Costas Menegakis

[Privilege, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I want to participate in this debate and address the motion proposed by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. The motion proposes that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs study the facts surrounding the statements made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. I propose at the outset that we already know the facts. The question is what we do about it.

A study by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would be redundant and a waste of time, in my submission. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is one of the busiest committees, producing more reports than any other standing committee. The committee already has numerous projects on the go, including studies arising from private members' business and a question of privilege related to Elections Canada. The committee is examining changes to the Standing Orders and is currently studying Bill C-23, the fair elections act.

At the present time, the committee is under siege by an NDP filibuster aimed at delaying the fair elections act, Bill C-23. This is unfortunate because Bill C-23 is a very important piece of legislation. This bill would protect voters from rogue calls and impersonation with a mandatory public registry for mass calling, prison time for impersonating elections officials, and increased penalties for deceiving people out of their votes. It would allow the commissioner to seek tougher penalties for existing offences and empower the commissioner with new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting. It would crack down on voter fraud, make rules easier to follow, allow for small donations in and big money out, respect democratic election results, uphold free speech, and provide better customer service for voters.

Getting back to the motion before the House, I would like to draw everyone's attention to a quick review of the facts that led to this question of privilege. On February 6, during debate on Bill C-23, the fair elections act, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville made a statement in the House about voter identification cards. He rose in the House on February 24 and corrected the record. The next day he added, “...I recognized that this was an error on my part”. He then sincerely apologized to all Canadians and all members of the House for the statement he made. He added that it was never his intention in any way to mislead the House, for which he has the greatest amount of respect.

As we know, it is a long-standing tradition in the House to accept the word of a member and to accept his or her apology. Notwithstanding that tradition, on February 25, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley rose in the House on a question of privilege charging the member for Mississauga—Streetsville with contempt; this, of course, after the member for Mississauga—Streetsville had delivered his apology to Canadians and all members in the House.

The government House leader responded by making the following point. He stated:

...the presumption in this House is that we are all taken at our word, that the statements we make are truthful and correct. That we are given the benefit of that doubt brings with it a strong obligation on us, in the cases where a member misspeaks, to correct the record so that nobody is left with inaccurate perceptions.

In this particular instance, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, has done exactly that. Having misspoken in this House and having realized his comments were in error, he has come to this House and corrected the record.

That is the obligation that exists upon members. That is an obligation to ensure that nobody is left under false impressions. That is an obligation he has discharged. That is the obligation upon all members here, and for that reason I think that alone is sufficient to rebut any concern that there has been a contempt.

I will end the government House leader's quote there.

Also in that debate, the member for Kingston and the Islands recognized that the only reason the House was engaged in the debate on the matter was the fact that it had been raised by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, who took his duty and obligation to correct the record seriously.

Instead of accepting the apology from the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, the NDP House leader chose to raise the matter as a question of privilege, putting the onus on the Speaker to rule.

When the Speaker finds that there is a prima facie question of privilege, the task of formulating the question to the House falls to the member who raised the issue. In this case, it was the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. As we all know, his privilege motion sets aside all business of the House. I believe he could have found another way to express his displeasure, without engaging all of us in the process, debate, and drama of a question of privilege.

The debate on his motion does not only use up the precious time of this House, but it proposes to use up a great deal of the precious time of a committee. This exercise is wasteful and unnecessary.

I will be encouraging members to vote against the proposal from the NDP for three reasons. One, the member who made the misleading statements apologized and voluntarily corrected the record. That is a very important point for all of us to realize. He apologized and voluntarily corrected the record.

Two, there is no merit in a committee study since all of the facts are known. He made a statement and he apologized for it. The real and only question left for the House to decide is how it wants to move forward on this issue considering the facts before it.

This brings me to the third reason to oppose the motion. The one outcome we want to avoid is to create an environment where MPs are punished for doing the right thing. The right thing for this House to do is to accept the member's apology and move on.

However, I am afraid it is too late for the high road at this point. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has the entire House going down his road.

What does the NDP want to accomplish with a committee study? I looked at the procedural references the NDP House leader cited in his presentation to his question of privilege. In his intervention, he cited a reference from page 115 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition.

His citation references a case from December 6, 1978, where Speaker Jerome ruled that a government official deliberately misled a minister and that constituted a prima facie question of privilege. The member for Northumberland—Durham, who raised the question of privilege was invited to propose his motion to the House. The motion was defeated, and the matter was not sent to committee.

The NDP House leader also referenced a ruling from October 19, 2000, regarding misleading statements made in the House. Speaker Parent stated that he could find no support for a claim that the privileges of the House had been breached; so no committee study resulted from that.

He included a ruling of our current Speaker from May 7, 2012. The Speaker did not arrive at a finding of a prima facie question of privilege there either.

There was, however, a committee study that resulted from a ruling he referenced from February 1, 2002, regarding two statements made by the then minister of defence. In that ruling, Speaker Milliken noted the need for clarity in House proceedings and the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House. He also stated that integrity of information was of paramount importance since it directly concerned the rules of engagement for Canadian troops involved in the conflict in Afghanistan, a principle that goes to the very heart of Canada's participation in the war against terrorism.

A motion was moved referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and almost a week later, on Thursday, February 7, 2002, it was adopted.

The committee heard from a number of witnesses in that case. It heard from the member who raised the matter, Mr. Brian Pallister. It heard from the Clerk of the House of Commons, and the law clerk and parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons. It heard from the hon. Art Eggleton, the former minister of national defence; the deputy chief of the defence staff; the deputy minister of the department of national defence; the chief of the defence staff; the deputy clerk of the Privy Council, counsel and security and intelligence co-ordinator; the clerk of the Privy Council and secretary to the cabinet; the assistant deputy minister, global and security policy, department of foreign affairs and international trade; and J.P. Joseph Maingot, former law clerk and parliamentary counsel, House of Commons, and author of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada.

In addition, members of the committee were invited to submit questions in writing for Commodore Jean-Pierre Thiffault, commander of the Canadian joint task force in southwest Asia.

That is an impressive list of witnesses. Obviously, there are some similarities between this question of privilege and the question of privilege in 2002, but I believe members would recognize the many significant differences. There might have been more meat on the bone in the 2002 case than the straightforward facts of this case.

Also, I think it is worth mentioning that the status of the two members involved is significantly different. The 2002 case involved a minister of the Crown. A minister enjoys a special role in providing information to the House.

That said, and despite all that was involved in the 2002 study, and all that was at stake, the committee had to focus on the task at hand, the issue of two contradictory statements made in the House.

The report back from the procedure and House affairs committee stated:

We are not concerned here with the Minister's performance as a minister, nor with the chain of command or lines of communication in the military, the Department of National Defence, or the Government.

The committee also felt it was necessary to point out the following:

Parliamentary committees charged with examining questions of privilege must exercise caution and act responsibly in drawing conclusions. They must guard against allowing partisanship to colour their judgement. The power to punish for contempt must not be exercised lightly. It exists for those rare occasions when Parliament’s ability to function is impeded or compromised.

One could, in the case before us today, connect some dots and come to the conclusion that this is not about statements made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. Other agendas are at play here, agendas that are clouding the judgment of the NDP. I am certain that most reasonable people would agree that the case before us is of a different scale in importance than that in 2002. Even still, the conclusion of the committee in 2002 was simple and to the point. It stated:

After a thorough review of all the circumstances, the Committee has come to the conclusion that the Minister made a mistake....

It concluded that no contempt of the House was committed.

What are the facts surrounding the statements made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville? He made a mistake. He rose in the House and said, “I recognized that this was an error on my part”. He followed that recognition of fault with an apology to the House and to all Canadians. He made it clear that he did not intend to mislead the House.

I submit that a committee study of this case is not necessary. It only makes sense in the mind of the New Democrats, who fervently obstruct anything constructive that comes on the floor of the House and to our committees. I understand that the role of the opposition is to oppose, but in this case, it has crossed the line.

As the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs warned, in 2002, we in the House must also guard against allowing partisanship to colour our judgment in the matter of privilege. We must not execute our power lightly.

The NDP should refrain from using this question of privilege to fight its battle against the fair elections act. It only exposes its fiend, outrage, and phoney crusade in its opposition to legislation that will put everyday Canadians, not big union bosses, in charge of their democracy.

I have a number of quotations from people across the country. I have documentation from Elections Canada, in cases where it has found fraud in past elections in this country.

As well, I hear the words of my constituents, who speak on a daily basis. I can tell members that they do not want election fraud any more than anybody else in this House. Supporting the fair elections act would go a long way to giving back fair elections to Canadians.

We all know that things happen during elections that should not happen. That is what the legislation, Bill C-23, would address.

With respect to the question before us, I encourage all members of the House to see past the partisan colours of their party. Let the House get back to business, and let the committees get on with their agendas. There is no place in committee for this matter. It has been settled. The member stood up and he apologized.

[Committees of the House, March 4th, 2014]

It is not relevant.

[Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, February 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will point the member to the bill. The bill clearly puts forth some excellent points in dealing with the regulation of the whole citizenship and immigration consultant industry.

In the second part of his question, of course I am a member of Parliament from the Greater Toronto Area. He will be happy to hear this, I am sure. One of the things the bill does is streamline the decision making process for granting citizenship. We are going to have more people within the decision making body now, people who are experts, officers in citizenship and immigration. Once they obtain all of the proper information, they will be able to grant citizenship, whereas today, the authority for that only belongs to citizenship judges.

If the bill passes through the House—and I hope all members see the light and pass it, because it really is excellent legislation—it would speed up the process from a three-step process to a one-step process. Those people coming into our offices would obtain their citizenship in under a year, as opposed to waiting the length of time they are waiting now.

[Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, February 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said no such thing, nor did he allude to any such thing. The process in the House, and I think all members know, is that the bill will go to committee once it has passed second reading, and we will have an opportunity to study it at committee stage and hear experts. We cannot prejudge or preempt what the conclusions or decisions of the committee will be after it has an opportunity to study the bill at that stage.

One of the concerns the member opposite had was the fee. I do not know if she took the time actually to read the content of the bill, or at least investigate the reasons behind some of the things that are in the bill. She commented about our increasing the fee for Canadian citizenships. Had she done a little homework, she would have found out that it costs about $550 for a Canadian application today. We are taking the fee to a proportion of that. Is it not fair for Canadians to expect that the cost of that application should be borne by the person who is applying and not by taxpayers?

[Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, February 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join this lively debate. However, before I do that, let me just say that I will be splitting my time with the hard-working member for Calgary Centre.

I am pleased to rise to discuss how our government plans to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship.

Canadian citizenship is about far more than the right to carry a passport, as some might think, or to vote. Canadian citizenship is a commitment and forever a connection to our great country, Canada.

Citizenship defines who we are as Canadians, including our mutual responsibilities to one another, responsibilities such as respect for the rule of law, contributing to the well-being of the Canadian community, and protecting our heritage and our traditions. Citizenship means that we share a commitment to the values rooted in our history, values such as freedom, democracy, and the rule of law.

As a government, we believe that Canadian citizenship is truly something special and should be valued. We believe that is what Canadians want. However, there are those who attempt to attach a monetary cost to Canadian citizenship.

The strengthening Canadian citizen act, Bill C-24, would send a clear message to those who attempt to take advantage of our generous system.

Canadian citizenship never was, is not now, and never will be for sale. A Canadian passport is highly valued around the world. However, we will not stand by as people treat our passport as a commodity that can be traded or sold to the highest bidder.

Our government takes citizenship fraud very seriously. We are taking action to ensure that those who are convicted of citizenship fraud face the full force of the law. This is very important.

There are those who, for their financial advantage, prey on people who are legitimately wanting to become Canadian citizens. They fraudulently approach them with schemes. We would like to crack down on those people. We believe it is incumbent on our government, on any government, to do that to protect law-abiding residents, permanent residents, and citizens in our country.

As of October 2013, the RCMP was conducting fraud investigations involving more than 3,000 citizens and more than 5,000 permanent residents, a majority of them related to residence fraud.

This a serious issue, which is why we are bringing forward these changes to the Citizenship Act. These are individuals who create fake addresses, purchase fake phone lines, open ghost bank accounts, and draft false letters of employment in an attempt to show that they live in Canada. In reality, many of these individuals may have never set foot in Canada and probably live somewhere else in the world.

These practices demean and devalue what it means to be a Canadian citizen. The strengthening Canadian citizenship act introduced by our government would ensure that we are not only protecting the value of Canadian citizenship from those who would cheapen it but that we are also improving the citizenship system.

Unfortunately, there is a global industry of unscrupulous, unethical immigration and citizenship agents posing as bona fide consultants. These unscrupulous agents typically coach people to establish fake proof of residency in Canada in order to apply for and obtain our Canadian citizenship.

Do not just take it from me. Immigration lawyers like Raj Sharma also agree that this is a serious problem. He admitted:

...immigration fraud was rampant and you did see ghost consultants and unregulated consultants counsel individuals to embellish or exaggerate the time in Canada. Let's face it. The Canadian passport is an incredibly valuable commodity and individuals are willing to lie, cheat, and deceive us to obtain that benefit.

Currently, there are no tools in the toolbox to identify citizenship fraud upfront at the application stage. As a result, many applicants fall victim to crooked citizenship consultants. The strengthening Canadian citizenship act would change that. With our changes, applicants would have to declare on the citizenship application form whether they used an authorized consultant or representative. The key here is that the representative would have to be accredited and part of a regulatory body specified by the minister. This would put an end to crooked citizenship consultants.

Bill C-24 would increase the penalties for citizenship fraud to a maximum fine of $100,000 or up to five years in prison.

We are also taking action to strengthen the residence requirements for citizenship. There has been a lot of ambiguity over what it means to be physically present in Canada. Our government is taking out the guesswork and making it clear. Prospective Canadian citizens would need to be physically present in Canada in four out of the past six years. Respected lawyer Richard Kurland stated:

It makes it easier. For the very first time there is going to be a definition for “residence”. You'd think it would be in the law. It never has been. It is now 183 days in a year, four years on the previous six. So now you know in advance, using math, whether you're in or you're out.

Even Toronto Sun columnist Simon Kent agrees. As part of his comment, he said if people want to live in Canada, if they want to enjoy living in a free and prosperous country like Canada, they should spend time here, they should live here, and they should contribute to civil society. I know that sounds like something out of Politics 101, but it is basically saying to live here, enjoy the fruits of one's labour, pay one's taxes, show that one is committed. I think extending the period of permanent residency here from three to four years, or maybe even five years, before being able to take up citizenship is a fair and reasonable proposition.

This is a subject that is very close and dear to my heart; not only because I have the privilege of representing one of the most diverse communities in the country in my riding, the great riding of Richmond Hill, but also because I am very proud that my parents were immigrants to this country. They came here during John Diefenbaker's prime ministership in this House. They had to wait five years to get their citizenship. I remember because I was born and I was there. I remember how proud they were when they studied and they learned the language requirements they needed, and they went and wrote those tests and they spoke and obtained their Canadian citizenship. Let me tell members that I believe my parents are representative of the vast majority of Canadian citizens who have chosen this great country as their new home.

I heard with great attention what the critics from the opposition parties said, and I would be very happy to listen to and take any questions they might have.

In closing, I would just say this. The strengthening Canadian citizenship act demonstrates our government's commitment to ensuring new Canadians understand the value of citizenship. The changes would make it harder for those who wish to take advantage of our generous immigration system and would send a strong message. Canadian citizenship is not a right; it is a privilege for those who commit themselves to Canada, our way of life, our values, and our traditions.

[Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, February 27th, 2014]

Why are you scowling?

[Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, February 27th, 2014]

Stop scowling.

[York Regional Police, February 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the exemplary efforts of the York Regional Police in combatting human trafficking.

Last week, we heard the details of some remarkable policing work. Through a 2-month-long investigation, the York Regional Police drugs and vice unit was able to identify 31 young women being trafficked and sexually exploited. The unit made 10 arrests, and more than 120 charges were laid.

Some of the rescued women were young teenagers who had been reported missing by their families. Others had children at home. All were able to return to their homes or places of safety.

Human sex trafficking is the fastest growing business of organized crime, and our government is taking strong action to fight it. I commend the York Regional Police, under the leadership of Chief Eric Jolliffe, for its aggressive efforts in combatting this very heinous crime.

They deserve our congratulations on a job very well done.

[Public Service of Canada, February 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the subject of Bill C-461, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act (disclosure of information). The bill was introduced in the House on November 5, 2012, by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert, and it has been the subject of numerous debates.

The bill was referred to the House from committee for third reading debate. Shortly before the debate took place, the member for Edmonton—St. Albert tabled eight motions to amend the bill as adopted in committee and as reported to the House on June 6, 2013. Today I wish to speak to these motions.

It is important to recognize that these motions fundamentally alter the state of Bill C-461. They would remove everything related to the records of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. These motions not only fundamentally alter the state of Bill C-461 as amended by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics but also go against what the member for Edmonton—St. Albert originally proposed for Bill C-461.

The bill initially proposed to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act to make most of the CBC's information accessible under these acts. This was an important component of Bill C-461.

At that time, the bill proposed to change the treatment of the CBC's records to be in line with the recommendations made by the ethics committee during its study of section 68.1 of the Access to Information Act. Section 68.1 is the ambiguous and confusing exclusion currently applicable to the CBC. This is the provision that the Federal Court of Appeal described as “a recipe for controversy” in paragraph 69 of its decision in 2011 FCA 326, the case of the CBC v. the Information Commissioner of Canada.

The government will oppose all eight motions presented by the independent member for Edmonton—St. Albert and will ask that Bill C-461 be voted on in the state in which it was when it was referred to the House on June 6, 2013.

I will now speak on each motion separately.

Motion No. 1 would modify the long title of Bill C-461 to remove the reference to the Access to Information Act. Based on this motion, the title would now read “An act to amend the Privacy Act (disclosure of information)”. The motion goes against what the member from Edmonton—St. Albert originally proposed for Bill C-461 and against what was approved in committee. The approved version proposed to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act to make most information under the CBC's control accessible under both of these acts.

Motion No. 2 would modify clause 1 of the bill—that is, the short title of Bill C-461—by removing the reference to the CBC. With this motion, the short title of the bill would read “This Act may be cited as the Public Service Disclosure and Transparency Act”. Again, this motion goes against what the member for Edmonton—St. Albert originally proposed for Bill C-461 and what was approved in committee. Bill C-461 was originally about increasing transparency of the CBC by removing the broad exclusion that applied to it.

The government will oppose both of these motions, as they fundamentally modify Bill C-461.

Motion No. 3 proposes to delete clause 2 of Bill C-461 and thus remove the proposed injury-based exemption, which would relate to how records of the CBC are to be treated under the Access to Information Act. I will remind the House that the bill originally introduced by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert proposed this injury-based exemption.

As a result of this, repealing the current ambiguous exclusion available to the CBC—that is, section 68.1 of the Access to Information Act—would no longer be viable. That is reflected by Motion No. 4, which would delete the relevant section of Bill C-461. The effect of these two motions would be the continuation of the status quo for the CBC.

The effect of these two motions would be the continuation of the status quo for the CBC. The Access to Information Act would not apply to information under the control of the CBC that relates to its journalistic, creative, or programming activities, other than information that relates to its general administration. This ambiguous exclusion would remain and the public would be prevented from getting access to much of CBC's information.

As I have indicated, the government will oppose these motions.

Motion No. 5 would amend clause 4 of Bill C-461 by modifying the categories of personal information that could be disclosed by government institutions respecting their employees or officers, and the threshold for doing this. The new proposed threshold would be based on the sessional allowance payable to a member of Parliament.

Members have already debated what information should be disclosed under the Privacy Act. The bill was amended to reflect what the government considers necessary to promote more transparency at a certain level of the public administration.

The government will oppose this motion, as it alters Bill C-461.

Motion No. 6, would delete clause 5 of Bill C-461 and would therefore remove the proposed injury-based exemption, which would relate to how records of the CBC are to be treated under the Privacy Act. Here again, I will remind the House that the bill originally introduced by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert proposed this injury-based exemption.

The government will oppose this motion, as it modifies the essence of Bill C-461.

Motion No. 7 would delete clause 6 of the bill, which provides for an exclusion for personal information under control of the CBC that would reveal the identity of any confidential journalistic sources, and for personal information that the CBC collects, uses, or discloses solely for journalistic, artistic, or literary purposes.

The government amended the bill in committee to add an exclusion for any information under the control of the CBC that would reveal the identity of any confidential journalistic sources. The government strongly believes that the confidentiality of journalistic sources is a fundamental aspect of journalism, and we do not want to place the CBC at a disadvantage compared to private sector broadcasters.

The government will therefore oppose this motion, as it alters Bill C-461.

The effect of Motion No. 8 is that the status quo would remain for the CBC with respect to access to its personal information. The Privacy Act would continue to not apply to personal information that the CBC collects, uses, or discloses solely for journalistic, artistic, or literary purposes.

The government will oppose this motion as it modifies Bill C-461 in a fundamental way.

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on these motions amending Bill C-461. As noted at the beginning, our government will oppose all eight motions presented by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert, and we ask that Bill C-461 be voted on in the state that it was referred to this House on June 6, 2013.

[The Budget, February 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister was abundantly clear. We will visit new opportunities for investment in the budget that will benefit all Canadians when we get to a balanced budget. At this point, we are very close to balancing the budget. We expect that by 2015, we will be there. It is premature at this point to speculate on what will be implemented in the budget of 2015, but I have every confidence in the finance minister, who I firmly believe is the best finance minister in the world, and certainly every confidence in my leader, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada, that we will deliver on our promise.