House of Commons Hansard #69 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was airlines.
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, our largest ally and trading partner, the United States, is now fully vaccinating its citizens at a rate 10 times faster than that of Canada. Many of those vaccinated are essential workers such as truck drivers.
During the Prime Minister’s bilateral visit with President Biden, was Canada given any assurances that our unvaccinated truck drivers would continue to be granted entry into the United States?
Omar Alghabra LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, it is vitally important for our economy and for Canadians' well-being that we maintain the movement of essential workers between the U.S. and Canada. We have had these discussions with stakeholders, with truck associations and in our bilateral meeting with our partners in the U.S. as well.
We will continue to be guided by public health advice, and we will continue to have these discussions with truck drivers and other essential workers who are crossing the border.
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Speaker, this past year we have seen institutions across Canada, including our criminal courts, face new and unique challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Recently the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada tabled an important piece of legislation to address many of those issues to help ensure the efficiency of our criminal justice system as we navigate our way through this crisis.
Could the minister please update the House on this legislation?
David Lametti LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore for his tireless advocacy and his profound legal knowledge and wisdom.
This past year, our government heard from our provincial and territorial partners, who have had to work in creative and innovative ways to better serve our communities. To that effect, we have introduced a package of targeted reforms that will improve the effectiveness and efficiencies of the criminal justice system to ensure its ability to operate in a way that respects public health guidelines. These changes will help to modernize our justice system and better protect the health and safety of its participants far beyond the pandemic.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, on April 1, fees and charges for Marine Atlantic ferries to Newfoundland and Labrador will go up yet again. High fees discourage travellers and visitors, increase food prices and the cost of living, and hurt struggling businesses. Tourism and transportation have been hard hit by the pandemic. People and municipalities are deeply concerned.
In 2015, the Prime Minister called the cost recovery formula used to set Marine Atlantic ferry rates “unreasonable”. This government has done nothing about it, and fees have been going up ever since.
Will the Prime Minister put an end to this and reverse these unfair increases?
Omar Alghabra LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I want to assure him and all Canadians that my colleagues in our Atlantic caucus have discussed this issue on many occasions. I have been listening to them. I have been hearing about the concerns they are raising with me and I have been reassuring them that we are listening to Canadians. We will examine their concerns and we will do what is best for Canadians.
Jody Wilson-Raybould Independent Vancouver Granville, BC
Mr. Speaker, Mi’kmaq chiefs, the national chief and senators, among others, have strongly condemned the fishery minister's so-called “new path” that unilaterally sets out conditions for a moderate livelihood commercial lobster fishery.
Why has the minister chosen to diverge from the true path of reconciliation based on rights recognition and co-operation that this government promised and as set out in the 10 principles and UNDRIP?
Will the minister please respect the preferred means of the Mi’kmaq to exercise their treaty rights, uphold the honour of the Crown and get off this paternalistic path that risks a return to unrest?
Bernadette Jordan LiberalMinister of Fisheries
Mr. Speaker, first nations have the Supreme Court-affirmed treaty right to fish, and we have never stopped working to implement that right. This is a new path for first nations to realize their right and will allow them to fish this season.
Seasons ensure that stocks are harvested sustainably. They are necessary for a predictable and well-managed fishery, and this approach respects the Marshall decision. Marshall II states that moderate livelihood fisheries may be regulated if those regulations can be justified on conservation grounds.
We will continue to work with first nations to make sure that this treaty right is implemented this year.
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation ActOral Questions
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing or special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-18, An Act to implement the Agreement on Trade Continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, be deemed concurred in at the report stage; that the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering Bill C-18 at third reading; that, when no further member rises to speak or at 12 a.m., whichever is earlier, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith and successively every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said bill; that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions tomorrow, Wednesday, March 10, 2021; and that the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
I hear none. The House has heard the terms of the motion. Any members opposed to the motion will please say nay.
Hearing no voices, I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of question period. The Deputy Prime Minister was responding to a question from the member for Abbotsford and was talking about the need to talk to people like Dan Kelly, who is the head of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
This is not debate, and if members want to hear the point of order, perhaps they will respect it.
The member for Abbotsford said “that is really cute” when responding to her question. I would like to think that he did not mean that comment to be sexist, although I am sure he could appreciate how some people would consider it to be that way, especially given that the issue is whether or not he would have said that to a man. Therefore, through you, I would ask the member if he could please retract that statement.
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to respond. Certainly I did not intend for it to be a slight against the minister in any way. In fact, what I intended to say was “too cute by half”, because I have also met with Dan Kelly on more than one occasion, who made it very clear that some 240,000 small businesses will likely be gone by the time this COVID pandemic is done unless the Liberal government steps up and provides them with the support they need.
That was the whole point of the response. It is very unfortunate my colleague across the way would actually play with that word and suggest that something was intended that was never intended.
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among the parties, and I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That the House recognizes that there are approximately 136,000 recipients of UK state pensions in Canada;
That it recognizes the UK government does not provide annual indexed increases to UK pensioners residing in Canada, effectively freezing their pensions at the levels they were at when they first claimed their pensions in Canada;
That it recognizes Canada provides annual indexed increases to Canadian pensioners who live in the UK;
That it recognizes UK pensioners living in the USA, Germany, Italy, Barbados, Bermuda, Israel, Jamaica and other countries receive annual indexed increases;
That it recognizes frozen pensions represent a combined loss of over $500 million per year to the Canadian economy and to Canadian taxpayers, due to three factors: frozen pensions force thousands of UK pensioners in Canada to rely on Canada's social assistance programs such as the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the significant loss of CRA tax revenues due to the lower income of 136,000 pensioners, and the loss of sales tax revenues due to the loss of discretionary income;
That it recognizes frozen UK pensions represent an injustice to both UK pensioners in Canada and to Canadian taxpayers;
That it recognizes the UK government is currently negotiating new pension indexing agreements with EU countries due to Brexit, and that now is the appropriate time for the UK government to negotiate a pension indexing agreement with Canada;
That the House believes the government should press the UK government to open negotiations with Canada to remedy this situation as soon as possible and provide annual indexed pension increases to UK pensioners residing in Canada.
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving of the motion will please say nay.
It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
The motion is carried.
(Motion agreed to)
Lenore Zann Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order. The member for West Nova seemed to be saying that I was lying to my constituents and has sent out an email or a message to people in Nova Scotia saying so. I would like him to apologize for that, please.
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
I want to point out to all the members that the Chair is not in a position to intervene in interactions that happen outside the chamber. I will just leave it at that for now.
The hon. Minister of Justice is rising on a point of order.
David Lametti LiberalMinister of Justice
Mr. Speaker, I would like clarification regarding our dress code. During Oral Questions, the hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis asked a question, although he was not wearing a jacket.
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
That is a good point.
I would like to remind all hon. members that when they are participating in the debate, whether in person or virtually, they must respect the dress code. Male members who wish to speak must be wearing a tie. Male members present in the House must be wearing a jacket.
I did not notice that the member was not wearing one, and I apologize.
The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent is also rising on a point of order.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and delighted to know that the Minister of Justice is paying attention to the debate. I would invite him to join us in the House to advocate even more than from where he is right now.
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
I wish to remind hon. members of another thing they cannot do in the House. Members must not make reference to the presence or absence of another member.
Alleged Premature Disclosure of Contents of Bill C-22—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeOral Questions
Liberal
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 19 by the member for Fundy Royal concerning the alleged premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
During his intervention, the member said that a CBC article posted online at 8:47 a.m. on February 18 described the details of Bill C-22 although it had not yet been submitted to the House. The member referred to the contents of the article, which he said discussed a number of the measures contained in the bill and boasted about the reliability of its sources. The Chair notes that the article had already been updated by the time the issue was raised. To be clear, with regard to this ruling, the Speaker considered the initial version of the article, which was published at the time of introduction and first reading of the bill.
After reviewing a series of precedents on the issue, the member said he also believed that the Minister of Justice's actions were contemptuous and that he had ignored the will of the House.
In response, the member for Kingston and the Islands informed the House that the office of the Minister of Justice had not shared the contents of the bill with the CBC journalist before its introduction. The member explained that he believed that the ministers' mandate letters sometimes allowed journalists to deduce the contents of bills on notice. After reviewing the contents of the article in question and comparing it with Bill C-22, the member argued that the article was sometimes inaccurate and even incomplete. In his opinion, the article was written by using a government source who was not familiar with the contents of the bill or by making conjectures based on previous policy statements. Finally, the member for Kingston and the Islands, basing himself on a ruling made on June 8, 2017, said that it is a prima facie case of privilege in such cases when the government admits that the leak occurred, but not when the government does not acknowledge a leak. In this case, the member stated that if the contents of the bill were disclosed prematurely, the government was not responsible.
As the member for Fundy Royal pointed out during his intervention, it is a recognized principle that the House must be the first to learn the details of new legislative measures. That is why both government bills and private members' bills are confidential from the moment they are put on notice until they are tabled in the House. Speaker Milliken's ruling of March 19, 2001, which the member for Fundy Royal mentioned, provides a good summary of the importance of respecting this rule:
The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.
That being said, when the Chair is called on to determine whether there is a prima facie case of privilege, it must take into consideration the extent to which a member was hampered in performing their parliamentary functions and whether the alleged facts are an offence against the dignity of Parliament.
In the case before us, an exhaustive review of the intervention by the member for Fundy Royal does not reveal exactly which aspects of Bill C-22 were supposedly shared with CBC for the article in question, nor did the member point out any similarities in language between the article and the bill to demonstrate that precise details of the bill were apparently disclosed to the media in a deliberate and premature fashion. The member for Kingston and the Islands pointed out inaccuracies in the article and differences from the bill.
When it is determined that there is a prima facie case of privilege, the usual work of the House is immediately set aside in order to debate the question of privilege and decide on the response. Given the serious consequences for proceedings, it is not enough to say that the breach of privilege or contempt may have occurred, nor to cite precedence in the matter while implying that the government is presumably in the habit of acting in this way. The allegations must be clear and convincing for the Chair.
As well, I believe it is important to mention that the distinction that the member for Kingston and the Islands wishes to make between questions of privilege that are a prima facie case of privilege and those that are not—simply because the government admits or does not admit that a leak has occurred—is not that clear. While there is indeed a well-established practice that a member must be taken at their word, the fact remains that the government's stating that it is not responsible for the premature disclosure of a bill is not in itself sufficient to convince the Chair. I would add that the source of the information is one factor among others and that it is important first and foremost to determine whether precise details were provided before the House was made aware of them. The Chair must thus take into consideration all the information before it and reach a conclusion based on the facts presented by the members.
The two precedents most like the current situation to which the two members referred are those that my immediate predecessor and I rendered with respect to Bill C-14 and Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying. In these two cases, in light of the facts presented, it was clear that the information had been shared with the media before the bills were tabled in the House. In the case of Bill C-14, the Government offered no competing explanation. In the case of Bill C-7, it was clear that the anonymous source had spoken with the media despite the fact they were well acquainted with our customs and practices in the matter. That is not the case this time with Bill C-22.
Thus, in this case, in light of what has been presented, the Chair is not convinced that the question of privilege raised by the member for Fundy Royal is a prima facie case of privilege.
I thank the members for their attention.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.