House of Commons Hansard #23 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was project.

Topics

Revenue CanadaOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, for once, could the minister side with Canadians who just want to fill out their tax returns?

Revenue Canada goes all out to make its own work easier and make things harder for seniors and rural residents who do not have access to the Internet. People across the country are angry, even people in the riding of the member for Winnipeg South Centre, whose office says that Revenue Canada is already considered to be very insensitive towards the clients it is trying to serve.

When will the minister ensure that Revenue Canada cleans up its act?

Revenue CanadaOral Questions

3 p.m.

Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-Madeleine Québec

Liberal

Diane Lebouthillier LiberalMinister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues opposite that they were the ones who cut the information packages that Canada Post was supposed to deliver to all clients across the country. Since 2018, we have sent 1.7 million tax packages to rural residents, seniors and individuals who file their tax return on paper.

International TradeOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

Richard Lehoux Conservative Beauce, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has said several times that all parties involved were consulted extensively in discussions on CUSMA and its implementation.

Yesterday, in an appearance at the Standing Committee on International Trade, Dairy Farmers of Canada clearly said that they had not been consulted at all. The current government continues to neglect this agricultural sector. The government has given up sovereignty and oversight of the dairy sector.

Why did the Deputy Prime Minister not consult Canada's dairy farmers?

International TradeOral Questions

3 p.m.

University—Rosedale Ontario

Liberal

Chrystia Freeland LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, it was a Liberal government that created supply management, and it was a Liberal government that protected it.

I should point out that at the beginning of negotiations, the U.S. government wanted to completely dismantle this system. We defended our supply management system, and we will continue to do so.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, last year, the government announced Canada's first-ever food policy, which aims to give everyone in Canada access to sufficient amounts of healthy food.

Every day, community organizations across Canada try to make a difference by improving access to healthy food. Through this policy, $50 million has been allocated to creating the local food infrastructure fund.

Could the minister update us on this program?

Agriculture and Agri-FoodOral Questions

3 p.m.

Compton—Stanstead Québec

Liberal

Marie-Claude Bibeau LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform you that 240 projects were approved under the first stream of the local food infrastructure fund.

These projects will help more Canadians access good food, which is the goal of our food policy. Other projects will be approved soon, and a second call for proposals will be launched in the spring.

Indigenous AffairsOral Questions

3 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB

Mr. Speaker, indigenous people are standing up across the country demanding respect and justice. Their message: Enough is enough.

The reality on first nations is getting worse. This week, a seven-year-old boy died in a house fire in Garden Hill, a community with third world housing, no running water, no all-weather road in a region of 13,000 people without a hospital.

When is the government going to recognize that systemic racism and underfunding is killing people? When is the minister going to act to ensure justice for the Knott family and for indigenous communities across the country?

Indigenous AffairsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs Québec

Liberal

Marc Miller LiberalMinister of Indigenous Services

Mr. Speaker, my deepest condolences go out to the family and the entire community of Garden Hill First Nation for their loss.

My department has been in contact with the first nation's leadership to identify and deliver support to ensure the well-being of the community. We understand the stressful nature of the situation. I will continue to work with first nation partners on timely and appropriate supports.

As a matter of policy, as government, we are striving to close that socio-economic gap that has existed for far too long. With historic investments in infrastructure and housing, we strive to get there, and we will get there.

TransportOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Green

Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, the waters around the southern Gulf Islands are being used as a free anchorage for freighters waiting to enter the port of Vancouver. The environmental damage, pollution, bright lights and noise from these freighters are impacting Island communities and wildlife. Some of these vessels are waiting to load U.S. thermal coal for export, because Pacific U.S. states refuse to export thermal coal from their ports.

Will the government mandate improvements and efficiencies at the port of Vancouver and ban the export of U.S. thermal coal through Canadian ports?

TransportOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount Québec

Liberal

Marc Garneau LiberalMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, as the member is probably aware, the new interim protocol for anchorage was developed in partnership with the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, Pacific Pilotage Authority Canada, industry stakeholders and communities to respond to the immediate concerns of certain coastal communities.

The government's long-term strategy will be aimed at improving the management of anchorages outside of public ports with a view to ensuring the long-term efficiency and reliability of the supply chain and mitigating environmental and social impacts.

I want to thank the member for his advocacy on the file.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I have two points that I would like to bring to the attention of members.

One hundred years ago, in the winter of 1920, the very first parliamentary security corps was formed. Until then, the Dominion Police, which merged with the Royal North West Mounted Police in 1919 to become the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, had patrolled the grounds of Parliament Hill. When the parliamentarians of the day decided they no longer wanted an official police presence in their buildings, a contingent of six individuals from the RCMP remained to create what would become the Senate Protective Services and the House of Commons Protective Services.

Today, just as it did a century ago, the Parliamentary Protection Service supports parliamentarians and protects our democracy. It focuses on striking a careful and effective balance between access, openness and security. It is a constant challenge, and I am grateful to the men and women of the service for their dedication to their work and for ensuring that the Parliament of Canada is able to work for the good of Canadians.

I would like to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of several past and present members of the Parliamentary Protective Service.

Over the years, they have faithfully watched over Parliament Hill and its occupants. They have worked to keep us safe while making visitors feel welcome and comfortable, and they have helped ensure that the heart of Canada’s democracy remains open. We are grateful for their service to our country.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I would also like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of our distinguished former colleague and leader of the opposition, the Honourable Gilles Duceppe.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe I heard the parliamentary secretary to the House leader question my integrity in question period like he did yesterday on a point of order. I just want to be clear about one thing. Yesterday, he alleged I threatened Canadian unity in the House. Let me say this to be clear. I am fighting for Alberta and for oil and gas, which means I am fighting for a strong Canada—

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I believe we are getting into debate right now.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Contents of Bill C-7PrivilegeOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege today concerning the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding medical assistance in dying, introduced yesterday.

As you know, it is a well-established practice in the House that, when a bill is on notice for introduction, the House has the first right to the contents of that legislation.

In a report circulated prior to question period, and hours before Bill C-7 was read a first time in the House, the Canadian Press published an article that detailed specific information contained in Bill C-7.

In the article it states:

The bill [would] scrap a provision in the law that allows only those already near death to receive medical assistance in dying—as ordered by a Quebec court last fall....

Sources say it will drop the requirement that a person must wait 10 days after being approved for an assisted death before receiving the procedure. And it will drop the requirement that a person must be able to give consent a second time immediately prior to receiving the procedure.

The reporter gives credence to the fact that contempt has occurred by revealing later in the article:

The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal details of the bill prior to its tabling in the House of Commons this afternoon.

After the sources indicated to the reporter that they were aware of their guilty actions, they boldly and defiantly continued their affront to Parliament by providing even more detail of the bill.

I quote again from the article, which states:

Sources say today's bill will not deal with broader issues that were excluded in the new law and that must be considered as part of a parliamentary review of the law that is to begin this summer.

Those issues include whether mature minors and those suffering only from mental [illness] should be eligible and whether people who fear losing mental capacity due to conditions like dementia should be able to make advance requests for medical assistance in dying.

It will, however, propose a measure intended to deal with a situation in which a person is given consent and who has been approved for an assisted death loses the mental capacity to give consent a second time immediately prior to receiving the procedure.

After carefully reviewing the contents of Bill C-7 following its introduction in the House, when I and other members of Parliament got to see the bill for the very first time, the details reported by the Canadian Press hours earlier were indeed contained in Bill C-7.

Ironically, my first precedent to present to you is from the last Parliament, brought to the Speaker's attention on April 14, 2016. It was with respect to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts regarding medical assistance in dying.

It would appear that the Liberal justice team just has not learned any lessons as it was pointed out on April 14, 2016, as I am pointing out today on Bill C-7, that specific and detailed information contained in Bill C-14 was reported in a newspaper article and elsewhere in the media before the bill had been introduced in the House.

On April 19, 2016, the Speaker found that there was in fact a prima facie case of privilege regarding Bill C-14. He stated:

As honourable members know, one of my most important responsibilities as Speaker is to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, individually and collectively. Central to the matter before us today is the fact that, due to its pre-eminent role in the legislative process, the House cannot allow precise legislative information to be distributed to others before it has been made accessible to all members. Previous Speakers have regularly upheld not only this fundamental right, but also expectation, of the House.

The Speaker's concluding remark on April 19, 2016, was as follows:

In this instance, the chair must conclude that the House's right of first access to legislative information was not respected. The chair appreciates the chief government whip's assertion that no one in the government was authorized to publicly release the specific details of the bill before its introduction. Still, it did happen, and these kinds of incidents cause grave concern among hon. members. I believe it is a good reason why extra care should be taken to ensure that matters that ought properly to be brought to the House first do not in any way get out in the public domain prematurely.

On October 4, 2010, on page 4711 of the House of Commons Debates, Speaker Milliken noted:

It is indisputable that it is a well-established practice and accepted convention that this House has the right of first access to the text of bills that it will consider.

Getting back to my point about the Liberal justice team not learning any lessons, there was a similar case from March 19, 2001, regarding the Department of Justice briefing the media on a bill before members of Parliament. In that reading, Speaker Milliken said, at page 1840 of the House of Commons Debates:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. Once a bill has been placed on notice, whether it has been presented in a different form to a different session of parliament has no bearing and the bill is considered a new matter. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves [will] be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent [role] which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

The Speaker found another case of contempt on October 15, 2001, after the Department of Justice again briefed the media on the contents of a bill prior to the legislation being introduced in the House.

Maybe, in this minority House, members can finally take these characters in the Minister of Justice's office to task for their continuous disrespect of this Parliament. Given the facts presented and the clear precedents on this matter, I believe, Mr. Speaker, you should have no trouble in finding a prima facie case of privilege. In that event, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Contents of Bill C-7PrivilegeOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I want to thank the hon. member. I will take this under advisement and return to the House, should I see fit.

Response by Justice Minister to Order Paper QuestionPrivilegeOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to address the question of privilege raised by the member for Timmins—James Bay in respect to the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 163.

I would point out that the member for Timmins—James Bay has presented different estimates as to the government's litigation costs related to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision respecting the first nations child and family services program.

The member presents three sets of information: the government's response to Question No. 163, which I would point out has been calculated using a consistent formula that the government uses for litigation costs in responding to Order Paper questions; a compilation of a number of responses to ATIP questions over the years, which has been compiled by Dr. Blackstock; and an estimate prepared by the Assembly of First Nations.

The government does not have a clear line of sight into how either Dr. Blackstock or the AFN calculated these costs nor what was included in their estimates. This in no way suggests that the calculations were done in bad faith or that the minister deliberately misled the House with the government's response to Question No. 163.

This amounts to a debate as to the facts, and therefore should not be considered a legitimate question of privilege.

This brings us to the broader issue. While we may have different political views on issues before the House, we are all here for the same reason, to work in the interests of Canadians.

When a member feels that the information the government has provided appears to be inconsistent with other sources of information or may feel that the information is incomplete, the simple and civil thing to do is talk to the minister or parliamentary secretary responsible for the file.

If that approach does not yield the results that a member expects, it is perfectly legitimate for members to raise these matters as points of order. What I have witnessed of late is that members are unfortunately using questions of privilege instead of more appropriately using points of order.

I would hate to suggest that members are using these important questions of privilege simply to score political points. I would also like to point out that raising these matters as questions of privilege is tantamount to a direct personal attack on a member's character.

There are but few examples that can be found where a member has deliberately misled the House. More often than not, a misleading statement arises when there is a mistake made, an omission or a simple misunderstanding on an issue. To assume that members and ministers deliberately seek to mislead the House is a false assumption.

Let us remind ourselves of the important role we play in our parliamentary democracy and treat each other with the respect that we all so thoroughly deserve.

Response by Justice Minister to Order Paper QuestionPrivilegeOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC

Mr. Speaker, I do not normally rise immediately following the interventions of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, but it is the job of the Speaker to determine what is or is not a valid question of privilege. For this member to suggest that members are uncivil or somehow derelict in their duties for bringing up important questions of privilege for you, as the Speaker, to decide sends a chill from the government that once again it does not want to hear from members of Parliament and it does not want to be challenged.

When we on this side of the House, and in this case it was a member of the NDP, believe that we have been misled by a government answer to an Order Paper question, we have every right to raise that.

You, Mr. Speaker, not a representative of the government, will determine whether that was the right course of action or whether a breach has actually occurred. That is an important thing. We have to stand up for the rights of members of Parliament, and I am disappointed that this member would undermine that with his statement here today.

Response by Justice Minister to Order Paper QuestionPrivilegeOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I want to thank the hon. member for his input. I will take it under advisement.

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

Response by Justice Minister to Order Paper QuestionPrivilegeOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Mr. Speaker, you can also refer to me as the NDP whip. Hopefully, that will help with this process.

I rise on a point of order. I too just want to thank the Conservative whip for his intervention. This does send a very chilling tone to this House. When we are in a minority Parliament it is important that we work collaboratively together and not see this kind of standing up in the House and, in my estimation, accusing another member of behaviour unbecoming. Therefore, I hope that the member will take the point to reflect, and allow you, Mr. Speaker, to do the job that you were elected in this place to do and not put those kinds of ramifications.

The reality is that for the NDP there is a strong desire to see some reconciliation done in meaningful ways, specifically around the issue of indigenous children. I certainly hope that the tone of this place would reflect what, hopefully, is all of our intention, which is to support indigenous children.

Hopefully, we will hear back from you, Mr. Speaker.

Response by Justice Minister to Order Paper QuestionPrivilegeOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I want to thank the hon. members for their input. We will continue.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax ChangesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Hochelaga Québec

Liberal

Soraya Martinez Ferrada LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off before question period.

That is also why, as the first act in its new mandate, our government tabled a proposal to once again lower taxes for the middle class. All Canadians must be able to reap the benefits of our economic growth.

This new tax cut targets the basic personal amount, as the government indicated this past December when it tabled a notice of ways and means motion. The basic personal amount is a technical term that is not always easy to understand but essentially describes something very simple: It is the amount of money that a person can earn before paying federal income tax.

At this time of year, many Canadians are preparing to fill out their income tax return for 2019. When they do it, they will see that the basic personal amount for 2019 was $12,069. The plan we are proposing will raise that amount to $15,000 in 2023.

Let me be clear. Canadians will see a difference beginning this year, in 2020, since this increase is spread over four years. Once these tax cuts are fully implemented in 2023, single people could save nearly $300 in taxes every year, and families could save double that, or nearly $600.

That is not all. Nearly 1.1 million more Canadians will no longer pay federal income tax in 2023, including seniors living on a fixed income and low-income workers, for example.

Our proposal increases two other related amounts at the same time: the spouse or common law credit and the credit for an eligible dependant. Conversely, Canadians in the highest tax bracket will not get this tax cut. Nonetheless, this cut will put more money in the pockets of nearly 20 million Canadians.

The Canada child benefit reduces the financial pressure on families and has lifted approximately 300,000 children out of poverty. As I said yesterday in my statement in the House, more than 9,000 payments were made in Hochelaga and more than 15,000 children benefited from these payments, which averaged $640. In total, $5,769,000 in tax-free payments were made in Hochelaga, and they have certainly helped families, including single-parent families. When I was a young mother, I would have loved to have access to that kind of funding.

As the Minister of Social Development said, Canada's poverty rate has fallen to a historic low. According to Statistics Canada, it was one of the sharpest declines on record: Canada's official poverty rate dropped from 12.1% in 2015 to 8.7% in 2018. The Minister of Social Development said that it was the largest three-year reduction in poverty in Canadian history and that poverty is at its lowest point on record in Canada.

It is thanks to programs such as the Canada child benefit, as well as increases to the guaranteed income supplement, that Canadians have more money in their pockets.

I would like to use my remaining time to tell members about what the government has done to help Canadians, including the most vulnerable Canadians.

As I said, we created the Canada child benefit, which has lifted 300,000 children out of poverty.

The enhanced guaranteed income supplement means that some 900,000 seniors now enjoy greater income security. That lifted 57,000 seniors out of poverty.

Canada's national housing strategy, an investment of $40 million over 10 years, will enable more Canadians to find safe, affordable housing. The strategy will meet the needs of over half a million households over the next decade.

The Canada workers benefit puts more money in the pockets of low-income workers.

Thanks to the middle-class tax cut and the higher basic personal amount, a typical family of four will have over $2,300 more this year than in 2015. Once the changes have been fully implemented, that typical family could have $2,800 more than in 2015.

The government invested in Canadians, and that is what matters to them. As a result, our economy is more vigorous and our people get better support.

What we need to do now is make sure that even more people benefit. That is exactly what the new middle-class tax cut announced in December will do.

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax ChangesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, I often meet people in my riding who cannot get a job because they have problems with their teeth, when the image of them with teeth missing is making it difficult for them to get jobs, especially on the front lines of employment. I meet employers whose employees cannot go to work because they are sick from a tooth infection or even worse. It then becomes a health issue.

We know that this costs the GDP and hurts the Canadian economy. We are deeply concerned. We are learning about the Liberals' middle-class tax cuts and all we are asking them to do is cap that at $90,000. That would save $1.6 billion to the Canadian taxpayer, which in turn could be used for a dental care plan that would help one in five Canadians who cannot access dental care.

The Liberals have a choice to provide a tax break to those who are making more than $90,000 a year or to offer dental care coverage to families making less than $90,000 a year. It is a simple choice, but this would make a huge difference in the lives of people from coast to coast to coast. It is good for the Canadian economy.

Will my colleague support our proposal today and do the right thing? This would help our economy and help people in her riding as well.