Debates of June 2nd, 2023

Alleged Breach of Privilege at Committee

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe that men are required to have a jacket at all times in the House. There are certain wardrobe requirements, and I believe wearing a T-shirt borders on being disrespectful to the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have not noticed the hon. member, but I will certainly look into it. As far as I am aware, and I will have to double check, the clothing mandate comes in when members want to speak.

We have another point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, with regard to the point of order, I want to mention that I serve on the Standing Committee on Finance and what my colleague is debating right now is a motion that the committee unanimously adopted. The Conservatives are—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. That is not a point of order.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

—filibustering when we should be debating Bill C-47.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

What the hon. parliamentary secretary is putting forward is debate. She is trying to weigh in on the questions of privilege, and she can do that as soon as the hon. member finishes his questions of privilege.

The hon. member is on the right track to get his questions of privilege through, so if we can be patient, I would ask the hon. member to state his questions of privilege. I think we were on the third one.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, just to clarify, I was conceptually grouping the violations of privilege that had happened at committee. I think there were a number of violations of privilege that happened at committee.

The second issue, and this was raised as a question of privilege at committee, does touch on 116(2)(b), and that is the right of members to be able to vote. It is the right of members to be able to raise subamendments that was limited, which is a matter of privilege of members. It was the right of members, as well, to be able to vote at committee.

I remember the time this happened because the points of order were in relation to the finance committee continuing to sit during Question Period. At 3:15 p.m. on Tuesday, members were trying to raise points of order with respect to the fact that the finance committee was continuing during Question Period. While members were raising those points of order, the chair, in spite of that, proceeded pushing through to have votes take place, which a number of members were not able to participate in.

This was raised at the time as a violation of the privileges of members, and it has obviously materially impacted the bill that is before the House. This is also an issue of privilege, the rights of members to vote on something as critical as the budget implementation bill was limited by the process that unfolded at committee. This is a matter that should be of grave concern to all members.

I would just say as well that the subamendments that we wished to raise were substantive and were in fact submitted to the clerk in advance. Admittedly, they were not submitted in time for the deadline for the submission of amendments, which was Friday, May 19, however, they were submitted in advance of the consideration of those amendments. It would be impossible to submit subamendments to amendments unless those amendments had already been seen.

There would be no way to submit subamendments and get those subamendments in time for the amendment deadline, because members obviously have to be able to see the amendments in order to be able to then move the subamendments.

There were a limited number of subamendments that were emailed to the clerk. Many of them were emailed in both official languages. The clerk had them. They could have been moved. They should have been moved. It would have been a matter of privilege for members to be able to move those subamendments. They were prevented from doing so by a ruling of the chair. That ruling was challenged, but a majority of the committee did not choose to uphold the privileges of members.

It is in those circumstances, the right to move subamendments and the right to be able to vote, that I have raised this question of privilege in the House.

There is one very distinct issue of privilege, as well, that is important to raise, because it deals with what happened after the committee, that is with the process for being able to move report stage amendments and the process for being able to bring those report stage amendments to the House.

There are various services available to members in the drafting of amendments, the drafting of subamendments and the drafting of report stage amendments. These services are particularly important for members of the opposition. The reality is members of the government, when it comes to drafting amendments, subamendments and report stage amendments, have resources available to them that are associated with being in government that members of the opposition do not have available to them.

It is important for members of the opposition, especially, to be able to access those resources in a timely way that corresponds to the calendar of being able to bring these issues before the House. The right of members to be able to do that in a timely fashion depends on the ability of members to receive support from the House in order to be able to bring those things forward.

I became aware, yesterday afternoon, of a last-minute change in the schedule. This was in response to the Thursday question, after Question Period, moved by the Associate Minister of Finance, when he told the House that Bill C-47 would be brought forward to debate. He said tomorrow, which is today, Friday. At the time, I immediately sent my draft of the subamendments that I had wanted to move at committee, that I would like to move at report stage.

My view is that, given that they could not be moved in committee as a result of the ruling of the chair that subamendments could not be moved, they could then be moved in the House as report stage amendments.

Therefore, I sought the assistance of the appropriate legislative staff in preparing those subamendments and I immediately sent those in following the Thursday question, at which point we were provided information saying, where we thought we would have a bit more time, that this was required immediately.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Some of that is more of a point of debate. With respect to the question of privilege that the hon. member was raising, I have basically heard enough to come back to the Chair with a decision and I would ask the member to wrap it up in 30 seconds.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to be able to finish this third point. It is the final point and I will wrap it up as quickly as I can.

The issue is that I sent six distinct subamendments to the House of Commons drafting service and I asked that these be generated as report stage amendments, which was a request that I sent in as soon as I was able to, following the announcement of the change in the timeline. At that point, I expected to be able to receive that information back from our legislative staff at least by 6 p.m. so that I could put them on notice by the deadline, by 6 p.m., so that we could get the report stage amendments in and that at that point they would be on notice so that they could be moved. I did, in fact, send a letter to the Speaker making my argument. I did all the things that I could within the very tight timeline that I had.

However, of those six subamendments that were submitted to the legislative staff, I only got one of them back. Therefore, my request for drafting was only honoured in one out of six cases. I want to be very clear that I am not criticizing the staff. The staff here work very hard; they do their best within very tight parameters but it is a question of how many staff were available and it is a question of the resourcing that was available. These raise questions of privilege for members who should be entitled to move those report stage amendments. I wanted to move those report stage amendments—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do appreciate the additional information that the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has provided. I feel that I have enough information and I will get back to the House as soon as possible.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to contribute some facts to the discussion of these questions of privilege that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has raised.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will go to the point of order first.

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, mine is on the same point. Please give the member—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is yours a point of order or on the question of privilege?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mine is on the question of privilege.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, as a member of the committee on finance and somebody who was there during the times when the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan alleges there were violations of privilege that went on, I just want to provide a couple of reflections for you, Madam Speaker, and some important facts for you to consider as you deliberate on these questions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have a feeling that this will take a bit of time, so I will bring this back then right after question period. We are at Statements by Members.

Conservative Party of Canada

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, this has been an interesting process, listening over the last hour to a destructive force that we have in the House of Commons in Canada. The Conservative Party has gone out of its way to please its far right extreme members, sparing no cost.

This government focuses on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, focused on helping Canadians in every region of this country by introducing important legislation, including budget legislation. What is the response we have gotten from the Conservative Party of Canada? A filibuster, going out of its way to prevent Canadians from getting the benefits they need at a time when there are a variety of issues that are of concern to Canadians.

I find it shameful and disgusting how the Conservative Party continues to play the role of a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. I would suggest that its members go to their constituents, listen to what their constituents are saying, come back to the House, behave more like the members of an opposition party and be more creative.

George MacDonell

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, a great Canadian has died at age 100. George MacDonell survived the Battle of Hong Kong where 2,000 Canadians fought bravely to defend Hong Kongers, including my father and his family. Half of them were casualties. The survivors were taken to be prisoners of war. By war's end, George had dropped to 110 pounds, although he was 6'4".

That was just the beginning of his remarkable story. After liberation as a prisoner of war and spending half a year recovering, George completed his high school and university, and eventually became vice-president and group executive of Canadian General Electric. Later, he was appointed by then Premier Davis as the deputy minister of industry, trade and technology.

George MacDonell was truly a member of the greatest generation. He fought for freedom and democracy and came home to build post-war Canada.

We will remember him.

Forest Fires in Nova Scotia

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, this week has been an unprecedented challenge for Nova Scotians. Our thoughts are with those affected by the ongoing forest fires, the largest and most extensive in our history. I wish to send a special thanks to the firefighters, first responders and volunteers for their efforts during this difficult time. As our country and our government continue to adapt and prepare ourselves against the realities of climate change, all Canadians will need to stand united to meet these challenges together.

Near my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook we are closely monitoring the ongoing fires in the Tantallon, Bedford and Hammonds Plains areas. Evacuation and comfort centres are in place to meet the needs of the people on the ground.

I want to reassure all Nova Scotians that the federal government is in regular contact with our provincial counterparts. We have deployed CAF members to assist with the wildfire response, in addition to support provided by the Coast Guard, Health Canada and Transport Canada.

We will get through this, Nova Scotia strong.

Indigenous Laws

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, before colonialism, first nations and Inuit had laws. Through the process of genocidal and colonial aggression, indigenous laws were almost lost. I am proud to stand here and confirm that indigenous laws still exist. For Inuit, laws are categorized into three areas: tirigusuusiit, piqujait and maligait. These laws govern behaviours, relationships and respect for the wildlife and environment.

I encourage indigenous peoples to use their indigenous laws. There are many opportunities, like in treaty implementation, land protection, relationships with families, communities and, yes, with governments. The elders who possess the knowledge of these laws are passing too quickly. We must revitalize these indigenous laws now.

Wildfires

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to recognize the tireless work of the firefighters and all those working to protect the communities affected by wildfires. In Quebec, people in Chapais and Sept‑Îles are being evacuated as we speak. British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are also battling wildfires. Wildfires have a major impact on the daily lives of people and communities.

We need to take the risks associated with climate change seriously. Our government is there, as always, to support all Canadians who are affected and to help them prepare for future threats.

Language and Cultural Advisers

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canada's language and cultural advisers, or LCAs, are Canadian citizens of Afghan origin, immigrants who went back to serve their adopted country, so every LCA has family members in Afghanistan. The government’s criteria for admitting these family members to Canada are arbitrary and stingy.

Here is how these rules affect one LCA from my riding. In 2021, his brother-in-law was murdered by the Taliban, so the rest of the family fled for their lives across the border. If Pakistan follows through on its threat to deport Afghans, they too will be killed. However, because these events happened before July 2021, the family does not qualify to come here.

When my constituent asked to meet with the minister, he was told to go through my office. He did so, and after a two-week delay, my staff were told the minister was just too busy to meet with him. We were then directed to a website reaffirming that the family does not qualify. Surely, trapping Canadians in this kind of catch-22 is beneath the dignity of this nation.

Urban Wetlands Project

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am excited to tell the House about a true success story in my riding and an example of what can happen when environmental organizations, community groups and government work together toward solutions for conservation and biodiversity.

On the DND Carling campus, we have restored urban wetlands that just a few years ago had almost completely dried up because of water diversion and pollution. Today, dozens of new species have returned to the area. These wetlands act as water storage, which has helped to prevent flooding in the neighbouring communities. Wetlands also store carbon, which is a natural climate solution.

With the leadership of Kate MacNeil and Donna DuBreuil at the Ottawa-Carleton Wildlife Centre and the advocacy and active participation of residents in the surrounding communities of Crystal Beach, Lakeview and Belltown, they worked closely with the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, PSPC and the NCC to make this project a success.

Congratulations to everyone involved.