Debates of March 19th, 2019

Committees of the House

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to apologize. I believe that I voted both for and against, but I will always vote for women to have the opportunity to speak and for the former attorney general—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The member was getting into debate.

The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize as well. I believe I voted twice on this matter, with the confusion in the House these past couple of days and the confusion regarding who is allowed to speak and who is not allowed to speak.

I would like my vote to stand as yes, and let her speak.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to apologize. Apparently I voted twice, and I want to register that I vote in favour of this. Apparently, I was distracted by this document and I believe it is important to point out that not only was I distracted, but the people at committee were distracted on voting to let her speak.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize for voting twice. I am voting in favour of the motion because I am a woman and I have the right to speak. Let her speak.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify my vote as well and it would to support this motion, but I would also support the motion to let her speak.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Milton is rising on a question of privilege.

Before I go to her, which I will do, I want to note that a number of questions of privilege relate to matters in committee. Normally, the Speaker does not get involved in matters of committee. Second, there is an Order of the House to have something happen at this time, so I would ask her to focus on why, in this case, the Speaker should get involved.

Circulation of Committee Document

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your advice, and I am sure you will determine where you want to cut me off and stop me from speaking.

I rise today on a question of privilege concerning an egregious leak of proceedings at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights today. As required by the rules of practices of the House, I am raising it now at the earliest possible opportunity.

This morning, Liberal staff circulated to media assembled outside of our committee meeting a motion that was being put forward without notice, or table dropped as it is called, at the committee meeting. This motion was part of the Liberal effort to change the channel on the SNC-Lavalin scandal, which has been consuming the government and forcing it into a massive damage control effort. Of course, this move was not surprising, given that the Liberal members of the justice committee signalled last night in a letter to the committee chair, which was quite shocking, that the Liberals were shutting down justice committee hearings.

To put it simply, Liberal staff should not have been circulating this channel-changing motion while we were in the midst of learning about it inside the committee room. Often, the House has heard complaints about the leak of draft committee reports. However, the secrecy of in camera committee proceedings is just not applicable to draft reports.

Citation 57 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, tells us the following, “The House has been in the past regarded the publication of the proceedings or reports of committee sitting in camera to be a breach of privilege.”

Pages 1089 and 1090 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, state, “Divulging any part of the proceedings of an in camera committee meeting has been ruled by the Speaker to constitute a prima facie matter of privilege.”

The associated footnote refers to a ruling of Mr. Speaker Fraser, on March 14, 1987, at page 6108 of the Debates, concerning the leak of a committee vote. As part of his finding of a prima facie case of privilege, your predecessor said:

I believe it is my duty on your behalf to state in categoric terms that when a committee resolves to meet in camera, all deliberations which take place at such meeting, including any votes which might be recorded, are intended to be confidential. All members attending such a meeting, together with any members of staff assisting the committee, are expected to respect the confidentiality of the proceedings which take place at that meeting. This place can only operate on the basis of respect for its rules and practice and of confidence and trust among its Members.

The matter was referred to the former Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure which considered the matter. That committee said the following in its seventh report, at paragraphs 8 and 10:

An in camera meeting is one which occurs behind closed doors. It is a confidential meeting in that the public is excluded. Your Committee firmly believes in the value and importance of in camera meetings to committees of the House....This practice allows committees a measure of independence and enhances the collegiality of members, something which is necessary to effective committee work. The success of in camera meetings depends upon their privacy; their confidentiality must be respected by all involved. Without that respect, the work of all committees would be seriously imperilled to the detriment of the House and all Members.... When a committee chooses to meet in camera, all matters are confidential. Any departure from strict confidentiality should be by explicit committee decision which should deal with what matters may be published, in which form and by whom. Committees should make clear decisions about the circulation of draft reports, the disposition of evidence and the publication of their Minutes. Equally, committees should give careful consideration to the matters that should be dealt with in camera and matters that should be discussed in public.

Normally, committee problems are left for committees—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Before going to the member for Chilliwack—Hope, I will note of course that questions of privilege are normally heard at a certain time, either at the beginning of the day or after question period.

The member for Chilliwack—Hope is rising on a point of order.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many critical points are being made by my colleague and due to the noise coming from the Liberal side, I cannot even hear the member and I am sitting right beside her. Therefore, I would ask that you bring the House to order.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am grateful to the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope for his interest in decorum and I trust that will continue in the future.

The hon. for Milton, whom I had asked to sum up.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am at the matter that you asked me to address specifically, so I am going to take a bit of time to ensure I answer all your questions.

Normally, committee problems are left for the committees themselves to sort out. However, there are exceptions. The words of Mr. Speaker Fraser on March 26, 1990, at page 9756 of the Debates are very instructive. This is what he said:

The Speaker has often informed the House that matters of procedural issues that arise in committee ought to be settled in committee unless the committee reports them first to the House. I have, however, said to the House that this practice was not an absolute one and that in very serious and special circumstances the Speaker may have to pronounce on a committee matter without the committee having reported to the House.

This principle was acknowledged more recently by Speaker Milliken in his May 10, 2007, ruling, at page 9288 of the Debates, where he said, “Nevertheless, circumstances do exist in which the importance of a question may require intervention by the Chair.”

Such circumstances arose in a case where Mr. Speaker Fraser found, at page 14629 of the Debates for December 4, 1992, a prima facie case of privilege concerning the intimidation of a witness following her committee appearance by the CBC.

I would also like to refer the Chair to Mr. Speaker Milliken's ruling on November 29, 2010 at page 6560 of the Debates. In that case, as some members may personally recall, an individual on the staff of a finance committee member had divulged to lobbyists information about recommendations. Despite the employer member's sincere and unequivocal apology about the staff's actions, a prima facie case of privilege was found by the Speaker, who said:

This matter is thus not merely of direct personal concern to the member from whose office the leak came or even of concern to the finance committee which reported the leak. As I see it, this is a situation that is of importance to the whole House and all hon. members. It has an institutional dimension that cannot be ignored given the circumstances. The Chair must therefore determine whether it appears that the ability of members to carry out their parliamentary duties has been impeded.

Having considered carefully the arguments presented, I have reached the conclusion that, in this instance, members of the Standing Committee on Finance, individually and collectively, appear to have been impeded in their work. Accordingly, I have no alternative but to find that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred.

Now to borrow Mr. Speaker Fraser's words about very serious and special circumstances, the situation involving the justice committee and the Liberal cover-up I would submit is one of those cases. To borrow Mr. Speaker Milliken view about an institutional concern, I would argue that this present situation is a fundamental and an institutional one.

Indeed, the point reminds me of the important ruling by Mr. Speaker Fraser on October 10, 1989, at page 4457 of the Debates, respecting presumptuous government advertising. This concern is doubly so in light of the letter published last evening on behalf of the Liberal members of the justice committee. Key words often quoted from that ruling should be reiterated, “we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy.”

Just let me roll back on this and why it is important. The fundamental issue of in camera is that only decisions that are deemed in “yes”, meaning that only motions that are voted in favour of, are then released to the public. When that Liberal staff member went out and distributed this motion to members of the press individually, the presumption was made that this motion would pass in committee. That is what I am referring to here.

On this aspect of presuming a committee decision, allow me to draw the Chair's attention to the ruling by Mr. Speaker Zwozdesky of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, at page 292 of the Journals for December 2, 2013, concerning a government brochure which presumed, among other things, a decision to be taken by a legislative committee. In his ruling, the Alberta Speaker said:

It is clear to your chair that the advertising in the brochure I referenced earlier did presume that a decision had been made by the Members’ Services Committee...That decision had not been made, in fact. That decision had not been made until the following Friday. Let me make sure I said that correctly: I am of the opinion that the advertising in the brochure presumed a decision that had not yet been made by the Members’ Services Committee.

The continued absence of adherence to some of the proprieties of this institution causes your chair a great deal of grief and anguish....I would hope that the dignity and authority of this Assembly and of its delegated committees would be given greater respect from this day forward. Accordingly, your chair finds that the advertising undertaken by the government on page 6 of the aforementioned brochure, The Building Alberta Plan, does constitute a prima facie case of privilege.

In conclusion, I would respectfully submit that the Liberals' effort at the justice committee this morning to turn the channel away from the SNC-Lavalin scandal which has consumed this government constitutes a breach of privileges of the House.

Should you find a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Budget Documents

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order as it relates to the upcoming budget speech.

The Minister of Finance made it clear to everybody in the lockup that the budget was embargoed until 4 p.m. It has been long-standing parliamentary convention in this place that the budget is not to be made public before the Minister of Finance makes it public in the House and presents it in the House. It has also been a long-standing convention that the budget is not to be released before North American equity markets close at 4 p.m. eastern standard time.

What happened is that well before 4 p.m., the Minister of Finance table dropped the budget, and then proceeded to go into the public sphere, the public realm, and start commenting about his very own budget, while everybody else was still embargoed and prevented from talking about it until 4 p.m.

I rise on this point of order and ask you, Mr. Speaker, to contemplate the matter, and ask you to rule on this at some future date, about whether or not parliamentary convention was followed and about whether or not breaches of privilege were executed on.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills, and of course I will come back to the House on that matter.

I will also come back to the House on the question of privilege matter raised by the hon. member for Milton.

Circulation of Committee Document

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege that was brought up by the MP for Milton.

I was at committee today for the incident that has been raised by my colleague in the House. I am also very concerned about the violation, the intentional breach that was accurately described here as what happened today in committee.

I have heard what my colleague has just stated and would like the opportunity to come back tomorrow to speak to the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, allow me to briefly address both points that have been raised by the official opposition and the member from the New Democratic Party.

The Minister of Finance duly tabled the budget 2019 documents in the House. That is not contrary to the rules. The opposition has been saying in the media that they will do everything to delay the presentation of the budget, as evidenced by the two motions debated yesterday during Routine Proceedings and further evidenced by the 257 opposed votes standing on the Order Paper.

On this side of the House, we want to deliver a strong budget. That is our duty as government—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I think the hon. parliamentary secretary is getting into debate. I would ask him to stick to the point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the second point. I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to respond to the intervention of the member for Milton.

The rules are very clear around in camera meetings. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2017, pages 1089 and 1090, states the following:

Divulging any part of the proceedings of an in camera committee meeting has been ruled by the Speaker to constitute a prima facie matter of privilege.

The key word here is “proceedings”. Making public a motion that one intends to move at a meeting is well within the rules. There is a high level of hypocrisy coming from the Conservatives on this very issue.

On February 28, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton released a letter publicly on Twitter—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

That is getting into debate now. The hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope is rising on a point of order. I would remind members that I am subject to a House Order requiring us to move on to something else.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I want to go back to the vote that was held at 3:55 p.m., with the 30-minute bell. The vote result was announced before several members had time to clarify and ask for unanimous consent for their votes to be recorded in a certain way. I did not hear you, Mr. Speaker, after that happened. I am not sure if the vote total stayed the same or if that was taken into account. I just did not hear that it was recorded for the House. I wonder if you could clarify what the result of that vote was.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for raising what is an important point. In fact, the results were adjusted accordingly, and the motion was defeated.

The member for St. Albert—Edmonton is rising, I think, on the same question of privilege. Again, I am subject to the House orders, so I will ask him to be very brief. He can, of course, come back on another occasion, perhaps tomorrow, but I would ask him to be very brief so that we can get on to what the House has ordered me to proceed with.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise because I was sitting in the justice committee when I was presented with a motion I had not seen before in an in camera meeting. Minutes later, Mercedes Stephenson was posting on Twitter a copy of that motion, which, I repeat, was a motion I did not see and that no member of the opposition saw during an in camera meeting when it was presented. During that time, the motion was leaked to Mercedes Stephenson. When the meeting was suspended and we briefed the media, we were told by multiple reporters that a Liberal staffer had presented that motion, again while we were meeting in camera. It was all part of a transparent attempt by the Liberals to change the channel on the SNC-Lavalin matter as they sought to silence the former attorney general.

With that, I fully endorse the submission made by the hon. member for Milton, and I join my friend, the member for Essex, with a request to speak to this matter tomorrow.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Ways and Means Motion No. 27 concerning the budget presentation.

Order. I have been quite lenient hearing quite a few points of order, and it is important to hear them. However, as I have said a few times, I am subject to a House order.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

moved:

That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Speaker—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!