House of Commons Hansard #94 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was violence.

Topics

PassportsOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Burlington Ontario

Liberal

Karina Gould LiberalMinister of Families

Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinarily important that we get the integrity of passports right. That is something that I have been communicating, and when someone is applying for a passport for the first time, it is one of the reasons that we ensure we are getting this right. When we are looking at children's passports, it is another reason that we want to make sure we have permission from both parents, and if there is a separation, that we go through the custody agreements, because at all costs, we must protect our children. That is exactly what we continue to do.

PassportsOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, passports are a major issue. In an interview with Paul Arcand this morning, the minister said that she knew for months that the situation was going to become problematic.

She let the situation deteriorate. Her negligence is typical of this government. The number of applications the government needs to deal with has gotten so out of hand that we have lost count. The minister misled Canadians by telling them that they would get their passports on time when she knew full well such would not be the case.

Can she now set the record straight in the House and tell us how many thousands of people are waiting in line outside to get their passports?

PassportsOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Burlington Ontario

Liberal

Karina Gould LiberalMinister of Families

Mr. Speaker, the situation in Montreal right now is like nowhere else in the country, with hundreds of people lining up at the three passport offices. With the Saint-Jean and Canada Day holidays coming up, we know that many Quebeckers want to travel.

We have now changed our strategy to ensure that people receive the services and information they need. We will continue to respond to the situation to ensure that Canadians receive their passports.

Government ServicesOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, MPs' offices are outposts for Canadians for help in getting their issues fixed, and boy, with this incompetent Liberal government, the people of Oshawa need a lot of assistance: passports, airports, immigration, public safety, foreign affairs, CERB. It goes on and on. Our office is working around the clock fixing these Liberal failures.

When will the Liberals stop downloading their screw-ups on constituency offices, take responsibility for their chaos, get back to work and fix their mess?

Government ServicesOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Burlington Ontario

Liberal

Karina Gould LiberalMinister of Families

Mr. Speaker, first I want to clarify something. The members opposite keep saying that public servants need to get back to work. Public servants at Service Canada have been in offices for months. They have been working around the clock. The people they are talking about who are working from home are the same people who delivered CERB to nine million Canadians. They are the same people who have delivered EI, OAS and CPP at the highest rate in 15 years.

We know there are challenges with passports right now. We continue to work around the clock, and public servants are working—

Government ServicesOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The hon. member for Davenport.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, climate change is top of mind for the residents of my riding of Davenport. In fact, I recently received a handwritten letter from Selena, an 11-year-old constituent. She is concerned about the environment and wanted to know what our federal government was doing to protect it. At the end of her letter she said, “We can all make a difference. Together, we can make the world a safer place for all its residents.”

Can the Minister of Environment and Climate Change update the House on the latest initiatives our federal government has in place to protect the environment, combat climate change and make the world a safer place?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Laurier—Sainte-Marie Québec

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault LiberalMinister of Environment and Climate Change

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Davenport for her advocacy and her work on these important issues.

Selena is right. We need to do better when it comes to protecting our environment, which is why this week we announced that we are banning six single-use plastics that are polluting our rivers and our environment. They are ending up on our streets and everywhere. Between now and 2030, there will be 22,000 tonnes of plastic waste that we will take out of our environment and 1.3 million tonnes that we will take out of the Canadian economy.

Veterans AffairsOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Mr. Speaker, three years ago the Liberals created a $150-million veterans survivors fund. As of today, zero dollars have been spent. Yesterday, the PBO found out that almost double is required to make this right.

Thousands of veterans' widows are living in poverty, and the government continues to break its promise to eliminate the sexist, archaic “gold-digger” clause.

When will the current government stop punishing veterans for finding love after 60?

Veterans AffairsOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Cardigan P.E.I.

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay LiberalMinister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is aware that we are committed to making sure veterans and their spouses have the support they need. We have been working with Statistics Canada and the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research to gather information from the survivors.

I understand of course that the committee has studied this issue and I look forward to its report. We will use the results to evaluate the situation.

I can assure my hon. colleague we will do everything to make sure we provide the services that our veterans need and deserve.

Persons with DisabilitiesOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Green

Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, here we are again. Last June, the government introduced a bill to implement the Canada disability benefit days before Parliament rose and then called an election.

This June, the government introduced the exact same bill. It has been 20 days and we have yet to debate it once. Nine other bills have been prioritized since.

Canadians with disabilities continue to disproportionately live in poverty across the country. They want to see emergency supports. They want to see action.

Does the current government understand that simply introducing a bill does nothing to help Canadians with disabilities today?

Persons with DisabilitiesOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Delta B.C.

Liberal

Carla Qualtrough LiberalMinister of Employment

Mr. Speaker, since 2015, we have done so much as a government to help persons with disabilities, and I was honoured to reintroduce Bill C-22 in the House several weeks ago. We are working with the disability community to ensure that their needs and wants are reflected in the bill and that we lift as many people out of poverty as we can with the new Canada disability benefit.

We are about to release our first-ever disability inclusion action plan. Financial security is a key pillar of that plan, as is employment. We are going to make sure we get this done.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

June 22nd, 2022 / 3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Jeanie McLean, Minister of Education and Minister responsible for the Women and Gender Equity Directorate for Yukon.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

Hockey CanadaOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That the House call for an independent inquiry into Hockey Canada's handling of the events of June 2018, in order to determine whether this was an isolated event or whether there are deficiencies in Hockey Canada's handling of reported complaints of sexual assault, sexual harassment and other types of misconduct.

Hockey CanadaOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

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

Okay. The House has heard the terms of the motion.

All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

Interruption to ProceedingsPrivilegeOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege concerning last night's crash of the hybrid Parliament system. I was working in my Confederation Building office here in the precinct for the House of Commons, but could not log into the Zoom portion of the House's proceedings last night. We were discussing Bill C-21, the government's cynical approach to gun control, which was to be followed by Bill C-28, a response to the Supreme Court's decision that relieved extremely intoxicated criminals of taking responsibility for their crimes. These are both issues that many of my constituents are very passionate about, and I wanted to be present for the debates.

Several colleagues also tried to access the video conference for the sitting, but were unsuccessful, I was told. I also understand that a meeting of the very important Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, the committee looking into the government's choice to declare a national emergency over this winter's truck protest in Ottawa, had to be abandoned because of these technical failures.

Beyond the obvious inconvenience and embarrassment of the hybrid system, which incredibly the government House leader will be asking later today to be renewed for another year, this incident represents broadly, I believe, a breach of the privilege to be able to represent my constituents. Under the House order of November 25, 2021, which reinstituted hybrid arrangements after last year's election, “members may participate in proceedings of the House either in person or by video conference”. It states “may participate”. There is no caveat or qualification to that. There is nothing that says it is only applicable when all the technology lines are up.

As much as I may think the hybrid Parliament should be scrapped, the House has agreed to those arrangements until at least tomorrow, so I sought to exercise my right to participate remotely from my parliamentary office, yet I simply could not.

While I acknowledge that the House suspended last evening shortly after the connectivity problems were flagged, which was appropriate, the way the House adjourned was not, however. According to the records of the House, the sitting resumed at 8:54 last evening when the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader then sought unanimous consent for the House to adjourn. The chair then canvassed the House in the usual manner and found there was agreement for the motion. Since I was trying to attend remotely, but with a technical range that prevented me from doing so, I was unable to present for that vote. That too is a breach of my privileges.

I have since come to understand that there had been a consensus of party representatives to reconvene the House for the purpose of adjourning when it became obvious that technical issues could not be resolved prior to midnight. That said, I understand that my House leader's office had been assured by the government House leader's office that a minister of the Crown would be proposing the adjournment of the House. That is a critical point in these circumstances. Last night's sitting was an extended sitting under the House order of May 2, better known as Motion No. 11, which permits a cabinet minister to move an adjournment motion on a point of order, which is deemed adopted upon being moved. There would have been no vote and no opportunity to object. The NDP-Liberal agreement on Motion No. 11 already stripped me of those rights.

Had any of the 39 ministers of the Crown been here to manage the Business of the House, the House could have properly adjourned early under the Liberals' ruthless Motion No. 11, but they did not even manage that correctly. Instead, there was a vote and I was not able to be present for it. Your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, have found several prima facie cases of privilege concerning the inability of a member to reach the House, especially when there is a vote.

Mr. Speaker Regan put it well on April 6, 2017, at page 10,246 of the Debates:

The importance of the matter of members' access to the precinct, particularly when there are votes for members to attend, cannot be overstated. It bears repeating that even a temporary denial of access, whether there is a vote or not, cannot be tolerated.

He cited favourably the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in 2004, in relation to security arrangements on Parliament Hill for the visit of an American president:

The denial of access to Members of the House—even if temporary—is unacceptable, and constitutes a contempt of the House. Members must not be impeded or interfered with while on their way to the Chamber, or when going about their parliamentary business. To permit this would interfere with the operation of the House of Commons, and undermine the pre-eminent right of the House to the service of its Members.

Those cases concerned physical obstruction.

Page 111 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, reminds us, “A Member may also be obstructed or interfered with in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions by non-physical means.” This new hybrid world obviously presents entirely new considerations that had not even been contemplated when those previous cases arose or when our procedural authorities were written. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 112, continues, “It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction [or] interference”.

That said, Mr. Speaker, I know that you, yourself, have been seized with considering just how privilege intersects with the virtual component of our proceedings from the very beginning. When the procedure and House affairs committee first began studying these issues in the earliest weeks of the pandemic, you testified on April 21, 2020, saying, at page five of the evidence, “By not having the connectivity or by having any issues, that could be an issue down the road.”

Later you added, at page 10, with particular relevance to my situation last night, “Allowing individuals to vote is the heart of our system, and it's the base of parliamentary privilege.” You reinforced this point in your July 6, 2020, appearance before the same committee by commenting, at page six of the evidence, “It is a member's privilege to vote, and we don't want the member to lose that privilege or not be able to access it.”

The issue goes much deeper than just attending votes. I could not attend any of the virtual sitting. A predecessor of yours, Peter Milliken, bluntly made the point about connection failures to the procedure and House affairs committee on April 23, 2020, at page 19 of the evidence. He said, “It would be a matter of privilege if they couldn't get into it.”

Taking the evidence the committee heard in the spring and summer of 2020, it presented two reports which helped form the structure of the hybrid system which has evolved here. Its views on these issues are equally clear.

In its fifth report presented in May 2020, the committee wrote at page 31, “It is essential that any modifications to the procedures and practices of the House made in response to the COVID-19 outbreak fully respect the rights possessed by members under parliamentary privilege.” It continues, “Further, in the exercise of the rights accorded by parliamentary privilege, members have the right to full and equal participation in parliamentary proceedings.” Last night, I did not have full and equal participation in parliamentary proceedings.

In its seventh report, which was presented in July 2020, at page 55, the committee recommended:

That the virtual or hybrid parliament replicate the rules and customs of the House as closely as possible...in order to fully ensure the democratic role of Parliament (deliberation, accountability and decision-making), as well as the parliamentary rights and privileges of members.

Further in the report, at page 60, the committee recommended, “That members participating virtually in any proceedings of the House of Commons enjoy and exercise the same parliamentary privileges that apply to members physically present.” I was incapable of exercising the same rights and privileges as my colleagues inside the chamber last evening when the Chair canvassed the House on the parliamentary secretary's unanimous consent motion.

As for the causes of the outage last night, I would submit that identifying the origins and motivations, if any, if either can even be identified, is immaterial to this question of privilege.

First, and most important, House business was conducted in defiance of the order adopted on November 25, 2021, denying me the opportunity to participate and vote, which is in breach of parliamentary privilege.

Second, that is a matter that a committee of the House, with a privilege reference, can determine. I will quote Mr. Speaker Milliken from October 15, 2001, at page 6085 of the debates, who said:

There is a body that is well equipped to commit acts of inquisition, and that is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which has a fearsome chairman, quite able to extract information from witnesses who appear before the committee, with the aid of the capable members who form that committee of the House.

Third, even if the source of last night's technical difficulties can be readily pinpointed, I would refer you to the ruling of your predecessor, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, on March 6, 2012, at page 5,834 of the debates, where he found a prima facie case of privilege in connection with the online hacker collective Anonymous.

I have long thought that we need to get back to traditional in-person sittings of the House. Yesterday's situation is just the latest example of why it is so important.

Though I recognize I am straying into debate on Motion No. 19, which is on today's schedule, the point remains that something serious happened last night. It was something that rose to the level of a breach of privilege, and a committee needs to get to the bottom of it. Should you agree, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Interruption to ProceedingsPrivilegeOral Questions

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I want to thank the hon. member.

The hon. government House leader is rising on this point as well.

Interruption to ProceedingsPrivilegeOral Questions

3:30 p.m.

Ajax Ontario

Liberal

Mark Holland LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, obviously, an Internet connectivity issue with an external service provider does not constitute a question of privilege because it is outside the control of the House. The House took appropriate action to restart it. Of course, these provisions have worked 99.9% of the time.

I appreciate that the member, who was in his office 100 or 200 metres away, was impacted by this. All members were. However, there are various things that are outside of our control that sometimes interrupt our proceedings. We are back here today. It continues to work, and it has worked in 99.9% of the time. I would say that is very effective.

Interruption to ProceedingsPrivilegeOral Questions

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Mr. Speaker, on the same point, the hon. member for Calgary Centre expressed the issue, which is that, in the context of his participation in the House, his participation was not able to occur. That is actually the point of his question of privilege today. This relates to Motion No. 11.

I think if you go back, Mr. Speaker, you will see that he had every right to participate. He could not last night, and I would agree with the member that this is the basis of his question of privilege.

Interruption to ProceedingsPrivilegeOral Questions

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Mr. Speaker, in response to the government House leader, I would encourage him to first review the points that were raised by the member for Calgary Centre and then consult the authorities. He would learn that, in fact, it is not necessarily an internal challenge that would create a question of privilege.

As has been clearly stated by Mr. Speaker Milliken, Mr. Speaker Regan and the current member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, external factors can, in fact, have an impact on the privileges and the dignity of this House. For the government House leader to say that just because it was an external problem outside of the direct control of this place is incredibly misleading. I would encourage him to consult the authorities, which are available at the table in those wonderful green books, and review what constitutes a question of privilege in this place.

Interruption to ProceedingsPrivilegeOral Questions

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, given last night's troubling events, the Bloc Québécois wishes to assert the right of reply on this question of privilege. We consider it to be very important, and we would like to contribute our thoughts.

Interruption to ProceedingsPrivilegeOral Questions

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

In light of the amount of time that we have before we recess for summer, I will do my best to come back as soon as possible.

If any member has something to add, I would advise them to do so as soon as possible.

The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Pension Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

It being 3:35 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑228 under Private Members' Business.

Call in the members.

[Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:]