43rd PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION House of Commons Debates Official Report (Hansard) Volume 150 No. 099 Tuesday, May 11, 2021 Speaker: The Honourable Anthony Rota CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) 7019 HOUSE OF COMMONS Tuesday, May 11, 2021 The House met at 10 a.m. to respond to these events, including an international investigation into credible reports of war crimes and gross violations of human rights law. The petitioners and others are concerned about broader issues of human rights and intercommunal tensions in Ethiopia and Prayer are calling for greater engagement from the Government of Canada on them. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS ● (1005) CONVERSION THERAPY [English] COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, NATURAL RESOURCES CPC): Mr. Speaker, the fourth and final petition I am presenting in Mr. James Maloney (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. the House today is with respect to Bill C-6. Petitioners are support‐ Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, ive of efforts to ban conversion therapy. They are also concerned the second report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources about the definition of conversion therapy that is used in Bill C-6 in relation to Bill S-3, an act to amend the Offshore Health and and the effect it would have of prohibiting private conversations Safety Act. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to and the expression of personal views in conversation, things that, in report the bill back to the House without amendment. reality, have nothing to do with conversion therapy but that could * * * be falsely defined as such, based on drafting problems with the bill. Petitioners implore the House and the government to work toward a PETITIONS version of the bill that actually bans conversion therapy and to get that bill passed into law as quickly as possible. HUMAN ORGAN TRAFFICKING Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present this morning. The first petition is in support of Bill S-204, a bill that has just I commend these four petitions to the consideration of members. passed the Senate and that I presented to the House yesterday. The bill would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ taken without the consent of the person it came from. This bill has been before the House in various forms for ap‐ TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE proaching 15 years. The petitioners are very hopeful that this will be the Parliament that finally gets these measures passed into law. FALUN GONG Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, I am presenting virtually this morning a petition from a number of CPC): Mr. Speaker, the second petition highlights the persecution constituents concerning the Trans Mountain pipeline. The con‐ of Falun Gong practitioners, in particular in China, and it calls on stituents initially launched this petition at a time when the Govern‐ the government to use tools such as the Magnitsky act to sanction ment of Canada had not finalized the purchase, but the points re‐ those responsible for the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. maining to continue to present this petition relate to the fact that di‐ luted bitumen has no scientific way to be cleaned up, which the pe‐ ETHIOPIA titioners emphasize puts the areas in which the Aframax tankers in Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, largely increased numbers would transit from the Port of Burnaby CPC): Mr. Speaker, the third petition highlights the humanitarian to other ports at an unacceptable level of risk to the marine ecosys‐ and human rights situation in the Tigray region of Ethiopia. Peti‐ tem. They call on the government to cease any federal spending on tioners are calling for various actions by the Government of Canada completing the Trans Mountain pipeline or purchasing it. 7020 COMMONS DEBATES May 11, 2021 Speaker's Ruling TRAVEL ADVISERS National Defence. The member then reviewed the precedents in this Mr. Chris Lewis (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the matter. Following this, she intervened again to point out that, when opportunity to rise in the House and present this petition regarding there is some doubt on the matter, the Chair should let the House the dire financial circumstances facing over 12,000 independent decide, while stressing the importance of clarity for the delibera‐ travel advisers across Canada. Over 12,000 Canadians have been tions and the integrity of the information provided by the govern‐ forced into near bankruptcy, slipping through the massive cracks of ment. the government's inept COVID response. These travel advisers have been left to languish, excluded from all COVID business as‐ sistance packages. This petition calls for the House to immediately The member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke then argued that it get sector-specific funding to these long-suffering business owners. would hinder members' work if they were misled in order to pre‐ ANIMAL WELFARE vent them from holding the government accountable. In order to Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, determine whether some officials were negligent, members must CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two e-petitions to present today. know whether the Prime Minister or staff within his office were aware of the allegations. He also urged the Chair to take note of the The first petition is related to animal testing for cosmetics. The testimony given before the Standing Committee on National De‐ over 600 petitioners would like the Canadian government to exam‐ fence. ine some of the other practices around the world, particularly in Eu‐ rope, and update our laws accordingly. ● (1010) [Translation] INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, In response, the Leader of the Government in the House of Com‐ CPC): Mr. Speaker, the second e-petition, which is very dear to my mons stated that the Prime Minister had not misled the House and heart, is regarding the interprovincial transit of Canadian wine, beer that his answers had remained consistent. and spirits. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support Bill C-260. Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance did not include such mea‐ The House leader covered in detail the points raised by the mem‐ sures in the budget bill this time, but I am hopeful that, by hook or ber for Portage—Lisgar while citing the statements, emails and by crook, we will see interprovincial trade of beer, wine and spirits committee testimony. He argued that the facts had been twisted to in Canada. It should not be a crime to share some of the good ales raise doubt about the Prime Minister’s statements. He indicated that and fine drinks across this great country. a simple doubt was not enough to establish a prima facie question of privilege and that, in this case, there was no possible doubt. * * * QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Presi‐ The member for Rivière-du-Nord added that there were differ‐ dent of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of ences between the Prime Minister’s statements and the testimony Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Govern‐ heard by the Standing Committee on National Defence. He also ment in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all urged the Chair to take note of the testimony and asked that the questions be allowed to stand. matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for clarifications. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [English] * * * PRIVILEGE The question of privilege which the Chair has been asked to rule ALLEGED MISLEADING COMMENTS BY THE PRIME MINISTER— on is the following: Did the Prime Minister's responses during Oral SPEAKER'S RULING Questions contain contradictions that would allow one to conclude The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of priv‐ that he intentionally misled the House? ilege raised on April 28, 2021 by the member for Portage—Lisgar concerning allegedly misleading statements made by the Prime Minister. To answer this question, three elements must be proven to con‐ The member argued that the Prime Minister, by denying he knew vince the Chair that statements were deliberately misleading: First, of allegations of sexual misconduct against General Vance in 2018, the statement must effectively be misleading or manifestly contra‐ intentionally misled the House during Oral Questions. In support of dictory; second, the author of the statement must know, in making that allegation, she presented internal emails from the Privy Coun‐ the statement, that it is false; third, the member intended to mislead cil Office and testimony given before the Standing Committee on the House. May 11, 2021 COMMONS DEBATES 7021 Government Orders [Translation] one to conclude that they are misleading statements. There is thus no reason to continue this analysis. Before continuing, I would be remiss if I did not mention the un‐ usual nature of the argument put forward by the members. A thor‐ ough review of precedents, including those to which the member [English] for Portage—Lisgar referred, shows and reveals a common trait. The remarks under review were always those made by a single I acknowledge that some members think that the Prime Minis‐ member. In this case, what is being proposed is a review not only of ter's responses are contradicted by the information presented in the Prime Minister’s responses, but also of the context in which committee, while others maintain that the same information con‐ they were made.