House of Commons Hansard #273 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was money.

Topics

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1477Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

With regard to the Prime Minister’s trips to the riding of South Surrey—White Rock in November and December of 2017: (a) what are the amounts and details of all expenses related to the trips; (b) what are the details of all official government business conducted on the trips; (c) what amount has been received by the Receiver General for Canada from the (i) Liberal Party of Canada, (ii) Official Agent for the Liberal Party of Canada by-election campaign in South Surrey—White Rock, (iii) Official Agent for the Liberal Party of Canada by-election campaign in South Surrey—White Rock for reimbursement related to the Prime Minister’s trips; and (d) what are the details of any payment received in (c), including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of expenses for which taxpayers were reimbursed, (iv) sender?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1478Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON

With regard to the Prime Minister’s trips to the riding of Scarborough—Agincourt in November and December of 2017: (a) what are the amounts and details of all expenses related to the trips; (b) what are the details of all official government business conducted on the trip; (c) what amount has been received by the Receiver General for Canada from the (i) Liberal Party of Canada, (ii) Official Agent for the Liberal Party of Canada by-election campaign in Scarborough—Agincourt, (iii) Official Agent for the Liberal Party of Canada by-election campaign in Scarborough—Agincourt for reimbursement related to the Prime Minister’s trips; and (d) what are the details of any payment received in (c), including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of expenses for which taxpayers were reimbursed, (iv) sender?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1479Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB

With regard to the Prime Minister’s trips to the riding of Battlefords—Lloydminster in November and December of 2017: (a) what are the amounts and details of all expenses related to the trips; (b) what are the details of all official government business conducted on the trips; (c) what amount has been received by the Receiver General for Canada from the (i) Liberal Party of Canada, (ii) Official Agent for the Liberal Party of Canada by-election campaign in Battlefords—Lloydminster, (iii) Official Agent for the Liberal Party of Canada by-election campaign in Battlefords—Lloydminster for reimbursement related to the Prime Minister’s trips; and (d) what are the details of any payment received in (c), including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of expenses for which taxpayers were reimbursed, (iv) sender?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1480Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

With regard to expenditures on travel by departments and agencies since January 1, 2016: what is the total amount of expenditures for each of the following ledger codes (i) 51300, (ii) 51302, (iii) 51304, (iv) 51306, (v) 51308, (vi) 51310, (vii) 51312, (viii) 51314, (ix) 51316, (x) 51318, (xi) 51320, (xii) 51322?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1481Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

With regard to expenditures by Environment and Climate Change Canada, since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all expenditures on Relocation within Canada (ledger code 51000), including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of goods or services?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1482Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

With regard to the website of the Government Representative Office in the Senate: (a) did the government provide resources or support for the set-up, preparation, and launch of the website; (b) does the government provide resources or support for its ongoing maintenance and content updates; (c) if the answer to either (a) or (b) is affirmative, what are the details, including the cost or fair market value, of the resources or support, including (i) funding, (ii) physical assets, (iii) human resources, (iv) access to technical support or advice, (v) access to or use of computer resources (e.g., servers, internet connections), (vi) provision of cyber security; (d) what are the titles of all individuals who are involved in providing the resources and support for the website; and (e) what are the titles of all individuals who were involved in negotiating, preparing, and approving the arrangements for providing resources or support for the website?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1483Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

With regard to overpayments by the government, since January 1, 2016, and broken down by month: what is the total amount of (i) salary overpayment (ledger code 10315), (ii) salary overpaid not recognized in Phoenix (ledger code 10321), (iii) overpayments to be recovered (ledger code 10324)?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

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

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is that agreed?

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Presenting PetitionsPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

David Sweet Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order pertaining to the session on the presentation of petitions.

I noticed in today's session that the Standing Orders have been ignored. When members present a petition, they should not state whether they are for or against the petition. They should simply state what the petitioners are presenting.

I noticed that the member for Kingston and the Islands stated that he was personally in support of a petition, and I am not particularly centring him out. I have noticed it on several occasions, particularly this time. I just wanted to point that out and let members know that the Standing Orders are clear. Members can present petitions from their constituents but they cannot speak to whether they support them or not.

Presenting PetitionsPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I am grateful to the hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook for making this important point that members should be cognizant of. Sometimes it is true. We get tired of telling members this and we let them go a bit, but it is important to remind members that this is the rule. It is not the time for members to express their opinions about the petition but simply to say what the petitioners are calling for. That part is fine, which allows quite a bit as a matter of fact.

Access to Information on Prime Minister's Trip to IndiaPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege regarding misleading information that has been presented to the House by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety.

During question period on February 26, 2018, I asked the government a number of questions regarding a briefing provided to the media by the Prime Minister's security adviser, Daniel Jean. The briefing attempted to explain how a convicted terrorist ended up at an event with the Prime Minister during his trip to India. The reason Mr. Jean gave was that the Government of India conspired and manipulated events in order to ensure the attendance of Jaspal Atwal at the reception. My first question to the government was simply, “What proof does the Prime Minister have that the Government of India did this?”

As you know Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety did not provide any evidence to this claim, nor did he refute it. Instead he said:

I can say that the invitation that was issued to this particular individual, Mr. Atwal, should never have been issued. Indeed, as soon as it was discovered, it was rescinded by the Government of Canada.

This statement supports the statement made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs when she told the Indian foreign affairs minister that Jaspal Atwal's invitation to the event was an honest mistake. If we follow the evolution of the responses from the Minister of Public Safety on that day, the answers begin to also support the theory of Daniel Jean, a theory that blames rogue elements in the Indian government.

The Minister of Public Safety said on February 26:

...Canada has very strong, very proficient national security and police agencies. They are well trained in what they need to do to protect and advance the Canadian national interest, and they have done their jobs in relation to the trip to India. They have done that job exceedingly well to make sure the best interests of Canadians are served and protected.

On February 27, 2018, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister the same question, and the Prime Minister, in his one answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question, combined both the notion espoused by his Minister of Foreign Affairs that the invitation was a mistake, and Daniel Jean's theory laying blame on factions in the Indian government.

The Prime Minister said:

Mr. Speaker, as we have already said, this invitation should never have been sent. As soon as we realized that it had, the invitation was withdrawn.

Canada's national security and law enforcement agencies are non-partisan, highly competent, and very effective. We have faith in them to protect Canada and Canadians. They continue to work very hard to serve and protect the interests of Canadians.

Later in question period, on February 27, the Prime Minister introduced to the House a new character to this saga. He said:

Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, this individual never should have been invited. As soon as we found out that he was, that invitation was rescinded. The member responsible for the invitation has taken full responsibility, and I will be following up with that member later this afternoon.

The member he was referring to was the member for Surrey Centre.

When pressed as to the conspiracy theory, the Minister of Public Safety out and out dismissed it as false when he said, in response to my question on February 27:

...the hon. member, both today and yesterday, has provided her interpretation of events. In fact, her insinuations and her accusations are false.

At the same time, that same minister and the Prime Minister continued to support the public servant who claimed, and has never retracted or explained to any member of Parliament, or clarified his comments, that the Indian government was behind the events that led to Mr. Atwal's attendance at the reception. This contradiction continued all last week, and it continues to this day, despite more evidence that the conspiracy theory may be bogus.

Mr. Atwal, at a press conference last week, confirmed that he asked the member for Surrey Centre for an invitation to the Prime Minister's event. We in the opposition have given the government ample opportunity to clarify this matter, and it refuses to do so.

This contempt for the House is not unlike a matter that was raised in 2002. In 2002, another Liberal government refused to clarify the record, forcing the opposition to raise the matter as a question of privilege. It would seem that once again the opposition needs to take this extraordinary step and seek the authority of the House to cut through the contradictions and falsehoods to finally get to the truth.

In addition, the official opposition has dedicated its opposition day tomorrow to call on the Prime Minister to instruct Daniel Jean to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, to give the same courtesy to members of Parliament that he gave to the media about his government's theory regarding the Indian government's involvement in this matter.

It is my sincere hope that the Prime Minister will see fit to not show further contempt for this House and allow his official to at least treat members of Parliament the same as members of the press gallery.

In your ruling of yesterday, Mr. Speaker, while on an unrelated matter, you touched on the issue of respect that members of Parliament are expected to receive from the government and its officials in these situations. You said, Mr. Speaker:

...as Speaker, I understand the member for Abbotsford's frustration and the sense of disrespect that he feels in not having had priority access to a briefing on such a complex piece of legislation. In fact, the Chair not only finds this matter to be unfortunate, but also entirely avoidable.... There is no question that the work of members of Parliament is made more difficult without expeditious access to legislative information. Given this reality, there is a rightful expectation that those responsible for the information should do their utmost to ensure members’ access to it. Not respecting this expectation does a disservice to all. It is particularly disconcerting when the government gives priority to the media over the members of Parliament.

On February 1, 2002, the Speaker ruled in a matter in regard to the former minister of national defence. The former hon. member for Portage—Lisgar alleged that the minister of national defence deliberately misled the House as to when he knew what prisoners taken by Canadian JTF2 troops had been handed over to the Americans. In support of that allegation, he cited the minister's responses in question period on two successive days. The Speaker considered the matter and found that there was a prima facie question of privilege. He said:

The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House.

The authorities to which Speaker Milliken was referring included the following from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, which states on page 115:

Misleading a Minister or a Member has...been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege.

The Speaker, in 2002, accepted the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House and made the following statement. He said, “Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation”. The Speaker went on to say:

On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. I therefore invite the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar [ironically] to move his motion.

On February 25, 2015, the House leader of the official opposition raised a question of privilege regarding statements made in the House by the former member for Mississauga—Streetsville. The hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville had deliberately misled the House during debate on Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act, when he stated that he had witnessed evidence of voter fraud first-hand. On February 24 and February 25, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville admitted that, contrary to his original claim, he had not actually witnessed what he originally claimed to have witnessed. The Speaker found that by taking something the member knew not to be true and presenting it as eye-witness evidence, something so egregious constituted contempt.

I believe we are faced with the same scenario today, except government members refuse to admit it, as the previous Liberal government refused to do. On March 3, 2015, the Speaker delivered his ruling, citing what Speaker Milliken was faced with in February 2002 when the then-minister of national defence provided contradictory information to the House. The Speaker went on to conclude:

In keeping with that precedent, I am prepared to accord the same courtesy to the member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

At the same time, the fact remains that the House continues to be seized of completely contradictory statements. This is a difficult position in which to leave members, who must be able to depend on the integrity of the information with which they are provided to perform their parliamentary duties.

Accordingly, in keeping with the precedent cited earlier in which Speaker Milliken indicated that the matter merited “...further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air”, I am prepared in this case for the same reason to allow the matter to be put to the House.

The House has been presented with several conflicting answers to one very simple question about the appearance of Jaspal Atwal at the event in India. This is a grave situation that has not had a satisfactory resolution.

Parliamentarians have a right to obtain accurate and non-conflicting information, even clarification, when asking questions of the government. If the media got this information, members of Parliament should have this clarification. In this instance, this has not occurred.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Access to Information on Prime Minister's Trip to IndiaPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank the hon. House leader for the official opposition, the member for Portage—Lisgar, for her presentation today. She raised some really important issues. Obviously, we have some concerns also. Therefore, I would like to take the time to reflect on and go over some of the points that she put forward in the House today, and if need be, I will come back with my comments.