Debates of June 19th, 2014

Natural Resources

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, B.C. Conservative MPs' silence on Enbridge as speaking volumes to their lack of courage and their lack of faith in their own government's decision. Perhaps they know that this toxic project is toxic politics in British Columbia.

I remember the days when Conservatives insisted that Ottawa should never impose energy projects on western Canada without the agreement of western Canadians. Then along came northern gateway. These guys could not rubber-stamp it fast enough, while completely ignoring the people of British Columbia.

The Conservatives promised to change Ottawa, but I guess it was Ottawa that ended up changing Conservatives.

Last chance: does any B.C. Conservative MP, any of them, want to stand up and defend this pipeline publicly for once?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, our decision is based on the conclusions of an independent science-based review panel.

We have imposed 209 stringent conditions to ensure this project meets the highest safety standards. The panel heard from nearly 1,500 participants in 21 communities, and reviewed over 175,000 pages of evidence. The proponent clearly has more work to do with communities along the route.

Justice

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice recently made remarks to the Ontario Bar Association that were so strikingly sexist that lawyers there described them as offensive.

As one of the many mothers of young children in this House, I wonder whether the minister believes that we, too, should be intimidated by the old boys' network. Does the minister think that we, too, should stay at home because of our special maternal bond with our young children?

Will the minister apologize for his blatant chauvinism?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, that, of course, is a complete mischaracterization of what I said, what I think, how I act, and who I am.

In fact, with respect to judicial appointments, they are based on one criteria and one criteria only, and that is merit and judicial excellence.

With respect to minorities and women being promoted to the judiciary, I think we can all agree that government of course plays an important role in that, but so, too, do law schools, so, too, do law societies. That is exactly the message I was bringing to the Ontario Bar Association.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Ontario Bar Association described the Minister of Justice's recent fifties rant as disappointing, bizarre, frustrating, and offensive.

As a parent, daughter, and granddaughter of women who worked full time, and as the critic for aboriginal affairs, I ask the minister to apologize to all Canadians for blaming motherhood for his abject failure to ensure that the Federal Court reflects the diversity of the society it is entrusted to judge.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is what I have already indicated, that that is of course a complete misrepresentation of what I said.

As a son, as a father, that is the last thing I would ever do. What I was doing was completely the opposite, in encouraging women to apply more readily to our judiciary.

That, of course, is done through a process, as the member knows. Appointments are made at the recommendation of the 17 judicial advisory committees across the country. Since 2006, I am extremely proud to inform the House that we have appointed 182 excellent women to the superior and appeal courts of this country.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice's comments are the latest salvo in the Conservatives' war on modernity.

This is more than just their attitude. It is their Archie Bunker-inspired policies. Whether it is killing national early learning and child care, or their regressive income-splitting policy, the Conservatives just do not get the modern family.

When will the government realize that Ward and June Cleaver are dead? When will they stop trying to drag Canada back to the 1950s?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear, this government has demonstrated leadership on this file outstandingly; in fact, our Prime Minister has.

We know that whether it be GIC appointments or whether it be the public service, our numbers have escalated since we became government. Whether it be 31% of our GIC appointments and growing are women, or 37% of the leadership roles in the public service in this government and growing are women, we have taken action on this. Our Prime Minister has been a leader on this. I encourage the others to get on board.

Privacy

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has resorted to making up facts to justify his badly written, unconstitutional bill on cyberbullying.

The Supreme Court clearly said no to access to personal information without a warrant. The Privacy Commissioner, whom the Conservatives say is an authority on the subject, has stated that this ruling invalidates the principles underlying Bill C-13. The bill must be split to stop cyberbullying and maintain the right to privacy.

Will the minister abide by the Supreme Court's ruling or not?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we always do. We always respect the Supreme Court. We always respect the decisions. The reality here is the Supreme Court's decision clearly stated that the Criminal Code provisions dealing with voluntary disclosure and immunity do not provide legal authority for access to information without a warrant. As our government has continually said, those provisions regarding voluntary disclosure and immunity do not provide legal authority for access to information without a warrant. This is nothing new.

We respect the decision. It reinforces the position of the government and we will move forward with Bill C-13.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, he said, “I always respect the decision of the Supreme Court” When the government gets a decision that it does not like from the court, the Conservatives ignores it altogether, they make stuff up, or they attack the courts.

The Supreme Court was clear. Collecting personal data without a warrant, something the minister has defended, is in fact unconstitutional. Instead of respecting that decision, he turned around and misled the House and claimed it as a victory. Well, he is wrong.

Will the minister now accept that the only legal way to protect our children and respect legitimate privacy rights is to split Bill C-13?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree and of course that is not what the Supreme Court said. The Supreme Court has stated and has supported the government's position that provisions regarding voluntary disclosure and immunity do not provide legal authority for access to information without a warrant.

While I am on my feet, I want to congratulate the police in Halifax who today announced the results of Operation Snapshot III, which led to the rescue of five children from sexual exploitation and 150 people charged. Since 2012, the national child exploitation coordination centre has identified more than 45,000 instances of child exploitation.

Justice

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, dinosaurs still walk among us.

According to the Minister of Justice, there are not enough women and visible minorities in the top jobs in our courts because they do not apply for those positions. Instead they stay home with their children because they have a greater bond with them.

Why does the president of the old boys' club not try to achieve gender equality in our courts instead of talking nonsense?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. We are encouraging more women to apply. We are encouraging more women to go through the judicial advisory council, which I am proud to say has resulted in 182 women at the superior court and appeal court level.

Further to that, I am extremely proud that our government appointed the first female Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal of Quebec and the first Haitian Canadian woman of the Quebec court. We are going to continue to appoint able women to the bench because they deserve to be there.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the minister doubled down on his comments saying that women have a greater bond with their children. Well, women have babies. This is not news. What is news is the minister's disrespectful attitude, his government's failure to accept responsibility for the appointment of women and minorities to the courts. The Minister of Justice is blaming them for not applying. I am not looking for an apology here. Can the minister outline what actions he is taking and has already taken to ensure our courts are more representative of our communities?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, that is what I have just said. We are in fact seeing more qualified, capable women based on merit appointed to our courts. For example, four vacancies were just filled in Alberta by four highly qualified women. Two vacancies were filled by two highly qualified women in Ontario. In British Columbia, there were two out of four recently appointed in November, qualified excellent judicial appointments. Two from Quebec, highly qualified, merit based appointments and one, just one that was available last week in the member's home province of Nova Scotia, filled by a highly qualified excellent judicial appointment.

Lobbying

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it looks like the Minister of Justice is an extra on the TV show Father Knows Best.

The hon. member for York Centre, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, holds a partisan fundraiser and invites bankers and lobbyists who are looking for favours from the Department of Finance.

To entice them, he uses the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Minister of Industry. Personally, I do not see the appeal.

It is not surprising to later see the Conservatives support projects like northern gateway in order to help their lobbyist friends and make them happy, instead of standing up for the public interest.

When will the Conservatives stop making backroom deals with lobbyists?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it was this government that brought in the Federal Accountability Act, which removed the influence of big unions and big corporate donations from the political process. We know, of course, that the NDP did break that when it accepted some $350,000 worth of union donations.

Of course, we expect that all members will follow the rules when it comes to fundraising events. I do note that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is probably among those 21 members of the NDP who owe a significant amount of money to the taxpayers of Canada. I hope that he and his other 20 colleagues will do the right thing and pay back the $1.17 million.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. These types of interruptions do take away time and I would hate to have to make that up further down the list.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has the floor.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while the member for York Centre was launching a full-out assault on the independence of the offices of the ethics and lobbying commissioners, he was using his presence on the finance committee to fill his electoral war chest by hitting up lobbyists who were trying to influence him. He cannot do that. Section 14(1) of the Conflict of Interest Code is clear. Members cannot accept financial gifts in the form of tickets to fundraisers from lobbyists when they knock on their doors.

The member was paid by lobbyists for the petroleum, financial, and car industries. Did he recuse himself from any of the meetings in the finance committee that dealt with these interests?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is the government that brought in the Federal Accountability Act as one of our first measures, which removed the influence of big unions and corporate donations from the political process, something we are very proud of. Of course, we expect that all members of the House of Commons will host events and follow the rules.

At the same time, we know that the NDP accepted $350,000 worth of illegal campaign donations to their big union friends. It is also ironic to hear this member talk about ethics when it was he who was singled out by the boundary redistribution commission as trying to gerrymander his riding. I think he should think about that and encourage his friends to repay the—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, watching the government stand up for ethics is like watching a wrestling promoter stand up for good, clean, honest fun.

We know what the oil lobby bought when the government gave it northern gateway. Let us look at what the member for York Centre's tickets bought for these lobbyists: access to the government House leader, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, and the Minister of International Development.

My question is to the government House leader, who attended this event. Does he stand behind these kinds of secret deals with lobbyists? Does he stand behind that?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as I just mentioned, it was this government that brought in the Federal Accountability Act to remove the influence of big money and big unions from the political process. As I said, we expect that all members will follow the rules when hosting fundraisers and other activities.

We know, of course, that the members for Welland, Pierrefonds—Dollard, Gatineau, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, Hochelaga, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Chambly—Borduas, Sherbrooke, Nickel Belt, Saint-Lambert, Halifax, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Outremont, Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Laval, Scarborough—Rouge River, Toronto—Danforth, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine are among the NDP who owe taxpayers more than $1.17 million.