Debates of April 23rd, 2013

Public Safety

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the RCMP announced the arrest of two individuals for a series of terrorism-related charges. RCMP Superintendent Doug Best said, “This is the first known al Qaeda-planned attack that we have experienced in Canada.”

Could the Minister of Public Safety please comments on these significant events?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the first job of any government is to keep Canadians safe from those to wish to harm us, and this is a responsibility our government takes very seriously.

Terrorism is not an academic issue that only impacts other countries around the world; there is a very real threat to Canada.

I would like to thank the Muslim community for its co-operation with law enforcement, and I would like to thank the RCMP, CSIS and our security agencies, including agencies in the United States and particularly the FBI, for their good work to keep us all safe from those who wish to harm us.

Canadian Heritage

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill to create the Canadian Museum of History was introduced in November. It has not been passed yet, but the Conservatives have already spent $1 million to rebrand the Museum of Civilization. What is even more unacceptable is the lack of consideration for the employees. Since the Conservatives made the announcement, a dozen union jobs have been eliminated and several dozen more are in jeopardy.

Why are the Conservatives making these changes to the Museum of Civilization? Are they committed to protecting the jobs at the museum?

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, staffing decisions made internally within a museum are up to the museum board and management.

The NDP, time and again over the years, has condemned this government for not investing enough in culture, and here we are trying to invest $25 million to build up the largest museum in all of Canada and to create the Canadian Museum of History.

Unlike the New Democrats, we are proud of Canada's history. We want to promote Canada's history and have a better understanding of Canada's history in our schools, and this museum will be something incredibly special as we head toward Canada's 150th birthday.

Rather than criticizing spending money on our largest national museum, the hon. member should be applauding it and getting on board with upgrading Canadian history.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a month ago, the immigration minister promised measures to help people trying to flee from the war in Syria. Absolutely nothing has been done since then. Yet, Canadian citizens are still living amongst bombs, because the government refuses to grant visas to their children or parents who do not have Canadian citizenship. Refugees are trying without success to join their families here in Canada and in Quebec. People who are members of persecuted minorities are trying in vain to leave Syria. What is Canada doing for these people? Nothing.

Will the immigration minister do more than simply spew empty rhetoric and make false promises to Canada's Syrian community? Will he take real action to save the lives of these women and children whose communities are being bombed?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but the hon. member is wrong to say that this government has not taken any action.

Indeed, we have expedited family reunification for Canadians who have family in Syria. As for the issue of resettling refugees, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has asked Canada and other countries not to begin a resettlement program because it is more important to focus efforts on the urgent need to provide care to refugees currently living near Syria.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Glen Abernethy, the Northwest Territories' Minister of Justice, Minister of Public Works and Services, Minister of Human Resources and Minister Responsible for the Public Utilities Board.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

S. O. 31—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 26 by the member for Langley regarding the presentation of a member's statement pursuant to Standing Order 31.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Langley for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Chief Government Whip, the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition, the hon. House Leader of the Liberal Party, and the members for Vegreville—Wainwright, Saanich—Gulf Islands, Lethbridge, Winnipeg South, Edmonton—St. Albert, Brampton West, Kitchener Centre, New Brunswick Southwest, Wellington—Halton Hills, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, Medicine Hat, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Halifax, and Thunder Bay—Superior North for their comments.

In raising his question of privilege, the member for Langley explained that, shortly before he was to rise during statements by members on March 20, he was notified by his party that he could no longer make his statement because, as he put it, “the topic was not approved”. In making his case, he argued that the privilege of freedom of speech is designed to allow members to discharge their responsibility to ensure that their constituents are represented.

While the member accepted the practice of parties submitting lists of members to the Speaker, he objected to this being managed in such a way that the equal right to speak could be removed. He stated, “If at any time that right and privilege to make an S. O. 31 on an equal basis in this House is removed, I believe I have lost my privilege of equal right that I have in this House”. He further argued that, ultimately, it is only the Speaker who has the authority to remove a member's opportunity to speak and that the equal opportunity of every member to make statements pursuant to Standing Order 31 must be guaranteed.

In his intervention, the Chief Government Whip reminded the House that all recognized parties resort to the use of speaking lists and that, “The practice for many years in the House is for the Speaker to follow the guidance provided by the parties...”. He added that since the preparation of lists is an internal affair of party caucuses, it is not something the Speaker ought to get involved in.

For his part, the House Leader of the Official Opposition suggested there exists a role for the Speaker in regulating the natural tension between members and their parties, and the right to speak in Parliament. He went further, saying, “The issue is the need for members of Parliament to speak freely on behalf of those whom we seek to represent” and in support of this view, he cited House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, which states at page 89:

By far, the most important right afforded to members of the House is the exercise of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings.

However, he also noted that, with the entrenchment of the practice whereby whips determine which of their members will speak and the concurrent absence of a Standing Order explicitly allowing the Speaker to intervene in that process, he questioned whether the will and support of the House would be required before the Chair could do so.

Several other members intervened in support of the member for Langley, while another echoed the comments of the Chief Government Whip. For his part, the member for New Brunswick Southwest suggested that I should expand my review of this matter to include lists not just for statements by members but also for question period.

I wish to begin by reminding the House of the role of the Chair in determining matters of privilege. O’Brien-Bosc, at page 141, states:

Great importance is attached to matters involving privilege. …The function of the Speaker is limited to deciding whether the matter is of such a character as to entitle the member who has raised the question to move a motion which will have priority over orders of the day; that is, in the Speaker’s opinion, there is a prima facie question of privilege. If there is, the House must take the matter into immediate consideration. Ultimately, it is the House which decides whether a breach of privilege or a contempt has been committed.

I also wish to address what seems to be a widespread misconception about the role of the Speaker in matters of this kind. Several members have used sports analogies to describe me as a referee or a league convener. Perhaps there are elements of a referee role for the Speaker, but with one important difference: there is no league that appoints the Speaker to enforce rules from on high in a vacuum. Instead, here in the House of Commons, the members elect a Speaker from among the membership to apply rules they themselves have devised and can amend. Thus, it is only with the active participation of the members themselves that the Speaker, who requires the support and goodwill of the House in order to carry out the duties of the office, can apply the rules.

As is stated in O'Brien and Bosc, at page 307:

Despite the considerable authority of the office, the Speaker may exercise only those powers conferred upon him or her by the House, within the limits established by the House itself.

In making their arguments in this case, several members have correctly pointed out the fundamental importance of freedom of speech for members as they carry out their duties. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 89 refers to the freedom of speech of members as:

...a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents.

The Speaker's role in safeguarding this very privilege is set out in O'Brien and Bosc at page 308. “The duty of the Speaker is to ensure that the right of Members to free speech is protected and exercised to the fullest possible extent...”.

This last citation is particularly important since it highlights a key reality, namely that there are inherent limits to the privilege of freedom of speech. Aside from the well-known prohibitions on unparliamentary language, the need to refer to other members by title, the rules on repetition and relevance, the sub judice constraints and other limitations designed to ensure that discourse is conducted in a civil and courteous manner, the biggest limitation of all is the availability of time.

I need not remind the House that each and every sitting day, a vast majority of members are not able to make a statement pursuant to Standing Order 31 as there simply is not enough time available. It is likely for this reason that the standing order states that members “may”, not shall, be recognized to make statements. Hence, while many members in this instance have spoken of the right to speak, the member for Langley acknowledged this inherent limitation and spoke more precisely of the equal right to speak. It is this qualifier of rights—equity—that carries great significance, and to which the Chair must play close attention.

Put another way, the Chair is being asked by the member for Langley whether the practice of whips providing the Speaker with the names of members who are to be recognized to speak during statements by members represents an unjust limitation on his freedom to speak, to the extent that such opportunities are not afforded to him on an equitable basis.

There is no denying that close collaboration has developed over time between the Chair and party whips to find ways to use the time of the House as efficiently as possible and to ensure that all parties are treated equitably in apportioning speaking time. In some cases—the timing of recorded divisions comes to mind—the Standing Orders enshrine a specific role for the whips. In other cases, there is no standing order, but rather a body of practice that the House follows and that evolves over time.

A reading of the history of members' statements at pages 420 to 422 in O'Brien and Bosc tells us that our practice in that regard has had to adjust and respond to changing circumstances on more than one occasion, with each practice enduring only so long as it matched its era and the will of the House.

By 1982, it had settled into what we know it to be today—that is, the order and number of slots to be allotted to members of different political affiliations are agreed upon by the parties at the beginning of a Parliament and adjusted from time to time as necessary. Then, at each sitting, the names of members who are to fill the designated speaking slots are provided to the Speaker by the whips of the different recognized parties and by the independent members. Even if not enshrined in the Standing Orders, generally the House has been well served by this collaboration, and the lists have helped the Chair to preside over this portion of each sitting day in an orderly fashion.

However, does this mean that the Chair has ceded its authority to decide which members are to be recognized? To answer this question, it is perhaps useful to review the history of the lists, which were first used for question period in the 1970s.

At page 61 in his memoir, Mr. Speaker, in which he describes his time in the Chair, Speaker Jerome explains that he was comfortable using a party's suggested lists “...so long as it didn't unfairly squeeze out their backbench”.

In a June 19, 1991, ruling found at page 2072 of the Debates, Speaker Fraser was even more categorical about the authority of the Chair. In response to a member who asked if the Chair was bound to follow a set list in recognizing members, he said:

I appreciate the hon. member's intervention and my answer is yes, there is a list. I am not bound by it. I can ignore that list and intervene to allow private members, wherever they are, not only to ask questions but also to ask supplementals. That is a right which remains with the Chair and I do not think it has ever been seriously challenged. I would remind all hon. members that it is a right which the Chair has had almost since: “The memory of man runneth not to the contrary”.

The authority the Speaker has in this regard is likewise described in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 318, which states:

No Member may speak in the House until called upon or recognized by the Speaker; any Member so recognized may speak during debate, questions and comments periods, Question Period, and other proceedings of the House. Various conventions and informal arrangements exist to encourage the participation of all parties in debate; nevertheless, the decision as to who may speak is ultimately the Speaker's.

It further states on page 595:

Although the Whips of the various parties each provide the Chair with a list of Members wishing to speak, the Chair is not bound by these.

Similarly, Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Sixth Edition, on page 137, states that

…the Speaker is the final authority on the order of speaking.

I myself have seen fit from time to time to deviate from the lists, usually in an effort to preserve order and decorum during statements by members and question period.

Accordingly, the Chair has to conclude, based on this review of our procedural authorities and other references, that its authority to decide who is recognized to speak is indisputable and has not been trumped by the use of lists, as some members seemed to suggest.

I might add as an aside that the use of lists in general has inadvertently created an ongoing problem for the Chair. In some cases, members do not stand to be recognized because they are on a list and thus think they will automatically be recognized when their turn comes around. As Acting Speaker Bob Kilger put in a statement found at page 3925 of the Debates on May 5, 1994:

We speak about or refer to these unofficial lists that we have, which are somewhat helpful at times, but in the end members seeking the floor of course are those who will be recognized by the Chair.

Thus, the need to “catch the Speaker’s eye”, as it is called, continues to underpin the Chair’s authority in this respect.

Members are free, for instance, to seek the floor under questions and comments at any time to make their views known. They are also free at any time to seek the floor to intervene in debate itself on a bill or motion before the House. Ultimately, it is up to each individual member to decide how frequently he or she wishes to seek the floor, knowing that being recognized by the Speaker is not always a guaranteed proposition.

The right to seek the floor at any time is the right of each individual member of Parliament and is not dependent on any other member of Parliament.

On the narrow question of the removal of the member for Langley from his party’s lineup for statements by members on March 20, the Chair cannot conclude that there is a prima facie finding of privilege. No evidence has been presented to me that the member has been systematically prevented from seeking the floor. The Chair has found that the member for Langley has been active under several rubrics since the beginning of this Parliament. He has made statements under statements by members on a variety of subjects, has presented petitions, has made speeches and risen on questions and comments under government orders, has made speeches under private members’ business and has risen in question period. As I said earlier, he has remained free to seek the floor at any time, like all other members.

However, on the broader question of the equitable distribution of statements by members, a review of the statistics reveals that the member may well have a legitimate concern. This goes to the unquestionable duty of the Speaker to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of members and of the House as an institution. This includes ensuring that, over time, no member wishing to speak is unfairly prevented from doing so.

Even so, as Speaker I cannot exercise my discretion as to which member to recognize during statements by members or at any other time of the sitting day if only one member is rising to be recognized. As previously mentioned, due to an overreliance on lists, more often than should be the case, even those members on the list do not always rise to be recognized.

Were the Chair to be faced with choices of which member to recognize at any given time, then of course the Chair would exercise its discretion. However, that has not happened thus far during statements by members, nor, for that matter, during question period. Until it does, the Chair is not in a position to unilaterally announce or dictate a change in our practices. If members want to be recognized, they will have to actively demonstrate that they wish to participate. They have to rise in their places and seek the floor.

In the meantime, I will continue to be guided by the lists that are provided to me and, when and if members are competing for the floor, will exercise my authority to recognize members, not in a cavalier or uninformed manner but rather in a balanced way that respects both the will of the House and the rights of individual members.

I would like to thank all honourable members for their attention during this rather lengthy ruling.

Motion No. 20

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

moved that a ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013, and other measures, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #664

Ways and Means

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act be read the third time and passed.

Combating Terrorism Act

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address the Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act, better known now as Bill S-7, Combating Terrorism Act.

I must admit that, last Friday, I was somewhat surprised, like everyone else in the House, by the move made by the Leader of the Government in the House. He informed us that two opposition days—one for the Liberal Party on Monday and one for the New Democratic Party on Tuesday—would be postponed, in order to resume dealing with Bill S-7.

I was surprised considering the government's usual routine with the orders of the day, and the debates of the past few weeks and months. We knew that Bill S-7 was on the Order Paper and that, some day, it would resume its normal course.

Bill S-7 originated in the Senate. I already said this regarding other issues: When the government has extremely important bills, it usually tables them under the letter “C”, followed by a number. This bill was introduced through the back door, through the Senate, which is made up of friends of those in power and of unelected people.

That was disturbing. However, it sent the message that, perhaps, the bill is not as important as the government is saying it is now.

Bill S-7 went through the Senate, which took a certain time. I believe it was tabled or passed in the Senate in February 2012, and it then made its way to the House. It was studied in committee and referred back to us in March if I am not mistaken. We had time for a speech at third reading. That speech was delivered by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, following the committee's report. After that, the bill was put somewhere. We knew it would come back here within a few weeks, months or years. We never really know with the Conservatives.

Then, surprise, surprise, on Friday, the Leader of the Government in the House rose as if there was a great need to hurry. He decided to put Bill S-7 on the orders of the day for debate.

Bill S-7 is a response to the events of 2001. It existed in another form and had been passed by the Liberal government of the day, in the aftermath of the events of September 11.

Terrible events such as September 11 or those more recently in Boston create a state of panic and terror.

People who want to combat terrorism, are people who have experienced terror. That is the power these terrorists have over people. They hope that the moments of terror they create will force people to change their behaviour and will make them lose their sense of safety. When terrorists achieve that, they have accomplished their mission.

It is the government's job to ensure that the public is safe. I would say that being healthy is certainly important, but more important than any other need on this planet, feeling safe is probably one of the most important feelings we have as humans. One of the government's responsibilities is to ensure that safety through reasonable, legal means.

The problem with laws that are passed in the wake of particularly sensational events is that they can have unintended consequences. Sometimes, they represent an improvement because we have learned from dramatic events. Sometimes, however, we overreact and need to make adjustments along the way.

Very wisely, the government at the time passed the legislation with the realization that certain provisions could pose problems in terms of individual rights and freedoms. We cannot take away the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens—as my Conservative colleagues so often say—just because of a small number of terrorists. These measures cannot be implemented to the detriment of honest people who obey the law and who live according to society's rules.

At the time, knowing that the bill was being passed quickly and in response to specific problems, the government included a sunset clause, which imposed a deadline and made the clauses contained in Bill S-7 temporary measures. It meant that the bill would have to be revisited to determine if it had been useful and to draw conclusions about the events.

The current government may be a bit frustrated right now, but the opposition is also very frustrated about the way the Conservative government plays its role as legislator. I am not very sympathetic to the government's frustration because, to some extent, the government brought this on itself. The government is frustrated by some statements. It is frustrated that the media and the official opposition are currently casting doubt on its motives for introducing Bill S-7. A distinction must be made because members can oppose the actual content of the bill or the way it is being addressed or passed through the House of Commons.

I must admit that it certainly reeked of opportunism when the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons suddenly announced after question period last Friday that we had to pass Bill S-7. We are talking about the message that the government is trying to send.

In passing, I am extremely surprised that the members of the Liberal Party are not rising to oppose this type of bill because, since the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they have always been the self-appointed gatekeepers of the charter, and probably with good reason. I am extremely surprised that they are not rising with the members of the NDP to speak out against some of the major concerns raised by this bill.

I would like to come back to the government's frustration. It is so rare for the government to be frustrated. The Conservatives have a majority and so they are free to do what they want in terms of their agenda. Perhaps that is why they are not being taken very seriously when it comes to Bill S-7. Since they have been in office, they have had plenty of time to pass this bill. However, they are using the current situation to score political points and to try to pass a bill that would normally be difficult to pass or would be negatively perceived. In my opinion, this is as despicable as it gets.

I will come back to my main point. The role of Canada's Parliament is to ensure, to the extent possible, that Canadians across the country feel safe in this very special place. We must have a set of rules and laws in order to provide our police forces with the tools they need. However, I realize that our police forces and our special counter-terrorism units already have many tools available, including the Criminal Code, in order to deal with events like the ones that occurred yesterday—namely, the press conference and the arrest of two alleged terrorists who were threatening the security of Canadians—and the events involving the group known as the Toronto 18.

I am not sure that Bill S-7 would have resulted in a different response to the situation.

In closing, we should perhaps say to the government that if it truly wants to stop terrorism, it must provide not just the legislative tools but also the people on the ground, which means more police officers and counter-terrorism units. That takes money. The Minister of Public Safety must stop cutting those budgets.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that the Conservative government needs to have more boots on the ground. We have seen, through a series of budget cuts, that those numbers are down significantly. We share the concern of the NDP.

Having said that, one of the concerns I have is the position of the New Democrats with respect to the Charter. They are saying that they are concerned about the rights of the individual.

I reflected earlier today on Bill C-55, which had similarities in terms of principles. The Supreme Court of Canada, in both cases, made a declaration that they are both constitutionally correct, implying that they should be made law. It even had a deadline.

Does the member see the consistency between Bill C-55 and Bill S-7? Why is it that the New Democrats would vote in favour of one but be opposed to the other? Could the member provide some clarity on that?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

Bill C-55 satisfied the Supreme Court's demands word for word. For once, the government resisted the urge to go too far. It chose individual rights over all-out accessibility and going after people who might be dealing with certain situations.

So, with Bill C-55, the government showed tremendous restraint. The same cannot be said about Bill S-7.

My colleague from Toronto—Danforth and his colleagues on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security did a great job examining Bill S-7 and highlighting how the arrest provisions, which the government would like to see as preventive, were vague. This certainly leaves us wondering. Someone could be accused of being directly or indirectly linked to an act, even though that person may be innocent. As everyone knows, when a tragedy occurs, at some point, well-meaning people see things that might not necessarily be there. Some people might find themselves in truly tragic situations, with extremely vague rights.

The NDP members asked the government another question. I encourage my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North to consult the evidence from that committee and he will see that the Conservative member replied very clearly that, on the contrary, the government wanted to keep this as vague and as broad as possible.

In terms of arrest, detention and interrogation, when people who have been arrested do not know what is going on or what they are alleged to have done, we need to err on the side of caution, while still thinking about public safety. These two aspects can be reconciled in a legal manner that respects our charter.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was excellent, as always.

I would like to hear her thoughts on the government's habit of reacting to specific events by introducing a bill. This is very opportunistic. She mentioned that in her speech.

Could the member talk more about the fact that the government is using specific events to change laws? These laws apply to all Canadians, they will apply for years to come and they will have repercussions. As a legislator, it is trying to react only to specific events. The government is also trying to be opportunistic by using such events to advance its own ideologies. Why do we need to be wary of this kind of approach?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Gatineau has 40 seconds to respond.