(Bill agreed to)
Shall I rise and report the bill?
House of Commons Hansard #293 of the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was vote.
House of Commons Hansard #293 of the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was vote.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax Election Members debate a Conservative non-confidence motion in the costly government over increasing the carbon tax 23 % on April 1 while Canadians cannot afford to eat, heat and house themselves, and a call for the House to be dissolved so Canadians can vote in a carbon tax election. Conservatives argue the tax exacerbates the housing crisis and cost of living, citing the Parliamentary Budget Officer that most pay more than they get in rebates. Liberals defend the tax as crucial for climate change and green economy, stating rebates benefit most households. The Bloc argues the federal tax does not apply in Quebec and criticizes the motion's premise. The NDP highlights corporate greed as a key inflation driver and points to achievements like dental care. Parties disagree on the tax's impact, effectiveness, and the need for an election. 48500 words, 5 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Witness Responses at Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates Members debate a question of privilege regarding a witness from GC Strategies who refused to answer questions at the Government Operations Committee investigating the ArriveCAN app. Members discuss the witness's potential breach of privilege or contempt of Parliament, emphasizing the importance of committee powers and the supremacy of Parliament in holding individuals and government accountable. 4500 words, 30 minutes in 2 segments: 1 2.
Supplementary Estimates (C), 2023-24 First reading of Bill C-67. The bill authorizes spending for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 2024, proceeding through first, second, and third readings. 300 words.
Interim Supply Members concur in interim supply of over $74 billion to fund government operations for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025. Liberals, Bloc, and NDP vote in favour, Conservatives and one Independent vote against. 700 words.
Interim Supply First reading of Bill C-68. The bill grants certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, passing through second reading, committee stage, report stage, and third reading. 600 words, 10 minutes.
Anita Anand Liberal Oakville, ON
moved that Bill C‑68, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, be concurred in at report stage.
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the result from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yes.
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Madam Speaker, we agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives happily voting nay.
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote and will be voting in favour.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Madam Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.
Kevin Vuong Independent Spadina—Fort York, ON
Madam Speaker, I agree to apply the results of the previous vote, voting nay.
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you would find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting in favour.
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Madam Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting nay.
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the result of the previous vote and will be voting yes.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Madam Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.
Kevin Vuong Independent Spadina—Fort York, ON
Madam Speaker, I agree to apply the results of the previous vote, voting nay.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
Madam Speaker, since this could be the last time that such a large number of us will be together in the House before spending the next two weeks in our respective ridings, we on this side of the House would like to wish all members and all Canadians a very happy Easter.
The Easter holiday is one of the holiest times in the Christian calendar, representing the death and rebirth of Jesus Christ. We certainly want to take a moment to wish all Canadians a most joyous and happy Easter.
Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
Madam Speaker, I want to join my voice and those of the official opposition to what the government House leader just said. As everyone has an opportunity to go home and spend the last few days of Lent in contemplation, everyone on this side of the House wishes all the staff, the House administration, members of Parliament, their staff and all Canadians who are observing this important feast in the Christian calendar a very blessed Holy Thursday, a holy week, a meaningful Good Friday and, of course, a joyous Easter.
When all thought it was dark and reason to despair, a light came at the end of it and life triumphed over death. Happy Easter to all Canadians.
Witness Responses at Standing Committee on Government Operations and EstimatesPrivilegeGovernment Orders
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Madam Speaker, I am rising to add to the question of privilege raised yesterday following the tabling of the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, a report that I tabled myself.
This is part of an entirely troubling pattern that we have long been witnessing. Witnesses, whether government officials or not, are ignoring the rights, powers and privilege of parliamentarians to act as grand inquisitors of the nation.
Witness Responses at Standing Committee on Government Operations and EstimatesPrivilegeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
Order. I am sure that hon. members want to make sure that their colleague's question of privilege can be heard.
I ask members to exit if they want to have a conversation, or if they are exiting, to please not have a conversation as they exit. I know everyone is excited about going home soon, but this is not the appropriate time to have those conversations. That applies to both sides of the House.
Witness Responses at Standing Committee on Government Operations and EstimatesPrivilegeGovernment Orders
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Madam Speaker, it is indeed disappointing to see both sides of the House continue to behave like that.
If the government can so blatantly be cavalier with committees, it is not surprising that others would be too. No doubt, Kristian Firth of GC Strategies saw how government officials appeared at committee and based his own conduct on that. Lines need to be drawn. Parliament's dignity must be defended. Parliament and its committee cannot continue to be seen as mere toothless entities to be ignored when questions become inconvenient, embarrassing or damaging to the government or to the witness.
I want to clear up some misinformation that I heard last night that was stated in the House. There are those in this place who stated that Kristian Firth from GC Strategies supplied all the information that was asked of him at committee. The fact is that he provided some answers and refused to answer other questions. Questions were asked of him where it was agreed that he would provide answers in writing the next day by 9 a.m. He provided some of these by 9 a.m. and some of these much later in the day. I am not going to quibble on that issue, but he refused simple questions that are at the heart of the ArriveCAN scandal.
GC Strategies, made up of Kristian Firth and his partner, was accused of helping to write the work requirements for a contract that GC Strategies specifically would win that contract, and that they did. Mr. Firth was asked that information. I want to read from the blues. The member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek asked, “For greater clarity, I'm looking for the individuals or individual that you would have met with in developing the criteria, not who signed off on the contract in this particular case. I do want that name, but now I'm asking, who did you sit at the table with to develop the criteria for this contract?”
Mr. Firth responded, “Again, I apologize, but after speaking with my lawyer, my stance still stands the same with the RCMP investigation.... I don't interfere with that.” He would not answer. Members will remember that he was sworn in. He was warned of the consequences of not answering the questions. This was his third appearance, so this was not a new experience for him.
Later, at committee, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, on a point of order, said to him, “I'd like the chair to put the question to you, and you have an obligation to answer it, whether you want to or not, because of the rules that apply to Parliament, to its committees and to witnesses who come before it.”
We put forward the question to Mr. Firth. He responded, “Again, I...appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chair, that you've laid out clearly, but at this point, we're still remaining with our stance of there could possibly be a...RCMP investigation”. I went on to advise him, “I will advise you, as I'm sure you're aware, that you have parliamentary privilege, which would allow you the right to speak”, but he chose not to. We can see clearly here that Mr. Firth was given ample warning. He was given ample opportunity and he refused to answer.
Earlier, I mentioned the government's conduct in dealing with committee orders and privileges, and how it leads to such actions. In the previous McKinsey & Company study at OGGO, the Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc and NDP unanimously passed a production order for documents from both McKinsey and the government departments, demanding all contracts, reports, invoices, emails and documents between McKinsey and the government departments they worked for. McKinsey complied one hundred per cent. Guess who did not comply? The government departments did not comply. The Business Development Bank of Canada refused. Canada Border Services Agency refused. Canada Pension Plan Investment Board refused. Canada Post refused. The IRCC for citizenship and immigration refused. National Defence refused. Natural Resources refused. Export Development Canada refused. The Privy Council Office and the office of the Prime Minister refused. Atomic Energy refused. Canada Development Investment Corporation refused. The Department of Employment and Social Development refused. The Department of Finance refused. Veterans Affairs refused. The Public Sector Pension Investment Board refused. Trans Mountain Canada refused.
That was a unanimous order for the production of documents from the operations committee. I want to give an idea of some of the excuses as to why the government departments refused.
Mr. Matthew Shea, who is the assistant secretary to the cabinet from PCO says that there are privacy acts that apply. “We're also guided by 'Open and Accountable Government' [rules]”, which is a policy from PCO that he stated overrides parliamentary privilege and the supremacy of Parliament. He went on to say, “I think personal information and the Privacy Act is something that we have to be very sensitive to”, not the supremacy of Parliament but the Privacy Act.
Ms. Mélanie Bernier from PSPIB, who is senior vice-president and chief legal officer, actually lied to committee. She told us she could not provide the documents ordered by the committee because it costs money to translate. Then she went on to say that the money to translate the documents would reduce the amount of the pensions for public service employees, which is not true.
Mr. Matthew Shea returned, again, to committee and stated that, “A big part...of these requests, is the importance of, as a government, our working with the committee to find solutions”. It was not to obey the order of Parliament but to find solutions that suited him.
Filipe Dinis, chief operating officer of the Bank of Canada, actually wrote to committee explaining that the Access to Information Act had precedence over an order of Parliament and, therefore, they refused. It is no wonder that the Bank of Canada messed up inflation so badly, considering what their chief operating officer believes is the order of precedence. I can see their boardroom discussing monetary policy but deferring to the Access to Information Act when it comes to deciding how much money to print.
CPPIB also stated that it would be a disservice to the public interest to follow the order of Parliament.
Todd Winterhalt of Export Development Canada stated that they were guided by the Privacy Act as to what documents they could turn over to Parliament, not the supremacy of Parliament or an order of Parliament but the Privacy Act.
Immigration stated that it could not comply because it was too difficult to translate pages. My colleagues from the Bloc Québécois should think about that. Immigration refused an order of Parliament because it is too difficult to translate pages.
It gets worse. ESDC delivered documents that were redacted but not fully translated, which violates parliamentary privilege to table documents only partially translated. When we complained, they resubmitted without the French.
The refusal of these departments might be wide of the scope of the Firth issue, but it speaks to a bigger pattern committees face, especially the grand inquisitor committees like the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
In conclusion, we are seeing a clear erosion of respect for the privilege of parliamentarians. We have witnesses coming before committee and openly acting in contempt as they please. We have government departments openly defying orders passed unanimously by committees. We have witnesses refusing to answer questions simply because they decide not to.
We have to restore the rules of this place. We must restore the privilege of the members.
Witness Responses at Standing Committee on Government Operations and EstimatesPrivilegeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
I just want to remind members. There are still conversations being had. I have raised it twice, and it is on both sides and from various parties.
I would just ask members to please take their conversations outside.
The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising on the question of privilege.