Andrew Scheer

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is all talk and no results. The Liberals announced that they are eliminating seed research at the Indian Head research farm, jeopardizing local jobs. Many groups, like the Grain Growers of Canada and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, have all condemned this decision. Now, the minister will claim that this work will continue at another site, but here is the problem. The site at Indian Head has over 100 years of data, unique soil conditions and local staff with decades of expertise and knowledge. This research is worth hundreds of millions of dollars for the Canadian ag industry. In the meantime, the government found millions of dollars for foreign aid for projects, like gender-just rice farming, that deliver no benefits for Canadians. Why is the government sacrificing Canadian research and jobs for Liberal waste?

Mr. Speaker. I am rising this evening on a question of privilege concerning the leak of key details of Bill C-40, an act respecting production, procurement and investment in relation to national defence and national security, which was tabled in the House earlier today. Yesterday afternoon, the Globe and Mail published a report entitled “Ottawa to turn defence procurement agency into Crown corporation, sources say”, which cited three sources for its revelations. According to this report, “The three sources said legislation being tabled this week by Procurement Minister...includes measures to make the DIA a Crown corporation.” A few hours later, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation published its own reporting on the matter, advising that the public works minister “plans on introducing new, separate legislation taking the DIA one step further into independent Crown corporation status. The title of the proposed bill has appeared in House of Commons documents.” The entire thrust of part 1 of Bill C-40, something which could not be gleaned from the long title of the bill, is to establish something called the Canadian corporation for defence investment. Given the proposals to stand up the Defence Investment Agency found in Bill C-31, which is currently before the Standing Committee on Finance, Steven Chase's and Marieke Walsh's sources could not be said to have simply triangulated publicly available information to deduce the government's plans. However, the revelations did not stop there. The Toronto newspaper also indicated that the government “announced in April that it planned to create a cabinet position, the minister of defence procurement, to steer purchasing”, and, “Three sources said the legislation being tabled Tuesday also will lay out the duties of this new minister.” As for these ministerial arrangements, the CBC's Murray Brewster reported, “the Crown corporation would report to an associate minister of defence for public accountability purposes.” That associate minister role is exactly what clauses 13 and 14 of Bill C-40 would establish. Again, this is not something discernible from the long title, nor were these specifics telegraphed as such in any previous public statements by the government. What we are looking at here is a leak of the provisions of Bill C-40 while it was on notice for introduction. Paragraph 3.14 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, explains that: The premature disclosure of bills which have not yet been read in the House may be a breach of privilege. There is a well-established convention of parliamentary practice whereby members must be the first to be informed of the substance of legislative measures. This is because the House plays an essential role in the legislative process. The rule governing the confidentiality of bills ensures that members, as lawmakers, are aware of the details of a bill before they are made public. It is therefore forbidden to disclose specific provisions of a bill from the time notice is given to first reading. Only the title is made public when the Notice Paper is published. Mr. Speaker Milliken put it more succinctly on March 19, 2001, at page 1840 of the Debates. He said, “it is clear that information concerning legislation, although denied to members, was given to members of the media without any effective measures to secure the rights of the House”, and, “I have concluded that this constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House”. The report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that followed that 2001 leak, concluded, “This case should serve as a warning that our House will insist on the full recognition of its constitutional function and historic privileges across the full spectrum of government.” Sadly, the warning has had to be sounded multiple times since, following rulings by your predecessors finding similar prima facie contempt on October 15, 2001, April 19, 2016 and March 10, 2020. That is not to mention several other close call rulings that fell short of the necessary threshold yet saw the Chair sound cautionary notes for future reference. Most of those close calls occurred under the present Liberal government, which would often answer questions of privilege with claims that no one could be certain who had leaked the bill or even when it had been leaked, citing advance policy consultations with stakeholders. In fact, both news reports yesterday specifically tied the information shared by sources to the bill placed on the Notice Paper. What is more is that no such defence can be offered about stakeholders being naive to parliamentary conventions talking about the consultations they participated in. In both reports, the news outlets granted their “federal sources”, according to the CBC, anonymity because they were “not authorized to discuss the matter publicly” and “not authorized to speak publicly”. The fact that we cannot say for sure exactly which Liberals leaked the content of the bill is, however, no impediment to the Speaker finding a prima facie case of privilege. When confronted with a similar case, Mr. Speaker Milliken said on October 15, 2001, at page 6085 of the Debates: The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona in his remarks tried to assist the Chair by suggesting that it was for the Chair to investigate the matter and come up with the name of the culprit and so on. I respect his opinion of course in all matters, but in this matter I think his view is perhaps wrong. There is a body that is well equipped to commit acts of inquisition, and that is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which has a fearsome chairman, quite able to extract information from witnesses who appear before the committee, with the aid of the capable members who form that committee of the House. Moreover, after anonymity had been sought by the sources cited in The Canadian Press on the former Bill C-7 respecting medical assistance in dying, Mr. Speaker Rota said, in finding a prima facie contempt on March 10, 2020, at page 1892 of the Debates, “Everything indicates that the act was deliberate. It is difficult to posit a misunderstanding or ignorance of the rules in this case.” Just as in 2020, the leakers knew what they were doing, they knew it was wrong and they knew why it was wrong. What is more troubling is that this is just one action of many taken by a Liberal government that increasingly disrespects and disregards Parliament. This is not the first such complaint the Chair has entertained about MPs getting information after the media. It is not even the first such complaint this week. We have a Prime Minister whose question period participation rate is setting records, but the bad kind, I should clarify. After the Liberal Prime Minister declared a trade war this summer, his first address to parliamentarians was in Strasbourg, to Europe's Parliament, not here in Ottawa to Canada's own Parliament. I could go on. The House must stand up for its rights, especially against a government that appears happy to see Parliament as nothing but a distraction or, worse, just a mere speed bump. If the Speaker agrees with me that there is a prima facie contempt, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion.

Mr. Speaker, the long summertime drought of Thursday questions finally comes to an end. I know much relief is felt not just in the parliamentary precinct but across the land. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the government House leader back after what I am sure was a very busy summer for us all as we were out in our constituencies meeting with Canadians, hearing directly about their concerns and now bringing their issues back here to Parliament. I would like to ask the government House leader if during his travels this summer, he heard from Canadians who want to move past the rhetoric to results and who want the government to actually save them money. We know the government has conceded that gas taxes take a big bite out of the economy and hurt affordability. In order to save Canadians money, will he finally agree to the Conservative plan and not just have a temporary reprieve of the gas tax until January, as we saw with Bill C-38? Are there any plans for the government to make that last longer, all the way to Canada Day? Now that the government has conceded the principle that gas taxes hurt the economy, will it abandon the fuel standard tax and bring in legislation to repeal it? Finally, after all the photo ops, rhetoric and bluster, will there be a single new project that has gone through the Major Projects Office or benefited from the unprecedented powers of Bill C-5? Will we finally get to see things built, or was this summer of press conferences and MOUs just a bunch of political theatre?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition, signed by over 215 residents in and around the Indian Head area who are protesting the closure of the Indian Head Research Farm. This research facility has over 100 years of data on soil, moisture and crop varieties. The current Liberal government is proving to be anti-science by shutting this site down. The petitioners call upon the Liberal government to save the jobs at Indian Head, save the research that is done at the facility and keep the centre open.

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick point of order. I hate to interrupt the hon. member's speech. Our ridings share a border, and so we are neighbouring members of Parliament. My riding goes all the way to Melville where her riding begins. I have enjoyed serving with her for the last decade or so, and it pains me greatly to have to bring up this point of order during her farewell speech. I will avail myself of the opportunity to hopefully ask a question or make a comment when she has finished her speech. However, earlier today, the Speaker ruled on the admissibility of this motion, which does have several knock-on effects, including what might happen at committee. I want to give notice to the Chair that we may come back later on today to make a submission on some of the dynamics and some of those moving pieces.