Debates of Oct. 5th, 2023

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the roll call vote, from the government benches, the member for Fredericton voted and then left the chamber before the vote was reported in the House. I would like to know whether that vote will count under the current voting rules or whether it should be stricken from the record.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I believe the member for Fredericton left the chamber before the vote was complete.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, given where we are in the session, we are not going to argue the member's vote should count, unless there is unanimous leave to count it this time around. We will ensure that it will not happen again in the future.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Do members agree to allow the vote from the hon. member for Fredericton to stand?

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary Heritage also left his seat while the vote was under way. I think we should allow the votes of both members to count and not play these petty politics.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We will strike them both.

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders is extended by 16 minutes.

Business of the House

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is customary that on Thursdays we ask the government what it has planned for next week, but next week is a constituency week. I know members of Parliament will be heading back to their ridings and will have the opportunity to celebrate with their loved ones on Monday, followed by constituency work throughout the rest of the week.

Could the House leader tell the House what the government has planned for the week that follows, when we return to Parliament?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we will return for second reading debate on Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord implementation act.

Upon our return, priority will be given to Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. I would also like to note that Tuesday, October 17, shall be an allotted day.

Let me wish all colleagues a happy Thanksgiving, and I hope every member has a wonderful time with their family, friends and constituents over the coming constituency week.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has already been mentioned, but I would like to confirm that Tuesday, October 17, shall be an allotted day.

Alleged Misleading Response to Order Paper Question

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding a response to Order Paper Question No. 1417 and one additional matter with regard to the same. Out of respect for the time of the members present, I will not read the entirety of the question put to the government; instead, I will cut to the heart of the matter. I request that you examine two matters at hand.

On the first matter, this morning, the CBC reported having obtained information clearly demonstrating that the government misled the House of Commons in response to Order Paper Question No. 1417 and, thus, breached members' privileges.

The CBC report stated that the Prime Minister's trip to Montana over Easter cost far more than the government reported to the House of Commons through Question No. 1417. The government reported to the House that the trip cost $23,846. However, the information obtained by the CBC discovered that the trip actually cost $228,839. Part of the cost of this trip is the provision of security for the Prime Minister, which is a necessary function of this role. To be clear, no one here is questioning the need for the Prime Minister to have access to security. However, the issue at hand is that, from the CBC story, the government appears to have hidden the total cost from a member of Parliament in an official request for details of this expenditure.

Canadians have a right to know how their tax dollars are spent and if they are spent wisely. In the instance of the story at hand, this principle translates to the public having a right to know such things as why the cost of the Prime Minister's trip was so high and whether, as it was a personal trip, he personally paid for the full value of his accommodations. It is impossible for members to debate this issue without the information, which is why it was requested from the government via an Order Paper question. As a member, I was not able to make an accurate determination on this matter, as I was misled by the government's response to Question No. 1417. Recourse on this breach of privilege should be explored.

Recently, the government has been castigated by your immediate predecessor for its response to Order Paper questions. On June 20, your predecessor made a ruling on a question of privilege that I raised when I received an ATI showing how the natural resources department sought not to fully respond to an Order Paper question I posed. When I rose in the House on June 15 to explain this question of privilege, I noted:

In the ATI, the minister's regional adviser for Quebec asks in an email, “What is the jurisprudence on those [types] of Points of Order?” The minister's deputy chief of staff, Kyle Harrietha, responds: “Thanks, heard it after QP and did the inbox search of Q-974. Already in touch with GHLO. I'm expecting the Speaker to tut tut and then say it is not for him to judge the quality of a response.

In your predecessor's response to me on June 20, he did not seem to take too kindly to the statement. He chastised the government, saying:

However, the Chair would like to note that it finds the remarks of public servants reported by the member very troubling. I am especially troubled by the comments from the public servants to the effect that the Chair could not intervene in case of a point of order and that this could justify an incomplete response.

Your predecessor went on to say:

It is true that, based on many precedents, the Chair does not judge the quality of responses, and the reasons for that fact are understandable. However, my predecessors and I have repeatedly emphasized the importance of providing members with the information they need to do their work properly.

Your predecessor continued on and concluded by saying:

In the meantime, the Chair encourages ministers to find the right words to inspire their officials to invest their time and energy in preparing high-quality responses rather than looking for reasons to avoid answering written questions.

However, in the case of Question No. 1417, it appears the government not only did not heed the advice from the Speaker but also went one step further and, per the information disclosed in the CBC article, misled the House. In doing so, it both violated members' privileges and demonstrated blatant disregard for the Speaker's words.

There is precedent for this situation. On December 16, 1980, at page 5797 of Hansard, the Speaker said:

While it is correct to say that the government is not required by our rules to answer written or oral questions, it would be bold to suggest that no circumstance could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that this is one of those circumstances. However, there is another problem related to this matter that you must address. There is one more element to this question of privilege that is completely unprecedented, which I checked, in the history of our House of Commons. Typically, the task of examining evidence on this matter would fall to you. However, the problem now facing the House of Commons, and your office, is that the government representative who provided and signed off on the potentially misleading response was yourself, in your former role as the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister.

Question No. 1417, the Order Paper question at the heart of the CBC story about the cost of the Montana trip, concerns the Privy Council Office, which supports the Prime Minister's Office and the cabinet. The PCO was asked to disclose the cost of the trip; however, per the CBC story, it did not. The Privy Council Office would be responsible for planning the logistics around travel and have oversight on budgetary matters. Again, in your role as parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, you signed off on the response to Question No. 1417, which the CBC reported on today.

I believe this situation may present concerns with regard to your ability to impartially rule on this matter. With deep respect to you and the institution of the Chair, I will now argue why this is so and what action I believe you must take in considering a matter in which you may have a conflict of interest.

Prior to making these arguments, I want to be clear that I bear you no ill will, nor am I challenging your office. At the time of your election, there were no rules preventing parliamentary secretaries from occupying the Speaker's chair during the same Parliament. I respect that you occupy the Speaker's chair by virtue of your legal election to it, but here is the rub of the matter: Under normal circumstances, it would be virtually impossible for the Speaker of the House of Commons to ever be in a potential conflict of interest situation when making one of these rulings. That is because the Speaker is a member of Parliament elected to the office by their peers at the start of a Parliament, immediately after an election. Elections wipe the slate of Parliament clean.

However, this week, members had to elect a new Speaker in the middle of a Parliamentary term. The problem in this instance is that you, prior to your election as Speaker, held several official governmental roles. Until September, you served as the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, and you signed off on Question No. 1417. Now you have to rule on whether there is enough evidence for the House to consider if you, in your former role as parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, potentially breached members' privilege by misleading the House when signing off on Question No. 1417.

We both know that the occupant of the Speaker's chair must be viewed as an unimpeachable, neutral arbiter of House proceedings. A Speaker having to rule on a question of privilege on a matter caused by them during their former role in government is an incredible matter without precedent. To re-emphasize, I am honour bound to afford you the respect you deserve in the role of Speaker, out of respect for the office of the Speaker and its essential functions within the institution of Parliament.

However, out of that same responsibility, I believe you are also honour bound to recuse yourself from ruling on this matter. This is a matter that affects the privilege of all members. Speakers' rulings set precedents, and it could breach all members' privilege if you make one ruling for which you cannot conceivably be impartial because of the nature of your previous government roles and your actions within them.

Mr. Speaker, you have the ability to recuse yourself by allowing the House to consider the matter at hand. In this instance, the correct course of action should be to allow a motion to be moved on the matter and allow the House to determine the outcome. Then the outcome would be a decision of the House, not the Speaker, and a perception of loss of neutrality and a further potential breach of privilege could perhaps be avoided. After the last couple of weeks, the Speaker could use a bit of a boost.

There is some relevant precedent on this matter. On December 12, 2021, on a question of privilege concerning allegations pertaining to the former clerk, the Speaker pointed out at the beginning of his ruling that the clerk recused himself from the matter and did not participate in the preparation of the ruling. This would be in keeping with the reference from Bosc and Gagnon, at page 323, which states, “When in the Chair, the Speaker embodies the power and authority of the office, strengthened by rule and precedent. He or she must at all times show, and be seen to show, the impartiality required to sustain the trust and goodwill of the House.”

Representative democracy only functions when ordinary people have confidence that the institutions that uphold their representatives' ability to make decisions on their behalf are working. Any issue that erodes that confidence should be immediately and forcefully addressed. Out of respect for Parliament, I ask that you recuse yourself from this matter and allow the House to debate it. Doing so would not be an admission of anything other than your deep respect for the necessity of perception of neutrality by the Chair. However, failure to do so could present problems in this regard, at a time when all of us here need to do our utmost to respect the dignity of Parliament.

In any event, should a case of privilege be found, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the member for her presentation. I trust members will respond at a later date, hopefully as quickly as possible, on this particular matter.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide an assurance that we will review what the member said and report back at some point with regard to her statement.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we would like to review the blues as well, and we may choose to come back to the House on this matter.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not need to review the blues. I listened carefully to what the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill had to say. She presented a cogent, thoughtful and respectful argument. I hope you will take it into consideration and decide that it is the wisest course for the Speaker to recuse himself from this role for this particular matter of privilege.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, moving on from this topic, I just wanted to bring up a point of order on a technical issue regarding the votes.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

First, the point of privilege is in order. Pending the responses that we are going to be getting from the caucuses, we will get back to the House as soon as possible.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to bring it to your attention, and to the House's, the dispute over the vote by the member for Fredericton today.

I wanted to clarify, and I have already clarified with the table clerks, that the member did not vote physically in this chamber today, nor did she intend to do that from the beginning. She had voted remotely and was only entering the chamber to retrieve articles. There was some mix-up in thinking that perhaps she had voted in this chamber and then left before the tallying of the vote.

I would hope that her vote stands as a remote vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am going to make two quick comments on this.

First, when we are having standing votes, I would suggest that all members should try their best to stay in the chamber. If members are planning on voting on the app, they may leave the chamber as quickly as possible and stay out of the chamber until after the vote is complete. This is just a suggestion on process.

Second, I did confirm with the Table and it was done remotely with the app. I will of course allow her vote to stand.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Nunavut, Air Transportation.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, indeed I am proud to be here as part of the blue team. It is always an honour to stand in this House and to debate some of the legislation that is before us. Today we are discussing Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. First of all, I have to congratulate the leader of the official opposition who tabled his bill, the building homes not bureaucracy act, of which the Liberals lifted part and implemented it here through Bill C-56.

I also have to congratulate the member for Bay of Quinte for his private member's bill, Bill C-339, which was to amend the Competition Act by further defining the efficiencies defence under the Competition Act. Of course, that was also lifted by the Liberals and put into Bill C-56.

I guess it is true, as Oscar Wilde used to say, that imitation is the sincerest, and I would say the greatest, form of flattery. For the Liberals to take Conservative legislation and put into their own government bills is a form of flattery, and it is one that I think we should really recognize. This is Conservative ideology that the Liberals are implementing here.

I think it is also important to point out that the Liberal government is all out of ideas. It has been eight long years. The Liberals are tired, they are weary and they do not have anything else to bring forward, so they are now going to be going through all the private members' bills that the Conservatives have laid before this House and they are going to be lifting parts they can use of the great ideas the Conservatives have. They are going to put those into their own legislation going forward.

I am looking forward to what else is going to be coming forward from the government. When it comes down to the issues of grocery prices and housing, they have no ideas, and for the eight years we have been watching, things have gotten harder for Canadian families. It has gotten tougher for Canadians to live that major Canadian dream, which is to own their own home, but millennials and young Canadians just do not have that opportunity.

After eight long years, we have mortgage rates that have now gone up to the highest levels in 30 years. We have seen mortgage rates increase 10 times. The Bank of Canada preferred rate has gone up 475 basis points. Rent in this country on rent a two-bedroom home is going to cost, on average across this country, $2,339 as of last month. Canada now has the most expensive housing market in the world, with some communities like Vancouver and Toronto by far the most expensive places to live, and incomes have not kept up with the cost of living.

It is said that societies often come to the brink of collapse when things like putting food on the table and a roof over one's head exceed 75% of one's disposable income. That is what is happening under those Liberals and their mismanagement of our economy and our government. They are really making it impossible.

We talk about the Canadian dream. When I was 21 years old I took out my first mortgage, under the Liberal Pierre Elliott Trudeau government, and paid a 21% interest rate on that mortgage. It is like father, like son, and now we have again out-of-control interest rates, out-of-control inflation and a government that is running up these massive deficits, contributing to inflationary spending. We are in a situation where those millennials and young Canadians are now not doing what we did, taking out a mortgage and paying it off over 25 years. They are taking 25 years to save up for the down payment to go out and buy that new home.

We always talk about how this is impacting our young people, those millennials out there and the 30-somethings who are still living in their parents' basements. It is also impacting seniors. Edna in my riding wrote to me, and said, “Now, everything costs so much more. Many seniors are suffering and don't have the means to get help”. She was talking about her mortgage and insurance on her house, the meagre life insurance she pays for, all the utility bills and her groceries, and she cannot make ends meet. This is in Manitoba where, compared to the rest of Canada, rental rates, mortgage rates and housing prices are still relatively affordable compared to Ontario, B.C., Atlantic Canada and Alberta, yet she is struggling to get by.

What the Liberals are planning here is to give a GST holiday to wealthy landlords who are going to go out and build more rental units. There is no classification on whether this is affordable housing, but they are going to make sure that these are homes that people can afford to live in on their income. They could have looked at what we were proposing. I welcome the Liberals to plagiarize more of the Leader of the Opposition's bill, the building homes not bureaucracy act.

On top of removing the GST over the next five years on new home builds, why do the Liberals not make it easier for all developers so they can build more single-family homes as well make sure we are out there to support the people who want to buy their first home, not rent, whether it is a condo, a multi-family unit or a single home in a new development? Let us make sure that all developers, not just the landlords who are out there, are going to be able to get the GST holiday.

Let us make sure that we are also taking away the bonuses paid to bureaucrats who are part of the problem right now in creating the red tape. I am talking specifically about the bonuses that were paid out to Bank of Canada and CMHC executives. There was $26 million paid out in bonuses to CMHC executives who, in my mind, are part of the housing crisis as they are not addressing it well, and the Bank of Canada executives got $20 million in bonuses. Again, this is the Bank of Canada that keeps increasing the interest rates to try to balance off the inflation that was created. The Liberals printed more money for this bank to borrow and the government continues to use that money to run up these huge inflationary deficits.

The current Prime Minister has now run up more national debt than all prime ministers before him going right back to Confederation. That to me is a crisis. It is about passing on debt to our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. We are talking about intergenerational abuse because of the misappropriation of funds by the government and the lack of investment in the future of this country, which is making it tougher for Canadians.

I have to say if we want to talk more about what the Liberals can take and lift out of the Leader of the Opposition's bill, let us make sure we also talk about getting rid of the gatekeepers by incentivizing municipalities to actually build more homes and doing away with all the red tape that is stopping them.

We want to make sure that we take all the excess land and buildings the Government of Canada owns and convert them into housing.

Let us not stop there. If the Liberals want to take another Conservative policy and plagiarize it, I welcome them to axe the carbon tax. If we want to talk about groceries, which this bill has actually nothing to do with, let us talk about taking away the inflationary carbon tax because it is making food more expensive. I am a farmer. My friend from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa is a farmer. My friend from Portage—Lisgar is a farmer. We were all a bunch of farm kids growing up and are proud of it. When we tax the farmer who grows the food, tax the trucker who transports it to the processor, tax the processor who makes the food, tax the trucker again to get it over to the grocery stores, and then the Liberals not only charge the carbon tax on the grocery stores, but penalize them, fine them, then pass that on to the consumer as well, it means we all pay more for food.

Let us make sure that the Liberals continue to make use of good, Conservative policy, that they do away with all the destructive and wasteful spending on their side and do more to work with our side, follow our lead and take our examples, because then they will make a difference. If they do not, I promise all Canadians they will have a chance to pass judgment on the government, get rid of the Liberals, and bring in the common-sense Conservatives for a better and brighter future.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not really agree with many of my colleague's statements on I think it was the Conservatives' building bureaucracies act and the lack of housing bill.

Calgary City Council voted in favour of the housing task force recommendations. Does the Conservative Party support Calgary's housing task force recommendations?

Do you support the Conservative housing critic's support of those recommendations or do your support your leader's and Conservative Party MPs' opposition of those housing task force recommendations? Could you please tell this House whether you support your housing critic or your Calgary MPs?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member he is not to address questions and comments directly to the members; it should be through the Chair.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has the floor.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will let the member from the Calgary area know I do support our leader on this, because, and I will just repeat it again, it is the building homes not bureaucracy act. It is about getting houses built, not more red tape. It is about making sure we are able to provide more opportunity for young Canadians to actually get into a house of their own, and if they cannot, then let us make sure there is more housing stock out there.

My daughter lives in Calgary, by the way, and luckily they are homeowners, but it is getting more and more expensive for them as well. The question becomes whether the City of Calgary will be willing to work with our federal Conservative Party, when we become government, to make sure we are taking away all of the restrictions and all of the NIMBYs blocking the development of land in Calgary and we are creating more homes and more opportunities for people in Calgary to own their own homes.

If the City of Calgary has some great ideas, we are more than happy to work with it and provide it more infrastructure dollars to ensure that there is that opportunity to build more homes, to build more developments, and at the end of the day everyone is better off.