House of Commons Hansard #389 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-77.

Topics

HousingOral Questions

3 p.m.

NDP

Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK

Mr. Speaker, on this day last year, every single Liberal member voted against my motion to create a national plan to end and prevent homelessness. This week, they announced funding for urban and indigenous homelessness but have no idea where the money will go or when it will be spent. Instead of working on ending homelessness, the Prime Minister has been busy pressuring the former attorney general to break the law for his corporate friends. When will he finally turn his attention to the real issues facing Canadians?

HousingOral Questions

3 p.m.

Spadina—Fort York Ontario

Liberal

Adam Vaughan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be part of a government that has invested $5.7 billion in the national housing strategy. That money arrived in our first budget, and we are now spending $40 billion over the next 10 years. Every one of those programs is eligible to be subscribed to by indigenous groups across this country. In fact, the $13.2-billion co-investment fund is building real housing for real people, led by indigenous communities, as we speak. However, there is an additional program that was announced on top of that, which is a program to try to build more indigenous housing off reserve. That program is now financed and is delivering real housing for real people.

HousingOral Questions

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

HousingOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON

I only wish the NDP were as effective at building houses as they are at screaming.

HealthOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, over the past two weeks, I have heard from several constituents concerned about the outbreak of measles in Alberta and British Columbia. While measles was eliminated in Canada over 20 years ago, we know that outbreaks sometimes do occur. I would like to ask the Minister of Health, what is the most effective way to fight measles?

HealthOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Pam Damoff Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for his passion for the health of Canadians. The answer is simple. The best way to fight measles is by getting the measles vaccination. Vaccines are one of the most powerful public health tools we have, and they are the reason measles was eliminated in Canada. Our government knows this, which is why we have committed $25 million over five years to get more Canadians vaccinated. The evidence is clear. Vaccines are safe and effective and save lives.

JusticeOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister coordinated a sustained effort to politically interfere in a criminal prosecution. He pressured the former attorney general to end the trial of SNC-Lavalin for political reasons. She refused, but he would not take no for answer. As the clerk said to the former attorney general, the Prime Minister was going to “get it done, one way or another”.

The Prime Minister has lost the moral authority to govern this country. When will he resign?

JusticeOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. Yesterday at the justice committee, the former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her it was her decision to make. Yesterday at committee, the former attorney general confirmed that she had made up her mind. In the end, the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way.

The job of any prime minister is to stand up for Canadians and Canadian workers. If the Conservatives spent half their time on Canadians rather than on partisan politics, perhaps their record would not show them having the worst growth since the Great Depression.

JusticeOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening, the NDP and the Conservatives cheered the former attorney general on as she settled scores with the Prime Minister's Office.

Not many people seemed all that concerned about the real issue: Why did she decide to sacrifice thousands of jobs in Canada and Quebec for the sake of standing up to her leader?

Now that the Liberals have made a huge mess of the SNC-Lavalin affair, what exactly is the government going to do to save the company's head office and the jobs of thousands of Quebeckers?

JusticeOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, the Prime Minister has said that he and his staff acted appropriately and professionally. We will always focus on jobs, the middle class and the economy.

There were, of course, discussions about the potential loss of 9,000 jobs across the country, including a possible impact on pensions.

The job of any prime minister is to stand up for Canadians. That is exactly what our government and our Prime Minister will do.

HealthOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Independent

Hunter Tootoo Independent Nunavut, NU

[Member spoke in Inuktitut]

[English]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indigenous Services will be aware that in my riding of Nunavut, there is not one mental health and addictions treatment facility. The need for such a facility has been well documented and is exemplified by the highest rates of suicide in the nation and alcohol and drug addiction. The Government of Nunavut has recognized this need and has identified it as a priority.

The previous minister stated in the House that she had heard the call for a treatment centre and looked forward to moving forward with this work. Will the minister commit to funding this much-needed centre?

HealthOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Thunder Bay—Superior North Ontario

Liberal

Patty Hajdu LiberalMinister of Employment

Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to the member opposite. In my previous work, I worked extensively with people who are indigenous and who suffer from mental health and addictions every single day. We need to do more. That is why our government is working closely to close the gap between health services for indigenous people and non-indigenous people. To close that gap, we are investing in 52 new community-led mental wellness teams that are now serving over 344 communities.

I will take the request from the member back to the new minister and make sure that he has an opportunity to meet with the member at his first availability.

JusticeOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, advice from my heart to my friends in the Liberal Party: do not dispute the truth of what our former minister of justice has said; do not attempt to question or undermine or impugn her integrity. No one will believe them if they do.

What the Liberals must do is tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may, starting with these three steps: call for a public inquiry, release the former minister of justice from restrictions on her evidence and fire the Clerk of the Privy Council office.

JusticeOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, as we have always said, it was important for Canadians to be able to hear from witnesses, including the former attorney general. We know that the Prime Minister worked with the current Attorney General to ensure that we could waive solicitor-client privilege as well as cabinet confidence.

Yesterday we saw that Canadians were able to hear directly from the former attorney general. Canadians are able to watch the justice committee look at this file, look at witnesses appearing and their answers. We recognize that the committee system is working, because even that member, yesterday, was given the opportunity to ask questions directly of the witness.

We on this side have confidence in our institutions.

JusticeOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Scott Duvall NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I will be asking for the consent of the House in a moment as I need to give some context to the matter in question and underscore just how serious it is. There are confirmed reports that earlier this week, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek engaged in behaviour that could only be described as that of a bully toward a delegation of representatives from the United Steelworkers.

There have been consultations among the parties and I believe that if you seek it, there would be unanimous consent for this motion.

I move that the House condemn the inappropriate behaviour of the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, who, according to reports, during a meeting with a delegation of representatives from the United Steelworkers from Hamilton, Ontario, verbally abused the delegation; attempted to physically intimidate them by striking various pieces of furniture and violently slamming his office door; insulted and disparaged the organization, including the retirees of Stelco Inc., and expelled them from his office, and that the House call on the member to give a full and public apology for his unacceptable and unparliamentary behaviour.

JusticeOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

JusticeOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Comments to Abbotsford NewsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Jati Sidhu Liberal Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to apologize, without reservation, to the member for Vancouver Granville. My comments were inappropriate. Whether inside or outside this House, it is incumbent on all of us to treat each other with respect at all times.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the government House leader to let us know what we might be doing when we return. We are very concerned with some of the things that are happening and we would like to get some clarity on what is going to be happening the rest of this week and the week we return.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with debate at third reading of Bill C-77, the victims bill of rights.

Tomorrow we will debate Bill C-83, the administrative segregation legislation, at third reading.

For the next two weeks, we will be working with our constituents in our ridings. Upon our return, Monday shall be an allotted day. Tuesday we will start report stage and third reading of Bill C-84, on animal cruelty. At 4 p.m. on Tuesday, the Minister of Finance will present budget 2019. Wednesday will be dedicated to the budget debate.

February 25 Meeting of Standing Committee on Citizenship and ImmigrationPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to the meeting held by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Monday, February 25.

I understand that the Speaker does not normally become involved with committees, but there are occasions when the Speaker is obliged to intervene, and I will lay out why I believe this situation constitutes such an occasion.

First, the Speaker may intervene in cases when committees adopt amendments to bills that go beyond the scope of the bill or require a royal recommendation. The Speaker may intervene as well when committees attempt to operate outside the authority granted to them by the House. My point of order relates to such an occasion.

To cite precedent in support of my case, on June 20, 1994, and again on November 7, 1996, the Speaker ruled that:

While it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House.

I would also refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Standing Order 116(1), which states:

In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

As such, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to examine the following situation and provide a ruling in the context of the two points I have just stated.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Monday, February 25, was interrupted by votes. The chair suspended the meeting at this point in time.

At the time of the suspension, a motion had been moved and was being debated. After, not prior to, gavelling the meeting suspended, the chair indicated that the committee would reconvene after the vote. When members returned to the committee room, we waited some time for the quorum to be met, which never occurred. Finally, the chair decided to leave the room without ever reconvening or ending the meeting.

I assumed that the meeting would continue at our next scheduled meeting on Wednesday. Conservative members came to this meeting prepared to continue debate on the motion that was being discussed on Monday, given that the meeting was suspended. To our surprise, the chair informed us that the meeting on Monday had been adjourned, despite the suspended meeting never having been reconvened.

I find this unilateral decision of the chair to adjourn a meeting outside a committee meeting and without the support of the committee members to be disturbing and in violation of the rules governing such meetings, and potentially a damaging precedent for future Parliaments.

When the committee met again, Conservatives raised a point of order to ask that meeting number 145 continue, as it was suspended and not resumed, and that the member for Brandon—Souris be allowed to resume where he left off. When this request was denied, we challenged the chair's ruling. The ruling was sustained by Liberal members.

While I appreciate that in upholding the ruling of the chair, the committee in effect made a decision and that in the normal course of things, it should be left at that. However, on the strength of the Standing Orders, the chair was prohibited from terminating debate, and a committee decision cannot override the House. As I pointed out earlier, committees cannot go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House, and in particular, the committee cannot override Standing Order 116(2).

The committee's decision to support the chair's decision to adjourn the meeting outside of a duly called committee meeting without the consent of committee members was, in my view, an attempt to indirectly circumvent the relatively new rule found in subsection 2 of Standing Order 116. Standing Order 116(2) states:

(a) Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate. A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee.

(b) A violation of paragraph (a) of this section may be brought to the attention of the Speaker by any Member and the Speaker shall have the power to rule on the matter. If, in the opinion of the Speaker, such violation has occurred, the Speaker may order that all subsequent proceedings in relation to the said violation be nullified.

The committee brought the debate to an end while the member for Brandon—Souris still had the floor and wanted to continue his remarks, a clear violation of Standing Order 116(2).

In addition, I would also argue that the Chair did not have the right to unilaterally adjourn Monday's meeting outside of a duly called committee meeting.

To first prove this point, I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to rules pertaining to quorum. With respect to quorum, the rules governing the House are covered in chapter 9 in Bosc and Gagnon. At page 401, it states:

If fewer than 20 Members are present, the Speaker may adjourn the House until the next sitting day. The Speaker may take such an initiative only until the moment when he House is called to order; once the sitting has begun, “control over the competence of the House is transferred from the Speaker to the House itself...the Speaker has no right to close a sitting at his own discretion”.

Pages 402 and 403 refer to the business before the House at the time quorum was lost.

However, should the House adjourn for lack of quorum, any Order of the Day under consideration at the time, with the exception of non-votable items of Private Members’ Business, retains its precedence on the Order Paper for the next sitting. The lack of quorum means only that the House adjourns for the day.

I would also argue that the chair of the standing committee went beyond his authority and breached the rules laid down by the House on a number of fronts, specifically the rules respecting the role of the chair and the business before the committee in the absence of quorum and the attempt to circumvent Standing Order 116(2)(a).

While the chair of the committee has implied consent to adjourn a meeting and if there is a loss of quorum during the sitting of a meeting, then a meeting can be adjourned. However, if a chair suspends a meeting, then the meeting must reconvene to then adjourn. The chair should not and cannot adjourn a meeting that he has suspended on his own.

When committee members questioned him about this on Wednesday, he attempted to quote precedent to justify his decision. However, he falsely quoted precedent. The instance he cited was an instance in which a committee was adjourned through all-party agreement between whips and House leaders on the last day of a sitting that was then prorogued and therefore was in no way congruent to the situation currently at hand.

In conclusion, the chair had no right to adjourn a meeting that had never started without the consent of the members, and he had no right to effectively terminate debate on a motion when there were members wishing to participate in said debate.

Should this decision of the chair be allowed to stand, it could have very serious consequences on the future democratic nature of committees.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you nullify all business of the committee that was conducted after the suspension of said meeting and allow the member for Brandon—Souris to continue debating the motion where he left off.

February 25 Meeting of Standing Committee on Citizenship and ImmigrationPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I very much welcome your wisdom on this matter.

The decisions that I took were very much done in consultation with the clerk of the committee and very much done with reference to the Standing Orders, some of which were referred to by the previous speaker and some of which were not. It was done very much in conversation with the table officers, who helped us through this decision. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I welcome your ruling on this when it is appropriate for you to do so, and that will help our committee to continue its work, which it has always meant to do in good faith.

It can be assumed that when our committee lost quorum, we would obviously have wanted to continue, but the suspension of the meeting was based on a precedent from 2013 and deemed adjourned, so our meeting could go on.

The committee was advised at the subsequent meeting that they could resume that debate based on a motion to change the agenda for that committee, and that would have been a non-debatable motion; however, it was not moved.

February 25 Meeting of Standing Committee on Citizenship and ImmigrationPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The member for Calgary Nose Hill is rising again on the same point of order.

February 25 Meeting of Standing Committee on Citizenship and ImmigrationPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have additional information for your consideration.

What I observed to transpire at that meeting was that the Liberal members of the committee went down to the committee meeting, and it appeared to me that they were advised to leave the room so that quorum could not be obtained. I would ask you to look into this in great detail, because I would refute my colleague's assertion that this was done in good faith. I also would refute the assertion that the government members on the committee have the intent to proceed in an orderly fashion.

The motion that was before the committee on which the government did proceed in this manner and subsequently adjourned the meeting was a motion to study the family reunification of the Yazidi victims of genocide. There were members of the community in the room, and they have observed this. I think that it is very important that we look at all the facts that occurred in this meeting, because, to me, it sets some very dangerous precedent in the ability of a chair to unilaterally end debate on a motion that the government members may or may not like.

February 25 Meeting of Standing Committee on Citizenship and ImmigrationPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I thank the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill for raising the matter and the hon. member for Don Valley West for his comments. I will take the matter under advisement and come back to the House.