Candice Bergen

[Business of the House, February 20th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask the Thursday question. I am interested to hear from the government House leader what we will be doing for the remainder of this week, as well as next week. I know there are a number of things the country is seized with, which includes something that the Deputy Prime Minister just mentioned, which is the new NAFTA.

I do not think the Deputy Prime Minister is fully aware of the fact that it was the government House leader, in an answer to a Conservative question on February 6, who said that he believed the new NAFTA should be split into a number of studies when it goes to committee. I feel it is important to point that out because, for some reason, the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to politicize this very important agreement that workers across the country and premiers are concerned about. Although the Conservative Party has been very clear when talking about some of the impacts of the new NAFTA, we are the party of free trade. It really is sad when the government House leader rises and says he thinks a bill should be split and then the Deputy Prime Minister says the Conservatives are stalling it. It is completely untrue and inaccurate and poisons the good relationship and good work that the government House leader and I and other House leaders have been doing.

As I ask the government House leader today to please let us know what business we will be looking at, I would like for him to keep that in mind so that our relationship and the work we do can continue to be done in good faith.

[Public Safety, February 19th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were hoping the Prime Minister would present a plan yesterday to bring down the illegal blockades that are costing jobs, causing Canadians real hardship and also making a mockery of our laws. Instead they received weak and ineffective words.

Even the premiers are unimpressed with the Prime Minister's pathetic response. In fact, Premier Scott Moe has initiated an emergency call with other premiers to address the crisis.

When will the Prime Minister step up, do his job and put an end to these dangerous and illegal barricades?

[Public Safety, February 18th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious situation. As the minister acknowledged, illegal activity is going on, so either the rule of law applies in Canada or it does not and we have anarchy.

I will ask the minister again. If he is aware illegal activity is going on, and tampering with rail lines is an illegal activity, why are the Liberals just giving Canadians words and word salad, as the Prime Minister is so good at delivering, instead of delivering real action to protect Canadians from these illegal blockades?

[Public Safety, February 18th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the transport minister issued a statement saying that “tampering with rail lines, railcars or signalling systems is illegal and extremely dangerous.” If rail lines are being tampered with, the consequences could be deadly. Canadians deserve to know what is happening and deserve to be protected.

If the minister is indeed aware of rail lines being tampered with, then why is he and his government doing absolutely nothing to stop this illegal activity and these illegal blockades?

[Finance, January 30th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, Mastercard made $16 billion last year. I think it can afford to develop its own cybersecurity. It is making this $16 billion off Canadians who cannot afford to pay their credit card bills at the end of the month.

Mastercard did not need the $50 million. Actually, no credit card company needs $50 million from the Canadian Liberal government.

How can the Liberals keep defending giving millions of dollars to billion-dollar companies?

[Finance, January 30th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, that is an incredibly weak answer from a so-called feminist government. Why could that minister not have stood and said, unreservedly, that the Liberals would make sure changes would happen so this would not happen again? Protocol, schmotocol, this should never have happened.

I have another question for the Liberal government. We know that Mastercard, a company with over $16 billion in revenue last year, is getting $50 million from the Liberals. Everyone knows that Mastercard does not need this money.

Will the minister do the right thing and reverse this terrible decision to give Mastercard $50 million?

[Public Safety, January 30th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, in a hotel room in Quebec City, 22-year-old Marylène Lévesque was brutally murdered. The 51-year-old accused, who had murdered his wife 15 years prior, was on day parole and had been encouraged by his parole officer to hire Marylène for sex.

Will those Liberals, at a minimum, condemn unreservedly what the Parole Board and this parole officer did and commit to correcting this so it never happens again?

[Privilege, January 30th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I rise regarding the question of privilege that the whip brought forward yesterday, as well as the recent comments and explanation that was given by the member for Vimy. I want to take a couple of moments to comment, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so, and then we can continue with the debate on the bill.

I want to begin by thanking the member for Vimy for her explanation today. We all understand what it is like being a new member of Parliament and not always being sure of what it actually means to be in the chamber when the question is being read. I want to let the member know not to feel bad about that and that we all understand. We are glad that she now understands where she needs to be when the question is being read.

There are a couple of items I want to point to regarding two issues I know the Speaker indicated he would be looking at and making some decisions on. The first is on the issue of misleading the House. There is some precedent which I think is important we have the opportunity to hear and consider as the Speaker makes his decision.

On February 25, 2014, the House leader of the official opposition raised a question of privilege regarding statements made in the House by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. The hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville had deliberately misled the House during debate on Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act, when he stated that he had witnessed evidence of voter fraud first-hand.

He further argued that the matter was not resolved by the statements made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville on February 24 and February 25, where he admitted that, contrary to his original claim, he had not actually witnessed what he had originally claimed to have witnessed and he apologized to the House.

On March 3, the Speaker delivered his ruling, citing what Speaker Milliken was faced with in February 2002 when the then minister of national defence, Art Eggleton, provided contrary information to the House. In that case as well, the minister indicated that he did not intentionally mislead the House and he too apologized.

Speaker Milliken went on to conclude, “In keeping with that precedent, I am prepared to accord the same courtesy to the member for Mississauga—Streetsville.”

We have two precedents where prima facie cases of privilege were found despite members indicating that they did not intend to mislead the House and apologized. There is precedent where when this House and the Speaker are misled, there still is a case of prima facie privilege and that there is a consequence that needs to be found for that action.

With respect to my whip's motion to send this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I refer the Speaker to the second edition of Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, page 227, which states:

In the final analysis, in areas of doubt, the Speaker asks simply:

Does the act complained of appear at first sight to be a breach of privilege...or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he [or she] should...leave it to the House.

I am asking the Speaker to leave this matter to the House to decide, and if the House decides to send this issue to committee, then the committee can look at, in addition to the misleading statement, the issue my whip raised as to establishing a mechanism for the Speaker to deal with disputed votes, which is particularly important in a minority Parliament.

We need to deal with the issue of deliberately or not deliberately misleading the House and there is precedent for that. As well, we need to deal with the matter of the importance of votes. In a minority Parliament, we still have the question of how we would have dealt with it if it had been a matter of confidence and the government had lost that vote, which we all know is of grave importance.

I wanted to make sure that was presented as the Speaker continues his deliberations.

[Privilege, January 29th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, we would be happy if you would review those tapes. However, I have another perspective. In fact, I have some information such that individuals outside of this place actually saw that member in the elevator while the question was being put, which I would like to speak about.

Given your current ruling, I would be very happy if you would review the tapes, but I think there was only the whip and two other members who spoke. There are a lot of other people who may want to contribute to this. If we would be allowed that opportunity, it would be appreciated.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 27th, 2020]

With regard to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity: what is the minister's definition of the middle-class?