House of Commons Hansard #146 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was regard.

Topics

Olympic and Paralympics AthletesRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

(Motion agreed to)

Access to Information ActRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion. I move:

That, having considered the nature of a request made of the Auditor General under the Access to Information Act, the House of Commons waives its privileges relating to all emails pertaining to the Auditor General appearing before a parliamentary committee from January 17 to April 17, 2012; and

That the Speaker be authorized to communicate to the Auditor General this resolution.

Access to Information ActRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

Access to Information ActRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Access to Information ActRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Access to Information ActRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Access to Information ActRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

(Motion agreed to)

Access to Information ActRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order, please. The House has just adopted an important motion in reference to the rights, privileges and immunities upon which the proceedings of the House and its committees are founded and I would like to make a statement at this time to clarify the situation that has given rise to this decision, particularly in view of some comments that have appeared in recent days.

In June of this year, the House of Commons was advised by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada that they had received a request under the Access to Information Act for all emails pertaining to the appearances of the Auditor General before parliamentary committees between January 17 and April 17, 2012. The information in question consisted of email exchanges between the clerks or officials of five standing committees and officials of the Office of Auditor General.

The House was given third party notice of the request under section 27 of the Access to Information Act and provided 20 days to make any written representations to provide sufficient reasons as to why the information should be disclosed.

There followed several exchanges of correspondence between the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and the Office of the Auditor General in which House officials questioned the release of the documents, given their concern that these documents related to committee hearings, which are protected by parliamentary privilege. This view was consistent with past practice which considered material that forms part of a parliamentary proceeding, whether that proceeding is in the chamber or in committee, to be protected by parliamentary privilege.

In the case at hand, the documents requested were directly linked to a parliamentary proceeding and the actions taken were fully in keeping with a long-established practice.

The privileges, powers and immunities of the House of Commons, as provided by section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act, include freedom of speech and debate as set out, among others places, in article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1689, which provides

that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.

As Erskine May's 24th edition, at page 227, states:

—underlying the Bill of Rights is the privilege of both Houses to the exclusive cognizance of their own proceedings. Both Houses retain the right to be sole judge of the lawfulness of their own proceedings and to settle—or depart from—their own codes of procedure.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at pages 91 and 92, explains that proceedings in Parliament include the giving of evidence before the House of Commons or its committees; the presentation of a document to either the House of Commons or its committees; the preparation of a document for purposes of or incidental to the transacting of any such business; and the formulation, making or publication of a document, including a report, by or pursuant to an order of the House. This has been seen to extend to all evidence, submissions and preparation for the participation by all persons participating in the proceedings of the House of Commons or its committees, all of which are protected by all the privileges and immunities of the House.

Since the House was adjourned when these discussions took place, House counsel requested that the Office of the Auditor General delay the decision to release the documents until September when the House was scheduled to resume sitting.

Notwithstanding this request, the Office of the Auditor General proceeded with its decision to release the documents in question, arguing that it had not identified parliamentary privilege among the exemptions or exclusions in the act that would allow a refusal to do so. This decision started the clock on the timetable provided by the act. Specifically, this meant that the House had the right to apply for a review of this decision pursuant to section 44 of the act, which imposes a strict deadline of 20 days from the day notice is given to file a notice of application in the Federal Court. In short, because attempts to have the Office of the Auditor General postpone this decision were unsuccessful, the House of Commons faced a deadline that had to be respected and so filed not an injunction but an application for a judicial review of the Auditor General's decision to release the documents. Had this filing not been made on or before September 10, 2012, the documents would have been released without the express consent of the House. This would clearly have been unacceptable so we acted to reserve for the House its long-standing primacy in decisions of this nature.

I want to stress that the steps taken in this case were undertaken for the sole purpose of safeguarding the rights and privileges of this House and to reserve for the House the final decision in the matter.

As noted at page 307 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition:

It is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of members and of the House as an institution.

Whatever the circumstances, as your Speaker, I believe that my primary responsibility is to safeguard the rights and privileges of the House and its committees and to ensure that they are not inadvertently eroded.

Of course, while I am duty-bound to protect all of the House’s privileges, I am also the servant of the House and thus entirely at its service in putting into effect its decisions.

As noted on page 307 of O’Brien and Bosc:

The Speaker is the servant, neither of any part of the House nor of any majority in the House, but of the entire institution and serves the best interests of the House as distilled over many generations in its practices.

The Speaker must ensure that the best interests of the House are upheld and that the House remains the master of its own proceedings.

This is the principle that informed the decision to file an application for judicial review, respecting the strict deadline imposed by the act and allowing the House the opportunity to make its own determination in this matter.

The House has now made its decision on this matter. We are all aware that this decision applies only to this case at hand and it is not precedent setting. The House's rights and privileges have not been jeopardized by the House's resolution, nor has the House ceded any of its traditional rights or privileges, particularly as they relate to parliamentary committees.

However, it is likely that today's issue will not be the last of its kind. The Chair would therefore welcome a prompt and thorough review of the question by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, as House committees and their officials will most likely continue to be confronted with more requests of a similar nature. It would not be the first time the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs considered and reported to the House on a matter related to the nature and extent of parliamentary privilege, indeed it did so in November 2004 in presenting its 14th report. There are also other instances, notably in 2007 and 2009, where committees have seen fit to report to the House on aspects of parliamentary privilege in relation to issues with which they were confronted.

I trust this clarifies the context of the situation for the House. I would like to thank all honourable members for their attention in this important matter.

AbortionPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand here on behalf of the thousands of Canadians, women and men, who oppose the Conservative Motion No. 312, a veiled attempt to reopen the abortion debate in Canada. Many Canadian women and men hope that, along with the front benches of the Conservative government, all members of the back benches will stand up and support a woman's right to choose, a right that was achieved decades ago and a debate that has happened in Canada.

We hope that the government will also pursue gender equality rather than turning the—

AbortionPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order, please. I would remind hon. members that presenting petitions is not an opportunity to engage in debate, and also I see many members rising so I will have to be very tight with each member's time.

The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

Rights of the UnbornPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present today a petition signed by a number of petitioners from the Kitchener-Waterloo and surrounding area.

The petitioners call on the House of Commons and Parliament to confirm that every human being, as recognized by Canadian law, is a human being by amending section 223 of our Criminal Code in such a way as to reflect 21st century medical evidence.

Rare DisordersPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present two petitions today, one regarding rare disorders. The petitioners call for a definition for a rare disorder and a national drug policy for rare disorders.

Multiple SclerosisPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is regarding CCSVI. The petitioners call for the Minister of Health to consult experts actively engaged in the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI to undertake a phase III clinical trial on an urgent basis at multiple centres across Canada and to require follow-up care.

National Transit StrategyPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of my constituents who join with over 70 organizations, city councils and mayors in support of a national transit strategy contained in my Bill C-305, which will be voted on this Wednesday.

Rights of the UnbornPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a petition from approximately 50 of my constituents who have asked that the Criminal Code in section 223 be amended to recognize human beings.

The EnvironmentPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition today with regard to the experimental lakes area. The decision of the government to close the EL research station is bad for our aquatic ecosystem.

The petitioners ask the government to reconsider its decision and reinstate this very important research that is critical to Canada's development as an environmentally friendly policy.

Rights of the UnbornPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition from over 400 constituents from Kitchener Centre and nearby areas in support of a review of our Middle Ages definition of a human being and request the House of Commons to confirm that every human being is recognized by Canadian law and no ideology requires otherwise.

I would also like to table a petition from the riding of my good friend and colleague the member for Cambridge North Dumfries to the same effect.

I also present a petition from the constituents from the riding of Durham to the same effect and two petitions constituting almost 200 constituents from the riding of Kitchener—Waterloo, all of whom believe that the Parliament of Canada should recognize the inherent worth and dignity of every human being.

Old Age SecurityPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling more petitions signed by people in Hamilton Mountain who are incensed about the government's increase of the age of eligibility for old age security to age 67. The petitioners point out that only 31% of Canadians have been able to contribute to RRSPs and that only 40% of Canadians have workplace pensions and the future of many of those pension plans are increasingly tenuous.

Since over one-quarter of a million seniors are now living in poverty and public pensions provide at most $15,000 to the typical retiree, the petitioners call on the government to drop its ill-considered change to the OAS, maintain the current age of eligibility and make the requisite investments in the guaranteed income supplement to lift every senior out of poverty.

Rights of the UnbornPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a number of petitions signed by more than 250 constituents who call on the House of Commons to confirm that every human being be recognized by Canadian law as human by amending section 223 of the Criminal Code.

Lyme DiseasePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.

The first is from members of the community of Winnipeg, but they are writing in support of a private member's bill I put forward, which I hope members on all sides of the House will give consideration and support for a national lyme disease strategy.

The EnvironmentPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from people within British Columbia who call on the House to protect the British Columbia coast from the threat of supertankers bearing bitumen crude. We want a tanker-free coast in British Columbia.

Rights of the Unborn ChildPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians across the country who are opposed to the Conservatives’ Motion No. 312, which is a thinly veiled attempt to reopen the abortion debate in Canada.

As the Prime Ministere has often said, that debate is over. The government had promised not to reopen the debate, but that is clearly what it is trying to do by introducing Motion No. 312.

Canadians do not want that debate reopened. I am therefore presenting this petition on behalf of the hundreds of Canadians who are opposed to Motion No. 312.

Rights of the Unborn ChildPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Aspin Conservative Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions today signed by constituents from the beautiful riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming.

The first is a petition to the House regarding Motion No. 312.

JusticePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Aspin Conservative Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with regard to Canadian Marc Emery's treaty transfer from the United States to Canada.

Public TransitPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of Canadians who are concerned that Canada is the only OECD country that does not have a national public transit strategy. It is estimated that over the next five years there will be an $18 billion gap in transit infrastructure.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to enact a Canada public transit strategy that would provide permanent investment, establish federal funding mechanisms, work with all levels of government and establish accountability measures to ensure we do indeed increase access to public transit.