SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 294 - Mar/22/24

Mar/22/24 1:32:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we agree that there is something downright scandalous about this whole thing. First of all, this is a company that greedily gobbles up all it can without a shred of restraint and, clearly, without a shred of remorse at this stage. When invited to explain himself before a House of Commons committee, Mr. Firth displayed incredible arrogance. The amount of disdain was unbelievable. We know that committees have certain tools they can use to convince or even force uncooperative witnesses to testify, but there are a few who resist, such as the one we are talking about today, Mr. Firth. I would like to ask my colleague if he believes that committees have enough tools to inspire the authority required to stop this kind of uncooperative witness behaviour. We have seen similar behaviour at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and we saw it this week at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, when a witness had no interest whatsoever in answering questions about the SNC-Lavalin affair. Do the committees have enough power? Should we not give them better tools so that we do not have to have a 2024 version of a pillory to make witnesses understand that they have to answer the committee's questions?

214 words

Context: House Hansard - 294 - Mar/22/24

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Mar/22/24 1:57:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the last time this was done was in 1913, which is certainly not 200 years ago. I would draw the member's attention to John Bourinot, Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, fourth edition, at pages 70 to 74. Page 71 states: When the witness appears at the bar of the house, each question will be written out and handed to the speaker; who, strictly speaking, should read it to the witness; but on certain occasions a considerable degree of latitude is allowed for the convenience of the house, and questions put directly by members have been supposed to be put through the speaker. The precision with which this is done has already been laid out, not in ancient texts but in the text of precedents that are relevant to this place. A further committee study, further delay, is not what we need. Of course order and decorum will be maintained; that is the role of the Speaker of the House. Of course, like in all institutions in Canada, Canadians have confidence that the Speaker would do it in just that way, a way where decorum is maintained but that we do get answers and admonishment, and that it is done in very due course.

210 words

Witness

Context: House Hansard - 294 - Mar/22/24

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Mar/22/24 2:24:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are currently witnessing a historic debate in the House of Commons, since it has been over 100 years since someone was called to testify in this way for contempt of Parliament before all parliamentarians. This is a serious moment, but it is also essential to ensure that the people who testify before committees understand that, when members of this Parliament ask them to appear before a committee and answer members' questions, they must tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I myself had the opportunity to take part in a few committee meetings on the ArriveCAN issue. Let us not forget that ArriveCAN was supposed to cost $80,000, but it ended up costing around $60 million. No one can even say how much the app cost because the companies involved refused to hand over all the information. It is important that we send a clear message that Parliament and its committees will not tolerate witnesses coming here and telling only part of the truth. I think that is exactly what my colleague's speech was about. I would like her to expand on the importance of witness appearances so that committees can function properly in the future.

206 words