- Member of Parliament
- Whip of the Bloc Québécois
Member of the Board of Internal Economy
- Bloc Québécois
- Salaberry—Suroît
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $109,425.78
- Government Page
- Feb/13/23 1:32:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the question of privilege raised on Wednesday, February 8 by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle concerning freedom from obstruction and technical difficulties related to the interpretation service and to the comments made by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, which dealt more specifically with technical difficulties in parliamentary committee work.
The Bloc Québécois agrees with the House leader of the Conservative caucus that the parliamentary privilege of his caucus was indeed breached because of the technical problems that occurred and that prevented the interpretation of members' remarks during the last caucus meeting of the official opposition.
We want to acknowledge the remarkable work that the interpreters do and the support they provide to members of Parliament during parliamentary proceedings. The interpretation service is essential to the proper functioning of Parliament.
As the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle pointed out, subsection 4(2) of the Official Languages Act requires that “Facilities shall be made available for the simultaneous interpretation of the debates and other proceedings of Parliament from one official language into the other.”
The Bloc Québécois would like to thank the interpreters who interpret every day. I would like to point out that most of the interpretation is done from English to French, so it is all the more important to ensure the right of francophone members to participate in parliamentary proceedings in their language, which is also the language of the majority of their constituents.
The second part of the intervention by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle concerned the problems caused by the technical arrangements for caucus meetings. He rightly referred to pages 111 and 112 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which state, “A member may also be obstructed or interfered with in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions by non-physical means.”
A little later, he added:
It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and, as such, constitute prima facie cases of privilege.
The member for Mégantic—L'Érable went further in his reply. He asserted the following about the technical problems:
We need to have a plan B. Meetings must take place at the scheduled time and proceed normally with the possibility of access to interpretation services and interpreters and, especially, to the equipment that makes those services possible.
On that particular issue, the Bloc Québécois wants to note that technical problems are unfortunately increasingly delaying the work of parliamentary committees and becoming a recurring obstacle to their operations. This poses a significant problem considering the scope and nature of the work done by the committees within the parliamentary apparatus. Parliamentary committees play a fundamental role, including in the legislative process, by conducting a comprehensive review of bills and improving them by adopting amendments, as well as in the oversight process when they conduct investigations into the government's activities, policies, expenses and programs.
As a whip, member of the Board of Internal Economy and a member of Parliament, I find the situation to be very alarming. Last week alone, we on this side related the following events. There were incidents: on February 6 at the environment and sustainable development, veterans affairs, and agriculture and agri-food committees; on February 7 at the health, human resources, skills and social development and the status of persons with disabilities, and national defence committees and at the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying; on February 8 at the industry and technology, and citizenship and immigration committees; on February 9 at the foreign affairs and international development, international trade and veterans affairs committees. There is more. On February 10, there were problems at the human resources, skills and social development and the status of persons with disabilities, and official languages committees and again at the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying. Just this morning, there were problems at the Canadian heritage committee.
We submit to your attention that technical difficulties affecting interpretation services, both during the Conservative caucus and during various committee meetings, may be considered obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation, and as such constitute a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege.
I thank you for taking these situations into consideration during your reflection, as I believe they are very serious.
753 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/23/21 5:58:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with you a major concern that my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I share regarding the health and safety of members of the House and parliamentary staff. This concern is a direct result of the Conservative Party's lukewarm position on whether it is effective and necessary for its members to be vaccinated against COVID‑19.
Since the Board of Internal Economy made its decision to require those on Parliament Hill to be double vaccinated, the Conservative Party has been keeping the public and parliamentarians in the dark by refusing to disclose whether its members have been vaccinated.
The Leader of the Opposition stated that all of his members would be in the House of Commons since they were vaccinated or had medical exemptions. However, he is refusing to say how many members have exemptions.
Science and public health officials are requiring people to be vaccinated in order to have access to many public places across the country, and they keep saying that the best way to protect against the spread of COVID‑19 is for the vast majority of the population to be properly vaccinated.
Rumours have been going around since yesterday that about one-third of the Conservative members produced vaccine exemptions to be allowed on the Hill without being vaccinated. Seeing as how we are in a pandemic, the Conservative Party's refusal to disclose its members' vaccination status makes no sense in our view.
We believe every member of Parliament who has made the responsible choice to get vaccinated to protect the lives and health of their fellow citizens, their loved ones and their colleagues has the right to know which parliamentarians are not adequately vaccinated so they can keep their distance to avoid being infected and potentially infecting others.
We think this secrecy on the part of the official opposition is totally irresponsible and a direct violation of the House's parliamentary privilege. This seems like a good time to remind the House that the ultimate aim of parliamentary privilege is to ensure that the House of Commons can conduct its proceedings effectively and get its democratic work done.
In accordance with tradition and practice, the collective privilege of the House takes precedence over the parliamentary privilege of individual MPs. The reason for that is to protect Parliament from any abuses by individual parliamentarians.
According to a Library of Parliament note dated November 12 on mandatory immunization and parliamentary privilege, the ultimate purpose of parliamentary privilege is to enable the institution to do its work.
Allowing members who are not fully vaccinated on the Hill because they have submitted a medical exemption directly contradicts the Board of Internal Economy's goal of making Parliament Hill a safe place for people to work.
Allowing unvaccinated members to access Parliament Hill undermines the health and safety of all members and our fellow citizens. It poses a real risk to both public health and the proper functioning of the House of Commons.
Parliamentary privilege must not in any way include the ability to jeopardize the health of other members or their ability to work. It is one thing for elected officials to renounce exemplary health practices, but it is quite another for them to renounce precaution, especially if it means putting their colleagues and the employees of the House at risk. This would be incredibly irresponsible.
Therefore we are asking that the House order the House Administration and the Board of Internal Economy, which oversees the House Administration, to take the measures required to rectify the situation and ensure that all members present on Parliament Hill are adequately vaccinated to ensure the health and safety of the House.
623 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/23/21 5:04:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to share certain points that we believe must be considered with regard to the question of privilege raised by the chief opposition whip.
I would first like to say that the decision made by the Board of Internal Economy concerning vaccination of people on Parliament Hill was necessary and vital given the COVID-19 pandemic. As the administrative body of the House of Commons, it is evident that the Board of Internal Economy acted responsibly and in the interest of all by adopting this health measure proposed by scientists, which is proving to be very effective in overcoming the pandemic.
It is important to point out what motivated the board to require that those entering the parliamentary precinct be vaccinated. Need I remind the House that COVID-19 is responsible for the loss of thousands of lives nationwide?
As of early November, the death toll was almost 12,000 in Quebec, almost 30,000 in Canada and more than five million around the world.
We have a duty to reflect on the issues that have been generated and magnified by the pandemic, and we have a duty to do what is needed to address them. This is what we were elected to do. We must be sensible in carrying out our parliamentary duties in order to protect our democracy as much as possible for the good of society, for everyone here and for our children.
There is broad consensus among scientists that vaccination is one of the best ways to get through this pandemic, and we need to set an example. We have a duty to keep Parliament running so that we can do the legislative work we were elected to do. The parliamentary privilege that each one of us enjoys is offset by this duty.
The decision regarding proof of vaccination and access to the parliamentary precinct for members and their staff is a purely administrative one that we believe falls under the jurisdiction of the Board of Internal Economy. The authors of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice state on page 304 that the “powers and authority of the Board flow from provisions of the Parliament of Canada Act, the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, and the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.” According to section 52.3 of the Parliament of Canada Act, the Board of Internal Economy “shall act on all financial and administrative matters respecting (a) the House of Commons, its premises, its services and its staff; and (b) the members of the House of Commons.”
It is therefore clear that the Board of Internal Economy can make administrative decisions that it deems are in the best interest of the House of Commons in order to ensure that parliamentary work can be done properly. It is in the very nature of an organization, whether it be public or private, to make decisions regarding the health measures to be implemented, taking into account public health recommendations and provincial government orders, in order to ensure the well-being of the organization and to protect staff, clients and service providers.
It is clear that the Board of Internal Economy has not only the power to require double vaccination on Parliament Hill but also, and most importantly, the duty to make the decision to add this public health measure to the other public health measures it has implemented over the past year. I would also point out that the Board of Internal Economy is an extension of the House of Commons.
The Board of Internal Economy's composition ensures it remains non-partisan and balances the interests of the government and the opposition parties. The decision made by the majority of its members was made in accordance with the usual practices and the statutory and regulatory authorities.
It is worth noting that, in 2013, at the request of the House, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs considered whether to replace the Board of Internal Economy with an independent oversight body. The committee concluded that the Board's structure and mandate, as we know them, “is the most appropriate model”. In our view, therefore, the Board of Internal Economy has the legitimacy to take action on such matters.
The official opposition is suggesting that the Board of Internal Economy's decision regarding the vaccination of MPs on Parliament Hill is a violation of parliamentary privilege.
We should consider the particular circumstances resulting from the pandemic. The decision to require vaccination was made for public health reasons. In this case, the administrative decision of the Board of Internal Economy does not in any way breach parliamentary privilege. Although in other circumstances we might agree that preventing certain members from accessing the House of Commons and Parliament Hill would constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege, the current pandemic leads us to conduct a more nuanced analysis of this privilege.
At this point, we must highlight the intrinsic objectives that led to the tradition of parliamentary privilege enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1867. On the one hand, Bosc and Gagnon say the following on page 75 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice: “The collective privileges of the House of Commons and the individual privileges of its Members are not unlimited.”
On the other hand, parliamentary privilege does not put the individual rights of members first to the detriment of collective rights of the House of Commons. The individual privileges of members when exercising their parliamentary duties should not contradict the purpose of the House as a deliberative and legislative assembly working on behalf of democracy.
Tradition and practice dictate that the collective rights of the House take precedence over the rights of parliamentarians as individuals in order to protect Parliament from any abuses by individual parliamentarians. Is it not the intrinsic purpose of parliamentary privilege to enable Parliament to do its work?
To determine whether the privilege of unvaccinated members has been breached, we must ask ourselves whether the repercussions of their presence on the Hill, due to the fact that they are not vaccinated, could hinder the legislative work and deliberations of the House of Commons.
Allowing members who are not adequately vaccinated onto the Hill in the middle of a pandemic could have an adverse or even disastrous effect on the proper functioning of the House in the event of an outbreak. Favouring the privilege of unvaccinated members could in fact breach the collective privilege of the House to fully and adequately carry out its work and hold debates. This would be contrary to the interests of the public and society, which expect Parliament to operate as the seat of our democracy.
In reality, the purpose of requiring double vaccination is specifically to prevent the virus from spreading in Parliament and avoid having to stop or disrupt parliamentary activities. The Board of Internal Economy's decision to require members and staff to be vaccinated in order to work on Parliament Hill is entirely legitimate and necessary.
Furthermore, because the Constitution Act, 1867, refers to the usages and forms of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to determine the extent of the privilege of the Canadian Parliament, it makes sense to look at whether other Commonwealth parliaments require their members to be vaccinated against COVID-19, notwithstanding parliamentary privilege.
In October, the Australian Parliament became the first Westminster government to require that members and staff be vaccinated in order to enter Parliament. A majority of Australian members adopted a motion to that effect in the House. If members do not comply with the vaccination requirement, they are suspended from the parliamentary precinct until the second sitting day of 2022.
The Scottish Parliament also ruled on vaccination for its members. The July 20, 2021, edition of The Herald reported that, during deliberations in the House, the Scottish Speaker said that there is nothing to stop a member from entering the House unless the House says otherwise. That is essentially what our own Board of Internal Economy has done.
Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, we respectfully suggest that you immediately put the question to see whether the House supports the Board of Internal Economy's decision to require vaccination on Parliament Hill.
1392 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
