Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 410
View David de Burgh Graham Profile
Lib. (QC)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-445, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (management and direction of the Parliamentary Protective Service).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill that would change subsection 79.55(2) of the Parliament of Canada Act relating to the Parliamentary Protective Service. The act reads, in essence, that the director “must be a member of the [RCMP].” This bill would add the word “not” and mandate that the two Speakers, without outside intervention, would jointly select the director of our integrated security force.
While we appreciate the RCMP's efforts to integrate the security forces, this bill would give the Crown three years to complete the transition back to the House. Nothing in this act would prevent the RCMP from continuing to protect the Prime Minister in the House, nor from calling on the RCMP for backup should the need arise. However, all decisions going forward would belong to the House and Senate rather than to the executive. While it is not a matter for legislation, I hope that this would also allow the designated airspace known as CYR537 to be handed over to the Parliamentary Protective Service.
As I consider this to be, first and foremost, a matter of protecting parliamentary privilege, I ask that this bill be ultimately referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I thank the member for Hamilton Centre for seconding this bill, demonstrating the cross-party support it will need to move forward.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2019-02-19 10:14 [p.25475]
Mr. Speaker, I am now ready to rule on the issue raised on February 6, 2019, by the member for Hull—Aylmer regarding an incident of racial profiling that recently occurred within the parliamentary precinct.
The Chair is grateful to the honourable member for bringing this incident to the attention of the House. I also appreciate the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism.
While the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer raised this matter as a question of privilege and it deals with a serious event, it is not properly a question of privilege. It did not involve a member of Parliament or engage a proceeding of either this House or any committee. Nonetheless, the member has given me an opportunity to make a statement to the House and to report on the investigation that has taken place with respect to the incident.
The member for Hull—Aylmer explained that he and the parliamentary secretary had been made aware that a group of Canadians, mostly young, had come to Parliament Hill on February 4, 2019, to engage with members of Parliament on, and sensitize them to, issues that black communities in Canada are facing today. Reporting that an incident of racial profiling had occurred during this initiative, known as “Black Voices on the Hill”, he asked me to investigate the matter immediately and suggest measures to ensure that Parliament is an open and welcome place for all Canadians.
As Speaker, I have responsibility, shared with the Speaker of the Senate, for the oversight of matters of security and policing for the parliamentary precinct, and the Parliamentary Protective Service has the operational responsibility for the security in the parliamentary buildings. These important responsibilities embody far more than just the physical aspects of keeping people safe when here on Parliament Hill. The racial profiling incident cannot be condoned and must be dealt with swiftly and purposefully.
A complaint was quickly raised in the House, and the Parliamentary Protective Service replied with a full and unreserved apology, stating:
We offer our apologies to the participants for the situation that they experienced. Our security personnel must always conduct themselves with professionalism and respect towards parliamentarians, employees and visitors. We need to do a better job in ensuring that this standard is maintained across our workforce. The Parliamentary Protective Service has zero tolerance for any type of discrimination. We took immediate action upon learning of this incident and launched an internal investigation into the matter. Once the investigation is completed, we will be advising the Speakers accordingly.
The apology is a welcomed first step. However, it should not be construed as either a final step or a way to erase the harsh and unacceptable reality of what happened. Instead, we are resolved to learn from it and to do better going forward.
While one transgression does not represent the actions of all, one is too many and none can be overlooked, dismissed or excused.
All who come here must know unequivocally that they will be welcomed with equality, dignity and respect. To experience anything less here on Parliament Hill, the centre of our democracy, is a failure on our part and for that I offer my sincere apologies. We can and must do better, and we will.
As Speaker, I would like to conclude by making it clear that while there is not a finding of a prima facie question of privilege, for the reasons I have mentioned, this in no way diminishes the importance or gravity of the matter raised.
I thank all hon. members for their attention.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2019-02-06 18:28 [p.25348]
I have a member rising on a question of privilege for which I have notice.
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Greg Fergus Profile
2019-02-06 18:28 [p.25348]
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House on a question of privilege not only as the member for Hull—Aylmer but also as the chair of the black caucus.
Two days ago, during this Black History Month, a group of black Canadians, mostly young black Canadians, were on Parliament Hill to engage and to sensitize members of Parliament on the issues facing Canada's black communities. This effort was known as “Black Voices on the Hill”. I regret to inform you that both the member for Halifax and I were made aware of an incident of racial profiling of this group of young Canadians.
This place belongs to all Canadians. Therefore, I ask you to investigate this matter immediately and to suggest measures to make this place the welcoming and open place it should be for all Canadians.
View Andy Fillmore Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Andy Fillmore Profile
2019-02-06 18:29 [p.25349]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege as the member of Parliament for Halifax and as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism.
Following the Government of Canada's Black History Month gala event at the National Arts Centre on Monday, February 4, I was approached by several constituents of my riding of Halifax who were in Ottawa to participate in “Black Voices on the Hill” earlier that day. They shared with me their deep disappointment at the alleged incident of racial profiling in the parliamentary precinct described by the member for Hull—Aylmer. Later that night, I was contacted directly by another Halifax constituent, who had been a witness to the incident.
There is grave concern in my community over this experience, so I too am respectfully requesting that you look into this matter and report back to this House on your findings, as well as any actions that may have been or may be taken to rectify this upsetting incident.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2019-02-06 18:30 [p.25349]
I thank the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer for raising this question and also the hon. member for Halifax for his comments.
I take this matter very seriously. I will look into the matter and return to the House in due course.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2018-11-28 15:37 [p.24101]
I have the honour to lay upon the table a document concerning the designation of premises for the purposes of the definition of “parliamentary precinct” in section 79.51 of the Parliament of Canada Act.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2018-11-20 15:20 [p.23624]
I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 1, 2018, by the hon. member for Windsor West concerning the use of alcohol and other substances within the parliamentary precinct. I want to thank the member for Windsor West for having raised the matter.
In his intervention, the member alleged that there had been several incidents recently, related to the use of alcohol within the parliamentary precinct that were inconsistent with Ontario laws and with keeping Parliament a safe workplace. While acknowledging that some work has already been done, he asked that I, as Speaker, report back to the House on this issue, as well as those he raised with me previously about providing a more holistic and consistent approach to the use of alcohol on the Hill.
As indicated by the member for Windsor West, he asked me in January of this year to address the issue of alcohol on Parliament Hill at the Board of Internal Economy. In response, I referred the member to his House leader, who is a member of the board. He indicated that some progress was made using this approach.
Subsection 52.3 of the Parliament of Canada Act gives the board, not the Speaker, the legal authority to:
...act on all financial and administrative matters respecting
(a) the House of Commons, its premises and its staff; and
(b) the members of the House of Commons.
Accordingly, the right forum to raise such matters as raised by the member for Windsor West remains the Board of Internal Economy.
While the member rightfully noted that not all members have a House leader who can raise issues on their behalf at the board, Speaker Parent reminded us on April 23, 1998, at page 6037 of the Debates that, “As a general rule I as Speaker of the House represent the independent members on the Board of Internal Economy.”
Members from caucuses not represented on the board and independent members should feel free to approach me at any time on any matter. I am pleased to be their spokesperson if they wish to be heard on this or any other issue. I also encourage them to make their views known to other board members.
While I cannot conclude that there is a prima facie question of privilege in this case, this does not mean the subject is not serious. Indeed, it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that Parliament is a healthy and safe workplace for everyone. The special nature of the work performed here should never be used as a shield from this obligation, this priority. I look forward to our continued work on appropriate measures that will allow those who work here today, and in the future, to do so with ease of mind and a full sense of security.
I thank hon. members for their attention.
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2018-11-01 15:15 [p.23154]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege with regard to alcohol and the use of substances at this place on Parliament Hill. I wrote to you on January 29th, 2018. Specifically, I asked for your intervention at the Board of Internal Economy to address the use of alcohol on Parliament Hill.
There were four major components. I will not get into the full details, but they were to provide a more holistic approach and a more consistent approach to the use of alcohol on the Hill, similar to the Province of Ontario.
In a response to me, you referred me to my House leader and it being raised at the Board of Internal Economy. I would like to thank all the House leaders for doing that. It has been discussed, and there has been some work in that regard. However, there are members who do not have a House leader with the ability to do so.
Since that time, there have been several incidents on the Hill that show that there is some question with regard to activity and consistency with Ontario law and the use of alcohol on Parliament Hill.
I would ask that you consider this a point of privilege in your intervention at the Board of Internal Economy. I believe that recent events show that perhaps an investigation of security, which is your responsibility, Mr. Speaker, would be appropriate at this particular juncture. I believe that this should be a safe workplace. I believe that the past practices of this place have required change, and it has not been easy to do so.
Therefore, I ask, as a point of privilege, for safety, my ability to carry out my duties, and the security of this place, that you review the role of the Speaker with regard to the use of alcohol and the issues I identified in my previous letter to you and that you report back to this chamber. Again, there are members who do not have a House leader.
I appreciate your attempts to deal with this issue. There is no doubt that the public and people who use this space do not need to be impeded, let alone members of Parliament, with regard to some of the things that take place that are inconsistent with provincial laws and certainly inconsistent with being a good place to work.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2018-11-01 15:17 [p.23155]
I thank the hon. member for his submission. I will consider the matter and return to the House in due course.
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
CPC (ON)
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
2018-10-31 17:24 [p.23096]
Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the Speaker's office is in charge of the parliamentary bus shuttle service. Since the changes were made, there have been numerous occasions when I have had to wait more than 20 minutes for a bus, and my parliamentary privilege was in jeopardy. Seriously, I have a medical condition as well that demands that I walk less. I would ask that your office take it under consideration to add an express Wellington bus and take away one for the Senate service.
View Alice Wong Profile
CPC (BC)
View Alice Wong Profile
2018-10-31 17:24 [p.23096]
Madam Speaker, yes, I share my colleague's concern and need to meet that service as a senior.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
I appreciate this being brought to my attention. I will certainly take it under advisement and get back to the House if need be.
View Diane Finley Profile
CPC (ON)
View Diane Finley Profile
2018-09-24 16:19 [p.21728]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, better known as the accessible Canada act. This is a subject near and dear to my heart. As we have heard from various members, we all want to ensure that those living with disabilities are treated as equals and remove the barriers they face every single day. I said this is near and dear to my heart, so I would like to start by providing some insight into some obstacles that I have encountered first-hand living with disabilities in Canada.
It was in 2006 that I had just been named minister of human resources and social development, with responsibility for the office for disabilities. Ironically, just a few weeks into the job, I was diagnosed with Grave's disease and Grave's eye disease. These are thyroid afflictions that, among other things, in me cause both extreme light sensitivity and extreme stabismus, resulting in my being legally blind for quite a period of time. More recently, I underwent complicated double hip replacement surgery, which unfortunately resulted in my need for mobility assistance tools around this place for many months.
It was during both of these periods that I learned just how inaccessible many things in my life were, including this particular workplace. They were simple things, such as moving between the Hill and my office, more than half a kilometre from the House, being unable to walk that distance, being unable to step up or down from the little white minibus. Challenges were also considerable in actually having to fight to get an accessible parking space here at Centre Block.
Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, even with the eventual direct intervention by the Speaker's office, it literally took months to fix what were supposed to be the accessibility doors at the rear of this building, doors which unfortunately malfunctioned more often than not. One of the main barriers to getting that particular job done was a clear lack of accountability for the issue. I will talk more about accountability later.
I also discovered how narrow certain parts of these buildings are for those who rely on wheelchairs or walkers, walkers that inhibit our ability to get around. With a disability, many of these seemingly small things all of a sudden can become very big obstacles, but it used to be a lot worse. In fact, under the previous Liberal government, the office for people with disabilities was actually two offices and neither one of them was accessible by those who were mobility challenged. That is right. People who use wheelchairs or walkers could not get into the building. They could not work there, could not consult, could not lobby, and they could not advocate for people with disabilities because they were not allowed in. I know this may sound a little farcical but unfortunately it is true.
Happily, the Conservative government fixed that scenario in short order and, in fact, combined the facilities. There was one office and it was billed as a showcase of how businesses and organizations could adapt to people with mobility, visibility, hearing or other challenges. In one place, businesses and other organizations could finally find the technologies, techniques, tips and tools that would help them accommodate people of all abilities so that these organizations could benefit from their skills to make those organizations even stronger. By the end, not only could people with disabilities enter this office to do business but they could actually work there. What a concept.
As the former minister for HRSD responsible for the disabilities file, I have to say that I was very proud to be part of a government that took leadership in removing many barriers for people with disabilities.
We created the registered disability savings plan in 2008, and we signed on to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The RDSP, as members have probably heard, was a breakthrough financial planning tool, the first of its kind anywhere in the world. To date, over 150,000 Canadians and their families have invested in this wonderful tool.
However, we did so much more for people with disabilities. We launched the opportunities fund that, so far, has helped over 20,000 people with disabilities develop the skills they need to actually get a job and, with that, the dignity and self-respect that come with having a job.
We partnered with the Canadian Association for Community Living on the ready, willing and able initiative to connect people with developmental disabilities with a job. We also invested in expanding vocational training programs for people with autism spectrum disorders.
Yes, we did more. We removed the GST-HST from eyewear that is specially designed to electronically enhance the vision of individuals with vision impairment, and also from special training to help individuals cope with the effects of a disorder or disability.
We invested hundreds of millions of dollars every year in the labour market agreements for persons with disabilities, to help the provinces and territories improve the employment of Canadians with disabilities.
We released a landmark third-party report, “Rethinking disability in the private sector.” This report spelled out, in very plain language, the many tangible benefits of hiring people with disabilities, including reduced absenteeism, reduced turnover, improved morale, and improved profitability.
I am, rightly, very proud that in 2007, our government created the enabling accessibility fund. This program was designed to provide direct funding to help community groups, municipalities and organizations improve accessibility for people with disabilities, where they work, live and play, such as community centres, town halls, churches, arenas, and so many more local spots.
Over 3,700 facilities were made more accessible through this program. In 2013, we recognized both the value and the success of this program, originally billed as a temporary one, by making the funding permanent. I have to say that when we launched that particular program over 10 years ago, I never expected that I would be so appreciative of the results of those investments 10 years later. I am surely glad they were there, as are thousands and thousands of Canadians who use them every day.
Among many other tax aids, we also created the home accessibility tax credit, for both seniors and those living with disabilities, to renovate and make their own homes more accessible, giving them not just a sense of independence but in fact real independence. We did this because we recognized the contributions that people with disabilities can and do make to our nation and our communities. We recognize the value that a person's independence brings to their dignity.
This is not to say that the accomplishments of our government solved every problem, but they were significant steps in the right direction. That said, I am sure that members would agree that we still have a lot of work to do.
Take for example the presentation of petitions right here in the House of Commons. Almost a year ago exactly, a petition from my constituents was rejected by the Clerk of the House because it was on 11 by 17 inch paper. It has been printed big enough to accommodate constituents who had visual challenges. The paper was deemed too big for the House of Commons, by this House of Commons.
Under the current Standing Orders, petitioners can only petition the House of Commons if the petition is printed on paper described as the “usual size”, meaning letter or legal size only. I had to seek unanimous consent from the House to table this particular petition. Thanks to my colleagues on all sides, unanimous consent was granted and I was allowed to table the petition. However, quite frankly, there is so much text required to be included on a petition now that the font used has to be pretty small if it is going to fit on 8 ½" by 11" piece of paper. That is not fair. It is not fair to our constituents. In fact, it is such a backward a policy to limit the size of paper if all of the required information is there. Personally, I believe that every Canadian should be able to submit a petition on larger paper if it means they can read what they are signing. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing to require.
As someone who was once legally blind, and as the former minister responsible for the disabilities office, I regularly encouraged many institutions and organizations to adopt more accessible friendly policies. It is very disappointing to me that the House is not taking the same approach, at least not so far. Not only does this guideline fail to provide accessibility to Canadians who are visually impaired, but it is also a barrier to their being able to access and fully participate in their government with the same level of engagement as those without visibility challenges.
I am grateful to the House for granting me unanimous consent to table the petition. Frankly, I was hopeful that having this issue brought before the procedure and House affairs committee, or as we know it better, PROC, would lead to positive and permanent change. Sadly, I am now hearing that government members of PROC, the same people introducing Bill C-81, for some strange reason are now withholding their support for this change, a change they once seemed to support. Frankly, I do not understand it. If the government were truly serious about addressing the issues facing Canadians with disabilities, it would have addressed the Standing Order by now. Instead, here we are almost a year later, and Standing Order 36(1.1)(c) still has not been updated. Unfortunately, I wish I could say this was just an oversight. Sadly, it does not seem to be.
During the 2015 election, the Liberals campaigned on a promise to make life more accessible for Canadians with disabilities. For each cabinet shuffle, it has been part of the minister's mandate letter to consult and introduce legislation on this subject as quickly as possible. Here we are three years later and are getting a bill from a minister that is said to have been the result of extreme consultations across Canada. I have no doubt the minister and her staff did extensive consultations across the country on this matter. That is what they claim; it must be true. However, one would normally have expected something of deeper value and more tangible change to have been proposed as a result. Instead, all this piece of legislation does is propose the creation of yet another agency, at a cost of $290 million to taxpayers.
Here is the sad part. None of the money would actually be spent on helping Canadians who face accessibility issues on a day-to-day basis. Instead, it would go to hiring more bureaucrats and paying auditors to audit all government buildings and buildings that fall under federal jurisdiction, such as banks, and for more consultations on what the standard regulations for accessibility should be. In my humble opinion, this would be a waste of money. We do not need more consultations to develop regulations. We have those already. As a matter of fact, during our time in government, we spent many millions of dollars making hundreds of federal buildings more accessible. When we put that in the budget, the Liberals voted against it. We were able to do all of these updates and set regulations without the need for yet another multi-million dollar agency to develop another report.
The proposed legislation says that the regulations, after being developed over the next six years, would apply to the Parliament buildings, among other places.
I have a few questions for the minister. As members of Parliament, we all have at least two offices: one in Ottawa and one, although often more, in the riding. Would auditors be auditing our constituency offices to ensure that they comply with these new regulations? If our offices do not comply, who would be responsible for paying for the upgrades?
I know from my own experience that it was extremely difficult to find office space that was both accessible and affordable in many small towns. Our member office budgets would not cover the cost to make an office accessible because of the high dollar amount involved. Simply building a ramp and altering the front door of my office would have cost three years' rent. The landlord could not reasonably be expected to pay for that, and house management would not pay for it.
In addition to our constituency offices, our Parliament buildings were not designed to be disability-friendly. While we as a government have made great strides in fixing that, these buildings were not designed with accessibility issues in mind.
With Centre Block shutting down in a few months for a much-needed 10-plus years' renovation, has the minister made plans to ensure that when this building reopens it will be disability-friendly for not only Canadians when they visit the Parliament buildings, but also the MPs, senators and thousands of people who support this institution? For example, will rounded doorknobs be changed over to lever knobs? What about the bathroom sink faucets and the toilet flushers? What about the many ramps that need to be built? Will they be built to the appropriate 1-to-10 ratio? How about a distinguishable baseboard that would allow someone with a visual impairment to see where the wall and floor meet? Will there be visual and audible warnings for people in the event of emergencies? Right now in my Confederation Building office the fire alarm is an audio-only alarm. That works for me and my staff, but what if I have guests or what about cleaners who cannot hear? What is planned for wheelchair access to the hill? Perhaps more importantly, what plans exist for true emergency evacuation by wheelchair or walker?
I know that while I was the Minister of Public Works, I took all of these things into consideration and required that they be incorporated into the Parliament Hill renovation design plans. Are those features still included? I know that many of those plans have been changed.
Will the minister ensure that Centre Block and the other Parliament buildings will be accessibility-friendly after these once-in-a-century renovations?
As I mentioned earlier, I am also concerned about the jurisdiction under which this bill is being placed. As the bill currently stands, the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities will be responsible for implementing this bill, yet much of the work will require execution by Public Services and Procurement. I am concerned that as a result of this, the minister will be unable to adequately assess and address the issues as they arise.
While I do support sending this legislation to committee and I do support its intended goal, I have some serious concerns about the need to create a new agency, the amount of funding requested, and how the division of responsibility, authority, and accountability for its implementation will be addressed. I am also concerned that all that this legislation does is essentially reiterate the minister's mandate letter. She has already consulted with Canadians, so instead we should be discussing the regulations, not the creation of another agency.
I look forward to hearing what other members have to say, so that together we can develop legislation that will truly address the very real concerns facing very real Canadians with very real disabilities.
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, on the front lawn of this building is a $5.6 million example of the Liberals' outlandish abuse of taxpayers' dollars.
The Prime Minister commissioned this arena, and it will be open for a very short period of time. The public is only going to have access for 45 minutes, which, quite frankly, is going to be a bit of a relief, because according to the rules, all one is allowed to do is go around, around, and around.
How can the Prime Minister justify this expense that will be on the backs of our grandchildren and children?
View Mélanie Joly Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to announce last week that the Canada 150 rink will be open through the 40th anniversary of Winterlude and until the end of February. This will be a great legacy project, a first in front of Parliament Hill. Afterward, the rink will be given to a community in need. There will be hockey, ringette, sledge hockey for children and adult men and women, and many other activities. Thousands of Canadians will enjoy the delights of this great rink.
I invite my colleague to put on her skates. It will be a pleasure for me to go and skate with her.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Jacques Gourde Profile
CPC (QC)
View Jacques Gourde Profile
2017-11-28 15:02 [p.15691]
Mr. Speaker, with $5.6 million how many outdoor skating rinks could we renew across Canada to get young children and their families to skate for the next 25 years?
Instead of fuelling this Prime Minister's boundless egocentrism, why did this Prime Minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage not consider investing all that money into several skating rinks. Instead of skating on just one temporary outdoor rink to the tune of $5.6 million for the sake of a photo op on New Year's Eve—
View Mélanie Joly Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, last week, I announced that the Canada 150 skating rink will remain open until the end of February for the 40th anniversary of Winterlude. This great legacy project, a skating rink in front of Parliament, is a first and the skating rink will be donated to a community in need, as my colleague said.
There will be hockey games, ringuette, and sledge hockey for young and old, men and women alike. Thousands of people are expected in front of Parliament. I hope that my colleague will join me for the Canada 150 celebrations.
View Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
View Gord Johns Profile
2017-11-27 12:40 [p.15601]
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the concerns of my colleague from Calgary Shepard around Liberal spending. Perhaps he could comment on this. Recently, we learned there is a skating rink being built in front of Parliament that will cost Canadian taxpayers $5.6 million. This is a block away from the world's largest and longest skating rink at the Rideau Canal, and four blocks away from the rink of dreams the City of Ottawa has as well.
I am concerned. Not one person from Courtney—Alberni is going to use that rink. In fact, we need a rink. The five nations in the central region of Vancouver Island, Tofino, and Ucluelet are looking to build a hockey rink, and they need around that amount for the federal government's share to build a rink in our region.
We know the government is confused in terms of its decision-making, and governing is about decision-making. It is going to cost over $215,000 a day for a temporary hockey rink. Perhaps the member could share his comments and thoughts on how that is impacting people in his community, and across Canada, and how they feel about it.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2017-11-27 12:41 [p.15601]
Mr. Speaker, that is the member's pinch point, how the government is spending. The Liberals are bad stewards of the resources Canadian taxpayers are forced to give them through taxation. This $5.6-million project is a good example.
I will give him an example from my riding. Right behind my constituency office, there is a space allocated for a fully enclosed lacrosse facility that has been waiting for funds from a new recreational program of the federal government. We have the matching funds, $1.5 million, ready to go. This would be a year-round facility for lacrosse players—about 6,000 of them all across Calgary—to go and play. It would revitalize the area we are in.
My constituency office is inside the city, but I still find deer at my back door, among people who have nowhere else to go who sometimes sleep there, unfortunately. It would revitalize the area. It would fundamentally change Ogden, and the commercial area it is in, for $1.5 million of matching funds.
This gives us an example. This would be a year-round fully built facility run by volunteers, and $1.5 million is all they are looking for, but in return $5.6 million was spent on this hockey rink just outside Parliament Hill.
I heard a member ask why I do not like hockey. I love hockey, but no one can play hockey on it. It is a hockey rink with no hockey allowed.
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Speaker, we are standing two blocks away from the longest skating rink in the world. Four blocks away at City Hall there is a lovely outdoor facility, however, the government sees nothing wrong with spending $5.6 million for a temporary rink on Parliament Hill. It works out to about 300 taxpayer dollars per spin. Now we hear it is going to be rebuilt in Ottawa. Will the minister at least commit to sending this rink to a community in the north where the season is long and the need is great?
View Mélanie Joly Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, of course we are really delighted with this new project.
If my colleague had listened to what I have said in the past, this rink will be given to a community in need afterwards. Meanwhile, Canadians will have until February to enjoy the great Winterlude and also this important infrastructure.
I hope I will have the chance to go on the ice and enjoy ice-skating with her. This is a great way to celebrate Canada 150.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I did not get under the wire for my 20 minutes, but I will try to keep my comments confined to 10.
I am pleased to speak to the budget implementation act, but I would like to create a bit of context before I get into a couple of details contained within it. In the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals made specific promises to Canadians. They promised that they would have tiny deficits of $10 billion a year and that they would get back to balanced budgets during their time in office. They also indicated that dollars would be spent predominantly on infrastructure in the provinces and territories.
The first thing we have to recognize is that everything they have done since, in terms of the budget and budget implementation acts, has violated their promise to Canadians. The Liberals made a promise about what they were going to do with respect to deficits and how they were going to spend Canadians' money. That was an important promise, and it is shameful that they are breaking that promise.
The Liberals are breaking their promise at a time when it is not necessary. I will acknowledge that had the economy been struggling, they might have had to provide a bit of stimulus. However, they took office with a surplus budget and a growing economy. The Liberals are quite proud to say that the economy is going well, so why do they need to spend all of this extra money? That is an important place to start.
There are three areas that the government directly controls. It controls the creation of an environment that would be positive for jobs, opportunity, and growth. It controls bringing money into its coffers through our tax system, and it obviously controls how to spend that money. I would suggest that these three functions need to be carefully aligned. In this budget, which deals predominantly with the expenditure side of things, the government is completely out of alignment with the other three features. We need an environment that is going to create success. We need a fair tax system, and we need to have a reasonable spending plan.
I would like to touch briefly on tax generation. Not only do the Liberals want this $20 billion deficit with no plan for getting back to balanced budgets, but they are desperately looking for ways to get more money. The interesting thing is that they have floated out a whole bunch of ideas, but they have never done anything that would impact the personal wealth of the Prime Minister, the finance minister, or their Liberal friends who are enjoying some tax benefits that most of us do not enjoy.
The small business tax was an idea that was floated out by the Liberals. It would have hurt our small businesses in terms of how they dealt with passive income and how they would grow their companies. However, the Liberals did nothing with respect to tax avoidance schemes that are used by their wealthy friends.
The Liberals floated out the idea of taxing the health benefits of teachers who make $80,000 a year, yet they are not going to worry about shares that are held in a company like Morneau Shepell and the finance minister's introduction of legislation around pensions.
The Liberals also talked about taxing employee discounts. They realized that the accounting nightmare of charging taxes on the value of a Big Mac would be a little over the top, so they walked away from that idea very quickly.
The Liberals are denying disability tax credits to people who have diabetes. They said they would hire more nurses who would review the paperwork that has already been done by doctors and nurse practitioners. They were considering hiring nurses for the Canada Revenue Agency to review the paperwork, so they could justify their denial of disability tax credits for diabetics.
Free advice for the government would be that it perhaps should be spending those dollars for nurses on more people to look at tax havens and tax-avoidance issues. Very clearly, there is one set of rules for the Prime Minister and his friends and another set of rules for the rest of us.
I will now go to tax expenditures, the other part of the budget. I will start small and work up to some of the larger issues. Money matters. How Liberals spend hard-earned tax dollars really matters. I have some examples of how they are choosing to spend money. If people were to walk a one-kilometre circle in this area, they would see a cup, which apparently cost $2.5 million. It is some sort of structure sitting on Sparks Street. They have chosen to build a $5-million hockey rink. If people were to walk a little further, they would know that City Hall has a beautiful skating rink all year round, but Liberals chose to spend $5 million for a hockey rink that I believe is going to be open for about a month.
Just yesterday, we heard that $10 million is going to a private business to build a Club Med in Quebec. There are many in my riding who would say that if the government is going to subsidize and support the resort industry, there are many who be very happy to be at the table and receive $10 million. However, there was a reason, when Conservatives were in government, that we did not do that kind of thing. It was because we did not believe that kind of corporate handout was to the benefit of anyone.
I have to speak about something in this particular bill that I have had no reasonable explanation for. Nothing has been said by the Liberal government that gives me any comfort that this will be money well spent. That, of course, is the half a billion dollars going to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. That is in division 5, part 2. The original explanation from the finance minister's communications person was that this is going to create jobs here at home and will help the middle class. What fantasy world would someone have to live in to believe that giving half a billion dollars to an Asian infrastructure bank that is building bridges and roads in Asia is going to create jobs here at home and help the middle class? I would note that if there were opportunities abroad, Canadians are not precluded from bidding on those jobs anyway. There has been no reasonable explanation for that half a billion dollars. When I was in Yellowknife not so long ago, I saw a huge need for infrastructure there.
This leaves me a couple of minutes to talk about creating an environment for success. The north is a great example. It created a moratorium on oil and gas drilling and decided to turn significant areas into parks. The premier of the Northwest Territories said that southerners want all of the north to be their park. Southerners are taking away their dreams and hopes, and creating a nightmare for them. They are putting a carbon tax on them and they are going to be not only the most impacted by climate change, but the ones most impacted by a carbon tax, with nothing to support the impact that is going to have. They are taking away jobs and opportunities, imposing additional costs, and destroying a community.
In conclusion, I suggest that the budget implementation act is a follow-through on broken promises from an election campaign. It would go after law-abiding small businesses to grab dollars wherever the Liberals can and create an increasingly negative climate for investment. Although there may be a couple of measures that are reasonable and supportable, the BIA 2 would simply continue a very flawed fundamental approach by the government to the finances of our nation.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2017-10-30 13:59 [p.14670]
Mr. Speaker, last week we stood together in a moment of silence in memory of the tragic event of October 22, 2014.
We never had a public inquiry in this country as to the breakdown of security that allowed an armed man into this building. However, without any inquiry we do know that the House of Commons' protective guards performed professionally and courageously, under the leadership of the former Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers.
Without a proper review, the previous government decided that the solution was to put the RCMP in charge of all Parliament Hill security, essentially demoting the very people who protected us. As a result, we now see ongoing labour negotiations and small signs of protest by our protective guards, who are now facing disciplinary action. They are not being treated with respect in labour negotiations by their new bosses. I ask all members of Parliament to stand up for the guards, just as they protected us then.
View Ruth Ellen Brosseau Profile
NDP (QC)
Madam Speaker, just over three years ago, I was in the Railway Committee Room when we heard gunshots outside our caucus room. A bullet even lodged itself in the room's door. Before we knew what was happening, an officer from our security service entered the room. He calmly and professionally told us what we needed to do to remain safe. The officers protected us that day at the risk of being wounded themselves. They saved us, and I think that they are deserving of our respect.
These guards have been trying to get a collective agreement to improve working conditions, shift predictability, and eliminate forced overtime. They have decided to wear green hats, bracelets, and stickers to ask for the respect that they deserve, a very Canadian protest: measured, polite, and efficient. The response has been threats of discipline and even suspensions. The very guard who took a bullet three years ago is facing a suspension for exercising his fundamental rights. That is wrong. I ask the managers to come to an equitable agreement with the guards and show—
View Andy Fillmore Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Andy Fillmore Profile
2017-09-22 12:45 [p.13412]
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Quadra.
I am proud to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.
Our government was elected on a promise to reinforce public trust in our democracy, and over the course of our time in office, we have put action behind our words. For example, we are reforming campaign finance laws to make one of the world's most respected democracies even more transparent. We have introduced legislation to make Canada's democracy more accessible to all Canadians. The debate today is about another of the fundamental concepts of any modern democracy.
We know Canadians cannot meaningfully participate in democracy when they are in an information vacuum. Access to government data is vital. Without it, neither the public nor the media are able to hold governments to account. That is why our government promised to firm up one of the key pillars of our democracy: access to information.
We told Canadians we would make information open by default, and in formats that would be modern and simple to use. Canadians pay for the information that is assembled in the Government of Canada, so why should they not have access to this data? This greater openness in turn will lead to greater confidence in our democracy, which is why this government has put such a great emphasis on amending the Access to Information Act with Bill C-58.
This is the first major overhaul since our predecessors in this very institution voted in favour of the current act 35 years ago, so it is long overdue.
The act, which was enacted in Parliament in 1982, and took effect the following year, came long before anyone had ever heard of the Internet. Governments in those days had far more administrators and clerks, because there was so much paperwork to file and record. One could not just flip a written message to a colleague by email. If one wanted to send an interesting news article to a counterpart in another department, one could not just forward a link. One's options were limited to things like a fax machine or an inter-office courier.
Today, technology has dramatically changed how governments operate, and we need to align our laws to take into account this new reality. We have a responsibility to make it easier to obtain information and once Canadians get it, that information should be in easy-to-use formats. We can think of the graduate students, like those at Dalhousie University or Saint Mary's University in my riding of Halifax, who are out there doing groundbreaking research but operating on tight timelines. We want them to be able to, when possible, obtain an electronic version of government records so they can more easily navigate and analyze the documents. Think of the time that will be saved if they do not have to go through hundreds of pages to find what they are looking for.
Now Bill C-58 has many components, but for now I would like to focus on how it impacts parliamentary institutions. I am talking about the Library of Parliament, the parliamentary budget officer, the Parliamentary Protective Service, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Office of the Senate Ethics Officer, and the administration of the Senate and of the House of Commons. These institutions are foundational components of our democracy, and Bill C-58 proposes to bring them under the Access to Information Act to make them more accountable. The proposed legislation will require these institutions to publish each quarter their travel and hospitality expenses as well as disclose over the same timeline any contracts with a value above $10,000.
Another important component of Bill C-58 is the new powers it would give to our Information Commissioner. This is of particular interest to me, both in my role as a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions as well as the member of Parliament for Halifax.
Not too long ago, I met with representatives from a group based in Halifax called the Centre for Law and Democracy, whose mission is to:
...promote, protect and develop those human rights which serve as the foundation for or underpin democracy, including the rights to freedom of expression, to vote and participate in governance, to access information and to freedom of assembly and association.
Some members may be familiar with the centre's work on the right to information rating, or RTI, which is developed along with Access Info Europe to calculate and rate the overall strength of countries' right to information laws.
The topic of the Information Commissioner was one I discussed with representatives of this group in my office during a meeting in the spring. They believe, as I do, and so too does our government believe, that the Information Commissioner ought to have the ability to order the release of records, or so-called “order making”. I am proud to say that Bill C-58 would give the Information Commissioner that power. I would like to congratulate and thank the Centre for Law and Democracy on its strong advocacy on this point, and for its ongoing work in Canada and across the world to strengthen democratic institutions.
It is important to note that the legislation would also give government institutions the ability to decline requests that are excessively broad or requests of information already in the public domain.
The government has limited resources, and this will free up government institutions to respond to other requesters. Of course the applicant subjected to a decision like this would be able to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner.
Bill C-58 would also oblige members of Parliament and senators to publish all travel and hospitality expenses, and all service contract amounts. In both cases, this information would have to be made public on a quarterly basis.
We know senators and members of Parliament already publish travel and hospitality expenses pursuant to their own internal rules, and senators disclose service contract information, while MPs publish the total costs of awarded service contracts.
Importantly, Bill C-58 would enshrine the current practice of also requiring additional details on the service contracts and travel costs of MPs.
This legislation will require a review of the act every five years, starting in 2019. This will give Canadians an opportunity to look for further improvements.
We believe Canada deserves a vibrant democracy that is transparent, open, and accountable, but our efforts do not begin and end with changes to the Access to Information Act.
We have been relentless since taking office to look for other ways to improve our democratic system. For instance, Bill C-33 would amend the Canada Elections Act to increase voter participation and improve the integrity of our electoral system. Bill C-50, meanwhile, if passed, will make important changes to the same act to make political fundraising more open and transparent. We are also taking action against cyber-threats and the danger they pose to our electoral system.
We live in one of the most respected democracies in the world, but our government will remain relentless in ensuring that any weaknesses are dealt with. Bill C-58 is a major part of this effort, and I am proud to work with the Minister of Democratic Institutions to advance it. With that, I welcome any questions from my colleagues.
View Andy Fillmore Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Andy Fillmore Profile
2017-09-22 12:55 [p.13414]
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to imagine anything that creates more cynicism than being chastised for doing the right thing.
We are very proud to be doing the right thing. It is overdue. We are taking a very good, fundamental step toward increasing openness and transparency through this bill and through many actions across the mandate of the government. We are ensuring that these changes impact a variety of our parliamentary institutions, including the Library of Parliament, the parliamentary budget officer, the Parliamentary Protective Service, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Office of the Senate Ethics Officer, the administration of both the Senate and House of Commons, and the list goes on.
We are fundamentally doing the work of good democracy in Canada to create the most open and transparent democracy we can.
View Joyce Murray Profile
Lib. (BC)
View Joyce Murray Profile
2017-09-22 12:58 [p.13414]
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-58, a comprehensive set of amendments to the Access to Information Act that would deliver on our government's key commitment to improve openness and transparency in government. If passed, these amendments would make progress in bringing Canada's access to information legislation in line with the communication advances of the last three decades.
The act has not been significantly updated since it came into force 34 years ago, when fax machines were cutting edge and information was stored in huge filing rooms. As we all know, however, the world has evolved considerably since then. Today, it is smart phones and social media, big data and high-speed Internet.
Canadians seek out information through digital channels, and government can now interact with the public through the web and social media. Moreover, the volume of information the government manages has dramatically increased.
I think we can all agree that the current act needs to be brought up to date.
We have certainly been hearing that so far in the debate.
This is why the government committed to reforming Canada’s access to information program. This modernization began with early action to improve access to information.
In May 2016, the President of the Treasury Board issued an interim directive that enshrined the principle of open by default. He eliminated all fees, apart from the $5 filing fee, and directed the release of government information in user-friendly formats wherever possible. Fees for processing large-volume requests could run into the hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of dollars and sometimes deterred people from having access to public information.
Those were good first steps. Today we are maintaining that elimination of fees, and we are bringing forward transformative measures to enhance Canadians' access to government information.
Let me begin with one of many ground-breaking features of our proposed legislation. For the very first time, the Information Commissioner would have order-making power. No access to information regime is complete without powerful and meaningful oversight. We promised Canadians that we would find ways to empower the Office of the Information Commissioner to order government information to be released.
The bill before us today would do just that. This is something that has come up again and again in the debate as one of the key things that are a necessary change, and we are making that change. This change would strengthen the commissioner's role from that of an ombudsperson to that of an authority with a legislative ability to order government institutions to release records.
The legislation also proposes to entrench in law, for future and current governments, an obligation to proactively publish a broad range of information on a predictable schedule and without the need for anyone to make an access to information request for that information.
The amendments would create a new part of the act on proactive publication which builds on current best practices, applies consistent requirements across government institutions, and seizes on the opportunities of our digital age.
These amendments would result in the proactive release of key information throughout government.
This is a process that would take place across literally hundreds of offices and departments of the government. It would allow our citizens a greater understanding of government and would demonstrate effective stewardship of public funds.
Here is another first. Through this legislative system of mandatory proactive disclosure, the act would, for the first time ever, include ministers' offices, the Prime Minister's Office, institutions that support Parliament, administrative institutions that support the courts, and more than 1,100 judges of the superior courts.
This system of mandatory proactive disclosure puts a strong emphasis on increasing the information that is open by default and making information that is of interest to Canadians freely available on the web.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a few more features of the reforms we will make to our access to information regime.
Having just spoken about the proactive publication that is key to our commitment to openness by default, I also want to mention a few other things we are doing in the bill.
We will develop a new plain language guide that will provide requesters with clear explanations of exemptions and exclusions. The rationale for these exclusions will be laid out, a rationale that will be in the public interest.
We would invest in tools to make processing information more efficient. That is an important way to address one of the key weaknesses of our current system, which is how many access to information requests are not responded to in a timely way.
The bill would allow federal institutions that have the same minister to share their request processing services for greater efficiency and timeliness. It would support the new legislation with government training. There are many things we would do.
It is important to note that many of our changes were initiated at the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
It would be subject to the oversight of the Information Commissioner. The bill proposes that if a department decides to decline to act on a request, the requester will have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner, and the Commissioner could use the new order-making power to resolve the issue.
This is a new authority that could significantly improve the system, but it needs to be implemented with care.
We look forward to debating the proposed provisions with parliamentarians in a thoughtful way. All these changes were designed to address criticism from Canadians about delays and inconsistencies in the current request-based system and recommendations from stakeholders, such as the Information Commissioner and our colleagues at the ETHI committee.
We can never become complacent when it comes to openness and transparency. That is why the reforms before us today are the first legislative phase in what would be an ongoing review and modernization of the act.
The legislation would require a review of the act every five years, and as I pointed out earlier in the debate, the first review would start no later than one year after royal assent, so this is really an ongoing improvement process. These five-year reviews would provide an important opportunity for Canadians to have their say on access rights and would help us make sure that the system met their needs.
These reviews will assess what is working and how, and ensure that the act is never allowed to become so outdated again. Today, I am proud to be part of the first government to bring significant change to the Access to Information Act since it was first introduced over 30 years ago.
I encourage all members to support this work and this bill, and in doing so help us take a great step forward in updating the Access to Information Act.
I also look forward to continuing to work with Parliament, the Information Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, and other stakeholders to further strengthen our access to information regime.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
View Pat Kelly Profile
2017-09-22 13:12 [p.13417]
Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve a government that is accountable and open by default. For that to be possible, Canadians must have access to information about government decisions and practices to hold their government to account. While the Liberal government pays lips service to those ideals of openness and accountability, it has consistently fallen short of implementing them. We have seen this in a variety of areas, particularly with the statement by the Prime Minister on open and accountable government.
The stated aim of Bill C-58 is to update the Access to Information Act with necessary reforms. However, as with many Liberal promises, it fails to achieve them. We have heard them invoking flowery language and buzz words and making grand-sounding claims as a substitute for action in many instances in this Parliament. This bill is no different in many respects, and I will get to some of them.
An open and accountable government requires citizens to have access to information about decisions made by Parliament and government entities. Since the first Access to Information Act was introduced in 1983, the act has provided Canadians with the means to request information about themselves, or decisions affecting them. However, because of significant changes in information technology and in government operations and the passage of time, the act has not been meaningfully updated since it was first introduced, and many critics across all party lines have identified the need for reform.
The Conservatives introduced the idea of openness by default in the previous parliament. In 1983, it was originally a Liberal government that introduced the act. However, successive Conservative and Liberal governments have neglected to update it as required. Although I guess the current Liberal government is to be commended for undertaking the task in the first place, we see many shortcomings in the resulting bill. Bill C-58 does not adequately address many of the flaws in Canada's current access to information regime that we heard about in detail at committee.
When I was a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, we conducted a detailed study of the act and the issues surrounding it. We heard from numerous witnesses, from accountability watchdogs to ATIP officers in government departments to Canada's Information Commissioner, and others. We reviewed the commissioner's comprehensive report on the state of access to information in Canada and adopted many of her key recommendations in our own report. All three parties on the committee co-operated to draft a thoughtful report, with sensible recommendations for access to information reform. However, the government's response to our report is both late and underwhelming. The Liberals promised that phase one of the ministerial level review of Canada's access to information regime would be completed in time to produce legislation in early 2017. Here we are in late September and just beginning today to debate the bill, which many critics consider to be a half measure.
One of the primary flaws that witnesses at committee pointed out is the culture of secrecy throughout government. Such a culture runs contrary to both Liberal promises and Conservative initiatives. This has run across party lines over time. For example, the Conservatives hold that Canada's government should be open by default. In the last parliament, the Conservative government released a study titled “Canada's Action Plan on Open Government”, in which the Conservatives recognized the following:
The key challenge for governments is how to shift to an environment where data and information are released openly to the public by default while respecting privacy, security, and confidentiality restrictions.
Such an environment represents a fundamental change in government culture that requires government-wide direction to drive the release of federal information and advance overall objectives for transparency, accountability, and citizen engagement.
Such an environment of disclosure would be a stark departure from what witnesses at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics described as a culture of secrecy among government entities.
According to witnesses like Sean Holman, vice-president of the Canadian Association of Journalists, the general attitude of the public service is one of withholding instead of disclosing information, and one of caution instead of candour. This attitude flows from the act and from cabinet. Mr. Holman put it clearly when he said:
We have a cultural problem when it comes to secrecy....Fixing the Access to Information Act is only one part of addressing those problems....the problem with the Access to Information Act when it was introduced was that it was grafted onto a secretive political system. We did not deal with the actual problem; we instead introduced legislation that conformed to the system as it currently existed.
He was referring to the adoption of the original act in 1983, which has remained virtually unchanged since then.
This is not to criticize Canada's public servants, since they respond to direction from the top. Those that enter the public service walk into a culture that already exists. Bringing about a culture of openness by default requires buy-in from ministers, the Prime Minister, deputy ministers, and senior managers among all departments. Culture cannot be changed overnight and simply by adopting a new law in Parliament.
Openness and accountability require timely responses. Witnesses at committee complained bitterly about the delays in the service standards for responding to ATIPS. They mentioned that extension after extension can take response times of up to over a year in some cases. This diminishes the news value of information for journalists. It puts people's lives on hold in some circumstances when they need vital information, and brings to mind the adage that justice delayed is justice denied.
Bill C-58 includes some of the committee's recommendations, the most significant of which is granting the commissioner the power to issue binding orders for the disclosure of particular information. Although it should increase the public's access to information, such order-making power is not a panacea for solving a culture of secrecy. Also, it was not uniformly endorsed in witness testimony, although it was the final recommendation of the committee.
The committee heard from witnesses like Professor Michel Drapeau, a retired colonel and access to information and privacy lawyer. He argued that switching to an order-making model is unnecessary because the issue and the problem that existed was the culture in government and the lack of openness in which departmental ATIP officers responded or operated in.
If within a department the ATIP officers and other members of the public service have a mindset and a culture to openly disclose information and to think first of ensuring that it is released on a timely basis, we might not be arguing about whether or not order-making power is necessary to compel disclosure. Delay is the biggest failure perhaps, which will not be solved by merely establishing order-making power for the commissioner.
We are glad to see that Bill C-58 requires the minister to undertake a review at least within one year of royal assent and every five years thereafter. Hopefully, that will prevent us from going another 34 years without a review of the act. It is important, because we know that the pace of change in information technology and the evolution of that technology is very fast, and as long as political will continues to exist to review the act in the future, it is good to have the built-in provision for review.
The provisions in Bill C-58 requiring proactive publication of materials related to Parliament, ministers' offices, superior courts, and other government institutions are a welcome addition to the access to information regime and should contribute to the culture of openness by default, but there is certainly a long way to go to establish that change of culture.
Proactive disclosure of sought after information should increase democratic accountability and pre-empt many requests, but proactive disclosure by various parliamentary and governmental entities is not the same as extending the scope of the Access to Information Act to cover them. It is not what the committee recommended nor what the commissioner recommended and not what the Liberals promised in their 2015 election platform, and it is not what the Prime Minister ordered in the mandate letter of the President of the Treasury Board.
The minister's mandate letter instructs him to lead a review of the act and implement certain reforms, such as ensuring that “the Act applies appropriately to the Prime Minister’s and Ministers’ Offices, as well as administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts.”
Ensuring that the act applies to the prime minister's and ministers' offices requires more than proactive disclosure of a limited list of useful information, but this is not the only recommendation that the bill either ignores or only partially addresses.
Our report suggested several matters that the government should consider or consult on during the second phase of its review. I welcome an update from the government on the state of those considerations and consultations.
Open and accountable government requires an access to information regime that ensures timely responses to ATIP requests. This applies to all elements of the Government of Canada, with a few important exceptions, namely, to protect parliamentary privilege, cabinet confidence, and national security. This prevents government entities from wiggling out of disclosure obligations. That is why the committee recommended that the minister consult the organizations that support Parliament, such as the Clerks of the Senate and the House of Commons, and the parliamentary librarian to determine how to effectively protect parliamentary privilege and create an independent review process for such provisions.
To improve timely response to ATIP requests, we recommended limiting extensions to only those cases where strictly necessary, and even then, only for a maximum of 30 days. We also recommended repealing exclusions in the act and replacing them with exemptions as needed. As Ken Rubin mentioned, when responding to a question at committee, we cannot expect to change a culture of secrecy just by giving order-making power to the commissioner, and especially not if all the carve-outs remain in place through the retention of an extensive list of exemptions.
Eliminating exclusions, which are stated areas that the act does not cover, and replacing them with exemptions, which would allow government entities to refuse requests on specific grounds, would provide greater oversight of Canada's access to information regime. It would also shift the culture of the public service more toward openness by default.
To protect the vital governance work of Parliament, the committee recommended adding a mandatory exemption for cabinet confidences when disclosure would reveal the substance of cabinet deliberations, except when such discussions cover a period of factual or background information when there is consent for disclosure of the information, and so forth.
For ease of understanding, to reduce the volume of requests received and to contribute to a culture of openness by default, the committee recommended that institutions respond to ATIP requests by providing information in open, reusable, and accessible file formats, such as pdf, Word, Excel, and similar formats, instead of obscure and highly specialized ones.
Although useful in their own right, the measures the committee recommended would not create a comprehensive access to information regime with great swaths of government entities that are not subject to the act.
Aaron Wudrick of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation pointed out at committee that “as a general principle the federal Access to Information Act should cover all of the federal government, including both government-controlled and government-funded areas.” The principle here is quite simple: where taxpayers' money is being spent, the public deserves accountability and transparency.
To address such an extension of the act, the Information Commissioner stated that “The use of criteria as a way to determine which entities should be subject to the Act is a rational approach to coverage, as it promotes predictability with respect to which entities are subject to the Act.” Moreover, it guarantees that institutions performing similar functions are also subject to it. Her criteria included whether an entity is covered because it is publicly controlled in whole or in part by the government; whether it performs public functions under federal jurisdiction because it has power to regulate and set standards under federal jurisdiction because it is charged with executing federal policy; whether it is established by federal statute; or whether it is one of the many covered by the Financial Administration Act.
The government has undertaken a review of Canada's access to information regime and has made a first attempt at updating the act. We are disappointed that the President of the Treasury Board has ignored many of the committee's recommendations. What could have been a good start on a worthy project has become something of a disappointment to the members, witnesses, and the Information Commissioner herself, who contributed to a detailed study on the topic. The President of the Treasury Board seems to expect extraordinary credit for these meagre steps that do not seem likely to fix all of the problems in an access to information system that is widely described by critics as broken.
This morning, the minister made it out as if Bill C-58 would instantly transform Canada into a world leader in access to information. That is simply not the case. Many of the problems will remain in place. Comparatively, we have a country like Serbia, which was not even a sovereign nation but part of a federation under a Communist dictatorship in 1983 when our act was brought in. It is ranked ahead of Canada by international observers. This is not a credit to the current system. As well, we can compare to countries such as Sweden, which as had access to information law for 250 years. Witnesses could not believe that in Canada it would take months and months to get information that would routinely be released in 24 hours in countries like that.
The government is trying to take far too much credit for this reform. I urge the minister to reconsider Bill C-58 and correct its many deficiencies. I encourage the new members of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to take advantage of review stage and amend it. Canada indeed deserves an open and accountable government, with a sensible and comprehensive access to information regime. We deserve better than Bill C-58.
I will not support this bill. To do so would be to reward the government for breaking its election promises and taking credit for window dressing, which it has described as a grand and comprehensive solution.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2017-06-19 15:39 [p.12915]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 34th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, entitled “Question of Privilege Regarding the Free Movement of Members of Parliament within the Parliamentary Precinct”.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2017-06-15 15:19 [p.12781]
I have the honour to lay upon the table a document regarding the extension of the parliamentary precinct for the purposes of the celebration of Canada Day, pursuant to section 79.51 of the Parliament of Canada Act.
View David Christopherson Profile
NDP (ON)
View David Christopherson Profile
2017-05-11 15:07 [p.11091]
Mr. Speaker, it is actually a question of privilege.
Once again I find myself joining others who are rising to raise an issue of my rights being infringed. I rise, believe me, much more in sorrow than in anger, because the incident that happened occurred within less than an hour of my being at a PROC meeting where we were dealing with exactly this issue, privilege being denied in terms of access to the Hill.
I want to say at the outset that I would ask for just a couple of moments to describe what happened. In the interest of time and in fairness, because we are dealing with this at PROC, I will not be asking you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on whether this is a prima facie case, but I will be asking my colleagues at PROC to accept this as one more example of a challenge that we have to overcome.
Very briefly, I left my office in the Justice Building on my way over here. I did not lose a vote nor did I lose a chance to speak, but I did have a side meeting set up at the request of the Minister of Democratic Institutions, and I did miss that. There were implications for this.
I came out of Justice Building. I went to get on the green bus, and the driver said something to the effect that there was hardly any point getting on because the bus could not get up on the Hill because of demonstrators. I said that we should get on the bus and see how far we could go, and we would take it from there. There was one other colleague on the bus.
We got as far as the “car wash”, the vehicle security area, and we were stopped again. Another bus was in front us. After a few minutes, the driver had no idea when things were going to be freed up, so I got off the bus. I went over and talked to the immediate staff, the person who was doing traffic control. He did not know but said that it could be a delay of five to 10 minutes.
The driver had mentioned that all the people were walking up where the bus goes, and it was only just as we were arriving that security was putting up the fencing so that people could walk along on the Hill parallel to Wellington Street, but still leave room for the bus to go. Once that was in place, once we went through a bit of traffic management, we did finally get under way.
My point is this. Over and over, ad nauseam, we have raised the issue of the lack of planning. Once again, had that fence already been in place to accommodate the Canadians who are entitled to be on their Parliament Hill, there would not have been any stoppage. It again speaks to making the planning of member of Parliament's access to Parliament Hill a priority. We really are getting tired of saying this over and over again.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude now, but I just want to say to my colleagues on PROC, by virtue of my not taking a lot of time to make this a big issue here, that I hope they will allow me to make this part of our review so that when we are looking at recommendations for change, it is both the case that you referred to us and this incident that has happened to me here today.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2017-05-11 15:10 [p.11092]
I thank the hon. member for Hamilton Centre very much for raising this issue. He is of course familiar with the ruling that I made on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Beauce and the hon. member for Milton some time ago, which of course is before PROC, also known as the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I thank him very much for raising this, and I look forward to the report of the committee in due course.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2017-04-06 10:24 [p.10245]
I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 22, 2017, by the member for Milton regarding delayed access to the parliamentary precinct.
I would like to thank the hon. member for having raised this matter, as well as the members for Beauce, Perth—Wellington, and Hamilton Centre for their comments.
In raising this matter, the member for Milton indicated that she was prevented from attending a vote in the House of Commons and, thus, impeded in the performance of her parliamentary duties when her access to the parliamentary precinct through her normal transport was temporarily blocked. The member for Beauce confirmed that he was subjected to the same delay.
As Speaker, it is my role to ensure that the privileges of the House and the individual privileges of members are protected, including that of freedom from obstruction; for it is that privilege of unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct which ensures that members are able to discharge their responsibilities as elected representatives. I take my role in this regard very seriously. That is why upon hearing the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Milton I stated that I would obtain a report into what occurred.
In fact I have received two reports of the incident. The first, from the House of Commons Corporate Security Officer and Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, provides an excellent minute-by-minute summary of events and is supplemented by witness statements. The second report was received from the acting director of the Parliamentary Protective Service.
Based on these reports, here is what appears to have happened on March 22nd. At approximately 3:47 p.m., the bollards at or by the vehicle screening facility were lowered to allow for the arrival of a bus transporting journalists to Centre Block for the presentation of the budget. The media bus, under Parliamentary Protective Service escort, immediately proceeded to Centre Block. Seconds later, after the media bus had proceeded, a House of Commons shuttle bus arrived at the vehicle screening facility but was not allowed to proceed to Centre Block. In the ensuing minutes, two more shuttle buses arrived at the vehicle screening facility and were similarly delayed. I am informed that members were on at least some of these buses.
During these delays, which lasted a total of nine minutes, two members, the member for Milton and the member for Beauce, were waiting at the bus shelter near the vehicle screening facility. At approximately 3:54 p.m., the member for Beauce entered the vehicle screening facility and made inquiries of parliamentary protective staff about the delays and then decided at approximately 3:55 p.m. to leave the bus shelter and walk up the Hill. As members will know, it was around this time that a vote was commencing in the House.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, on page 110, states:
Incidents involving physical obstruction—such as traffic barriers, security cordons and union picket lines either impeding Members’ access to the Parliamentary Precinct or blocking their free movement within the precinct...have been found to be prima facie cases of privilege.
The importance of the matter of members' access to the precinct, particularly when there are votes for members to attend, cannot be overstated. It bears repeating that even a temporary denial of access, whether there is a vote or not, cannot be tolerated. The Parliamentary Protective Service needs to better familiarize itself with the operations of the House so that its posture reflects and gives priority to the needs of the House, its committees, and its members at all times, and it needs to ensure that Parliamentary Protective Service staff are always alert to changing circumstances in this regard.
-–This was stressed as long ago as 2004, when, in its 21st report, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs stated:
The denial of access to Members of the House—even if temporary—is unacceptable, and constitutes a contempt of the House. Members must not be impeded or interfered with while on their way to the Chamber, or when going about their parliamentary business. To permit this would interfere with the operation of the House of Commons, and undermine the pre-eminent right of the House to the service of its Members.
As my predecessor stated on March 15, 2012, at page 6333 of Debates:
...the implementation of security measures cannot override the right of Members to unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct, free from obstruction or interference.
Obviously these kinds of incidents, which have given rise to the issue now before us, have been all too frequent. It is for this reason that my predecessor stated on May 12, 2015, at page 13,760 of Debates that protective personnel:
...need to know the community they serve. They need to be sensitive and responsive to the community they serve, and they need to be familiar with the expectations of the community they serve. This includes having the primary function of this place top of mind as they go about performing their duties.
Clearly there was a failure in that regard on this occasion.
It is precisely to prevent the recurrence of events like that of March 22nd that some months ago I asked the director of the Parliamentary Protective Service, as one of his annual objectives, to provide mandatory training on an ongoing basis for all members of the service on the privileges, rights, immunities, and powers of the House of Commons, including unfettered access of members of the House of Commons to the parliamentary precinct.
The Chair has every confidence that the leadership of the Parliamentary Protective Service will be able to achieve this important understanding of the parliamentary community they serve by availing themselves of all opportunities available for relevant training, including those previously offered by the procedural staff of the House.
In the meantime, given the evidence that members were impeded in the fulfilment of their parliamentary duties and in view of the guidance provided by precedents, the Chair can only conclude that there are sufficient grounds for finding a prima facie question of privilege. I now invite the member for Milton to move the appropriate motion.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2017-04-06 10:33 [p.10247]
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.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member of Parliament for Beauce on this topic.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2017-04-06 10:34
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.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2017-04-06 10:43 [p.10248]
Mr. Speaker, I must say I am disappointed in the person who is a leadership candidate for the Conservative Party to try to take such an important issue of a question of privilege and try to make it political in the sense that she has chosen to try to blame the Prime Minister's motorcade.
Mr. Speaker, if the member was listening to your ruling, you were very clear in terms of why it has been ruled as prima facie, why it is that the motion was moved. It had nothing to do with the Prime Minister, not to mention other comments that the member has put on the record.
I would ask the would-be leader of the Conservative Party, does she not recognize that privilege is a very serious issue inside this chamber, that one does not have to be a member of the opposition to recognize it? Even we within government recognize it and treat it very seriously.
I sat on PROC, the procedure and House affairs committee, where we had to deal with this very serious issue in the past. We on this side of the House recognize it for what it is and it is a very serious issue. We do not believe that attempting to politicize it, as the member across the way has done, is in the best interests of moving forward.
Why does she choose to blame the Prime Minister's motorcade when within the Speaker's ruling there is no reference to it? It is about the media bus.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2017-04-06 10:45 [p.10248]
Mr. Speaker, I have not had the privilege of reading the two documents to which you referred, so I do not know whether or not it is in there. However, I can tell the member that my colleague from Beauce did approach and ask why we were being impeded. The fact of the matter, not the interpretation, is that the member was told by the security service that we were being impeded because of the Prime Minister's motorcade.
Is the member calling the member of Parliament for Beauce a liar? Is this what he is trying to say on the floor of the House of Commons? If he is, I invite you to go outside and say exactly that same thing, and we are going to see—
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
View Nathan Cullen Profile
2017-04-06 10:45 [p.10248]
Madam Speaker, I suppose part of this requires some translation, if I can use that word, for Canadians watching, as to why this could be so important to members of Parliament trying to access the Hill and cast their vote on behalf of their constituents. This scenario did not have any massive ramifications on the government standing or falling or a budget passing or not, but the principle is the question of rights of members of Parliament and the rights of our constituents to have their voices heard on matters of the day.
The question is regarding what caused this problem. This is a difficult balance, as my friend alluded to in her comments, between access not just for members of Parliament but for the public as well, and the security that we must maintain in this place. My colleague from Milton was right to give credit to the security service and the staff for doing the job that they do.
We just watched an attempt by a Liberal member to say that it was this and not that, when we have clear evidence given by the member for Beauce as to why this impeding happened. Is the proper forum for dialogue on this not at a committee? That is where we can bring forward the security services. We can hear from the member for Beauce and the member for Milton and put the facts on the table to understand what the problem is. One could imagine a scenario in the future where a certain prime minister would not want a certain group of members of Parliament to vote and simply makes sure the motorcade hits at a certain time so that the gates are closed. Is a committee not the best place for this conversation to take place?
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2017-04-06 10:47 [p.10249]
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for the interpretation of what I was trying to say.
As was indicated in my original intervention on March 22, wherein I gave the reason that we were impeded from the Hill as the first point of evidence, that indeed it was the Prime Minister's motorcade, the empty one, having precedence over our approach to the Hill. It is a very flimsy excuse and as such one would worry going forward as to what kinds of excuses could be given in order to ensure certain members of Parliament of any stripe did not come onto the Hill or fulfill their duties as a member.
The reason I brought up the quote from former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau is that it goes to the point of our being viewed as nothing. The reality is we are somebody when we sit in the House, and we are somebody when we represent our constituents in our home ridings, and we should be treated as such. We should not have the precedent of some individual making an erroneous call that an empty motorcade of the Prime Minister is actually paramount and supreme over the voting obligations of members of Parliament.
View Maxime Bernier Profile
PPC (QC)
View Maxime Bernier Profile
2017-04-06 10:48 [p.10249]
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to endorse everything my colleague from Milton said. She is absolutely right. I was with her when I was forced to wait an unreasonably long period of time because we were denied access to Parliament Hill and prevented from exercising our democratic right to vote on a bill and represent our constituents well. It was important to me to be here.
The facts outlined in the Speaker's ruling are absolutely true. We were forced to wait nine minutes. I went to see a security officer to ask what was going on because the clock was ticking and we wanted to be in the House of Commons to exercise our right to vote.
The first officer was not well informed and asked for information. Initially, we were told that we had to wait for the Prime Minister's motorcade, which was empty. Others told us that it was because of the media bus. There was some confusion at the security gate, and because it was taking too long, we decided to proceed quickly on foot to the House of Commons to exercise our right to vote.
As everyone knows, we were not able to exercise our right to vote, so I am very pleased with the Chair's ruling, which confirms the comments of my colleague from Milton and my own. This is important not only to us, but to all members of the House. Parliamentary privilege exists so that we can represent our constituents, our reason for being here, and vote.
I am not proud of what has been happening in the House for the past few weeks; certain parliamentary traditions and customs are not being respected. The Prime Minister is not always present during question period, and yet being able to ask the Prime Minister questions is another aspect of parliamentary privilege.
This shows a degree of arrogance that is inconsistent with what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign. He said he wanted to bring a new tone to the House of Commons, but this new tone has not been positive, as we are experiencing today.
One only needs to look at what is happening in our parliamentary committees, where the government wants to limit my colleagues' right to speak. This does not respect the British parliamentary tradition. I hope we can come back to this and look at what is happening here in Parliament.
Why are parliamentary privilege and parliamentary traditions being flouted? We need to have this debate at committee. This is important to me and my colleagues in the official opposition, as I imagine it is for the members of all opposition parties. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this matter.
I would now like to move an amendment to the proposal brought forward by my colleague from Milton. I move, seconded by the member for Oxford:
That the motion be amended by adding the following: “and that the committee make this matter a priority over all other business including its review of the Standing Orders and Procedure of the House and its Committees.”
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2017-04-06 10:53 [p.10249]
Madam Speaker, I am somewhat curious about the Conservative Party's approach to dealing with the serious issue of privilege. We have always believed, whether it was in opposition or in government, that members need to have unfettered access to the House of Commons. We recognize the value and importance of the vote and of participating in debate. We see that, and I will get the opportunity to go over exactly what the Speaker said.
What we know the Speaker did not say was that it had anything at all to do with a prime ministerial motorcade, yet the opposition wants to focus the debate on the Prime Minister. They seem to be more focused on that than on the actual privilege.
I am sure at least one of the members listened attentively to the ruling the Speaker made, and throughout the ruling no reference was made to the Prime Minister. The reference was to the media bus, and that is what the question of privilege is all about.
Did the member across the way listen to what the Speaker's ruling was on the question of privilege? If he did, could he please provide any comment whatsoever with respect to the relevancy of the media bus?
View Maxime Bernier Profile
PPC (QC)
View Maxime Bernier Profile
2017-04-06 10:55 [p.10250]
Madam Speaker, earlier I explained what my colleague from Milton and I experienced. It was quite clear.
Indeed, I am the one who inquired about why our parliamentary privileges were breached. At the time there were mixed messages as to why this happened, but never any clear reason. At the time we were told that some of the Prime Minister's vehicles were empty and that we had to wait. There was also talk of the media bus.
To us, the most important thing is that this privilege was breached. It has been confirmed that this is not the first time this happened to us. Parliamentary conventions of other hon. members are currently being ignored. Let us look at what is happening in committees because it is important for hon. members to be able to express themselves. That is what I want to see.
I am pleased that the Chair has acknowledged our right to our privileges and transferred this request to the relevant committees so that we may have a detailed analysis.
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
View Nathan Cullen Profile
2017-04-06 10:56 [p.10250]
Madam Speaker, this is in reference to my Liberal friend. I am reading the Speaker's ruling right now, and there is a recounting of what happened, but at no point did the Speaker make that suggestion. I will read the quote from him: “The media bus, under Parliamentary Protective Service escort, immediately proceeded to Centre Block. Seconds later, after the media bus had proceeded, a House of Commons shuttle bus arrived at the vehicle screening facility but was not allowed to proceed to Centre Block.”
The Speaker does not say it was because of the media bus. We also have testimony from the member for Beauce, who asked the security services, and I tend to believe him. Maybe my Liberal colleague is questioning the veracity of what my friend for Beauce is saying, but I will believe him until it is proven otherwise. I have no reason to doubt that he asked the question and was given the answer from our security services, whom I also believe.
Again, the Liberal members can choose not to believe the security services, but the Speaker at no point in his ruling, and I have read it three times now, says that the media bus was the source of the problem. All he said in the ruling was that the media bus went through and that subsequently three buses were stopped. The member for Beauce then asked the security representative there why, and he was told about the Prime Minister's empty motorcade.
This is why we need to bring this issue to the procedure and House affairs committee. It is so that we can find out what the truth is, rather than hear speculation from the Liberal Party or a suggestion from the Liberals that one of the members of Parliament is lying.
I would like the member for Beauce to recount that specific part of the story, which seems important to me and important for us to investigate.
View Maxime Bernier Profile
PPC (QC)
View Maxime Bernier Profile
2017-04-06 10:58 [p.10250]
Madam Speaker, I think my colleague is right. He did a very good translation of what I just said. I said that in French, and it is the same thing in English.
I was there. I was waiting and I asked and was told that there was an empty car, that we had to wait because of the motorcade of the Prime Minister, which was empty at that time. For me, that is what happened.
I am very pleased that the same facts were in the Speaker's decision. I agree with the Speaker, and that is why we must have that debate. It is too bad that we must have that debate in the committee, because the facts are the facts and we must go along with that.
I am very upset about the situation.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2017-04-06 10:59 [p.10250]
Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my questions, we do take the issue of privilege and access to the House very seriously, as I believe all members of this House should, and we recognize how important it is that we have unfettered access to the floor of the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister has consistently said to his members of Parliament, and has suggested to all members of Parliament, that it always works much better if we represent our constituents' interests here in Ottawa, as opposed to Ottawa's interests in the constituencies. This is something our current Prime Minister truly believes.
In order to represent our constituents' interests here in Ottawa, we need to have that unfettered access. That is something I, as a parliamentarian for many years, take very seriously. That is why I was offended by the members' comments in regard to changing the topic. We should be taking the issue more seriously. I will provide more comments with respect to the previous presentations shortly.
I want to emphasize that we perform many roles inside this chamber and in committee rooms. I would argue that our standing committees have the potential to be the real backbone of future developments of ideas for members of Parliament to be engaged with. The House is an opportunity for individuals to be equally engaged in all sorts of different policy areas. It is absolutely critical that MPs be able to attend our institution here, including all committee rooms on the Hill and on the precinct site, which goes beyond just the Hill. We do have committees that are off the Hill.
It is of the utmost importance that we have access, especially when it comes time to vote. I have been involved previously when similar questions of privilege were raised. When that occurred, I do not believe members at the procedure and House affairs committee tried to say that the government of the day was trying to block members from being able to participate.
After listening to some of the comments coming from across the way, it needs to be made very clear to all members of this House that there is not one member of the House who would be in support of another member not having unfettered access to House. To try to imply something different is just wrong. That is not the case. I know that at least it is not the case within the Liberal caucus, and I would suggest that it applies to all caucuses.
We all, collectively, understand and appreciate the importance of what members of Parliament need to do and are obligated to do. That mandate comes from the constituents who put us here. I do take this issue very seriously.
I have listened to the statements and asked questions of the two Conservative speakers. I am of the opinion that they do not understand the ruling made by the Speaker. What I would like to do is reinforce that. Nowhere in the Speaker's ruling was there any reference, at all, in regard to the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's motorcade. In fact, it would seem to me that some members are trying to tie other issues into this very important issue of privilege.
I would like to reinforce exactly what the Speaker said. I am going to quote for members who maybe were not listening quite attentively to what the Speaker was saying. They will now have the opportunity to hear it, because I am going to repeat, word for word, in good part, what the Speaker said.
The Speaker stated, “In fact, I have received two reports of the incident. The first, from the House of Commons Corporate Security Officer and Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, provides an excellent minute by minute summary of events and is supplemented by witness statements. The second report was received from the acting director of the Parliamentary Protective Service.”
I will pause there. I would like to think that no members in the House would actually question the consultation made by the Speaker and what he heard from the specific groups that helped him with the decision he shared with us just an hour ago.
His ruling further stated, “Based on those reports, here is what appears to have happened on March 22. At approximately 3:47 p.m., the bollards at the vehicle screening facility were lowered to allow for the arrival of a bus transporting journalists to Centre Block for the presentation of the budget. The media bus, under Parliamentary Protective Service escort, immediately proceeded to Centre Block. Seconds later, after the media bus had proceeded, a House of Commons shuttle bus arrived at the vehicle screening facility, but was not allowed to proceed to Centre Block. In the ensuing minutes, two more shuttle buses arrived at the vehicle screening facility and were similarly delayed. I am informed that members were on at least some of these buses. During these delays, which lasted a total of nine minutes, two members, the member for Milton and the member for Beauce, were waiting at the bus shelter near the vehicle screening facility. At approximately 3:54 p.m., the member for Beauce entered the vehicle screening facility and made inquiries of parliamentary protective staff about the delays and then decided, at approximately 3:55 p.m.”, which is one minute later, “to leave the bus shelter and walk up the hill. As members will know, it is at around this time that a vote was commencing in the House.”
The Speaker went on to explain, through House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, page 110, as follows:
Incidents involving physical obstruction—such as traffic barriers, security cordons and union picket lines either impeding Members' access to the Parliamentary Precinct or blocking their free movement within the precinct...have been found to be prima facie cases of privilege.
Members across the way who would have heard that would have also heard that there was no reference whatsoever to the Prime Minister's motorcade. What they would know from the ruling of the Speaker was that it was all about a media bus and an escort. That is, ultimately, what was implied in the Speaker's ruling that justified it as a prima facie case.
I listened to the member for Milton's response to that. This is what I love about Hansard. Members across the way can read for themselves what was said by the member. If we ask ourselves if the member relayed any sort of confidence in what the Speaker put on the record minutes before she stood, I would argue no. Her focus seemed to be politicizing the issue by talking about a former prime minister and then trying to apply it to the current Prime Minister.
Let us look at the word “arrogance”, and how the member across the way used it. Then she talked about other things that were taking place in the House of which members should be aware. I have thoughts on those issues too, and I would like to share some of them.
With respect to the current Prime Minister, I believe he has been one of the most accountable, transparent prime ministers we have seen in the House in decades. Members across the way laugh and heckle, but in my tenure as an MLA, I very closely watched the prime ministers, their attitudes, and how they interacted with the public. Never before have I seen prime ministers tour town hall style at open mics, where there were no taped or advance questions given to them, and actually answer questions.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2017-04-06 11:10 [p.10251]
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that intervention. The point is that we have a Prime Minister who, over the last year and a half, has demonstrated to Canadians first-hand that there is a higher sense of accountability in Ottawa, and not only within the Prime Minister's Office. A couple of weeks back, the Minister of National Defence went to Winnipeg North to meet with members of our Ukrainian community, to talk about what was happening in Ukraine and Canada. As the member across the way—
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am truly sorry to interrupt the member opposite. However, he has really gone off into the north here. We are talking about a simple motion and an amendment. I do not find any of his comments with respect to the travels of the Minister of National Defence—
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
On relevance, as the member knows, there is some leeway. The member is actually getting to the point, I am sure. However, as the member knows, there is some leeway in the debates, and I would again ask the members to afford that respect and not heckle or react badly.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2017-04-06 11:12 [p.10252]
Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member would stand on a point of order on relevance when I did not see him stand on a point of order on relevance when his colleague talked about the Prime Minister and his attitudes. The Conservative Party needs to understand that if one member starts talking about an area and is trying to make a case that another member does have the opportunity to address the points his colleague has raised. That is what is happening. If we have individuals from the Conservative opposition being critical and making reference to a point of order, then start talking about Standing Orders and so forth—
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2017-04-06 11:13 [p.10252]
Madam Speaker, when we look at what the member's presentation was all about, did we hear anything with regard to the media bus, which the Speaker referenced? Ultimately, the opposition members are sending a mixed message. On the one hand, they are trying to emphasize that they have a matter of privilege. I am very sympathetic to what the members have referenced in moving the motion. However, I question why the members across the way took as much time as they did. Much in their speeches was not about the privilege itself, but about other things that were not related to the privilege.
That is why it is important, and why I started to address some of those aspects. In good part, it needs to be done. The amendment to the motion asks to send this to the procedures and House affairs committee, which is the committee it should go to, and that it should be given priority. As I indicated, I have sat on PROC before. A nice thing about a standing committee is that it has the opportunity to set its own agenda. There is nothing to prevent PROC, for example, from meeting more than the two days a week for two hours a day. In fact, that is what is happening today. As we speak, PROC is meeting.
Therefore, the member's amendment to the motion really is not necessary. When I was a member of PROC, we all understood the importance of a motion that passed from the House dealing with privilege and the responsibility of that. If in fact the motion does pass, I would like to think the committee will be afforded the opportunity to set aside the time to do one or more things if it chooses to do so. This would be determined by the membership of the committee.
Just based on the two speeches before mine, my concern is that even if it does pass in the House, what will be the focus of the debate going into the procedures and House affairs committee? Is it really and truly going to be about the privilege on which the Speaker has ruled, or is it going to become an expansion of a wide variety of other issues about which the Conservative Party, in some ways working with the New Democratic Party, is going to want to talk?
That is why I believe, as government, we need to take the issue very seriously. I encourage all members to take the issue very seriously. If we believe at the core of the question of privilege, as presented by the Speaker, is about unfettered access to the Parliament buildings, then that is what it should be about.
I am hoping that by standing and speaking to the motion, members across the way will recognize that if in fact they genuinely believe, as they want me and others to believe, that this is about the privilege raised, then the comments that were made by the previous two speakers were not necessarily warranted. That was where the focus appeared to be.
That is why it is good to repeat the fact that we have a very serious issue before the chamber. I will continue to argue that what is in the best interest of this institution is that we recognize the importance of unfettered access. We are not just talking about votes. We are talking about debate, committee rooms, the chamber, and committee rooms outside the parliamentary precinct. That is what the focus of the debate should be.
I started off by saying that I was disappointed, and the reason I am disappointed is that the two previous speeches set the tone in the wrong direction. I would invite members opposite to refocus. What is important here is not the political shots but rather—
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
View Mark Strahl Profile
2017-04-06 11:20 [p.10252]
Madam Speaker, the member talked repeatedly about how serious this is and that we need to take this matter seriously, at the end of the day. He said that when he was in opposition, under a Conservative majority government, and sat on the procedure and House affairs committee, they all understood that this sort of issue and the issue of a member's privilege would take precedence at the procedure and House affairs committee. That is when Joe Preston was the chair of that committee.
Now we have seen a different style. We have seen that it is actually the Prime Minister's Office that is setting the agenda for the procedure and House affairs committee with this motion to strip members of the opposition of their rights in this place. Therefore, it is no longer the committee that is setting the agenda. It is the Prime Minister's Office.
If the member wants this matter to be taken seriously, it is this House that will need to take up its role and instruct the committee that because this matter is so serious, it needs to be given precedence over all other matters the Prime Minister's Office wants that committee to discuss.
Will the member agree with me that the way we can show, as a House, that we want this matter to be taken seriously is to instruct the procedure and House affairs committee to put this at the very top of the agenda at the very earliest opportunity?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2017-04-06 11:21 [p.10253]
Madam Speaker, my last appeal was to get members, of the Conservative caucus in particular, to focus on the issue of the privilege itself. That has nothing to do with the Prime Minister's Office. Why do the Conservatives continue to want to bring up the Prime Minister's Office? It has absolutely nothing to do with it, and the members know that full well.
The Prime Minister was here for the day. The motorcade might have been parked there all day. I do not know. Why do the members of the Conservative Party continue to try to bring up the Prime Minister's Office? I say, shame on them. The issue is access of privilege, and the Conservatives should be focused on that issue. To try to loop in the Prime Minister's Office is disingenuous. If the Conservatives are serious about the issue and want to debate the issue, they should stay focused on the privilege.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, as a new member of Parliament in this place, with a year and a half of experience, certainly not as much as the member opposite, I remember very clearly the day I was handed my parliamentary ID. I have read the back of it many times. It states:
Under the law of parliamentary privilege, the bearer has free and open access at all times, without obstruction or interference, to the precincts of the Houses of Parliament to which the bearer is a member.
I have read this many times, and I understand the gravity. We are, each one of us in this House, more than just individual members of Parliament. We are representatives of every single region of Canada, and through us, hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of Canadians have their voice in this place.
It is amazing that we can all be reading the same Speaker's report and have such different interpretations of it. No one on this side of the House is questioning the Speaker's ruling. The Speaker laid down the facts on the time frames that happened. He did not go into the reasons for the delay, but he did explain to this House that there was a delay. This House had the opportunity to listen to the member for Beauce and the member for Milton give their reasons as to why they thought the delay happened. They explained that to this House. The member for Beauce quite clearly went up to Parliamentary Protective Services and asked the reason for the delay. He was told that it was because of the Prime Minister's motorcade.
My question for the member opposite is this. Is the member standing in this House and accusing the member for Milton and the member for Beauce, on the record, of standing in this House and misleading this House and giving false reasoning? I would like to know his answer.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2017-04-06 11:24 [p.10253]
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the first comments made by the member, because it is indeed a privilege to be here to represent our constituencies, and it is one of the reasons I argued for unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct. I do not think anyone would question that.
With respect to the specific question the member asked, at times I think members might have selective hearing. If he listened to the member for Beauce, this is what he said in response to a question. He said there was no specific reason given by personnel at the gate. They made reference to the Prime Minister's motorcade, but they also made reference to the media bus. Why has that point been lost? Why does the opposition give the motorcade as the reason? Why do members want to give that impression? I am suspicious of that.
I would like to see the focus of the debate, no matter how long we have it today, whether it is five minutes or five hours, be what the member started his speech with, which is why it is so important that we have unfettered access to this facility.
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
CPC (ON)
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
2017-04-06 11:26 [p.10253]
Madam Speaker, the member opposite said that this is a very serious issue, that we have to have parliamentary access and that we could be talking about this for five hours in the House. Would it be better to talk for five hours in the House or to have the procedure and house affairs committee, which is sitting right now, take some action to figure out, if these vehicles were in the way, what we are going to do to prevent that? Could the member comment?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2017-04-06 11:26 [p.10253]
Madam Speaker, I would like to hear what other members might have to say on this issue in the House. I have tried to gauge where I should be going. I believe in unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct, but I am very concerned about why members opposite, the two Conservative speakers in particular, said what they said. It did not seem to me to be just about unfettered access. It seemed to be a little more politically driven, and that concerns me.
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2017-04-06 11:27 [p.10253]
Madam Speaker, one of the things I think the procedure and house affairs committee would be able to look at is the fact that with the construction, there seem to be priorities for vehicles approaching the House. I have raised this before. I am curious about whether the parliamentary secretary has actually engaged with other ministers about that.
When we try to enter and exit the main entrance for parliamentarians, we often have ministers' vehicles idling and blocking not only pedestrian traffic but the buses. In fact, that happens on a regular basis when we enter and exit the premises. We often find some of the ministers' vehicles parked along the pedestrian access that is granted because of the construction. There are not only members of Parliament there. There are members of the public and tourists and so forth. It would be interesting to find out what is going on with regard to those things.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary, since it has been raised before, if there have been discussions among cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister about the ministers' vehicles not only idling for long periods of time but blocking access by pedestrians, members of Parliament, and buses, because they choose not to leave that zone of activity.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2017-04-06 11:29 [p.10253]
Madam Speaker, all of us need to be concerned about the construction that has been taking place. Virtually since I was elected, West Block has been under reconstruction, and as a result, it has put a great deal more pressure on the issue of access, but all in all, I think it has worked out quite well.
It is not just ministerial vehicles. There are other vehicles that also come onto Parliament Hill. Whether it is construction vehicles or taxis, all sorts of traffic comes up onto the Hill. It is a concern, and what is most important, is unfettered access.
If we go back, prior to the construction, there might have been one complaint in eight or nine years. Just a couple of years ago, we probably had two or three questions of privilege raised. The frequency has increased, and that is something we should all be concerned about.
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
View Nathan Cullen Profile
2017-04-06 11:30 [p.10254]
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my good friend, the member of Parliament for Elmwood—Transcona.
This is déjà vu all over again. We have had this issue more than a few times in my brief time in the House of Commons. An event takes place, members of Parliament are unable to access the Hill, we redress it through the Speaker, and always, from my experience, we take it to the procedure and House affairs committee.
The “he said, she said” that is going on right now with the member for Winnipeg North is unhelpful in actually exploring what we need to understand to make sure this does not happen again.
For folks who do not understand, or perhaps appreciate, why this is so important, the ability of members of Parliament to actually gain access to the House of Commons to cast their votes on behalf of our constituents is a right and a privilege that extends back to the creation of Parliament itself. In olden times, there were kings and queens who did not like what the commoners had to say. They did not particularly want a certain thing to pass, and they would physically bar members of Parliament from coming in, speaking, and voting.
We extend that forward. We appreciate and recognize the power of any majority government and the power of a Prime Minister. At no time could we ever allow one inch to be given over to the idea that the Prime Minister, or anyone connected to the Prime Minister, could prevent, block, or inhibit a member of Parliament from gaining access to a vote.
One can easily remember the scenario in which we had a minority Parliament, and we had many confidence votes on which the government could fall or stand. I can remember a former colleague, who has now since passed, casting a deciding vote as to whether the government would continue on in its function and duty or whether the country would return to an election. That was within the last decade. That was not that long ago.
One understands the importance of what we are talking about here today. It is paramount to the basic role and duties we have as members of Parliament.
Let us take care of one thing right away. It is the Liberals who seem to be standing in the way of taking this debate to its proper place. We are meant to be talking about the budget and some other important things in the House of Commons that concern all Canadians, yet this has come up from a Speaker's ruling we had earlier today, which takes precedence over everything else that goes on in the House of Commons. However, to properly understand and analyze what it is that happened and how to make sure it never happens again, the floor of the House of Commons is not necessarily the best place. We cannot call witnesses forward here today. We are not able to request interviews with the security officials or with my colleagues who first raised this issue. We have the debate as it takes place under our given rules. Clearly, the best place to take it is the committee, where the committee can explore and understand and bring the witnesses it needs and then, finally, support the Speaker's ruling as to what actually happened and how to make sure it never happens again.
The Liberals have decided not to accept that amendment so far. So far, they have said no, let us just keep talking about it in the House of Commons. The Liberal representative so far has also tried to infer from the Speaker's ruling that the Speaker has determined what actually happened and that it was the media bus that caused the problems.
I too have read the Speaker's ruling several times. I have read it in great detail, and in no place does the Speaker say that. All the Speaker does is recount the events of the day. There was one bus that had a bunch of media on it. It went through the gate. There were several buses behind it that contained members of Parliament and that were picking up other MPs. They were prevented. All we have is the testimony, so far, and I will call it testimony, from my friend from Beauce, who said that he went to the security official who has there and asked what the problem was, what the hold up was. He said they needed to get to the House to vote. He was told, and I believe him, because I have no reason not to, that the Prime Minister's motorcade, which was empty, was in the way and that the security protocols at that time said nobody was allowed to move.
I have been in that scenario in which the Prime Minister's motorcade, all MPs have seen this, is coming through the parliamentary precinct. It is long, with big, black SUVs, and on it goes and everything stops around it, as is right, because we need to have security around the Prime Minister. No one denies that. However, in this instance, the motorcade was empty. MPs were trying to get to a vote in the House of Commons and hear the debate on the budget. These are important things. If that was the case, if MPs were denied on that excuse, then we have a problem, because that excuse could arise at almost any time the Prime Minister's motorcade wanted to just park somewhere and block the gates of Parliament, or a gate of Parliament that is often used. There is one we predominantly use if we are taking a bus up onto the Hill.
Clearly, if that is what we have in front of us, that is serious. That matters. That could, in future, and we are not suggesting it now, be an abuse of power to prevent MPs from coming in.
That could happen, if that is what took place. That is what we have. At no point in his ruling earlier this morning did the Speaker say the problem was the media bus, to correct my friend from Winnipeg North, as loud as he would like to say it and as often as he would like to repeat it. That is not what is in the Speaker's ruling. He is entitled to his opinions, but not his own facts.
These are the facts. We have the testimony from the member for Beauce who had asked the security official. We have the Speaker's ruling in front of us, which said that all that happened is these buses lined up and could not get in.
When it comes to the Liberals, as Shakespeare would say, methinks they doth protest too much. They are asking us how we dare accuse the Prime Minister of trying to ramrod something through, how we dare accuse the Prime Minister of trying to bully Parliament or prevent MPs from speaking on behalf of their constituents.
Wait. What is going on at the procedure and House affairs committee right now? Right, there is a Liberal motion at committee that speaks to what is exactly relevant today, which is the ability of members of Parliament to have the privilege that is given to us, not by the government, not by the Prime Minister's office, but by our constituents, the privilege of access to the Hill.
This is relevant for my friend from Winnipeg, who likes to say that there is too much heckling in the House of Commons, yet sometimes, from time to time, he just cannot seem to resist it himself. He needs to heckle and get into the debate, and then minutes later will rise to his feet or speak to the media and say that what is wrong with our democracy is that there is too much heckling. Then he returns to the House of Commons to continue his practice of heckling members of Parliament while we are trying to speak.
The question today is this. Is there some sort of pattern developing within the government? I think that is a relevant question. We see the Liberals trying to take the rules of the House of Commons and force down the throats of the opposition that the government of the day should have unfettered power to shut down debate, that it should have new prorogation rules, that it should have the Prime Minister only come in on Wednesdays to answer questions, and that it does not need the support of opposition parties to change the rules of the House of Commons.
We are now asking a question about access to the House of Commons, and how that access was denied. These are good questions to ask, which should be of grave concern to all parliamentarians. Liberals might enter into some delusional world in which they say that they are the government now and will be the government forever. They may think they can change the rules of Parliament to favour the government, because that will never come back to bite them. They think they can make it so that a prime minister's motorcade can block MPs from gaining access to voting on behalf of their constituents, because they are the government right now and maybe it works for them.
I remind my Liberal colleagues of recent history when it was not them in government, and that our role as we pass across this stage is to make sure that we leave the place better than we found it, to make sure that we can do the jobs that people send us here to do. It is nothing more complicated or more simple than that.
However, we see the tendency in the government to say that rules only apply to other people, but that it is special because it is Liberal. The Liberals feel they can have special rules that help Liberals. As the House leader for the Liberals said on the floor of the House of Commons, when we asked about the Prime Minister taking special advantages, he is the Prime Minister after all. Oh goodness, he is the Prime Minister after all.
When the Prime Minister stands in this place, he is just another member of Parliament, which is what we all are. We have the Westminster style of governance. We do not vote in prime ministers. We vote in members of Parliament. News flash to the current government members: as much Kool-Aid as they have drunk, the actual reality of how our system works is that we all have the right to access this place, the right to speak freely on behalf of the people we represent to the best of our abilities, and the right to challenge the government when it makes bad decisions, as we are doing at the procedure and House affairs committee right now.
Why, in heaven's name, is there some discussion? It is real and it is important. The Speaker has ruled that we have a prima facie case of privilege that members of Parliament, two in this case at least, had their rights of access denied, which is as serious as it gets in an open and free democracy. When members are blocked from voting, this is a question worth exploring and understanding so that it does not happen again. We have done it several times now.
The best place for this to take place, the best place for us to investigate what actually happened, to hear from security, to hear from the members who were actually present is in a House of Commons committee. The committee that handles that is the procedure and House affairs committee.
Why would Liberals want to block that particular investigation? One has to ask the question why. Are they worried about an answer that may come out of it? I do not know. Let us just do the right thing. Let us make sure that the guaranteed rights to access this place are guaranteed for all members of Parliament, and that this place functions as it should once in a while.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2017-04-06 11:40 [p.10255]
Madam Speaker, my question is fairly straightforward in the sense that the member heard the opening remarks by the two Conservative speakers on the issue.
There was some concern in regard to why there is so much focus and attention on something that is not included in the Speaker's ruling. The motorcade that is often referred to from the opposition benches was here all day. The Prime Minister was not in the motorcade. However, it seems there is this desire to bring in the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's Office.
Does the member believe that in itself is relevant to the degree that the focus is on it? I am curious as to what the member believes.
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
View Nathan Cullen Profile
2017-04-06 11:41 [p.10255]
Madam Speaker, the point is that I do not know and neither does that member. That is the point. The point is that we have heard in the Speaker's ruling that no conclusions have been drawn, and that member knows this. The Speaker is simply recounting part of what happened.
We also have the recounting of a colleague of ours, who has told us in good faith what he was told by the security official he asked, that the reason for the delay was the Prime Minister's motorcade. It has been said several times. The Prime Minister was here in the House of Commons, not in the motorcade. No one is saying he was sitting in the back of the limo telling the driver to block the bus. The fact is that we do not know, and the only way we are going to find out is if we get the full reports, to which the Speaker has had access, at the procedure and House affairs committee, the committee on which my colleague often sits. That is the best place to explore this.
I assume the next time the Liberals make an intervention they will say that there are still some outstanding and important questions, and they do not like the insinuation that is coming from the Conservatives. The best way to clear this up, as the Prime Minister has often said, is sunlight. That is the best disinfectant, says the Prime Minister of Canada. Okay, then let us follow that advice and bring this matter to the procedure and House affairs committee so we can find out what actually happened, because neither that member nor I know.
We have had important and, I believe, credible testimony from a colleague, and until the point when one of my Liberal colleagues is willing to stand up and say “Liar, liar” to a member of Parliament, then we have to take it as we do in this place, that all members are speaking truthfully.
Let them testify at the procedure and House affairs committee. Let us hear from the security officials. Let us resolve this and make sure it never happens again.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Speaker, it seems the government, particularly the Parliamentary Secretary to the House leader, is focused on this having been made up. The Speaker said, “In fact, I have received two reports of the incident.” They may be internal reports to the Speaker, specifically from the House of Commons Corporate Security Officer and Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms. We also have reports by two hon. members of this place who have added in their information.
Whether it be a construction vehicle, government vehicle, public works vehicle, Parliament vehicle—until late October 2014, we had different security services, all with different mandates—the fact is that, when these issues come up, we need to be able to identify them, especially when members of Parliament miss votes because of interference.
Does my fellow British Columbian believe we need to get this to PROC so it can examine whether it was the Prime Minister's motorcade? Whether he was in it or not does not matter. What matters is that members missed the vote. We need to have a closer look at the reports of the members of Parliament in question and also the reports of the security staff and perhaps even the security personnel who made the call. Would that not help to clear all of this up?
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
View Nathan Cullen Profile
2017-04-06 11:44 [p.10256]
Madam Speaker, I do not think it has been said enough throughout the debate that the job that the security forces have around the House of Commons is an incredibly difficult one. They have to be able to balance access for members of Parliament and the public along with obvious security needs, to keep this place safe for all MPs and staff and the public who visit here.
In terms of the member's specific question, well of course this has to take place if Conservatives and New Democrats all come to the logical conclusion; and I am not sure how the Bloc or the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands feel about it. A committee is where these things always go. When the Speaker says there is a problem like this, the place it goes to next, in my experience, is the procedure and House affairs committee. Maybe someone can correct me, but I have never seen a problem like this go anywhere else, because that is where it belongs. PROC manages the affairs of the House of Commons. That is what that committee is for. If there is an affair of the House of Commons that we have to find out about, it would go to PROC, which is the only place where we will get to the bottom of this. I do not know why the Liberals are standing in the way of finding out what actually happened that day, but we will find out.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2017-04-06 11:45 [p.10256]
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to an issue that concerns one of the most important rights of members of the House of Commons, which is to have unfettered access to this place at any time, and particularly when there are votes happening.
A question of privilege has been raised. Members have said they were not able to make it to a vote because they were obstructed. The Speaker has said he does think there is a prima facie case. The appropriate thing to do, and what is typically done, is that it goes to the procedures and House affairs committee. My understanding is that, typically, the committee takes that matter up forthwith and makes a determination.
My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley is quite right to say that it is at committee that this matter should be properly studied, because the committee has the ability to call witnesses and to delve deeper into the details of the issue.
There is some contention as to whether or not it was the media bus that was responsible for the shuttle buses being delayed and therefore members not being able to make it to the House on time for a vote, or whether it was the Prime Minister's motorcade. The Speaker's ruling does not say one way or the other which one it was. That is why it would be good to find out.
The way to find out is to call on the people who were involved, in order to get an accurate representation of what happened. That way we would know. If it is something to do with the Prime Minister's motorcade, then maybe the procedures around what happens with respect to the Prime Minister's motorcade, and other vehicles on the Hill when the motorcade is present, could be modified to ensure it does not fetter members' access to the House of Commons. That is fully possible.
I have been on a bus that was sitting behind the Prime Minister's motorcade by Centre Block. I was only going back to my office at the Confederation building, but I was told by the driver that the rules are they are not allowed to pass the Prime Minister's motorcade. Maybe some bus drivers decide to do that anyway because they are trying to please members of the House, and we appreciate all their good work, but in that particular instance, I was told by that driver that he would not pass the Prime Minister's motorcade because he was under instructions not to do so.
Therefore, in my experience, there is an issue about how the Prime Minister's motorcade interacts with other vehicles on the Hill. If protocols around that are not handled correctly, there is the potential to fetter or obstruct the access of members to the Hill. I am sure all members, including government members, do not want that to be the case, so what we need to do is a detailed examination to make sure that the protocols around that are appropriate and do not get in the way of members getting to the House. The motion before us simply refers this to PROC to get that more detailed answer.
We have heard from members on the government side; well, one member actually. We always know when members of the government are not really comfortable with their own position because it is only the member for Winnipeg North who gets up on his feet. No one else is willing to speak to those issues. We kind of know when the government feels that perhaps it is not on the right side of the issue, because the only one with the gall to get up and speak to it is the member for Winnipeg North. That has been in evidence today.
He said a few things, and I just want to zero in on some of them, because I find them troubling in a couple of different ways. One thing he said was that the amendment to this motion, which simply says that PROC will treat this issue with priority, is not a very good amendment because PROC does that anyway. That is what he said in his speech. I find that passing strange because the Liberals' contention at PROC on another issue right now is that they want certain changes, including a prime minister's question period. They have said these are good reforms and we need to get them through so we can do these things. The funny thing is that we do not need to change the Standing Orders to do that. In fact, we saw that yesterday when the Prime Minister undertook to answer almost every question in question period, although not every question. There were no changes to the Standing Orders required in order to do that, and yet they say they want to change the Standing Orders. If changes to motions and rules are redundant simply because one can do it anyway, then they should not be asking for a change to the Standing Orders in order to do prime minister's questions.
I fear that the member, perhaps unintentionally, and I am being generous because we are in the House of Commons, is being inconsistent, and I would not deign to say disingenuous, when he makes that particular argument.
He also said that he had reservations about sending it to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs because of the quality of the debate so far in the House and he was concerned the debate in the PROC committee would be a waste of time. It is completely wrong for members in this place to prejudge the deliberations and decisions at committees.
If he wants to be an advocate in this place, as he sometimes says he is, for the independence of committees, then he has some nerve to suggest that we might consider not referring a matter that is totally appropriate to refer to a particular committee because he already has some prejudicial notions about what members at the committee might say or do during those deliberations, or what the committee might decide. That line of argument shows a serious disrespect for committees and it is important to not let that go unanswered.
I wanted to take some time in my remarks to address those comments made by the member for Winnipeg North. He often makes reference to his long parliamentary career, over 25 years, but if he had spent more time listening over those 25 years as opposed to talking, he would not have made the arguments he made earlier in this place. I really do think it is just wrong to make decisions about whether to refer something to committee based on speculation about what some members may or may not say at committee. When we spell it out like that, it is obvious that it is ridiculous and disrespectful to make decisions based on that kind of speculation.
That is what we want to do. We want to do what is the usual thing to do with a serious matter of privilege. I do not think one has to be a long-time parliamentarian to appreciate the problem with the idea of interfering with members' access to the chamber, particularly when there are votes. I am not saying that has been abused in this case. It was likely not intentional. One of the reasons for sending it to committee for a detailed analysis is for the committee to be able to speak to those involved and clear the air so that there are no worries or concerns that the blocking of members' access to the House was intentional.
That is what we want to do. We want to take this matter to committee, because if it does start that blocking members' access to the House of Commons is allowed, it is clear to see how a government that may not have the best of intentions—and I am not saying that is the case with the current government or governments of the past, but some hypothetical future government.
We cannot allow it to be acceptable that potentially, and we don't know, protocols around the Prime Minister's motorcade are allowed to interfere with members' access to the House, or whether it is protocols around the media bus, or whatever it is that got in the way of these particular members reporting on time for the vote, because let us face it. We have seen procedural shenanigans around here. If we allow shenanigans to interfere with members' right of access to the House of Commons, an unscrupulous government may start to see it as a legitimate procedural tactic as to where to put media buses or a prime minister's motorcade, because it is a close vote.
I will remind members on the other side of the House, as they may not know or have forgotten, that not all parliaments are majority parliaments. It is also not in all cases, even in majority governments, that the government wins the vote. In fact, I recall a vote held last spring on Bill C-10 that was a tie vote and the Speaker had to break the tie. It is only because the vote was on the report stage of that bill that it proceeded. That is how the Speaker is traditionally required to vote in order to continue debate. Had the vote been on third reading stage, that bill would have been defeated.
Imagine if we were debating this question of privilege with respect to that vote and not what we are discussing. We can imagine that tensions would be a lot higher. It is no less an offence to block members from one vote, even though it may be known that a majority is likely going to win the vote, than it is on a tie vote, but it is harder to have the conversation around a close vote, because tensions are that much higher.
Therefore, it is important that we have the discussion now and we not wait for it to be a monumental vote, because at that point the issues of substance and procedure will become so entangled that we will not be able to make an appropriate decision.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2017-04-06 11:56 [p.10258]
Madam Speaker, I could not help but notice that the member across the way made reference to the Prime Minister's hour, something which the Prime Minister talked a great deal about going into the election. It was part of the whole modernization of Canada's Parliament, and we have been inviting members to be a part of that discussion. I appreciate the member's raising the issue at this point, but I wonder if he could further expand on why he felt it was important to raise exactly what is part of the Liberal platform, and that is the need to have a question period for the Prime Minister so that whether a member is asking the 25th question or the fifth question, the member would have the opportunity to get an answer directly from the Prime Minister.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2017-04-06 11:57 [p.10258]
Madam Speaker, I want to sincerely thank the member for Winnipeg North for proving my point, that he is the only member on the government side who is willing to get up and speak to this issue.
View Anne Minh-Thu Quach Profile
NDP (QC)
View Anne Minh-Thu Quach Profile
2017-04-06 11:57 [p.10258]
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague whether the government, by refusing to have this debate at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, is once again being partisan.
In this place, we do not have access to all the information about what really happened when the members for Beauce and Milton were prevented from arriving on time for the vote on the budget. We want to have access to witnesses, which is not possible here. We want to find solutions in order to prevent this from happening to other MPs, whether they are members of the Liberal Party or of any other party.
The Prime Minister's motorcade has the right to drive on the Hill and to ensure his security. However, when his cars are empty, as was possibly the case on March 22, is there a way to let the members' bus go around it?
There are a number of elements to be studied and we do not have all the answers here. It is very important that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs look into this issue and that the Liberals stop resisting this type of study.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2017-04-06 11:58 [p.10258]
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question.
Given the debate that is taking place in the House today, it is obvious that there is still no consensus on the facts. There are still questions that need to be asked and answers that need to be given about what happened and how to avoid this type of situation in the future.
Once we know what happened, we will have to ask ourselves how we can prevent this from happening again. Obviously, that work should be done in committee because we will need to hear from witnesses and examine the issue, things that we do not have time to do in the House today, without any preparation. Tradition dictates that such issues be examined in committee.
I must admit that the fact that the government does not want to do things as they have always been done, or in other words, that it does not want to ask the committee to examine this issue, shows some partisanship. I do not know why the government does not want to proceed in this manner. The member for Winnipeg North said that the amendment seeking to make this issue a priority is unnecessary, but I beg to differ because there is a problem of good faith here with regard to procedure. I therefore think that it would be completely appropriate to give the committee that instruction.
View Diane Finley Profile
CPC (ON)
View Diane Finley Profile
2017-04-06 12:00 [p.10258]
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg said that he did not understand why the parliamentary secretary does not appear to be in favour of supporting this motion. I wonder if the member could speculate on the reasons the parliamentary secretary and indeed members of the Liberal government are saying that this is a very important issue, which we all agree it is, but the Liberals are not prepared to put some action behind those words.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2017-04-06 12:01 [p.10258]
Madam Speaker, it is a funny situation to have government members, well really one government member say on behalf of the government, I suppose, that this is a very important issue and then say that the government does not want to have it studied. Presumably if there are outstanding questions and it is an important issue, we would want to get answers to those questions. Although I am not one to speculate wildly, one is tempted to infer that the government does not want the answers or it would be interested in the study.
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Greg Fergus Profile
2017-04-06 12:01 [p.10258]
Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take part in this debate on a question of privilege, a debate that is very important.
I had intended to speak directly to the substance of the debate, but I feel compelled to respond to the insinuations, these little things that the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona said. He said several things.
First, he said that he was very concerned about the debate, but he added that members were not participating in it, especially Liberal government members. Now I am here, and I was waiting my turn to have the chance that the Speaker would give me the floor to take part in this debate. Making false accusations and misleading our honourable members is a bad way of behaving in the House. I hope that the hon. member will have the courage to apologize, because it is not true.
I know the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona. We were in the same cohort of MPs in 2015. We have spoken to one another many times. I think he is an honourable man. Unfortunately, I think this debate does not reflect his abilities or generosity.
Second, the hon. member argued that there is some doubt about what happened on March 22. I will quote the Speaker of the House when he rendered his decision:
In fact, I have received two reports of the incident. The first, from the House of Commons Corporate Security Officer and Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, provides an excellent minute-by-minute summary of events and is supplemented by witness statements. The second was received from the acting director of the Parliamentary Protective Service.
I cannot imagine that the hon. member is making false accusations against the Speaker because it was crystal clear that there were two reports: a minute-by-minute report of what happened and a very thorough report, which he very respectfully shared with the House of Commons and all its members.
Mr. Speaker, I must mention one thing. Once again, I am a new MP, even after 18 months in the House, and I forgot to say that I would like to share my time with the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe.
Questions of privilege are very important, so I would like to thank my hon. colleague from the NDP who indicated how important it is for members to have access to this place. He quoted what is on the back of his parliamentary ID:
Under the law of parliamentary privilege, the bearer has free and open access at all times, without obstruction or interference, to the precincts of the Houses of Parliament to which the bearer is a member.
This is important because it goes back in the history of the House to the mother of all parliaments in Westminster back in the 16th century, in terms of making sure that members of the Commons always have the privilege, the right, to be here and to take their place in this place to represent their people, to enact laws, to participate in debates, and so on.
That is a fundamental, important role of members of Parliament. We should not be impeded in doing that.
What we saw in this situation was described by the Speaker in his ruling earlier today: “Based on these reports, here is what appears to have happened on March 22nd. At approximately 3:47 p.m., the bollards at or by the vehicle screening facility were lowered to allow for the arrival of a bus transporting journalists to Centre Block for the presentation of the budget. The media bus, under Parliamentary Protective Service escort, immediately proceeded to Centre Block. Seconds later, after the media bus had proceeded, a House of Commons shuttle bus arrived at the vehicle screening facility but was not allowed to proceed to Centre Block. In the ensuing minutes, two more shuttle buses arrived at the vehicle screening facility and were similarly delayed. I am informed that members were on at least some of these buses.”
The Speaker went on to say, “During these delays, which lasted a total of nine minutes, two members, the member for Milton and the member for Beauce, were waiting at the bus shelter near the vehicle screening facility. At approximately 3:54 p.m., the member for Beauce entered the vehicle screening facility and made inquiries of parliamentary protective staff about the delays and then decided at approximately 3:55 p.m. to leave the bus shelter and walk up the Hill.”
It is perfectly clear that access to Parliament Hill and the buses transporting MPs to the House were delayed because there was a media bus. It had nothing to do with the Prime Minister's motorcade. The Speaker was very clear on that point.
However, there are allegations and rumours about it being the Prime Minister's fault. I think people should be very careful about what they say in the House of Commons. Not only are our remarks heard by our House colleagues and Canadians tuning into CPAC across the country, but they are also printed in the official report of the House of Commons. Those official reports will live on as long as Canada's Parliament.
Personally, I believe it is our privilege to participate in these debates and to have a seat in the House of Commons and it is our responsibility to choose our words carefully. There is no need to add fuel to the fire when it comes to questions of privilege. We need to be careful about what we say and do.
I feel that the Speaker's ruling was very clear about the problem having nothing to do with the Prime Minister's security. It had to do with the bus transporting journalists to the House of Commons.
We all know that under the Standing Orders, when a question of privilege is raised it must be taken into consideration immediately. That is why we are all participating in this debate today.
I would ask my colleagues to refrain from making false accusations and spreading rumours, and instead talk about facts that are accurate, facts that were stated by the Speaker of the House in his ruling this morning.
I am pleased to have had the chance to speak in the House of Commons.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the intervention by my friend across the way today. I find him always to be very upright, and he kept very much to the issue that is before the House in the motion. I appreciate that.
The member finished his speech by talking about the importance of facts, and I totally agree with him. We have to have some commonality of facts, but again, the Speaker has only given a prima facie ruling. I go back to page 2 of the Speaker's ruling, where the Speaker says, “In fact, I have received two reports of the incident”, and then outlines what the incident was. Then further on he says, “based on those reports”.
Reports are important, but they are only initial reports. Oftentimes, for brevity in this place, certain items may not be raised in such a way as to show their importance.
Would the member agree that it is important for our members of Parliament who are on the committee, our peers, to be able to examine the issue further, define all the relevant facts, and ask questions of the authorities and of witnesses? As was stated previously by the Speaker, interfering with a member of Parliament and their privileges of parliamentary access can be a cause to be found in contempt of the House. That is a very serious charge.
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Greg Fergus Profile
2017-04-06 12:14 [p.10260]
Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to say, but first of all let me thank the member from British Columbia for his intervention and for reading a part of what the Speaker said in his ruling earlier today.
I would like to provide the full context of what the Speaker said on the same page 2. I have the English version; I know I said it in French earlier on, but I will read it in English.
He said, “In fact I have received two reports of the incident. The first, from the House of Commons Corporate Security Officer and Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms”—and this is the important part for the hon. member—“provides an excellent minute-by-minute summary of events and is supplemented by witness statements.”
I do not think it could be any clearer. I would hate to think that we would want to accuse the Speaker of not providing an accurate and a clear summary to his colleagues, the members of Parliament. I do not think that is—
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2017-04-06 12:15 [p.10260]
Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer felt compelled to respond to some of what I had to say, and I would like to respond in turn.
I think he is sometimes a little quick to throw the red card with respect to my comments, but I am quite confident that the record will bear me out. If we look at the amount of time available to Liberal members in this House and look at how much of it is taken by the member for Winnipeg North on this debate and many other debates, we will find my claim is accurate. I do not usually apologize for making true claims, so I will not in this case either.
It was the hon. member who was concerned about innuendo, and I see some of that going on. The idea that members who think there should be a study by PROC are somehow undermining the judgment of the Speaker or declaring a lack of confidence in the Speaker could not be further from the truth. Mr. Speaker, I want to make that clear to you. That is certainly not what is going on.
The member for Beauce has stated in this House that it was reported to him that the reason for the delay was the Prime Minister's motorcade. Is the hon. member suggesting that he is not willing to take those remarks at face value? I ask because I think we have a legitimate difference in trying to understand what happened. We have hon. members who have said different things happened. The appropriate thing to do is study it. Is he calling the member for Beauce someone who is misleading the House?
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Greg Fergus Profile
2017-04-06 12:17 [p.10260]
Mr. Speaker, in turn, I could ask my hon. colleague from Manitoba whether or not he is calling into question the impartiality of the Speaker. He brought up the part of the ruling in which the Speaker says that in fact he had received two reports of the incident. To say that he said—
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Greg Fergus Profile
2017-04-06 12:18 [p.10260]
Mr. Speaker, I certainly apologize for not recognizing that you had stood up. I was not aware that you had stood up at the time and I continued talking.
To summarize very quickly, I am basing my answer to the question from the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona on the ruling that was provided by the Speaker. I am assuming that the Speaker had given us an accurate reading. Judging from what I heard from the hon. member when he was interrupting me while I had the floor, he would not call into question the Speaker's ruling either. I think the Speaker's ruling speaks for itself.
View Ginette Petitpas Taylor Profile
Lib. (NB)
Mr. Speaker, as a new member, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House to take part in a debate. Today's debate is very important.
I was here when the Speaker handed down his very important ruling on the question of privilege raised on March 22. It is a day we remember well because that was the day that our budget was presented.
The question raised by the hon. member for Milton had to do with obstructed access to the Parliamentary precinct. I think that we can all confirm that as members of Parliament, access to this establishment is a privilege, but also our right so that we may continue to do our very important work of representing the people of our ridings.
It is very important today to ensure that we are accurately depicting the facts that the Speaker raised this morning. I have been here since this morning and I have heard a number of comments about our Prime Minister, his limousines, and all sorts of things that, in the end, have nothing to do with the Speaker's ruling.
It is really important to recap the situation because the facts are crucial and we want to ensure that they are not watered down. The first thing that the Speaker said was that he was prepared to rule on this issue today. He said:
In raising this matter, the member for Milton indicated that she was prevented from attending a vote in the House of Commons and, thus, impeded in the performance of her parliamentary duties when her access to the parliamentary precinct through her normal transport was temporarily blocked. The member for Beauce confirmed that he was subjected to the same delay.
All of the members of the House are well aware of their right to access and other rights, and they are obviously taking this situation very seriously. When the Speaker gave his ruling, he confirmed that it was part of his role to look into this and that he took that role very seriously. He went on to say that, as Speaker, it is his duty to ensure that the privileges of the House and the individual privileges of members are protected, including that of freedom from obstruction, for it is that privilege that gives us unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct. I think that we all agree with the facts presented by the Speaker this morning.
The Speaker further stated that he received two reports during his investigation. The first was from the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms and the Corporate Security Officer, and it provided an excellent minute-by-minute summary of events and was supplemented by witness statements.
The second report was from the Acting Director of the Parliamentary Protective Service. The Speaker's comments and his decision are based on this information and these facts. The speaker summarized these reports as follows:
Based on these [two] reports, here is what appears to have happened on March 22. At approximately 3:47 p.m., the bollards at the, or by the vehicle screening facility were lowered to allow for the arrival of a bus transporting journalists to Centre Block for the presentation of the budget. The media bus, under Parliamentary Protective Service escort, immediately proceeded to Centre Block. Seconds later, after the media bus had proceeded, a House of Commons shuttle bus arrived at the vehicle screening facility but was not allowed to proceed to Centre Block. In the ensuing minutes, two more shuttle buses arrived at the vehicle screening facility and were similarly delayed. I am informed that members were on at least some of these buses. During these delays, which lasted a total of nine minutes, two members, the member for Milton and the member for Beauce, were waiting at the bus shelter near the vehicle screening facility. At approximately 3:54 p.m., the member for Beauce entered the vehicle screening facility and made enquiries of parliamentary protective staff about the delays and then decided at approximately 3:55 p.m. to leave the bus shelter and walk up the Hill. As members will know, it is at around this time that a vote was commencing in the House.
Still, we can remember that March 22 was budget day, that there was a large media presence and that a lot was going on. When we read the description of the facts as reported, we understand what was happening that day.
In his decision, the Speaker said that he had done some research and provided more citations. He pointed out many things, including the following:
The importance of the matter of members' access to the precinct, particularly when there are votes for members to attend, cannot be overstated. It bears repeating that even a temporary denial of access, whether there is a vote or not, cannot be tolerated. The Parliamentary Protective Service needs to better familiarize itself with the operations of the House so that its posture reflects and gives priority to the needs of the House, its committees, and its members at all times, and it needs to ensure Parliamentary Protective Service staff are always alert to changing circumstances in this regard.
Therefore, it is very important to ensure that members have access to the grounds; no one is minimizing the importance of that. We always want to make sure that no MP is blocked from accessing Parliament. To continue:
This has come up before. In 2004, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs wrote the following in its 21st report:
The denial of access to Members of the House—even if temporary—is unacceptable, and constitutes a contempt of the House. Members must not be impeded or interfered with while on their way to the Chamber, or when going about their parliamentary business. To permit this would interfere with the operation of the House of Commons, and undermine the pre-eminent right of the House to the service of its Members.
I have read through this morning's ruling several times, and nowhere does it mention limousines impeding access to the Hill. There is nothing in the ruling about that, so it seems odd to me that people would make such comments today.
As members of Parliament, we believe that access to the House is an extremely important privilege. Nobody is denying that.
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
CPC (ON)
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
2017-04-06 12:27 [p.10261]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for re-emphasizing the importance of people having the parliamentary privilege to come and vote. However, the crux of the matter is that two members of Parliament were prevented from voting. As we know, votes in the House can sometimes be close.
We will be having votes as early as next week, so there is some urgency to this issue. Therefore, would the member not agree that this should go immediately to PROC and take precedence over what is a longer conversation about the modernization of Parliament?
View Ginette Petitpas Taylor Profile
Lib. (NB)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his remarks and his question.
It is important for us to have this debate in the House today so that we can have the conversation and acknowledge the importance of this privilege. This is a great opportunity for all of the members here today to exchange ideas and keep the conversation going.
View Karine Trudel Profile
NDP (QC)
View Karine Trudel Profile
2017-04-06 12:28 [p.10261]
Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently to all the exchanges taking place here in the House.
I ran for election, was elected and am proud to represent everyone in my riding of Jonquière. I have the honour of being here, in the House, every day to speak to bills, take part in debates and vote. Those are our main duties in the House, and democracy is important to me.
However, we are finding that our rights are increasingly violated. The right to speak, particularly in committee, and the right of the opposition to take note of what the government is not doing and what it should do is part of our duties, but the right to vote in circumstances such as the budget, where it is important to be present in the House, is of paramount importance.
Therefore, I wonder why the government members, who are absent or do not speak—
View Karine Trudel Profile
NDP (QC)
View Karine Trudel Profile
2017-04-06 12:29 [p.10261]
I apologize, Mr. Speaker, I got carried away. It is a subject that is creating a lot of emotion right now. Indeed, we see the government's stubbornness in not wanting to discuss the problem in committee, in not wanting to shed light on the matter and in not wanting to find a solution. We do not want it to happen again.
I would like to ask my colleague a question. Why does the government insist on not talking about the situation in committee, so that we could have all the necessary documents in place to shed some light on the current situation?
View Ginette Petitpas Taylor Profile
Lib. (NB)
Mr. Speaker, very much like my colleague, it is truly an honour and a privilege to rise every day in the House to do the good work that we do as parliamentarians on all sides of the House. It is a privilege to represent my constituents when I come here, to be their strong voice in Ottawa and ensure their voices are heard. Therefore, I agree with the member on that point.
It is really important for us to have this debate today. A few members indicated that they wanted to hear more from the Liberal Party regarding the debate. It is a healthy debate to have to see if this should, in fact, be sent to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We can have a healthy exchange and then make the decision as to whether it should go to the PROC committee.
View Kevin Sorenson Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Liberal speeches today, which tended to focus on the one line of the Speaker's ruling that said the cameras showed the media bus went through, basically an itinerary of what happened. I am glad we have that report. However, when the member for Beauce went to the place where the security people were gathered, they were on their radios talking to other people. He was told that the reason the buses were not allowed through, even though the media buses went through, was the Prime Minister's entourage of vehicles was getting ready to leave. Then they waited and waited.
That is why this needs to go to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We do not disagree with the Speaker's comments, but we also understand that when there is a difference of opinion and security tells us that, we need to get into a little deeper study, and that is what the PROC committee does. That is the role of the committee.
As the member for Sarnia—Lambton suggested, votes take place here all the time. It is vital we make certain this type of action does not happen again. To me, the vehicles of the Prime Minister is not the problem of the Prime Minister's or the Liberals; it is those who would not allow the buses through so members could vote.
View Ginette Petitpas Taylor Profile
Lib. (NB)
Mr. Speaker, I find it a bit strange when I hear members referring to what was in the report. It seems that the members opposite are always focusing on the Prime Minister's vehicles and not the media bus. Therefore, I am a bit confused as to why it is always that topic that comes up.
Again, it is truly important that members here today have a healthy debate in order to determine if the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs should, in fact, study this issue.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, it certainly is an honour and a privilege to stand to join the debate today. It is not exactly what I think most of us originally anticipated. Actually, I believed we would be talking about Bill C-25, a bill to modernize certain aspects of Canadian corporations, co-operatives, and the like. All the same, I am very proud to stand on behalf of the citizens of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.
I have had some experience making a case to the Speaker of this chamber, asking for those views to be considered and receiving a response. Certainly, in the case of an Order Paper question, which I did not believe was answered factually or truthfully, I raised that directly with a Speaker. The Speaker came back and said that he had done a full examination of the issue. I felt it was a fair process. I felt heard, was happy to have had the opportunity, and was ready to move a motion. This was much the same as we saw this morning with the member for Milton, followed by an amendment from the member for Beauce, about their concerns with respect to the incident that happened on March 22.
Before I really get into my comments on this issue, I would like to address some of the concerns that were raised earlier, particularly by the member for Hull—Aylmer. He is perfectly capable of making those statements, as is the member for Elmwood—Transcona. It is important in a democracy that people can make their views known, and to have their constituents, as well as us, hear those words and be influenced by them.
However, before I begin to make any comments with respect to the motion or the amendment today, my comments do not undercut anyone involved. As a member of Parliament, sometimes we have to ask questions that may make others feel uncomfortable. Sometimes, as members of Parliament, we have to ask questions that may seem a little out of the box and may get a response from other people who are not necessarily happy with them.
I have complete faith in our security systems and the people who operate them. They are working within a system that is meant to protect us, not just our security but obviously to ensure Parliament can have those critical debates. However, like any system, sometimes hiccups happen. Sometimes it is a lack of training. Sometimes it is just a flood of events.
Speaking of a flood of events, I remember when the former member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada, Mr. Peter Stoffer, who is a fine and very genial individual, raised a concern in this place. We had a visiting dignitary, and he felt the security was disproportionate to the need and he was stopped. I believe he stood right behind where I sit today. He was given the chance to raise the concern. Regardless of whether the privilege was found to be in order and a prima facie case was found by the Speaker, by him standing up and raising it, it not only caused a discussion within this place but also a discussion among the officials who ran the systems to ensure members of Parliament were not impeded in the active consideration of and discharge of their duties.
That member made those concerns known, and I will give my personal opinion with respect to it. I was thinking that when we had a visiting dignitary, such as a president from another country, we expected there to be issues. Therefore, people should basically decide to make changes to their schedule to ensure things would go well. Personally, that is what I do. However, having now sat on the opposition side, I saw cases in the House where, and not yourself as the Chair, Mr. Speaker, the bearer of the title of Speaker in all things spoke to us and found prima facie cases of where members of Parliament were manhandled.
Since then, I have brought forward my own question of privilege. Therefore, my awareness of these things has increased. While a Speaker may not agree with Mr. Stoffer when he sat here as a member, or a Speaker did not agree with me, it made me feel my voice was heard and that we had a chance to deliberate and to think on our duties, and that is an important part of this conversation.
Again, I walk into this place with a great deal of respect. I also wear my ID wherever I go. The simple reason is that I want to make the job for those people who handle our security as efficient as possible. Despite all that, when we have members of Parliament who are unable to come to do the one thing that no one else can do, which is to stand in our places and vote yea or nay, or to abstain, then the voices of the people back home do not count.
Therefore, regardless of party, I would hope the members of the government and all members would agree we should stop, pause, and take note of it. Some members may take note of a particular motorcade was given as an explanation to the member for Beauce. Some may focus on a media bus. Some may focus on the fact that the prima facie case brought by the Speaker is enough for this place. We heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance say that more could be said. I am here to join that and to ensure we get as many views as possible and that when, as I really hope, this goes to PROC, my peers from parties on both sides of the House will be able to make representations, to hear witnesses.
Again, as a previous Speaker declared, and I am quoting from page 4 of the ruling, “The denial of access to Members of the House—even if temporary—is unacceptable and constitutes a contempt of the House.” A contempt of the House is a very serious thing. That is why we have committees, to bring people in to have an honest accounting from the different agencies. I asked questions specifically, saying that on page 2 the Speaker specifically laid out, “In fact, I have received two reports of the incident...Based on those reports”.
Again, we have a ruling that had an overall look at it, got some initial reports in, and said that there was a prima facie case. That is not being disrespectful of the Speaker. I would suggest it is asking if there could be more than just in a four-page summary. Absolutely I believe there could be, and that is why PROC can be there. It is not up to the Speaker to get into the intricate details. It is up to his or her peers and members of Parliament at the procedural and House affairs committee to examine these. It is the Speaker's job to say that there is a prima facie case. That is how our rules work, and they work very well.
The process we have set up is a good one. As many members have remarked, so many things happen on this precinct and the people working in it all want the same things. However, when these issues come up, where the member for Milton has said that she was unable to vote, we should take that very seriously.
How seriously should we take it? We should take it very seriously. In the centre of this room on the table is the mace. The mace represents your authority, Mr. Speaker, but it also represents the protection of your authority that is garnered through all our members. When it is here, it means the protection is here and that you are going to help us to coordinate our business.
That is because in some parts of our collective history some Speakers were not respected, and I am going back again to Great Britain hundreds of years ago. When Speakers would go to a monarch and say “Here's what the people have said about taxation”, they risked being beheaded or imprisoned, simply because the monarch of the day did not want to hear what the House of Commons, as it was back then, had to say.
I would just point out that we need to have safety for individual members as well as the proper processes that we trust our Speaker with to ensure those things are respected.
We have three forms of government: the executive, obviously embodied in the Prime Minister and his cabinet; the legislative function, which we are; and the judiciary.
I will read off the back under my card, which states, “Under the law of parliamentary privilege, the bearer has free and open access at all times without obstruction or interference to the precincts of the Houses of Parliament which the bearer is a member.” The reason why I raise this is the law. This is not just a simple privilege. This is actually law. We have the ability to say in this place that we will manage our own affairs. When members are somehow stopped through a process not of their own making, that is unreasonable, unreasonable meaning that the system or the people operating it stop them from fulfilling their functions, then it bears close examination. That is what the committee process is set up for, and I really hope government members will support that process.
There was an amendment proposed by the member for Beauce, and I will read in French:
That the motion be amended by adding the following: “and that the committee make this matter a priority over all other business including its review of the Standing Orders and Procedure of the House and its Committees.”
As we all know, that particular committee is seized with the issue of our rights. It is seized by the issue of how this place conducts itself. Some members on the government side do not want to hear those voices. They are not happy that the committee is seized with an issue of their own making. They are not happy that parliamentarians from various parties are standing up for those rights, not just our inherited rights but the rights that this place needs to maintain in order for those who come after us to enjoy. If those rights are not taken seriously in any place, whether it be in this House, the other chamber, or in our parliamentary committees, we have a problem.
The Liberal government says that it is all about discussion. Let us discuss members not being able to vote, things that are happening now that should not be happening. We understand that when things out of anyone's control happen, forgiveness is often given, explanations though should always be made.
Our primary responsibility is to scrutinize the spending of government, to authorize the spending of government. Supply is very important. When those concerns come up, we need to be able to deftly examine the issue and hear from the individuals responsible as well as their managers to give a proper accounting of what happened, what went wrong, what could be improved, and how this could be avoided in the future. Anything less is not taking those rights seriously.
We have heard Liberal government members say that they take this seriously. Good, let us take care of it now. Let us get this to PROC. Let us give the committee the ability to see the infringements of our rights and be able to right them. Maybe during that time some position of authority of the executive will have quiet conversations saying that they have been hearing from caucus members and opposition members, and that maybe the Liberals should change their minds on how they approach things.
Just like with Motion No. 6, maybe a little space on PROC to examine this issue would allow for some of those crucial conversations between those in authority, those who obviously have pushed to have their modernizing Parliament agenda at that committee. Maybe, like Motion No. 6, the Liberals will withdraw it, because they know that people on this side of the House are going to stand up, whether it be that inadvertently our rights were denied or whether this is a plan orchestrated to make life easier for those in power.
I believe that if we send this to PROC, perhaps those things might happen. I write to my constituents about those things, that there is a proposal to have us stop sitting on Fridays, that there is a proposal to pre-program motions so the government does not even need to move time allocation and just accepts it as being a default status quo, which is wrong. It is just as wrong as it is when members rise and say they were denied their rights to discharge.
Again, I believe that members of Parliament must be responsible. Obviously there are things that happen in day-to-day life where inadvertently those rights may be pushed, but members still have a right to come here, as Mr. Stoffer did, and to raise those concerns, and for those in positions of authority to hear the feedback from a member to make sure these things are being dealt with, that people are trained and knowledgeable about the very special institution we have.
I have no doubt that many members of the security service out there know more about the Criminal Code than I do, and I sat on the justice committee. I have no doubt. By the same token, they should also be versed in at least the basics of parliamentary procedure and our law, which again stands firm. We have the ability to make laws for how we conduct ourselves in this place. It is something that was hard fought for and maintained by your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, and through the Sergeant-at-Arms and his predecessors.
That is what I contend. I contend that this ruling is fair. I believe that had this ruling happened previously, the immediate result would have been that this would have gone to PROC right away so that the government could actually start moving forward and bring in its bills instead of getting lost in these things. However, it is interesting that we see a filibuster at the procedure and House affairs committee that the government does not want to interrupt with what the member for Milton and the member for Beauce have both said is an obvious issue that needs to be dealt with.
I just want again to thank the Speaker and his staff who definitely listen, who act quietly to ascertain the facts, to hear all of our voices, whether they be with the government or not, to ensure that this place always has a space to make sure that we are able to do our jobs. I humbly submit that if we support both the amendment and the motion, this will show faith in our parliamentary system and allow us to move forward. I plead with the government to have that conversation among its members asking if the way it is proceeding is good not just for the country but for this place, and whether this will, as the Rotarians like to say, build better friendships and a more fair use of our time.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2017-04-06 12:53 [p.10264]
Mr. Speaker, just prior to the member for Milton moving the motion, this is something that she said and keep in mind this is after the Speaker made the ruling. She said, “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 thePrime Minister.”
If we listen to the ruling of the Speaker, as I know the member did, the member knows full well that statement was made in poor judgment and that is being generous at the very least. Some might even argue that an apology would be warranted. If the member were listening to what the Speaker's ruling said, it was a fairly specific quote. One could easily draw the conclusion that the member was more interested in focusing on something outside of the privilege just by reading that quote and the words that followed which were even more condemning of the Prime Minister.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member opposite; however, I would point out that any hon. member has the right to stand and share his or her views, to be heard, and for other members to make up their own minds based on what they have heard not just from the member who made the point, but also from others. If apologies should be made, it should be after a process of finding out what exactly went on because it may end up being the member who just spoke who might want to apologize to the member for Milton, but we will not know until there is a thorough examination of the facts, something eminently possible which hopefully will get the support of the government to occur.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my fellow British Columbian for his thoughtful discourse on the importance of this place, its rules, and its institutions because this is the people's House. Parliament serves three very important functions. We are here to represent the Canadian people, to pass good laws, but also to hold the executive to account.
To put this in the context of what is happening at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the Liberals say they have the mandate to unilaterally change the rules of this place, and yet the Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, and the Green Party collectively represent 60% of the electorate. The Liberals are trying to do this without our consent. I find it very interesting that the Liberals are suddenly so concerned about the time management at the procedure and House affairs committee that this motion cannot be put before the committee because the committee has more pressing business.
The train wreck at the procedure and House affairs committee is completely of the Liberal government's doing. The Liberals need to clearly understand the opposition is not budging on this. We stand united. We will go to the wall. We will bring banker's boxes full of material to keep speaking until the Liberals see the light.
I would like to hear the hon. member's comments about the fact that the context of this mess is really of the Liberal government's own making and that it needs to be aware of the arrogance because that is the Achilles heel of every Liberal government.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I must admit when the government first proposed Motion No. 6, obviously it was of the Liberals' own making. With modernizing Parliament, they have decided to go by other means, by using a member who is on the PROC committee, and while they may deny that is what has happened, we actually heard in this place the government House leader say that she directed the committee.
It is wrong on a whole host of levels. One thing the member is completely right about is it was a situation of the making of the Liberals. Yes, opposition parties are standing with one voice as we represent the country the same as the Liberal members do. The Liberals should remember that at some point you will be on this side and I hope it is soon, but you may find what you have designed for the next generation of members of Parliament may not align with what you thought now.
I would ask Liberal members to have those conversations with their ministers and to encourage them to abandon this tack.
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
CPC (ON)
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
2017-04-06 12:59 [p.10265]
Mr. Speaker, I am especially glad my colleague talked about the mace and the history and symbolism of it, because that might be the only new information brought to the table. I have sat here for hours listening to people rehash what happened, with zero move to take any action to prevent this from happening.
We have all agreed it is serious that two members were prevented from voting. We know we have votes imminently, even as early as next week. It seems to me that with that kind of urgency, we should be taking action. The obvious action is to put the matter before the committee so the committee can say what it is we are going to do about media buses or limousines in the future.
Would the member agree that this should immediately go to PROC, that this is a much more urgent issue than the longer-term conversation about the modernization of Parliament?
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the urgency of the issue. If the government is serious about protecting members' rights where we see a prima facie case where rights were violated, whether it was inadvertent or not, it should be dealt with straight away. By doing so, perhaps the government would reconsider its current push at the procedure and House affairs committee for a wholesale change to the way the House conducts its own business.
I really hope the government is listening. I really hope that members of Parliament from all sides have those conversations with the ministers and whoever has that decision-making. Of course, I believe it centres on the Prime Minister himself to decide to change how this process is working out.
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
2017-04-06 13:01 [p.10265]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the member that at the end of the day, we all have responsibilities in this chamber. With that responsibility has to come a sense that we have to be able to plan forward. When we hear the bells, we know we are supposed to come to this place in a reasonable time. We are not supposed to dilly-dally in our offices, or continue with meetings, even sometimes committee meetings. It is incumbent upon us to hear those bells and ensure our parties are aware of where we are and what we are doing so we can come to this place and exercise our privilege, our right, and our responsibility to vote.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure but the member may have missed my initial comments. I personally wear ID. I personally plan my day. However, with the bus transportation system, I would also mention that I have seen members who have had knee operations or hip operations waiting for the buses. They oftentimes cannot be on time, especially in winter. If we go back to March 22, there was still snow outside. One occupational hazard we have in this precinct is ice.
While the member is completely correct that members must use reasonableness when they apply this privilege, by the same token, if a member is told that they are waiting for the Prime Minister's motorcade to get out of the way, is that reasonable? The member then decided to walk, and still could not get here in time to vote. Is that reasonable? I would say it is not.
We have to work these things out. There is construction going on here. There are all sorts of reasons for what it could be. However, when members start missing votes because of an unreasonable delay, and the Speaker found a prima facie case that their rights were violated, I would suggest the members were acting reasonably or the Speaker would not have us debate this. Instead, we would be properly focused on government business.
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
2017-04-06 13:03 [p.10266]
Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. I would like to start with a little quote, “With great power comes great responsibility.” I bet members do not know who said that, but it was Uncle Ben to Spiderman, Peter Parker. That is important. Not to make light of the situation, but it is incredible that we just spent two hours debating bollards and buses and whether people were able to get here on time.
I think the Speaker has made a very good ruling that is based on many of the precedents that have been set in this chamber, and those precedents, I think, speak to the civil servants who help run the facility here, who help run our institutions, who look after our security and are very aware, and more aware now, of what they need to do to ensure that members are not impeded in coming to the House.
I would also like to say that with great privileges there comes great responsibility. When I spoke with an elder of mine, Winston Wuttunee from Red Pheasant First Nation, he talked about responsibility, the ability to respond to a situation. He told me that when he was a young child, he would have to walk long distances to school and have to plan how long it would take for him to get there. I also remember this as a young child, having to walk two and a half miles in order to arrive at my school on time. My mum had no money for buses. She had no money for gas for the car, and we had to do this with our own two legs, and take the time to plan out the two and a half miles and say it would take around 45 or 30 minutes to get there, so I would need to leave at a certain time.
I know there is an idea as well that we often talk about. In this case, I was able to plan into the future. I knew when I needed to be at school. In this case, sometimes votes happen inadvertently or they happen at inopportune moments, but if we remember about this vote, we have to remember that at the end of the day, this vote was caused by the members of the Conservative Party, who forced this vote—
Results: 1 - 100 of 410 | Page: 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
>
>|
Show both languages
Refine Your Search
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data