Debates of April 11th, 2017

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, what is going on here with our rules is what we would call inside baseball. Our rules are so important for our work and the quality of our democracy. I try to explain this to kids when I go to the schools. If the government is able to change the rules of the House and our Parliament by itself, it can lead to disrespect for authority.

The quality of our democracy depends on people's votes and the quality of the debates, and also on the ability of parliamentarians and opposition parties to do their job effectively in the House. Otherwise, power is concentrated in the hands of the party in power, and then in the cabinet and the prime minister.

If we accept that the government alone can establish House rules when it was elected with 39% of the votes in our rigged electoral system, we are all at risk, as is our democracy and the quality of our parliamentary life. That is why we are standing with all our other opposition colleagues.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we are all now in the opposition, on this side of the House. However, in recent years, my colleague criticized the Conservatives many times for all sorts of reasons. Most of the time he was wrong.

Nevertheless, I would like to give him the opportunity to say today that we are all in the same boat, on this side of the House, and that the Liberal Party's arrogance is bad for Canada and for all parliamentarians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, even though I disagree with how my criticisms of the Conservatives have been interpreted.

However, what interests me today is to see how we can all work together in the House to come up with the best laws, the best legislation, and the best budget to meet the needs of our constituents.

Regardless of our political colours, whether they be blue, orange, or green, we all have the duty to hold the government to account. However, it seems that the Liberal government is trying to take away our parliamentary tools, our freedom of speech, and our ability to delay the proceedings.

People need to understand that, when there is a majority government in office, time is basically the only currency the opposition has to put pressure on the government and send it a message. If the government takes that away, it is taking away the bulk of our capacity to do our job.

This Liberal government promised to hold consultations, to work with others in a spirit of harmony, and to show respect for everyone. However, now that it is in office, we are seeing its true colours.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today. I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for sharing his valuable time with me so that I may have a turn at speaking to the issue before us today, which is to refer the question of privilege to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

This question of privilege was raised by two of our colleagues who, on the day that the budget was tabled, March 22, were held up when they were heading to a vote in the House. They raised this question of privilege, which was accepted by the Speaker.

Now, we must come back to this question after briefly getting off topic. I will explain why we stopped talking about it and why we are coming back to it now. For those watching at home, I will give a brief overview of the question of privilege. I find this subject to be quite interesting and quite important, especially as a parliamentarian. However, it is important for people at home to understand the privileges of the House and why it is important for us to debate them today and for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to be involved in this matter later in the course of the debate.

Questions of privilege are extremely important. I can give some examples of the House's privileges. MPs have privileges as elected members of the House, but the House as a whole has privileges too. MPs' rights and immunities include freedom of speech. My colleague talked about this earlier. We also have freedom from arrest in civil action, exemption from jury duty, and exemption from attendance as a witness in court. One of the most important privileges, especially in the context of today's debate, is freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation, and molestation.

The matter before us today specifically concerns protection from obstruction. Nobody can obstruct an MP who is attempting to attend the House to represent his or her constituents. That is exactly what happened to our two colleagues who raised this question of privilege. When I say that is exactly what happened, that is not my personal opinion. It is the opinion of the Speaker of the House. In preparing his ruling, he spoke to several individuals involved in the incidents. After analyzing the facts and the situation, and probably after looking at surveillance camera footage, he found that, on the basis of the evidence before him, there was a prima facie breach of the parliamentary privilege not to be obstructed when attempting to attend the House.

When the Speaker rules that, first of all, there has been a breach of privilege, he is then ready to hear a motion for the House to be seized of the question. This has happened many times in the history of this place, without naming any specific examples. On several occasions, we have been seized with questions of privilege, and the Speaker has sometimes ruled that a breach of privilege did in fact occur. In other instances there was not enough evidence to rule that a breach of privilege occurred. Ultimately, however, it is up to the House to vote on the matter, but we were deprived of that because of the government's actions, and that is why we are all here today.

When my colleagues raised the question of privilege, the appropriate motion was moved so that the matter could be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which would have been seized with the matter. The debate began last week, I think. Arguments on both sides were heard. The committee even heard from some government members who disagreed. They felt that a breach of privilege did not necessarily occur. Naturally, the members on this side believed that a breach did occur and that the matter needed to be referred to the committee.

What happened during that debate is unprecedented in the history of this place. The government moved a motion to proceed to orders of the day, and that motion, moved by my colleague from Brossard—Saint-Lambert, was adopted. She did not seem to realize the consequences it would have. Indeed, it set a precedent in the House.

While the House was seized with a question of privilege, the government decided to cut the debate short and proceed to orders of the day. That meant that the debate was over, and the House never voted on the question of privilege to refer it to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Even the Conservatives never went this far, and that is something that we cannot often say. I was here in the House from 2011 to 2015, and I saw many surprising things from the Conservative government. However, this time the Liberals went even further. At least the Conservatives had the decency to simply vote against motions to refer matters to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. When questions of privilege were raised, we debated them and voted on them.

Even though it is difficult for us, we sometimes have to accept that a certain party holds more than half the seats. We therefore have to accept the democratic decisions of the House, even though they may not always be the decisions we want. At least the matter was brought before the House and voted on. That is the least we should be able to expect.

Under the Conservatives, we would vote. The motion would not be adopted and the matter would not be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. At least we could say that the House had expressed its opinion on the matter. A government does not automatically win all the votes just because it holds a majority. There are many members of the House who are independent enough to vote according to their conscience, particularly when it comes to questions of privilege.

We could at least have voted on it. However, in an unprecedented move, the government decided to quite simply interrupt the debate. That is why we are still talking about it today. The Speaker ruled that the interruption of the debate was completely inappropriate, and that this question must return to the House so that we may continue debating it. The matter was to be revived, as I recall it was put, because we had not really finished discussing it.

Thus, I applaud the ruling by the Speaker, who agreed to again recognize that there was a prima facie case of privilege and who again allowed a member to move a motion to refer to committee the same question of privilege raised last week concerning members who were prevented from coming to vote in the House. It goes without saying that it is now up to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, a committee of parliamentarians, to study the matter and to hear from witnesses, as it has in other cases.

The case of Yvon Godin was mentioned earlier. He, too, was prevented from voting and, like others, he testified before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The committee, which is made up of MPs, will look into the matter, hear from witnesses, try to shed light on what happened that day, and make recommendations to correct the situation. It is important to note that this is not the first time that a question of privilege concerning members' access to the House has been brought before this chamber, and I have the feeling that it will not be the last. That is why the government must absolutely support the Conservatives' motion to refer this matter to the committee.

We must identify permanent solutions, and it is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that will be able to do that. I encourage all my colleagues to support this motion.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. The member for Sherbrooke always has such interesting things to say. His remarks are always very intelligent and logical. It is always such a pleasure to hear from him in the House.

I am new here, so I was not around from 2011 to the change in government. I decided to run for office in 2015 because I believed in this democracy. I believed that all of us, whether in government or in opposition, could express ourselves, and I believed that what I had to say in the House had a real impact. That included our right to vote. When I vote on bills here in the House, whether I vote for or against them, I always do so very proudly as a representative of the people of Jonquière.

We are debating a motion to recommend clarifying the situation in committee. In his speech, my colleague said that this has happened before. In his opinion, what concerns or fears might be preventing the government from sending this motion to committee to clarify the situation once and for all?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comment and her question.

I do not know what goes on in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who seems to be the one behind all this procedure. He is often involved in these matters.

I do not understand why he would not think it appropriate to give the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs the mandate to examine the question of privilege raised by our two colleagues, who felt their privilege had been breached. I see no explanation for that. I understand that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is busy at the moment. It has a rather full agenda, to say the least.

That said, as the Speaker said earlier in his ruling, this matter takes precedence over everything else. That is why we are discussing it here today. This matter is so important to the House that it is at the top of the agenda.

It would go without saying that it is same thing at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; although it has a full agenda, this issue would be considered first. It is of capital and fundamental importance to the House and must be dealt with as soon as possible. If we want to find lasting solutions to the problem of obstruction and access to the House, then we must discuss this at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as soon as possible. I do not understand how the government could refuse that.

Instead of taking up the House's time to deal with this issue, why does the government not refer the matter to committee, which could do its study at its own pace and then report back to the House with recommendations and its observations on the situation? I do not understand the government. I hope that the Liberals will provide some explanation if they truly intend to not support this motion to refer the matter to committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member across the way is aware that a notice of motion has been provided at the procedure and House affairs committee by members of the procedure and House affairs committee indicating the importance of dealing with this particular privilege. No matter what this House does collectively, my understanding is that the procedure and House affairs committee will in fact be dealing with the privilege issue of unfettered access and, hopefully, it will be able to do a fairly comprehensive job.

Does the member have confidence in the standing committee, as the standing committee in the past was able to deal with these issues, and will he allow the standing committee to do its work and to set its own agenda on it?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is extremely relevant, but he forgot to mention that, in order to be able to examine the specific question of privilege raised by our colleagues, the committee must be instructed by the House to do so.

The committees are free to examine any issue they want. In this case, the committee can examine the issue of access to the parliamentary precinct in general, but to examine the specific question of privilege raised by my two colleagues with regard to what happened to them and set the record straight, the committee must be instructed by the House of Commons to do so. It cannot undertake a study of its own volition when it comes to a question of privilege.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. However, I would like to remind him that the debate will be interrupted at 6:30 this evening, obviously. Not 6:30 tomorrow morning.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of you to clarify that debate will be interrupted at 6:30 this evening and not tomorrow morning. I would be filibustering if I were to speak for 12 hours. My colleague opposite would not like that.

I would like to give an introductory course to the people of my riding; those in the galleries; and the Canadians who watch us every day on CPAC, the television station that broadcasts the proceedings of the House of Commons.

Heaven knows that the House of Commons is an esteemed place in Canada. It is a very important place for our democracy. This democracy is guided by a book entitled House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which is our bible. The book is updated any time changes are made by Parliament and its parliamentarians, not by a political party. There is a fundamental difference between the two because, historically, any changes to the way the House of Commons operates were made unanimously by all of the parties.

Earlier, I was pleased to hear my colleagues say that the Conservatives never went as far as the Liberals. I do not know if it is because the Liberals were the third party in the last Parliament and they were insulted or frustrated to have been left out in the cold for four years. It seems that their frustration is causing them to treat all members in an extremely disrespectful manner.

Once again, the NDP criticized the Harper government a great deal. I will not speak to all their criticism, but I can say that, clearly, most of it was not founded. I will say that their criticism of the government today is even more severe. We have the right to say that the Liberals are much more disrespectful than the Conservatives were in the last Parliament.

It is important to understand that the question of privilege that we are discussing today is very important. We need to tell Canadians that the privileges we have as parliamentarians are important.

It is almost as though we are in a bubble here on Parliament Hill. Canadians do not necessarily see everything that happens every day here, but we are the ones, as parliamentarians, who look after the Canadian Constitution and the business of Parliament so that the country can be properly administered, despite the fact that we have some serious reservations at this time. We can come back to that.

We are in this situation today because the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs should examine an issue. Indeed, the government moved a motion to implement some fundamental changes regarding how the House of Commons operates. Obviously, some elements of the changes are debatable, but at the same time, some elements require discussion and openness on the part of all parliamentarians.

The reason the Liberals say they want to change all this is to bring Parliament into the 21st century. We take no issue with that, but it has to be done in a way that is respectful to all members of the House, by giving them the chance to vote and make a decision together. We have to be able reach a consensus. That is not happening.

The Liberal Party is literally trying to shove down our throats new ways of running Parliament, including having the Prime Minister come here only one day a week. We would no longer sit on Friday. There is a whole slew of fundamental changes on the horizon. It is important for all parliamentarians to be able to express their opinion. We need to have an open and frank discussion. We have not had that, and are not seeing that in committee.

Several people have mentioned that even during the Liberal years of the Chrétien government, all the changes made in the House of Commons were made unanimously. It is fundamentally important.

This is a fundamental issue. As the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has not tired of repeating for the past several weeks, she wants to have a discussion, a conversation. Those are important words.

I am in business. If I had the kind of discussions and conversations that the member wants to have with us or says she wants to have with us, then I am sorry, but I would be in business alone. No doubt about it. I would not be able to have a conversation with someone who does not want to listen to what I have to say and does not want me to participate in making decisions. It is like a company with a number of shareholders. People have to talk to each other and understand each other. They have to make a decision and vote on it. The same general principle applies here.

It is of vital and fundamental importance that all parliamentarians have a chance to speak. This is not the kind of thing I say often, but once again, I would like to thank my NDP colleagues for recognizing that the Conservatives never tried to go as far as the Liberals are going now. This is utterly indefensible. Those of us on this side of the House, along with the Green Party member, are unanimous in saying that consensus in the House of Commons is the only way to change the Standing Orders.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member will have another 13 minutes and 30 seconds when we resume debate.

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

Public Services and Procurement

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am coming back to a question I originally raised on December 5 with the Minister of National Defence on the procurement issue of sole-sourcing the Super Hornets. The minister started talking about a fabricated capability gap. This is a debate we have raised in the House on a number of occasions during question period as well as at committee.

We need to talk a little about the history of the so-called capability gap. We need to remember that first and foremost, the Royal Canadian Air Force has said numerous times, and this includes the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force, General Hood, when he was at committee, that there is no capability gap. The fighter jets the Royal Canadian Air Force employs today can easily meet all of the targets we have in having enough planes to serve our NORAD commitments, to protect Canadian sovereignty, to participate in NATO operations, as well as participate in other coalition activities, as we do from time to time.

When the Conservative Party was in government, we deployed our CF-18s to Kuwait as part of the air combat mission bombing ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. We also have to remember that the current fleet of CF-18s is being upgraded. The CF-18s are in the process of being upgraded to extend their life expectancy to 2025. We have a fleet of 77 CF-18s, the legacy Hornets, that are operational and can meet all the needs of the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Just last week, I raised this question again during the adjournment proceedings, and was able to document to the government that not only are Conservatives saying this, but 13 retired commanders of the Royal Canadian Air Force have also told the government and have written directly to the Prime Minister saying that sole-sourcing the Super Hornet is a bad idea, that it will be more expensive and will reduce the defence posture of the Royal Canadian Air Force.

We also know that defence analysts, as well as Defence Research and Development Canada, which is a part of the Department of National Defence, also published a paper saying that our current CF-18s will fulfill all the requirements of the Royal Canadian Air Force until 2025.

Therefore, I again implore the government to quit fabricating this capability gap. Let us get down to having an open and transparent competition so that we can get the right jet at the right price that is in the best interests of the Royal Canadian Air Force, our troops, and Canadian taxpayers.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for the opportunity to talk about the replacement of our fighter jets. This is an item of unfinished business that we inherited from the previous government.

On November 22, the government announced a plan to replace our fighter fleet. It is a simple, three-part plan.

First, we agreed to implement new measures to extend the life of the fleet of CF-18s, which would allow them to remain operational until they were replaced. Second, as promised, we are going to launch an open and transparent tendering process to acquire a new permanent fleet. Third, we also agreed to explore the possibility of buying 18 Super Hornets to replace our aging CF-18s.

Over the past few months, Canadian officials have been meeting regularly with representatives of the American government and Boeing in that regard. The Minister of National Defence met with his counterpart, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, General Mattis, and has also written to ask him to give this matter his personal attention and support.

The Government of Canada recently sent a letter of request to the U.S. government, which described our requirements, indicated the timeline, and confirmed our intent to apply the industrial and technological benefits policy to this future acquisition. These discussions and these exchanges will allow us to determine whether the U.S. government can provide an interim fleet of Super Hornets at a reasonable price, in an acceptable timeframe, and on terms satisfactory to Canada.

We must ensure that our Canadian Armed Forces can carry out their mission, both here and abroad. A modern fleet of fighter jets is vital if we are to defend Canada and exercise our sovereignty, especially in the north. It is a vital contribution to NORAD and to the protection of the continent that we share with the United States.

The fighter jets are also a key element of our commitment to our allies in NATO, the alliance that ensures peace and stability in Europe.

We are fully aware of the challenges that a mixed fleet could pose. We will ensure that our air force has the resources to face these challenges. In fact, the majority of our partners and our close allies, including the U.S., the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Australia, already operate mixed fleets.

The least we can do is provide our troops with the equipment and capacity they need. That is why we are going forward with this plan. Taken together, these measures will assure Canadians that Canada's fighter jet needs are met in both the short and long terms.

We will take as much time as we need to make sure the RFP process to permanently replace our CF-18s is fair and permanent. We will ensure that the industry has every opportunity to participate. The RFP process will also be guided by the results of the defence review. This process will ensure that we acquire fighter jets that are suitable for the Canadian Armed Forces in the long term, that are priced right, and that will have robust economic spinoffs for Canada.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the parliamentary secretary, but, again, he is just going on with this fabricated capability. The Liberals have a credibility gap on this. Let us look at what people actually have said about the sole sourcing of the F-18.

Alan Williams said it best. He is a former assistant deputy minister for materiel. He said, “You don’t tell a company you intend on buying their product and then try to negotiate a price...You lose any negotiating power you might have had.” Even the government is saying that it is going to cost $5 billion to $7 billion to buy 18 fighter jets. That is over $330 million apiece. That is ridiculous and a waste of taxpayer money.

George Petrolekas, a retired colonel, said, “an interim new aircraft purchase solves little, and if anything, constrains Canada’s future options”. We just cannot go ahead with this.

It comes down to this. We have a government that is led by the Prime Minister who has no interest in funding our Canadian Armed Forces properly. The government has cut now over $12 billion from future procurement, so I do not know how it will pay for this fighter jet. The government should move immediately to an open, fair, and transparent competition so we get the right plane today.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind members that we inherited an issue that the previous government was unable to resolve. The previous government did not have the will and was unable to advance the replacement of our aging fighter jets or to make the right decisions at the right time. The Conservatives also lost many years as a result of their poor management and indecisiveness. Too often they became mired in processes that were highly politicized and resulted in repeated failure.

Since coming to power, we have worked very hard to correct past mistakes and to ensure that our troops have the necessary equipment to meet Canada's defence needs.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte is not present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given. Accordingly, the notice has been deemed withdrawn.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 3 p.m. pursuant to order made Monday, April 3.

(The House adjourned at 6:40 p.m.)