House of Commons Hansard #124 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pandemic.

Topics

SeniorsOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Papineau Québec

Liberal

Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, again the NDP promotes a dangerous sort of cynicism to believe that absolutely nothing has been done. I recognize there is more to do, but we have delivered on our promise to increase old age security for Canadians aged 75 plus. We will issue seniors a one-time, $500 payment in August and increase their OAS by 10% in July of 2022.

We will also create a new “age well at home” initiative to fund senior-led community groups that help seniors age at home, and we will invest $3 billion to support provinces and territories to ensure that the standards for long-term care are applied and permanent changes are made. We will continue on this side of the House to support seniors.

SeniorsOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

While I have members' attention, I think members will agree that this has been a most unusual time for us all. For more than a year, we and our fellow Canadians have faced a number of challenges, and I know there will be more to come.

As we prepare to focus on our families and our constituents, I want to take a moment to thank all those who have made it possible for us to continue our work during this pandemic.

On behalf of all members, I want to sincerely thank the employees of the House of Commons administration, without whom we would not have been able to continue our work. They include the interpreters, the technical support team, maintenance staff, the clerks and pages, members of the Parliamentary Protective Service and the broadcasting team. They made it possible for us to do our jobs safely and confidently.

All of us, members and those who support them, have earned a pause. I wish everyone a safe and restful summer and time to connect with their loved ones.

Status of Questions of PrivilegePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

Mr. Speaker, as we are approaching the end of our session for the summer, I note that there are four outstanding questions of privilege.

There is a question of privilege from the member for Timmins—James Bay, in relation to the government ignoring a House order regarding taking indigenous children to court.

There is a question of privilege from the member for Carleton, regarding the government's inflation tax; and from the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, regarding the ethics committee and the fact that the government has ordered staff there to disobey the order to appear.

Then, of course, there was a question of privilege from our opposition House leader as well, related to the documents related to the Winnipeg lab, after the appearance at the bar by the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada on Monday.

While I appreciate that obviously you, Mr. Speaker, have to have some deliberations on some of them, and that is understandable, in particular the one from the opposition House leader, I would note, first of all, that there is some new information that has come to light, which is that the government has now filed an order in Federal Court with you as the defendant, Mr. Speaker, where the government is seeking to have those records and those documents sealed so that they can be hidden from Canadians. That obviously adds a very significant element of timeliness to this. When we have that being done by the government and the government has gone to that length to actually go to the Federal Court against you, Mr. Speaker, to try to see those documents sealed so that they cannot be seen by Canadians, that would add a very important element of timeliness to this.

I do believe that, on that question of privilege in particular, it does seem like there is a pretty clear set of facts there. You brought the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada to the bar and you admonished him. The documents were supposed to come with him. They did not. That is very clear. That is a very clear set of facts and very well established. We now have the government going to court to try to seal those documents, and that is shameful. I would think that there is very clear evidence there that we do have a prima facie case, so I would have expected us to see a ruling from you prior to the summer adjournment of Parliament.

Therefore, I just want to ask a three-part question so that we can get some clarity on where things are at with these questions of privilege.

Will you, Mr. Speaker, be delivering a ruling now, particularly on that question of privilege, given the timeliness of that matter, and on the other questions of privilege as well that I have raised here? If not, can you tell the House why not? In addition, what would happen with those questions of privilege should the government, as has been very widely speculated, go ahead and dissolve Parliament for an election? What would happen then to those questions of privilege?

I certainly hope, given that the government has now gone to Federal Court against you as the defendant, Mr. Speaker, trying to seal documents, that you will deliver a ruling prior to the summer. Could you answer those questions, please?

Status of Questions of PrivilegePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I want to thank the hon. member for his question, and it certainly is a fair question.

Unfortunately, over the last week, the amount of resources required from the clerks and me has limited the resources that we have to put to the points of order and the questions of privilege.

One of the things I have prided myself on in being here is putting out a well-thought-out response that merits the position that I am in. One of the things that I did not want to do is to rush through that with limited resources and give a ruling that was not up to the level that is expected by members and that members have been used to.

Therefore, should Parliament dissolve today, I will not be able to do it right away. It will be done at the next sitting of the House, whenever that does happen, and we will have something that is very robust, something that makes sense and something that all members can have confidence in.

Status of Questions of PrivilegePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the last question I had, I have more of a point of clarification than anything.

First, what would happen with those points of privilege should the government choose to dissolve this Parliament and go to an election? Would those points of privilege carry forward into the next Parliament?

Second, what bearing does the fact that the government has applied to the Federal Court to have those documents sealed have on this? Does that change anything about this point of privilege and about your ruling? Are you concerned about the fact that the government has applied to have those documents sealed and the effect that would have on this place and its ability to follow through on its orders?

It is a very serious matter when a government is taking the Speaker of the House of Commons to Federal Court in order to try to seal documents so that it can avoid being held accountable to Canadians. That is something that we all must take incredibly seriously in this place, because the very heart of democracy is at stake.

Status of Questions of PrivilegePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I want to thank the member for Banff—Airdrie. I just want to make sure that we got everything the way it should be and that the answer is correct.

The points of privilege and the points of order will be carried over, and it will be up to the Speaker at the time to look at it and take all the information as it evolves and make a decision at that time. I would not want to take that away from whoever the next Speaker is.

On the second point, we were told by the government House leader. He announced it in the chamber, and it is in the process. We will be taking that under consideration as we proceed.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, to be honest, I could not believe it when I learned a few minutes ago that the government is preventing the House of Commons from enforcing an order that it itself gave. That is what is happening here.

We can understand that people have different views on some things, which is all part of public debate. However, an order of the House always remains an order of the House. It boggles the mind that the Government of Canada is challenging an order in court.

Mr. Speaker, you are a member of Parliament and our representative in this court case the government has filed against the House of Commons. Can you tell us what your position will be?

Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I thank the hon. member for adding his comments, which I will take into consideration before I respond. As I said earlier, I am not prepared to make a ruling that is not well-thought-out and official. If the hon. member consults my previous rulings, I think he will agree with me that they are well-thought-out, fact-based and good-faith rulings. That is something I will continue to do.

I will therefore come back to the House if something happens. However, since I cannot predict the future, I will, for now, go ahead with scheduled business.

The hon. member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent on a point of order.

Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, we sometimes agree with your rulings and we sometimes disagree. That is perfectly fine. We have full confidence in your rulings, which are based on the facts, on jurisprudence and on past events.

However, my question was not about the Chair's ruling on our request. My question was about the legal proceedings filed by the Liberal government. The Speaker is named in the court order and is to testify on Monday about a matter involving the Government of Canada versus the House of Commons. As far as I know, this is the first time this has ever happened. On a side note, I must say that this is reminiscent of what happened in the United States in 1974 at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

We could even go so far as to say that this is a conflict of interest because, to my knowledge, the government is also part of the House of Commons and yet it is applying to the court to have the documents sealed when an order of the House requires that they be made public and tabled in the House.

I clearly believe that the House of Commons must defend this institution. The House of Commons must respect the work of parliamentarians. The House of Commons must act in accordance with the orders that it voted on. As a result, I would ask the Chair to clearly defend the rights of parliamentarians and the House of Commons in the case involving the government versus the House of Commons. To my knowledge, this is the first time this has happened. As a parliamentarian, I think it is very strange and dangerous that the government would dare to seek a court remedy against an order of the House of Commons. It is completely unacceptable.

The question remains the same: If the government does not obey the orders of the House of Commons, why would Canadians obey the laws passed by the House of Commons?

Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I would like to remind the member that the Chair considers the rights of the House to be very important and will continue to defend them. That is something that I take very seriously.

The facts are now in the hands of the law clerk, and we will continue to proceed in that manner. The member is right in saying that the rights of the House of Commons are very important. We will continue to protect them.

The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a very short intervention on this point. I believe that the issue in front of us regarding privilege and regarding your ruling earlier this week in finding a prima facie case of privilege with respect to the government's failure to obey the June 2 order of the House as well as the new information that has come to light today that the federal government has gone to court to seal the documents ordered by the House on June 2 and last week is a matter of public interest.

This is a matter of serious public interest and a matter of consequential public interest. This matter concerns the rights and privileges of the House guaranteed under our Constitution. As we move forward to adjournment today, as per the House schedule, and we go into the summer, I ask that you would keep that in mind, Mr. Speaker, as this situation unfolds, that this is a matter of urgent and serious public interest.

Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I want to thank the hon. member and assure him that it is a very important matter. It is an urgent matter that is being dealt with by our legal team.

The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Mr. Speaker, as the defender of all our rights and privileges here, I know it is not an easy task. However, part of the way this institution works is that if members experience where their privileges have been violated, it is incumbent upon those members to immediately raise it with the Speaker at the earliest opportunity.

Obviously with the clock being what it is, it is a principle that the Speaker should prioritize, that by the order being defied by the government by not bringing those documents, immediately all our rights and privileges have been violated. I believe it is up to you, as Speaker, to immediately respond.

The fact that the government has now moved to an outside court rather than dealing with us here indicates to me that the government is attempting to stall by going to another tactic.

I would ask sincerely that you, Mr. Speaker, please defend the House, please defend the order that has been given by the House, and please report back to the House as soon as possible. In the same way that you would encourage us to bring it to your attention, we are asking you to bring your ruling to us, not at just some indeterminate time in the future. I would appreciate it if you would bring it today.

Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I want to thank the hon. member for his intervention. Unfortunately, these things do not happen instantaneously. The papers were delivered. We do have to take some steps. There is some time. I want him to know that we will do it as soon as possible. As soon as we have an answer and we can come back to the chamber, there will be an answer.

The hon. member for St. John's East.

Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, what has been presented today, particularly with the government taking the action of bringing the matter before the Federal Court of Canada, I would like, and perhaps you have said this, to see it fully on the record that you will be taking the position on behalf of the Parliament of Canada, as Speaker of the House and defender of the rights and privileges of members of the House, to vigorously represent those interests in the Federal Court of Canada against those of the government seeking to thwart the will of Parliament.

Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I want to thank the hon. member for his input. I will certainly take that under consideration.

We will go to the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment about this whole issue that has been before the House. I was so pleased with your actions on it, as were my constituents. I know this is a great blow to the sense, again, of credibility of the place in which I am so proud to sit. I would ask that you, please, do everything you can to expedite this response that we need for the people of Canada to know this place has the authority with which it has been invested, and that your response would be coming forward very quickly to them to let them know that what we do in this place actually matters.

Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Once again, I want to remind all the members that the process is very important. We want to ensure that the right steps are taken and the right decisions are taken. Rushing into something just to get an answer is not something that I intend to do. I want to ensure we have the right answer that fits the situation and of which all members could be proud, including myself.

The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on a point of order.

Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House: (a) in recognition of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, when the House adjourns on Wednesday, September 29, 2021, it shall stand adjourned until Friday, October 1, 2021, provided that, for the purposes of any standing order, it shall be deemed to have been adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28 and be deemed to have sat on Thursday, September 30, 2021; (b) documents deposited pursuant to Standing Order 32(1) on July 21, 2021 and August 18, 2021 shall be deposited with the Clerk of the House electronically; and (c) following Routine Proceedings later this day, the House shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 20, 2021, pursuant to Standing Order 28.

Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

All those opposed to the hon. minister moving the motion will please say nay.

Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The hon. member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent on a point of order.

Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, we are still reeling from the shock of the recent announcement about how the government is going to court against the House of Commons. As such, we would like some time to consider the motion the government leader just moved, which we agreed upon initially. However, that was before the events that just transpired. We will get back to you shortly.

Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby would also like to rise on a point of order.

Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among the parties and, given concerns around the delta variant, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, the provisions in paragraph (q) of the order adopted on Monday, January 25, concerning the proceedings of standing, standing joint, special and legislative committees, delays on committees as well as any of their subcommittees, shall remain in effect: (i) between Friday, June 25 and Tuesday, June 29; (ii) between Friday, July 16 and Friday, August 20; and (iii) between Monday, September 13 and Sunday, September 19, provided that any requests made under the provisions of Standing Order 106(4) shall be signed by any four members of the committee who together represent at least two recognized parties.