House of Commons Hansard #212 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was s-4.

Topics

Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 18 petitions.

Removal of Serious Foreign Criminals ActRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Justice and Human RightsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-590, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (blood alcohol content).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

HealthCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Health in relation to its study on the main estimates, 2015-16.

It is one hard-working committee.

Impaired DrivingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition that sadly informs the House that Geoff Gaston was tragically killed by a drunk driver who chose to drive while impaired. The Gaston family has been left devastated.

Families for Justice is a group of Canadians who have also lost loved ones who were killed by impaired drivers. They believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient. They want the crime to be called what it is, vehicular homicide. They also want mandatory sentencing for those convicted of this crime.

Public SafetyPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand today to present a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents against Bill C-51. They are calling on the House of Commons to stop this attack on civil liberties by joining the official opposition to stop Bill C-51.

Komagata MaruPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I table a petition signed by many constituents of Winnipeg North asking the government to recognize that the Punjab assembly in India unanimously passed a resolution calling on the Canadian Parliament to apologize for the Komagata Maru incident.

They are asking the government to provide a formal apology in Parliament with respect to that particular incident of 1914.

IraqPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present this morning.

In the first, the petitioners are calling on Parliament to do everything it can to protect Christians in areas of Iraq where they are being particularly targeted.

Genetically Modified FoodsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on Parliament to put in place mandatory labelling for food that has been genetically modified.

Sex SelectionPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB

Mr. Speaker, in the third petition, the petitioners call on Parliament to condemn the worst possible discrimination that there can be against girls, which is through gender-selective abortion.

They are calling on Parliament to condemn the practice of gender-selective abortion.

Canada PostPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

May 12th, 2015 / 10:05 a.m.

NDP

Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to give voice to the frustration and, dare I say, anger felt by many of my constituents about the Conservative government's decision to cancel door-to-door mail delivery and install community mailboxes. In my riding of Hamilton Mountain, Canada Post has now started the installation, and the petition campaign is ratcheting up again.

The petitioners are appalled that the Conservatives would allow Canada Post to eliminate home delivery for millions of customers, set up community mailboxes without getting the requisite permits from the city, put thousands of employees out of work, and then have the gall to raise the price of stamps.

Our postal service helps to connect us, and these cuts will unfairly impact the most vulnerable in our society, including seniors and people with disabilities. For all of those reasons, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to stop these devastating cuts to our postal service and look instead for ways to modernize operations.

The Conservatives continue to find millions of dollars for their well-connected friends. It is time they found a way to keep the mail coming to our doors.

Impaired DrivingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Devinder Shory Conservative Calgary Northeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by hundreds of Calgarians calling for a change in the law around drunk driving in memory of my constituent Francis Pesa, who was struck by a drunk driver on January 1, 2014, and died a few days later.

The petitioners ask Parliament to recognize the devastation caused by drunk driving, to respond by changing the definition of impaired driving causing death to that of vehicular manslaughter, and to attach minimum sentences upon conviction.

Drunk driving is a serious problem and requires serious sentences in response.

AgriculturePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present these three petitions on respecting the rights of small family farms to store, trade and use seed. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to commit to adopting international aid policies that support small farmers, especially women, thereby recognizing their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty.

Consumer ProtectionPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to put an end to unfair fees and rip-offs. The petitioners are asking the government to limit credit card interest rates and ATM fees and to appoint a gas price ombudsman to ensure that there is no collusion between oil companies.

The EnvironmentPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Matthew Kellway NDP Beaches—East York, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today with respect to the climate change accountability act. The signatories to this petition are expressing their concerns with respect to the inaction of our federal government to address climate change in light of the impact of climate change on the day-to-day lives of Canadians. They are expressing their concerns about the billions of dollars in public money given to the oil and gas industry in the form of subsidies.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support the NDP's climate change accountability act, a law that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and hold the government accountable.

AgriculturePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, after discussions with constituents, they asked me to publicly petition the House to respect the right for small-scale family farmers to preserve, exchange, and use cereal seeds.

AgriculturePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions to the House this morning.

The first petition is from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands to specifically encourage the Government of Canada to develop policies internationally to assist family farmers, who are often women, so that the policies work to protect the rights of small family farmers in the global south.

Security CertificatesPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of British Columbia outside of my riding, primarily from Grand Forks, and a few from Ottawa as well.

The petitioners call upon the government to re-examine the whole regime of security certificates, pointing out that holding people for very long times with essentially secret trials violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Physical Obstruction—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I am now prepared to rule on the questions of privilege raised on April 30, 2015, by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and on May 8, 2015, by the member for Toronto—Danforth regarding the delays they and other members experienced in gaining access to Parliament Hill.

I would like to thank the members for having raised this matter, as well as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the House Leader of the Official Opposition, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, and the members for Saanich—Gulf Islands, London—Fanshawe, Winnipeg North, Hamilton Centre, Ottawa—Vanier, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Saint-Lambert and Northumberland—Quinte West for their comments.

Before we start to look at the issues that were raised, the Chair would like to take a few seconds to deal with the comments on the timing of questions of privilege.

Some members alluded to the fact that some interventions were made at a very specific moment in order to delay or prevent business. I am sure all members would agree that it would be unfortunate for a subject as important as parliamentary privilege and the right of access of members to be trivialized in any way, either by raising what some might call “nuisance” questions of privilege or by quickly dismissing outright such claims of privilege simply because they are perceived to be impeding the normal course of business.

In raising his question of privilege, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley explained that, on April 30, he and several other members were attempting to access the parliamentary precinct through the East Block entrance in order to attend a vote in the House when the shuttle bus they were on was stopped temporarily by an RCMP officer. While acknowledging the need to keep Parliament secure, the member insisted that this physical obstruction constituted a denial of reasonable, timely access to the parliamentary precinct, thereby impeding him from performing his parliamentary duties and constituting a breach of privilege.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons claimed that, since the RCMP had determined that the bus in question had been delayed for only 74 seconds, this case amounted to no more than a momentary delay, which does not qualify as a breach of the privileges of the House. He contended that, while denial of access to the precinct is indeed a breach of members’ privileges, a delay should not be considered as such unless it is a significant one. Calling for a measured, reasonable perspective, the government House leader explained that the privilege of access to the parliamentary precinct is not an unqualified right, and that issues of safety and security may temper this right of access in certain situations.

Then on May 8, 2015, the member for Toronto—Danforth complained of delayed access to Centre Block that day by an RCMP officer. He noted that the officer had received orders to stop all individuals from entering while a delegation of VIPs accessed the building, orders which made no distinction between the rights of members of Parliament and those of the general public. Maintaining the length of the delay was irrelevant, the member for Toronto—Danforth contended that this incident also constituted a breach of privilege.

To begin, I will remind the House of the well-defined, albeit limited, 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.

The two incidents now before the House have served as a clear reminder that members not only require but are entitled to access to the parliamentary precinct at all times, without interference. This is uncontested.

In 2004, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, having considered a question of privilege related to the physical obstruction of members, stated in its twenty-first report:

The denial of access to Members of the House—even if temporary—is unacceptable, and constitutes a contempt of the House. Members must not be impeded or interfered with while on their way to the Chamber, or when going about their parliamentary business. To permit this would interfere with the operation of the House of Commons, and undermine the pre-eminent right of the House to the service of its Members.

In listening to the submissions of members on this issue, it is clear to the Chair that the larger issue of security in the parliamentary precinct is a major preoccupation for members, one that informs their perspective on individual incidents and that now looms large given the changing security environment on Parliament Hill as a result of the events of October 22, 2014.

Following those events, members will recall that I ordered a comprehensive review of our security systems and procedures. Parliamentary security operations have since been tightened and have continued to evolve, leading up to the Senate and House's decision to unify the protective services in November 2014. Then on February 16, 2015, the House adopted a motion calling on the Speaker of the House, in coordination with the Speaker of the Senate:

...to invite, without delay, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to lead operational security throughout the Parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill, while respecting the privileges, immunities and powers of the respective Houses, and ensuring the continued employment of our existing and respected Parliamentary Security staff;

That the House chose to make this decision is not a matter for the Chair to comment on, other than to say that from a procedural standpoint the motion was taken up by the House in accordance with our rules and practices and remains a valid decision, which the Speaker is bound to implement.

Since then, considerable progress has been made toward arriving at an agreement to have the RCMP lead physical security services throughout the parliamentary precinct and Parliament Hill. Yet there is no denying that ensuring the security, in a changed world and in a changed arrangement, for all who enter the parliamentary precinct, is going to present some challenges as we transition to the new security regime. However, none of this obviates what I stated in my ruling of March 15, 2012, where I confirmed the importance of members' right of access to the precinct. I stated at page 6333 of Debates:

...the implementation of security measures cannot override the right of members to unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct, free from obstruction or interference.

As Speaker, it is my role to support the House and its members as we proceed with various changes to our security arrangements. This includes, but is not limited to, ensuring that any and all changes uphold the privileges, immunities, and powers of the House, as has always been the case.

Several members have expressed concern that a heightened level of security could lead to more incidents where members are unnecessarily impeded as they carry out or attempt to carry out their Parliamentary duties. The incidents raised by the members for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and Toronto—Danforth have certainly served to highlight those broader concerns.

I would like to assure all hon. members that protecting the rights and privileges of the House and of its members is a priority for me as our security forces continue to work in close partnership in order to provide a safe environment for all members, parliamentary staff, and visitors to the Hill.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in its thirty-fourth report regarding the free movement of members of Parliament within the parliamentary precinct, summed up the challenge when it stated:

Cases of privilege in which Members have had their right to unimpeded access to the Parliamentary Precinct denied have occurred in the recent past with all too great a frequency. The Committee considers the best solution to this issue to be improved planning, greater coordination between partners, and increased education and awareness of security services and Members.

As your Speaker, I can only agree. In fact, I recently had occasion to discuss this challenge with Commissioner Paulson, who agrees that all protective personnel need to know the community they serve. They need to be sensitive and responsive to the community they serve, and they need to be familiar with the expectations of the community they serve. This includes having the primary function of this place top of mind as they go about performing their duties.

At the same time, we as members need to be mindful that increased security does require adjustments. It may mean that members will notice changes that will make the grounds and buildings safer while still ensuring that they can carry out their work.

This is consistent with the ruling I delivered on March 15, 2012, in which I stated:

In this light, emphasizing the notion of balance, questions raised by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons are pertinent with regard to defining what constitutes an impediment to unfettered access for members to the parliamentary precinct and buildings. It would indeed be unfortunate for members to carry the concept of physical obstruction to illogical and unreasonable lengths. However, I would caution that the House ought not either to fall into the trap of assessing these matters on the sole basis of the duration of a delay or impediment. One can easily imagine a situation where even a very brief obstruction, depending on its severity or nature, could lead a Speaker to arrive at a prima facie finding of privilege and to allow a debate in the House.

Therefore, for these reasons and given the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the vital importance of this issue to all members, particularly in this current context, I have concluded that the broader subject matter of the rights of access of members merits immediate consideration. I have come to this conclusion so that the House has the opportunity to hear the views of members on the balance that must be struck between the need for reasonable and timely access to the House for members and the support and guidance this House can provide to its security partners. This contribution will be important as we continue to navigate the transition with which we will be faced in the coming months.

As we all know, the parliamentary precinct and its buildings exist primarily to support the functions of the legislative branch. The Centre Block in particular, housing as it does the House of Commons and Senate chambers, is a working building where parliamentary proceedings are carried out and where members must be free to perform their duties without interference even when other activities are taking place. Needless to say, these heritage buildings, especially Centre Block, are also ideal venues for all sorts of events and we are all proud to showcase them for our distinguished visitors. However...extra care is needed to ensure that competing requirements regarding the use of the buildings and precinct are understood, with due accommodations and with the proper balance.

Accordingly, I will now invite the member for Toronto—Danforth to move his motion.

Physical Obstruction—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

NDP

Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

moved:

That the questions of privilege raised on April 30, 2015, by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and on May 8 by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth regarding the fact that hon. members were delayed when trying to access Parliament Hill be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

I think it is important for me to briefly recap, for those who were not present or listening last week, why I felt that even a momentary delay of what I admit was less than a minute raises major issues that the procedure and House affairs committee really will have to take seriously.

What happened basically involved an indistinguishable stopping of everyone coming up one side of Parliament Hill heading toward the Centre Block within immediate proximity of the doors that MPs always enter. The reason, as was made very clear by the officer, was that she was under orders to stop everyone. I will emphasize again, as I did in my intervention last week, that the officer was firm and polite, and I have no concerns at all with the officer.

I am sorry; I am actually going to split my time with the member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

I have no idea how long the group was there as I was walking up the Hill before I arrived, but the fact of the matter is that when I arrived, I presented myself to the officer as I was trying to pass, and the conversation that ensued is now on the record of Hansard. The officer indicated that she was under orders to make no distinction between any members of the public, anyone else, and MPs. Indeed, structurally, there was nothing about the way the crowd control was working to suggest that any distinction had been made. There was no ability for an officer to stand and wave MPs through or to ask, “Are there any MPs here? Please go through.” There was nothing like that. It was a one-size-fits-all approach.

This was confirmed when she then called through to whatever was command central for this welcoming of the President of the Philippines to the Hill. They did not bother addressing the issue of whether an MP could go through while the others were waiting, because the moment she called, they solved the problem by letting everybody through. I assume that was a coincidence of timing. Nonetheless, it was clear from the overall situation that there were, again, indistinguishable orders.

On that front, I would like to now move to two arguments that I believe the Speaker has put in context in his ruling just now but that have been raised twice now by the government House leader on the question of privilege by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and on my question of privilege.

One is, effectively, that he has come before the House and asked the Speaker to take his word for facts that he and the government have investigated in tandem with the RCMP. The first problem is that it is not the role of the government to conduct these kinds of investigations.

Second, I would like to read an excerpt from the House leader's intervention on the question of privilege by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He stated:

...I can tell you that the public safety minister's office has advised that that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police reviewed the surveillance camera footage and determined that the green bus in question was indeed delayed for some 74 seconds....

He went on to say that was a mere momentary delay and that for that reason, the privilege motion should be dismissed.

The fact of the matter is that the procedure and House affairs committee needs to look at what the lines of authority are here. The House leader comes into the House, gets word from another minister of the crown about what that minister of the crown had discussed with the RCMP, and then, in a not-so-subtle fashion, expects the Speaker to say, “Thank you very much for doing my work and thank you very much for reporting to me what the RCMP has said.”

I am very glad that the Speaker has obviously decided that this is not the role of the government and not the role of the House leader.

I would also like to point out that the Speaker went back into precedents and quoted one precedent that said that even a momentary delay can be a breach of privilege. However, the government is now trying to reshape the law of privilege around the idea that just any delay at all, as long as it is short, is not a breach of privilege. It went so far as to argue last week that the recent report on the question of privilege by the member for Acadie—Bathurst actually stated that the PROC report put forward the idea that momentary delays are not a breach of privilege.

No such words at all appear in that report. In fact, it is very clear that the committee was expressing concern by the very sentence that the Speaker just read in the House now on his ruling, when he read, in French, this sentence:

Cases of privilege in which Members have had the right to unimpeded access to the Parliamentary Precinct denied have occurred in the recent past with all too great a frequency.

For that to appear in the PROC report from the most recent case and for the Speaker to now read it again is diametrically opposed to the spin that the House leader is trying to put on the law of privilege in this House when he says that report ruled that a momentary delay meant there was no privilege breached in that case. That is a completely out-of-bounds argument, as far as I am concerned.

I took care, and I took care at the beginning of these remarks as well, to emphasize—and this is actually consistent with the recent report on privilege with respect to the member for Acadie—Bathurst—that there was no fault on behalf of the officers. The officers are working within a system. They are following orders. The question is the system. How are, in these two instances, VIPs handled? What kind of priority are they given over members of Parliament to access? What kinds of easy procedures could be available that the RCMP has so far declined to put into place? An example would be to have, at all access points, a designated RCMP officer to check or let through or look out for members of Parliament while everybody else has to wait. There is nothing like that.

Instead, they put a lone officer out under orders to block everybody, regardless of whether or not they are an MP.

My guess is they are putting out recent recruits to do this, people who have not even been properly versed on what parliamentary privilege is or why it is important for members to get to the House on time.

At one level, it is of absolute importance. If I wanted to be in the House because I had limited time to hear a debate or to possibly ask a question, et cetera, that, in and of itself, is enough reason for me to be in any hurry I want.

However, beyond that, votes are crucial in this place, and they can come up at unexpected times that overlap with times when VIPs are visiting.

The idea that 30 seconds or a minute or whatever is always de minimis is already in trouble with respect to the logic of the timeframes within which we operate in this place. The idea that the House leader has raised on occasion is almost a suggestion that MPs are sitting on their posteriors, waiting to the very last minute before they rush to the House, and, therefore, if they are delayed a bit at that point, they are to blame. In actual fact, votes disrupt everything else MPs are doing, and they often try to finish what they are doing in the knowledge that they will have enough time to get there in the ordinary course of events.

This just-in-time arrival of a good number of the people who are voting on any given motion is also a part of our life on the Hill, and the moment that gets interfered with, we are going to potentially have problems with multiple people not making votes. At the moment, we have been lucky with respect to those who have been delayed but who have managed to arrive just in time.

With respect to the whole question of VIPs, the mere fact that the RCMP officer said it was a VIP, as broad a category as that is, versus a visiting head of state, just to give it some context, suggests that a broad-brush approach is being taking by whoever is in charge of federal policing on the Hill. Ultimately, it is the Deputy Commissioner. I am now no longer personally convinced that the Deputy Commissioner is listening to any of these debates on what privilege amounts to. It would have been so easy to set up procedures to ensure MPs can get through. That has not been done.

I think we need to have the procedure and House affairs committee hear this matter—not in any extended way, but in a way that would focus upon systems so that we get precise information from the RCMP about what the orders are and what training procedures are in place. How do we know that the RCMP is even listening to these reports and to the Speaker's rulings?

Physical Obstruction—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Toronto—Danforth.

Would he agree to having the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs also consider the issue of linguistic ability? Four times now, when I arrived at the Hill gate by car, I was stopped and not one of the constables could speak French. All four times this caused delays. One time, there were three other people and I had to wait for a fourth person to arrive by car. This caused a delay of four or five minutes.

I wonder whether my colleague would agree to have this type of delay considered by the committee as well because it has held me up a number of times.

Physical Obstruction—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

10:30 a.m.

NDP

Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly disconcerting.

I am not exactly sure what the Speaker's ruling delivered a few minutes ago encompasses, but when it comes to the surveillance and protection systems on the Hill, including those at Centre Block, I think they should include the ability to address the members in both languages. If that is not possible, this will lead to other problems.

I think this could be on the table during our discussions at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.