House of Commons Hansard #28 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was economy.
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise at this time to table the notice of a ways and means motion to introduce an act to give effect to the governance agreement with Sioux Valley Dakota Nation and to make consequential amendments to other acts. I do that in both languages.
I ask that a day be designated for consideration of the motion.
Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance AgreementRoutine Proceedings
December 2nd, 2013 / 3:05 p.m.
York—Simcoe Ontario
Conservative
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I rise to table the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Agreement and Tripartite Governance Agreement in both official languages.
Mark Strahl ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have to honour to table, in both official languages, four separate reports.
The first is the 2011-12 annual report of the Labrador and Inuit Land Claims Agreement implementation coordinating committee.
The second report I wish to table is the copy of the 2013 Annual Report of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.
Thirdly, I have the copies of the 2010-11 Annual Report on the State of Inuit Culture and Society in the Nunavut Settlement Area to table.
The final report that I would like to table is the 2010-11 Nisga'a Final Agreement report.
Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 35 petitions.
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation to the 43rd British Islands and Mediterranean Regional Conference, held in Stanley, the Falkland Islands.
Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, respecting its participation in the mid-year EXCO meeting, held in Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands.
Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, respecting its participation in the 62nd Westminster Seminar on Parliamentary Practice and Procedures, held in London, United Kingdom.
Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, respecting its participation in the mid-year EXCO meeting, held in Ezulwini, Lobamba, Swaziland.
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-United Kingdom Inter-Parliamentary Association, respecting its participation in the bilateral visit to Scotland and London, United Kingdom.
Gord Brown Conservative Leeds—Grenville, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in relation to the supplementary estimates (B), 2013-14, votes 1b, 5b, 10b, 50b, 65b and 70b under Canadian Heritage.
Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to the supplementary estimates (B), 2013-14, votes 1b, 5b, 10b and 20b under Environment.
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, entitled “NATO's Strategic Concept and Canada's Role in International Defence Cooperation”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive report and response to this report.
As well, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, entitled “Supplementary Estimates (B) 2013-14, votes 1b, 5b, 20b and 25b under National Defence”.
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, entitled “Supplementary Estimates (B) 2013-14”.
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, entitled “Review of the Board of Internal Economy”.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition NDP, we will be filing a dissenting report on this report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and it is very clear why.
What Canadians have been saying right across the country is that we need to bring an end to self-policing of MPs' expenses. Yet, we have had the Conservative government and Liberal members saying that self-policing is just fine. We disagree, and we are going to continue to fight on behalf of Canadians.
We are also going to follow up on what the Auditor General so clearly said, which is that having an independent oversight body would be in Canadians' interests. He also said very clearly, even though Conservatives disagree, that the Auditor General needed a mandate to look at MPs' expense.
Finally, the Information Commissioner said that the law on access to information should apply to the House of Commons. We are saying that should happen too.
We are going to continue to stand up for Canadians, and we are going to bring in—
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Order, please.
Are these points of order that members are rising on?
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
As much as I am sure the hon. member is eager to add to what the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has just said, the rules do not allow for him to do that. However, there may be opportunities in the future. If the motion to concur in the report is called, I am sure the member will be able to add his remarks then.
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is rising on a point of order.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask for a clarification. This is the first time I have found myself in a position where a member in my situation was actually able, collectively with the other members in my situation, to table a further dissent.
I wonder if that is permitted to be discussed at this point or not. It is to the same report.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I can provide that clarification. The rules of our House allow for the official opposition to table a minority report, which has just happened, so it is time to move on.
There are not opportunities for other members to table other dissenting reports, at least not at this time. As I said, if and when the motion to concur in the report that was just tabled is called, I am sure members will have the ability to add their thoughts to the record.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Pursuant to an order made Thursday, November 28, 2013, the 42nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House in the first session of the 41st Parliament is deemed presented.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-557, An Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Vancouver Island).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce An Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Vancouver Island). I am introducing this bill today in an attempt to counteract some of the negative consequences of the Conservatives' second budget bill, which removed all environmental protection for each and every lake, river and stream on Vancouver Island. This bill would restore that protection which is so important to the future salmon runs, to recreation and to tourism on central and northern Vancouver Island, by specifically protecting Nimpkish Lake, Owikeno Lake, Horne Lake, Kennedy Lake, Great Central Lake, Sproat Lake and the Campbell River.
This bill complements the bill I introduced previously to provide similar protection for the Goldstream River in my own riding.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek unanimous consent of the House for the following motion, that Bill C-551, An Act to establish the National Security Committee of Parliamentarians be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
The reason for this motion is that there is growing concern as to the accountability of our intelligence agencies and the proposal contained in this legislation would provide oversight. It was crafted with the current Minister of National Defence and the current—
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Pursuant to an order made Thursday, November 28, 2013, the 42nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House in the first session of the 41st Parliament is deemed moved and seconded.
Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand to speak to the 42nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I should say at the outset that this was a really fascinating study. Although it is very complex and at times the study seemed to raise more questions than it offered answers, I think the committee did an exemplary job of trying to come forward with guidelines for procedures to assist both the Speaker and the House administration on this issue.
For the benefit of members who may not be aware of the 42nd report or for the benefit of Canadians who may be watching this debate today, I will try, in the few moments I have, to frame the question as it occurred and then provide a brief recap of the findings of the committee.
What happened in June of 2012 was a situation that really had not been encountered before, which was that there was an access to information request of the Auditor General to release certain documents—emails, in fact—relating to the Auditor General's appearances before committees earlier that year.
Unfortunately, the request was made when the House was not sitting. Therefore, the Speaker and the House administration could not consult with members of the House, since Parliament was adjourned for the summer. In that light, Mr. Speaker, I believe you and other House administration officers did what they could only do, which was that in order to protect the parliamentary privilege rights of members, they had to refuse those documents being released.
As you well know, Mr. Speaker, and I think all members in this place know, all parliamentarians, whether in this place or the other place, are protected by parliamentary privilege. There are many good reasons for that, and I will not have to illuminate or articulate those reasons. Suffice it to say that all members are free to speak in Parliament during debate or examination in committee without fear of retribution or of having legal action taken against them. That privilege extends to discussions in committees.
When Parliament was not sitting and an access to information request was made for documents from committees, which are protected by privilege, the Speaker rightly said he was sorry, but he could not release them because he did not have the consent of the members of that committee.
There is a bit of a conflict between parliamentary privilege and the Access to Information Act. Privilege is embodied in our Constitution. It is referenced in the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Constitution Act, 1982, and, as such, since it is in the Constitution, parliamentary privilege is sacrosanct. That means that since the Constitution is the supreme law of Canada, it at all times must be observed, and those elements of the Constitution that are protected by constitutional rights have to be observed.
However, the Access to Information Act does not recognize parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege is not exempted from the Access to Information Act. There are no exceptions in the Access to Information Act reflecting parliamentary privilege, so there was a conflict. On one hand, parliamentary privilege itself would prevent certain documents from being released; on the other hand, the Access to Information Act is there to provide information to Canadians who are seeking information from government, and it is a fundamental tenet of our democracy to be able to provide such information to Canadians.
The question then became how to resolve it. In this particular case, when Parliament resumed in September of 2012, the House unanimously agreed to provide those documents that were requested through the access to information request, but it also pointed out to the Speaker and House administration the possibility for future cases coming forward. The Speaker then referred the question to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, asking for guidance on how the House should respond in the future should another example of an access to information request come forward when Parliament was not sitting.
The committee did an exhaustive study of this question. It brought forward many expert witnesses. The Information Commissioner and her legal counsel, the Clerk of the House, and the law counsel of the House of Commons all gave testimony.
Testimony seemed to be in conflict, because while privilege is sacrosanct and while privilege is recognized in the Constitution, the Access to Information Act states that privilege is silent within the act, so how does one reconcile these two seemingly contradictory points of view?
After much discussion and after hearing much testimony, the procedure and House affairs committee came up with some guidelines to assist you, Mr. Speaker, should the situation ever arise again. It basically identified four categories in which you could take action should a request come forward when Parliament is not sitting.
The first category deals with public and accessible documents.
In other words, if testimony or documents were provided at committee and those documents and that testimony were publicly accessible because, for example, the committee's discussions and deliberations were held in public—sometimes they were even televised—then the answer is certainly yes. The committee suggested that the House be able to release those documents when a request was made.
The second category is for documents and testimony provided during in camera discussions at committee.
Clearly, the committee felt that in camera was sufficient and that no documents or testimony, if provided during an in-camera session of a committee, should be available, even though an access to information request had come forward.
The third category is for not-publicly-accessible documents that were presented in a committee that was not in camera.
In these cases, Mr. Speaker, the committee suggested to you that those requests be considered on a case-by-case situation. In other words, if the documents dealt with sensitive information, perhaps of a personal nature or a legal nature, then those documents should not be presented or provided to those people who were making the request to begin with. However, if they were non-sensitive items, then yes, that information could be provided.
If a committee was sitting—in other words, if Parliament was in session—the committee would make that determination itself. However, if Parliament was not sitting, then it would be up to the Speaker to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not to release those documents. However, the guidelines are in place: sensitive information, documents should not be released; non-sensitive information, documents could be released by you, in your determination, Mr. Speaker.
The final category relates to documents that were prepared for testimony at committee but never presented.
Many times documents are prepared for the benefit of witnesses appearing before the committee, but those documents may never be released or discussed at the committee itself. If those documents were requested and if it was a public meeting—in other words, it was not in an in camera session—then the procedure and House affairs committee felt those documents could be released.
However, again, if the documents were presented in an in camera session, the answer would be no. Any documents or testimony presented in camera should not be released, regardless of a request through access to information.
I should also point out that privilege still remains even if documents are released. By that, I mean that documents may be presented to any member of the Canadian public who requests them, but privilege remains intact. For example, if the documents refer to commentary from a member, whether in debate or in committee, and they could be considered to be somewhat defamatory or libellous, privilege would still protect the member, even though the documents had been made public.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that is of assistance to you in future dealings of this sort and I hope the explanation has been of benefit to those members who may not have been aware of this report.
Let me finally say once again that I applaud all members of the procedure and House affairs committee for some very good work during committee.
I know there will be a dissenting report coming from members of the official opposition. I think some of the points made in that dissenting report are reasonable.
However, it just goes to show, once again, that when they want to, members can really work together well in committee, and I think it shows this Parliament is working extremely well in this regard.
