44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 5, 2023 11:00AM
- Jun/5/23 12:54:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my understanding is that, having stood to be recognized on a question of privilege, my standing should have come prior to that piece of business being moved, so I would seek a ruling from the Chair on that item and ask for you to come back to the House.
I gave notice to the Speaker's office about the question of privilege that I am raising. It concerns the government's not appointing a Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. I would like to draw attention to pages 80 and 81 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states:
Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a “breach of privilege” and is punishable by the House. There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege: tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its Members, or its officers. As the authors of Odgers’ Senate Practice (Australia) state: “The rationale of the power to punish contempts, whether contempt of court or contempt of the Houses, is that the courts and the two Houses should be able to protect themselves from acts which directly or indirectly impede them in the performance of their functions.” In that sense, all breaches of privilege are contempts of the House, but not all contempts are necessarily breaches of privilege.”
At page 82, there is a list of those offences. They include “interfering with or obstructing a person who is carrying out a lawful order of the House or a committee”. In this case, the government is refusing to fill the position of an officer of Parliament who is charged with carrying out the lawful orders of the House. On the same page, it also lists as an offence. “failing to fulfill any requirement of the House, as declared in a code of conduct or otherwise, relating to the possession, declaration, or registration of financial interests or participation in debate or other proceedings.”
Without an Ethics Commissioner in place, there is no one on duty to ensure that members fulfill the requirements of the House, as described by the House in law and in its rules. There are serious questions that remain unanswered, like that of Michael Sabia, the former deputy minister of finance, who is now with Hydro-Québec. Mr. Sabia and the finance department were repeatedly lobbied by Hydro-Québec throughout his tenure as the deputy minister. Hydro-Québec approached Mr. Sabia about a job there, but Mr. Sabia declined to pursue it until the budget was released. He knew what the job was, and, lo and behold, the budget contained direct benefits for Hydro-Québec. There are many questions arising from this case that can be answered only by the Ethics Commissioner, and there is not one. Did Mr. Sabia report that job offer? Hydro-Québec lobbied finance, and both the company and the former deputy minister stood to benefit from the decisions he just made in government. It is actions like these that damage the public trust in institutions.
The Liberal government, this one in particular, its Prime Minister and its ministers, has a record of repeated ethical breaches that further reinforce the question of privilege I am raising now about the need for an Ethics Commissioner to be appointed.
There are several references in reports that have been tabled in the House, which I would like considered. They include the “Trudeau Report” and the “Trudeau II Report”. Both of these outline the first time in the government's history that a prime minister has been found guilty of breaking ethics laws. We also have the now intergovernmental affairs minister who was found guilty of breaking the Ethics Act, and the then president of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, who had given a contract worth $24 million to a family member. The same is true with the former finance minister. We have seen repeated reports of breaches of this code.
Madam Speaker, I want to refer you to Joseph Maingot's 2nd edition of Parliamentary Privilege, page 227. It says, “In the final analysis, in areas of doubt, the Speaker asks simply: Does the act complained of appear at first sight to be a breach of privilege...or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should...leave it to the House.” This citation is in reference to a ruling from March 21, 1978, at page 3975 of Debates, where the Speaker cites the report of the U.K. select committee on parliamentary privileges, and from a ruling of October 10, 1989, at pages 4457 to 4461 of Debates.
In a ruling of October 24, 1966, at page 9005 of Debates, the Speaker said:
In considering this matter, I ask myself, what is the duty of the Speaker in cases of doubt? If we take into consideration that at the moment the Speaker is not asked to render a decision as to whether or not the article complained of constitutes a breach of privilege...and considering also that the Speaker is the guardian of the rules, rights and privileges of the house and of its members and that he cannot deprive them of such privileges when there is uncertainty in his mind...I think, at this preliminary stage of the proceedings the doubt which I have in my mind should be interpreted to the benefit of the member.
Finally, on March 27, 1969, at page 853 of the Debates, the Speaker ruled:
[The member] has, perhaps, a grievance against the government in that capacity rather than in his capacity as a Member of Parliament. On the other hand, honourable Members know that the House has always exercised great care in attempting to protect the rights and privileges of all its Members. Since there is some doubt about the interpretation of the precedents in this situation, I would be inclined to resolve the doubt in favour of the honourable Member.
We have an unprecedented situation, in which the government has an obligation, based on laws passed by members duly elected to the House, to appoint one of those guardians, one of those whose position allows them to safeguard the confidence of Canadians in this democratic institution. AS in the question I raised with respect to the former deputy minister, Mr. Sabia, testimony at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, which now appears in Hansard, was heard from spokespeople from the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner who said they are unable to fulfill their obligations because of the vacancy in this role.
Members have the right to be able to file with the Commissioner, and the Commissioner then has an obligation to investigate these complaints and whether or not a breach of the act has occurred. In this case, it is incredibly serious. It deals with a deputy minister of the Crown then taking a position, a lucrative one, with a company like Hydro-Québec, which benefited substantially from the budget Mr. Sabia presided over as the deputy minister. Once that cash hit the table, he was out the door and into a job at Hydro-Québec.
It is only reasonable that members of the House, on behalf of Canadians, in order to ensure their confidence in the processes we have in place, would be able to raise that with an independent officer of Parliament so there could be an investigation. If that officer of Parliament were to find there was in fact a breach, there are ramifications for that; if not, then the matter is disposed of.
This is only one example, because we are not going to hear from all members of the official opposition today on other issues they have observed and that they would like investigated or raised with the Ethics Commissioner, because no one is in that position. In fact, when a standing committee of the House did send for a representative from that office, the office had no one to send except a communications director. I have checked, and if the Speaker consults the act, they are not going to find that members of the House are to raise concerns with the GR director, the PR director or the comms director for the offices of independent officers of this place.
They do not have powers that are given to them by statute or by law. The government has that obligation. It also has the power to appoint someone on an interim basis, but it is refusing to exercise that power. What this demonstrates is that the government is availing itself of the ability to mind the store without anyone counting the register at the end of the day.
All members of this House were duly elected by their constituents. The official opposition is composed of members who have exercised the right to raise issues to the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That independent office has, in the past, found breaches by ministers of the Crown and by other designated public office holders.
Madam Chair, I am asking for you to consider this question, come back to the House and make a ruling on whether my privilege, as a member of this House, has been violated by the government's actions and inactions in this case.
1698 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/23 2:07:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the cost of the Liberal government is driving up the cost of living. The more the Liberals spend, the more things cost. They have added more than $60 billion in new spending, and what do Canadians get? They get more inflation, more taxes, higher costs and worse government services.
Canadians are struggling. Mortgage payments and rent have doubled under the Liberal Prime Minister, and that is if one is able to afford a home or find a place to live to begin with. The cost of food is at a 40-year high, driving more than 1.5 million Canadians to food banks in a single month. Now, the Liberals are adding a second carbon tax, increasing the price of food and necessities that will cost the average family another $600 per year.
Things have gotten so bad that retired seniors are trying to re-enter the workforce, because they have to choose between heating and eating. After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, everything feels broken, and Canadians have less money in their pockets.
Conservatives will bring home a government that works for people who work. It is time to bring back common sense for the common people.
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/23 3:08:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, while Canadians are struggling to choose between heating their homes and feeding their families, and while record numbers of Canadians are going to food banks, with nearly 1.5 million Canadians going to food banks in a single month, the response from the Liberal government is to increase the tax on everything.
With carbon tax 2, Canadians are going to be paying more than 61¢ a litre in tax on gas, which is going to not only raise the price of getting to doctor's appointments, but also raise the price of food production for our farmers who make our food. Why is the government continuing to hammer Canadians with higher taxes?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
