Debates of April 3rd, 2019

Government Response to Petitions

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[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 #1278

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before the last vote, during the reading of the projected order of business, we unfortunately did not get to the requests for emergency debates. Emergency means emergency. For three days now, the Liberals have been preventing us from getting to requests for emergency debates.

I seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to this important part of the projected order of business and that we be allowed to debate my motion calling on the House to hold an emergency debate on the canola crisis. There are 43,000 canola farmers counting on their members of Parliament. We must debate this motion.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the House has been skipping routine proceedings since the beginning of the week, I have not been able to introduce my bill to create a federal youth commissioner position in Canada. I therefore seek unanimous consent to introduce my bill, which will be extremely important in defending the rights of the most vulnerable youth in this country.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby rising on the same point of order as the member for Mégantic—L'Érable?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a broader concern.

Both the member for Mégantic—L'Érable and the member for Salaberry—Suroît have pointed out the fact that the government has basically crushed Routine Proceedings now for the last three days. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have not been able to complete Routine Proceedings since March 19. What that means is that members of Parliament are unable to table petitions, unable to table bills and unable to ask for important emergency debates.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look at this issue and come back to us, because the question is this: How many days are we going to be permitted as members of Parliament to not have the rights that come with being elected to the House of Commons to be able to intervene on these issues?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby. He knows that I am subject to the Standing Orders and the rules of the House, which is what I have to follow, as he understands completely, I am sure.

I believe the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills wishes to intervene on a previously raised question of privilege.

Alleged Process Used to Determine Liberal Caucus Membership

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to comment on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington concerning the Liberals' breach of the Parliament of Canada Act. This point of privilege concerns a real breach of members' rights.

How do we know that members' rights were breached? On November 5, 2015, section 49 of the Parliament of Canada Act required Liberal MPs to vote four times. These four votes were to have been recorded, just like votes are recorded here in the House of Commons. One of the recorded votes that did not occur was for the rule concerning caucus expulsions.

On March 21, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood confirmed in an article in the Toronto Star, written by Tonda MacCharles, that with respect to the four votes required, “Nothing like that ever happens in caucus”.

This point of privilege is timely, because that confirmation that these recorded votes did not happen was reported on March 21 in the Toronto Star, only three parliamentary days ago.

When the Prime Minister and his leadership team prevented Liberal MPs from exercising their rights under section 49.8, he and his leadership team violated the rights of members in three ways, the Liberal members in particular. First, the Prime Minister deprived members of their right to vote four times in a recorded manner under section 49.8. Second, in depriving members of their right to vote in a recorded manner for those four different rules, the Prime Minister deprived members of the opportunity to adopt the rule in section 49.2 concerning caucus expulsions. In other words, the Prime Minister deprived members of their right to determine a caucus expulsion on a secret ballot vote. Third, in denying members their right to vote and adopt the expulsion rule in section 49.2, the Prime Minister denied members being considered for expulsion the right to a fair process, one that is not ad hoc and arbitrary.

Section 49.2 lays out a clear process for expulsion, and the bar is set very high. First, at least 20% of caucus, in this case some 36 members of Parliament, would have to have written to the caucus chair requesting an expulsion vote. Second, a majority of the entire caucus, not just a majority of members present, would have to have voted in favour of expulsion on a secret ballot vote. In other words, since the Liberal caucus had 179 members, that means that at least 90 Liberal members would have to have voted for expulsion on a secret ballot vote. If only 120 members showed up, 90 votes were still required.

Now, this question is even more relevant in light of the caucus expulsions yesterday of the hon. members for Markham—Stouffville and Vancouver Granville.

Last night, the Prime Minister stated on national television that he had taken the decision to expel the hon. members.

He added that he met with those members “to inform them of my decision.” These words are important for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, to underscore that it should not be the Prime Minister's decision to make. MPs are not accountable to the leader. The leader is accountable to MPs. It is a vital part of the confidence convention of the House. In fact, it is so important that parts of it were taken from unwritten convention into statute law in the last Parliament. The rights of members to hold party leaders and the Prime Minister accountable are so important that the previous Parliament took some of these unwritten constitutional conventions governing party caucuses and enshrined them in the Parliament of Canada Act.

On December 5, 2015, you were called to the chair as our Speaker through a vote in the House. It also means that you, Mr. Speaker, were an active member of the Liberal caucus when the events in question took place on November 5, 2015. With the greatest respect, there could be, at minimum, an appearance of a conflict of interest for the Speaker. Automatically finding a prima facie case of a breach of privilege and sending this matter to the House as a whole for its consideration is one way for you, as Speaker, to have absolution in any potential conflict of interest.

Secret in-camera meetings, whether they are of committees or of the recognized caucuses of the House of Commons, should be no shield to prevent the upholding of the rule of law and members' rights. You, Mr. Speaker, are the only person in this land who can defend these rights of members. We have no recourse to the judicial branch of the state. We have no recourse to a place outside the House of Commons. You, sir, are our defender of our rights, and I ask that you find a prima facie case of a breach of privilege.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills, although it sounded to me like he was getting close to challenging the authority of the Chair. It is a tricky area. I understand what he is saying. I, of course, will endeavour to examine these questions in total fairness.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to add to the very same point of privilege.

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has thoroughly explained how the Parliament of Canada Act applies to expulsion from caucus. The federal NDP leader expelled me from caucus without written notice and without a vote, so that evidence should also be considered in your ruling on this point of privilege.

The context for my expulsion was that another member of the House suggested that I was involved in some unspecified harassing behaviour. No complaints were ever brought forward against me under the House of Commons anti-harassment policy. No complaints were ever brought forward against me through the NDP staff union. Instead, the federal NDP leader invented his own process and appointed his own investigator.

It is very important to consider the Parliament of Canada Act in this case. It sets out a clear procedure for expulsion from caucus. Whether that procedure applies in the given caucus is to be determined by a vote of that caucus at its first meeting after the election. No such votes were held by the NDP caucus at its first meeting after the election. In fact, no such votes were held by the NDP caucus at any of its meetings in 2015. We cannot conclude that the federal NDP leader had the unilateral authority to expel me or anyone else from caucus.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. I want to support fully the point brought forward by the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Those of us who were in the 41st Parliament will recall that the initial version of the member's private member's bill put forward as the Reform Act would have been far more forceful in reducing the extraordinary powers party leaders have achieved by the accretion of privileges and powers over a couple of decades, which I believe are inconsistent with Westminster parliamentary privileges and our process.

As your role is to protect the rights of individual members of Parliament, this opportunity is before us to strengthen our understanding, as the member for Wellington—Halton Hills said, that members of caucus are not accountable to their leader; the leader is accountable to members of that caucus. The individual right of members of Parliament in this place not to be put upon by party leadership needs to be fortified. This is such an opportunity. It is simply wrong for political parties to say, at the end of an election, “Well, that bill was passed under Conservatives, so we do not like it.”

The Parliament of Canada Act is the law of the land. It was passed, and it should be respected. The situation with the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan and the situation for the hon. member for Markham—Stouffville and the hon. member for Vancouver Granville should be about the rights of individual members of Parliament not to have their rights put upon without due process and without following the Parliament of Canada Act, at a minimum. This is hard. I would rather that this was not a partisan issue, but everything in this place is.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm, as dean of the NDP caucus, that we did follow the Parliament of Canada Act, as prescribed by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in light of a document published last night. It is a new document that is relevant to the question of privilege raised by the hon member for New Westminster—Burnaby on March 18, concerning question period responses on February 7 and 8.

Last evening, the hon. member for Markham—Stouffville published a statement concerning her shocking and troubling expulsion from the Liberal caucus for the sole offence of speaking truth to power. Our strong principled and hon. colleague wrote:

Rather than acknowledge the obvious — that a range of individuals had inappropriately attempted to pressure the former Attorney General in relation to a prosecutorial decision — and apologize for what occurred, a decision was made to attempt to deny the obvious — to attack [the hon. member for Vancouver Granville's] credibility and attempt to blame her.

I was not able to support the recommended response to deny these allegations.

You will, of course, Mr. Speaker, recall the denial of those allegations in the House. For example, the new Attorney General told the House on February 7, “As the Prime Minister has said, earlier today, these allegations in The Globe and Mail are false.”

The following day his parliamentary secretary insisted, “As the Prime Minister said very clearly yesterday to the journalists gathered, the allegations contained in The Globe and Mail article are false.”

We now know from the admission of the hon. member for Markham—Stouffville, who was at all material times a senior member of the federal cabinet, that this was just a government position to be taken and defended.

Someone in an even more senior government position than the President of the Treasury Board directed and orchestrated this campaign to deny and mislead the House of Commons. Yesterday, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands referred to Speaker Jerome's ruling on December 6, 1978. I refer to that ruling, at page 1856 of the Debates:

The complaint which is the subject matter of the question of privilege is not directly a complaint about the minister. Indeed, it is founded on the fact that it is one of the minister's officials who has calculated to contrive this deliberate deception of the House....I have come to the conclusion that it is not a procedural basis upon which I can intervene. Once again, it is a matter to which the House can address itself in debate, and in amendment if necessary, or in a vote.

At page 1857, the Chair concluded:

I can interpret that testimony in no other way than meaning that a deliberate attempt was made to obstruct the member in the performance of his duties and, consequently, to obstruct the House itself.

Even beyond the precedents and the complex law of privilege, I cannot conceive that there is any one of us who would accept the argument that this House of Commons has no recourse in the face of such an attempt to obstruct by offering admittedly misleading information.

I, therefore, find a prima facie case of contempt against the House of Commons.

The House has also, in the present case, been misled and thereby obstructed. It does not matter whether the Attorney General and his parliamentary secretary knowingly misled the House or were unwittingly parroting the talking points they were ordered to say

The former president of the treasury board has confirmed that there was a “recommended response to deny these allegations.” As to who is responsible for this decision to deny the allegations and therefore lie to Parliament, that is a matter which a committee, if its Liberal majority will allow a proper investigation, can sort out for us.

To quote Mr. Speaker Milliken's ruling on October 15, 2001, at page 6085 of the Debates:

There is a body that is well equipped to commit acts of inquisition, and that is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which has a fearsome chairman, quite able to extract information from witnesses who appear before the committee, with the aid of the capable members who form that committee of the House.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you find a prima facie case in in respect of the NDP house leader's question of privilege, so the House can begin to get to the bottom of this campaign, this “recommended response” to mislead the House of Commons.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope for adding his thoughts on this. I will come back to the House in due course.

The House resumed from April 2 consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Financial Statement of the Minister of Finance

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to address the cover-up budget.

The Prime Minister attempted to cover up his SNC-Lavalin corruption by introducing $41 billion of new cash spending to paper over the wrongdoing that his former attorney general brought to light in her very courageous whistle-blowing over the last several months.

Today I rise to address one specific element of that cover-up, and that is the Prime Minister's repeated false statements to the Canadian people wherein he suggested that former attorney general had never brought any of her concerns to his attention prior to being moved out of the role of attorney general. His implication was that she was making the allegations against him out of sour grapes, that he really had done nothing wrong in interfering with SNC-Lavalin's criminal prosecution, but that the former attorney general had suddenly concocted a story about him after he moved her out of her dream job, and therefore she should not be believed.

Allow me to quote what the Prime Minister said to the Canadian people at a press conference on February 15. He said, “If anyone”, including the former attorney general, had issues with anything they might have experienced in the government, or did not feel that the government was living up to the high standards it set for itself, “it was her responsibility to come forward”, it was their responsibility to come forward, and no one did. Text messages, journal entries and audio recordings now prove the former attorney general did come forward, literally dozens of times, to the Prime Minister and his inner circle.

Let me go through the chronology of her whistle-blowing.

On September 16, 2018, there was a phone conversation between the Prime Minister's staff members, Mathieu Bouchard, Elder Marques, and the former attorney general's chief of staff, Jessica Prince. This is from the testimony of the former attorney general:

My chief of staff had a phone call with Mathieu Bouchard and Elder Marques from the Prime Minister's Office.

They said that they understand that there are limits on what can be done, and that they can't direct, but that they hear that our deputy of justice thinks we can get the PPSC to say “we think we should get some outside advice on this.”

In response, my chief of staff stressed to them prosecutorial independence and potential concerns about the interference in the independence of the prosecutorial functions.

In other words, at that moment, in early September, the minister's staff did communicate to the Prime Minister's staff that what they were asking for would constitute “interference in the independence of the prosecutorial function.”

That is the first piece of evidence I introduce, disproving the Prime Minister's claim when he said that it was her responsibility to come forward, that it was their responsibility to come forward, and no one did.

The next day, on September 17, 2018, the former attorney general came forward in person to the Prime Minister and to the Clerk of the Privy Council. From her testimony, we have:

This same day, September 17, I had my one-on-one meeting with the Prime Minister that I requested a couple of weeks earlier. When I walked in, the Clerk of the Privy Council was in attendance as well. While the meeting was not about the issue of SNC and DPAs, the Prime Minister raised the issue immediately.

She goes on to state:

I further stated that I was very clear on my role as the Attorney General, and that I am not prepared to issue a directive in this case, that it would not be appropriate.... At that point, the Prime Minister jumped in, stressing that there is an election in Quebec and that “and I am an MP in Quebec—the member for Papineau.”

She went on:

I was quite taken aback. My response—and I vividly remember this as well—was to ask the Prime Minister a direct question, while looking him in the eye. I asked, “Are you politically interfering with my role/my decision as the Attorney General? I would strongly advise against it.”

I have heard members across the way yell out that it is mere hearsay. In fact, today we learned it was not hearsay. In direct questioning of the Prime Minister, I asked him if this exchange occurred, and he confirmed that it did. In other words, he says, now, today, that back on September 17, the former attorney general did raise concerns about him “politically interfering with her role as attorney general” and that she also “strongly advised against it”. He admits now that she said that to him in September.

How is it then that he stood before 37 million Canadians in February and said that no one came forward with any concerns whatsoever? That is what he said. It was her responsibility to come forward. It was their responsibility to come forward and no one did.

She did and he now admits it, so it is no longer he-said-she-said. She said it and he now confirmed it. It is impossible to reconcile the Prime Minister's admission today that the former attorney general spoke those words to him in September with his public statement in February that she had never once raised any problem with him. Here we have it clear as day that she did, and he now admits that she did.

On September 19, there were conversations between the former attorney general and the current finance minister. She said in her testimony:

Still on September 19, I spoke to [the finance minister] on this matter when we were in the House [of Commons]...and I told him that engagements from his office—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am sorry to interrupt. The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan on a question of privilege.

Alleged Process Used to Determine Liberal Caucus Membership

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for the interruption. I do just need to add briefly to what I said previously on the question of privilege.

In response, the member for Windsor West rose to reassure the House that the NDP caucus did follow the Parliament of Canada Act with respect to adopting or rejecting the model rules, including the one for expulsion from caucus.

I want to clearly put on record that what the act says is that each party caucus needs to hold four recorded ballot votes on each of those model rules at its first meeting after the election. The NDP caucus did not hold votes, let alone recorded ballot votes, on those model rules at its first meeting after the election or at any of its meetings in 2015.

Rather than just generally suggesting compliance with the act, it would be necessary for the member for Windsor West, or another member, to suggest that they remember actually holding recorded ballot votes at the first meeting following the election. I note that claim has not been made.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We will take that under consideration.

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 Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Child Care; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Sherbrooke, Canada Revenue Agency.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Carleton.