Debates of Sept. 26th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was just saying how knowledgeable my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets was on this issue and how ably he pointed out something that we should all know. He put his finger on a major problem. The sponsorship scandal is small potatoes by comparison.

Today, the House has rightly requested access to documents so that we can unravel this entire matter, not just a small part of it. The Auditor General was unable to look at everything. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner deliberately turned a blind eye to certain other conflicts of interest because the people involved had stepped down. Members of the House and Canadians have a right to know the truth, the whole truth, and not simply the truth that the Liberals are willing to show us.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members of this House who are familiar with the file are well aware of the purpose of the amendment my colleague just brought forward. We know why this amendment is important.

I would like my colleague to take a moment to explain this to those who may be watching us, because they may have lost track of the discussion since June, but they have every interest in knowing why this amendment is important to our discussions.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important because if we want to get to the bottom of things, we need to hear from people. We have to agree on the people we want to appear before us. As a long-time member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I know that people can argue at length about a list of witnesses and how long each witness will be required to appear. What we want is to get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible.

Not only did we prepare a list of witnesses, but we also set a deadline for producing a report so that the House could learn the truth before Christmas, and I mean the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, not just the Liberal truth.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, a terrible precedent is being set by the chamber today. I have made my points clear in my original statement, but I would like to reiterate a number of them.

The RCMP and the Auditor General have both expressed their extreme discomfort with the blurring of the line of the separation of power between the legislative and judicial branches of government. Quite frankly, there is an abuse of the power of this place that is trampling on the charter-protected rights of Canadians. I would have liked to have thought that all members of the chamber, our hon. members, would like to live in a country where politicians do not use their extraordinary powers to bypass the judicial oversight that law enforcement requires to include on the charter rights of Canadians.

I do not know of any democracy in which politicians decide who or what is to be investigated by law enforcement. The only countries that I know of that do this are dictatorships. I, for one, believe that every member of the chamber should be as alarmed as the RCMP was when it expressed its view that it should not receive the documents without the required charter protections.

This is an extremely dark day for the House and a very troubling day for democracy in this country. I would submit that the actions we are—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The government House leader is now questioning the ruling of the Speaker by what she is saying.

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

I will allow a little bit of breadth on what the hon. member will be saying.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. I am not questioning the order; I am expressing my dismay with it. I would submit that the actions we are seeing from the Conservatives to trample the charter-protected rights of Canadians are just a glimpse of how they will act if they ever form government.

The Conservatives talk a lot about freedoms, but today they are starting to demonstrate the freedoms that they will take away from Canadians. If they are willing to take away the right to privacy, what is next, freedom of association, security of person, freedom of movement or freedom of expression? If this is where the Conservatives begin, Canadians should pay very close attention to where they will end when it comes to overriding the charter-protected rights of Canadians.

In conclusion, I call on the members of this chamber to do the right thing. Parliamentary powers reign supreme, but just because someone has the power to do something does not mean they should.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is the most incredible thing I have ever heard. In the incredible defence of $390 million of taxpayer money by Liberal appointees, the government House leader decides to do a smokescreen.

What level of theft of taxpayer money is a breach?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member opposite is not focused on what the motion is asking for and on my argument about the charter-protected rights of Canadians. Nothing says that parliamentary committees cannot use this information for themselves. It is that they are requesting this information and sending it to the police, bypassing judicial oversight and bypassing the very important separation of the legislative branch, the judicial branch and the government.

The RCMP, in its response to the committee, stated that police independence is important in Canada. It is a part of our democracy that is paramount. This motion is attempting to override that. That is what Canadians should be concerned about, and the fact that the member opposite does not understand that this is what the motion is about is of grave concern to me. It should be of grave concern to all Canadians.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel like I am at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, so I will do what I usually do.

An amendment has been moved, but let us get back to where this started. There was an order of the House that was not complied with. Once again, the government is trying to find a way to hide or be unable to provide the information we need.

The goal is to ensure that we have the information we need. The RCMP will decide what it wants to do with the information. There was an order of the House. It must be respected.

If I may, what I would say about the amendment is that we have been through this before. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for two years. I see that we are once again going to have to shed some light on this.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is concerning about this order is that the documents were not requested for the use of the House. They were requested for another reason. The House requested those documents to give them to a third party, in this case the RCMP. That does not follow important procedures for protecting the rights of Canadians under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We need to ensure that the RCMP is careful about the way it uses those documents. That is the fundamental issue. I know that my Bloc Québécois colleague respects the rights of Canadians.

The motion that we are debating is concerning for me and, I believe, for all Canadians. Just because the House has the power to do something does not mean that it is necessarily the right thing to do. We should not necessarily do it.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with every single word the government House leader has said. Parliament is supreme. Parliament has extraordinary powers. These extraordinary powers, in my view, should be used only in the case of a real emergency, like when there is a security threat to Canada or in the case of war, but not here.

The Canadian system has been working so well for over 150 years because it respects the division of responsibilities. The parliamentary officers are independent. The institutions, such as the RCMP, are independent. The government of the day, or even Parliament of the day, should not dictate what needs to be done or how it needs to be done. This is very disruptive.

I would like to ask my colleague to explain the importance of the government or Parliament not interfering in the workings of an institution, such as the RCMP.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while colleagues on the opposite side laugh about interfering with police work, I will say that it is actually a very serious matter. There is a very good reason why there is a separation between the legislative branch of government and the judicial branch of government. What the Conservatives are putting forward is absolutely trying to interfere with that separation and that independence. That is extremely concerning to me, and I think all members should be concerned.

I would ask my hon. colleagues, when they go home tonight, to look themselves in the mirror to ask whether they are comfortable with the fact that they are setting a new precedent in which this chamber has decided that it should override the rights of Canadians.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable to me that the government House leader is worried about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when the government has violated every single Charter right there is. It has violated the freedom of expression with Bill C-11 and Bill C-63. It has violated the mobility rights of millions of Canadians, as well as life and security of the person. I could go on and on.

Then the member says she is concerned with making sure there is separation from the RCMP. When has the RCMP been separated from the government? In the WE Charity scandal, the Prime Minister took an action that benefited him, his wife, his brother and his mother, which is against subsection 119(1) of the Criminal Code. What about SNC-Lavalin? When did the government start taking action? It was four years after the event.

How can the member look herself in the mirror and not see the problem on that side?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about some of the allegations the member opposite made, and I am worried that she is spending a lot of time in Internet conspiracy theories as opposed to in reality. What the House is doing—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Order.

With all the seriousness of this debate, I would ask hon. members to keep their comments to themselves and participate in the questions and comments portion of our debate. That is why it is there. Members can stand and ask questions. I appreciate the question that was just asked, and I will allow the same latitude to the hon. government House leader to answer that question.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can only surmise by the reaction of my colleagues opposite that it is making them a bit uncomfortable knowing that what they are doing is trampling the charter rights of Canadians. They are taking the extraordinary powers of this place for political gain to override the rights of Canadians. This is where it begins.

I hope that my hon. colleagues reflect seriously upon this and decide that this is also where it should end because that is not what Parliament should be doing. It should not be overriding the rights of Canadians. We have extraordinary powers in this place for a very good reason, but it is not so that legislators can direct the police. That should not happen in a democracy, and that is a very slippery slope. I hope all members of this place take that seriously, reflect upon it, and think about what their duties are as they sit in these seats and are here to supposedly stand up for the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing about the importance of the separation of the three powers. I completely agree with that. That is the foundation of democracy.

However, the request being made does not infringe on this separation of powers. We are not giving an order to the RCMP. We are asking for the production of documents that are potentially evidence and the RCMP can take it from there. It is not an order to conduct an investigation. If it were, that would overstep our duty to respect the separation of powers. We are simply providing potential evidence, however.

Does the member make the distinction between providing potential evidence and wrongly assuming a power? If not, there is a problem.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague can read the letter sent by the RCMP commissioner to the House of Commons. He said that it will likely be impossible for the RCMP to use them because it is in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As the Speaker mentioned in his response to this question of privilege, this is something that is very rare and unusual in the House of Commons. It is unprecedented for the House of Commons to request documents and give them to a third party, without even using them itself.

Conservative members have said they think there is something criminal going on. The RCMP told the House of Commons that they had concluded their investigation and found nothing criminal. It is up to the RCMP, an independent police force, to decide whether it is going to investigate something or not. It is not up to the House.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed and very competent colleague from Laurentides—Labelle.

Let me say right away that we agree. Parliament has the power to demand documents. Its only limitation is the good judgment of the House. Whether or not the RCMP decides to use the documents is up to the RCMP. As far as we are concerned, demanding documents and providing them is not interference in the judicial branch; it is providing the tools that the judicial branch may or may not need.

This is clearly not interference. If this counts as interference in the judicial branch, then anyone who happens to find a gun and turns it over to the RCMP would be interfering in the judicial branch. If, tomorrow morning, I found a bloody weapon and turned it over to the RCMP, since I am a legislator, I would be interfering in the judicial branch. It is a fine line, but we are nowhere near that line.

The government is mixing things up. More importantly, it wants to limit the powers of the members of this House, the elected officials who represent the entire population.

We are not directing the police, and we are not a people's court, either. I would also remind all members of the House that we are not judges, a jury, witnesses or a tribunal. It is imperative that we maintain that separation.

I am confident that the motion as amended respects judicial, legislative and executive powers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that one needs to understand the fact that what we are talking about is blurring judicial independence versus the extreme powers Parliament has. If, as a Parliament, we say we want this information for the purpose of giving it to the RCMP, there is a process that would normally go through the independent judiciary. This would deny the opportunity for those who might have that information.

I am concerned about the blurring of judicial independence. Are the Bloc members at all concerned that this might be an overreach of the privilege we have as a Parliament, which is ultimately supreme? Is the member not concerned about that?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always concerned about the powers of the House of Commons. I constantly ask myself whether I might be overreaching the usual powers. I do my utmost to ensure that I respect the three orders of government that constitute the best approach to establishing a democracy, according to the Enlightenment.

In this case, producing documents that may or may not constitute evidence, and letting the RCMP decide whether or not to use those documents makes all the difference with respect to the division of powers in a situation such as this one.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

The Environment

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today at the hour of adjournment to pursue a question I asked May 2, the day the Minister of Finance tabled Bill C-69. This is what is called, in the vernacular, an omnibus budget bill. Liberals will remember those words because it was in the platform of the Liberals that they would not introduce such things as omnibus budget bills.

Liberals also promised that they would make sure that the legislation brought forward would have full consultation with indigenous peoples as required under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; that did not happen either. We also had a promise to improve environmental assessment. What I did on May 2 was refer to this as something of a hat trick. There were three different platform promises broken in one omnibus budget bill.

The part that concerns me the most, although it is hard to say which is worse, is I think what we have had happen here is a gross violation of our responsibility as parliamentarians to respond to the challenges and the need to have environmental assessment legislation that works, to ensure that it is constitutionally valid and to ensure that it is studied in the appropriate committee.

Let me try to point out one of the major reasons it is so deeply offensive that the Minister of Finance brought forward the changes being made to the environmental impact bill. This is a huge omnibus bill. There are over 40 different divisions, not to mention there are over 300 sections to the bill. We get to the environmental assessment bits by the time we get to division 28, part 6 and then we start realizing something.

This is what I think as an environmental lawyer and I have consulted some friends who do constitutional law. The Liberals may not have fixed the problem that the Supreme Court had because the way they have defined when something is in federal jurisdiction is to get rid of language they think the court did not like, which was language around things like “adverse effect”. They said an adverse effect, and throughout the bill it is the same every time, within federal jurisdiction is a “non-negligible” adverse change. That is repeated multiple times.

My point is we cannot come up with a conclusion that an effect is non-negligible before studying the project and having some idea what the impact is going to be. We cannot decide, ahead of time, that it is non-negligible. It is a tautology. It is hastily drafted. The court ruled that the last version violated the Constitution by having federal intrusions into provincial jurisdiction.

Here is the problem: The bill continues with what Stephen Harper did in wrecking environmental assessment in, yes again, omnibus budget Bill C-38 in spring 2012. This was a chance to fix it. The Liberals blew it.