Debates of Dec. 4th, 2023

Carbon Pricing

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his consistent advocacy for Alberta and Albertans.

Any relevant and credible plan—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Order. I thought we were doing really well. We went quickly through these questions and it has been awesome up until now.

The hon. minister of natural resources from the top.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again thank my hon. colleague for his consistent advocacy for Alberta.

Any relevant, credible plan must take climate change seriously and look to seize the economic opportunities that can come through a transition to a low-carbon future. Last week, Dow announced it was taking advantage of Canada's carbon capture hydrogen investment tax credit to build the world's first net-zero petrochemical facility. It is an $11-billion investment and will create 8,000 jobs in construction and hundreds thereafter for Fort Saskatchewan, but it is not just the credits that motivated Dow. The Dow CEO said that they invested here because Canada has a price on carbon pollution.

While Conservatives have no plan, they do not have a plan for the environment, they do not have a plan for the economy, our plan is working.

Persons with Disabilities

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, people with disabilities are being renovicted and priced out of their homes. Disproportionately, it is women, who are also at risk of gender violence.

Over half of women with disabilities are living on less than $10,000 a year. This is not sustainable or safe. The skyrocketing costs of housing and food is hurting persons with disabilities. They need the Canada disability benefit yesterday. Will this Liberal government end its unnecessary delay and release the Canada disability benefit immediately?

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for her advocacy and for raising the issue of disability.

This is a very important concern. Our government is seized by this issue. Thankfully, this Parliament passed the disability benefit and made it into law. We are working on the regulations, we are consulting the community fully, and this will happen.

Foreign Affairs

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is only two months until the long-awaited inquiry into foreign interference. Sadly, foreign operatives even remotely involved are retired and back in Beijing or Tehran. The Hogue inquiry faces serious time constraints in issuing an interim report in February and a final report by the end of 2024.

It took two months to create a website, which is harder to find than the interference itself. It strains credulity that the inquiry will be in full force with Santa and the new year. Aside from its desire for this thorny issue to disappear, does the government find it odd that Canadians can get more information on foreign interference in Canada simply by reading The New York Times?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in this place, we take the issue of foreign interference extremely seriously. We have moved forward with consultations on a foreign agent registry. We have implemented several measures in this place to strengthen our democratic institutions. We look forward to the Hogue recommendations, which we will also be looking at very seriously.

This is not a partisan issue, but an issue that every single parliamentarian should be taking seriously. We look forward to working with everyone in this place.

Awarding of Contract to Boeing

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

Mr. Speaker, I will just continue addressing the question of privilege that was raised on Friday by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I had gotten to the point in my dissertation as to the ruling that Speaker Milliken made in 2002 about the minister of national defence at that time. He is quoted as saying that misleading a minister or a member has been considered a form of obstruction and, thus, a prima facie breach of privilege. The Speaker accepted the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House and made the following statement: “Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation.”

The Speaker went on to say:

On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. I therefore invite the hon. member for Portage--Lisgar to move his motion.

On November 4, 2003, the member at the time for Scarborough—Rouge River presented to the House the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, which documented how the former privacy commissioner had deliberately misled the committee and provided false and misleading information to it. The member for Scarborough—Rouge River rose later in the sitting on a question of privilege to charge the former commissioner with contempt of Parliament based on the contents of the report. On November 6, the Speaker delivered his ruling and found the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege.

On April 10, 2008, the member for Charlottetown at the time raised a question of privilege alleging that the RCMP deputy commissioner provided false and misleading testimony to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts at a meeting on February 21, 2007. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts reported the matter to the House. and the Speaker found that a prima facie case of contempt had been established.

On February 17, 2011, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood and other members argued that a minister had made statements in a committee that were different from those made in the House or provided to the House in written form. These members argued that the material available showed that contradictory information had been provided. As a result, they argued that this demonstrated that the minister deliberately misled the House and that, as such, a prima facie case of privilege existed.

In a ruling of March 9, the Speaker said:

The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is this: as the committee has reported, when asked who inserted the word “not” in the assessment of the KAIROS funding application, in testimony the minister twice replied that she did not know. In a February 14 statement to the House, while she did not indicate that she knew who inserted the word “not”, the minister addressed this matter by stating that the “not” was inserted at her direction. At the very least, it can be said that this has caused confusion. The minister has acknowledged this, and has characterized her own handling of the matter as “unfortunate”. Yet as is evident from hearing the various interventions that have been made since then, the confusion persists. As the member for Scarborough—Rouge River told the House, this “has confused me. It has confused Parliament. It has confused us in our exercise of holding the government to account, whether it is the Privy Council, whether it is the minister, whether it is public officials; we cannot do our job when there is that type of confusion”.

On February 25, 2014, the then House leader of the official opposition raised a question of privilege regarding statements made in the House by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. He claimed that:

...the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville had deliberately misled the House on February 6, 2014, during debate on Bill C-23, the fair elections act, when he stated that he had witnessed evidence of voter fraud firsthand. He further argued that the matter was not resolved by the statements made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville on February 24 and 25, where he admitted that, contrary to his original claim, he had not actually witnessed what he had originally claimed to have witnessed. In his view, this was not a simple case of someone misspeaking; he argued rather that it was a case where the member deliberately chose to take something he knew not to be true and present it as eyewitness evidence—something so egregious, it constituted contempt.

In delivering his ruling, on March 3, the speaker at the time cited that:

Speaker Milliken was faced with [this] in February 2002 when the then Minister of National Defence, Art Eggleton, provided contradictory information to the House. In ruling on a question of privilege raised about the contradiction, Speaker Milliken stated on February 1, at page 8581 of Debates:

I am prepared, as I must be, to accept the minister’s assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House.

The same Speaker went on to conclude:

In keeping with that precedent, I am prepared to accord the same courtesy to the member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

At the same time, the fact remains that the House continues to be seized of completely contradictory statements. This is a difficult position in which to leave members, who must be able to depend on the integrity of the information with which they are provided to perform their parliamentary duties.

Accordingly, in keeping with the precedent cited earlier in which Speaker Milliken indicated that the matter merited “...further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air”, I am prepared in this case for the same reason to allow the matter to be put to the House.

On November 3, 1978, the member for Northumberland—Durham raised a question of privilege and charged that he had been deliberately misled by a former solicitor general. The member had written in 1973 to the solicitor general, who assured him that, as a matter of policy, the RCMP did not intercept the private mail of Canadians. On November 1, 1978, during testimony before the McDonald commission, the former commissioner of the RCMP stated that they did intercept mail on a very restricted basis and that the practice was not one that had been concealed from ministers. The Speaker ruled on December 6 that there was indeed a prima facie case of contempt.

I will go back to the original question raised by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. He said on November 4 that he had been told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence that a decision had not yet been made in answer to a question that he had here on November 21 about the replacement of our CP-140 Aurora aircraft.

The parliamentary secretary stated:

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. We need to replace the CP-140 Aurora patrol aircraft. However, we need to replace them with something that will serve the operational capability of the armed forces. No decision has been made yet.

The parliamentary secretary's second answer was even more specific. She said, “Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear today. No decision has been made.”

A few days later, on November 28, in an answer to questions from the member, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement said:

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for acknowledging the expertise of aerospace workers not only in Quebec, but also in Canada. That is why the decision we will soon be making is an important one....

We know that the next day, November 29, there were multiple media reports that the government was going to be buying the Boeing Poseidon P-8A patrol aircraft.

Global News stated, “sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter, said that last week”, which was November 23, “cabinet green-lit the purchase of 16 P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft to replace the half-century-old CP-140 Auroras.”

It went on to say:

Two of the sources, including a senior government official, said the Treasury Board held a special meeting Tuesday night [November 28] and approved the contract, which a U.S. agency has listed at US$5.9 billion (C$8 billion).

Therefore, the announcement did finally get made officially on November 30 to sole-source the P-8 from Boeing.

This question of privilege does not call into question the replacement of the CP-140 Aurora patrol aircraft or the process of awarding that contract to Boeing. To be clear, Conservatives want to procure equipment for the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Armed Forces; we just want to do it faster, and we want to make sure we are procuring the kit and equipment our armed forces are asking for.

This question of privilege is with respect to whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Public Services and Procurement intentionally misled the House.

Based on the timing of events I just laid out, I support the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot's question of privilege. The answers from both the Minister of Procurement and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence were misleading to the House and the defence industry, and I would suggest that this constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I thank the hon. member for the arguments brought forward. They will be taken under advisement.

Is the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby rising on the same question of privilege?

Alleged Breach of Speaker's Impartiality

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

Madam Speaker, I am rising to intervene on the question of privilege raised this morning by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

We were all dismayed over the weekend after seeing the Speaker in a video tribute to the outgoing interim provincial Liberal leader at the Ontario Liberal convention. Furthermore, the video was shot from the Speaker's chamber and in the traditional speaker's robes.

As mentioned earlier today, the third edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, under the direction of Marc Bosc and André Gagnon, states the following on page 324: “In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity”.

The rules surrounding the impartiality of the Speaker could not be clearer. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it, and there are no exceptions to abstaining from partisan activity.

This morning's apology by the Speaker partly explains why this unfortunate situation occurred. Although we understand that the video was intended for an intimate gathering for a personal friend, it was the duty of the Speaker and his office to ensure that the message was not used in a partisan context.

In his statement, the Speaker also indicated that he was recusing himself from this matter directly involving him, and that he would follow the practices established in the ruling of October 19, 2023, concerning the recusal of the Speaker. We believe that it was necessary in this case for the Speaker to recuse himself.

It is imperative to protect the impartiality of the Office of the Speaker. The citations and the quotes clearly show that the Speaker should not be taking part in any partisan activities. That he took part while wearing his robes in a video shot in this building makes the situation all the more clear.

We believe that the proper way to deal with this at this point, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle made clear this morning, is to refer the matter to committee. More specifically, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs can study it and recommend any appropriate remedies so that this never happens again.

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

I thank the hon. member for his input. I think that probably finishes it for that particular issue.

I know the hon. opposition House leader has a point.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the hon. NDP House leader for his contribution to the question.

I want to take this opportunity to inform the House that I have gone through and looked at some of the remarks that were made today, the Speaker's statement this morning and what happened on the weekend.

Just to compare this with what would happen in a similar circumstance in another area, where a group or an entity depends on the impartiality of a certain position, we could think of what would happen if an NHL referee appeared in a locker room for one of the teams, wearing his referee's uniform and giving a pep talk or positive messages to the team that is about to go out and play on the ice. How long do we think that NHL referee would continue in the post?

It is a difficult thing to say, especially as a former speaker, but I believe that this has undermined the position of the Speaker so greatly that I must add my voice and the voice of the official opposition to those who have asked for the Speaker to resign.

We have a number of very important rulings in front of the House. There is one on the ways and means motion, which we believe should be disallowed. The Speaker decided to allow the motion to proceed and allowed the government to bring in a subsequent bill. The Speaker's decision to participate in a partisan event now calls that decision into question.

I mentioned other rulings in my earlier remarks, and I will not repeat them. However, I just wanted to inform you, Mr. Speaker, and the House of the position of the official opposition.

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 19 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

While I am on my feet, I move:

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

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

The question is on the motion.

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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that it can pass on division.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[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 #466

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

I declare the motion carried.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 31, I move:

That the debate be not further adjourned.

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for Lakeland.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that many Conservative colleagues who represent oil and gas workers and rural or remote northern Canadians and who will be hurt by the culmination of the anti-energy agenda, represented by Bill C-50 and the just transition's top-down, central-planning Soviet aim to restructure the Canadian economy and redistribute wealth, will have many questions today. However, I just wonder, off the top, how the minister can possibly justify such a significant, fundamental, never-seen-before piece of legislation and agenda for our country and for the fundamentals of our Canadian economy, and justify ramming it through with fewer than eight hours total of debate for all members of Parliament from every region of this country, who are just trying to do our jobs on behalf of the people who sent us here.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I would say, just listening to what my hon. colleague said, that she clearly has not read what the bill says. Perhaps that is because—