House of Commons Hansard #61 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rcmp.

Topics

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

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

Vote #72

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

8:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare Motion No. 14 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 16.

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

Vote #73

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

8:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare Motion No. 16 defeated.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

Vancouver Granville B.C.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2016 / 8:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

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

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

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

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those opposed will please say nay.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

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

Vote #74

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

8:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion carried.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

8:25 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, on February 26 of this year I asked the Prime Minister to explain how it was ethical to appoint a Liberal Party lobbyist, David MacNaughton, to be the country's representative in Washington. The arrogance in the response was astounding.

Let us be clear. When it comes to outrageous political appointments like David MacNaughton, this is one at the same level as appointing a family member, like a nephew, to such a position. It is who one knows in the PMO for the government.

In the case of MacNaughton, his appointment at taxpayer expense is his reward for having sat in the same office as the Prime Minister's principal secretary, the individual who controls everything the Prime Minister says and does, and for being the Prime Minister's bully. This is the same David MacNaughton who is jointly named with the Prime Minister in a libel and slander lawsuit in the amount of $1.5 million. Is this the way the Liberal Party is getting the taxpayer to pay MacNaughton's legal bill? Give him a cushy job in Washington where he can lobby for his lobbying clients and add to his clientele list.

The libel and slander lawsuit tells us that David MacNaughton, and I quote from the lawsuit, “...intentionally or recklessly published the following false, defamatory and malicious comments...without regard to the truth or falsity of their contents”.

The lawsuit informs Canadians that comments to libel and slander another person were initially done by MacNaughton as an anonymous “party official”, until he was outed in response to a legal demand declaring an intention to apply for a court order to reveal the anonymous “party official's” identity if they did not do so voluntarily.

What was the basis of the lawsuit? The person who launched the lawsuit had fallen for the broken Liberal promise that democracy in the nomination process would be respected.

This is what Liberal riding president Julia Metus is quoted as saying, "There was absolutely no due or fair process...No one picked up the phone to contact me, there was no opportunity to discuss their concerns, and there was zero local involvement. This is contrary to everything the Liberal Party — new or otherwise — is supposed to stand for”, and “the party made unproven and malicious allegations against the candidate and her family... to cover up its desire to control the nomination process...”.

The Prime Minister's bully. MacNaughton is cursed by the taxpayers of Ontario for his time spent as principal secretary to Dalton McGuinty. Today, the people of Ontario are suffering from the highest electricity rates in North America. Ontario has the highest debt of any subnational government. Ontario went from being a well-managed to a have-not province, relying on western taxpayers to pay the bills.

It is important for the current government to hear what Canadians think about this unethical patronage appointment. Here are some comments from average, middle-class Canadians, which were printed in response to a story about this sordid appointment in Postmedia:

[The former prime minister] impressed me some years back by appointing former NDP Premier Gary Doer as our Ambassador to the USA. I never expected him to do so but he did. [He] put skill and merit above party loyalty and service that time. Here, [the current Prime Minister], rewards one of his cronies. Once again the Liberals have rolled back part of [the former Conservative government's] agenda and we're the worse for it. Merit over cronyism

This is another comment from Postmedia :

The Liberals have not missed a beat. Although they did have 10 years to plan their payoffs. These appointments should be more transparent, real independent appointments instead of ap"oink"ments. Way to go junior you've shown us that you really are ready to porkbarrel as well as anyone.

The next comment is:

I agree! The bottomline is Canadians need leaders who will address our needs and act in our best interests. [The Prime Minister] stands for nothing and he will bend over to every left leaning country in the world.

Then there is this comment:

Ahh, the age old rewarding of political sycophants, mandarins and bootlickers. The very essense of the French saying, "the more things change, the more they stay the same". Bravo....Repaying those with eminence grise who whisper in your ear.

Finally, there is this comment. “As much as there—

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

8:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

8:30 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the first thought that comes across my mind is, wow, what a job on character assassination. It is a good thing the member is standing inside the chamber. I wonder if she would have the courage to say outside the chamber some of the things she has put on the record inside the chamber.

It is important to put a few facts on the record with regard to Mr. MacNaughton. This appointment was subject to the appropriate controls of the Ethics Commissioner as are all appointments that are made by this government. The ambassador ensured that all of his previous business arrangements were, and continue to be, in compliance with his role. The Ethics Commissioner is the person whose advice we will always follow on such matters.

In listening to the member across the way, one can understand and appreciate why that would be the case.

Ambassador MacNaughton has worked with members on both sides of the aisle, and that includes members of the Conservative Party, and with governments abroad, including the United States at the federal and state levels.

Ambassador MacNaughton brings with him an expertise that will provide the Canadian public, businesses and governments at every level a deep understanding of the various systems and leaders that will help Canada champion its interests in a renewed spirit of co-operation and promotion of every aspect of that relationship.

His resume speaks for itself. He has worked with various industries, sectors of our economy, key stakeholders, public and private alike, and countless governments from coast to coast to coast. He will do a fantastic job representing our business and stakeholder interests abroad.

We are proud that Mr. MacNaughton represents Canada in the United States and we look forward to great things to come. One only needs to take a look at the outstanding work and the preparation that was involved with regard to what was the first official visit since 1997 by a prime minister to the United States.

It is important that we recognize just how critical that bilateral relationship between Canada and the United States is. I would suggest that already this government has accomplished so much more in its eight months than the previous government did in many years.

Ambassador MacNaughton will have an important role to play in strengthening this relationship to build a closer partnership between Canada and the United States, especially on the climate change front where we will work together to provide leadership to promote clean growth and combat climate change.

We will continue to work together to strengthen the North American energy security and accelerate clean energy development and technology innovation.

There is so much that can be said. The member needs to reflect on the comments she has put on the record today and recognize just how critically important it is to have an ambassador like Mr. MacNaughton, who will be able to do so much more to enhance the relationship between two great nations. With the most recent trip by the Prime Minister of Canada, we have already seen a huge success story and that will ultimately benefit all Canadians in all regions of our great country.

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

8:35 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, for taxpayers who live in Ontario are these observations. Anyone whose name is linked directly or indirectly to former premier McGuinty should be disqualified for life from holding any government position.

MacNaughton worked in the McGuinty government. Cronyism is at its finest in the Liberal tradition. It is ironic the reference to hydro potential in B.C., Manitoba, and Quebec when MacNaughton was part of the McGuinty inner circle, with the green initiatives of wind turbines and gas plant scandal. Is it coincidental there is no reference between economic opportunities for Ontario? This is patronage without accountability.

This comment is from a citizen in western Canada: “He has only one duty and that is to get Keystone built but since the principal secretary wants the oil to stay in the ground along with his Alberta friends...that aint happening. Might as well stay home. The appointment it makes it even worse. It shows a disrespect to both Canadians who have to pay for a mouthpiece appointed purely for partisan reasons and to the Americans who were not given the respect of an honest appointment. Canadians would be mistaken if they thought the Liberal Party had learned any lessons from the sponsorship scandal.”

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

8:35 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I will respond as I did at the beginning of my remarks in response to her question. It is amazing how the member feels she can come into the chamber and assassinate the character of an individual Canadian who has done so much in serving his province and the country. The important relationship between Canada and the United States will be well-served by Ambassador MacNaughton.

The manner in which the member has brought forward issues, which are so beyond what is good parliamentary decorum, is completely uncalled for. There is no foundation in truth or merit to her arguments. I highly recommend that the member do a little more homework and look at what this individual has done for our country.

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

8:35 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to follow up on a question I asked on March 22 during question period in order to obtain a more substantive answer. I especially want to reiterate the facts at issue.

I would first like to explain what led to the question of March 22, 2016. An investigative report revealed what is known as the “Lake Champlain scheme”. This report also revealed that the deputy minister of public safety directly intervened in the matter even though he is responsible for the Canada Border Services Agency, which is obviously involved in this infamous Lake Champlain scheme. The deputy minister intervened directly in an attempt to ensure that this scheme, if I may call it that, would continue.

I will recall the facts. Through this scheme, owners avoid paying taxes on the purchases of vessels. I can provide a simple and quick explanation. When you buy a good intended for export, you do not pay the taxes, including duties, if the good comes from another country. That applies to European vessels, for example. When you buy this item for export, it obviously has to be exported. You buy the vessel in Lake Champlain, in Canada, and then you export it to the United States. The border is right there; it is not very complicated. You then navigate to the United States on a vessel registered and licensed in Canada, which is deemed to be free of duty when it is in U.S. waters. In this case, when you cross the border, you do not have to pay U.S. taxes because the boat is not considered to have been imported.

The most disgusting thing about this scheme is that people can come back to Canada to put their boats in storage. The Canada Border Services Agency allows what can rightly be called a scheme because boat owners can come back to Canada to store their boats at marinas around Lake Champlain for the winter. People are bringing goods that were initially intended for export back here for the winter. The next summer, that boat is back in American waters.

Even the Canada Border Services Agency called this procedure a scheme in an internal memo. I would like to quote from the Radio-Canada article that mentions the Canada Border Services Agency's email:

A Border Services Agency internal email confirms the existence of this practice, calling it a “scheme” and stating that there are at least 600 boats on which no tax or duty has been paid on Lake Champlain.

This problem facilitates and perpetuates the violation of Canadian laws and perhaps American laws too. It costs Canada significant revenue. This scheme needs to be stopped as soon as possible.

That message was revealed in the investigative report.

In response to the message, the Gosselin marina expressed concern. It said:

We also obtained an email chain dated August 14. The chain begins with Christine Gosselin, one of the owners of Marina Gosselin in Saint-Paul-de-l'Île-aux-Noix, who writes directly to François Guimont, the deputy minister responsible for the RCMP, CSIS, and the Canada Border Services Agency.

“I heard from a reliable source that as of next week, customs officers will no longer be allowing boats on which no tax or duty has been paid to enter Canada without written directions from Ottawa”, she writes.

In response to my question, the minister said:

Mr. Speaker, the deputy minister has engaged with the Ethics Commissioner on this file, and she will provide any advice that is necessary.

Accordingly, could the parliamentary secretary who is here today tell us what advice the Ethics Commissioner had to give and what has been done about this issue since I asked the question on March 22, 2016?