Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 30th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Simms, your time is up.

We'll go on to Mrs. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Calgary Midnapore, CPC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Glen, thank you so much for being here today and presenting this case to the House, but also for your bravery in being here, especially as a former law official. It must be very hard for you to stomach that people who come from the same profession of which you were a proud part for so long were part of making such a grave error.

I'm interested whether you could give me an idea of how many stakeholders contacted you regarding this slip of information that occurred on the website.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I have no idea how many I personally received at the office. I haven't tracked them.

[Stephanie Kusie]

But they contacted you.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Yes.

[Stephanie Kusie]

What would you say were their concerns when they contacted you? What types of things did you hear on the phone and in emails when you received these communications about this misinformation on the website?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

From a lot of fronts, it was quite clear that they were confused. The overarching conversation was, “I thought this was still being debated. I didn't realize that it had been passed. What's happened?” There was confusion. There was angst in the firearm community, especially those who were going to be impacted by what the bulletin had suggested.

I think it is most unfortunate that whoever it was and however the decision was made to post this information with the definitive language that was used, it created an opportunity again for Canadians to discredit the national law enforcement agency.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more.

How would you describe the emotions of the people when they contacted you? My goodness, under this misinformation, this penalty potentially carries the punishment of five years in prison. I can't imagine waking up one morning and reading some information that overnight potentially subjects me to five years in prison. What were their emotions when they were contacting you? You mentioned some confusion. Was there some fear as well?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Yes. First of all, many Canadians, including the law-abiding gun-owning community, are quite concerned about the ramifications of Bill C-71 and what it doesn't do for what we're trying to tackle, which is a gang and gun issue in this country, gun violence and gang violence. They're already concerned about the misguided approach that the government is taking with that.

Add on top of that the confusion that suggests we are now.... They didn't understand the process that they've circumvented Parliament. They were saying, “I thought you guys were still talking about this. Now I'm in a panic. Am I going to be a criminal overnight?”

[Stephanie Kusie]

It's a good word.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

So there was concern. There was confusion and concern in the firearms community.

[Stephanie Kusie]

I really thank my colleague, the honourable member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, for bringing up the advertising case. I would say there are some major discrepancies, though, between that and this. I mean, the RCMP is just law enforcement. They can't presume the law. But I also think it's very important to point out that that case, in its ruling, wasn't determined to be prima facie, and that this one in fact was. That is a major differentiation between the two.

Mr. Motz, I would also like to point to the historic ruling of Speaker Fraser, which was 30 years ago now, as follows:

This is a case which, in my opinion, should never recur. I expect the Department of Finance and other departments to study this ruling carefully and remind everyone within the Public Service that we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy

—you made reference to this potentially being an executive decision—

nor a so-called administrative democracy.

In your opinion, do you think something like this should ever happen again?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Well, I think it's quite honestly the responsibility of this committee to find out why it happened, how it happened, and how to ensure that it doesn't happen again, because it does, in my opinion, rattle Canadians' confidence in Parliament and their ability to trust government. Again, I think it's a huge affront to democracy. Regardless of the intent behind it, it's something that this committee is now charged with trying to find a cause for, and then ensuring that steps are taken to ensure that this current government and any future government, and all future ministries and departments moving forward, have a very clear direction and understanding and guidance on how to ensure that it doesn't happen in the future.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Thank you.

I will add that Speaker Fraser, and this was not in a prima facie case, went on in his ruling to state this:

I want the House to understand very clearly that if your speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair [may] not be as generous.

Would you say, Mr. Motz, that the committee should in fact go to any length and take as long as is necessary to determine how and why this happened? Do you feel we have an obligation to the Canadian public to do that?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Again, I don't want to presume the will of the committee, but I think it's critical that this committee recognize the importance of the study that's before it and recognize that, as I said, it isn't about this incident. It's clearly not about just this incident. It's about a broader issue, a larger thing that other speakers have had to contend with and that we know causes confusion to the public and undermines the authority of Parliament and elected officials. It's really through Parliament, as we all know and we all understand here, that we are the voice of Canadians when we're here. When anybody—bureaucratic officials or departments or ministers—circumvents that process, then really the voice of Canadians is no longer heard.

So yes, I think it's incumbent upon your committee to ask as many questions as you need to ask and find out from as many witnesses as you can about this situation—how to prevent it from happening and what to do about this current one as well.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much, Stephanie.

Mr. Christopherson, go ahead.

[David Christopherson, Hamilton Centre, NDP]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks very much, Glen. I appreciate your coming in.

I have to say that, like a few people here, I've been around the bush on this one, both here and also in a previous life at Queen's Park. We had a very similar thing. Scotty, you and I have been down the road on this a few times. I very much liken this kind of issue to the MPs' access to the House. The principle is a really big deal.

That's why whenever there is a prima facie case that members may have been held up in accessing the House, usually with the buses—that's the usual place where we have a problem—then we get into the details of it and find out just how much skulduggery is behind the incident that happened. I see this very similarly. The principle is a really big deal.

No government or entity or agency of government has the right to purport to the Canadian people that something is the law if Parliament hasn't passed it. I don't care how big your majority is; only Parliament can pass laws. Since it's not automatic—not everybody is a robot, and people can vote the way they want in the moment—it's not the law until it's the law.

I see this the same way. I have a real concern. With my background as a former Ontario solicitor general, the involvement of the police and their role in society and government, that interface, is an area that I have some interest and experience in, so I understand the severity of why you brought this forward.

I'm very much with Mr. Simms, Chair, in that a lot of this is going to turn on intent. It did happen, so the government has to take the hit for the fact that it happened. We want to hear some appropriate bowing and scraping about how it's not going to happen again.

But whether the government conspired with the RCMP to deliberately mislead the Canadian public or whether it was a comedy of errors remains to be seen. I think we're in the right place. I think that it was appropriate that this matter be sent here. It is a big deal. We need to treat it as a big deal.

I'm very much looking forward to our second meeting, where we will have the other side, if you will—there are always two sides—to get a sense of how close we are to conspiratorial action versus a bunch of clowns. To me, that will be the determination of how much time and how much effort we should spend going forward.

I don't really have any questions for you, Glen. I thought you made your case very clearly, very articulately. You backed it up. I have no questions for you, but I would afford you, if you wish, an opportunity to take the floor and clarify any other points you wish.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson. I appreciate your comments, and I would agree with them. I think it's fair to suggest that this committee, as has been suggested, needs to look at this in totality. It is similar to other cases in which contempt of Parliament has been upheld. I think this doesn't impact just me as an MP. This impacts the Canadian public in a way that's a little different, in that there were actions that could have been taken.

Regarding the intent behind this, whether it is, as you put it, a comedy of errors or some willful suggestion, I must make it very clear. I have many current and former members of the RCMP who are great friends and great police officers. I don't believe for a moment that behind all of this.... This is not in any way designed to malign the RCMP. There's nothing that could be further from the truth; that is not my intent.

But I think it's important to recognize that Bill C-71 gives the RCMP some reclassification authorities that they never had previous to Bill C-71. The Canadian public is suspect of that. When they see that an institution of the Canadian government—which is law enforcement, the RCMP—is even presumptuous in its language or believing that this is going to happen, it brings that organization into disrepute even more and discredits it. That's unfortunate.

We're here to ensure that the public institutions we hold true in this land have the confidence of our constituents. However this happened, which I'm confident this committee will certainly find out, it's important that there be mechanisms, checks and balances, that are placed there to ensure that those confidences can be maintained, that there are boundaries that bureaucrats and the agencies they answer to can follow, and that they clearly understand what those might be.

[David Christopherson]

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Motz.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

Now we'll go on to Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank Mr. Motz for bringing this to the committee's attention.

I agree with Mr. Simms—and I'll carry on for him—that this is a particularly troubling issue, and something that the committee should be looking into. Mr. Motz, Mr. Christopherson, and everyone who has spoken here are correct: Parliamentary privilege is important and needs to be maintained, and if there is a breach of that, that's something to be discussed.

Like Mr. Simms, though, I will be focusing more on the issue of intention. I'll start with a simple question. Would you agree with me that the RCMP is an independent agency that the minister does not govern the day-to-day affairs of?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Yes, the RCMP is an independent agency that answers directly to the Minister of Public Safety.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Okay. We're on the same page.

I was looking through your Wikipedia page when you got here. The interesting thing about this workplace is that we all have Wikipedia pages about us.

I'm very much impressed by your background and your years of service with the Medicine Hat police force, your Order of Merit, and that you retired as an inspector in the department.

Having been a lawyer in my time, I've represented a police service and I've also represented a police association, two different ones. Mistakes happen in those agencies.

I'm sure mistakes happened during your 35 years in the police department—not necessarily your responsibility. In those 35 years, how many times did you blame the mayor's office or the police service board for a day-to-day mistake that happened in the Medicine Hat police department?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Well, the mayor's office and the police board are not responsible for the operations of the police service.