House of Commons Hansard #234 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rights.
Peter Kent ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, this gives me a chance again to say that our government in fact does take very seriously the science of climate change and does take real actions, not the picking of the pockets of hard-working Canadians for a carbon tax that will increase the cost of just about everything but not reduce a single megatonne of greenhouse gases.
We are abiding by our commitment to the Copenhagen accord and we are halfway to achieving our 2020 targets.
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Speaker, on Monday we were shocked to see the explosions that rocked the finish line of the Boston Marathon. We have seen many moving stories of exhausted runners reaching the finish line only to continue running to the nearest hospital to give blood.
In light of this act of senseless violence, can the Minister of Public Safety please update this House on actions taken by our government to ensure Canadians are kept safe from those who wish to harm us?
Vic Toews ConservativeMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question.
I want to express my deepest sympathies to the families of those who lost their lives in this horrific crime as well as those were injured.
Canada condemns these senseless acts of violence. We stand ready to assist our American neighbours in any way we can.
I also want to assure Canadians that our authorities are at a heightened state of vigilance, and we are assisting Canadians on the ground. CBSA and the RCMP are working to ensure that Canadians are kept safe from those who wish to harm us.
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources made the outrageous claim that people are not as worried about climate change as they once were and that their fears are exaggerated. His misguided beliefs are reinforced by the drastic cuts he has made to his department, including $162 million from the clean energy fund.
How does the minister expect to be taken seriously when he goes to Washington next week to sell Canada's pipeline when he is living in fantasyland?
Peter Kent ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, this government is always delighted to compare our record against that of the previous Liberal government.
For 13 years the Liberals merely paid lip service to the environment. Despite their signature on a hastily conceived and hastily considered commitment to the Kyoto accord, GHG emissions in Canada actually went up more than 30%.
We have a plan. Our plan is working.
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, the death of a man on a freighter in English Bay last week has raised new questions about the reckless Conservative decision to close the Kitsilano Coast Guard station. It took paramedics nearly 40 minutes to reach the patient.
It was a reckless and dangerous decision to close this station. Will the minister now do the right thing and reopen the Kitsilano Coast Guard station before another tragedy occurs?
Keith Ashfield ConservativeMinister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway
Mr. Speaker, the facts are that since the closure of the Canadian Coast Guard station in Kitsilano base on February 19, 2013, the Canadian Coast Guard Sea Island station has responded to 37 search and rescue maritime distress incidents in the greater Vancouver area. These incidents involved 47 lives at risk. In all cases the CCG hovercraft has consistently had a reaction time of less than 10 minutes after receiving the tasking, which is well within the national service standards of 30 minutes.
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
Mr. Speaker, today our Prime Minister, alongside Her Majesty The Queen and with many other dignitaries from around the world, is among the many mourners in London remembering and honouring the life of a truly inspiring leader, Margaret Thatcher.
Baroness Thatcher, also affectionately known as the Iron Lady, will always be remembered as one of the greatest politicians and leaders of our age. She changed history.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages please tell this House how Margaret Thatcher will be remembered and honoured in Canada?
James Moore ConservativeMinister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages
Mr. Speaker, today we do remember the life of Margaret Thatcher, who rose from humble beginnings as a grocer's daughter to become the first female prime minister of Great Britain.
Margaret Thatcher was a true leader who had a strong vision for her country and was proud of her values and her principles. During her three terms as prime minister, Margaret Thatcher was a true champion of freedom and liberty and of fighting Communism around the world. She inspired millions around the world to the cause of freedom.
On behalf of the Prime Minister, I join all Canadians in saluting the life and legacy of Lady Thatcher.
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Conservatives have not done an impact study on changes to employment insurance.
A number of my constituents have had their benefits cruelly cut off, without any forewarning. Yet the director of the Laurentides and Outaouais area had assured us that there was no way any benefits would be cut off without all factors being taken into account.
We were told that claimants would never see their benefits cut off without warning.
When are the Conservatives going to stop these attacks on Canadians?
Diane Finley ConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development
Mr. Speaker, employment insurance is there to provide financial support to people who have lost their jobs.
We have improved the system so that it can support people during their job search. We have added ways for people to see the jobs that are available in their field and their region. Unlike the NDP, we will continue to help people find new jobs.
Jean-François Fortin Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, all of the parties represented in the Quebec National Assembly—both federalist and sovereignist parties—rose above party lines to address an issue that is fundamental to the Quebec nation.
They joined together to call for clarification on the events leading to the proclamation of the Constitution Act, 1982. They are asking the federal government to give access to all the information contained in its archives.
Will the Prime Minister take action, rise to the occasion, set partisanship aside—partisanship that the Liberals and the NDP were all too happy to participate in—and make this information public?
1982 Repatriation of the ConstitutionOral Questions
Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean Québec
Conservative
Denis Lebel ConservativeMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, we have no interest in revisiting old constitutional squabbles.
The Supreme Court of Canada is responsible for determining what happened during the time of Trudeau's Liberal government in 1982. Lawyers and public servants are responsible for making decisions regarding access to information for federal documents, in accordance with the law.
We have an economic action plan and that is what we will be working on.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
That concludes question period for today.
The Chair has notice of a point of order and a point of privilege. I will hear the point of privilege first.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning the disclosure of information contained in legislation not yet introduced in the House of Commons.
This arises from a story written by Steven Chase in The Globe and Mail and published this afternoon at 1:36 eastern daylight time. I would like to quote portions of that article. “The...government is temporarily delaying the introduction of its electoral reform legislation following a discussion in Conservative caucus Wednesday morning”. Sources say Tory MPs, in the closed-door meeting, “raised concerns” about how some sections of the bill were drafted and suggested rewrites. “Asked for comment Wednesday afternoon...the minister of state for democratic reform said the Tories found some last-minute problems with the new bill”.
One of the lines that I quoted implies that instead of any general briefing and discussion on the orientation of the awaited bill, the Conservative caucus may have been provided with actual text of the draft bill, which is yet to be introduced, and as such, should have remained secret.
This is why, whether they are private bills or government bills, when they are being drafted, they are printed secretly.
It is also worth noting that the Conservative caucus may imply that some persons other than the Conservative parliamentarians may have had access to this. We have in our caucus non-parliamentarians who participate, and I suspect it may be the same for other caucuses as well.
If the yet-to-be-seen text has already been introduced specifically, this may very well constitute a serious breach of parliamentary privilege. I would like to quote the 40th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in 2001, where such an incident had occurred.
The Committee reiterates its position that it views the disclosure of bills prior to their tabling in the House of Commons, while on notice, with extreme seriousness. Members of the committee are committed to protecting the privileges of the House of Commons and of its Members in this regard.
Given the possibilities that are before us, I would ask that you undertake an investigation to see exactly what happened, and if indeed text of legislation that was yet to be introduced had been presented to a caucus. That would be a serious breach of privilege. If you do find that a prima facie case of privilege exists, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
The Chair also had notice from the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth on the same point.
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to reinforce the points that were just made.
It has been reinforced many times that the normal procedure for a government bill, once placed on notice, is that the bill be kept confidential until introduced in Parliament. If what we heard is true, for a few select parliamentarians to be able to view the content of government bills prior to the rest of their colleagues in the House damages the integrity, the dignity and the authority of the House of Commons.
I do believe that there is a prima facie case of contempt of the House and breach of privileges, my privilege as the member for Toronto—Danforth, as well as the breach of privileges of all my colleagues in this House who have yet to see the contents of the aforementioned bill.
The reports that appeared earlier this afternoon, at 1:07 p.m. precisely, in an article by Steven Chase of The Globe and Mail, do suggest that certain members of the Conservative caucus had access to the content of this new bill, which is currently on the notice paper, prior to the rest of the members of this House.
Given the seriousness of the matter of prematurely disclosing the content of a bill, it is my duty as a member of Parliament to bring this question to the attention of the Chair and to this House at the earliest opportunity.
In that article, Steven Chase said that sources say Tory MPs, in the closed door meeting, “raised concerns” about how some sections of the bill were drafted and suggested rewrites.
The bill being mentioned, I should emphasize, if that is not clear, is the one that has been put on the notice paper yesterday by a minister of cabinet, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, entitled “An act to enact the Canada political financing act and to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts”.
The Globe article, by advancing that some MPs have expressed concerns about specific sections of the bill, clearly implies that those Conservative MPs have had access to a copy of the bill that is still on the notice paper and has yet to be introduced for first reading in this House. We will definitely need clarification on whether or not they have seen the text of the bill.
The question of the premature disclosure of a bill has been raised multiple times before this House. For instance, on March 14, 2001, the member for Provencher at the time, who is now the Minister of Public Safety, rose on a question of privilege regarding a briefing the Department of Justice held for members of the media where there was discussion regarding a bill not yet introduced in the House, Bill C-15 of the 37th Parliament, while denying access of the same information to all members of Parliament.
Speaker Milliken at the time ruled that this constituted a prima facie case of contempt. He said the following:
In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. Once a bill has been placed on notice, whether it has been presented in a different form to a different session of parliament has no bearing and the bill is considered a new matter. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.
These were in the Debates of March 19, 2001.
In a similar case raised on October 2001, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast at the time rose on a question of privilege regarding Bill C-36 in the 37th Parliament, arguing that before the tabling of the bill the National Post newspaper had reported its content and indicated it had been briefed by officials from the Department of Justice.
On October 15, Speaker Milliken ruled there was a prima facie case of privilege, noting the matter was similar to the one I just discussed from March 2001.
In October 2009, the member for Joliette raised a question of privilege regarding Bill C-52, and again this question of privilege was validated by the Speaker.
Finally, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rose on a question of privilege, in 2010, concerning the premature disclosure of a private member's bill, arguing that the member for St. Paul's had been given notice of a bill and then posted a copy of the draft on her website before it was read a first time in the House.
The matter was dropped when the member apologized, but the Speaker did remind members:
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 that it will consider.
Therefore, there is abundant precedent that establishes that a bill, once placed on notice, must be kept confidential until introduced in Parliament.
For a few selected parliamentarians to have been able to view the content of the bill in question today prior to the rest of their colleagues is unacceptable and seriously damages the integrity, dignity and authority of the House of Commons. I believe that this matter should not be taken lightly and should be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a complete study.
I would add that it is all the more serious that the interventions within the Conservative caucus resulted in it being decided that the bill would not be tabled on the day the minister said it would be. That means that they have had an earlier vantage point on the bill than we have had. Under the minister's announced scheme, we would be debating this next Wednesday in the House. If he had not been convinced to pull it back, the members of the Conservative caucus would have seen it a week in advance of any attempt by our caucus to discuss the same bill. It is not just the fact that this was looked at today and withdrawn; it is the fact that had nothing occurred and the bill had gone forward, the Conservative caucus would have had a week's advantage.
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my two hon. friends for raising this point, as they have done, at the earliest possible opportunity. That is one of the disadvantages they labour under. The other disadvantage is that they are asserting facts about a meeting that they did not attend and are relying on assertions from a news article written by somebody who also was not in attendance at the subject meeting.
I can clarify this matter fairly simply to make it clear that in the case of this caucus meeting on this particular legislation that is on notice in draft form, there were no draft copies of this legislation circulated at any caucus meeting that the Conservative Party held today. There were no draft copies displayed for anybody to review at this meeting. There were no sections of the bill on display, and there were no excerpts provided. None of what he is alleging, in fact, happened. I can assure him, with 100% certainty, notwithstanding the normal practice of not discussing what happens in caucus, that this is something that did not happen in caucus. Therefore, I feel quite comfortable discussing it here on the floor of the House for all Canadians to hear.
While the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, I agree, has an abundance of precedents, what he lacks are any facts. The fact is that what the members are alleging simply did not occur.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I want to thank the hon. members for Ottawa—Vanier and Toronto—Danforth and the hon. government House leader for responding to the question of privilege. Of course, I will come back to the House in due course on that matter.
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to your attention a correction required in the written record of Hansard on Monday, during the debate on the NDP opposition motion. After the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo spoke, I had the opportunity to ask her a question, which was, essentially, how the government would deal with the more than $100 billion it has added to the national debt.
Unfortunately, in the written record of Hansard, it says $100 million. Now, $100 million is a lot of money, but it is still 1,000 times less than the debt the government has added in the past seven years. I wanted everyone to know that the figure is over $100 billion.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I will remind the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie that members have the opportunity to correct the blues after their interventions in the House. There is a mechanism for doing that rather than doing it on the floor of the House days later.
Lisa Raitt ConservativeMinister of Labour
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Employment Equity Act, Chapter 44, section 20, I have the honour to table the annual report of the Employment Equity Act for the year 2011, in both official languages.
While I am on my feet, I move:
That the House proceed to orders of the day.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Employment Equity Act: Annual Report 2011Routine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.