- Member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
- Liberal
- Winnipeg North
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77
- Government Page
- May/8/24 8:53:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think it is important for us to note that we have some incredible civil servants that perform amazing work in protecting our interests. I am thinking of the Communications Security Establishment, which, from what I understand, shared the information with House of Commons officials shortly after receiving the information back in June 2022.
I think it is important that we do not try to give the impression that no one knew about this, that the issue was, in fact, being addressed, at least in good part, with true and good intentions.
The member was on the committee, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. I do not know how often the committee meets or anything of this nature. Did the committee ever discuss the issue that the member raised as a privilege?
Maybe one can just give us some background on the feedback he has had from other committee members because I believe it is a certain number of countries. I am not too sure about the association. Maybe one can tell us a little bit more about the association and what discussions they have had on this issue.
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/1/24 6:24:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to the question of privilege raised on April 29 by the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan regarding the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. I would like to offer some clarification as it is critically important that members have the facts about and chronology of this matter.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 12:58:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege from the member for La Prairie with respect to announcing certain policy initiatives.
Page 899 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, “Speakers have maintained that [budget] secrecy is a matter of parliamentary convention rather than one of privilege.” On November 18, 1981, in relation to budget secrecy, Speaker Sauvé noted, “[budget] secrecy has no impact on the privileges of a member”, and goes on to say, “but [further]...has nothing to do with [the] privilege.”
The House will have opportunities to consider the budget when it is properly before the House. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has announced that she will be presenting the budget to the House at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, April 16. Following the presentation of the budget, the House will have four days of debate, and the opposition parties will be able to move an amendment and a subamendment to the budget motion. Following a vote on the main motion for the budget, the House will consider a ways and means motion, and, following its adoption, will see the introduction of the budget implementation bill.
Where privilege arises is the period between when notice is given of the budget bill and its subsequent introduction. However, if the measures to be contained in the budget implementation bill are tabled in the form of a notice of ways and means motion while the bill is on notice, members of the House will already have the contents of the budget implementation bill to consider, which by its very tabling in the House of Commons obviates the ability to raise an associated question of privilege.
Budget secrecy is a matter of convention. The executive has the right and the ability to communicate with Canadians about proposed budget measures in advance of the tabling of the budget. This represents the fundamental right of the duly elected government to present its plan to Canadians about how it will help them, as is the case with the Speech from the Throne.
These are policy proposals, and their announcement does not, in any way, interfere with the rights of the members of the House. The matter in no way interferes with the rights and privileges of members, as has been established by precedent. Perhaps it is due to the popularity of the proposals with the public that the member may seem be taking some offence.
420 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 11:33:42 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to approach today's privilege motion in a couple of ways. The first is to deal with the seriousness of what has been raised over the last couple of days. I like to consider myself, first and foremost, a parliamentarian and someone who truly believes in the parliamentary process.
Winston Churchill often spoke about how difficult things can be at times in a Parliament, but I believe, as he believed, that it is the best system in the world. When I think about what we do here in Ottawa, it is not just what takes place on the floor of the House of Commons. We have a number of standing committees that meet on an ongoing basis and that do a great deal of positive, encouraging work. It does not happen all the time, but I would suggest it happens quite often. Through that, the committees do a great service for Canadians.
The NDP House leader made reference to the price of groceries. As a government, we are concerned about the issue of affordability for Canadians. It is one reason we wanted the big five grocers to go before a standing committee. Standing committees are a wonderful mechanism and can be utilized in many different ways, such as budgetary issues, legislative issues or issues of interest to a particular standing committee.
Let us put this into the perspective of what took place during the pandemic itself. When we had the worldwide pandemic, the Prime Minister made it very clear to all Canadians that we would have their backs going through that difficult time. There was a great deal of tax dollars being spent. At the beginning, it could be seen that there was virtually unanimous support for the government on a good portion of those expenditures.
We have, arguably, the best civil service in the world. We were able to put programs in place, such as the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, to provide disposable income for Canadians in every region of our country. We were able to develop programs such as loan subsidies, wage-loss programs, supports for seniors, supports for individuals with disabilities and supports for organizations that were helping Canadians through a very difficult time during the pandemic. There were hundreds of millions of dollars, billions, being spent. It was a whole lot of money to ensure that the civil servants, the contractors and the places we were acquiring the products from, like vaccines and masks, could protect the health and interests of Canadians and our economy.
An overwhelming majority of the work, I would argue that it was over 95%, was done in such a manner that we can all take a great deal of satisfaction in how the Government of Canada stepped up to the plate. By doing that, Canada was one of the first countries not only to get out of the pandemic in decent shape, but also to rebound to the degree to which we have seen well over a million jobs generated, which is higher than the prepandemic levels. That was because we had the backs of Canadians.
When that kind of money is spent and those types of programs are developed, one can anticipate that there are going to be some mistakes. We have before us an excellent example of where there has been abuse. We now have, through ArriveCAN, a high level of interest from members on all sides of the House. I am concerned about it, and I am a Liberal. All members are concerned about tax dollars.
Quite frankly, if one reads the speech by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, then one would think that the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister and the ministers are 100% at fault and are to blame. The member likes to tie the word “corrupt” to it, if one were to read his speech. I would argue that he did a disservice to the House.
Let me give a good example of that. I want to talk about the ETS scandal that the NDP House leader raised. For those who are following the debate, we need to appreciate that within the civil service there are protocols and processes put into place to protect the taxpayer. There is nothing new there. In fact, not only did we have those types of protocols in place but so did Stephen Harper. One will find that those are put into place to protect the interests of not only the taxpayers, but also, in fact, all Canadians. The ETS scandal took place around 2007, and we are talking again about the public service and contracts to the tune of $400 million.
I liked it when the NDP House leader made reference to the fact that there was a majority government under Stephen Harper, versus the minority situation that we are in. In a minority situation, a party has to have a majority in order to get things through. It does not mean that we are not interested in getting accountability. Whether we have a majority or a minority, I think the interest level is still there. It is a good comparison to look back at 2007. Where were the Conservatives back then when they had, using their words, a $400-million scandal at the time? One company in particular had thousands of dollars in bid-rigging fines.
That was a Harper scandal. I could stand up and say “Harper scandal” enough in the hopes that it would get portrayed. It is a little unfair, quite frankly. I do believe there should have been a public inquiry on the issue, given the very nature of what had taken place. When some companies are being fined literally thousands and thousands of dollars, and there is an admission of bid rigging, then, I think there is some justification for an inquiry. The former prime minister, at that time, rolled over it.
Here is the reason I wanted to bring that up. If we look not that long ago in our history, the current leader of the Conservative Party was actually the parliamentary secretary to the president of the Treasury Board during that $400-million scandal. We have the leader of the Conservative Party today being critical of the government of today, and he was responsible, at least in part, as the Treasury Board parliamentary secretary, and chose to do absolutely nothing on the $400 million. That $400 million, in 2007, was worth a lot more than $400 million today.
Take a look at the overall expenditure in terms of contracts back then compared to today and what we did during the pandemic. This issue came up as a direct result of the government being genuinely concerned and providing the types of services that were necessary to have the backs of Canadians. Then, the Conservatives find this issue that we want to get to the bottom of, and we will get to the bottom of it.
At the same time, the lead critic, the leader of the Conservative Party, feels that he can go out and about, calling this a $60-million scandal and trying to tie it directly to the Prime Minister. I suggest the member is living in a glass house. He should go to the washroom, where he might find a mirror. He should look at his reflection and think about what he did when he was the parliamentary secretary of the Treasury Board, which provides the rules, at least in good part, that ensure things of this nature do not happen. What did he do at that time? I would love to hear the Conservatives talk about the ETS scandal and remind the House what their leader did and what his contribution was.
I did not get a chance to look over Hansard from back then. I would not be surprised if today's Conservative leader said no to looking into the matter at hand at that time, although he supported it going through the court process, no doubt. I do not know that for sure. As I said, I have not gone back into Hansard.
Hansard will show how many times I have stood in the chamber to say that the Conservative Party's sole focus is not about Canadians or having the backs of Canadians. It is about character assassination and looking for bumper stickers for votes. That is the Conservative Party of today. If members doubt what I am saying, they should read what the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes had to say when speaking about this motion for privilege.
We have what is arguably the best civil service in the world, with many countries around the world looking to Canada for ways they can duplicate many of the wonderful things that our civil servants provide to our citizens. However, I think we need to recognize that, sadly, we have some bad apples at times. We see that every so often. At times, unfortunately, that can lead to a substantial cost to the taxpayer.
The issue is what to do when that information becomes available. What I have seen is a government, at least in good part, wanting to get to the bottom of the issue. Whether it is from the individual minister, the many different caucus discussions that take place, or the debates that take place either here or at the standing committees, I can tell the House that the interest is there.
I started off talking about what I believe as a parliamentarian and the importance of the institution. When someone is invited to provide testimony before a committee, the expectation of every member in the House, all 338 members, should be that the witness will tell the truth and avoid playing games. We all know that politicians will play games at committees. At the end of the day, we want to ensure that those people who come before committees are providing nothing but the truth. There is clear evidence that that has not been the case in this situation, so what should we do as a House?
As I indicated earlier, the government is genuinely open to how we could best resolve the issue. Unfortunately, once again, this is costing taxpayers a great deal of money. We want to see justice on the issue. It goes beyond the issue of the day to include where we go from here.
The last time something of this nature was brought up was over 100 years ago. As has been pointed out by the NDP House leader, we did not have the modern chamber that we have today.
It is important that, if we are calling someone to the bar in a situation of this nature, we afford an opportunity for questions and answers. That is the reason we are looking for a way to ensure that there is strength in the precedent we are setting, whether for tomorrow or 10, 15 or 20 years from now, and that we have a much more modern process to ensure the importance of our standing committees and the House itself.
I want to see Mr. Firth called to the bar. I want members of Parliament to be able to ask questions and feel confident not only that those questions would be answered but also that the answers would be truthful.
I just want to emphasize that, at the end of the day, unfortunately, things of this nature do take place, and there is a need to have corrective action. That is what we are looking for.
On the issue of contracting out, for those who are following the debate, all legislatures, every province and all political parties, whether it is the national government or provincial governments, rely in part on contracting out. We all have mechanisms in place, protocols and so forth that need to be followed.
When a violation takes place, there has to be a certain level of comfort in knowing that there is going to be accountability for that. This is something that I want to see and that I know the government wants to see. At the end of the day, we look to the Speaker and, hopefully, the House leadership teams of the respective political parties to come up with some sort of consensus.
Let us put the Parliament and the interests of Parliament ahead of the politics. Even given my earlier comments, I believe that we can do that. On this particular issue, we need to start focusing on how we could improve the system. Unfortunately, things of this nature have happened in the past, and there is no absolute guarantee that we can prevent them in the future. However, there are actions we can take to ensure that any future non-compliance or violations could be marginalized or minimized. I am very interested in that, because every tax dollar is an important tax dollar, from my perspective.
At the end of the day, the government's expenses during the pandemic were well-justified, even recognizing the hope that we can get some of that money back. Canadians, as a whole, have been a beneficiary because of the government, and I should not just say “the government”, because we did have the support of other political entities for much of the expenditure we put forward during the pandemic.
2243 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 6:52:16 p.m.
- Watch
On a point of order, I have two quick things. One is dealing with the question of privilege. The other is just ensuring that we get to the Questions on the Order Paper.
I'd ask for leave to do so.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 4:07:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, given the nature of the privilege the member has raised, we will take it as notice and will provide comment in a relatively quick time span for you to make a decision.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 4:14:54 p.m.
- Watch
I would like to offer some input for the benefit of the Chair and for all hon. members. The revised answer that was just tabled is in response to a question of privilege raised by the member for Edmonton Strathcona last week respecting the answers provided to Order Paper Question No. 2070. The response contained inaccurate information because of an error in introducing the answer. I understand that, last Friday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs reached out to the member for Edmonton Strathcona to apologize on this issue.
I would like to thank my hon. colleagues for their understanding and to assure all hon. members that the government acknowledges and accepts that it is the right of members to have the best information available to do their important work.
Further, Madam Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 3:20:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I see that you were very generous in listening to what the member across the way was saying.
I had the opportunity to witness the exchange. From my perspective, it is very much a dispute over the facts at best. I would suggest that what was being suggested as a point of order or a matter of privilege is just a matter of debate that should have, in all likelihood, stayed inside the committee. I realize that the member might have been embarrassed, but it does not justify bringing it into the chamber.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 10:21:57 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the government House leader is responding to a question of privilege raised by the official opposition. I think he should be provided the amount of time and discretion needed in order to—
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:53:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is really important to recognize that there is no report from the standing committee. Therefore, it is questionable that the member would stand up and have a privilege issue when there does not seem to be any issue that he can raise.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:29:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member is out of order in terms of bringing forward his question of privilege. There is no committee report before the House to be able to raise the issue that he is, in fact, raising. Some might believe that the member is trying to filibuster.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 5:20:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, right offhand, I categorically deny what the member is trying to imply with his statement. However, I will take note of what the member has said and then come back to the House.
If we are going to continue to have this discussion, members should be better focused on what the privilege is.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:42:16 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, you requested that the member be concise, brief and to the point. I have listened, as you have, for the last minute, and I have no idea what point the member is making as a case of privilege. He is filibustering—
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:37:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not see the relevancy of the member rising on a matter of privilege when there has already been a ruling on the proper form and process for the legislation. The member is just dictating something from a standing committee of the House with one purpose, which is to test your patience.
That is what this is all about. The member is testing your patience to prevent you from beginning the formal process for the budget implementation bill. This is not a matter of privilege. The member could be far more concise in his question of privilege.
I would ask that you look at what the official opposition is attempting to do—
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:30:56 a.m.
- Watch
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
