House of Commons Hansard #65 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.

Topics

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot for his speech. I am hoping to hear his thoughts on the state of ethics in the House, so that I can have a better understanding of it.

At the same time, I do not have a crystal ball. I obviously expect that we will again get caught up in parliamentary procedures and will never actually finish this debate. I think that Quebeckers and Canadians want answers from this government.

Can my colleague talk about his understanding of the current ethics situation in the House of Commons?

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question asked by the member of the Bloc. Although I am an anglophone who comes from a constituency that I believe is 98% anglophone, there are serious questions in this report that reference how the government ignored concerns relating to the French language.

When it comes to ethics and why this debate matters, when the Conservatives endeavoured to encourage debate on this important issue within the House, a number of times the government has shut it down, along with its coalition partners in the NDP. It is okay if that happens once because the government deems something else to be important. However, what we have before us is a very reasonable offer that gives the government an opportunity to prove that its rhetoric on Motion No. 11 can be backed up with action by allowing the debate to happen, while also ensuring we can debate what the government calls its priorities. I believe that is reasonable and fair. Now the government has a chance to show that action.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, for two months now we have seen the Conservatives blocking supports for teachers, supports for farmers and COVID supports for Canadians. Now they are blocking dental care and affordable housing. After two months, today they came up with a reason for this, even though every single day in routine proceedings they have presented committee reports, sometimes two or three at the same time.

If the Conservatives are sincere, and I certainly hope the member is, then he could rise today in this House and apologize for the character of the dismal decade of the Harper government, with the the Senate scandals, the election scandals, the veterans affairs scandals, the scandal around Afghan detainees, the Trump-style attempt to take over the Supreme Court, the funding scandals around the G8 and the gazebo, the repeated contempt of Parliament charges and the misuse of government funds. Will the member stand in this place and apologize for all of the ethical violations of the Harper government?

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

Before I recognize the member, I want to remind folks that we had a really heavy day yesterday. There was a lot of heckling going on yesterday. I do not want to descend into that once again today.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, what the member has suggested is patently untrue. We have said that Conservatives would be happy to agree with three hours of debate on this important issue and then move to six hours of debate on the government's priorities. That is very reasonable, and I suggest Canadians would agree. Perhaps the member has a flight to catch or other things to attend to.

At the heart of it, the member's question certainly does not sound like a question coming from the fourth opposition party, but rather a question from a coalition partner or a backbencher from within the government. Canadians can simply see that for what it is.

Alleged Interference of the Government in the Work of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and ImmigrationPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Terry Dowdall Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today on a question of privilege concerning inappropriate government interference in the work of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Yesterday afternoon, my office received an email from the hon. member for London West. He forwarded an email chain concerning the preparation of drafting instructions for a report on a study the committee has been conducting on differential outcomes.

According to the committee's website, it was scheduled to meet yesterday afternoon for the purpose of discussing those very drafting instructions.

The email chain originated from the chair's office. It circulates a proposal prepared by the office of the member for London West and involves, understandably, the Liberal members of the committee and their staff. What makes less sense to me is that the email chain, which originated from the chair's office, also includes ministerial staffers Vanessa Cranston, the manager of Parliamentary Affairs for the Ministry of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; Emilie Simard, an issues management advisor for the same minister; and Arielle Mantes, who has an email address in the government House leader's office and is reported in The Hill Times as a member of that minister's staff, but who the online government employee directory says is an advisor in the non-partisan Privy Council Office, also known as the Prime Minister's department, which raises a lot more questions.

Not only were ministerial staff kept informed, but there was actual participation in providing direction. Ms. Cranston, the immigration minister's manager of parliamentary affairs, replied:

I'd like to suggest that we broaden the prepared wording. I find this reads more like a recommendation and our goal for meeting today is to point the analysts in a direction, without explicitly asking for our conclusions to be highlighted.

What did she mean by “our goal”? On whose behalf is she speaking, and what conclusions is she trying to obfuscate? It sounds like not only is the minister's staff trying to direct the conclusions of a parliamentary committee, but also to manipulate the work of non-partisan analysts supplied by the Library of Parliament in getting there.

This direction was in turn forwarded to my employee by the member for London West with the instruction, “Did you take note of this?” It sounds to me like the member is rather concerned that the minister's political enforcer's word is the law.

A new, aspiring government backbencher would naturally want to be on the PMO's good side. It is an open secret around here that the Prime Minister's Office, and ministers' offices, are pulling the strings on committee proceedings: something they deny at every turn, naturally. It is something else to see in cold, hard text, the direction and instruction coming from a senior staffer to the immigration minister.

It is shocking, scandalous and absolutely inappropriate for the government to be interfering like this in the deliberations of a committee and the hard work of our non-partisan analysts. In my respectful opinion, this goes beyond disrespect of Parliament and is actually a contempt of Parliament.

Page 81 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, explains that:

There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege: tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House....

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....

This area of parliamentary law is therefore extremely fluid and most valuable for the Commons to be able to meet novel situations.

Throughout the Commonwealth most procedural authorities hold that contempts, as opposed to privileges, cannot be enumerated or categorized.

Page 83 continues:

Just as it is not possible to categorize or to delineate every incident which may fall under the definition of contempt, it is also difficult to categorize the severity of contempt.

Contempts may vary greatly in their gravity; matters ranging from minor breaches of decorum to grave attacks against the authority of Parliament may be considered as contempts.

The interference shown by the immigration minister's office in the work of the committee, which is actually supposed to be holding him and his department to account, not the other way, rises to this threshold of being found as a contempt of Parliament.

The House must stand up for its rights and its independence. These rights are ancient, hard fought for, and must never be taken for granted. Bosc and Gagnon explain, at page 62, the early part of the arc of development of parliamentary privilege. I quote:

These privileges were found to be necessary to protect the House and its Members, not from the people, but from the power and interference of the King and the House of Lords....

The House of Commons in Canada has not had to challenge the Crown, its executive or the Upper House in the same manner as the British House of Commons.... Nonetheless, the privileges enjoyed by the House and its Members are part of the Constitution and therefore are of the utmost importance; they are in fact vital to the proper functioning of Parliament. This is as true now as it was centuries ago when the English House of Commons first fought to secure these privileges and rights.

Let us not roll backwards to those days when the executive subordinated the legislator to its whims. Let us not find ourselves capable of only doing what business, or writing what reports, the Prime Minister and his cabinet give us permission to. The House must stand up against interference by the executive branch by the current Liberal government at every turn.

Should you find a prima facie case of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs so that it may conduct an investigation into this behaviour and report back to the House with its findings.

Before resuming my seat, I would ask for unanimous consent to table the emails in question.

Alleged Interference of the Government in the Work of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and ImmigrationPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

Alleged Interference of the Government in the Work of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and ImmigrationPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

10:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Alleged Interference of the Government in the Work of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and ImmigrationPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

I want to thank the member for his intervention. We will respond back as soon as practical on his point.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

Alleged Interference of the Government in the Work of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and ImmigrationPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

10:45 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, we will be consulting the Blues of course. I would like to reserve a possible intervention on this later today.

Alleged Interference of the Government in the Work of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and ImmigrationPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

10:45 a.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, if what the member for Simcoe—Grey says is true, it is extremely concerning.

The Bloc Québécois would also like to reserve the right to intervene later in a potential debate.

Alleged Interference of the Government in the Work of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and ImmigrationPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

I hope to have a response from both parties fairly quickly.

I recognize the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:45 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, now we are on to the concurrence amendment that the government House leader has attempted to set for the agenda today. As I have indicated in the past, one of the things I have learned over the past seven years is that, from the very beginning, the Conservative Party has been more focused on character assassination, whether it is of the Prime Minister or of other ministers, than on the different types of substantial policies. Instead of talking about substantive measures, whether it was seven years ago, talking about tax breaks for middle-class Canadians, or during the pandemic, talking about its issues, or just weeks ago, talking about the new federal budget that is being very well received by Canadians, the Conservatives are more focused on one thing, and that is those personal attacks.

We are supposed to be debating the budget implementation bill today; therefore, while I am on my feet at this point in time, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Milton:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

If a member of a recognized party in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and please indicate it to the Chair.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Mr. Speaker, we absolutely want a recorded division.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #78

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

I declare the motion carried.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

For your benefit, I just want to advise that the official opposition offered three more hours of debate. The Liberals and the NDP rejected that.

The House resumed from May 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1Government Orders

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

The member for Kings—Hants has four minutes and 25 seconds left.

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1Government Orders

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I will carry on right where I left off, which is talking about how I think it is extremely important, as it relates to health care, that this budget makes clear that we will be working with provinces and territories on foreign credentialing. I know there have been a number of examples in my home province of Nova Scotia, where there are individuals who have come to our province, who want to be able to practise in their particular field of health and have not been able to do so. Yes, we have to work with provinces and territories and colleges to balance public trust in our system, but also to make sure that this process can be expedited, such that if there are people who want to help practise and help support our health care system, they are taken care of.

I also want to talk about tax credits. We had tax credits for CCUS, which is carbon capture, utilization and storage. What I would say to the House is that in 2050, there undoubtedly will still be an oil and gas sector in the global context, but estimates by the International Energy Agency suggest that the number of barrels per day will go from about 100 million down to around about 25 million, give or take.

I think we all, as parliamentarians and indeed as a country, have an important reflection to make when it comes to whether Canada is going to be a part of that market, the 25 million barrels of oil a day. I, for one, as a parliamentarian, feel that yes, we have a responsibility, but in a carbon-constrained world in which there is going to be less demand on that side, we have to make sure that our GHG intensity per barrel is as low as possible.

We took some criticism in the House on our decision on Bay du Nord, but that project was approved because it has some of the lowest emission intensity per barrel of oil in the world. We have to make sure that if we are going to be working with industry to reduce emissions in order to be able to meet our emission reduction targets, we also have to be positioning the sector to be the lowest-emitting oil and gas sector in the world, such that our products can continue to be competitive in the days ahead. I tip my cap, then, to the government on the CCUS tax credit.

Critical minerals, if we are going to be able to get to our climate targets, are going to play an extremely important role, from batteries in EV vehicles to potash to a whole host of different minerals that play a role in that. Canada has so much potential, and the fact that we had $3.8 billion toward the development of a critical mineral strategy is a really extremely important piece, as is the 30% tax credit for exploration in the country.

I think we have a tremendous opportunity on a global stage to be there and to make sure we have a role. I was in Saskatchewan, as I have mentioned. I sat down with the Saskatchewan Mining Association, along with our Minister of Natural Resources. They pointed to this as being extremely important.

The last thing I will say is on the importance in the budget of economic growth, which the Minister of Finance made very clear in the budget document. The budget implementation act talks about a number of the measures that are important in that domain. I fully support that from where I sit here in the House, particularly the Canada Growth Fund, the recognition that we need to continue to drive innovation; 15 billion dollars' worth of capitalization; the innovation and investment agency, which is focused on attracting foreign capital to the country to drive the future economy and our future prosperity; and, finally, more money for the superclusters. In our neck of the woods, in Atlantic Canada, the ocean superclusters do tremendous work. These are all really important initiatives.

I also want to emphasize the importance of reducing interprovincial trade barriers and harmonizing certification between provinces and territories to improve labour mobility. A recent Senate report noted that our economy's GDP could grow between 2% and 4% if we focused on this area.

World-class wine production is a growing sector in my riding of Kings—Hants. However, in many cases it is easier for these producers to export to Europe than to other provinces, so I was pleased that the budget mentioned working on this with the provinces and territories.

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1Government Orders

May 5th, 2022 / 11:40 a.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comments about Canada's critical mineral potential were spot on. Quebec has a lot of potential there too.

The budget includes a very nice map of the minerals located in Quebec, but it says absolutely nothing about ensuring that processing will happen here, which would be consistent with the Government of Quebec's strategy.

Can the member tell me if his government has already taken steps to make sure these minerals are processed in Quebec, or will minerals be extracted here and then sent off to Toronto for the value add?

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1Government Orders

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The Government of Canada is working with the Government of Quebec on issues from housing and environmental initiatives to natural resource development and essential critical minerals.

I know our government will work with the Province of Quebec and every other Canadian province.

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1Government Orders

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kings—Hants for his talk about the CCUS. I have the only working carbon capture and storage facility, on a coal-fired power plant that produces energy for Saskatchewan. I am so glad to hear he has been to Saskatchewan, and I would invite him and arrange for him to have a tour of the CCUS facility, so he actually understands what it truly means to capture that CO2 and put it in the ground.

My question is a very simple one. Is it the industry we want to kill, or is it the emissions?