SoVote

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Nov/23/21 2:50:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to be here today to represent the people of Terrebonne. I wanted to take a moment to thank them for electing me. I was pregnant, very pregnant, when they elected me. In doing so, they chose to send both a mom and female MP to Ottawa. I am also proud to represent the Bloc Québécois, a party that always makes concrete proposals. That is precisely what was missing from the throne speech: concrete proposals and responses, particularly regarding how to move away from fossil fuels and address the climate crisis and the labour shortage. The throne speech did not provide any answers to those issues.

115 words

Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne

Mr. Brendan Hanley

Nov/23/21 2:51:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments, but I did not hear a question there. If it was an invitation to work together for the well-being of Canadians, I am ready to do so.

38 words

Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne

Mrs. Sophie Chatel (Pontiac, Lib.)

Nov/23/21 2:52:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. This is my first time rising in the House. I would like to start by congratulating you on your election, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to thank you for what you said yesterday about respect and listening. That really resonated with me. You also stressed the importance of setting an example for the young people who are listening to us and of creating an atmosphere in the House where women can express themselves fully and completely. I am honoured to have been elected by my community. I want to thank the people of Pontiac, a microcosm of the Canadian mosaic with its French-speaking and English-speaking rural communities, indigenous communities and a very multicultural urban element. I thank them all for their trust. I would also like to thank my family and friends, who supported my first foray into politics. Before I became an MP, I worked for the OECD, where we mainly sought to ensure that countries around the world agree to ensure that large multinationals pay their fair share of taxes. I also worked in the public service, and I would like to take this opportunity to commend all of my colleagues who have been working very hard to provide outstanding service to Canadians, particularly during the pandemic. It is even more important to talk about taxation today. Given that we are emerging from a pandemic and facing significant climate change, it is important that the wealthy, the large multinationals and all those who are successful share and act in such a way that we are able to overcome the pandemic and fight this significant climate change together. Like many communities in Canada, the communities in Pontiac are tight-knit. They have been very resilient during the pandemic and I am sure that they will be able to deal with all of the other challenges. Being an MP is about more than just listening to and representing people. It is about acting as a liaison between Canadian politics and local initiatives. Since 2015, the Liberal government has been working to protect the environment and grow the economy. It has also been supporting families and growing the middle class. We can be very proud of the work that has been accomplished. However, there is still a lot of work to be done. Major challenges lie ahead. To overcome them, we need to work with our colleagues in the other parties, as well as with the provinces and territories. As we develop our policies, we must include indigenous communities every step of the way, not to mention the municipalities, which will be on the front lines of implementing our climate plans. We must work together to build a stronger, greener, fairer and more resilient Canada. As Her Excellency the Governor General said in the Speech from the Throne, our priorities for this 44th Parliament are clear. We will work together to end the pandemic, while building a more resilient economy and a greener future, so that generations to come can enjoy what we have enjoyed. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic turned our country upside down. Canadians have gone through some very difficult times. I would like to offer my sincere condolences to all those who have lost loved ones during this pandemic. I also want to thank the health care workers for their ongoing efforts to support our communities. Our government knows that the best tool for keeping this pandemic under control and putting an end to it is vaccination. We made sure to have enough doses for all Canadians to get them vaccinated quickly. What is more, we have reached another important step in the fight against COVID‑19, the approval of vaccines for children 5 to 11. We have brought in measures to end this pandemic, including requiring proof of vaccination and making vaccination mandatory for federal employees and anyone travelling by plane, train, or boat. We will continue to move forward together and strengthen the health care system by working with the provinces and territories. As we all know, one of the biggest challenges of our time is fighting climate change. Like my hon. colleague from Yukon, that is why I am here in the House. Since 2015, the government has put a price on pollution, one of the highest in the world. We set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. We have banned the sale of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035 and invested more than $100 billion in climate action and the green recovery. Canadians are already feeling the effects of climate change and are very worried about what global warming will bring. Indeed, before the recent floods, British Columbians were battling forest fires this summer. We also endured our share of disasters in Pontiac, not to mention the whole issue of melting Arctic ice. Canada is responding to global warming by developing the first-ever national adaptation strategy. In the throne speech, our government has committed to capping and cutting oil and gas sector emissions, while accelerating our path to net zero. We have committed to protecting our land and oceans, and to creating the Canada water agency to protect this vital resource. Members of Parliament are in a position to galvanize people in support of local initiatives to implement Canada's climate plan, and my team and I did exactly that this week when we launched an initiative to build a green and prosperous Pontiac. Our government knows that fighting climate change and economic growth go hand in hand. Canada is a world leader and will continue to be a world leader in the production of steel, aluminum and the batteries essential for the production of our electric vehicles. We will be a leader in tomorrow's economy. For the sake of future generations, we must do everything in our power to ensure that climate action is at the heart of every one of our policy decisions. The pandemic has devastated the global economy. Our Liberal government was there to support businesses, organizations and Canadians so that we could face this unprecedented crisis together. Canada's job numbers are back to pre-pandemic levels. Our government will move to targeted support while prudently managing spending. We are well aware that the cost of living is increasing around the world. As mentioned in the throne speech, to address this challenge, the government will build more housing through a new fund for municipalities. It will help families buy their first home and increase the stock of affordable housing. I will work hard to also ensure that the voice of rural communities is heard on this file. In addition, the Canada child benefit helped lift thousands of children out of poverty. Our government will continue increasing this payment so it will keep up with the cost of living. We will continue building the first-ever Canada-wide early learning and child care system. Canadian families will finally have access to affordable $10-a-day child care. This will make it possible for women to return to the labour market and enjoy financial independence. Quebec has seen far too many femicides since early 2021. Violence against women and girls has become more severe during this pandemic. The government is committed to moving forward with a 10-year national action plan on gender-based violence and will continue to support organizations that work hard to provide critical services to women and girls across the country. It is not just women and girls we must keep safe, but all Canadians. There has been a serious rise in gun violence in our cities. We are determined to eliminate this problem by implementing such measures as criminal background checks, the mandatory buyback of assault-style weapons and support for the provinces and territories that want to ban handguns in their jurisdictions. I am sure that Canadians want a country in their own image, where human rights are not only respected but also promoted and supported. Although Canada is a leader in that respect, we still have work to do. Our government believes that battling systemic racism and discrimination must be a priority. We have heard Canadians stand up courageously against the injustice they witness day after day. Sadly, there is no denying that systemic racism exists in Canada. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to talk about this situation and fight it. The government is committed to taking action. That is why we will keep working to advance the autonomy and prosperity of Black and racialized communities and indigenous peoples. Our government will also continue to reform the criminal justice system and policing to tackle the overrepresentation of racialized and indigenous individuals in Canadian prisons. Our government will continue to combat harmful content online and will be a strong advocate for the LGBTQ2 community. Our government will complete its work on banning conversion therapy. These types of therapy are extremely harmful to the mental health and well-being of people. That is why we must ensure that such practices are illegal in Canada. It is true that it is 2021, and attitudes and institutions have no doubt improved, but more than ever, we are talking about reconciliation and the importance of communicating and collaborating with indigenous peoples. As stated in the Speech from the Throne, reconciliation cannot come without truth. Like many Canadians, I was deeply affected and frankly horrified by the discovery of the unmarked graves at former residential schools. The history of these young children and their families must not be forgotten. Together, we must continue to fight the injustices that indigenous peoples continue to suffer. One of the worst tragedies our country is facing is the murder and disappearance of indigenous women, girls and individuals in Canada. Our government understands the importance of taking action and will accelerate work with its indigenous partners to address this national tragedy. As mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, reconciliation requires a whole-of-government approach to break down barriers and build a better world. I am a proud Quebecker. French is the language I work in and the language I raised my children in. We know that we must ramp up our efforts to protect French in Quebec and in francophone communities outside Quebec, especially since we are in the minority in North America. I am reassured to see that our government has decided to reintroduce its bill for the substantive equality of French and English and the strengthening of the Official Languages Act. It is essential to support official language minority communities and to promote French across the country. We can use arts and culture to protect and promote our official languages. As members know, the pandemic has been tough on these communities, on our artists. Our government will continue to support the cultural industry by introducing new legislation to reform the Broadcasting Act and ensure that web giants pay their fair share for the creation and promotion of Canadian content. We live in a deeply interconnected world, and Canada must reinforce peace, international security, the rule of law, respect for human rights, and democracy. Canada will continue to prioritize increasing its foreign assistance budget each year and investing in sustainable development. I want to conclude by emphasizing that Canadians elected us to work constructively and collaboratively on advancing their priorities. That is what I plan to do, and our government will as well. We are privileged to serve as members of Parliament. We must work as a team to serve Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Together, we will overcome this pandemic. We will transition to a green economy, we will fight climate change together, and we will tackle many more challenges together.

1976 words

All Topics

Mrs. Dominique Vien (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC)

Nov/23/21 3:12:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say hello to you and to everyone. I am very pleased to be here today. Before I begin, I must give a special thanks to the people of Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for putting their trust in me. I am honoured. This is the fifth time I have been elected in this riding. The throne speech makes no mention of the labour shortage, and yet Canada is under a lot of pressure. The labour shortage is hurting our economy. All sectors are affected. Businesses have had to cut production and some have even had to turn down contracts. In my riding, 91 businesses have 1,402 job openings. Groupe Coté Inox, Exceldor and Plastiques Moore are three of these businesses. They know this reality first-hand. That is on top of runaway inflation and surreal debt. Why does the government still claim to be a credible economic actor? What will it do to fill our businesses' vacant positions? As my colleague was saying, we have the same number of jobs but no one to fill them.

187 words

Mrs. Sophie Chatel

Nov/23/21 3:14:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and congratulate her on being elected. Together, Canadians have done extraordinary work to recover from the worst economic crisis since the Second World War. Only that tremendous effort enabled us to save our economy and maintain the progress we have made. Of course we still have work to do. We have all heard about the job shortage, and together we will find better solutions. For starters, we need to invest in immigration programs, make those processes easier, and ensure full employment in our communities. We all know that will be a challenge, and I hope I can count on my colleagues to help us overcome it.

113 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Nov/23/21 3:15:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, a minute is all I need to comment on the throne speech, because saying that the speech had no substance whatsoever would be an understatement. I want to acknowledge the people of Trois-Rivières who placed their trust in me. They put their trust and their future in the hands of someone else and I thank them for that. I also thank the volunteers who worked with me and without whom this would not have been possible. Those issues that were urgent before the election are no less urgent today. Climate action is urgent. Just look at British Columbia. However, if the throne speech is any indication of the government's climate plan, then this government will miss the mark yet again. Addressing illegal gun trafficking is urgent. Just look at Montreal. However, there was no indication in today's speech that the government is willing to do whatever it can to stop the violence. We are at the very beginning of the session and the government already seems out of breath. The Bloc Québécois is reaching out once again, hoping that the government's measures are more than just words, words and more words. Urgent action is needed. Will my colleague work with us to make sure that the government's policies are up to the task?

226 words

Mrs. Sophie Chatel

Nov/23/21 3:17:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Trois-Rivières and I congratulate him on his election win. I have to say that the climate crisis is indeed at the heart of every action this government takes. This has been true since 2015 and will remain true going forward. It is also at the heart of our economic policies. We have already invested over $100 billion in climate action, and we will increase the effectiveness of our measures. Working together to address this crisis is one of the ways we will achieve our goals. With regard to guns, we are going to abolish assault-style weapons, and we will work with those provinces that want to restrict handguns. Violence in our cities and towns must stop.

129 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Nov/23/21 3:18:30 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, qujannamiik. First, it was incredible to hear a part of the throne speech delivered in Inuktitut. Canada is richer for it and my sincere congratulations to Her Excellency Mary May Simon. I love that a quilliq was lit beside her and that I could smell it from where I stood. I also want to thank all the Nunavummiut who voted for me, supported me and trusted me to represent them in this House. Qujannamiik. Uqaqtittiji, as I flew from community to community, one constant message was heard, “We need housing and we need it now.” As members are aware, Nunavut has been facing a housing crisis for decades. Nunavummiut have been seeking help from the federal government to build more and better quality housing. Uqaqtittiji, I would like to know when the Liberal government is going to move from planning to actually funding more housing for Nunavummiut, first nations, Métis and Inuit across Canada. Qujannamiik.

160 words

Mrs. Sophie Chatel

Nov/23/21 3:20:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the housing crisis is indeed a problem across Canada, but it is particularly serious in our indigenous communities. It is important that the government acts on all fronts, and especially in our indigenous communities. I have two indigenous communities in my riding, and affordable housing is even more urgent in those communities. We have committed as a government to do more on housing and more for indigenous communities facing various crises. Housing is one, but mental health is another crisis. We commit to work with the indigenous communities to resolve those crises.

94 words

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman (Hastings—Lennox and Addington, CPC)

Nov/23/21 3:21:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my family, the volunteers and the good people of Hastings—Lennox and Addington for granting me this great responsibility in sending me to this House. The Liberal government has presided over record inflation. Sadly, this is crippling Canadian businesses, families and farms. Hastings—Lennox and Addington is not exempt from this. Out-of-control inflation, debt and the cost of living caused by the irresponsible Liberal government is unacceptable. Many businesses, families and seniors in the communities in my riding are struggling and are on the brink of bankruptcy. They need meaningful leadership. They need help. Canadians deserve to know when the government will finally listen and take concrete action against this cost of living crisis.

122 words

Mrs. Sophie Chatel

Nov/23/21 3:22:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy was facing, along with the whole world, the worst crisis it has faced since World War II, and look at where we are now. Look at where we are now. We are strong because of this government. We are stronger and we will build better, and we will build without leaving anyone behind. That is important.

61 words

Hon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC)

Nov/23/21 3:23:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as leader of the official opposition and leader of the Conservative Party, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate all members of the 44th Parliament for being here today and for some of the first questions we heard in this debate. The Conservative opposition is concerned by what was not in the Speech from the Throne. We are concerned by the fact that millions of Canadians will continue to be left behind by the Liberal government, which has no plan to fight inflation, in a throne speech that recycles many of the lofty promises we heard six years ago. Next week, I am going to give my response to the throne speech, and I am going to explain why members on this side of the House are concerned about what we heard today. I will speak further about our response to Speech from the Throne, but right now, I move, seconded by the opposition House leader: That the debate be now adjourned.

165 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Nov/23/21 3:26:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the last time the House met was on June 23. At that time, a serious question of privilege had been raised, because the Liberal government had defied the order of the House to table documents related to the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. On June 23, my colleague, the whip for the official opposition, was the first to inform the House of an act that is completely unacceptable for any parliamentarian. For the first time in our parliamentary history, the government used the judiciary to attack the legislative branch. For the first time, the government used the justice system to prevent an order of the House from being adopted. I remember it like it was yesterday. I was looking at my iPhone, and I saw that there was a case involving the Attorney General of Canada versus you, Mr. Speaker. Your name was there. It seemed so unbelievable that I had to check with my esteemed colleagues on the Conservative leadership team three times to make sure that what I was reading was true. It was unbelievable, but unfortunately it was true. The government was taking the House of Commons to court to prevent it from implementing a decision that had been duly voted upon by members. June 23 will therefore always be a sad day for all parliamentarians. I therefore rise today to once again raise this important question of privilege regarding the fundamental right of the House of Commons to enforce this decision. What we have seen is totally unacceptable. Why, for the first time in Canadian parliamentary history, did we see the government knocking on the door of the justice system to make sure the House of Commons could not do what it had to do? I will always keep in my memory the famous picture of the document I saw on my iPhone with the Attorney General's name versus the Speaker's name. It was totally unacceptable, but that is the tradition of the current Liberal government and we cannot accept any part of that inside this House. I would like to quote page 81 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition: The House of Commons enjoys very wide latitude in maintaining its dignity and authority through the exercise of its contempt power. In other words, the House may consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly. What follows is interesting: Instances of contempt in one Parliament may even be punished during another Parliament. In concrete terms, the Prime Minister's decision to dissolve Parliament for his own personal gain and vanity resulted in an almost identical Parliament, but at a cost of $600 million to Canadian taxpayers. All that for what amounted to a cabinet shuffle in the end. Dissolving Parliament does not kill a question of privilege. I recognize that for many of us, our minds are still on the Speech from the Throne, which the Governor General just delivered, but I wanted to raise this question of privilege as soon as possible, bearing in mind your ruling on September 30, 2020. Let me quote page 353 of the Debates, finding that the question of privilege that had been raised when the House opened on the third day of the session failed to meet the necessity for timeliness. I raise this important question of privilege at the first opportunity as it concerns not only the official opposition members, but all parliamentarians here in the House. The current government failed to recognize that the House is more important than anything else when we talk about parliamentary debate, parliamentary democracy and the parliamentary rights of the people who are sitting in the House. Let us recall the facts surrounding the infamous Winnipeg lab scandal. In March, the then president of the Public Health Agency of Canada, Iain Stewart, was a witness at the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, where its members were unsatisfied with his answers. On March 31, the committee ordered the agency to produce certain documents. The agency would only partly comply with the order. On May 10, the committee issued another order to give the agency a second chance, but the agency failed to abide by the order at two more committee meetings. On June 2, the House adopted the motion that the Conservatives, the official opposition, moved in the House. The motion called on the House to issue an order for these documents. The agency again refused to comply fully. The then Minister of Health claimed she had referred the matter to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. I therefore raised a question of privilege on June 16, which the Chair allowed. The Chair, recalling Mr. Speaker Milliken's historic ruling in respect of the Afghan detainee documents, ruled that the House had every right to compel the production of documents. The Chair also ruled that, contrary to that case, which arose from a recklessly drafted Liberal opposition motion, the House had taken the necessary steps to balance parliamentary responsibility with the protection of national security and to promote dialogue with the government on this issue. As for the Liberals' attempt to sidestep the House order with a referral to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, you stated clearly that it did not fulfill the House's order. In response, I moved a motion to find the agency in contempt and to order Mr. Stewart to appear at the bar of the House to receive on behalf of the agency the Speaker's admonishment, and to deliver the ordered documents. That motion was adopted by the House the following day. On June 20, a day before he was due to appear at the bar, Mr. Stewart provided notice to the Attorney General, under section 38.01 of the Canada Evidence Act, that the agency ”was required to disclose of sensitive or potentially injurious information in relation to a proceeding before the House of Commons and a special committee.” On June 21, Mr. Stewart appeared here, at the bar of the House of Commons, to receive the Speaker's historic admonishment on behalf of the agency. However, the chair also received a letter from Mr. Stewart's counsel advising that Mr. Stewart was unable to produce the documents and as a consequence of his notice to the Attorney General, “statutory prohibition and disclosure remains in effect until either the Attorney General authorizes the disclosure or the Federal Court orders it.” We unfortunately came to learn that in this case, the Attorney General was on the government's side and not on the side of Canadians or even the House of Commons. Because the government was systematically refusing to hand over the documents set out in the order issued by the House, I raised a second question of privilege, and I would like to have that question examined again. In the interest of time, I will need to refer members to the fuller submissions, by which I mean the House on June 7, June 15, June 21 and June 23, concerning these matters, along with submissions of the chief opposition whip on June 21 and June 23. Beyond that, there have been subsequent developments on this file that I also hope to highlight. On June 21, the then government house leader was the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier. I want to pay all my respects to my former counterpart. He wrote to the Chair and notified the House that, in the government's opinion, the House's power to send for persons, papers and records was subject to implicit statutory limitations. To resolve the impasse, he proposed two options that were not forthcoming in response to any of the four earlier motions, including my first question of privilege. I will come back in a few minutes to those so-called options. Additionally, unknown to the chamber at the time, counsel, on the Attorney General's behalf, simultaneously applied to the Federal Court for an order under the Canada Evidence Act to prohibit disclosure of the remaining information. That was done without the knowledge of the House of Commons. We were then served with court documents. On June 23, the media reported on the government's Federal Court application, bringing it to public attention. In response to several points of order on this matter, you stated the following in the House, and I quote from page 9062 of the Debates: I want to confirm that the argument is that the legal system does not have any jurisdiction over the operations of the House. We are our own jurisdiction. That is something we will fight tooth and nail to protect, and we will continue to do that. That is exactly what every parliamentarian should bear in mind, what every person who is duly elected by the people should know and bear in mind, especially those who have the privilege of exercising the supreme authority, in this case with respect to the executive. These people must bear in mind that they are first and foremost members elected by the people, that they are first and foremost accountable to the people and that, above all, they should not have shown contempt for the House of Commons as they did. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, you were there at the time, and you made the decisions and provided arguments that were quite appropriate in this terrible situation when the House of Commons was being attacked on all sides by the Liberal government. Later that afternoon, the law clerk appeared as a witness before the health committee. In response to questions, he noted that, to his knowledge, the government's Federal Court application was an unprecedented court proceeding concerning a document production order. Then, he was instructed by the Speaker to challenge the Federal Court jurisdiction on the basis of parliamentary privilege, which vests in the House exclusive authority on that matter. More troubling still is the fact that the government took advantage of the summer break to launch a direct attack on all 338 members of the House of Commons, including themselves, as it happens. It was totally disrespectful the way the government at the time attacked the House of Commons while we were not sitting. By the way, just by a miracle, the government decided to postpone and shut down everything, and prorogue the House of Commons with an unnecessary election. This is the Liberal tradition, and never has any government gone so low in attacking the House of Commons. A hearing on that motion was later scheduled for September 16 and 17, but when the Prime Minister called his cynical and self-serving general election, the government discontinued entirely its federal court application given that the House order fell with the dissolution of Parliament. I want to share with the House how masterfully the Speaker's counsel, at paragraphs 25 to 29 of the motion, demolished the government's claim that the Canada Elections Act applies to the House order. It said: “Only Parliament itself has the authority to abrogate, modify or limit parliamentary privilege. Any intention by Parliament to [do] so must be evidenced by clear and incontrovertible means. Section 38 of the [Canada Evidence Act] discloses no such intention. To the contrary, the clear intent of [section] 38 is that it does not apply to the House of Commons and its committees, which do not fall under the definition of ‘proceeding’ that is central to the [Canada Evidence Act] process. “‘Proceeding’ under [section] 38 of the [Act] is defined to mean ‘a proceeding before a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information’. Had Parliament intended for this definition to include the House and/or its committees, and thereby to abrogate, modify or limit its privilege to send for persons, papers or records, a clear and incontrovertible intention to do so would have been required. No such intention was demonstrated or expressed. “Further, during debate in the House of Commons on the Bill that introduced [section] 38 into the [Act], the definition of ‘proceeding’ was amended with the explicit stated purposes, as confirmed by [Stephen Owen] the then-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada ‘of clarifying [Parliament’s] intention that parliament’s privilege to send [for] persons, papers and records not be affected by this legislation’. “The earlier proposed definition of the term ‘proceeding’ in the Bill would have applied the [Canada Evidence Act] process to Parliament by incorporating the definition of ‘judicial proceeding’ set out in [section] 118 of the Criminal Code that expressly included a proceeding ‘before the Senate or House of Commons or a committee’. The amendment to the Bill confirms Parliament’s intention that [section] 38 of the [Canada Evidence Act] not affect parliamentary privileges, including the power to send for persons, papers and records. The amendment was made specifically to recognize and affirm that parliamentary privilege was not affected by this legislation. “Accordingly, the [Canada Evidence Act] process has no application to the House of Commons’ privileges, including its power to send for persons, papers and records, which remains unfettered.” That was a very long quote, but it explains exactly what we are here for today. I would like to express my appreciation for those who, on behalf of all parliamentarians, chose to do the right thing to protect the right of all members, the right of the House of Commons and our privilege, which we must vigorously defend against people who irresponsibly take it upon themselves to attack Parliament's authority. Unfortunately, those people are currently the Government of Canada, thirty-odd members of which find themselves in an incredible conflict of interest. Those people participated in a vote, and they lost, but they are challenging that decision in court even though they themselves are members of Parliament. As the documents submitted to the Federal Court have made abundantly clear, such actions are totally unacceptable. I would like to note the questionable approach, to put it politely, behind the legal arguments the government has used throughout this entire saga. For one thing, it used the same sentence with two different possible meanings depending on its point of view. In Federal Court, the Attorney General stated that “a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information”, as set out in section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, includes orders of the House of Commons and its committees. However, beforehand, the government had taken the view that the same phrase, that is, “a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information”, as it appears in paragraph 8(2)(c) of the Privacy Act, does not capture parliamentary production orders. My colleague, the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills, has often pointed to that exemption in the Privacy Act for a government to disclose information. However, on May 10, Christian Roy, executive director and senior general counsel at the Department of Justice, told the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations: Basically, we recognize the jurisdiction of committees to request documents and to call witnesses. That said, in terms of paragraph 8(2)(c), we're talking about a jurisdiction to compel. There's a difference of opinion here. We don't recognize the committee's jurisdiction to compel in this area. Either the sentence includes the House and its committees or it does not. It cannot be both. They want to see which way the wind is blowing. In cruder terms, a person who is two-faced has twice as many cheeks to slap. That is exactly what the government was doing. Turning back to the Speaker's Federal Court motion, the stakes of the matter are very well articulated at paragraphs 30 and 31. “The present Application seeks to involve the Federal Court in an impermissible intrusion upon the independence of the legislative branch, which would violate the fundamental constitutional principle of separation of powers. “The concern is particularly acute here, where the Attorney General of Canada seeks to have the court prevent the disclosure of documents requested by the House of Commons ‘except as previously authorized’ by the government. This is antithetical to the House of Commons’ central role of holding government to account and strikes at the core of parliamentary privilege that serves to protect the House of Commons’ ability to fulfill its constitutional functions without outside interference.” Bearing in mind this clear and compelling argument, this is where a lawyer might say, “I rest my case.” However, there are other elements we must take into account. The fact that the government openly defied the authority of the House of Commons constitutes a prima facie attack on Parliament and its most fundamental rights. To fully understand what is going on, we must gauge the magnitude of the utterly unacceptable act this government committed. That calls for a little history lesson. Let us go way back in time so we can contextualize today's debate. This incident happened in 1704 in England's House of Commons and is known as Ashby v. White. It asserted that “any attempt to challenge its jurisdiction would amount to a breach of privilege,” as explained at paragraph 16.2 of the 25th edition of Erskine May. Subsequently, in Stockdale v. Hansard, a case well known in the law of parliamentary privilege in relation to the House's right to print papers, a select committee, appointed by the House of Commons of the United Kingdom to consider this litigation, recommended at paragraph 78 of its report: That by the law and privileges of Parliament, this House has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine upon the existence and extent of its privileges; and that the institution or prosecution of any action, suit, or other proceedings, for the purpose of bringing them into discussion or decision before any court or tribunal, elsewhere than in Parliament, is a high breach of such privilege, and renders all parties concerned therein amenable to its just displeasure, and to the punishment consequent thereon. This recommendation was subsequently adopted by the Commons on May 30, 1837. In the initial litigation, Messrs. Hansard lost. As a result, as paragraph 16.3 of Erskine May explains, the House “agreed that, in case of future actions, the firm should not plead and that the parties should suffer for their contempt of the resolutions and defiance of the House's authority.” All of that is to say that the very action of openly challenging the House's authority in court is, in my view, a contempt of the House with established precedents backing up that perspective. As I said, that was the first time in the history of Canada's Parliament that a government did such a thing, and it is appalling. Worse still, we are clearly fully aware that this remains a precedent buried deep in our British parliamentary system—

3211 words

All Topics

Hon. Mark Holland

Nov/23/21 3:47:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are in a new Parliament. All proceedings in the previous Parliament ended at dissolution. The facts that the member is raising were the subject of discussion in the previous Parliament, and those studies and motions are no longer in effect. I would therefore assert that a motion or committee report would be necessary in order to proceed with the point of order. It is premature; it is not in order at this time.

76 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Nov/23/21 3:47:06 p.m.
Watch

Order. The hon. member for Ajax on a point of order.

11 words

The Speaker

Nov/23/21 3:47:30 p.m.
Watch

I want to outline something. We have a question of privilege and I have been getting a lot of details. This is not riding on the point of order, but I want to remind the hon. members that it is to give us an idea that there is something we can pursue and it is prima facie, that is, there is a case that we can pursue after. What I am hearing is that more of a full case is being argued, with a lot of details that I think we do not need. Let me rephrase that: We do not need them at this time. I am sorry; I saw the look on the hon. member's face. At this time, I would like to ask the hon. member to be concise and wrap up, and then we can move on from there. The hon. member for Ajax does have a good point. This is from the previous Parliament. However, if someone wants to bring it up again, we have to bring it up as prima facie, determine whether it is a case and take it from there. I will go back to the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent and let him wrap up.

206 words

All Topics

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Nov/23/21 3:48:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I can assure you that it is not my face that is speaking; I speak when I have something to say. However, I appreciate the fact that you are looking closely at the reactions of members of the House of Commons. I want to say to my counterpart that I welcome him in his new role. I am a veteran here because I was here before. I am joking because I know that he has a lot of experience, more than me, and I appreciate the fact that he is the new House leader. I am sure we will have a lot of fun. That said, I welcome everybody in the House and invite them to be very attentive to what we have to say, because what we are talking about is why we are here in the House of Commons. The member raised a point of order, but I just answered that point of order a few minutes ago. I invite him to read again what I had to say. I am sure he will find an answer to his point of order. I will quickly summarize what I want to say about that. The argument that the government will likely raise is that it made the House an offer, but that offer does not stand up, especially since the government itself revoked it. There are many other elements to address. Most of them were submitted to the court under your authority, meaning the authority of the House of Commons, when this government decided to take legal action against the House. We did not know about these elements before the House rose on June 23. That is why we intend to remind the House of the key elements of this situation. Never in the history of Canada has a government used the justice system to diminish the role of the House of Commons and prevent the House from doing its job. That is a very serious concern because Canadians want to know what happened at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. Never in the history of Canada has the executive branch used the judiciary to attack the legislative branch. However, there is an example of that in modern history. It happened in July 1974 when a document released at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington triggered the Watergate scandal. It was United States v. Nixon. The President of the United States went to court to prevent elected representatives from Congress from accessing certain documents. That is exactly what the Canadian government is doing right now, and I would like to remind it of one thing: the President of the United States left office after that ordeal.

454 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Nov/23/21 3:51:34 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member. The Chair will take all of that into consideration and come back to the House with a ruling. The hon. member for La Prairie is rising on the same matter. We are trying to determine whether there is a question of privilege and I would like to remind the hon. member, before I recognize him, to be as brief as possible.

66 words

All Topics

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Nov/23/21 3:52:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the question of privilege raised by my hon. colleague from Louis‑Saint‑Laurent. Could I have four or five minutes to speak, or is that too long? I would like to explain the Bloc Québécois's position.

51 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Nov/23/21 3:52:27 p.m.
Watch

I would ask the member to be very brief.

9 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 2