two or three points in my speech.
The first is with respect to a realization of what is happening around the world. I made reference to this earlier. Inflation is taking place around the world. Canada, as the government House leader just mentioned, is really not doing that bad with respect to our inflation rate compared to countries such as the United States, England and many in the European Union. That does not mean we should not be taking action to support Canadians.
Bill C-31 is one of those pieces of legislation with budgetary actions that are there to support Canadians in every region of our country. However, we find that, as much as the Conservatives like to talk about dealing with inflation, when it comes to standing up for Canadians by voting in favour of measures that would assist them, they vote against them. Although, in fairness, that is not completely true.
After all, we did have the doubling of the GST tax credit, which I referenced earlier today, that is putting money in the pockets of 11 million Canadians. Imagine that. There are 11 million Canadians who are getting a doubling of the GST rebate. The initial response from the Conservatives in particular was to vote against that legislation. In time, they saw the light. They saw that it was putting money in the pockets of Canadians and they reversed their position. Good for them. However, we are not seeing that with respect to Bill C-31.
Bill C-31 establishes two measures. One will put more money in the pockets of people and the other will provide a child dental care program that will prevent children from having to go to the hospital.
Let me expand on both of those points. If we take a look at the issue of child dental work, in virtually every province, we will find children going to hospitals because they were not able to get necessary dental work. We know that for a fact, that our hospitals are used as a last resort because of the lack of dental work being done on children.
When we stop to think about it, we have legislation that would be telling moms, dads, grandparents, guardians and others that, if there is a child under the age of 12, no matter where that child lives in Canada, and I will concede that some provinces do have better dental services than others, but we are not discriminating, based on income level their guardian, they will be provided with financial assistance in getting that dental work done.
It is ultimately a positive step forward toward a true national dental care program. I believe that, if we were to canvass, most of our constituents would see that as a positive thing. Why is there opposition to it? Not only does it provide a high-quality program of benefits, but it also enables those individuals to get that money to do that dental work, especially at a time when people are concerned about buying their groceries, so they do not have to necessarily make the decision of whether one's seven-year-old child will have extra groceries or if they should be getting that dental work done.
There are many households that are having to experience making that decision. The Conservatives, and the Bloc, apparently, based on the last vote, say that it is not their problem. It is not the problem of the opposition party. They say that we do not need to provide this type of service.
I would argue that the legislation before us goes a long way in ensuring that good decisions are, in fact, being made on behalf of the children in Canada, that every child, no matter what region they live in and no matter what province or territory that they live in, if they meet the criteria, will be, in fact, able to be assisted in getting that dental work.
The Bloc even goes further. If it were up to the Bloc, there would be no assistance whatsoever, because often the Bloc looks at Ottawa as nothing more than an ATM. It does not realize that, whether we are looking to Quebec, Manitoba or either one of our three coasts, we will find that the people of Canada understand and value the national government playing a role in health care. In fact, we have legislation called the Canada Health Act to ensure that we continue to play that critical role.
During the pandemic, when we had serious issues with long-term care, or when we have had issues dealing with mental health, no one should be surprised when the Government of Canada steps up and provides support, both directly and indirectly.
The bottom line is that, from the separatist point of view, the separatists do not want to have these national programs. I totally disagree with that. I respect where they are coming from, even though I absolutely, totally disagree.
The Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to not want to recognize what Canadians have recognized for years, which is that the national government does have a role to play in health care. When we look at the issue of dental health care, that also matters. It is not crossing provincial jurisdiction.
The best way we are going to be able to move forward with a true national program is when we can get all the different stakeholders onside. In the interim, we are establishing a national benefits program. This year it will deal with children, and next year it will deal with seniors and people with disabilities. I would think that the Conservative Party would understand that.
We have been there recognizing the importance of health care because we know how important health care is to Canadians. That is why we have the health care accords with all the provinces. That is why we have historical amounts of money going to the provinces in the form of health transfers, not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars put toward mental health.
Whether it is on a motion from the member for Avalon on long-term health care or other needs, Liberal members of Parliament reflect the interests of their constituents when they come to Ottawa. That is what we see. We do not see that coming from the Conservatives, and that is quite unfortunate. That is one of the things the Conservative Party and the Bloc are voting against.
The other thing they are voting against is the issue of rental support. We will have 1.8 million people who would be able to take advantage of having money in their pockets through this particular aspect of the legislation. Individuals who are having a difficult time will be able to make rental payments.
I would argue that we are talking about hundreds into thousands of constituents, depending on the riding. Let there be no doubt that, every riding in this country will access that particular program. That is in the neighbourhood of up to $500. When the Conservative Party talks about inflation and asks what we are doing regarding inflation and how are we helping Canadians, this is helping Canadians in a very real and direct way.
Here is the difference: The Conservatives like to talk about inflation, put a Conservative spin on inflation to try to give the impression that Canada stands alone, or that maybe we are the ones who dictate to the world there will be inflation. They have all sorts of misinformation.
The Conservatives say the government should do things, but when we are doing these things, when we recognize where the inflation is around the world and that Canada is doing well, as I indicated at the beginning, it is not good enough.
If we talk to Liberal members of Parliament, at the very least, and other members, we find that our constituents are having a difficult time when they go to the grocery store. They want to buy some groceries, and they see the price increases taking place. We understand that when someone is celebrating a birthday, people want to go to a store to buy them a birthday gift, but the costs are going up.
People need to understand and appreciate the fact that holiday seasons are coming up. Many of the measures we are taking are happening in the short term to help Canadians where we can to provide more money in their pockets.
In Question Period today the Conservatives were mocking the CERB program. The program cost billions of dollars, but it was there to support Canadians at a time when the government needed to be there. When economies were shutting down in certain areas and people were not able to go to work, the Government of Canada had their backs. We provided biweekly cheques. It was a significant investment because we wanted to be there for Canadians and we were in a very tangible way.
Today the Conservatives criticize the billions that we spent in regard to getting Canadians through the pandemic. At the time when Canadians were looking for support, we were there and we continue to be there. The Conservatives were balking and now they are criticizing us for having borrowed money back then. They are saying that we have inflation because we borrowed that money. The Conservatives need to wake up to the reality. It is either they are supporting the people of Canada or they are not.
It seems to me that the Conservatives supported the many measures at the time of the pandemic when we were borrowing the money. However, today, they are criticizing us for borrowing the money. They are also saying that the inflation rate we have today is because we borrowed the money to support Canadians. I would point out that our inflation rate is lower than the inflation rates in the United States, England and many of the countries in the European Union.
The Conservatives are not consistent with their policy advice. We all remember that the current leader of the Conservative Party, less than a year ago, told people that the way to fight inflation, in part, was to invest in cryptocurrency. He advised Canadians to use their hard-earned money to invest in cryptocurrency. Those who followed that advice would have lost substantially, 30%-plus.
The Conservatives talk about triple, triple, triple. I think they got the idea from Tim Hortons' double double. Triple, triple, triple; how misleading is that? Eighty per cent of the constituents in Winnipeg North receive more money from the price on pollution than they actually pay into it. That is according to the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is not the Liberal Party saying that. It is actually increasing. They try to give the false impression on that issue, and it is not the first time.
The Conservatives are trying to develop those bumper stickers that they believe they can sell to Canadians, whether it is factual or not. More often than not, it is not factual.
I am disappointed that the Conservatives voted against Bill C-31. They have one last chance, which will happen sometime in the next six or seven hours. I hope that they will reconsider the manner in which they are voting on this bill, support their constituents and vote in favour of this legislation.
2123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a very famous songwriter said, “It may be the devil or it may be the Lord, but you're gonna have to serve somebody.”
The member for Winnipeg North has stood twice today to defend this bill. I do not know if his colleagues are willing to defend it or not. I heard him mention what Canadians want. I seem to recall a promise of 7,500 health care professionals for rural Canadians. That was a priority just over a year ago, but now the Liberal government seems to have lost its way. It is more concerned with propping up the costly coalition.
Where are the 7,500 health care professionals for rural Canada? Are they still a priority, or has the priority shifted to propping up the coalition?
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, unlike the Conservative Party, members of the Liberal caucus understand how important health care is to Canadians. We realize that Canada's national government has a role to play. Talking about health care professionals, we are genuinely concerned and care about the need to have more doctors in our communities and to recognize some of the credentials that are not necessarily being recognized but could be. We are encouraging that.
Whether it is a budgetary measure from the Minister of Finance or it is an issue of credentials by the Minister of Immigration, both of those are active, ongoing files. We are trying to encourage and support provinces and other stakeholders to recognize the skill sets that are there today and to provide financial support to ensure that we can get more doctors and nurses.
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I absolutely must comment on something I heard from my colleague. Apparently, the Bloc Québécois considers Ottawa to be an ATM.
I have a simple question. Who puts the cash in this ATM? We do. It is our money. If my colleague really thinks that Quebec is just asking for money and not contributing any, why is it that this bill gives us only 13% of the money, when we send over 18% of our money to Ottawa? Some 18% of the cash in the ATM is ours, and that does not include the Quebec abatement, nor does it include the money that we ourselves pay in Quebec for social services that are provided by the provincial government.
Why are we getting only 13% of the money, when we send 18% to Ottawa?
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is where I differ with the member from the Bloc. I believe whether someone, let us say a 10-year-old child, lives in Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Edmonton, Halifax or Toronto, it would be nice to feel comfortable in knowing they are getting a compatible service. This is where a national government can play an important role.
In regard to the breakdown of budgets, the federal government receives huge amounts of revenue from a wide spectrum of resources. At the end of the day, that revenue is distributed throughout Canada. I do believe that whether it is Manitoba, Quebec or other provinces, we are all getting a fair share of the entire pie. I am not going to be selective on it, but I do believe—
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 4:33:20 p.m.
- Watch
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when I go door to door, people ask why they should vote. There is a lot of cynicism out there and people watch what they sometimes think is a gong show in Parliament. When we ask them what they need, we hear time and time again that people cannot afford to get their teeth fixed. There are seniors with serious teeth problems and young families that are not able to look after their children's teeth.
We made a promise that if we went back to this Parliament, we would get this done. Tonight, we are on the verge of the biggest new investment in federal health care since Tommy Douglas. This is extraordinary. This is actually about putting people first and putting the political antics to the back row, which is probably where the Conservatives belong because they are continuing with these antics.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague how significant he thinks it is that we can show people we can actually deliver something that will make a difference in their lives and the lives of their children.
184 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is an excellent example where I could amplify what the member has so rightfully put on the record.
In the last federal election, it was a minority government. That means that for the Liberal Party to be able to get things through, such as Bill C-31, we need to have a partner. We need to have another opposition party to support us. As opposed to being strictly nothing but opposition and oppose everything, the NDP has identified goals on which it can work with the government and ultimately see things get through. Let there be no doubt that if it were not for the government, the Liberal Party, and the NDP, we would not be able to get Bill C-31 through.
That is delivering for Canadians. It is respecting what Canadians wanted in the last federal election, which is for parties to start working together to do things for Canadians. That is exactly what this bill would do.
163 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's discussion here today. I always learn something.
I am concerned. In Quebec, it is a bit different. We already have a dental care program. My constituents would be concerned about whether anything would be taken away from that dental care program. Would anything be taken away from the Canada child benefit? It is a tremendous investment in families in my riding. In being delivered to my constituents, is this program something that would have improvements in the future?
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an excellent question. For the member, in absolutely no way would this take away anything from the constituents whom she represents. The legislation would complement what is taking place in the province of Quebec. That is important to recognize. The second component of the legislation is the rental subsidy. I am sure the member is going to share with her constituents how this legislation overall would make a positive difference.
I appreciate the hard advocacy of the member for her constituents.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a couple of concerns with this. One is that with the exception of a few of our Liberal colleagues who are here, this member of Parliament, our hon. colleague, has gotten up three times on this topic: triple, triple, triple.
I sit on the health committee and the concern I have is that we literally were given two hours to study a bill worth $10 billion. There were two hours for parliamentarians to study a bill worth $10 billion. I do not discount that Canadians are in need of some help because of the costly government. However, the other side likes to talk about working collaboratively. Those members have not worked collaboratively with the opposition. They have actually rammed this through. If anything, all 338 members of Parliament have been sent here to be the voices of Canadians.
Why does my hon. colleague feel it is important to ram a bill through that is worth $10 billion and will be on the backs of Canadians?
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the bill is a very costly bill, but we must realize that the money we are talking about is going into the pockets of Canadians. That is why it is a costly bill.
For the most part, the reason the committee was somewhat limited is that the Conservative Party did not want to give any indication in terms of passing the bill out of committee well before it was ultimately passed. If the Conservatives wanted to have more time for it in committee, then why did they not negotiate or at least allow Bill C-31 to pass second reading at an earlier time so there would have been more time for it to be debated in committee? They cannot have it both ways.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
