Debates of March 20th, 2019

Concurrence in Vote L20—Department of Industry

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 81, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #1155

Interim Estimates

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 81 carried.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the Minister of Canadian Heritage was announced as having voted during this previous roll call. However, I do not believe he was in his seat when the results were announced. Therefore, I would like you to rule on whether his vote does indeed count.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. minister would have had to stay here until the end. Therefore, his vote cannot count.

Alleged Interference in Voting Rights of Members

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on the question of privilege that was raised earlier. However, before I go to him, I want to make it clear that one of the things I would need would be specific or direct evidence, which I have not heard so far. Perhaps he can assist.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many of us who have been in this House for more than 24 hours, and I count myself among them, have difficulty remembering our own names. It is therefore extraordinary to us that those at the table are able to go through 338 members of Parliament with such incredible effectiveness over a 24-hour period.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

It is a real testament to their professionalism that they are able to do that. We will see how much longer they have to do it.

Thank you for the opportunity to add to the question of privilege that was raised by the member for Calgary Nose Hill earlier.

I will not reiterate the concerns that have been raised by the article that was cited. Rather, I want to raise precedent, because it was just a little while ago that the question of privilege was raised, and it did not take me long to find some precedents that apply in this case.

I will start off with Speaker Bosley in 1986, who noted:

If an Hon. Member is impeded or obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties through threats, intimidation, bribery attempts or other improper behaviour, such a case would fall within the limits of parliamentary privilege. Should an Hon. Member be able to say that something has happened which prevented him or her from performing functions, that he or she has been threatened, intimidated, or in any way unduly influenced, there would be a case for the Chair to consider.

As you know, prima facie means that at first glance there has been a case of instruction or intimidation of a member of Parliament. The member for Calgary Nose Hill cited very clear evidence that has come out in the public domain in that regard, with respect to both the member for Markham—Stouffville and the member for Vancouver Granville. She raised this on behalf of those members.

I want to cite three cases where members in this House have raised issues of parliamentary privilege and raised a question of privilege on behalf of other members. Therefore, the member for Calgary Nose Hill has the ability and the right to do so.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Order. I thank the hon. member. However, I want to make it clear that my difficulty is that I do not have before me direct evidence. If he has specific or direct evidence that he can give about the incidents in question that he argues lead to this question of privilege, I would appreciate that. Otherwise, I am not in a position to find a prima facie case.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am citing precedents from previous Speakers who have raised this issue. I will not take a lot of time, since we have important votes to get back to, but time is of the essence in this case. With every vote that takes place, if it is true that these members have been intimidated in some way from voting, the severity of the issue is increased.

First, Speaker Fraser, citing the then member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who raised an issue of privilege on behalf of the then member for Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, stated:

If we consider the words that were reported we clearly have a prima facie case that affects the dignity of this House and our colleague, because our colleague is an officer of this House. As the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell said earlier, like the Speaker he is an officer of this House and an attack against the integrity of a person in that position is an attack against this House.

Second, Mr. Mackay, who was the member of Parliament for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, raised and was allowed to bring forward a motion of privilege, as the member for Calgary Nose Hill has stated she is prepared to do. Citing an incident that happened in March 1993, Speaker Parent ruled on March 9, 1998:

That certain statements attributed to Members of the House of Commons, appearing on page 7 of the March 8, 1998, Ottawa Sun, which may bring into question the integrity of the House of Commons and its servant the Speaker, be referred immediately to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Finally, the Minister of Public Safety will remember that back on March 24, 2014, he raised a question of privilege under Speaker Scheer. The House took action following that, but at the time, the now Minister of Public Safety rose on a question of privilege, stating that Russia had imposed sanctions against 13 Canadians, including several members of Parliament.

The precedents are very clear that members of this House can raise questions of privilege on behalf of other members of this House. The issue raised by the member for Calgary Nose Hill is extremely serious. The fact that we are voting now, I believe, means that a prima facie case certainly exists. It is up to you to decide, but she has indicated she is prepared to move the appropriate motion. I believe you should be seriously considering this, and in a timely fashion of course, because we are voting now and those privileges are being obstructed now.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for his comments. He highlighted the difficulty I would have when he said “if it is true”, because he does not appear to have direct knowledge of whether the allegations are correct. I do not see how we can have a prima facie case without direct evidence of the kind I am referring to. Perhaps we will have it in the future, and I will have to wait for that occasion.

The member for Durham.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Parliament is a court; it is good to know we are informing some of my Liberal friends of that fact. In your role in presiding over this court, I am troubled by the fact that you are not allowing people to reference precedent when they are making their representations to you. A court would allow both—

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I have just heard a number of precedents referenced, and what I said earlier today was that there is no need to have an unlimited number of precedents or a long list of precedents, because the table officers do have access to the precedents. It is not like a court of law, where one gives a long argument and the court hears a long argument.

The precedents and the traditions of the House are clear that it is up to the Speaker to indicate when he has heard enough, as I have ruled previously, and it is not the case that members have the right to have a monopoly when they want to raise a question of privilege or a point of order. They do not have the right to monopolize the time of the House.

As the servant of the House, it is my responsibility to manage the time of the House and ensure that things proceed while at the same time endeavouring to ensure fairness and to allow points of orders or questions of privilege to be raised, as I have.

In this case, I have given my ruling. It appears that members simply want to challenge the authority of the Chair, which seems to be what the hon. member is doing. I trust that is not his intention, but I do not think he is showing an appreciation of the nature of this place. While he refers to it as a court, it is not like a court of law.

The member has had extensive experience in a court of law, and I am sure has given detailed legal arguments and set a lot of precedents. In a legal argument, that is the case. It is normal to do that.

It is not the case in the House of Commons that one gets to cite a long list of precedents because, as I said, the table officers who assist the Speaker have access to those precedents. However, as I also indicated, I did hear a number of precedents cited by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby. He had the time.

By the way, I want to make it clear that in this place, members do not always seem to recognize that the practice in this place is that one member should stand at a time, so that when the Speaker is standing and speaking, other members should be quiet and should not be standing.

I thank the member and I appreciate the respect shown by members.

If the member has something to add, I will go back to him.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should suggest a compromise. If you are not allowing members to cite the detailed portion of the precedents they are making to you in their submissions, perhaps you will accept written submissions on all of these points.

On the secondary aspect, Mr. Speaker, suggesting that you do not have information in front of you about the potential intimidation of two members of this place, I am wondering if you might exercise your discretion to call those members before you in camera to hear from them specifically as to whether they were told not to be here to fulfill their parliamentary function in voting or if they have been subject now to any of these types of intimidation or discipline that would fetter their access to this chamber as members. The Speaker has the discretion to call those members and seek the evidence to make the determinations that several members of the opposition have asked you to make.

These are my modest proposals to you, Mr. Speaker. At the end of the day, this entire all-night voting session goes back to the audi alteram partem concept. As Dalhousie law graduates both, we know that. It is about hearing the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I think you need to hear from both of those hon. members who have not been with us all night and who media reports suggest have had their access to this chamber fettered by intimidation. That is a serious charge, and it warrants extraordinary inquiry by you, Mr. Speaker, as Chair.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I thank the member for Durham for his suggestion. I indicated earlier that I would need to hear from the two members in question. I will take under consideration his suggestion about an alternate way to do that and I appreciate his comments.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same question of privilege.

My colleague did raise several instances of precedent in which Speakers ruled on matters without hearing from the members themselves.

I would also cite that previously in the day you, Mr. Speaker, suggested that the reports that were read into the record here were hearsay. These were news articles reported by institutions that many members of the House cite in their speeches. We are considering a budget in which there is money to support these institutions. Is it hearsay? Why, Mr. Speaker, are you not considering words in the press, with adequate sources, as evidence?

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

That seems to be challenging the authority of the Chair. However, the point is that if I have read something that someone else has said, it is in fact hearsay, and that is what I am talking about. I would need to have direct evidence in this case. Perhaps I will have some in the future.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Justice

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

moved:

That Vote 1, in the amount of $162,252,164, under Department of Justice — Operating expenditures, in the Interim Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The next question is on Motion No. 82. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.