David Sweet

[Privilege, March 22nd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I have a particular passion around this, in respect of being elected by the Conservative caucus in regard to the democratic reform bill. I think I speak for all members that their ability to be able to speak confidentially is important to the entire House, and that is why I am raising this point. I will get to some quotes in regard to parliamentary procedure. Page 57 of Australia's House of Representatives Practice reads:

All parties have party meetings in sitting weeks but usually at times when the House is not sitting. The proceedings of party meetings are regarded as confidential, and the detail of discussions is not normally made public. These meetings provide the forum, particularly for backbenchers, for internal party discussion of party policy, parliamentary activity, parliamentary tactics, the resolution of internal party disputes, the election of officers, and they provide a means of exerting backbench pressure on, and communication with, its leaders [for accountability].

Breaches in caucus confidentiality have been treated so seriously in the past as to have been held to be matters of privilege. First, I would refer the Speaker to the question of privilege raised on October 17, 1973 by David Lewis, the leader of the New Democratic Party. Mr. Lewis reported to the House the following sequence of events:

I learned at about two o'clock...that we had a bug at our caucus meeting this morning. During the meeting...the hon. member for Oshawa—Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), who is our caucus chairman, pulled a little [microphone] out from under the table, put it on top of the table, and said to me and to others: “This looks like a bugging device”. Having no knowledge of such things, I could not tell him whether it was or [was] not and we went on with the meeting.

Speaker Lamoureux then ruled, at page 6943 of the Debates, “it is obvious to the Chair that there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege involving the type of situation which is normally investigated and looked into by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections..”.

Instead of referring the matter for a committee to study, and because the source of the surveillance device had voluntarily identified himself and was co-operative—

[Privilege, March 22nd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, following my notice to you, I am rising on a question of privilege concerning a leak from Wednesday's meeting of the Ontario Liberal caucus. The leaks were reported in an online article posted on cbc.ca Wednesday evening, entitled “[Member for Markham—Stouffville] faced 'tough' questions from Liberal MPs in [today's] regional caucus meeting”. The first two paragraphs of the article make the following disclosures:

[The member for Markham—Stouffville], who resigned from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's cabinet earlier this month over the SNC-Lavalin affair, faced a barrage of tough questions from her Liberal colleagues [today] during a closed-door session of the Ontario caucus, sources told CBC News.

[The member for Markham—Stouffville] addressed the group at the beginning of the meeting, which lasted 30 minutes longer than scheduled and was described by people in the room as “rough” and “uncomfortable.”

The sixth paragraph of the article states:

Today, some of her fellow Liberal MPs reminded her that others in the caucus had made compromises on sensitive issues such as medical assistance in dying — one of the key pieces of legislation [the member for Markham—Stouffville] fronted as health minister, along with then-justice minister [the hon. member for Vancouver Granville].

Meanwhile, this online article was expanded upon by CBC reporter Katie Simpson, who appeared on Wednesday's edition of Power & Politics. I will quote from a transcript of her presentation, which states, “What CBC News can confirm through multiple sources is that when Ontario Liberal MPs met for their weekly meeting this morning, [the hon. member for Markham—Stouffville], who was there, was really the focus of attention at the meeting, and she faced a series of difficult questions about her actions. She, of course, very publicly quit and criticized the Prime Minister, but did not leave caucus when she decided to quit. What we are also told is that while these questions were being asked, the member was also reminded by some of her colleagues of some of the sacrifices and compromises they made to help her with some of her projects like getting the assisted dying legislation passed.... So the meeting went 30 minutes longer than it normally would go. It is described by sources as “rough” and “uncomfortable” and “rocky”, but we do know that Liberals that we were speaking with today, while these concerns may exist privately, this is a group of Liberal Ontario MPs that held this meeting.”

In a Canadian Press article entitled “Conservatives plan filibuster after Liberals shut down...motion”, also published Wednesday evening, it was reported:

Despite the efforts to unite and put the affair behind them, one source said [the hon. member for Markham—Stouffville] faced a “frank and emotional” session with her Ontario caucus colleagues prior to the national caucus meeting she did not attend....

The source spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss confidential caucus matters.

Every single one of us in this House was elected as a member of a party. We sit or have sat in caucuses. Caucus confidentiality is the cornerstone of parliamentary life. That is something we understand clearly, and that is very valuable to me as the national Conservative caucus chairman. It is not because we want to be furtive or secretive; it is because we need to be able to have frank and candid conversations among colleagues without the embarrassment or opprobrium that these exchanges are at risk of producing.

I generally sympathize with the hon. member for Markham—Stouffville. She did something extraordinary on the strength of her principles and convictions by resigning her ministerial commission. She does not deserve the treatment she has received, nor the embarrassment and scorn heaped upon her by her colleagues, including through this caucus leak. The same goes for the treatment that she received after being hidden from, and deterred or intimidated from attending this week's votes, as we heard from the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill in another question of privilege.

Caucus proceedings are discussed on page 34 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition. It states:

Although each caucus operates differently, most limit attendance to parliamentarians.

Because they are held in camera, caucus meetings allow Members to express their views and opinions freely on any matter which concerns them. Policy positions are elaborated, along with, in the case of the government party, the government's legislative proposals. Caucus provides a forum in which Members can debate their policy differences among themselves without compromising—

[Business of Supply, March 20th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, in response to the question that was just asked, I want to quote a top anti-bribery official at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, of which, by the way, Canada is one of the founding members. It says, “the Canadian government should not use the potential loss of jobs as a reason to shelve the criminal prosecution of Montreal engineering giant SNC-Lavalin Group Inc.” The anti-bribery working group has voiced very significant concern about the way this has been handled and about the fact that it should be an open and transparent investigation.

Does the member feel the investigation has been open and transparent, and we could actually say that to the OECD? How she feels about Canada's reputation now coming into question by the OECD?

[The Economy, March 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, every year I send out a survey to my constituents, asking for their thoughts on important issues. In the spirit of budget day, I want to share some of what I have heard so far from this year's survey.

The feedback was clear. Eighty-two per cent of the surveys received back thus far express concern over deficits, and 75% do not support the Liberal carbon tax cash grab. What is tough to hear is that over 71% say life is less affordable today than it was four years ago.

Middle-class families in Flamborough—Glanbrook and across this country are juggling mortgages and increased commuting costs. They are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet.

It is clear to me what the people of Flamborough—Glanbrook do not want to see in the budget today. They do not want more deficits; they do not want more tax increases, and they do not want a carbon tax.

[Government Programs, February 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest joys of my life is being a father and a grandfather. My wife and I raised our children to be honest, work hard, contribute to society and have a positive influence in the community. However, it profoundly troubles me to see the effects of the current Liberal government.

The Liberal Prime Minister is raising taxes and making life more expensive for all Canadians. Two of my sons and their spouses are residents of the riding of Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas. They, as well as all Hamilton residents, are feeling the negative effects of the Liberal government. My children are now raising children of their own and it is becoming harder and harder to do this under those Liberals.

The question on whether my family can afford things is something that concerns me and consumes their everyday life. If my granddaughter Nola wants to play soccer, my son and his wife now have to evaluate whether they can afford it because these Liberals are taking away benefits from my family and taxing them higher.

When will the Liberal government realize it is not helping Canadians? When will it stop penalizing working families trying to create a future for themselves and their families?

[Small Business, February 8th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, our leader travelled to Willowdale to hear from families and small business owners who are struggling to get by under the current Liberal government's policies. There, he met pharmacist Mr. Tamer Farag, who voiced his concerns about how the Prime Minister's tax changes are costing him and his community.

We know the Prime Minister cannot relate to these stories because he has never had to balance a budget or meet a payroll, but in the rest of Canada, people are paying for his mistakes with their hard-earned money. When will the Prime Minister give hard-working Canadians, like Mr. Farag, a break?

[Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 8th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has said it will bring in a corporate social responsibility ombudsperson. I have not seen the results of that yet. We need to strengthen that regime.

There was testimony at the Subcommittee on International Human Rights and there is a willingness within the Canadian companies outside of Canada doing business to comply with that. A few companies are causing a bad reputation for the broader spectrum, and that is definitely something that needs to happen.

Something was brought up earlier with regard to Palestinians, the West Bank and Israeli businesses. One of the things we have to communicate to people is the need to make sure that Israeli businesses continue to be able to hire and bring in Palestinians from the West Bank without the crazy pressure from this Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement that does not understand that they actually employ and allow Palestinians to prosper, to have jobs that are not in the Palestinian Authority.

[Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 8th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, to have a delay of this many years when most of the heavy lifting was already done is appalling, particularly when we have so much instability with our trading partners.

Let me touch on something domestically, since my colleague has opened this up. We continue to have these steel tariffs in place. My concern with the Liberal government presently is that it does not understand the magnitude of the effect. It has given some funding to steel mills, which is great. In fact, one of them is ArcelorMittal Dofasco in Hamilton. However, what it does not understand is the downstream effect this is having.

I will tell a story of a medium-sized business, whose owner came into my office. He had spent $60 million on an expansion just two years previously to be able to service his American clients. When he came into my office, the tariffs had lasted so long that he had actually had to cut his business to the United States. He had already paid over $2 million in tariffs and could not sustain that expense.

If there are any business people on the other side of the bench, they will know that once a business has lost a customer, it is hard as heck to get that customer back. This is the kind of thing the Liberal government continues to put in the way of our businesses, and it needs to take the removal of these tariffs seriously and work with the American administration to get them removed.

[Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 8th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud any effort we can make to be more inclusive with any trade agreement, whether for women, minorities or those who are marginalized.

Also, in respect to small and medium-sized businesses, I remember being in Jordan at a business round table. I thought it was going to be a round table, but it actually required a conference room in the hotel in Jordan. I was shocked at how many small and medium-sized Canadian entrepreneurs were present at that time in Jordan and Israel. It continues to be that way, so if there is any way we can encourage small business, I would be glad to do that.

One of the things that concerns me in this regard is that three members of the Liberal caucus either voted no—that was the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler—or did not even show up for the vote for this very important deal, those being the member for Madawaska—Restigouche and the member for Nepean. I wonder why there is a problem in their caucus with this free trade agreement.

[Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 8th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to corporate social responsibility, in fact it was the Conservative government that established the office of the CSR. I absolutely agree that it should be strengthened.

My understanding is that the present government is heading down that road. I have not seen any results yet. However, I agree that Canadian companies in foreign lands that mine or conduct whatever business they may do should be abiding by standards that would be typical here in Canada. I look forward to seeing some effort by the Liberal government to make that happen.