House of Commons Hansard #138 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was csis.

Topics

JusticeOral Questions

November 4th, 2014 / 3 p.m.

Conservative

Rodney Weston Conservative Saint John, NB

Mr. Speaker, in June, Canadians across the country were shocked and horrified as they learned of the tragic and cowardly acts of violence carried out against RCMP officers in Moncton, New Brunswick.

Constables David Ross, Fabrice Georges Gevaudan and Douglas James Larche dedicated their lives to the protection and safety of their communities and paid the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

On Friday, the person responsible for these heinous crimes was given a life sentence, with no chance of parole for 75 years. Could the Minister of Justice please inform the House how this sentence was made possible?

JusticeOral Questions

3 p.m.

Central Nova Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Saint John will agree that the loved ones of these victims want assurances that our criminal justice system has the tools it requires to ensure that those who commit violent offences face the full force of the law.

In 2011, we passed legislation making it possible for judges to impose consecutive prison terms on individuals convicted of multiple murders. Friday's sentences are a result of that work. In fact, our government will continue to proudly stand up for all victims and those Canadians who abide the law.

EmploymentOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that in the past year 80% of the jobs that have been created are part-time jobs. He also knows there are 66% more Canadians working for minimum wage since his government took power. He should also know we have the third highest proportion of low-wage jobs among the richest countries in the world. This is nothing to be really proud of.

Is the minister not troubled that one in six Canadians who go to a food bank come from the working poor? Honest Canadians trying to feed their families are being forced to go to food banks. Does this not trouble him?

EmploymentOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism

Mr. Speaker, of course, we would all like not a single Canadian to be in need. The good news, however, is that we have seen the number of low-income families reduced under our government, particularly low-income families with children are down significantly since the previous Liberal government. This was underscored by none other than UNICEF last week, which commended Canada for world leadership in reducing child poverty.

The measures announced by the Prime Minister last week, the enormous enhancements to the universal child care benefit, will further assist low-income families by giving them benefits of up to $1,800 for each family member under the age of six.

Natural ResourcesOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, this week, a respected energy executive with 40 years of experience in the sector, including as a deputy minister, former CEO of BC Hydro and former chair of Manitoba Hydro, dropped out of the National Energy Board review of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, calling the process fraudulent and a public deception.

He is not the first to raise concerns about the weakened NEB review of Kinder Morgan. Why have the Conservatives created a project review process that shuts out community voices?

Natural ResourcesOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar Saskatchewan

Conservative

Kelly Block ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter for the independent National Energy Board. The National Energy Board must hear from those who are directly affected by a proposed project and may choose to hear from those with relevant expertise on the matter.

We have been clear. Projects will only proceed if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.

Veterans AffairsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB

Mr. Speaker, this Remembrance Day, who will you remember?

I for one will remember my great uncles, Robert and James Calkins, who are buried respectively in Italy and Korea. I will remember Byron Greff, the last soldier to die in Afghanistan. He was from my hometown of Lacombe, Alberta.

Would the Minister of Veterans Affairs please update the House on the new social media campaign “Who Will You Remember?”

Veterans AffairsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Vaughan Ontario

Conservative

Julian Fantino ConservativeMinister of Veterans Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his regard for our veterans. This Remembrance Day is an opportunity for Canadians, but especially members in this place, to join together to remember a friend, a family member, or whomever they know and respect who has and continues to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.

I encourage all members to put stories forward on their Facebook or Twitter accounts using #whodoyouremember.

I for one will remember those brave Canadian soldiers who liberated my hometown during the Second World War.

On this Remembrance Day, we will remember them.

Natural ResourcesOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, if we are to have a healthy debate on pipeline projects, people must have access to relevant documents in the official language of their choice. As has happened in the past, the National Energy Board released much of the 30,000 pages of energy east documentation in English only. A unilingual farmer from Quebec City's south shore felt shortchanged by this and complained to the board.

How can the government say that people will be consulted if they cannot read the documents about the energy east pipeline?

Natural ResourcesOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar Saskatchewan

Conservative

Kelly Block ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, our government welcomes, in principle, the prospect of shipping western Canadian oil to eastern Canada.

The independent National Energy Board is undertaking a thorough scientific review of this project. We will rely on the science and the facts, not ideology, when making decisions on infrastructure projects.

That is why we will wait for the open and transparent review process rather than jumping to conclusions.

Canadian HeritageOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Bloc

Louis Plamondon Bloc Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Hollande saluted the vitality of Quebec culture in North America. However, the bankruptcy of La courte échelle publishing house is a reminder that the Quebec nation does not have control over its culture. It is subject to Canadian priorities, and tough luck for Quebec’s creators.

After years of fighting to have a model that was respected by all stakeholders, now some 500 authors and illustrators have discovered that because of a federal law, the interests of the bankruptcy trustee will prevail over those of the artists.

What does the government plan on doing to give Quebec creators what is rightfully theirs?

Canadian HeritageOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Saint Boniface Manitoba

Conservative

Shelly Glover ConservativeMinister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages

Mr. Speaker, as we have said time and time again, arts and culture define who we are as Canadians. We are proud to support the creation, presentation, publication and dissemination of arts and culture throughout the country. In fact, we are the only G7 country that did not reduce direct funding to artists during the global economic recession. We continue to supports the arts and culture.

Income Tax ActWays and MeansGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Eglinton—Lawrence Ontario

Conservative

Joe Oliver ConservativeMinister of Finance

moved that a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, be concurred in.

Income Tax ActWays and MeansGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

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

Income Tax ActWays and MeansGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Income Tax ActWays and MeansGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

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

Income Tax ActWays and MeansGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Income Tax ActWays and MeansGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those opposed will please say nay.

Income Tax ActWays and MeansGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Income Tax ActWays and MeansGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

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 #269

Ways and MeansGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I declare the motion carried.

Member for Peterborough—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised yesterday by the House Leader of the Official Opposition as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, regarding the right of the member for Peterborough to sit and vote in the House.

I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for having raised this, and the member for Winnipeg North for his intervention.

In raising this question of privilege, the opposition House leader explained that, on October 31, 2014, the Ontario Court of Justice found the member for Peterborough guilty on four charges under the Canada Elections Act in connection with the 2008 federal election. Though the act provides that the member should therefore no longer sit in the House, the opposition House leader maintained that it was solely for the House to determine the composition of its membership, and as such, it should be seized of this important matter.

For his part, the hon. government House leader further affirmed the authority of the House in determining whether a member may continue to sit and vote , and proposed an approach whereby the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would study the matter.

As with any question of privilege, the Speaker's role is to determine procedural matters, not matters of law, and is ultimately limited to determining whether, at first glance, the matter raised is of such significance as to warrant priority consideration over other House business.

The right of a member to sit and vote in the House is of fundamental importance, as it is at the very core of the collective privileges of members. As I stated in my ruling of June 18, 2013:

The right—in fact, the absolute need—for members to be able to sit and vote in the House is so integral to their ability to fulfill their parliamentary duties that it would be difficult for the Chair to overstate the importance of this issue to members individually and to the House as a whole.

Further, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, clearly states that it is only the House that can determine matters affecting its own membership. On pages 244 and 245, it states:

Once a person is elected to the House of Commons, there are no constitutional provisions and few statutory provisions for removal of that Member from office. The statutory provisions rendering a Member ineligible to sit or vote do not automatically cause the seat of that Member to become vacant. By virtue of parliamentary privilege, only the House has the inherent right to decide matters affecting its own membership. Indeed, the House decides for itself if a Member should be permitted to sit on committees, receive a salary or even be allowed to keep his or her seat.

As can be seen in this citation, the House reserves for itself a range of remedies it may wish to impose in a given situation.

In the present case, both members who have raised what is essentially the same question of privilege have chosen to read into the record the motion they propose to move should I arrive at a finding of prima facie.

As always in matters of this kind, the Chair's focus is on process, and my role is limited to making a determination of whether the matter is of sufficient gravity and importance to warrant being debated immediately.

In this light, it is evident to me that this is a prima facie case of privilege, and, as such, I have concluded that it merits immediate consideration by the House.

Given the rare and exceptional nature of the circumstances, I will leave it to the House to determine the nature of the remedies it wishes to explore.

Accordingly, as is the practice where two members have raised the same question of privilege, I will now invite the hon. opposition House leader, who was the first to raise it, to move his motion.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, with regard to the guilty verdict of October 31, 2014, against the member for Peterborough on four counts of violating the Canada Elections Act, (a) the House immediately suspend the member of (i) the right to sit or vote in this place, (ii) the right to sit on any committee of this place, (iii) the right to collect his sessional allowance as a member of Parliament; and (b) this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for further study of appropriate measures concerning the member for Peterborough's membership in the House of Commons.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, who will deliver the second part of my speech.

This is an unprecedented situation in our history. Before I present my arguments in support of our motion, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about what happened on October 31.

Since we are talking about something that is rare in the House, unprecedented, I think it is useful to start off the important debate on this issue by citing the various violations of which the member for Peterborough was convicted last Friday.

First off, the member for Peterborough was found guilty of personally paying an election expense, thereby willfully exceeding his contribution limit, contrary to subsections 405(1), 497(3), and 500(5) of the Canada Elections Act. Just to reference those important subsections, 405(1) says, very clearly:

No individual shall make contributions that exceed

(a) $1,000 in total in any calendar year...;

(a.1) $1,000 in total in any calendar year to the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates...,

Every person guilty of that offence, knowingly contravening these subsections, is guilty of an offence under sections 481 and 482.

Second, the member for Peterborough and his official agent were found guilty of willfully incurring election expenses in excess of the campaign expense limit, contrary to subsections 443(1), 497(3), and 500(5) of the Canada Elections Act. Subsection 443(1) stipulates:

No candidate, official agent of a candidate or person authorized under paragraph 446(c) to enter into contracts shall incur election expenses in an amount that is more than the election expenses limit calculated under section 440.

This is an important part of the Canada Elections Act and is an extremely important violation the member has been found guilty of.

Third, the member for Peterborough was found guilty of providing an electoral campaign return containing a false or misleading material statement in omitting to report a campaign contribution, an election expense, contrary to paragraphs 463(1)(a) and 497(3)(v) and subsection 500(5). Again, 463(1) stipulates very clearly:

No candidate and no official agent of a candidate shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with a document referred to in subsection 451(1) or 455(1) that (a) the candidate or the official agent, as the case may be, knows or ought reasonably to know contains a material statement that is false or misleading;...

Finally, the member for Peterborough has been found guilty of providing a campaign return that did not substantially set out the required information by omitting to report a campaign contribution and election expense, contrary to paragraphs 463(1)(b) and 497(3)(v) and subsection 500(5).

Among the convictions on three counts, the final count was stayed, at the crown's request, following the finding of guilt.

Each of the three counts of which the member for Peterborough was found guilty carries a maximum penalty of $2,000, one year in prison, or both.

This is not a little event in the life of the House of Commons. There is a serious criminal conviction, in three cases, under the Canada Elections Act. The judge stated that the evidence provided by the member for Peterborough was incredible and full of inconsistencies and improbabilities and that the member for Peterborough frequently obfuscated.

Justice Lisa Cameron was very clear in terms of the guilty verdict she rendered on three counts for the member for Peterborough. What was the response from the member for Peterborough? I heard it myself on the radio. The member for Peterborough said that it was just her opinion.

This is not a matter of opinion. This is a matter of the law of the land not being respected by the member for Peterborough. The House is now seized with this question and has to make a decision about what comes next. There is no doubt that this is a serious violation of the Canada Elections Act, and it should be treated seriously.

Yesterday we had, from the government, its initial response on how it is going to respond to the important issue of convictions on three counts of violating the Canada Elections Act. I am certainly not going to reproach the government House leader for being very clear on where the government wants to go, but I think it is important to note that the government said very clearly that it wanted to do nothing. The Conservatives want to tuck it under a carpet and refer the whole matter to the procedure and House affairs committee.

On this side of the House, we believe that the serious violations of which this member has been convicted require serious measures. That is why we are putting forward a motion today that says very clearly, given the serious violations of the Canada Elections Act, that this House should immediately suspend the member.

That is our approach. The government has seemingly not wanted to take this approach. Seemingly, the government has said, no, it just wants to tuck it over to the procedure and House affairs committee. We disagree profoundly with that approach. We believe that these serious violations demand a serious response from this House of Commons.

Given the current government's track record, it is not surprising that the Conservatives would want to, in effect, by putting it over to the procedure and House affairs committee, try to sweep this under the carpet. However, when we couple this with what we have seen as a systematic pattern of behaviour by the Conservative government, members can begin to understand why we are concerned that the government's approach is to tuck this away in a committee rather than deal with a very serious series of violations and a guilty verdict that is very clear on three counts. Rather than tucking it under the carpet, we believe that serious measures are required.

On the Conservative government's history, when we look at the last three federal elections, I think, to a certain extent, there is diminished public trust in how the government approaches violations of the Canada Elections Act.

In 2006, the first election in which the current Conservative government was elected, we had the in-and-out scandal. What we saw following that were a number of Conservative Party operatives found guilty of breaking Elections Canada rules. They had to pay more than $52,000 in fines. Taxpayers spent more than $2.3 million for the investigation, which led to a five-year legal battle.

For the 2008 election campaign, we have the conviction we have just seen. The member for Peterborough has been convicted on three counts.

In 2011, we saw the robocall scandal. A former Conservative staffer has been found guilty. We have also seen the former member of Parliament, the former minister from Labrador, very clearly overspending and seeing that the Canada Elections Act did not apply.

There has been a systematic pattern of breaking the Canada Elections Act.

The Canada Elections Act is a fundamental Canadian value. It sets a level playing field for all candidates. It sets the rules for our democracy. Given these systematic violations we have seen over the course of the last few years, we say that on this case now coming before the House, it is important for the House of Commons to say that it is a serious violation. These three counts are serious in nature, and as a result, the House of Commons should be moving to immediately suspend the member from the right to sit or vote in this place, the right to sit on any committee in this place, and the right to collect his sessional allowance.

I have two final points I would like to make.

First, the procedure and House affairs committee is now nine months behind on its consideration of Motion No. 428.

Second, as we saw today, and as the leader of the official opposition mentioned, on Bill C-518, what we have seen is the government moving to extract from the Canada Elections Act a series of violations that would lead to the end of the sessional allowance. We do not stand for that on this side of the House, and the member for Toronto—Danforth will comment further.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's position on this, which represents the position of the official opposition. My concern is whether the official opposition is ever going to allow the member for Peterborough to come and address the House on this issue, which affects him.

Second, we are talking about a judicial decision. That judicial decision could conceivably be appealed. In the media, the member has said that it might be appealed. There is an appeal period. I would assume that it is something like 30 days. It is conceivable that if it were appealed, this decision could be reversed.

My question to the member is whether what he is suggesting is premature.