House of Commons Hansard #303 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was environment.
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Speaker, on March 1, 2018, a tragedy occurred in my riding, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, when a young woman named Athena Gervais died after drinking a sugary, high-alcohol drink. My question is for the Minister of Health.
Can she inform the House of the measures Health Canada plans to take to ensure that such a terrible tragedy never happens again?
Ginette Petitpas Taylor LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his question and for his work on this file.
As he pointed out, even one tragedy is one too many. As soon as I heard about the incident, I immediately issued a proposal for consultation on restricting the amount of alcohol in single-serve, sugary, high-alcohol beverages. The consultation period just ended, and we are looking closely at the recommendations. I want to thank everyone who took part in the consultation as well as the Standing Committee on Health for its hard work on this matter.
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals allowed Canadians to believe Cambridge Analytica whistle-blower Christopher Wylie, working in the Liberal leader's office in 2009, was terminated because his electoral data manipulation was too invasive. In testimony to the ethics committee today, Mr. Wylie said that was not why his contract ended.
In a 2016 email to the U.K.'s leave movement in the Brexit referendum, Wylie said that the outcome could be influenced with psychographic micro-targeting and that he was working on a similar project for a major Canadian political party.
Who is telling the truth?
Karina Gould LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, the Prime Minister has tasked me and our government to ensure that we defend Canada's next federal election against cyber-threats. It is also important that we ensure we look for new ways to deal with data and digital breaches. That is why in Bill C-76 we have a provision against the malicious use of computers.
I look forward to working with colleagues in the House to do what is necessary, as these new technologies evolve, to ensure the integrity of our elections.
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Mr. Speaker, the government is preparing to buy the Trans Mountain expansion, a project that Kinder Morgan is backing away from due to its high risk. It is a project that poses a constant threat to the environment and is opposed by British Columbians and indigenous nations. Quebec is also not interested in assuming the economic, environmental, and social risks.
Will the government reimburse Quebeckers for their share of the $4.5 billion it is going to spend to finance its irresponsible action so that Quebeckers can instead invest in renewable energy?
Bill Morneau LiberalMinister of Finance
We know that the investment in the Trans Mountain expansion is very important to the national interest and to the future of our economy. It will help our economy by fostering economic growth. At the same time, we can also create jobs across the country, in British Columbia, Alberta, and in the other provinces. It truly is in the national interest. That is why we are clearly stating that this project is important for our future.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada apparently just bought a pipeline from Kinder Morgan for $4.5 billion, which it bought for $550 million. There are 15 different court cases right now: indigenous rights cases, environmental group cases, and municipal cases. When the Federal Court of Appeal rules, if the court rules that the permits are invalid, what is the government's plan? Will it restart the environmental assessment process and restart consultations?
Jim Carr LiberalMinister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking the government to speculate hypothetically on what a court may or may not say. We could look retrospectively at what courts have said. Even very recently the Supreme Court has spoken about consultation and actually has sided with the proponent. However, it is not a good idea for us to speculate on what a future court might say on a case that has nothing to do with the ones that have been decided already.
We do know that through this process, there was unprecedented consultation with indigenous people. Forty-three communities signed on to benefit agreements, 33 in—
Erin Weir Independent Regina—Lewvan, SK
Mr. Speaker, as you may have heard, the government announced today that it would buy the Trans Mountain pipeline. Far be it from the CCF to question nationalization.
Could the minister confirm that the new federal crown corporation will honour the existing contract to buy 75% of the project's steel from Regina and make every effort to procure the remaining 25% from Canadian mills?
Bill Morneau LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that we have purchased the assets, and it is our intent that this project move forward in a commercial fashion. We will be seeking the approach that makes the most sense, which will include honouring contracts that have already been moved forward.
What we will seek to do is then move toward consideration of a private sector solution at the appropriate time, creating the value that we want to create for Canadians.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Barton Scotland, Speaker of the National Assembly of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I have notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege about online publications of the RCMP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, respecting Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms. These documents, found on the RCMP website, were brought to my attention yesterday, which is why I am rising today, the earliest opportunity after I became aware of the documents.
On another question of privilege concerning advertising, Speaker Milliken ruled, on May 29, 2008, at page 6276 of the Debates:
In this case, as in others, it is not so much that the event or issue complained of took place at a given time, but rather that the members bringing the matter to the attention of the House did so as soon as practicable after they became aware of the situation.
Turning back to today's question of privilege, I am rising because these online government publications—
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Order. I am going to ask members to take their conversations outside.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner has the floor.
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Mr. Speaker, turning back to today's question of privilege, I am rising because these online government publications presume the adoption of Bill C-71 by Parliament. There is no caveat given by the RCMP that the legislation is subject to parliamentary approval, and there is no acknowledgement of the parliamentary process at all, in fact. This, in my view, is nothing but a contempt of Parliament.
Page 14 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, explains contempt as follows:
As in the case of a Superior Court, when by some act or word a person disobeys or is openly disrespectful of the authority of the House of Commons or Senate or of their lawful commands, that person is subject to being held in contempt of the House of Commons or Senate as the case may be; therefore it will be seen that the Senate and House of Commons have the power or right to punish actions that, while not appearing to be breaches of any specific privilege, are offences against their authority or dignity.
Page 81 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, adds:
The House of Commons enjoys very wide latitude in maintaining its dignity and authority through the exercise of its contempt power. In other words, the House may consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly.
Let me read a sampling of the content found in “Special Business Bulletin No. 93”.
To begin with, we see:
Because not all CZ firearms will be impacted by changes in their classification, business will need to determine if their firearm( s) will be affected by these changes.
Bill C-71 also lists a number of specific Swiss Arms (SA) firearm that will also become prohibited.
If you own CZ/SA firearms, the steps below can help you identify whether your inventory of firearms is affected by Bill C-71. They explain the grandfathering requirements and how to avoid being in illegal possession of a firearm.
That language is quite clear. It is “will be impacted”, “will...become prohibited”, and “is affected”, not “could be”, “may become”, or “might be affected”.
Later in the bulletin, we read:
Business owners will continue to be authorized to transfer any and all impacted CZ or SA firearms in their inventory to properly licenced individuals, until the relevant provisions of Bill C-71 come into force. For an individual owner to be eligible for grandfathering certain requirements must be met by June 30, 2018.
Now, before one might think that the language about the bill's coming into force possibly concedes the need for parliamentary approval, let me continue reading:
The proposed changes to classification status for CZ/SA firearms listed in Bill C-71 will come into force on a date to be determined by the Governor in Council. This date is yet to be determined.
It is my respectful submission that any conditional language one might read or infer in that document is left, in the mind of the reader, to be, therefore, a matter of cabinet discretion, not Parliament's.
Turning to a second document, entitled “How does Bill C- 71 affect individuals?”, we see additional presumptuous language. A lot of it mirrors what I quoted from “Special Business Bulletin No. 93”.
Other passages, however, include:
If your SA firearm was listed in Bill C-71, it will be classified as a prohibited firearm.
It says, “was listed”, as if Bill C-71 was a document from the past, not a bill currently before a parliamentary committee.
Later we read:
To qualify for grandfathering of your currently non-restricted or restricted CZ/SA firearm, the following criteria must be met....
There follows a list of details for firearms owners to meet, which, just coincidentally, happens to be laid out in clause 3 of Bill C-71, yet there is no indication that these are proposals before Parliament, let alone in need of parliamentary sanction to be enforced.
A leading ruling on the presumption of parliamentary decision-making concerning legislation is the ruling of Mr. Speaker Fraser, on October 10, 1989, at page 4457 of the Debates, in respect of the implementation of the goods and services tax.
The impugned advertisements in that case contained similarly unequivocal language, such as “Canada's Federal Sales Tax System will change. Please save this notice”, and, the GST “will replace the existing federal sales tax”.
In this instance, Mr. Speaker Fraser did not find the prima facie case of contempt. However, he could not have been more clear when he stated, and I quote:
I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous. This is a case which, in my opinion, should never recur. I expect the Department of Finance and other departments to study this ruling carefully and remind everyone within the Public Service that we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy....
A vote on this issue might not support the very important message which your Speaker wishes to convey and which I hope will be well considered in the future by governments, departmental officials and advertisement agencies retained by them. This advertisement may not be a contempt of the House in the narrow confines of a procedural definition, but it is, in my opinion, ill-conceived and it does a great disservice to the great traditions of this place. If we do not preserve these great traditions, our freedoms are at peril and our conventions become a mockery. I insist, and I believe I am supported by the majority of moderate and responsible members on both sides of this House, that this ad is objectionable and should never be repeated.
Subsequent rulings have distinguished other factual scenarios from the 1989 ruling, and, I submit, are distinguishable from the circumstances I am rising on today.
On March 13, 1997, at page 8988 of the Debates, Speaker Parent held that a policy-promotion campaign concerning anti-tobacco legislation did not give rise to a prima facie contempt, but the Chair added the following advice, and I quote:
...where the government issues communications to the public containing allusions to measures before the House, it would be advisable to choose words and terms that leave no doubt as to the disposition of these measures.
That advice was put into practice by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in its promotional materials respecting Bill C-50, leading to the 2008 ruling by Mr. Speaker Milliken, which I cited in my opening comments, that there was no prima facie contempt.
More recently, your immediate predecessor ruled, on September 28, 2011, at page 1576 of the Debates, that a procurement solicitation for advisory services for the implications of certain scenarios for the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly was “part of a planning process that might be expected in contemplating the possibility of the repeal of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.”
Last year, Mr. Speaker, you ruled on May 29, 2017, at page 11560 of the Debates, that advertisements to hire the leadership of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, then a matter before the House as part of a budget implementation bill, was not a contempt, because some, but not all, of the government's job postings conceded that parliamentary approval was required. In the ruling, the Chair said:
I was looking for any suggestion that parliamentary approval was being publicized as either unnecessary or irrelevant, or in fact already obtained. Otherwise put, I was looking for any indication of an offence against or disrespect of the authority or dignity of the House and its members.
As it turns out, I think the most relevant ruling in respect of the facts before us today is that of Mr. Speaker Stockwell, in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, given on January 22, 1997, in respect of a government pamphlet explaining municipal reform legislation, not unlike the purpose of the RCMP' s internet guidance. In finding a prima facie contempt, Mr. Speaker Stockwell held:
...I am very concerned by the Ministry pamphlet, which is worded more definitively than the commercial and the press release. To name but a few examples, the brochure claims that “new city wards will be created”, that “work on building the new city will start in 1997”, and that “[t]he new City of Toronto will reduce the number of municipal politicians.
How is one to interpret such unqualified claims? In my opinion, they convey the impression that the passage of the requisite legislation was not necessary or was a foregone conclusion, or that the assembly and the Legislature had no pro forma tangential, even inferior role in the legislative and lawmaking process, and in doing so, they appear to diminish the respect that is due to this House. I would not have come to this view had these claims or proposals—and that is all they are—been qualified by a statement that they would only become law if and when the Legislature gave its stamp of approval to them.
In the RCMP documents, we are not talking about standing up a crown corporation, or hiring a government consultant, or even promoting an anti-smoking campaign, nor are we talking about new tax rules or changes to local government. We are talking about a publication that gives advice on how to avoid becoming a criminal. How much more serious can one get than that? This is not hyperbole.
One of the passages I referred to earlier said, “They explain the grandfathering requirements and how to avoid being in illegal possession of a firearm.” Another was, “lf your SA firearm was listed in Bill C-71, it will be classified as a prohibited firearm.”
The unlawful possession of a firearm can lead to a jail sentence of up to five years. That is pretty serious stuff.
Conservatives have been clear and on the record about their concerns about the RCMP arbitrarily reclassifying firearms. That is why the previous government gave the Governor in Council an oversight role. Basically, what happens is that law-abiding owners who follow all the rules and regulations with respect to their firearms are suddenly, because of one meeting of some bureaucrats, declared criminals for possession of an illegal weapon, when they have owned and used that weapon for sport shooting or hunting for many years. Suddenly, with one blanket move, what dozens or hundreds of thousands of people already possess is somehow deemed illegal.
We have seen this disrespect for law-abiding Canadians from the RCMP before. The RCMP has acted in contempt of Parliament several times before. There is an institutional history of it, as a matter of fact.
On February 16, 1965, Mr. Speaker Macnaughton found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP's arrest of an opposition member of Parliament. On September 4, 1973, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP interrogation of an opposition member. On March 21, 1978, Mr. Speaker Jerome found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP's electronic surveillance—spying, in other words—of an opposition MP. On December 6, 1978, Mr. Speaker Jerome found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP misleading a former minister concerning the information he provided to opposition parliamentarians.
On December 1, 2004, Mr. Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP blocking MPs' access to Parliament Hill. On April 10, 2008, Mr. Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege following the false and misleading evidence given to the public accounts committee by the RCMP's then deputy commissioner.
On March 15, 2012, your immediate predecessor, Mr. Speaker, found a prima facie case of privilege when the RCMP denied MPs access to Centre Block. On September 25, 2014, another prima facie case of privilege was established related to the RCMP's denial of access to Parliament Hill. On May 12, 2015, two incidents of MPs being denied access to Centre Block by the RCMP led to yet another prima facie case of privilege.
Mr. Speaker, you have also needed to deal with these issues. On April 6 and 11, 2017, you found prima facie cases of privilege flowing out of MPs' access being denied by the Parliamentary Protective Service, an organization that, of course, has a clear legal relationship with the RCMP.
Even on the Senate side, the RCMP was found to have committed a prima facie case of contempt by Mr. Speaker Kinsella, on May 8, 2013, following its efforts to thwart parliamentary task force members from appearing as witnesses before a committee.
It goes without saying that it comes as absolutely no surprise that our national police force would snub its nose at Parliament yet again. Even more distressing is that the minister responsible for the RCMP, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, is one of the most experienced members of the House and a former House leader. The minister should be urging respect for Parliament by his officials. The RCMP is not above the law and not above the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, if you agree there is a prima facie case of contempt here, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I thank the hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner for raising his question of privilege, which I take very seriously. I will be coming back to the House in due course with a ruling.
Motion that debate be not further adjournedExtension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders
Waterloo Ontario
Liberal
Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism
Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 22, I move:
That the debate not be further adjourned.
Motion that debate be not further adjournedExtension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders
Liberal
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.
The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.
Motion that debate be not further adjournedExtension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question.
I would like the government House leader to explain the reason for this motion and why it is being moved at this time.
Motion that debate be not further adjournedExtension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders
Liberal
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We want to work for Canadians. There are a lot of bills to debate and, since we know that the opposition members want to participate in those debates, we are going to extend the sitting hours so that everyone can participate and work harder for Canadians.
Motion that debate be not further adjournedExtension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The NDP is prepared to spend as much time as necessary working in Parliament, and I imagine all the other parties feel the same way. That being said, I would like to ask the government House leader a question.
The government introduced an electoral reform bill at the last minute and a national security bill two years after it took office, and that is not to mention all the other bills that it put on a shelf saying that it needed to hold consultations. What is more, the government did not even listen to the Canadians it consulted. After taking so long to act and imposing its agenda, why is the government now deciding at the very last minute to impose closure on the motion to extend sitting hours?
We are prepared to work hard, but let us be clear. When they talk about work-life balance and respect for Parliament, waiting until the last minute and imposing all this on parliamentarians is not helpful and will get us nowhere.
Can the government House leader justify her actions here today?
Motion that debate be not further adjournedExtension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders
Liberal
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure all hon. members that I am doing my best to work with them. I have asked many times how many people want to take part in the debate. The opposition members told me on several occasions that they wanted more debates. This is an opportunity for everyone to take part in the debates.
We know that the bill mentioned by the hon. member is very important. The minister talked about it and we want the committee to do its work. However, we see that the hon. members across the way want to play games in the House and in committee. It is their choice, but we want to work very hard for Canadians. That is our way of doing things.
Motion that debate be not further adjournedExtension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, this is truly an unparalleled day in Canadian parliamentary history. On a day that the Government of Canada has paid a Texas company $4.5 billion to leave Canada and to stop investing in our resource sector, we also have the government House leader bringing to the House for the 34th or 35th time a time allocation motion on a motion that has not yet been debated. This is truly unparalleled.
The member was not here in the last Parliament, but I would like to remind her of the wisdom of her deputy, the member for Winnipeg North, who used to call such tactics “assaults on democracy”. There are so many times he said that. In fact, he went further to talk about the use of time allocation on omnibus bills before the House. He said they are “an affront to democracy and the functionality of Parliament.”
Why do the Liberals fear debate? Why do they fear Canadians knowing what is happening? Why are they using omnibus bills for budget implementation, and for Bill C-75 and Bill C-59? What about the openness and transparency they promised?