Debates of April 11th, 2017

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is a rather historic moment in the House, given that the Speaker has ruled in favour of the member who raised a question of privilege pertaining to another privilege motion. This is certainly a blow for the government and especially for the member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert, who moved the motion to proceed to orders of the day.

Earlier, the Speaker gave his ruling on the motion, which was inappropriate in the circumstances. In fact, we were debating a question of privilege and the debate was to end with a vote. This debate was interrupted by the motion moved by my government colleague.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts on the Speaker's historic ruling of today on the motion to end debate that was adopted by the government one week ago. The Speaker recognized that the situation was unprecedented.

According to my colleague, what effect will this decision have on future questions of privilege raised in the House?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his question.

This is the first time in the history of Parliament that the government has interrupted an important debate on a question of privilege raised in the House. Thus, this is the first time in the history of this place that there has not been a vote on a question of privilege.

Never before in the House has the government shut down the opportunity to actually have a vote on a matter of privilege that is before it. This is parliamentary history without precedent. Every other precedent in O'Brien and Bosc has been clearly delineated to have been a matter that had been dealt with by the House. This has not been the case, and it is truly unfortunate that such heavy-handed tactics would be employed by the government on such an important matter of privilege.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I are both graduates of the same public affairs program at Carleton. It is a good place to go to learn all about parliamentary procedure.

I want to ask the member to highlight the importance of the fight that we are undertaking on behalf of parliamentary democracy. This is really about responsible government. It is about the fact that the executive must be accountable to the legislature and the legislature has certain rights on which the executive cannot trample.

This is a big and consequential fight for the way in which our democracy works. These procedural points all inform that broader issue.

I wonder if the member could comment on that and speak to the fact that Canadians are concerned about this and they are writing to us about these issues.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, my former classmate is right. The issue before us is one where the government is ramming down procedural changes to the Standing Orders of the House without the consent of the opposition. In every major case, the practice of the House is that these changes are made by consensus, by agreement of all political parties.

The House does not belong to the executive branch. The House belongs to the legislative branch, to each and every one of us as parliamentarians, for us to decide how we govern ourselves within this place, not to be told how to govern ourselves by the executive branch.

I will continue to oppose the one-sided, unilateral efforts by the government in the Standing Orders standoff.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member across the way could assist me in better understanding what he believes his constituents would want. I believe my constituents are in favour of modernizing Parliament. Does he believe his constituents are in favour of modernizing Parliament?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, we as Canadians and we as members of the House have to undertake our duties to this place, and our duties should not be done by unilaterally ramming down changes.

Let us get to the real work by having a real discussion in the procedure and House affairs committee, not by having it one-sided with a guillotine motion that is directing the committee to report back by a certain date without the consensus of the opposition parties.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this question of privilege. I also want to commend the Speaker for the precedent-setting decision today, in which he recognized that, yes, debate had been shut down by the government on the question of privilege, which prevented the House from having a vote, taking the next step, allowing every member to stand to voice his or her yea or nay on the subject of the question of privilege and the next process.

I have been a member of Parliament for 17 years and I have seen many questions of privilege come before the House. The question of privilege that was brought forward was on budget day, and that was unusual. When the member for Milton brought forward her question of privilege and spoke to it, and she said it again on April 6, she quoted former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau saying that 50 yards from the parliamentary precinct the MPs were nobodies. I think what Prime Minister Trudeau was saying at that time was that although we were involved in the running of government and bringing forward legislation on the Hill, when we were away from Parliament, we were really just average Joes, that we were really just, as he said, nobodies.

When members of Parliament go back to their constituencies, they understand they need to earn the respect of their constituents. They cannot believe that respect will be afforded to them until they earn it. They earn it during the election, but they need to earn it between elections. The Speaker knows the work we do as members of Parliament. Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau may have believed that we were nobodies away from Parliament, but make no mistake, there are certain privileges given to members of Parliament in the parliamentary precinct.

There are certain privileges we are afforded because of our position. For example, members have immunity in the House. We can say pretty well anything we want to say in the House with complete immunity. It may not be in order and the Speaker may cut us off, but we are given immunity for the things we say in the House. Many times one member will tell another member to say something outside of the House, because members know that outside of the House they do not have that privilege. In the House there is privilege.

When a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been found, it is a very serious thing. On budget day, there was another ruling. The member for Don Valley East, though she has been in the House for a long time and ran for Speaker, was snapping pictures in the House. The Speaker rightfully said that was not in order and shut it down. Also, that very same day, the budget was handed out early. The Liberal Party received the budget early. We know that was out of order as well.

However, when two members are on their way to the House of Commons to vote and are prevented from doing that, this becomes, as my colleague said, a very serious matter. It is typically a matter that is then studied and if there are certain reasons it occurred, it is prevented from happening again.

On budget day, when the prima facie case was brought forward, the member for Beauce said that he had missed the vote, as did the member for Milton, because they were holding the buses on account of the empty motorcade, or the cars for the Prime Minister, needing to return in order for them to be brought to the House of Commons.

He said that when he was on the bus, they were being stalled. He got out and asked security why they were being held up. The security guards, who were using walkie-talkies and radios, said that it was because the Prime Minister's empty motorcade was waiting. The members had to wait and, consequently, missed the vote.

There are a couple of other times where we have seen this happen. I remember a former colleague, as will some of my colleagues here, Yvon Godin. We remember him well. In 2014, on the day the German president or chancellor was here, he tried to get to the Hill and was prevented from that. Mr. Godin said that he was a member of Parliament, that he had to get on to the Hill. The security officials, at the time, the RCMP, said that they did not care whether he was a member of Parliament. Members in the House cared. Mr. Godin cared. He stood in the House and the old temperature was rising. His face was getting redder and he passionately spoke about the privileges of a member of Parliament. It made us all feel pretty good that he was defending our rights as members of Parliament.

What happened? The Speaker found there was a prima facie case. It went to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and proper measures were put in place so security realized the importance of members getting to this place.

In 2012, again, the access of members to the House was impeded when the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was on the Hill. I think all of us would understand that massive security measures had to be in place when he was here. Again, a number of members of Parliament were impeded from getting up to the Hill and, again, the Speaker found a prima facie case of a breach of the privileges of members.

Why? Because we are here not only to collect a paycheque, but to do the business of the people of Canada. We are here to represent our constituents. We are here to stand up and make a difference. We are here to hold the government to account. We are here to ensure we bring things forward that are in the best interests of Canadians.

The other day the government prevented this from going to PROC. It prevented us from having a vote to ensure this went to the committee.

Why? Right now PROC is taken up by a government that is trying to push through changes to the Standing Orders that give opposition members privileges, that lay out the rules and groundwork for those privileges. For these types of changes, historically, prime ministers, whether it be Prime Minister Harper, or Prime Minister Chrétien, or other prime ministers, have said that we need unanimity to do this. Because we are elected members of Parliament, we cannot unilaterally change everything in the House. Again, members are expected to represent their constituents and to hold the government to account, a government in waiting on this side and the government in power on that side. However, that does allow the current government the privilege of changing, unilaterally, the Standing Orders in the House.

Again, we know the Prime Minister would like to show up and answer questions in question period for one day instead of throughout the week. We know he wants to shut down Fridays so members of Parliament are not here holding the government to account. The more we carry on with this Parliament, the more we see it is really just an inconvenience to the Prime Minister. He would like to go on without being slowed down in any manner.

Before I conclude my speech, I move:

That the motion be amended by adding the following: “and that the committee make this matter a priority over all other business including its review of the Standing Orders and procedure of the House and its committees.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He talked about what happened to our former colleague, Yvon Godin.

I would like to talk about his amendment. I believe that the matter raised by the members for Beauce and Milton, the former member for Acadie—Bathurst, Mr. Godin, and others, is coming up much too frequently.

I do not want to call into question the work that RCMP and security officers are doing on the Hill. They are doing an outstanding job of keeping us safe and protecting Parliament Hill. Still, I think this needs to be a priority for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It really is happening way too often. I think we need to put an end to this problem once and for all.

I would like my colleague to comment on what we can do to ensure, as much as possible, that MPs are no longer accidentally or deliberately prevented from getting to their workplace.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, when I came here 17 years ago, I remember walking in on that first day and the security guard said “Good morning, Mr. Sorenson”. How in the world did he know me, a nobody, a first-time member of Parliament? The security guard made it a point to know most members of Parliament. It was not that we were wearing our pins. He had seen our pictures and studied them, so when members came in, they were shown a certain degree of privilege, a certain respect.

My colleague is absolutely right. It is not that we are walking around here expecting that people will just afford us this. However, when we come to the House, we realize that this is a sacred duty given to us. We do not take this for granted. We do not build pride in who we are, but we are humbled by the fact that we have been sent here by constituents because they have confidence in us to represent them well. Therefore, we expect that security or other measures that may impede members from getting here, especially for a vote, be corrected if it is important that we be here.

Again, the Prime Minister is trying to shut down Fridays and only show up one day. Perhaps he does not think it is that important. If we take our responsibility seriously, things like this need to get to PROC and get cleared up.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are seeing all kinds of disrespect for this institution from the government. Just yesterday, I had to make three separate calls for quorum because we were below quorum at certain times during an important debate. I will not name which party did not have very many members in the House at all, but frankly, when quorum is only 20 members out of 338, we would think members could show up for work. That was on a Monday.

We have a government that wants to eliminate Friday sittings. It struggles with quorum, and a range of other issues, including now this discussion of access to a vote.

The member has been a parliamentarian for a long time. Has he seen any precedent for this kind of disdain for Parliament that we have seen from the government?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I cannot recall anything like what we are seeing now. Perhaps it is because there are so many new members of Parliament over there. I am not certain if they believe that because they have been elected, they have been elected almost in a dictatorship position, or what. However, I do know it is much different from what we saw even under Mr. Chrétien. Certainly this type of unilateral bullying was never done by Prime Minister Chrétien or by Prime Minister Harper.

This is new. What we are seeing happen here is unprecedented. The Liberals are trying to change the very rules of how we debate and carry on within Parliament. It is a shame.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, Ethics; the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, Public Services and Procurement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I want to provide some thoughts regarding a lot of the things I have heard in the very short time span since the ruling of the Speaker. I would argue that the real shame is the distortion of reality. We have seen opposition members take a certain view of what has been happening over the last little while and I would argue that is a great disservice in part because of their actions.

I would like to give a few examples to the member opposite. I use as an example when members opposite talk about the issue of Fridays. We want members to be engaged in the discussion paper. Members of the House work seven days a week. I work seven days a week and I believe that all members in this chamber work seven days a week. It is a choice whether we want to work in Ottawa or in our constituency. I do not hear any members talk about the part of the discussion paper that talks about sitting more days in the month of January. I do not hear other aspects of the discussion paper that are being talked about.

When members talk about question period and the Prime Minister, not one Liberal is saying that the Prime Minister would only show up one day a week. It is just the opposite.

My intention is not to speak long, but rather to encourage members to watch and listen to what they are saying. I believe that privileges are very important. I think there is a lot of manipulation possibly taking place—

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

By whom? By your party.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way said “by whom”. Let me suggest to all members of the House that we have seen questions of privilege being raised in the past and they have been dealt with. I have been on the other side talking about questions of privilege. When I talked about privileges and unfettered access to the chamber, even then members of Stephen Harper's government commented about the importance of unfettered access, but never before have I witnessed this type of politicization of a question of privilege.

If people were to read what members opposite have tried to attribute to this privilege, they would see that those members constantly attempt to score political points. It would seem that political points mean more than privilege. That is the reality. I would challenge any member across the way to come over and share their thoughts with me personally if they really believe that I am wrong in making that assertion.

We are all intelligent people in the House. We all work and strive hard to represent our constituents. The government of the day is attempting to modernize Parliament. That has been a very hot issue. I do not believe that dealing with the privilege needs to tie in the politics of that issue. I would find it very difficult if someone were to imply that it has nothing to do with it and I would be interested in having that one-on-one discussion.

I have been a parliamentarian for 25 years, most of those years in opposition—

[An hon. member]

This is the pot calling the kettle black.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I just want to remind members that when members have the floor, they are deserving of respect when giving their speech. I would appreciate it if members would afford the member that respect.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the point I was trying to get across is that after many years of being a parliamentarian, I understand both the government side of things and the opposition side of things in the sense that I was in opposition for more than 20 years.

I recognize the importance of changing the rules. I have first-hand experience when it comes to changing the rules, both here in Ottawa and more specifically in my home province of Manitoba where I worked both with a Conservative government and an NDP government. To say it is the Prime Minister or this government and the way by which we are trying to implement changes is—

[An hon. member]

Unprecedented.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, it is unprecedented, Madam Speaker, as the member across the way just said.

In my experience, it is unprecedented the way opposition parties have taken a position that does not allow for dialogue. It is not too late, and I am hopeful that the opposition will understand that by working together we can make some positive changes. We have to agree on the need to modernize Canada's Parliament. If we agree to that, then there is an opportunity for us to achieve something by working together. We need to agree to modernize Parliament. I want to see that happen.

When I participated on PROC, we made some changes to the rules, but they were not anything of great significance. I have had discussions in regard to rule changes. Some members talk about getting the low-hanging fruit. There are some changes that would be significant and would make a world of difference in allowing us to better serve the constituents that we represent and our country as a whole.

I am challenging opposition members, as they like to challenge government members, to put politics aside. Both sides of the House need to do that. If the intent is genuine to make this a better place, then it can be done, but goodwill has to come from both sides of the House. To be honest, PROC did a great deal of work prior to the discussion paper which has been taken into consideration. I remain optimistic. I believe PROC can still do some good work in regard to helping us modernize our Parliament.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I also read the discussion paper that was put forward and I gave it serious thought. One of my colleagues said it best in saying that the government is trying to turn the opposition into an audience. That was a very profound statement.

The suggested changes are a big concern. To suggest that this is just about modernizing Parliament and that it is just a discussion paper, but then to move forward with a motion would really hamstring members. If the government intended what that member talked about just now, it would have taken a very different approach to this conversation. The member often talks about the former Liberal government. Look at what Prime Minister Chrétien did when he was looking at making changes.

I would suggest that what is happening right now in the House in terms of many of the issues is of the government's own making. Perhaps the member could do a bit of soul searching and consider taking that information back to his leadership. Then maybe we could have the important discussions that need to be had without the Liberals using their majority to ram things through to change the opposition into an audience.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, let me give an example. If members at PROC were sitting down and having that discussion based at least in part on the discussion paper, there is a litany of ideas. One of them is in fact at the committee level, where opposition members and government members would have 10-minute limits if there is more than one member who would like to speak. It does not prevent a filibuster from occurring. When I was in opposition and sometimes when I wanted to address something in committee, there would be one member who would go on for hours. Sometimes it would be nice to contribute to the debate. This particular rule actually would benefit opposition members. In fact, I would suggest it would benefit all members. That is something I would have argued for while I was in opposition. The point is, let us have that dialogue. There is no reason that we cannot be having that type of a dialogue.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, the debate we are having right now relates to the fact that the Speaker of the House of Commons has ruled that by ending the debate on the question of privilege raised by the member for Milton and the member for Beauce respectively, the government acted in an unprecedented and unacceptable manner. Accordingly, he decided to allow us to resume this debate.

When one says “unprecedented”, I think the meaning is pretty clear. As many people like to say, and with all due respect to my Conservative colleagues, this kind of thing did not even happen in the previous Parliament under Stephen Harper.

My colleague wants to talk about conversations and the importance of sharing ideas. Does he not understand that preventing us from expressing those ideas and having our say effectively ends the conversation? Can he also explain why, in his comments, he keeps avoiding the fundamental issue, that is, that the Speaker ruled that the government acted in an unprecedented and unacceptable manner when it tried to end the debate on the question of privilege? I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important for us to acknowledge that there are members on PROC who have recognized what has been taking place in the House. There was a motion brought forward at PROC to deal with the privilege issue. We know that PROC will be dealing with the issue. All members of the House know that.