44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 11, 2024 10:00AM
- Apr/11/24 3:01:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her important question. Ukraine is Europe's front line. The Ukrainians have been fighting for our freedom and, of course, for their own. We know that Putin does not have a red line. If he wins in Ukraine, he will keep going. That is why we must support Ukraine. It is about our security and global security.
That is why we concluded a new $3-billion agreement with Ukraine for its long-term security. We have stood with them from the start and we will continue to stand with them, even after Ukraine's victory.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:02:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, we see historic levels of corruption. Conservatives have uncovered a tangled web of chaos, collusion and cover-ups in the arrive scam scandal, just the latest example of Liberal insiders' getting rich.
GC Strategies opened its doors when the current Prime Minister took office. This place will make history when it summons GC Strategies to the bar to answer our questions.
Why did the Prime Minister make these scamsters multi-millionaires?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:03:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, again, our colleague's repeating something does not make it factual. She knows very well that the Auditor General has looked into these matters. We have welcomed parliamentary committee reviews. People have been available, including senior government officials, to go before a parliamentary committee—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:03:23 p.m.
- Watch
I am going to ask all members to please restrain themselves. There were a couple of very loud interventions while the minister was speaking. It is hard for me to hear the answer. Sometimes it is difficult to hear the question.
I know I could identify the members, but they are hon. members. I ask them to please hold their comments back.
The hon. minister.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:03:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the Canada Border Services Agency is conducting internal reviews on the matter. The RCMP is also looking into the questions. We have said that anybody who has misused or abused taxpayers' funds will be held accountable, and we look forward to the processes' coming to their conclusion.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:04:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost or corruption. In the past year, the government has spent over $21 billion on outside consultants. Rather than helping struggling Canadians, he is focused on making Liberal insiders richer. It is no shock that the Liberal-favoured GC Strategies, which pocketed $20 million for doing nothing on arrive scam, was founded in the same year he took office.
Will the Prime Minister commit to cutting all waste and corruption in the upcoming budget, or will he continue to make more Liberal insiders rich?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:04:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the President of the Treasury Board and I, as the minister responsible for the Canada Border Services Agency, have already taken steps to reduce reliance on outside consultants. We have reviewed and changed the process for approving these kinds of contracts.
We will continue to look at everything necessary to ensure that taxpayers' money is well spent. The people who are responsible for these decisions know they will be held accountable in the case of misuse or abuse.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:05:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I hope the government holds itself accountable.
The arrive scam merely scratches the surface of the rot and corruption in the NDP-Liberal government. Its procurement system is seriously flawed and broken. For example, it paid KPMG, a consulting company, almost 700,000 taxpayer dollars to learn how to cut back on consultants. One cannot make up this lunacy. It has learned nothing.
The question is simple: In the budget next week, will we see a cut to all of the corruption?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:06:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as our colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, has said repeatedly, repeating falsehoods does not make those falsehoods true. What the members opposite should know, however, is that the Auditor General tabled an important report just a few weeks ago, which found that rules were not followed by a few public servants. Fortunately, many of these rules have been updated, and regulations and expectations around the use of those rules have been clearly communicated to all relevant public servants.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:06:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, workers in Vaughan—Woodbridge and across the country have been clear that the sustainable jobs act is critical to ensuring they have the tools and skills they need to build up our net-zero future, from greener buildings to electric vehicles and clean energy. The tens of thousands of Conservative amendments on this legislation are designed to block this bill and block workers from getting a seat at the table.
Can the Minister of Energy tell the House why we are here fighting for workers today?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:07:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today we are in the House fighting for workers and communities in Canada, so we can create sustainable jobs moving forward. We will grow the economy and we will fight climate change. Standing in the way of workers is the Conservative leader, a proud supporter of notorious anti-worker legislation, including Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. His plan for Canada is to cut investments, to let our economy fall behind and to let the planet burn.
Our plan will ensure we are building an economy in which Canadian workers and Canadian communities will win, and we will vote as many times as it takes to get it done.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:08:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today I met with Mansour Shouman, a Palestinian Canadian who risked his life to report on the devastation and horror of the war in Gaza. Weeks ago, the Liberals promised to stop selling military goods to Netanyahu and to sanction extremists. As innocent children continue to die, the Liberals have not issued export notices or announced sanctions. This is a betrayal of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who want peace for Palestinians and Israelis.
We need a two-way arms embargo and sanctions. How many more people will die before the government acts?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:08:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost I would like to say that I have talked to the mother of Mansour Shouman many times, as he was obviously struggling in Gaza, and we made sure that he could come safely back home, working with the Minister of Immigration on this very issue.
Second, on the question of Israel, Hamas and the war, of course we know that the situation in Gaza is completely catastrophic and the violence must stop. We need a ceasefire now. We need to make sure that hostages are released. We need humanitarian aid to go in, and my colleague already knows that when it comes to arms, we have not sent arms—
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:09:26 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Kitchener Centre has the floor.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:09:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it has been two years since the government committed $1.5 billion to build co-op housing across the country, yet two years later, instead of returning to annual predictable investments in deeply affordable co-op housing, this one-time program has not even launched. Instead, last week we heard more announcements while thousands of shovel-ready co-op projects are still waiting.
What is the point of making announcements, if they are not going spend the money, and when will the minister commit to these much-needed co-op homes being built?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:10:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, whether it is co-op housing, missing middle housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes or mid-rise apartments, the focus of the government is building more and dealing with that crisis in supply. This is what the government is seized with.
In fact, I recently met with the federation responsible for co-op housing and its advocacy in this country. They remarked how happy they were with the progress that has been made. Of course, there is more to do, but lifting the GST off that type of construction is something that I point out to the member as well. There is a larger context here, as well, to pay attention to. We are getting it done. We are getting that work done. We are going to see more building.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:11:12 p.m.
- Watch
I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 26, 2024, by the House leader of the official opposition, concerning the alleged premature disclosure of Bill C-63, an act to enact the online harms act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and an act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.
The opposition House leader claimed that the bill's contents had been leaked to the media, as evidenced in two separate reports from CBC and CTV News. Pointing to the anonymous quotes in the news reports, he concluded his remarks by positing that the information was leaked intentionally, knowing that it was wrong. In doing so, it breached the rights of members of Parliament and the House.
For his part, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that the envisioned legislation's objectives were widely known and already in the public domain long before the bill was placed on notice and introduced, given the government's prior commitments and extensive public consultations. Furthermore, the parliamentary secretary emphatically rejected the allegations that the government had shared the bill before it was introduced.
The House leader of the official opposition is correct in asserting that there are abundant precedents that once a bill is placed on notice, its contents are not to be disclosed prior to introduction, thus ensuring that members have the first opportunity to take note of the bill. The premature disclosure of bills has usually been seen as a contempt of the House.
I will invite MPs to please take their conversations outside of the House, including the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.
In a ruling on October 4, 2010, which can be found at page 4711 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken stated, and I quote:
It is indisputable that it is a well-established practice and accepted convention that this House has the right of first access to the text of bills it will consider.
On the substantive matter raised in this question of privilege, as members know, the policy direction leading to a government bill is not typically developed in the strict isolation of a government department. Prior to the putting on notice and introduction of most modern legislation, extensive consultations and public debate frequently occur for months or even years. Past precedents from the Chair address this reality, and Bill C-63 seems to be another example of that pattern.
On June 8, 2017, Speaker Regan emphasized the need for balance between members' right to have the first opportunity to see the bill and the need for prior public consultation. He said, at page 12320 of the Debates:
The right of the House to first access to legislation is one of our oldest conventions. It does and must, however, coexist with the need of governments to consult widely, with the public and stakeholders alike, on issues and policies in the preparation of legislation.
In the same ruling, Speaker Regan indicated that the denial of a premature disclosure of the bill by the government, and the absence of evidence that members were impeded in the performance of their parliamentary duties, had led him to find that the matter was not a prima facie case of privilege.
Having reviewed the contents of the bill against what was reported in the media, and considering the assurance given by the parliamentary secretary that the government did not share the text of the bill between its placement on notice and its introduction, it cannot be determined that the information that appeared in the news media necessarily came from a premature disclosure of the bill by so-called senior government sources.
The title of the bill, combined with the various sources of information mentioned above, such as background information provided during the consultation process, could have easily informed as to the specific objectives of the bill. There is a plausible argument to be made that the scope, objectives and targets of the bill were known prior to its being placed on notice and introduced.
Not being able to say with certainty that the information in the media reports came from the bill itself, I cannot determine that any member was impeded in the carrying out of their parliamentary duties, or that the dignity of the House was transgressed. As such, the Chair cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege.
That being said, the Chair shares the members' concerns when detailed information on proposed legislation, whether accurate or not, appears in media stories prior to their introduction.
It casts doubt on the role and predominance of Parliament in the legislative process and may lead to—
Order. I am going to remind all members that one of the fundamental rules of being a member and being a Speaker in this House is that members are not to question or to insult the Speaker, unless they are doing it through a motion which would call into question the Speaker's role. I would like to remind all members about this fundamental rule. I know that I have had some conversations with members in the past about this.
I will continue.
It casts doubt on the role and predominance of Parliament in the legislative process and may lead to understandable frustration.
I thank all members for their attention.
908 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:18:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there is any point in asking the Thursday question, because the calendar seems to change at a moment's notice, but if the government House leader would like to give us something we can hope for next week, I will let him do so now.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:18:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, with whom we have, of course, ongoing co-operation and good work.
I can assure the hon. member that we will continue today with the report stage of Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, despite the 20,000 automated, AI-generated robo-amendments that the Conservatives put up to obstruct this bill. We will take up third reading debate on that bill on Monday.
On Tuesday, we will commence second reading debate on Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare.
The budget presentation will take place later that afternoon, at 4 p.m., with the first day of debate on the budget taking place on Thursday of next week.
On Wednesday, we hope to resume debate on second reading of Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands.
Lastly, on Friday, we will resume debate on the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.
I thank all members for their co-operation.
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:19:58 p.m.
- Watch
I am rising on the question of privilege with respect to the government's response to my question on the Order Paper.
On February 14, I submitted an Order Paper question, Question No. 2340, seeking an answer to the following:
With regard to federal investments in Canada’s grocery sector since January 1, 2006: how much federal funding has been provided to (i) Loblaws, (ii) Metro, (iii) Walmart, (iv) Sobeys, (v) Costco, broken down by company, year, and type of funding?
On Monday, the government tabled its response to my written question stating that “with regard to federal investments in Canada’s grocery sector since January 1, 2006, no federal funding has been provided to” those companies I listed above.
That answer was provided by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and it contains his signature. However, we know that this answer is disingenuous.
On April 9, 2019, it was reported that Loblaws received $12 million to install new energy-efficient refrigerators. That money was doled out as a part of the low-carbon economy challenge champion stream, a part of the low-carbon economy leadership fund. That certainly sounds like a type of federal funding to which my question very specifically sought an answer about. Catherine McKenna, the Liberal environment minister at the time, was even quoted in the media defending the government's decision to award this enormous sum of money to Loblaws.
In light of this, it is abundantly clear that the government's response provided by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry is inaccurate and misleading to Parliament. The spirit of my written question was to find out how many federal tax dollars had been doled out to some of the wealthiest corporations in the country, companies that have been price-gouging Canadians when they shop for food to feed themselves. I should note that this was my second attempt at seeking an answer to this important question. The earlier attempt, having been in the form of a written question, was submitted back on December 12, 2023, to which I received the exact same disingenuous response.
Clearly, this is evidence of a problem. Why does the government believe it can mislead parliamentarians with impunity?
A lot of my work, and indeed the work of all members of Parliament, in this place very much depends on truthful and accurate answers to our questions. It is what allows us to be able to do our jobs not only to hold the government to account but also to appropriately represent our constituents.
I hope, in light of this intervention, that the Chair will review this serious matter and will make the appropriate ruling to prevent this from happening in the future.
458 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
