Debates of May 2nd, 2024

Business of the House

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Boosting Canadian Energy and Mining Projects and Ukraine's Munitions Supply Act

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-388, An Act to fast track energy and mining projects and to facilitate the provision of munitions to Ukraine and develop its munitions industry.

Today I am tabling legislation to support our friend and ally Ukraine in its existential struggle against the ongoing illegal and genocidal Russian invasion.

The abduction of children, the systemic sexual assault, the attempted destruction of all Christian churches except ones subservient to the Putin regime, the indiscriminate killing of civilians and the crime of aggression itself all require a strong response. Moreover, they have received such a response from the brave Ukrainian people. However, for too long, people in western capitals have wrapped themselves in the language of solidarity, while they have failed to see the urgency of delivering vital support.

Bill C-388 would address two critical issues. The first is the need for more weapons. My bill would significantly streamline the process for delivering weapons to Ukraine by removing red tape. It would further require the government to send surplus military equipment to Ukraine, and it would require EDC and BDC to look for opportunities to support investment in Ukraine's domestic munitions industry. These measures address significant gaps in the Government of Canada's follow-through when it comes to delivering promised weapons.

The second issue the bill deals with is energy security and sanctions. While the government is granting yet another major sanctions waiver to support the Russian titanium industry, this bill would require the government to fast-track Canadian energy projects as part of an overall strategy to displace Russian exports and stop fuelling Russia's war machine. It is time to kick Putin's gas and kick Putin's titanium. Urgent energy development in Canada would allow us and our allies to tighten and consistently enforce our sanctions.

This bill focuses on core and urgent issues required for Ukrainian victory: weapons and sanctions. It is time to axe the attacks, rebuild the homes, fix the sanctions and stop the crime.

Finally, I have been so impressed by the courage and resilience of the Ukrainian people that I would like to take this opportunity to wish one resident of Zaporizhzhia, Svetlana Ostrovska, a very happy birthday.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Decorum in the House

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to add some comments to the point of order that you are currently considering, specifically in response to the question raised on April 18 by the deputy opposition whip. This was related to the use of a false and derogatory title in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment.

On Monday afternoon, the NDP House leader rose and made a substantial intervention concerning references to the “NDP-Liberal government”. Given that he has essentially hijacked the point of order before you for his own political concerns, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise to offer some brief comments in response before you rule.

The point of order raised earlier this month urged you to apply your views about fake titles, as mentioned in your October 18, 2023, statement, which you often quote, Mr. Speaker. I will read the specific sentence from page 17585 of the Debates. It states, “This includes coming up with fake titles for members in order to mock them or making comments that question their courage, honesty or commitment to their country.” That is exactly what the parliamentary secretary had done when he used a false and derogatory title for the Leader of the Opposition, which the deputy opposition whip brought to your attention.

An example of another false title would be if I were to, for example, describe the member for New Westminster—Burnaby as the deputy government House leader. While my colleague certainly does yeoman's work carrying the government's legislative agenda here in the House, encouraging and supporting so many time allocation and closure motions that Stanley Knowles would roll over in his grave, he does not actually get paid for that work. Therefore, to describe an NDP member as the government House leader's deputy would, indeed, be incorrect.

The NDP House leader is, however, seeking to expand the scope of the Speaker's earlier ruling to suppress debate in the House on a matter of increasing political sensitivity to him and his party. In his argument, the NDP House leader cited the Deputy Speaker's ruling on March 29, 2022, at page 3689 of the Debates. This was delivered after the Liberal Party and New Democratic Party entered into their agreement for a parliamentary arrangement, the so-called supply and confidence agreement.

I will read other passages of that ruling, which my colleague appears to have overlooked. It stated, “Fundamentally, the agreement in question is a political one. It is not the Chair’s role to interpret or give meaning to such agreements between parties.... In the current case, it is not for the Chair to determine if this agreement between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party is a coalition.” In other words, the characterization of the agreement is a matter of debate in terms of what it is, what it means and how government decisions are understood and held to account.

The facts are simply that, in the present Parliament, no single party holds a majority of seats in the House of Commons and our Westminster system of government requires the government to command the confidence of the House. Therefore, if one party does not have the votes to achieve that alone, the votes have to come from somewhere else. In the present Parliament, New Democrats and the Liberals have voted together approximately 92% of the time. If we remove Private Members' Business and opposition day motions from that mix, that percentage rises to something in excess of 97%.

If New Democrats are feeling the heat about their decision to prop up the tired, broken and broke government and are concerned about having to defend their choices on Canadian doorsteps soon, they could have simply shown us all the ultimate act of opposition and voted against the federal budget. Asking the Speaker to instead censor speech, which, as uncomfortable as it may be for the NDP, reminds Canadians of why the government remains in office every day longer that it does so, is simply not right. Fundamentally, the concerns of the NDP House leader are not a question of order. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that it also goes beyond your remit of maintaining order and decorum in the chamber.

As you said in your October 18, 2023, statement, Mr. Speaker, “The House is a place where freedom of speech is primordial and where views are strongly held and vigorously defended.” Moreover, “the Chair must allow the widest range of individual expression possible”. Later you added, “Going forward, I will be fair and will ensure that all members, regardless of which side of the House they sit on, can freely speak their minds, vigorously hold the government to account, challenge each other’s ideas and thoroughly consider public business.” Conservatives are vigorously holding the government, and those who sustain it in office, to account.

The very essence of our responsibility as parliamentarians is to speak for our constituents and help them understand how and why decisions are made. Put simply, Mr. Speaker, you must deny the NDP House leader's request to censor political debate in the House of Commons.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member.

The hon. member for Guelph is rising on a point of order.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent to revert to the tabling of reports part of the rubric.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Does the member have consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Science and Research

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, entitled “The Security of Research Partnerships Between Canadian Universities, Research Institutions and Entities Connected to the People’s Republic of China”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

We thank the clerk, the analysts, the witnesses and all the members who contributed to this report.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Yellowhead is rising with respect to a dissenting report.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this report needs to be started over because of repeated Liberal delays to hide from parliamentary scrutiny. Canada urgently needs a foreign influence registry. Universities do not have the capacity to make proper decisions on safe partnerships, and the committee has not had the opportunity to look into the new guidelines because of the government's delays in releasing them. Since the end of the study, the CSIS director has called PRC efforts to steal our technology “mind-boggling”. We need to look into this further.

Liberal stalling means we could not adequately scrutinize the new policies that came out right after our report closed. What are the Liberals hiding from Parliament and from Canadians?

Decorum in the House

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I will be very brief. This is just a reaction to my colleague, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who seemed to censor the intervention I gave on Monday on the issue of using false and misleading titles. What he censored was that Conservatives have been using the false and misleading title in French of “the Bloc-Liberal government”. This false title is something that the Conservatives have raised repeatedly in the House and it is something that applies as part of your considerations, Mr. Speaker. The reality is that the Conservatives are misleading Canadians by using a different false and misleading title in English than they are in French.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I appreciate that the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby was using the opportunity to respond to an issue that was raised by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, but I am glad he made it brief so that we did not get into a debate in terms of what had already been discussed and what the Chair has already heard.

Statements by Minister of National Defence to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 10, 2024, by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton concerning allegedly misleading statements made by the Minister of National Defence.

The question of privilege is based on his reading of the 63rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on April 10, 2024. According to the member, the testimony provided by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service director, David Vigneault, and by former deputy minister Rob Stewart in regard to an issues management note on foreign interference efforts and the content of the briefing note itself contradict the minister’s persistent denial of receiving the said note. As such, the member argued that the minister deliberately misled the House and the committee.

For his part, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader countered that the minister had not misled the House, and that his statements in committee and in the House had remained consistent. The parliamentary secretary also noted that the 63rd report made no reference to contradictory statements provided to the committee concerning this matter.

I have mentioned, in my ruling of February 15, 2024, at page 21158 of the Debates, that three elements have to be established when it is alleged that a member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House, namely:

It must be proven that the statement was misleading; it must be established that, when making a statement, the member knew it to be incorrect; and finally, it must be demonstrated that the member intended to mislead the House.

Like my predecessors, I have also remarked in a ruling on a similar matter, on December 13, 2023, that these three conditions are a very high threshold, and rightfully so. The charge of deliberately misleading the House or one of its committees is a serious one as it touches on the integrity of the member.

With these observations and established conventions in mind, I have carefully examined the statements that were made concerning this matter, as well as the entire content of the 63rd report.

The Chair must acknowledge the fact that the minister has been consistent in his statements that he did not receive the note in question. This is an assertion that the CSIS director seems to accept, based on the committee’s report. According to the report, at page 85, “Mr. Vigneault’s understanding...that it was clear that [the minister] never saw the IMU and that he had no reason to doubt [the minister] on that point.”

Faced with a similar situation, on April 29, 2015, at page 13198 of the Debates, one of my predecessors said:

With no evidence presented to the contrary, the conventions of this House dictate that, as your Speaker, I must take all Members at their word. To do otherwise, to take it upon myself to assess the truthfulness or accuracy of Members' statements is not a role which has been conferred on me, nor that the House has indicated that it would somehow wish the Chair to assume, with all of its implications.

The ruling continues by quoting Speaker Milliken's words from page 10462 of the April 16, 2002, Debates. They are worth repeating:

If we do not preserve the tradition of accepting the word of a fellow member, which is a fundamental principle of our parliamentary system, then freedom of speech, both inside and outside the House, is imperilled.

It appears to the Chair that the current matter is a dispute as to the facts and that it constitutes a matter for debate, not a question of privilege.

The Chair wishes to make one final observation in relation to a comment made by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton in his April 10 intervention. He suggested that by including a document in his party’s supplementary opinion, the House would now be seized with it. To this, I would refer members to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 995:

Committees are not responsible for the content of these opinions. They are not, strictly speaking, part of the report. The authors of these opinions alone are responsible for their content.

I appreciate the efforts invested by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton and his colleagues from the procedure and house affairs committee in considering the question of privilege related to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and to other members. They obviously did not take their responsibility lightly.

I thank members for their attention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in this place and bring the voice of my constituents who are back home in Nova Scotia. Today we are debating really important legislation—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is the hon. member is asking a question? It is questions and comments for the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

The hon. member for Kings—Hants.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I apologize. I thought I was up on debate, but I am happy to ask the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby a question.

The question is on his take on the Conservative Party. The Conservatives talk about “technology, not taxes”. This legislation is all about enabling billions of dollars of clean energy investment, which is good for jobs, its is good for the economy and ultimately it is good for the environment. The Conservatives talk about technology, not taxes, yet they are standing in the way of crucial legislation that matters for Atlantic Canada.

Could the member opposite comment on his disappointment in the Conservative position and perhaps explain why the NDP is in support of jobs, notwithstanding that the Conservatives are against this.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the real slogan of the Conservatives should be “tackiness, not technology”, because we saw in Alberta Danielle Smith blocking $33 billion worth of clean energy projects, which would have meant so much for energy workers in Alberta. We know that other jurisdictions around the world are making the investments in clean energy. In Conservative-run provinces, it is an absolute lockdown on any new technology that actually provides for clean energy. Now we see their fervent opposition to clean energy in Atlantic Canada by their blocking of Bill C-49, which they have been doing now for months.

The reality is that we are talking about a party of Luddites within the Conservative caucus. They simply refuse the clean energy prosperity that comes from making the investments in clean energy. Bill C-49 is one of the first steps that need to happen.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I remember, in Alberta in the last two weeks, there was a notification of two solar projects being moved along and approved. Therefore, I am not sure where he is getting these six months. They took a period to look at not being approved on irrigated farmland, but they are approving them, two in my riding. We are talking 30 megawatts, big ones. I think he is a little incorrect in his statement.

Would he like to revise that statement about what is occurring in Alberta? I know from my riding that he is absolutely wrong.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague. I enjoyed working with him on the Canadian heritage committee.

I would certainly say that a lot of investments came from the former NDP government in Alberta under Rachel Notley, which really made a serious effort to provide for those clean energy jobs. Of course, many of those projects were ultimately approved.

Danielle Smith then did the lockdown, and $33 billion in additional clean energy projects have basically been stalled.

I know that the member knows his riding well. I think the difference between us is that he might try to attribute it to the Conservative government. I certainly attribute it to what was the best government in Alberta's history, the government under Rachel Notley, which made such a difference. It helped to reinforce the education sector and health care sector and it made a real difference in terms of good governance in Alberta. I know that for many Albertans they are hoping that day will come back again, when they can hope that there will not be the gutting of health care and education that we have seen, the stalling of clean energy projects.

The reality of farm receipts in Alberta is that they are among the worst in the country. The Danielle Smith government, the UCP government, has been devastating for Alberta.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain the way he sees things.

In committee, the Bloc Québécois proposed amendments that were extremely reasonable and that sought, among other things, to protect local communities and fishing groups, but they were rejected. Can my colleague explain his viewpoint? Did he agree with those amendments?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, of course we are concerned about the fishers, who have raised some very legitimate concerns. When we look at the issue of clean energy and the future of clean energy across Canada, it is important that we consult and that the needs of the fisheries and fishers be taken into consideration. We support all of these elements to ensure that consultations with fishers take place. With respect to Bill C‑49, there are some legitimate concerns that we think are important as well.

We think it is important to move forward with Bill C‑49 and to have these clean energy projects. At the same time, we must ensure that consultations on this industry that is so important to the Atlantic provinces are taken into consideration.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, we have two provincial premiers who have come to the table expecting to see provincial legislation that mirrors the federal legislation. We have multiple parties, different levels of government, coming together, recognizing the potential that this legislation has with respect to the future prosperity for Atlantic Canada, and yet both the Conservative Party of Canada, the new far-right, and the Bloc are joining forces to try to prevent this bill from passing. I wonder if the hon. member could provide his thoughts in regard to why we see a lack of respect for the two provinces working with Ottawa to make this happen.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am highly critical of the Conservative approach under the party's new leader, the member for Carleton.

The reality is that there used to be this ability in the House of Commons, particularly in minority governments, and the NDP, in minority governments, has pushed hard to make a difference. We have seen the results in universal health care, and are now looking forward to the results of dental care and of pharmacare for people with diabetes. Six million people across the country, 17,000 in each and every riding, would finally have their diabetes medication, which costs over $1,000 a month in many cases, being paid for. All of those things, as well as anti-scab legislation and affordable housing, were all blocked by the Conservatives.

The Conservatives seem to have taken an approach of blocking everything that comes before the House. It is almost like they do not want to see any benefits going to their constituents. I find it surprising. I find it tragic that parliamentarians elected with the commitment, as we all make during election campaigns, to come to the House of Commons and do the best for their constituents, would do the exact opposite.

Then we come back to Bill C-49, where there is a notable benefit to start moving forward with clean energy projects. There are 1.5 million new jobs in the United States, and in Canada, we are talking about tens of thousands of new well-paying jobs that could come from those good investments. We did not see any under the Harper regime.

Tragically, we have not seen any from the Liberal government. However, at least with Bill C-49, we are seeing the foundation that would allow for the investments to be made, so we would be able to create those jobs.

In the end, Conservatives will have to defend their record when they go back to their ridings when the next election happens.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, what an interesting question we just heard from the member for Winnipeg North. He said that, if several premiers come together in thinking a policy is good for their provinces, why would that not be allowed to pass. It is almost like he has forgotten that seven out of 10 premiers were against raising the carbon tax on April 1.

The NDP House leader just said that, if premiers came together and agreed, we should pass that bill because premiers know what is best for their provinces. Ironically, I would ask him the same question about the raise in the carbon tax on April 1. I think of all of the premiers who came together to say the Liberal government should not do that. How would one be good, but not the other? Could he square that circle for me?

While I am on the topic of health care, the NDP government in Saskatchewan closed 52 hospitals when they were—