SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 292 - Mar/20/24

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ)

Mar/20/24 2:45:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not put much stock in polls. Polls should not dictate a government's choices. That said, before he says who is speaking for whom, the Prime Minister ought to know that the Bloc Québécois has been ahead of the Liberals in every poll for longer than I can remember. If the Prime Minister is doing that poorly in the polls, so poorly that even the Conservatives are outperforming the Liberals in Canada, perhaps it is because he does not respect Quebec, Quebeckers or the National Assembly. Does he think that treating Quebec with contempt is a good idea because he knows he will never gain any seats in Quebec anyway, or because trashing Quebeckers will at least win him votes in Canada?

130 words

Context: House Hansard - 292 - Mar/20/24

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Mar/20/24 6:54:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I found the arguments of my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes to be extremely detailed, and I would like to add the NDP's voice to this question of privilege. The 17th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates was adopted unanimously. The points in the report are very clear, and I will not take much time. Let us look at the big picture. The witness, Mr. Firth, refused to answer legitimate questions directed to him. In our view, this constitutes a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege and contempt of Parliament. Although it is rare, we have previously seen situations like this. In the vast majority of cases, when witnesses testify before our committees, they give answers and are ready to speak. In this case, it is very clear that the committee found that the witness did not answer any of the very relevant questions about the ArriveCAN app. The committee was seized with this issue and now Parliament is seized with it. I would like to say that it is clear, when we look at the precedents that have been cited, and I will not repeat all of the various quotes from the procedural manual that governs our activities, that Mr. Firth's refusal to answer those key questions on the ArriveCAN application indicate that this is a breach of privilege and contempt of Parliament. It is clear, in my opinion, that this is an open-and-shut case of privilege. This is something that the Speaker could move to adjudicate in a very timely way. I would add that the 17th report of the government operations committee is very clear. It was passed unanimously by all members. This is something that does not happen very often, but very clearly, when parliamentary rights to get to the answers on behalf of Canadians are violated, it is something that all members of Parliament should take seriously. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who is our representative on that committee, believes as well that this is a case in which answers should have been provided. The fact that Mr. Firth was uncooperative, refusing to provide those answers, is something that should be of concern to all Canadians. I believe there is a prima facie case of privilege being breached, of contempt of Parliament, and I hope that the Speaker will adjudicate as soon as he feels he has enough information.

413 words

Context: House Hansard - 292 - Mar/20/24

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Mar/20/24 7:00:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will keep my remarks short. I want to bring to light that I have been involved in a number of committees where we were at the line of an issue of contempt. It is important to put on the record what was explained to us in committee, that we are not a court of law. We may be really angry at government. We may be demanding witnesses. However, we have to do it in a judicious manner, and if there is an issue of contempt, it has to come to the House. We have been in situations in which we knew we were not getting truthful answers from witnesses. My colleague and I were involved with one, with a certain group of brothers and their chief financial officer. We decided at that moment to actually not go that way, because we had gotten as far as we could as a parliamentary committee, and we felt the evidence stood. However, the principle of parliamentarians being able to take this to the House has to be protected and preserved. It does not matter when the last time it happened was. What matters is that we have the obligation and the right and the power, when people are being dishonest and not telling the truth to committees, to bring it to the House, whether or not the government at the time likes it. These are tools that parliamentarians have. Again, we are not a court of law, but we get evidence that we present to Parliament so that Parliament can make decisions and, if something is wrong, it will not happen again. I trust that the Speaker is going to be very careful and judicious here with respect to the importance of preserving that right of parliamentarians to do their job and not be inhibited just because someone does not believe they are obligated to answer questions. They are obligated to answer questions when it is in the interests of the Canadian public.

333 words