- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Louis-Saint-Laurent
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $128,105.00
- Government Page
- May/3/23 2:52:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if the minister does not have the honour or dignity to provide a clear answer to a very precise question, then we will need to default to the parliamentary secretary. The Vienna Convention is very clear. Article 9 gives a country the full authority to expel any diplomat it wants. Since Monday, Canadians have been aware that a diplomat from Beijing acted in an unacceptable manner toward an MP. To attack an MP is to attack all MPs and Canadian democracy as a whole. When will the government send him packing?
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 2:50:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our country is a country of law and order that respects international agreements. Article 9 of the Vienna Convention states that a country may without having to explain its decision expel a person declared persona non grata.
The question is very simple. Since at least Monday, Canadians have been aware that there is a so-called Chinese diplomat here who should be expelled. Why has the government not done that yet?
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 2:57:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister on the quality of his French, but just because he is speaking French does not mean his words make more sense. Here is the situation. There is a foundation, the Trudeau Foundation, which is not just any foundation.
Let us remember that, when the foundation was founded at the turn of the century, the federal government gave it $125 million in public funds. Morally, this foundation needs to be accountable to all Canadians. The best way to do that is through a parliamentary committee.
Why not allow its directors to testify before committee?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 2:55:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the embarrassing proximity between the Trudeau Foundation and the communist government of Beijing affects all Canadians. That is why we have an obligation, here in Parliament, to get to the bottom of things. Yesterday, in parliamentary committee, the Liberals, with the complicity of the NDP, decided not to hold meetings to hear from the directors of the Trudeau Foundation.
I have a very simple question. Could the non-minister government member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, that proud social-democrat, rise in this House and explain why he is being complicit in this Liberal cover-up?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 2:42:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the minister is a seasoned parliamentarian and an honourable man.
What does he have to say about the fact that his government members talked non-stop, while saying nothing at all, for over 20 hours to prevent democracy from working?
The minister is a strong supporter of full and complete democracy, especially parliamentary democracy. The chief of staff, Ms. Telford, knows things that Canadians want to know about what happened with the regime in Beijing. Will the minister allow her to testify in parliamentary committee, yes or no?
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 2:41:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, by interfering in Canada's electoral system, Beijing's Communist Party is subverting our democracy. As parliamentarians, all of us should be seized with this unacceptable affront.
There is someone in Canada who knows full well what may have happened. She was in charge of the current Prime Minister's election campaign and is currently the Prime Minister's chief of staff. We want to hear from her in committee. We know that the government does not want her to testify.
My question is for one member of the government coalition, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. Will he rise in the House and tell his constituents that he will vote in favour of complete freedom and, above all, full transparency in this matter and allow Ms. Telford to appear before the committee?
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 4:41:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood and say to him that, earlier, I misspoke when I said that he was wrong. What he said was false, but not what he thought, of course.
I want to clarify the situation. It is the opposite of what was suggested. That happens sometimes.
At the end of his speech, the member said that he agreed with the principle behind the motion. I would like to know if he will be supporting it.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 4:15:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Green Party for her question.
Canada is a model country when it comes to the environment and energy production. As long as we need oil and gas, I will always be the biggest supporter of this Canadian energy. I would rather have it here in Canada, and purchase it domestically, rather than send billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Venezuela or Texas.
70 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 4:13:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Manicouagan is well aware that hundreds and thousands of families in her riding need access to cars that have to run in the winter and cover great distances because there is not much of a public transit system in her riding. She has won the past three elections. She was re-elected three times. She is well aware that this is the everyday reality for people in her riding.
She is also well aware that Canada is a leader in clean energy production. She will be pleased to learn and to remember that Alberta is the top producer of wind and solar energy. The biggest solar farm is in Alberta. Our country has the highest environmental standards for energy production. We are an inspiration to the whole world, and that is great.
The more clean, efficient energy Canada produces for all Canadians, the more clean energy there will be for the whole world and the less polluting energy there will be in China.
168 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 4:11:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has been here for a long time and I appreciate his contributions to Canadian democracy.
Speaking of that, what he said is totally wrong. There is a huge difference between the state of China and the Chinese people, especially those who live in this country. They have been selected by this country and have decided to live here. Some are descendants who are very proud. In my own riding, there are people whose grandfathers and grandmothers came from China. We welcome them. They are proud Canadians and we have to be proud of them. There is a huge difference between the people of China and the dictatorship we see in China.
Let me be clear. We will never attack any people from China, but we will be very strong against the republic and state of China.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 4:02:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to resume debate on our motion to establish, or re-establish, the Canada-China parliamentary committee in order to study issues directly affecting our country's relationship with this very strong, yet concerning global power.
We would like to re-establish this committee, which was struck in the last Parliament but was disbanded when the Prime Minister called an unnecessary election that cost Canadians over $600 million and ended up being nothing more than a cabinet shuffle. The committee still managed to table three reports on the topics of espionage, the relationship with Hong Kong and the Uighur tragedy.
I would also like to remind you that this government has had five foreign affairs ministers in the past six years. This is in no way a negative assessment of the people who have held that position, quite the contrary. They are people of quality and goodwill, for whom I have esteem and respect.
It should be noted, however, that the fact that we have had five different foreign affairs ministers has an impact on our country's credibility in the eyes of the world, especially when it comes to an issue as sensitive as our relations with China. We hope that the current Minister of Foreign Affairs will stay in that role long enough to build a truly meaningful bilateral relationship with our partners.
Now I would like to talk about the committee that would study issues of importance to all Canadians.
First, the economy. We know that China is one of Canada's economic partners, and not a small one. China is our second-largest economic partner in terms of both imports and exports. Our great friend, ally and neighbour, the United States of America is, of course, the first.
When the economy is directly tied to our trade relationship with a superpower like China, we cannot pretend nothing is going on there. If the committee wants to, it can study economic issues and tackle the supply chain head-on. We know the whole world is experiencing serious supply issues, not just because of the pandemic, but also because of tense relationships between certain countries. I will say more about that later.
We need to be able to get to the bottom of this supply problem, which is causing very serious damage not only to our economy, but also to the daily lives of Canadians. When our businesses do not have access to the parts they need, it delays manufacturing, pushes prices up and creates inflation. The committee needs to address these things. We are talking about our second largest trading partner.
We also have concerns about safety, as my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint‑Charles mentioned this morning. We also have to think about the Arctic, which the committee studied in the previous Parliament. China has a presence in our territory, in our waters and on our Arctic lands, which makes no sense. We must exercise our sovereignty and get to the bottom of this, because our national security is at stake.
We also have concerns about our telecommunications and the possibility of spying by China, which may have taken place or could take place here in Canada. We need to be careful and vigilant and get to the bottom of things, which is what a parliamentary committee does.
The same goes for natural resources. Our country, which is rich in people and natural resources, is in direct competition with China, which does not have the same manufacturing quality standards, nor the same respect for the environment or human rights.
When our primary competitor slashes wages left and right and can sell its natural resources for a much lower price than would be possible for us, since we respect people and the environment, it is time to investigate. This is especially important when it is a matter of rare metals or the metals of the future, such as lithium.
Canada is full of these natural resources, and it is up to us to develop them intelligently, with domestic secondary or tertiary processing facilities. We know that China also has a lot of natural resources, and it is up to us to study the situation in order to improve it globally.
This brings me to the climate. Canada is responsible for 1.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions. If Canada were to shut down tomorrow morning, the entire planet might be better off because there would be 1.6% less pollution. China, on the other hand, produces 27% of greenhouse gas emissions. That is a massive amount.
As China's economy expands, the country is producing even more pollution and moving towards energy resources like coal, which is highly polluting. Even if Canada does a thousand things to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, nothing will change if China continues to pollute non-stop, without attempting to reduce its emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions do not need a passport to travel around the world.
Yes, we support Canada's efforts, but we also realize that if other countries are not making an effort, then pollution will not go down. At the end of the day, it is the planet that pays.
In closing, what has been happening since February 24 does have an impact on international relations. Ever since Putin's Russia decided to illegally invade the peaceful and non-aggressive country of Ukraine and wage war on it, there have been global consequences. I know that we will have the opportunity to discuss this at another time. For example, Canada's economy and natural resources could be helping Europe at present. Instead, European countries are currently subsidizing Putin's war through their dependence on Russia's natural resources. Yes, this war has a direct impact on our relations with China.
To conclude, we believe that it would be a very good thing if the House unanimously, if possible, decided to vote in favour of our motion. Unfortunately, the government does not want to reinstate the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. Reinstating this committee would make it possible for us to closely examine the strong relationship that we have with our second-largest trading partner. This relationship must be based on the economy, but also on respect for human rights, national security and the future of our natural resources.
1058 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 1:57:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
We are here today to talk about the creation of a parliamentary committee to look at the relationship between Canada and the People's Republic of China. This is a very important issue, given that China is a major player, to say the least, both economically and in terms of national security, the environment, and so forth. That is why we want a parliamentary committee to look into this.
Why should such a parliamentary committee be created? A parliamentary committee is independent from the executive. This makes it independent from the Office of the Prime Minister, which can give orders to his members. In a parliamentary committee, all members are theoretically independent from the executive.
Some may be wondering why we are using an opposition day to talk about this. The reason is that this is how to go about creating a committee. We could have come to an agreement with the government party to create this committee, but unfortunately, the government party refuses to create it.
The Conservative Party believes that this is important. The way to create this committee is to have a vote in the House. Every member will be able to vote freely. We shall see what the result of the vote is, but we assume members will vote in favour of creating a committee.
I remind members that the proposed committee will study many matters presently affecting Canadians: the economy, national security, the environment and the supply chain. The issue with supply chains directly affects our producers and our economy and has a direct impact on inflation, which affects all Canadians. We support creating this committee, which will address issues that affect or are of concern to all Canadians.
I also remind members that this committee already existed in the former Parliament, that is before the Prime Minister very arrogantly triggered an election in the midst of the pandemic. The committee met over 30 times to hear from more than 100 witnesses. The committee tabled three reports after studying matters that were damaging for China, but very important to Canada. I—
364 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/21 3:58:01 p.m.
- Watch
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your intervention.
We have carefully read the text tabled by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, and we have noticed that efforts are being made. However, these efforts to find an appropriate solution are many months late.
Let us recall that there were two positive votes at the former Special Committee on Canada‑China Relations, as well as two votes here, in the House, in favour of our proposal to order the production of documents.
The will of Parliament is therefore clear and, aside from a few details, the September election did not change the seat map to such an extent that one could expect a different result if, by any chance, there were a fifth vote on this request.
My counterpart cited the handling of Afghan detainee documents as an example that we could follow, so allow me to add a bit of context.
An ad hoc committee of parliamentarians was created as a solution forged by necessity given that a 2009 Liberal opposition motion recklessly ordered the public release of some 40,000 pages in their original and uncensored form, despite the fact that this could have prejudiced the interests of Canada and its NATO allies where our troops were at risk on the ground.
In his widely celebrated April 27, 2010, ruling, Speaker Milliken, recognizing that there was support across the House to address the Liberal motion’s shortcomings and ensure sensitive information was protected, invited senior figures in the House to find an “interest-based solution to this thorny question” of reconciling the House’s role as grand inquest of the nation and the executive’s role as defender of realm, before he would turn the matter over to the House for its adjudication. Those discussions yielded the ad hoc committee, whose processes built upon the good-faith efforts of the government of the day, begun well ahead of any Speaker’s rulings, to have a trusted, independent review, at arm’s length from the government, determine what information could safely be placed in the public domain.
Unlike the situation in 2009–10, the motions adopted by the Special Committee on Canada–China Relations and the House included mechanisms to strike a balance between parliamentary accountability and protecting sensitive information in the 546 pages in question, which represent only about 1.4% of the volume of the Afghan detainee documents, and foster ongoing dialogue on the issue, as the Speaker acknowledged in his ruling on June 16, 2021.
The very basis of the government's argument against our point of privilege is that when the Conservatives were in power, they applied the solution that the Liberal government now wishes to apply to the situation at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. However, this is like comparing apples and oranges.
The situation in 2009–10 involved the production of 40,000 pages of unredacted documents to be released to the public. We are proposing that 546 pages be released. That is not the same thing at all. In addition, we would like the documents to be analyzed by table officers to prevent any sensitive information that could compromise public safety from being released. Evidently, it is apples and oranges.
It is also important to remember, with respect to the Afghan documents of 2009-10, that our country was involved in a military operation on enemy territory. Soldiers from our army, Canadians in uniform, were fighting the Taliban enemy in Afghanistan. Their health, their safety, and their lives were at risk, whereas with regard to the Winnipeg issue, what we are talking about is analyzing the work of public servants to see what they did with respect to other public servants. This involves a few people, a few individuals. These are two completely different things.
I wish to remind the House that it is also important to keep in mind that the majority of the House voted to have the law clerk and parliamentary counsel conduct a reliable, independent review at arm's length from the government.
To that end, Mr. Speaker, in your June 2021 ruling, you stated the following: “It is, however, not up to the Chair to judge the extent of the measures taken, but to note that they were considered. There is thus no reason to allow an additional delay.”
Regrettably, delay was the name of the game for the government. Its approach this spring was not to accept the reasonable compromise set out in the motions, nor to negotiate workable amendments to those arrangements. Instead, its approach was to deny, then to deflect and then to finally litigate, in an entirely shocking and unprecedented court application against the House of Commons. Members will recall I argued last month that that also constitutes contempt against the House.
We must unfortunately note that this is, to our knowledge, the only time in Canadian history and in Commonwealth parliamentary history that the government has gone to Federal Court to challenge the voted will of the House of Commons. The executive branch used the judicial branch to prevent the legislative branch from doing its job. The government is knocking on the Federal Court's door to prevent the House of Commons from doing its job. This has never happened in Canadian history, nor, as far as we know, has it ever happened in Commonwealth parliamentary history.
The only event that comes to mind happened in June, July and August 1974 at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., when the President of the United States went to the Supreme Court to prevent the release of documents as requested by the U.S. Congress. The executive branch knocked on the door of the judicial branch to prevent the legislative branch from doing its job. That was the Watergate scandal. Need I remind the House that the government or executive branch at the time, meaning the President, resigned a few days after the Supreme Court decision?
Surely, members can appreciate that Conservatives are worried about the government's sudden 180° turn. Indeed, the official opposition has serious concerns, to say the least, that the government's proposal represents an actual change in any way, shape or form to the government's approach, given the Liberal's pattern of behaviour concerning parliamentary accountability over the past few years.
Furthermore, I must also take note of the government House leader's words on the floor of the Commons last week, which were not in the letter that was shared with journalists, on how his proposition was conditional, when he stated, “If the matter is revived again in this new Parliament by way of substantive motion”.
Therefore, if I am to understand his position correctly, it is not actually an effort to address my question of privilege, which is currently before the Chair, but rather, I would say, distract from it. It will follow that, for the House to achieve any forward progress in obtaining the documents, which have already been ordered four times to be produced, you must deliver your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
The government House leader's parliamentary secretary recently rose in the House to distract us from the principle that a Parliament may punish the contempts committed against its predecessor by discussing imprisonment in the Tower of London five centuries ago. I would remind you of the recent citations of several Canadian speakers' statements on that matter, all from our own lifetime, and all delivered by the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, who is also the deputy House leader of the official opposition.
Nevertheless, in the interests of finding an adequate solution that addresses the concerns of all the parties, I think that the response could actually be found in the June 21 letter and in the speech given in the House by the former government House leader, the member for Honoré-Mercier, who said, and I quote:
While the government accepts that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel has the appropriate security clearance to review the information, we do not believe he has the necessary training or expertise in national security-related information to make the necessary assessment.
He continued:
The government is open to providing the unredacted documents to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel if the House of Commons agrees that national security specialists can assist him in this process and that other appropriate safeguards be put in place.
This offer is consistent with the open-door policy that the law clerk talked about during the March 31 meeting of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. He said, and I quote:
In terms of national security and other grounds, my office acts essentially as the department of justice for the legislative branch and we provide legal services and legal advice to committees on all of their areas of law, including all of those potential grounds for confidentiality that committees and/or the House may decide to accept or not accept. We are prepared and able to provide that legal advice in the interpretation of those concepts, including national security, commercial sensitivity and so on.
That said, there may well be some factual information and knowledge that the government or other entities have that we don't have, because it's their information and their concerns, and they may be well placed to share that with us with regard to proposed redactions or proposed areas of concern. That's certainly something the committee can consider, namely, to have my office provide you with advice on the scope and application of those grounds, but not preventing the government or any witness from proposing and raising a concern—albeit, with this committee, and ultimately the House, still having the last word on accepting or not that interpretation.
Therefore, I would propose that the government deposit the documents with the law clerk, as previously ordered, and together, along with other representatives of the acting national security and intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister and/or the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to suggest what, in their professional opinions, ought to be redacted and why, in order to assist the law clerk in discharging his duty.
As for the other unspecific “appropriate safeguards” the former government House leader referred to, I believe these should be simple, incontrovertible matters, such as ensuring that in camera discussion of the documents does not take place on Zoom or allowing the meeting to take place at a secure facility away from Parliament Hill. These could be easily negotiated in a unanimous consent motion to supplement the existing sound and responsible measures already adopted by the House.
That is what Conservatives believe to be a reasonable resolution to the situation. It would allow the government's concerns to be addressed while vindicating the authority of Parliament to order the production of documents. Hopefully, the Liberal government will voluntarily table the documents, so we can get on with the redaction process.
Otherwise, you will have to make a ruling to allow the process to move forward, and if you find a prima facie case of contempt, I remain prepared to move an appropriate motion.
1891 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/21 3:57:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today in response to the intervention of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who was responding to the question of privilege we raised a few days ago in relation to the production of documents by the Public Health Agency of Canada in the infamous matter of the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg.
We have carefully read the government's response—
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
