Debates of April 11th, 2024

Public Services and Procurement

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am going to ask all members to please restrain themselves. There were a couple of very loud interventions while the minister was speaking. It is hard for me to hear the answer. Sometimes it is difficult to hear the question.

I know I could identify the members, but they are hon. members. I ask them to please hold their comments back.

The hon. minister.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the Canada Border Services Agency is conducting internal reviews on the matter. The RCMP is also looking into the questions. We have said that anybody who has misused or abused taxpayers' funds will be held accountable, and we look forward to the processes' coming to their conclusion.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost or corruption. In the past year, the government has spent over $21 billion on outside consultants. Rather than helping struggling Canadians, he is focused on making Liberal insiders richer. It is no shock that the Liberal-favoured GC Strategies, which pocketed $20 million for doing nothing on arrive scam, was founded in the same year he took office.

Will the Prime Minister commit to cutting all waste and corruption in the upcoming budget, or will he continue to make more Liberal insiders rich?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the President of the Treasury Board and I, as the minister responsible for the Canada Border Services Agency, have already taken steps to reduce reliance on outside consultants. We have reviewed and changed the process for approving these kinds of contracts.

We will continue to look at everything necessary to ensure that taxpayers' money is well spent. The people who are responsible for these decisions know they will be held accountable in the case of misuse or abuse.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the government holds itself accountable.

The arrive scam merely scratches the surface of the rot and corruption in the NDP-Liberal government. Its procurement system is seriously flawed and broken. For example, it paid KPMG, a consulting company, almost 700,000 taxpayer dollars to learn how to cut back on consultants. One cannot make up this lunacy. It has learned nothing.

The question is simple: In the budget next week, will we see a cut to all of the corruption?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, as our colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, has said repeatedly, repeating falsehoods does not make those falsehoods true. What the members opposite should know, however, is that the Auditor General tabled an important report just a few weeks ago, which found that rules were not followed by a few public servants. Fortunately, many of these rules have been updated, and regulations and expectations around the use of those rules have been clearly communicated to all relevant public servants.

Natural Resources

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, workers in Vaughan—Woodbridge and across the country have been clear that the sustainable jobs act is critical to ensuring they have the tools and skills they need to build up our net-zero future, from greener buildings to electric vehicles and clean energy. The tens of thousands of Conservative amendments on this legislation are designed to block this bill and block workers from getting a seat at the table.

Can the Minister of Energy tell the House why we are here fighting for workers today?

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are in the House fighting for workers and communities in Canada, so we can create sustainable jobs moving forward. We will grow the economy and we will fight climate change. Standing in the way of workers is the Conservative leader, a proud supporter of notorious anti-worker legislation, including Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. His plan for Canada is to cut investments, to let our economy fall behind and to let the planet burn.

Our plan will ensure we are building an economy in which Canadian workers and Canadian communities will win, and we will vote as many times as it takes to get it done.

Foreign Affairs

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I met with Mansour Shouman, a Palestinian Canadian who risked his life to report on the devastation and horror of the war in Gaza. Weeks ago, the Liberals promised to stop selling military goods to Netanyahu and to sanction extremists. As innocent children continue to die, the Liberals have not issued export notices or announced sanctions. This is a betrayal of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who want peace for Palestinians and Israelis.

We need a two-way arms embargo and sanctions. How many more people will die before the government acts?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost I would like to say that I have talked to the mother of Mansour Shouman many times, as he was obviously struggling in Gaza, and we made sure that he could come safely back home, working with the Minister of Immigration on this very issue.

Second, on the question of Israel, Hamas and the war, of course we know that the situation in Gaza is completely catastrophic and the violence must stop. We need a ceasefire now. We need to make sure that hostages are released. We need humanitarian aid to go in, and my colleague already knows that when it comes to arms, we have not sent arms—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre has the floor.

Housing

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been two years since the government committed $1.5 billion to build co-op housing across the country, yet two years later, instead of returning to annual predictable investments in deeply affordable co-op housing, this one-time program has not even launched. Instead, last week we heard more announcements while thousands of shovel-ready co-op projects are still waiting.

What is the point of making announcements, if they are not going spend the money, and when will the minister commit to these much-needed co-op homes being built?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, whether it is co-op housing, missing middle housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes or mid-rise apartments, the focus of the government is building more and dealing with that crisis in supply. This is what the government is seized with.

In fact, I recently met with the federation responsible for co-op housing and its advocacy in this country. They remarked how happy they were with the progress that has been made. Of course, there is more to do, but lifting the GST off that type of construction is something that I point out to the member as well. There is a larger context here, as well, to pay attention to. We are getting it done. We are getting that work done. We are going to see more building.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Bill C-63—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 26, 2024, by the House leader of the official opposition, concerning the alleged premature disclosure of Bill C-63, an act to enact the online harms act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and an act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

The opposition House leader claimed that the bill's contents had been leaked to the media, as evidenced in two separate reports from CBC and CTV News. Pointing to the anonymous quotes in the news reports, he concluded his remarks by positing that the information was leaked intentionally, knowing that it was wrong. In doing so, it breached the rights of members of Parliament and the House.

For his part, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that the envisioned legislation's objectives were widely known and already in the public domain long before the bill was placed on notice and introduced, given the government's prior commitments and extensive public consultations. Furthermore, the parliamentary secretary emphatically rejected the allegations that the government had shared the bill before it was introduced.

The House leader of the official opposition is correct in asserting that there are abundant precedents that once a bill is placed on notice, its contents are not to be disclosed prior to introduction, thus ensuring that members have the first opportunity to take note of the bill. The premature disclosure of bills has usually been seen as a contempt of the House.

I will invite MPs to please take their conversations outside of the House, including the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

In a ruling on October 4, 2010, which can be found at page 4711 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken stated, and I quote:

It is indisputable that it is a well-established practice and accepted convention that this House has the right of first access to the text of bills it will consider.

On the substantive matter raised in this question of privilege, as members know, the policy direction leading to a government bill is not typically developed in the strict isolation of a government department. Prior to the putting on notice and introduction of most modern legislation, extensive consultations and public debate frequently occur for months or even years. Past precedents from the Chair address this reality, and Bill C-63 seems to be another example of that pattern.

On June 8, 2017, Speaker Regan emphasized the need for balance between members' right to have the first opportunity to see the bill and the need for prior public consultation. He said, at page 12320 of the Debates:

The right of the House to first access to legislation is one of our oldest conventions. It does and must, however, coexist with the need of governments to consult widely, with the public and stakeholders alike, on issues and policies in the preparation of legislation.

In the same ruling, Speaker Regan indicated that the denial of a premature disclosure of the bill by the government, and the absence of evidence that members were impeded in the performance of their parliamentary duties, had led him to find that the matter was not a prima facie case of privilege.

Having reviewed the contents of the bill against what was reported in the media, and considering the assurance given by the parliamentary secretary that the government did not share the text of the bill between its placement on notice and its introduction, it cannot be determined that the information that appeared in the news media necessarily came from a premature disclosure of the bill by so-called senior government sources.

The title of the bill, combined with the various sources of information mentioned above, such as background information provided during the consultation process, could have easily informed as to the specific objectives of the bill. There is a plausible argument to be made that the scope, objectives and targets of the bill were known prior to its being placed on notice and introduced.

Not being able to say with certainty that the information in the media reports came from the bill itself, I cannot determine that any member was impeded in the carrying out of their parliamentary duties, or that the dignity of the House was transgressed. As such, the Chair cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege.

That being said, the Chair shares the members' concerns when detailed information on proposed legislation, whether accurate or not, appears in media stories prior to their introduction.

It casts doubt on the role and predominance of Parliament in the legislative process and may lead to—

Order. I am going to remind all members that one of the fundamental rules of being a member and being a Speaker in this House is that members are not to question or to insult the Speaker, unless they are doing it through a motion which would call into question the Speaker's role. I would like to remind all members about this fundamental rule. I know that I have had some conversations with members in the past about this.

I will continue.

It casts doubt on the role and predominance of Parliament in the legislative process and may lead to understandable frustration.

I thank all members for their attention.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there is any point in asking the Thursday question, because the calendar seems to change at a moment's notice, but if the government House leader would like to give us something we can hope for next week, I will let him do so now.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, with whom we have, of course, ongoing co-operation and good work.

I can assure the hon. member that we will continue today with the report stage of Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, despite the 20,000 automated, AI-generated robo-amendments that the Conservatives put up to obstruct this bill. We will take up third reading debate on that bill on Monday.

On Tuesday, we will commence second reading debate on Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare.

The budget presentation will take place later that afternoon, at 4 p.m., with the first day of debate on the budget taking place on Thursday of next week.

On Wednesday, we hope to resume debate on second reading of Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands.

Lastly, on Friday, we will resume debate on the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

I thank all members for their co-operation.

Government Responses to Order Paper Questions

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I am rising on the question of privilege with respect to the government's response to my question on the Order Paper.

On February 14, I submitted an Order Paper question, Question No. 2340, seeking an answer to the following:

With regard to federal investments in Canada’s grocery sector since January 1, 2006: how much federal funding has been provided to (i) Loblaws, (ii) Metro, (iii) Walmart, (iv) Sobeys, (v) Costco, broken down by company, year, and type of funding?

On Monday, the government tabled its response to my written question stating that “with regard to federal investments in Canada’s grocery sector since January 1, 2006, no federal funding has been provided to” those companies I listed above.

That answer was provided by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and it contains his signature. However, we know that this answer is disingenuous.

On April 9, 2019, it was reported that Loblaws received $12 million to install new energy-efficient refrigerators. That money was doled out as a part of the low-carbon economy challenge champion stream, a part of the low-carbon economy leadership fund. That certainly sounds like a type of federal funding to which my question very specifically sought an answer about. Catherine McKenna, the Liberal environment minister at the time, was even quoted in the media defending the government's decision to award this enormous sum of money to Loblaws.

In light of this, it is abundantly clear that the government's response provided by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry is inaccurate and misleading to Parliament. The spirit of my written question was to find out how many federal tax dollars had been doled out to some of the wealthiest corporations in the country, companies that have been price-gouging Canadians when they shop for food to feed themselves. I should note that this was my second attempt at seeking an answer to this important question. The earlier attempt, having been in the form of a written question, was submitted back on December 12, 2023, to which I received the exact same disingenuous response.

Clearly, this is evidence of a problem. Why does the government believe it can mislead parliamentarians with impunity?

A lot of my work, and indeed the work of all members of Parliament, in this place very much depends on truthful and accurate answers to our questions. It is what allows us to be able to do our jobs not only to hold the government to account but also to appropriately represent our constituents.

I hope, in light of this intervention, that the Chair will review this serious matter and will make the appropriate ruling to prevent this from happening in the future.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his intervention on this question of privilege. The Chair has duly noted his question of privilege and will come back to the House in due time.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that, when I proposed this bill back when I was the minister of natural resources, the objective being that workers should have a seat at the table when major issues are being discussed like the transitions that are occurring within our economy, most especially the energy economy, I had no idea that Conservatives would have their staff put up some 20,000 amendments to the bill.

That is 20,000 amendments on a 14-page bill. I do not know what AI or CPC GPT they are using, but it is astounding to me that the Conservatives would go through this much trouble to stop something that I think is so astonishingly simple. When they were forced to admit that this stunt perhaps went a little too far even for them, they settled on a mere 200 amendments, which I understand is going to keep us occupied for some time.

What are these very serious and meaningful changes? The Conservatives have created and inserted dozens of random and conflicting dates into the legislation. They amend the same lines repeatedly. They delete entire clauses. As if to prove that they favour slogans over substance, they have even included some of their leader's favourite slogans into the legal text.

I am sure that these 200 amendments are very important, so important that they could not have been done at committee, by picking up the phone or by working with us over the months preceding this. I am sure these changes to the bill will help the member for Provencher finally enjoy his strawberry milkshakes again, as he testified at committee. I hear that the renewable energy industry, the one that employs 430,000 Canadians and has brought in tens of billions of dollars in investments for our country, is starting to make his strawberry milkshakes not as tasty.

I doubt these amendments will do what the party opposite really wants, that they will somehow reverse climate change and erase this booming, multi-trillion dollar renewable energy industry that is frankly an inconvenient truth to the opposition. They are meant to keep workers out of this conversation, out of this important dialogue that we are having about the future of our economy.

I am a member of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador. We are a proud oil-producing province that depends on our oil revenues for some 50% of our provincial budget. It is important to me and it is important to people out my way that we get this right, because we have skin in the game.

For those who may have missed it, I am happy to say that the provincial legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador, our House of Assembly, is the only jurisdiction in North America to unanimously vote for net zero. It made business sense. It sent the right signals to the business community. It sent the right signal to investors, and it is working. It did that unanimously.

I am proud of my province's offshore industry. I am prouder still to say that representatives of oil companies and their suppliers rebranded their association from the Newfoundland and Labrador Oil and Gas Industries Association, NOIA, to become Energy NL. That is so it can talk not just about oil and gas, which is so tremendously important to our province, but also about hydrogen, renewables and hydroelectricity and how they mix together.

The expertise that workers have gained from any one of these industries lends itself so well to so many of these other industries. It is indeed our competitive advantage. During COVID and during a time when we also suffered an oil price war, which occurred because of Saudi Arabia and Russia, so many workers in my riding and jurisdiction said they wanted to have a seat at the table. They wanted to have some say in their future.

In these 14 pages, we would create a table, put them at the head of it and say we will listen to their advice, and that is it. Why does this warrant 20,000 amendments? Even whittled down to 200, why does this occupy the productivity and precious time of members of the House? It is utter and complete nonsense. It is malarkey. It is important that this bill go through. There is nothing, I say to members of the House, to be afraid of. Listen to workers and include them.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague across the way from Newfoundland and Labrador who was once the minister of natural resources. Since 2015, we have already had 5,000 jobs transition out of our offshore oil and gas industry under that minister's watch. Studies show that peak oil will not happen until well beyond 2030, yet the Liberal government invested over $30 billion in battery plants that will use lithium that will have to come from China.

Are those battery plants going to bring back the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have had to travel to Borneo, Brazil and the Ivory Coast? Will those battery plants bring those Newfoundlanders and Labradorians back from foreign countries, workers who the government has forced to become international rotational workers?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would never speak in such a disparaging tone about the proud Newfoundland and Labrador energy and oil and gas workers who travel the world because they are the best at what they do. They often get paid more money and have greater opportunities. They have, because of this industry, the ability to live at home in Newfoundland and Labrador and travel the world to where they are paid the best and where they are attracted. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I am proud of it.

It employs many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians right now. When I go to Argentia and Placentia Bay in Newfoundland and look out at a gravity-based structure that is being built by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians right now, as it stands proudly right next to the biggest monopile marshalling port on the eastern seaboard, do not tell me we cannot have our cake and eat it too. I will take opportunity everywhere I can find it.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, what is malarkey is the fact that the government thinks it knows best and that it should be able to turn off the taps to oil and gas in this country.

What I do not understand is the fact that in the eighties, when the federal government decided to shut down the Atlantic fisheries and do that transition, those workers came right to my home province of Alberta. We welcomed them with open arms. The fact that the minister now wants to shut down those jobs is absolutely shameful.

What does he say to the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who came to Fort McMurray to work in the oil sands in the eighties when the Liberal government shut down the fisheries?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, it did not happen in the 1980s. I can tell that member that some of us remember exactly where we were in July 1992 when that happened.

Let me add something else, first and foremost, we have developed an expertise in Newfoundland and Labrador in the offshore that not only this government but every Newfoundlander and Labradorian is extremely proud of. We will continue to grow that industry as we welcome new and better opportunities. We will not stand in its way. We will listen to workers.

I ask this member to please tell me where in the bill some dictum comes down from on high. We are creating a table, we are putting workers at the head of that table, and we are saying that we will listen to their advice, full stop.