House of Commons Hansard #395 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was company.

Topics

Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, entitled “Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous Languages”. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

While I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

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

Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #1276

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion carried.

The hon. Minister of Rural Economic Development is rising on a point of order.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Minister of Rural Economic Development, Lib.

Bernadette Jordan

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the government's responses to Order Paper Questions Nos. 2223 to 2241.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable on a point of order.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, just before the vote, I was preparing to submit to the House an important question regarding an emergency debate on the canola crisis.

Unfortunately, because of the motion moved by the government, this emergency debate will not occur. I therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to applications for emergency debate so that the House can discuss the important canola crisis and Canadians can find out what is actually being done on this file.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Does the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable have the unanimous consent of the House?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to three questions of privilege that were raised—

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member could wait until I hear from a couple of other hon. members on what I think may be related questions.

I notice that the hon. opposition House leader wishes to rise on a previous question of privilege.

Proceedings on Opposed Vote No. 126PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise to contribute to the question of privilege that was raised by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby regarding the recorded division on opposed vote no. 126 during this year's interim estimates.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, during that vote many Liberal members entered the House after the question was put by the Assistant Deputy Speaker. After an hour of points of order, the Chair invited members to come forward, be honest and declare whether or not they were in fact in the chamber when the question was put. If they were not, the Chair called upon those members to identify themselves and withdraw their votes.

A number of members did just that. They showed honesty and principle. However, many more members did not. This was in spite of being clearly seen entering the chamber after the question was put by the Speaker. I know Canadians have seen the video. In fact I have gotten messages they have sent me. Canadians saw what happened. All of us were here and saw what happened. If you check the video, Mr. Speaker, you will confirm what I am saying. I know that this is a point that was urged upon the Chair at the time as well.

At page 81 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it refers to a ruling from Speaker Sauvé, who stated in that 1980 ruling:

…while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred.

One way of looking at what took place during the vote is to conclude that certain members had found a unique and a disturbing way to mislead the House deliberately, and in so doing interfered with the proceedings of the House. Normally we talk here about misleading the House in the sense of words spoken, but that is not the only way to mislead someone. In this case, it is a matter of misleading both through actions and inactions or omissions committed by members.

On page 15 of the 24th edition of Erskine May, a contempt is described as:

Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results, may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.

In the first instance, by standing up and voting despite not having heard the question read by the Chair, which everyone saw, including Canadians watching the camera, it is an act I contend be a contempt of the House.

To be sure, we are not talking about a one-off accidental or inadvertent error by someone who was not paying close attention to the vote. That has happened in this place and we all know it could happen. Members walk in, they realize they did not hear the vote and they tell the Speaker. That is not what we are talking about in this case.

As I said earlier, the House, in fact, was seized with an hour of points of order before and following the taking of the recorded division. It would, frankly, have been impossible for any member present at the time not to have been consciously aware of what was going on and what the live controversy was before the House.

The second element of which I am concerned about here is the inaction or the omission. By staying silent after being called upon by the Assistant Deputy Speaker, certain members have deliberately misled the House regarding the recorded division on opposed vote no. 126.

As a result, the records of the House on this vote are simply in error and, therefore, false. The records have been falsified through the inaction of these members who did not take the appropriate steps when prompted and called upon to do so. At page 82 of Bosc and Gagnon, falsifying the records of the House and deliberately misleading the House are both listed as offences treated as contempt.

This is a very serious matter that strikes at the very heart of our parliamentary system of democratic governance. The government may have actually lost a confidence vote that night. All of us who were here for that vote, including Canadians who witnessed it, saw it happen.

It is one thing to act and believe in the honour of all of us as members of Parliament, but if the House trusts our honour and then evidence comes forward that our honour was indeed not intact, the House, the Speaker and the office has an obligation to act on that.

It is one thing for a member to say that he or she is honourable, but if proof exists that he or she is not honourable as a member of Parliament, that cannot be ignored, nor should it ever be ignored. At page 82 of Bosc and Gagnon, falsifying the records of the House and deliberately misleading the House are both listed as offences and treated as contempt. This is a very serious matter. It strikes at the heart of our system and, as I said, the government may have actually lost a confidence vote that night.

I want to offer this citation from Beauchesne's. In the sixth edition at page 3, it talks of the basic principles of parliamentary law, which are “To protect the minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of the majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner”. It also states further down the same page that Canada is, in short, “a responsible Cabinet system with the assumption that there will always be a recognizable Government with a legislative programme. ...the system also presupposes an Opposition ready and willing to attack the Government in an attempt to have its legislation altered or rejected.”

That should have produced results as a consequence of the votes on the interim estimates. Opposed vote no. 126 should have been rejected. Had opposed vote no. 126 occurred in an honourable, legal fashion, which should have happened, there is a very good chance that the estimate would have been rejected. Therefore, the supply bill based upon the interim estimates, Bill C-96, should have been altered accordingly before being disposed of by the House.

There is ample evidence of this. There is ample evidence that the government blatantly disregarded the constitutional convention of prosecutorial independence when it sought to protect its corporate friends during the SNC-Lavalin affair. However, there is ample evidence that about 50 members misled the House. We all saw it in plain view. The cameras caught it in plain view, while the table saw it and the Deputy Speaker saw it. It was seen in plain view. That is now another cornerstone of our unwritten Constitution. The confidence convention is being undermined for Liberal interests.

During the votes on interim estimates the government attempted to interfere. If we do not take action, it will be successful at interfering with parliamentary law, the law that is supposed to secure our democratic principles and protect the House from the tyranny of a majority government, a government that we have currently seen use its majority to shut down the justice committee and now shut down the ethics committee. We now find that the majority government is rigging votes in the House of Commons to protect itself from losing the confidence of the House and having to face the verdict of Canadians at the ballot box.

As I said earlier, certain Liberal members have found a unique and disturbing way to try to mislead the House, which may have profound consequences and cannot be ignored. The government may have actually lost a confidence vote. However, since up until this moment there has been no accountability mechanism in place to deal with the actions of these members, the government appeared to have been able to dodge a bullet.

This is, Mr. Speaker, where we are asking for your intervention. Perhaps this question of privilege could serve as a means for accountability. If anything, it is certainly worthy of study at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Maingot's second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, at page 227, suggests that:

In the final analysis, in areas of doubt, the Speaker asks simply:

“Does the act complained of appear at first sight to be a breach of privilege...or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should...leave it to the House.”

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you find a prima facie case in response to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

Proceedings on Opposed Vote No. 126PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of brief points that I wish to add to the opposition House leader's addition to the question of privilege raised by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

My point relates to another vote that took place that same evening, but the argument is the same and the circumstances are the same. Certain members have deliberately misled the House. In this case, they did not mislead the House with their words but through their votes. These members have refused to come forward and disqualify their votes on a substantial financial matter, which is indeed a confidence motion.

Page 225 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada reads:

While privilege may be codified, contempt may not, because new forms of obstruction are constantly being devised and Parliament must be able to invoke its penal jurisdiction to protect itself against these new forms; there is no closed list of classes of offences punishable as contempt of Parliament.

My House leader has made the argument that deliberately misleading the House is an offence and that Liberal members may have misled the House during the votes on the interim estimates. I would add that certain members misled the House on the vote that took place under Motion No. 3, vote 5, which constitutes a new form of obstruction, an offence caught on tape.

I rose at the time after that vote on Motion No. 3 and mentioned this. Through my point of order, I gave notice at that time that certain members had clearly entered the chamber after the question was being read and no members on that side took that opportunity to reverse their votes. I add this point because it happened not just on the vote in question, raised by both the member for New Westminster—Burnaby and the opposition House leader, but it happened quite a bit earlier in the evening. This was not something that was new or had not happened before. There was precedent that evening of this behaviour and I ask you to look very closely at this. This is indeed a constitutional issue, and I ask for your wisdom in looking into this and coming back to the House.

Statements by Minister of Justice and Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of JusticePrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4:05 p.m.

Kevin Lamoureux Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to three questions of privilege that were raised in the week of March 18.

I will begin with the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby on March 18 with respect to answers given by the Minister of Justice and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice during question period on February 7 and 8, 2019.

In his speech, the hon. opposition member argued that on the aforementioned days, the minister and the parliamentary secretary stated that neither the Prime Minister nor his office exerted any pressure on the former attorney general with regard to deferred prosecution agreements, and that since the media reported a different version of the facts afterward, the minister and parliamentary secretary had misled the House.

On January 31, 2008, Speaker Milliken ruled on a similar question of privilege. The matter was raised following the release of information that contradicted the statement given in the House earlier by the then minister of national defence on the Afghan detainee policy. He said, “...any dispute regarding the accuracy...of a minister’s response to an oral question is a matter of debate....”

This statement, which was also quoted in the NDP House leader's intervention, is echoed in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, which states on page 516:

In most instances, when a point of order or a question of privilege has been raised in regard to a response to an oral question, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is a disagreement among Members over the facts surrounding the issue. As such, these matters are more a question of debate and do not constitute a breach of the rules or of privilege.

Furthermore, I would like to refer you to your predecessor's ruling of April 29, 2015. That ruling, which can be found on page 13198 of Debates, was about the appropriateness of the then minister of defence's response to a question pertaining to Canada's military involvement against Daesh. The former Speaker said:

...as your Speaker, I must take all members at their word. To do otherwise, to take it upon myself to assess the truthfulness or accuracy of Members' statements is not a role which has been conferred on me, nor that the House has indicated that it would somehow wish the Chair to assume, with all of its implications.

In the same decision, the former Speaker reminded the members of the following conditions for breach of privilege with regard to the misleading statements:

...first, the statement needs to be misleading. Second, the member making the statement has to know that the statement was incorrect when it was made. Finally, it needs to be proven that the member intended to mislead the House by making the statement.

As previously cited in the April 29, 2015, decision, the Speaker “must take all members at their word.”

Finally, I would like to remind the House that in the ruling dated April 16, 2002, Speaker Milliken, while speaking about the broader concepts of freedom of speech and the presumption of truthfulness, said the following:

If we do not preserve the tradition of accepting the word of a fellow member, which is a fundamental principle of our parliamentary system, then freedom of speech, both inside and outside the House, is imperilled.

As such, I respectfully submit that this is a question of debate and as such does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.

Alleged Process Used to Determine Liberal Caucus MembershipPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4:05 p.m.

Kevin Lamoureux Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.

Mr. Speaker, for the second matter, I would like to address the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington on March 22 with respect to an alleged violation of Section 49.8 of the Parliament of Canada Act.

My hon. colleague, in his statement, argued that the collective privilege of the House had been breached since it includes the right to regulate its internal affairs. In his argument, my counterpart across the way argued that the resignation from caucus of the hon. member for Whitby seemed to have been forced, insinuating that the member did not resign as much as was kicked out of caucus.

First, I would like to argue that the basis for the hon. member's question of privilege is flawed. The hon. member for Perth—Wellington stated, “I truly believe the hon. member for Whitby was, or was threatened to be, kicked out of the Liberal caucus....”

Alleged Process Used to Determine Liberal Caucus MembershipPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4:05 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

On the exact day that the member for Perth—Wellington rose on this question, a tweet from the hon. member for Whitby was tabled by the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York in a reply to this question of privilege. It stated, “Everything in this ridiculous point of order is false and you have no right to speak on my behalf.” With this tweet, the hon. member for Whitby confirmed that her resignation from caucus was indeed voluntary and not forced, as alleged by the member across the aisle.

Second, on the question of the process by which the Liberal caucus takes decisions and its respect of the Parliament of Canada Act, I would like to point out the criteria necessary to raise a question of privilege.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 145 that:

The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House.

In his initial submission, the member for Perth—Wellington mentions that the members of the Liberal caucus have allegedly been deprived of their rights since the first caucus meeting following the 2015 election. The member goes as far as quoting an interview of the Canadian Press, dated November 2015, to try to support his claim. If the question at hand has been known since November 2015, I would argue that the requirement of timeliness in raising the matter has been greatly disregarded.

Furthermore, I would like to remind the hon. member opposite of your decision dated May 29, 2017. In this ruling on the adequacy of consultations with regard to the appointment of a Commissioner for Official Languages, you stated at page 11,558 of Debates:

The fact that, in this instance, the requirement for consultation is embedded in statute, rather than a rule of the House, does little to change the role of the Speaker in this respect. In fact, it adds an additional element in terms of the role of the Speaker: that of interpreting laws. On that front, there is a rich body of jurisprudence to confirm that the Speaker cannot adjudicate on the legality of matters, which, of course, would include whether or not specific provisions of a statute, such as the need for consultations, have been respected.

This statement echoes a ruling made on December 7, 1989, by Speaker Fraser on the subject of statutory requirements which stated:

While it may be a question for the courts to decide upon as to whether or not the law has been respected in this instance, it does not constitute a contempt of the House.

In summary, therefore, the issue raised is neither a question of privilege nor a contempt. It is rather a question of law, and consequently I cannot offer my opinion as to the merits of the case either as argued by the hon. member for Victoria or as rebutted by the Minister of Justice.

Consequently, for all the aforementioned reasons, I respectfully submit that this is a question of debate and, as such, does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.

Alleged Breach of Caucus ConfidentialityPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, finally, the last matter I would like to address is the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook on March 22, 2019, with respect to an alleged breach of caucus confidentiality. My hon. colleague, in his statement, argued that since news articles came out following the March 20 caucus stating information stemming from the Ontario caucus of the Liberal Party, there was a leak, and therefore caucus confidentiality was breached.

In his argument, the hon. opposition member argued that caucus confidentiality is the cornerstone of parliamentary life, with members of Parliament needing to be able to have frank and candid conversations among colleagues. I would like to remind the House of the Speaker's statement of March 22 that “...generally matters of caucus proceedings— and I said “generally”—are not matters for the Speaker to preside upon.”

On a decision delivered on March 25, 2004, Speaker Milliken stated: “The crux of the matter for the Chair is not the leak of the information, but the publication of leaked information that was manifestly from a private meeting.”

Finally, I would like to point out that the previous rulings cited by the hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrookall pertain to occurrences of MPs being recorded without their knowledge, which is a completely different issue from what we are facing here. Consequently, I respectfully submit that this does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.

Alleged Breach of Caucus ConfidentialityPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I thank the hon. member.

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard wishes to intervene, I think briefly, on the question of privilege of the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

Alleged Interference in Voting Rights of MembersPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is just to add to the opposition House leader. Many members, including you Mr. Speaker, know this.

I rose quite often during the supplementary estimates (B) voting to call out the members who were not in their seats and had not heard the question but had voted anyway. I just want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of a ruling that you made that evening on the question. You said, “I have mentioned before that members must be in the chamber so that they can hear the question. The issue is whether members enter after the question has begun to be read.”

Several times that evening, Speakers ruled in favour of points of order that members could not vote because they did not hear the question, since they had entered after we had begun voting, including in a clarification added by the Assistant Deputy Speaker on that same prolonged evening, who at the time said, “I would remind members that they have to stay in their seats until the results are announced. We will subtract those two votes from the results.”

That was on a point of order I had made on two members who had not heard the question or not stayed in their seats until the results had been read.

It is fundamentally important, as you heard from other members of the House, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to add that for your consideration as well, because you did rule at the very beginning of the supplementary estimates (B) voting that in fact members had to be in the chamber and not entering the chamber once you, Mr. Speaker, had started reading the question.