SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 293

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 21, 2024 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 293 - Mar/21/24
Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)
  • Mar/21/24 12:40:29 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to add my comments to the question of privilege raised yesterday by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes about Kristian Firth's testimony on March 13 at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The Bloc Québécois finds it unacceptable that during his testimony before the committee, the witness repeatedly refused to answer questions. The fact that Kristian Firth and his colleague Darren Anthony from GC Strategies are under RCMP investigation does not excuse them from answering questions in committee. Some of Mr. Firth's statements are being questioned because some members of the committee felt that they were misleading or false or differed from what the witness had said in a previous appearance before the committee. That said, I have no intention of defending the witness's answers or lack thereof in committee. However, if the House finds that there is a prima facie breach of privilege or even contempt of Parliament, and if the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs studies the matter, the reason the witness gave for not answering must be considered. The witness was of the opinion that his comments might not be covered by immunity and could be used against him in a future trial if they were reported in traditional and social media. We need to make sure that question is answered as we examine our practices in order to ensure the committees' work is not hindered or even halted because witnesses have concerns about their immunity. Once again, I would remind the House that it will be up to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to determine whether the House finds that there is a prima facie breach of privilege or contempt of Parliament. I would remind the House that, as the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes pointed out, witnesses must answer all questions put to them by a committee. A witness can object to a question asked by a committee member. However, if the committee agrees that the question be put to the witness, the witness is obliged to reply. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, Bosc and Gagnon, states on pages 1078 and 1079 that a witness who refuses to answer questions put by a committee may be reported to the House. Furthermore, page 1081 of this procedural manual states that refusal to answer questions or failure to reply truthfully may give rise to a charge of contempt of the House. The committee unanimously agreed to report the matter to the House, which indicates and substantiates the gravity of the situation. I am underscoring this because it is important. According to page 82 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, Bosc and Gagnon, “refusing to answer a question or provide information” required by a committee and “deliberately attempting to mislead...a committee” can constitute contempt of Parliament. Given the witness' immunity, and despite the question raised earlier, the Bloc Québécois feels that Mr. Firth's evasive attempts to avoid answering the committee's questions were unacceptable. We believe there is a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege, if not contempt of Parliament.
549 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border