(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was agreed to on the following division:)
House of Commons Hansard #361 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cbc.
House of Commons Hansard #361 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cbc.
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
I declare the amendment to the amendment carried.
The next question is on the amendment.
I see the hon. chief government whip is rising.
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the result from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting nay.
Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB
Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote, with the Conservatives voting yea.
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Salaberry—Suroît, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats agree to apply the vote, and we will be voting yea.
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, Greens agree to apply the vote, and we will be voting yea.
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
I declare the amendment adopted.
The next question is on the main motion as amended.
I see the hon. chief government whip is on her feet.
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I believe once again that if you seek it you will find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting nay again.
Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting in favour.
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Salaberry—Suroît, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats agree to apply the vote, and we will be voting yes.
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, Greens agree to apply the vote, and we will be voting yes.
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
I declare the motion adopted.
Accordingly, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is referred to the standing committee.
I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 16 minutes.
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on October 7, by the member for Thornhill concerning public access to Parliament Hill.
In her intervention, the member for Thornhill alleged that an officer of the Parliamentary Protective Service, PPS, prevented a member of the public from accessing the grounds of Parliament Hill, ostensibly because of his political ideology. This interaction was videorecorded and then posted to social media.
The member for Thornhill argued that the officer was applying some sort of political test by which a person would be barred from accessing the parliamentary precinct if they did not support a particular cause, in this case relating to Palestine.
The member contended that in similar circumstances, if a member of Parliament had refused to identify themselves as a “supporter of Palestine”, they would have also been barred from the Hill, constituting a breach of their right of access to the parliamentary precinct. She concluded by declaring that no member or individual should be denied access to the grounds of Parliament Hill because of the political views they hold. The issue should therefore be considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that no member of Parliament was impeded in accessing the precinct nor, in fact, involved in the incident. Therefore, there was no question of privilege. The member for New Westminster—Burnaby made a similar argument, pointing out that the fundamental right of access to the precinct free of obstruction is enjoyed by members of Parliament. It does not extend to members of the public.
The Chair will first address the member for Thornhill's assertions that members' privileges were breached because of the interaction that occurred between a PPS officer and an individual on October 5, 2024. The Chair will then provide members with some information on the administrative protocol for the use of Parliament Hill's front lawn by various groups for organized demonstrations and other types of events.
As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on page 110, and I quote, “In circumstances where Members claim to be physically obstructed, impeded, interfered with or intimidated in the performance of their parliamentary functions, the Speaker is apt to find that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred.”
In those cases, there must be demonstrable evidence that a member, or the House collectively, was impeded in fulfilling their duties for a prima facie question of privilege to be found. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on page 148, also states, “In deliberating upon a question of privilege, the Chair will take into account the extent to which the matter complained of infringed upon any Member's ability to perform his or her parliamentary functions or appears to be a contempt against the dignity of Parliament.”
Recently, in another ruling on September 23, 2024, which can be found at page 25726 of the Debates, the Chair stated, “The member must demonstrate, concretely, how they, or the House, were impeded in the discharge of their functions, and, most important, that evidence exists as to the material interference.”
To this I can add that any alleged breach of privilege that is being complained of must be an actual breach, not a hypothetical one. While members' freedom of access to the Hill is well documented in many precedents, none of these suggest that this privilege extends to public access to the Hill for demonstrations.
With these important principles in mind, the Chair examined the events of October 5, 2024. After reviewing the video on social media that captures a portion of the interaction and consulting the House security partners, the Chair cannot conclude that members were denied access to the parliamentary precinct, nor was the situation related to any proceeding of Parliament. This is therefore not a prima facie question of privilege.
Before concluding, the Chair would like to share with members some additional information about organized demonstrations and other types of events on the front lawn of Parliament Hill. By default, the grounds of Parliament Hill are open to the public. The front lawn is also accessible to those who wish to organize a demonstration to highlight a particular cause or political concern. We are all used to seeing demonstrations on the front lawn and in the vicinity of the precinct.
Decisions about the use of the grounds of Parliament Hill are made under the authority of the Committee on the Use of Parliament Hill. The committee is co-chaired by the House of Commons Sergeant-at-Arms and the Senate Director of Corporate Security, on behalf of their respective Speakers. Its membership also includes representatives of various government departments.
A key consideration for this group is to ensure that any use of the grounds remains peaceful and incident-free and to protect the safety of all visitors to the Hill and those who work in the precinct. I can assure all members that this protocol is entirely administrative and that no member of Parliament, nor the Speaker, is involved in the operation of this protocol.
Groups that want access to Parliament Hill for specific activities, such as holding a public demonstration, must first obtain authorization from the Committee on the Use of Parliament Hill. The committee reserves the right to change the conditions included in a public event permit. It can also cancel activities for security reasons, or even refuse permits on that basis.
On the day in question, a group of pro-Palestinian demonstrators had requested and received permission to organize an event. A space on the front lawn was designated for their demonstration, and the members of their group and sympathizers with their cause were directed to that space as they arrived.
Anyone present on the Hill that day could access the grounds. Pro-Palestinians demonstrators were directed to one area, while the general public and any counter-demonstrators were directed away from the grounds where the demonstration was taking place. Other parts of the front lawn and other parts of the precinct remained accessible to visitors.
To be clear, the events from that day followed well-established guidelines, which are in place to ensure the safety of everyone wishing access to Parliament Hill, including the demonstrators, any counter-demonstrators and the general public.
At no time was there any general directive to refuse access to the Hill on the basis of political views. The PPS followed its operational guidelines pertaining to the often challenging situations that they face daily. These guidelines are in place to preserve the safety and security of all people present on Parliament Hill.
I thank all members for their attention.
The House resumed consideration of the motion, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
It is generally a pleasure to speak in the House of Commons, but today is a difficult day. Before I begin my speech, I want to recognize a Toronto police officer, Constable Todd Baylis. He died as a young man on June 16, 1994. People may be wondering why I am raising this in my speech. It is because the person who killed Constable Baylis and attempted to kill his partner, Constable Michael Leone, who was also injured, is up for parole today.
I was listening to the victim impact statements by Constable Leone and by Constable Baylis's family, and they were very heart-wrenching. Constable Baylis was shot execution style. The offender then tried to kill Constable Leone, but the gun jammed.
Sometimes we forget that police officers, including the ones on the parliamentary precinct here with the PPS, put themselves in harm's way all the time, and when they do so, they are ready to make the ultimate sacrifice. Therefore I do want to recognize the case. I will be watching the parole hearing very closely. As was mentioned in the victim impact statements, I do not know how somebody who killed a police officer and attempted to kill another police officer execution style got to minimum-security prison, but that is for another day.
On a more positive note, I want to wish a happy birthday to Shirley Rennick, who is turning 90 tomorrow.
Before I really get into the privilege debate, let us talk about the nature of the motion and the amendments that are before us. It is a motion from the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, seconded by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, about the government's failure to fully provide documents as ordered by the House on June 10. There was a further amendment from the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, seconded by the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, which stated:
provided that it be an instruction to the committee:
(a) that the following witnesses be ordered to appear before the committee, separately, for two hours each:
(i) the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry—
I know that the minister always loves to talk in the House of Commons and say that he will take no lessons from the Conservatives. Well, let us see if he will take lessons from the Canadian public when it comes to $400 million that has been defrauded.
The amendment continues:
(ii) the Clerk of the Privy Council,
(iii) the Auditor General of Canada...
That is someone whom the Liberals do not seem to want to listen to these days.
It continues:
(v) the Deputy Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada,
(vi) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons,
(vii) the Acting President of Sustainable Development Technology Canada,
(viii) a panel consisting of the Board of Sustainable Development Technology Canada; and
(b) that it report back to the House no later than Friday, November 22, 2024.
Then there was a subamendment from the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook, seconded by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, adding the Privacy Commissioner of Canada as well as Paul MacKinnon, the former deputy secretary. It would not surprise me if we need more people.
The scandal is 10 times larger than the sponsorship scandal, which I am sure many Liberals will remember. I certainly remember, as a young man who was interested in politics, looking at the sponsorship scandal and how it brought down a Liberal government. However, it was not just the money; it was also the hubris. We fast-forward many years later, about 20 years by my count, and the same hubris is really revealing itself.
Let us make no mistake: This is theft, but it is theft of the worst kind. It is theft from the government or theft from the state. I have dealt with a lot of people who have stolen. Many people have stolen in one way or another in their lifetime. Obviously people are entitled to chances and sometimes second chances. Sometimes people are driven to steal by addiction. It is not uncommon that if somebody walks into court, especially into remand court, they will hear stories of somebody who says they have such a substantial addiction that they break into houses or that when they drink they assault their partner.
This does not make what they do right. It is still very wrong, but one tends to understand the role that substance abuse plays as one of the salient factors in offending. We can juxtapose theft by somebody who has an addiction to substances, or even an addiction to gambling, with theft from the government, theft from the taxpayer.
I wonder how many people in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo it would take, what the average tax burden would be, if we were to divide $400 million by that number of people. For the average taxpayer, how many taxpayers, or how many families of taxpayers, would it take to get to $400 million?
It is like these scandals mean nothing when we get into the millions for these Liberals. They will say that it is just $56 million for the ArriveCAN scandal, so it is no big deal. There are a few million here, a few million there. It just does not seem to matter. There is this theft from the government, and there is the arrogance, the hubris.
One of the greatest problems here is that this was, from what I can see, pure greed. In my view, that is the worst type of offence. We had people who were sophisticated. They were often business people. The chair and the many others who did wrong had been appointed by the Liberal government. What did they do? They lined their own pockets.
Unlike the situation for the person who has been driven to offend based on external factors, from what I can see, this was pure greed. This was business people who sought to line their own pockets and make even more money. They did this on the backs of Canadian taxpayers. That is bad enough. Worse, the Liberals do not want to provide the documents. We have people who were stealing, and they were stealing out of greed. They are rich people who were seeking to get richer. The Liberals are seeming to say that those are their kind of people and that they do not want to provide the documents. The Liberals not only not want to provide documents, particularly unredacted, but also are prepared to go against a House order to provide those documents. It pays to be a Liberal these days.
This is so wrong. This is absolutely so wrong. As a former prosecutor, I can tell members that, if somebody has to give things to the police, if they are representing a bank or a credit union and somebody has defrauded them, do members know what they do? They give the documents to police. I have seen so many Liberals stand up to make fallacious, dubious and specious arguments about how the documents should or should not be delivered. If somebody is a victim of the crime, do members know what they do? They go to the police to say that they have been a victim of a crime and that this is the evidence.
There was one Liberal who actually responded to this because I asked a question about charter rights. I have an idea of how the Liberals, at least some of them, would make the argument. I would love for one to actually make the argument so that I could see what they are thinking on this. They essentially say that people have a right to not be a witness, that we should not have people's finances exposed.
I agree. It would be wonderful if that were not the case, but sometimes we witness a crime. If we witness a crime, sometimes we have to go to court to testify. I should not say nobody but, in my experience, few people show up to court and say that they cannot wait to testify, that it is so great that they are not at work, not with their family, and that they would much rather be in court. Very few people ever say that. Why is that? It is because people do not want to be victims. They do not want to be witnesses, but what do we have? We have these documents that would disclose criminal wrongdoing. They would disclose criminal offences. The Liberals, looking out for Liberals, do not want those documents to be provided unredacted.
When one compounds that with the fact that we are dealing with the worst kind of offending, it is my view that this is an untenable situation. It is egregious that the Liberals will not put these documents forward. What are they waiting for?
The Prime Minister talks about people in the middle class and those wanting to join it. The people who stole this $400 million, who committed fraud, are not part of the middle class. In fact, the people who are in the middle class, and those hoping to join it, are the victims, as is every single taxpayer in this country. What would $400 million get us?
I am attempting to get more doctors to my riding. I cannot say what $400 million would do to aid in that effort. What would $400 million do, when about 50% of the people in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo do not have a family doctor? It would be easy to point my finger to say it is the province's problem, but when I get a letter or two a day from people saying, “I am eight months pregnant”, or “I need a hip replacement, and I have been waiting”, I can only get so many of those letters and not act. That is why I have decided to show off the wonderful nature of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I believe in the people who are coming to my riding who are doctors. They might be from overseas and looking to immigrate to Canada to live the same dream that my parents and I lived. Four hundred million dollars could certainly go a long way there.
What about food and poverty? Our food banks in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo are stretched thin. I know this because I visit them regularly. In fact, I was at Kamloops Food Bank within the last couple of months. I was also at the 100 Mile House Food Bank not long ago. The numbers of people at both have skyrocketed. Members can imagine what $400 million could do.
How much housing could we build with $400 million? I know the City of Kamloops recently hoped for federal funding for housing, but it did not come through. What would $400 million have gotten for the City of Kamloops?
What are we left with? We are left with 186 conflicts of interest. For those at home who do not know, a conflict of interest is when a person is acting on something and they, or someone else, could benefit. There are actual conflicts of interest, as in, “I will benefit from this or I could benefit”. Then there are what we call “apparent conflicts of interest”, where it just looks like somebody could benefit. From what I can see, these seem like actual conflicts, but who knows. Some may have been apparent. There are 186 of them. These were committee members who owned their own businesses and essentially said, “You scratch my back, and I will scratch yours. Together, we will all get rich.”
Then it came time for accounting, for there to be a reckoning and for Parliament to follow the law. Parliament is not encumbered by the laws that might be in other statutes. We have our own process here to produce documents. The Speaker can order that, and that is exactly what happened.
When the Liberals talk about their respect for institutions, they say, “Oh, we just love our institutions, and the Conservatives just want to drag them down”, but what about the institution of Parliament? Where is the respect for that institution to turn over the documents they were ordered to turn over? There is no respect for the institution of Parliament when they stand up to say, “We are going to defy the Speaker's orders.” Where is the respect for that institution?
It is made even more egregious when we think about the wrongdoing, but the Liberals will say not to worry because they are working for those in the middle class and those who are trying to join it. What message does this send? That $400 million, and even if it were $400, $4,000, $4 million, I do not care what it is, we have just lost track of it.
My parents came to Canada to live what I call the Canadian dream, and frankly, the fact that I am standing here reflects that. Many of us here are living that dream. Maybe other members are in my position and their families came to Canada. My mom arrived in 1957, and my dad arrived shortly thereafter. They were both with their parents. In my mom's case, her dad left home for, I believe, five years. I bet my mom could not even remember her dad when she saw him at seven years old. She had not seen him since she was two years old. This was not a time when people could just Skype one another, FaceTime or even talk on the phone. For those people who sacrificed so much, what does $400 million mean to them? What does it mean when the Liberals will not turn over the documents?
There are people in the House who came to Canada, who are not first-generation Canadians like me, but who actually immigrated to Canada. I wonder, for them, what $400 million means and what it means when the Liberal government will not provide that information, thereby perpetuating what could be, and what in my view is, a massive fraud.
Parliament has ground to a halt. It is no surprise that the Prime Minister is the first sitting prime minister to ever be found guilty of breaching conflict of interest legislation. In fact, he did it not once but twice. He stayed in what think was a $9,000-a-night hotel room, and what was his talking point? He said that, like many people, he stayed with family over the holidays. Most people do not have friends with $9,000-a-night hotels. However, that was not a conflict of interest. It is tone deaf. It is completely out of touch, but it was ruled, I believe, to not be a conflict of interest.
It just shows, though, the mentality, and the Liberal government stands for this. The Liberals are okay with it. The Prime Minister hopped on a helicopter and went to a private island. Liberals are saying that is okay and that they will still stand behind him. Well, maybe not, as apparently 24 will not stand behind him. This is not a person who is in touch with the middle class and those attempting to join it, and this is not a party in touch with the middle class and those hoping to join it. Otherwise, it would be providing the documents instead of defying the order of the Speaker, who said to provide those documents.
This is beyond arrogance. This is hubris. When we look at the nature of the Prime Minister and what he has done, it is no surprise we are here. This is somebody who fired the first indigenous attorney general and minister of justice. What did she do? She dared to stand up to him. At the time, I think obstruction of justice was a straight, indictable matter. In other words, one of the most serious types of crime. He asked her to look the other way.
Obstruction of justice is attempting to pervert, defeat or obstruct the course of justice. To obstruct justice, someone does not actually have to be successful. It is one of the few crimes where, apart from attempted murder, I suppose, someone does not have to follow through with it. They do not have to be successful. It is just the attempt.
What did the Prime Minister do? He told this person that she needed to give a deferred prosecution agreement to Liberal friends. Can members imagine if somebody were to go up to a prosecutor to say that a person was a friend of theirs and that they needed to give them a break? Can members imagine if a politician did that? That would be obstruction of justice.
However, this is not just an ordinary person. This is not a small town mayor. It is not even a member of parliament, an MLA or a minister. It is the Prime Minister, the chief servant of the people, telling somebody to give people a break. Perverting, obstructing and defeating the course of justice is exactly what the Prime Minister did, yet he stands here today. He comes into the House to say that they are not going to comply. He also will not comply with calling a carbon tax election.
I know my time is almost done, so I want to recognize a couple more people. I want to recognize Natalie Paul, a colleague of the British Columbia bar. Our families have many connections. My mother worked with her father. Natalie recently became engaged to Connor Brown in the same spot her parents were engaged 34 years ago, so I wish Natalie and Connor a lifetime of prosperity.
Last, I want to give a shout-out to Tonya at Air Canada in Kamloops. I thank her so much for her service. I want to recognize her in the House of Commons for how outstanding she was to me recently. It is so nice to see people who go the extra mile in their work.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, the Conservative member and several before him have made the same argument. They have said we should just turn these documents over to the RCMP. The problem is that the RCMP does not want to obtain evidence in this fashion. As the RCMP commissioner said in a letter, “Any information obtained through the Motion or other compulsory authorities would need to be segregated from an RCMP investigation.” He is saying the RCMP does not want it. However, I digress on that point.
The member reminded us once again that he was a prosecutor before coming to this place. I am wondering if he could tell us how many times during his career as a prosecutor that he or any police agency he was working with obtained evidence through a motion of Parliament. Was it one time, 10 times, 100 times? Did it ever even happen? I would like just a number. All I want to know is the number of times he received evidence through a motion of Parliament.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Madam Speaker, let us talk about members, because we have two members, the member for Kingston and the Islands—
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Madam Speaker, he is saying “okay”, so let us talk about numbers. I count the member for Kingston the Islands and the member for Winnipeg North, two of them, and I count three strong women here—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The hon. member knows better than to mention the presence or absence of members in the House.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
With all due respect, Madam Speaker, we are not allowed to mention who is not here and I did not mention by name who is here.