Lisa Raitt

[Privilege, April 6th, 2017]

moved:

That the question of privilege regarding the free movement of Members of Parliament within the Parliamentary Precinct raised on Wednesday, March 22, 2017 be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member of Parliament for Beauce on this topic.

I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your thoughtful ruling.

I do appreciate the time that the Parliamentary Protective Service puts in to making sure that our privileges, our rights, and our duties are supported in this place. I also want to thank those who provide the transport around the precinct, who I know were not at fault for what ended up happening. As I said, I truly appreciate the work they do every day to allow us to do the work we do every day here in this House on behalf of Canadians.

I thought I would give the House a bit of an idea from my perspective of what happened and why I felt so strongly in making sure that I rose on a point of personal privilege that day. As was noted in your reports, Mr. Speaker, I did arrive in time to be able to come to the Hill and, as expected, I waited for the transport to arrive. The frustrating part about it was that the transport was right there and I could see it waiting to come through security in order to bring us to the Hill. I made small talk with people at the bus shelter, including my colleague, the member of Parliament for Beauce. We waited patiently as the media bus proceeded to the Hill.

After a long period of waiting, when we realized that time was passing and the security bollard was not opening, my colleague from Beauce went over to inquire as to why the buses were not being released. The reason given was that security was waiting for the empty motorcade of the Prime Minister to vacate the precinct before we were allowed to go to the House to vote.

As I said, we could see the bus from where we were. We could see four or five officers who were in the area. If they had people on the bus who were members of Parliament, I was unaware, but now I understand they did. Indeed they would have seen us waiting at the bus shelter. They would have known that those waiting were members of Parliament, yet they did not know whether there were other members who were scattered among the different stops along the way to be brought to the House. Every expectation I had was that the bus would approach, that we would get on it, and we would be able to proceed to the House in order to vote.

One thing I do know about the scheduling of buses during a vote is that all efforts are taken to ensure that the system of timing is such so that members at the last minute, sometimes with one or two minutes to go, are not left stranded at their offices in any of the buildings around the precinct. As a result, careful thought is given to making sure that those last-minute buses in the six, five, and four minutes left in the ringing of the bells make it to the House in time so that members can discharge their parliamentary obligations and duties on behalf of Canadians. However, that did not happen in that case. In fact, I am very distressed to understand that it was not a single bus or even two buses, that it was three buses that were held up for nine minutes preventing members from going to vote. The reason we were prevented was that the supremacy of one was paramount over the supremacy of the members of Parliament going to vote. The supremacy was in one person, and that was the Prime Minister.

Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau once famously said that 50 yards off the Hill, MPs are nobodies. Unfortunately, that type of arrogance seems to have bled into his son, the current Prime Minister, in terms of how he approaches issues. It is an incredibly arrogant statement and it is one that we reflect on a lot when we discharge our duties, because as members of Parliament we do not feel that way at all. It is unfortunate that the singular importance of that day during the budget had to do with whether or not the empty motorcade of the Prime Minister came off the Hill as opposed to members of Parliament coming into the House of Commons to vote. Indeed, it trumped what was, as you said, Mr. Speaker, our abilities to discharge our parliamentary responsibilities to Canadians.

We need to understand two things. First, was this done by actual order? If it was, who made the order and how was that order made, because it was a serious matter, one that you have expressed, Mr. Speaker. The second is whether this is something of an interpretation of the people who serve on the Hill that one group or one individual is far more important than the other. I do think that this is very indicative and very problematic.

Currently we have a discussion happening in PROC, the procedure and House affairs committee, with respect to the Prime Minister's and the government's desire to ensure that the members of Parliament's duties, privileges, and responsibilities are curtailed. Lots is said and lots is written about the importance of tradition and rules and what we do here in this House and the precedents that are set. It is incredibly important that we stop once in a while to be assured and to ensure that what we are doing here is respected.

The fact is that a number of MPs were prohibited from voting on a day when the budget was being presented in the House of Commons. The fact is the Prime Minister has, through his ministers, put forth a document that seriously curtails the ability of MPs to fulfill their duties. I do not think that this is an isolated incident, and I do worry that the tone of the government being set is such that MPs are no longer important either in this place or in what we have to say in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I hope and I support that this matter be referred to the appropriate committee so that the committee can undertake a study to determine through your two reports that I hope will be tabled, exactly what happened, who proceeded in making the decision to stop the MPs from getting on the Hill, and whether or not there was an implicit order or whether or not there was just tone being followed with respect to this matter. I am sure that my colleague, the member for Beauce, will also speak to the issue and the importance of it to his parliamentary privilege.

I greatly appreciate the time that has been put into ensuring that this was duly studied and appropriately thought through and that the time and effort of those who did the investigation did it in a timely fashion so that we could get to the facts of the matter. However, the facts are now known and what we need to understand more importantly now is the intention and the tone under which this Parliament seems to be operating that leads to the conclusion that the Prime Minister is paramount and supreme over the rest of us sitting here taking our seats in the House of Commons. Obviously, I reject that notion. I think that all members of Parliament in this place are incredibly important in how they represent their communities and their views, be they on the government backbench or in opposition.

I believe we should take pause to not just bat away complaints of the opposition on matters that are extremely important such as long-standing rules, long-standing conventions, agreements that we want to change things in this place, that we do so in concurrence with one another as opposed to having one side determine which path we are going to be following well into the future in terms of rules in the House.

I understand that the committee I am seeking this matter be referred to is undergoing a bit of a filibuster. I applaud my colleagues who are doing that, because they are making the point there that I am making here. It is unacceptable for a government to contemplate and think it is supreme above each and every member of Parliament that sits here, and if that arrogance is what is infiltrating the decision-making in this place by those who are serving us, then we need to throw some light on it and ensure that it does not continue, because it is completely unacceptable.

Unfortunately, my colleague from Beauce and I were both caught up in the moment where we were not allowed to be able to vote in the House. Some would say that is just a small infraction, but I would submit it is not. It is absolutely grave. We had our intention. We wanted to come to the Hill. We wanted to exercise our franchise on behalf of our constituents, and we were unable to do so because some individual, some person, we do not know yet, decided that was not going to happen because the Prime Minister's motorcade, which was empty, and the convenience of having it in one place or another took precedence over the duties and the responsibilities of a duly elected member of Parliament.

It is absolutely shameful. The committee deserves to study it, and we deserve to have a report back.

[Privilege, March 22nd, 2017]

It is not the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

I heard the call for members to come back to the House. I returned to the House. Unfortunately, I was told by security at the bottom of the Hill that we were unable to access the House of Commons through our normal transport, because they were holding the buses on account of empty cars for the Prime Minister needing to return in order for us to be brought to the House of Commons.

I missed the vote. I apologize to my colleagues for missing the vote, but this is absolutely ridiculous. What kind of control are the Prime Minister and the government trying to exert over members of the House, when I cannot return to vote on orders of the day and could perhaps be detained from hearing the budget?

[Health Care, February 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from residents in my riding of Milton, and other Canadians, who feel that their health care needs are being neglected, and who feel forgotten by the current Liberal government. I implore the government to make the investments needed to right these wrongs in its upcoming budget. Now is the time to implement a national dementia strategy based on the recommendations of the Senate report and support it with steady, reliable funding. Now is the time for the Canadian autism partnership program, which would address key issues, such as information sharing and research, early detection, diagnosis, and treatment, while supporting families of Canadians living with autism. Now is the time to tackle the challenge of rare diseases by investing in early diagnosis, access to treatment, and research for those suffering from rare diseases.

Canadians are waiting. Let us get to work.

[Electricity, November 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are already demanding that families in my riding of Milton, Ontario, and all across Canada, pay a new carbon tax that will drive up the cost of everything and force businesses to lay off workers; but wait, there is more.

To appease special interest friends, they are now overriding the provinces and dictating how they generate electricity and in the process are driving up hydro bills. Even Kathleen Wynne has admitted that she was wrong to force Ontario families to suffer in this way.

When will the Prime Minister have to apologize for the suffering his hydro price hike will cause?

This has nothing to do with the environment. It has to do with a Liberal government arrogantly thinking it can force people to change their lifestyles just to fall in line with Liberal ideology.

Some provinces need coal-fired electricity, especially in the winter months. Forcing provinces to replace this capacity, without any real plan to do so, will cost billions of dollars and jobs across Canada.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 2nd, 2016]

With regard to the replacement of the universal child care benefit and the Canada child tax benefit with the new Canada child benefit in Budget 2016, what were the Minister of Finance’s considerations concerning families that are just under the cut off adjusted family net income amount of approximately $150 000, who will receive benefits, compared to those at, or slightly above, the $150 000 mark?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, October 28th, 2016]

With regard to the consultations on a voluntary supplement to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), undertaken by the previous government, the results of which were due September 10, 2015: (a) what is the status of these consultations; (b) has the Minister of Finance been briefed on these consultations; (c) if the answer to (b) is in the affirmative, what are the details of the briefing materials provided; (d) have these consultations been taken into consideration in order to determine what measures to take in regards to the CPP; (e) have any reports been drafted from the findings of the consultations; and (f) is the Minister of Finance considering doing a similar consultation on the possible enhancement to the CPP?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, October 28th, 2016]

With regard to the government’s Advisory Council on Economic Growth: (a) when does the Council meet; (b) are minutes taken at its meetings; (c) if the answer to (b) is in the affirmative, what are the details of these minutes; (d) what is the process for choosing the advisors; (e) who chooses the advisors; (f) to what degree does the Council have power over the choices of the government in economic matters; (g) how are the Council’s suggestions weighed in relation to that of the Department of Finance; (h) for each of the following members of the Council, what was the reason that they were selected for the Council, and what contribution do they provide to the Council (i) Dominic Barton, (ii) Elyse Allen, (iii) Katherine Barr, (iv) Jennifer Blanke, (v) Kenneth Courtis, (vi) Brian Ferguson, (vii) Suzanne Fortier, (viii) Carol Anne Hilton, (ix) Carol Lee, (x) Christopher Ragan, (xi) Angela Strange, (xii) Ilse Treurnicht; and (i) with regard to (h)(i), what powers does Dominic Barton hold as chair of the Council?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, October 28th, 2016]

With regard to the commitment in Budget 2016 to invest in the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) so as to enhance its efforts to combat tax evasion and avoidance and with regard to the June 7, 2016, meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance’s concerning efforts by the CRA to combat tax avoidance and evasion: (a) did the Minister of Finance, anyone within his office, or Department of Finance, meet with anyone from Canadians For Tax Fairness prior to the release of Budget 2016; (b) if the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, was this meeting, in whole or in part, on the topic of the use of the proposed funds for the CRA included in Budget 2016; (c) were legislative responses to tax evasion and avoidance considered when drafting solutions to these issues, or was the only solution considered a monetary increase to the CRA’s budget; and (d) if the answer to (c) is in the affirmative, was there a cost analysis done on whether legislative measures or additional funding for CRA would be more effective?

[Taxation, October 5th, 2016]

Are you kidding me? You're laughing.

Mr. Speaker, my friend, Marie, has three boys. Her husband just went on disability. They have a hard time making ends meet. She is trying to deal with it as best she can, but the money is just not there. Now she hears about more taxes.

The reality is that the van has to be filled up to take the boys to hockey, so which one of the boys does not get to play hockey next year is the question. She does not understand why the government does not realize she has a tough situation, because if it did, it would not raise her taxes.

What comfort does the government have to give her?

[Taxation, October 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, another friend of mine, Marie, has three boys—