Debates of Dec. 11th, 2018

Member of Parliament for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to a question of privilege raised by a member of the second opposition party who was wondering about my absence from the House.

First, I would like to set the record straight. It was not my decision to be away from the House. The circumstances that led to my absence were not of my choosing, nor were they the result of anything I did. At no time and under no circumstances was I taken to task, except by the NDP member in his complaint regarding my absence from the House. My conduct was, at all times, above reproach. I am not collecting a salary from the House of Commons. I belong to a caucus, and for me to remain a member, my freedom of speech is subject to certain restrictions.

Despite my absence from the House, I have, at all times, worked to represent the interests of my Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel constituents and other citizens and groups that have sought my assistance. The personal and family reasons that led me to announce my intention to resign are extremely serious.

Here is some context. Various events occurred and circumstances arose, some consecutively, others concurrently, and some simultaneously.

On April 24, I sent out a press release indicating that I intended to resign my seat. On June 12, I spoke in the House on this subject. I then toured my riding in order to be accountable to my constituents. I heard from them that they really wanted me to find a way to continue my mandate while being relieved from my obligations in the House.

My work on constituency matters continued to take up most of my time from late June until August, to the point where I had to cancel all of my holidays. On August 29, my commitment to continue representing my constituents was made public, even though the reasons for my announced departure were not. A solution was needed. As I will explain, other events occurred that made it unnecessary to search for such a solution.

August 31 marked the culmination of a series of events completely beyond my control, and on September 14, it was agreed, at the request of my party, that I keep my seat and that the party whip would let me know when I was needed in the House. At every moment, no matter the circumstances, I respected the direction of the whip.

At that time, I had one major reservation about the implementation of the Cannabis Act. It troubled me that it did not include sufficient measures to raise awareness about the dangers of cannabis use for road users.

The lack of awareness initiatives surprised me, given that manufacturers had shown more willingness to work on that aspect than I expected from any government. During discussions on this issue, it became clear that my decision to remain in office was problematic. Consequently, I was informed that my departure date would coincide with the entry into force of the Cannabis Act, but that in response to my efforts and those of other people, our government was going to announce a significant commitment regarding the prevention of drug-impaired driving.

I was then informed that a mistake had been made in setting my departure date. I would be contacted with a different date. I then began an internal conversation involving my caucus, which ended with me receiving another departure date. The decision I was given on December 14 was that I would leave the House for a few weeks to focus on the tasks I had been asked to do. I informed the people I was speaking to that I would not be keeping my MP's salary during this period, even though I would be doing the work that was asked of me, and would perform all my other MP duties during this time. I wanted to offer a concrete gesture with regard to the formal portion of my duties as an MP. Time spent in the House should, in principle, account for just a small portion of an MP's work. Nevertheless, I decided to offer this concrete gesture for the sake of a cause that is very inspiring and important to me.

The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley raised a question of privilege regarding my absence, but some of his facts were quite simply false. I did not make a statement in the House on April 24. I urge the member to re-read my news release. Contrary to his claims, I continued my work as an MP from the end of the spring through to the fall. I continue to do this work. Contrary to his claims, I am not collecting my salary. Furthermore, I am not the one who chose the planned departure date.

I have been a lawyer for a long time. I also teach, publish and give lectures. Since my nomination campaign, I indicated that I would continue to do all of this even after the election. I have been very clear about this throughout my mandate. I even stated this in the House. The cabinet shuffle changed nothing. I was and remain convinced that Canadians would be better served if members kept some kind of job, to anchor them to the real world.

During this time, I fought some tough battles to protect my constituents and my community. Furthermore, in recent months, I have undertaken and continued work on topics that I hold dear to my heart. Many of these topics have been keeping me busy these days, and I will share some examples. On June 10, 1940, our country's government interned Italian Canadians without reason, without charges and without trial. These people were detained throughout the war. I have known about this since I was a child, but it was only when I became an adult that I understood why people would whisper as they passed by, even though they had grown old.

Italian Canadians still carry the stigma of this collective trauma. I remind members that our government took over Casa d'Italia, the oldest cultural and ethnic centre in the country, which immigrants from the old country built with their bare hands, to house soldiers, who pillaged it before they left.

No appropriate reparation has ever been made. To date, the House has never issued an apology.

I will give an example of the kind of stigma I am talking about. Although there are 1.5 million Italian-Canadians, there is not a single one sitting in the Senate.

Furthermore, as I said, I have been practising labour law for 35 years as a professor, prosecutor and researcher. Here is another example. Our labour laws are based on ideas developed during the industrial revolution of the 19th century. It should come as no surprise that they need to be updated to catch up with the 21st century. I am putting all of my expertise to work for my government and my constituents, and I am working hard on this societal project.

In reference to the member who raised the question of privilege about me, I would like to ask him whether he was concerned about a member's presence in the chamber when his neighbour, the outgoing member for Outremont, was absent for nearly a year while still collecting a salary.

If necessary, I will complete my comments outside the House.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel. I will review his arguments and the other arguments put forward on the matter and I will come back to the House with a ruling in due course.

Parliamentary Budget Officer

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to subsection 79.2(2) of the Parliament of Canada Act, it is my duty to present the House a report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, entitled “Fall Economic Statement 2018: Issues for Parliamentarians.”

Foreign Affairs

[Omar Alghabra, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade Diversification, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Canada-Japan, Side-Letter on Motor Vehicle Standards and Regulations under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, done in Ottawa on November 29”.

Office of the Taxpayers' Ombudsman

[Deborah Schulte, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2017-2018 Taxpayers' Ombudsman annual report, entitled “Effecting Change”.

Office of the Ombudsman for National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a document entitled “Annual Report 2017-2018 Ombudsman National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces”.

Government Response to Petitions

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary 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 one petition.

Government Response to Opposition Motion on Terrorism

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government of Canada's response to the supply day motion calling for a plan to be tabled to bring to justice those who have fought with ISIS or participated in any terrorist activity.

Justice

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 24th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights entitled “Moving Forward in the Fight Against Human Trafficking in Canada”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Democracy under Threat: Risks and Solutions in the Era of Disinformation and Data Monopoly.”

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present petition e-1757, signed by approximately 800 Canadians, which points out that the president of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, has unleashed wars against Georgia and Ukraine and is responsible for much of the conflict that we are seeing in Syria as well as the oppression of the people of Chechnya. They point out that he is embedded in the chemical bombings in Syria that are responsible for over 10,000 deaths in Ukraine and was responsible for the shooting down of MH17 over Eastern Ukraine that resulted in over 300 civilian casualties. Yesterday was International Human Rights Day and we remember all the human rights abuses that happened in the Crimean Peninsula in Donbass under Putin's regime.

They call on the Government of Canada to declare Putin a war criminal and that he should stand trial in front of the International Criminal Court at the Hague for his crimes of aggression and war crimes as well as crimes against humanity and sponsoring terrorism.

Firearms

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by Canadians from the ridings of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Thunder Bay—Rainy River and the Pontiac. They call on the House of Commons to respect the rights of law-abiding firearms owners and reject the Prime Minister's plan to waste taxpayer money studying a ban on guns that are already banned.

Animal Welfare

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have petitions signed by hundreds of Cape Bretoners who are very passionate about animals and how animals are treated. They ask the House to support Bill S-214 and ban the sale and/or manufacturing of animal-tested cosmetics and ingredients in Canada.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of individuals who are concerned about the trafficking of organs. They call on the Parliament of Canada to move quickly on Bill S-240, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to prohibit Canadians from travelling abroad to acquire human organs removed without consent or as a result of a financial transaction and to render inadmissible to Canada any and all permanent residents or foreign nationals who have participated in this abhorrent trade in human organs.

Vision Care

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table another petition regarding a national framework for action to promote eye health and vision care. The petitioners indicate that the number of Canadians with vision loss is expected to double in the next 20 years. They also indicate that just 1% of the total expenditures on vision loss is invested in post-vision loss rehabilitation therapy. They ask the government to put in place a national framework for action to promote eye health and vision care that would benefit all Canadians through the reduction of vision impairment resulting from preventable conditions and the modification of known risk factors. The petitioners are from Lancaster, Green Valley, Alexandria, St. Catharines, Aylmer, Queenston, Springfield and Amherstburg.

I want to wish everyone a very merry Christmas and all the best in the new year.

Sex Selection

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present three petitions. The first one highlights that gender-based violence against girls begins before they are born. The petition asks Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls through the use of sex selection.

Impaired Driving

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition, regarding impaired driving, asks that the Prime Minister keep his promise to increase the penalties on impaired driving causing death and that there be mandatory minimum sentences as he promised he would introduce.

Canada Summer Jobs Initiative

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition is on the Canada summer jobs. The petitioners ask the government to end the attestation requirement and the values test, and they are very happy that the Prime Minister apologized for last year's attestation and values test.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Access to Information

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have notice of a question of privilege by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

Before I go to him, I want to remind members of the rules that apply. In House of Commons of Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, edited by Bosc and Gagnon, at pages 144 and 145, it states:

A Member wishing to raise a question of privilege which does not arise out of the proceedings during the course of a sitting must give notice before bringing the question to the attention of the House. The Member must provide a written statement to the Speaker at least one hour before raising the question of privilege in the House. If such notice is not given, the Speaker will not allow the Member to proceed. Speakers have also ruled that oral notice is neither necessary nor sufficient. Questions of privilege for which written notice has been given are raised at specific times, namely on the opening of the sitting, following Routine Proceedings but before Orders of the Day, and immediately after Question Period. They are occasionally raised during a debate.

The notice submitted to the Speaker should contain four elements:

1. It should indicate that the Member is writing to give notice of his or her intention to raise a question of privilege.

2. It should state that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity.

3. It should indicate the substance of the matter that the Member proposes to raise by way of a question of privilege.

4. It should include the text of the motion which the Member must be ready to propose to the House should the Speaker rule that the matter is a prima facie case of privilege.

By providing the Chair with a context for the question of privilege and a proposed remedy for the problem, the Member assists the Speaker in dealing with the issue in an informed and expeditious manner. The inclusion of the text of the proposed motion allows the Speaker the opportunity to suggest changes to avoid any procedural difficulties in the wording; otherwise, the Member might be prevented or delayed from moving the motion should the Speaker rule the matter a prima facie question of privilege.

In this case, I received notice but not any indication of the substance of the matter. It seems to me that members have started to forget what these rules provide. While I will allow the member to proceed in this case, I am indicating to members that in future I expect them, of course, to follow what the rules provide, as I have read this morning.

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not providing sufficient information. Should a future question of privilege arise, I will be sure to do that.

However, I rise on a question of privilege relating to a declaration I received in lieu of response to Order Paper Question No. 2001, regarding the government's refusal to cover the costs of legal assistance to Admiral Mark Norman.

The document I received from the government reads in part:

With respect to legal assistance provide to specific individuals, a response could disclose personal and solicitor-client privileged information. Therefore the Government must respectfully decline to respond.

We are accustomed to the government responding to written questions with non-answers, and we are also aware that Speakers' rulings, documented in Bosc and Gagnon state that “...it is not the role of the Chair to determine whether or not the contents of documents tabled in the House are accurate”. However, what I have not experienced in my relatively short time in the House is a situation where the government makes no attempt whatsoever to answer a question or offer reasons why it cannot answer a question, but instead boldly refuses to even respond to a question. That is a different matter altogether and, I believe, is unprecedented.

While I appreciate that this may appear to be a technical point, the government has for years been getting away with providing inaccurate, misleading and incomplete answers by exploiting the technicality I mentioned earlier from Bosc and Gagnon. I think you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the last thing the House needs to do is codify another technical loophole to allow the government to deny information to members.

Mr. Speaker, you may be tempted to consider the statement a response, since it was tabled like a response, but to do so would make mockery of the proceeding, since a response stating the government declines to respond is a communication effort left better to a Monty Python skit than to a proceeding in Parliament, and not unlike the time Graham Chapman attempted to explain rumours of cannibalism in the British Navy when he said “...Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit...”, which could also have doubled as an answer to an Order Paper question.

Standing Order 39(5)(b) has a provision to deal with the government when it fails to respond to a question within the 45-day period required under subsection (a), but no such procedure exists in the Standing Orders to deal with a government refusing to respond outright. I would argue that the only means to deal with this matter is through a question of privilege.

On December 16, 1980, at page 5,797 of Hansard, Madam Speaker Sauvé ruled that:

While it is correct to say that the government is not required by our rules to answer written or oral questions, it would be bold to suggest that no circumstances could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an hon. member....

The second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, at page 234, offers a condition that is relevant and has been clearly met to allow you, Mr. Speaker, to rule favourably on my question of privilege. It says that in order for the Speaker to find a prima facia question of privilege:

...an admission by someone in authority, such as a Minister of the Crown or an officer of a department, an instrument of government policy, or a government agency, either that a Member of the House of Commons was intentionally misled...and a direct relationship between the misleading information and a proceeding in Parliament, is necessary.

As you know Mr. Speaker, deliberately withholding information from the House is in the same category as deliberately providing it with misleading information. They are both deliberate acts that obstruct and impede members of Parliament in the performance of their duties. In this case, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence actually signed the defying declaration that his government declines to respond, and he did so through a proceeding in Parliament.

Given this deliberate and admitted defiance of the authority of the House of Commons by the parliamentary secretary, I trust, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to move the appropriate motion and refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I am prepared to move such a motion should you find favour with these arguments.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for Perth—Wellington for raising his question.

Before I go to the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Government House leader, while not commenting on the substance of the argument, I must say that I appreciate the reference to Monty Python, although he did not get into the question of whether a sheep's bladder may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.