House of Commons Hansard #59 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was expropriation.

Topics

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, that happened a number of times today, and it has definitely happened in the past. Rather than this ad hoc way of approaching it, which we seem to have done, perhaps you should come to some conclusion as to how we should proceed when this kind of thing happens. Otherwise, we are going to see this happening every single day. I think you need to make a ruling on what should happen in these events.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

What has happened in these events is that the Speaker has been using his or her judgment. Depending on whether it pops up for a while or it is instantaneous, the Speaker makes a decision on that basis. When the hon. member was making his statement, the interruption popped up instantaneously and temporarily. That is why I did not have the member ask his question again.

If it is okay with the chamber, I would leave it to the Speaker, whether it is the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker or an Assistant Deputy Speaker, to use their judgment on that. I think we have been fair. Hopefully that is acceptable.

If there is something that comes up, by all means, bring it to our attention. We are more than happy to work with all members so they do get their fair share.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Scott Duvall NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there are times when members are speaking in French and we cannot hear the interpreter in English, as the French overrides it. I am wondering if that could be corrected.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Our technical people have heard that and hopefully they will get that straightened out. I thank the member.

The House resumed from February 4 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on the Economic Relationship between Canada and the United StatesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

It being 3:12 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country relating to the business of supply.

Call in the members.

The list of members voting by video conference has now been established for use by the table.

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

Vote #49

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I declare the motion carried.

Before proceeding to the next vote, we will pause the sitting briefly in order to allow employees who provide support for the sitting to substitute each other safely.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

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

Vote #50

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I declare the motion carried.

Before we continue, 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 Mégantic—L'Érable, Government Appointments; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Ethics; the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore, Airline Industry.

(Bill C-10. On the Order: Government Orders:)

February 5, 2021—Second reading of Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy with the outcome of the two motions adopted earlier. If you seek it, you will find unanimous consent of the House:

That, notwithstanding any standing or special order or usual practice of the House, the amendment to the second reading motion of Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, standing in the name of the member for Regina—Wascana, be withdrawn; and that the motion for second reading of Bill C-10 be deemed adopted on division and that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

I hear none. The House has heard the terms of the motion.

All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

There being no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, the amendment is withdrawn and the bill, read the second time, is referred to a committee)

Language Interpretation ResourcesPrivilegeGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning the interpretation resources that are available for committee meetings and other parliamentary proceedings.

I am raising this issue after Friday's meeting of the Standing Committee on Health. It was suspended on the claims of its chair, the hon. member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, that there were no staff resources, interpreters, clerks and so on, available after 4:30 p.m. and therefore the committee could no longer continue to meet. That meeting was seized with a motion to order the production of the federal government's vaccine contracts, something the Liberal government has been treating as Ottawa's most highly guarded secret.

While I recognize that the usual practice of the House is that a complaint arising in a committee should first be reported from the committee itself, this has been a growing and systemic issue plaguing our hybrid committee structure. The health committee's meeting last week was merely the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

I understand that a recent meeting of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations was similarly plagued by an abrupt adjournment as well. This past autumn, the Standing Committee on Finance witnessed a whole series of suspensions premised on unavailable resources.

At last week's health committee meeting, the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou struggled to participate in a vote shortly before the suspension, attributing her difficulties to interpretation challenges. What is more, she noted that this was not the first time this caused a problem for her to vote, reflecting on a high-profile vote she cast at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics back on October 26.

These are just a few examples that come to mind and I am sure a number of other cases could very easily be cited with just a bit more reflection.

All of this is to say that there is a bigger picture here, a pattern, if we will, to take into consideration. It is this pattern which I respectfully submit meets the threshold of “very serious and special circumstances”, which Speaker Fraser articulated on March 26, 1990, at page 9756 of the Debates, in respect of the Chair intervening in committee matters.

To begin, and before anyone gets the wrong impression, let me clearly say that Conservatives strongly support bilingualism within Parliament. That was a basic premise of Confederation, that great legacy of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George-Étienne Cartier, that guaranteed, under section 133 of the British North America Act, that English or French could be used by any person during debates in the chambers of Canada's Parliament and that these two languages should be used in the respective records and journals of those chambers.

It was the government of Richard Bennett, a fellow Albertan, that created the Translation Bureau. Under subsection 4(1) of the Translation Bureau Act, the Translation Bureau shall collaborate with and act for both Houses of Parliament in all matters relating to the making and revising of translations from one language into another of documents, including correspondence, reports, proceedings, debates, bills and Acts, and to interpretation, sign-language interpretation and terminology.

It was John Diefenbaker's government that introduced simultaneous interpretation in the House of Commons and the Senate. It was Brian Mulroney's government that enshrined our simultaneous interpretation system in the Official Languages Act in 1988 in what is now subsection 4(2) of that act. Facilities shall be made available for the simultaneous interpretation of the debates and other proceedings of Parliament from one official language into the other.

Conservatives have been the parents and champions of bilingualism in Parliament.

Turning specifically to the health committee's meeting, at about 4:25 on Friday the chair stated, according to the blues, “I just want to advise the committee that we have a hard stop at 4:30 eastern time. After 4:30 we have no interpreters, no clerk, no analysts, and no room.”

As to the adjournment of committee meetings, allow me to quote from page 1099 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition:

A committee meeting may be adjourned by the adoption of a motion to that effect. However, most meetings are adjourned more informally, when the Chair receives the implied consent of members to adjourn. The committee Chair cannot adjourn the meeting without the consent of a majority of the members, unless the Chair decides that a case of disorder or misconduct is so serious as to prevent the committee from continuing its work.

There is nothing in there about adjourning because inadequate resources have been provided to a committee.

A page earlier, on meeting suspensions, Bosc and Gagnon explain:

Committees frequently suspend their meetings for various reasons, with the intention to resume later in the day.

Some of the examples include:

to change from public to in camera mode, or the reverse; to enable witnesses to be seated or to hear witnesses by video conference; to put an end to disorder; to resolve a problem with the simultaneous interpretation system; or to move from one item on the agenda to the next.

We have all encountered those in our times here and, yes, while problems with interpretation are in fact mentioned and can occasionally be common, that is usually a quick matter of ensuring that all the switches are in the right position and whatnot. Therefore, it is not a matter of staff simply not being scheduled to support parliamentary work. Even if it were, it should have only been for as long as was required for new interpreters to come and take a shift in the booth, not for the 95 or so hours that it had been since the health committee's deliberations were suspended.

Debate on the vaccine contract production motion kicked off shortly before noon that day. It is my understanding that by approximately 2 p.m., first, it was clear to all concerned that a Liberal filibuster was in flight; second, there was an understanding that a majority of committee members would not give expressed or implied consent to adjourn the meeting along the lines expressed on page 1099 of Bosc and Gagnon, which I just quoted; and third, these developments had been communicated to senior House administration officials in order that the necessary arrangements could then be made for the health committee's meeting to continue into the evening.

Our move to hybrid and virtual proceedings, necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has indeed put strains on the technical ability to secure bilingualism in the House's proceedings. Last year, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when that committee looked at whether to incorporate virtual elements into our proceedings during this pandemic.

On May 4, the procedure and House affairs committee heard from the Canadian Association of Professional Employees that there were 70 staff interpreters working in official languages and that 40 of them were at the time unable to work either because of health issues or child care needs when schools were closed. The union also informed the committee:

We are getting close to our worst-case scenario, which is that too many interpreters end up needing rest and healing at the same time. We fear that interpreters are getting dangerously close to being unable to keep up with the demand and having to refuse assignments in too great numbers to find replacements. This would jeopardize the conduct of parliamentary activities. Nobody wants to get to the point where we no longer have enough available qualified interpreters to support parliamentary work.

In the Conservative dissenting report to the procedure and House affairs committee's fifth report, tabled last May, we wrote that the interpretation situation we had heard about was “Not only is this distressing for our hard-working interpreters, but it places bilingualism in the House at grave risk.” I understand that the grave risk has continued to develop and mature instead of being met, addressed and mitigated.

All this is to say that it is not just some bolt out of the blue. We saw it coming in the very first weeks of the pandemic situation when we were only dipping our toes into the world of virtual committee meetings. In the procedure and House affairs committee's fifth report, it was acknowledged by all parties, at page 10, “The Committee notes that increasing the complexity of House proceedings could result in the need for more simultaneous interpreters”, yet, here we are, hearing that the situation has been moving in fact in the opposite direction.

In January, The Canadian Press reported on a survey conducted by the Canadian chapter of the International Association of Conference Interpreters. It revealed that 60% of respondents had experienced auditory issues requiring time off work. Our interpreters reported over a nine-month period triple the number of workplace injuries that had been experienced in the preceding 20 months.

These reports prompted the Standing Committee on Official Languages to begin a study looking into the challenges facing our interpreters. The official languages committee heard on February 2 from the conference interpreters association that:

There is already a critical shortage of interpreters qualified to work on the Hill.... The shortage of interpreters preceded the pandemic, which merely exacerbated the situation.

According to the association's evidence, there are only about 80 freelance interpreters in all of Canada who meet the Translation Bureau's standards to supplement the work of about 50 staff interpreters.

The association ended its presentation to the official languages committee with this plea:

...please urge the Minister to address the critical shortage of qualified interpreters in Canada on an urgent basis and ensure the very small existing pool of Government accredited interpreters is encouraged to work in the Parliament of Canada and not actively discouraged as they have been.

It goes without saying that our simultaneous interpreters have been the unsung heroes of maintaining parliamentary democracy throughout this pandemic. My deepest thanks goes to them for the work they are putting in and for the challenges they are enduring. My remarks today are in no way aimed at them as individuals, but rather at the management and organization.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, as you would know, though I do not believe everyone is as familiar with the unique jurisdictional lines on Parliament Hill, the House of Commons does not actually employ the interpreters who work here among us. Instead, the Translation Bureau, a special operating agency of the federal government, which reports to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, has a statutory mandate, which I quoted earlier, to act for both Houses of Parliament in all matters concerning interpretation.

As the House administration's chief information officer succinctly explained to the official languages committee on February 2:

The Translation Bureau provides the service. As you know, the interpreters work for the Translation Bureau. We provide the technical environment in accordance with the standards established by the Bureau.

While there is a service agreement in place between the House administration and the Translation Bureau, it is important to recall that subsection 12(1) of the Translation Bureau regulations sets out the prime directive for the bureau:

The requirements of both Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the committees thereof in respect of interpretation services shall be given first priority by the Bureau.

It says first priority. It could not be any clearer than that, yet the experience of the health committee on Friday would suggest that it was getting no priority.

The resources were not thinly stretched that day either. Last week was a constituency week, so there were not the usual, multiple pressures of a House sitting and a half-dozen or more simultaneous committee meetings at any given moment. In fact, the only other proceeding on that Friday was a 70-minute subcommittee meeting in the morning.

To put it more plainly, there was nothing else going on at all on Parliament Hill Friday afternoon when the health committee's meeting was suspended, and nothing else which would have been competing with the Translation Bureau's “first priority”.

That brings me to three more statements of the Chair of the health committee, the hon. member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam. This is what he told the committee on Friday, according to the blues.

First, at around 4:30 p.m., he said, “I am going to just say that the House resources are a matter of House administration to allocate, and the current situation is a matter of agreement between all the House whips and leaders. It's really not up to the chair, it's not up to the government how to allocate House resources.”

Second, around 4:35 p.m., he said, “I just wish to make it clear that this is a matter of House administration. For resources, it makes arrangements for staff or rooms, and has done so with the agreement of the House whips and the leaders.”

Third, a few moments later, he said, “I have ruled that it's really not up to us on the committee, it's not up to me as the chair, it's not up to the staff; it is a matter for the House administration that allocates resources and determines what resources are available in conjunction with conversations with the whips and House leaders.”

By contrast, allow me to quote from the special order adopted by this House on January 25, 2021 at pages 427 to 430 of the journals governing our virtual and hybrid proceedings this winter and spring. In paragraph (q) it is established that committee meetings are to be held in a hybrid format with virtual participation authorized, “provided that priority use of House resources...shall be established by an agreement of the whips”. Once again, the order says “priority use”, not all use, not any use, but rather priority use.

As I explained earlier, the health committee was practically the only show in town, so to speak, on Friday of last week. After 12:13 p.m., it was the only committee meeting happening. There was no one else seeking the use of House resources at the time, so the priority was self-evident by the simple fact that only one committee was meeting.

Paragraph (q) of the January 25 special order proposed to the House by the Liberal House leader does not afford the Liberal whip a veto over committee meetings any time the temperature gets a little too hot for the Prime Minister and his cabinet.

In short, the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam misinformed the health committee when he tried to lay blame elsewhere for his plan to shut down the debate to force disclosure of the government's vaccine contracts.

I raise this as a question of privilege today because it is really the best and only outlet to remedy a situation that is fast becoming a serious impediment to our House's operations.

At the official languages committee recently, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie asked the International Association of Conference Interpreters, “Are we at a breaking point, and is there a risk that we may not have enough interpreters to do the work in the Parliament of Canada?” The reply was yes.

The witness then elaborated by saying, “For lack of the necessary resources, the Translation Bureau already has to refuse to allow interpreters to work at certain meetings of members, such as caucuses, although it's not withholding their services from committee meetings for the moment.”

The evidence is that we are at a breaking point and we are careening toward a critical failure in the ability to conduct parliamentary proceedings. This is also not a new problem sprung on us by the pandemic and regardless, there were very early warning signs that the pandemic would accelerate the problem, yet the government has done nothing. Instead it sits back, folds its arms and takes comfort in the fact that Parliament cannot function fully and hold the government to account.

We have seen several committee meetings, which were proving uncomfortable for Liberal interests, suddenly and abruptly halted because of a lack of government-supplied interpreters. I would be remiss if I did not point out that the health committee on Friday was debating a motion to produce the federal government's COVID-19 vaccine contracts negotiated by the Minister of Public Services and Procurement. Then the debate was shut down because there were no interpreters available to support MP's work, and these interpreters are furnished to Parliament by the Minister of Public Services and Procurement.

Turning to the parliamentary privilege, Bosc and Gagnon explain at page 57 that, “It also refers to the powers possessed by the House to protect itself, its Members and its procedures from undue interference so that it can effectively carry out its principal functions which are to legislate, deliberate and hold the government to account. In that sense, parliamentary privilege can be viewed as the independence Parliament and its Members need to function unimpeded.”

Continuing at page 59, it states, “The House has the authority to assert privilege where its ability has been obstructed in the execution of its functions or where Members have been obstructed in the performance of their duties.”

At page 60 is an elaboration on the concept of contempt, which states, “Any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt of the House. Contempt may be an act or an omission. It does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a Member; it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results.”

Interpreting or disturbing the proceedings of the House or one of its committees, as we know, is an established type of contempt as identified in the 1999 report of the United Kingdom's Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and recited also at page 82 of Bosc and Gagnon.

In the current situation, we have committee meetings that are being interrupted or disrupted because the government has failed to provide enough interpreters to do the work. While I recognize that these are new circumstances for raising a question of privilege, the authorities are clear that precedents are not always necessary.

Bosc and Gagnon, at page 81, reminds us of the following: “Throughout the Commonwealth most procedural authorities hold that contempts, as opposed to privileges, cannot be enumerated or categorized.”

Admittedly, we as a House are bound together with the Translation Bureau through the requirements of statute and regulations amplified by a service agreement between the two entities. That does not mean the House is powerless. Indeed, without the House standing up for itself and its own interests, we run the risk of being seen as acquiescent in this treatment by the Translation Bureau and the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and therefore risking this becoming the new standard. Perhaps, in the final analysis, this partnership is the best possible structure available, but no matter how we cut it improvements in the substance are vital and necessary.

Parliamentary privileges trace their lineage through centuries of struggle between the House of Commons and the King as well as the King's government. As page 62 of Bosc and Gagnon reminds us:

These privileges were found to be necessary to protect the House and its Members, not from the people, but from the power and interference of the King and the House of Lords....The House of Commons in Canada has not had to challenge the Crown, its executive or the Upper House in the same manner as the British House of Commons.

Could it be that we are reverting back to those early days? What I do know is that we seem to be starting down a path and staring down the barrel of a growing problem, and that is the problem of inefficient and effective operations of Parliament being caused by the inaction and atrophied responsibility of the government.

The procedural authorities often speak of contempt in the same breath as punishment. In this case, I am not seeking punishment, although if there should turn out to be any deliberate wrongdoing against the ability of the House to function, then there should absolutely be strong sanctions. What I am trying to do is place front and centre the issue of interpretation resources that are made available to us for the House to deliberate upon.

Should you agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that there is a prima facie case of privilege here, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for its usual thoughtful analysis. However, I am also open to seeking a different approach here if, while you are deliberating upon my arguments, informal discussions among parties and other interested actors suggest that there might a more efficient, effective and appropriate course of action that could see the issues meaningfully addressed and our parliamentary committees back functioning at full throttle.

Ultimately, the House needs to address this situation seriously and swiftly in order to be assured that the government is meeting its legal requirements, that we are giving the best possible expression to our constitutionally guaranteed bilingualism and our statutorily confirmed simultaneous interpretation system, and that we are ensuring that the House and its committees can function fully and completely without let or hindrance by the very government that we are meant to hold to account.

Language Interpretation ResourcesPrivilegeGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I want to thank the hon. member for his very well-thought-out argument. I will take it under advisement and return to the House as soon as possible.

I have six more people, five online and one in the chamber, who would like to speak to this.

I will start with the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

Language Interpretation ResourcesPrivilegeGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter, so I want to present a little more detail about what happened at the Standing Committee on Health on Friday and then provide some additional arguments in support of the arguments that my colleague just put forward.

On Friday the Standing Committee on Health was meeting to discuss a variety of matters that had originally been triggered under Standing Order 106(4), a procedural tactic that parliamentarians can use to force meetings when there are matters of urgency that need to be taken care of. The matter under Standing Order 106(4) that was in question on Friday originally was a motion that essentially requested a briefing on the issue of variants to COVID-19 in Canada and the government's response, and then also to dispose of a motion for which my colleague had given notice, a motion with regard to contractual obligations with certain vaccine companies.

That motion, as my colleague mentioned, was being met with a filibuster by the Liberals. It was very clear that the Liberals at that moment in time were trying to obstruct a vote on the motion because it was clear that the motion was going to pass.

Now, that is the Liberals' right. They have the right to do that. What I and the other members at committee were robbed of on that day, given the circumstance that my colleague outlined, was the ability to see that through. I was good to go, to sit around the clock on this issue, and I know that my colleagues of other political stripes were as well, but I think what the Liberals were banking on, given the chair's comments, was that there would not be resources available at 4:30 p.m., so the filibuster would end and there would not be a vote called on this very impactful motion that many, even in the media, have been calling for. In that, my privilege was breached. The debate should have continued. It would have continued if we had been on a normal sitting schedule. There is no reason why it would not have.

We have all been in filibusters before, but the chair, as my colleague quoted, prefaced all of his comments by saying that we would be ending the meeting due to a lack of resources. Typically in these situations, the committee would look at what happened, but the problem is that we are not in a normal situation. The chair, using the excuse of a lack of resources, suspended the meeting. Not only that, but as my colleague rightly said earlier, there were interpretation issues that my colleague from the Bloc was rightly angry about, issues that she and I were attempting to sort out. The reality is that for whatever reason, a year into the pandemic and after prorogation and many months of this situation, all of a sudden resources were not available.

If we cannot figure this out, then I do not think that these virtual committees are working. That is really where we are at. At this point in time, given all the examples that my colleague raised, I strongly believe that we very quickly need to have more resources, because democracy does not fit into neatly aligned little time slots. Sometimes meetings are going to go longer and sometimes there will be meetings that need to be scheduled outside of meeting times. That is my job as a parliamentarian, that is my prerogative as a parliamentarian, and those are my rights under the Standing Orders.

Just to re-emphasize, I believe this issue rests firmly within your bailiwick, as we could not sort it out because the chair kept saying, “There are no resources. There are no resources. There are no resources. The translators need to go. The clerk needs to go.” In any other circumstance, meaning that if we were not meeting virtually, I would argue that we would not have had that scenario. Things would have kept going.

If this cannot get sorted out, I do not see how virtual Parliament works, quite frankly.

I am confident that you can find a solution to this situation. It could involve hiring more interpreters immediately or working with the clerks of committees or whatever to understand that my ability to use procedure to have the voices of Canadians heard should not be limited by somebody saying that we have to go, because it is 4:30 on a Friday. That is not how democracy works. My colleague, the opposition whip, has given some suggestions for that.

Look, I understand that the Liberal government members might not like what I was doing there, but they were filibustering. Again, that is their prerogative, but the meeting should not have been ended due to “lack of resources”. People around the world have figured out how to get resources for translation and for Zoom meetings. To end a meeting because of that, which is not provided for under the Standing Orders, was a breach of my privilege. It was a breach of privilege to the people I represent, who pay my salary to fight the government on issues like this. This was a fairly significant motion that would have essentially compelled the government to provide more details on the contracts related to our vaccine procurement, which is the number one public policy issue today by an order of magnitude. There is no question about that.

This has happened more than once at our committee. In no way, shape or form should it be acceptable for a meeting to be cancelled due to technical difficulties. I have had that happen before too. Mr. Speaker, I implore you: If this cannot be fixed immediately, we probably, as Parliament, need to look at reinstating some sort of physical sittings. That would not be ideal for health and safety issues either, but we cannot just stop democracy. That is where we are at. As my colleague from Banff—Airdrie rightly put it, we also cannot suspend the right to interpretation, the right to have proceedings in both official languages.

Mr. Speaker, what happened at the health committee is a matter for you to deal with. It is something that cannot continue—

Language Interpretation ResourcesPrivilegeGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I do not mean to interrupt, but I find we are starting to repeat ourselves, so I would ask the hon. member to maybe be concise and tell us exactly what the points are, and then we will go on to others. I do have a long list and I do not want to rush, especially in light of the topic that we are discussing, but I do not want repetition either.

I will let the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill continue.

Language Interpretation ResourcesPrivilegeGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, my specialty is not a filibuster. That would be my Liberal colleagues in the health committee, but I digress.

I come to you asking for a resolution to this issue so that the committee can continue unimpeded.

Language Interpretation ResourcesPrivilegeGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words about the question of privilege that was just raised by my counterpart, the whip of the official opposition party.

Members of the Standing Committee on Health are all clearly aware that the committee chair made a ruling on a question of privilege raised by the member for Calgary Nose Hill last Friday, February 12. The decision resulted in the suspension of a fundamental debate to have the government finally disclose its COVID-19 vaccination plan.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to what Bosc and Gagnon state on page 1060 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, namely, that “The Chair of a committee does not have the power to rule on questions of privilege”.

Nevertheless, the chair of the Standing Committee on Health suspended the meeting, which had been duly convened at the request of four members pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), alleging that the technological resources were no longer available even though the debate in progress had not concluded.

As we all know, this March will mark one year that Parliament has been operating in virtual and hybrid mode. Many improvements have been made, but there are still problems, especially with respect to parliamentary committee meetings. The majority of these problems are connected to the technical and technological support team, which is tasked with making it possible for members to work, listen, speak and understand what is going on in the language of their choice, which is also a parliamentary privilege.

During this incident, the members from the governing party were continually obstructing debates. We realize that this is a parliamentary tactic, but the filibuster on February 12 extended the meeting until the limit set by the House technical team.

The improvements we made gave parliamentarians the opportunity to debate while following the rules. I have to point out that the notion of limited technical resources goes beyond the interpreters. This is about all of the parliamentary support staff. I do not want anyone to think that the question of privilege we are debating this afternoon has to do only with the interpretation services. It has to do with all staff responsible for technology and technical support to our committees.

In our opinion, the government members used the lack of technological resources, resources required for the committee to do its work, in their own political interests and in the interests of the government, and the chair of the committee ruled on a question of privilege in contravention of existing parliamentary rules. By so doing, he held hostage the House's technical and technological services and opposition party members in order to suspend the meeting and interfere with the committee's work.

If the committee was unable to continue its work because of a lack of technical resources, it was not up to the committee chair to use this situation to rule in favour of the government party.

If the Liberal members of the committee want to help the government hide certain information and prevent a study on the vaccine supply contracts from taking place, they cannot go about it by violating the parliamentary privilege of other committee members and limiting debate on the issue of the day, which is the government's vaccination plan, a plan that is compromising the health and safety of Quebeckers and Canadians.

This situation raises an extremely important question of privilege, and it is up to the Speaker of the House to rule on it. With all due respect, although it is customary for questions of privilege that arise in committee to be considered when a report is presented by the committee in question, I believe that the current situation completely warrants direct intervention by the Speaker given the special circumstances that Parliament and its members have to deal with in fulfilling their mandate during the pandemic for the good of Quebeckers and Canadians.

Material, human and technological limitations should never be used by the government or members to exert pressure on members of other parties or to violate their parliamentary privilege.

Mr. Speaker, you and I are members of the Board of Internal Economy, and you know that I gave several speeches about how important interpretation is for us, and about how important it is for members to be able to speak in their language, to have access to the necessary services to be able to participate in parliamentary work, to understand what is going on and to vote in an informed way.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore invite you to take a stand and rule on whether this is really a question of parliamentary privilege. My colleagues and I are asking you to find a solution because the House will continue to work in hybrid format and virtual mode for a few more months. We cannot allow this situation to continue or to happen again.

Language Interpretation ResourcesPrivilegeGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

We have four more people: three online and one in the chamber. I want to remind the hon. members to be as concise as possible, as is mentioned in Bosch and Gagnon, page 146, with a very concise account of what they believe the argument is.

We will now go to the Parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Language Interpretation ResourcesPrivilegeGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I bring a different perspective to the issue we have before us. As coincidence would have it, I was the member speaking when the issue came up of the Chair's desire to suspend the committee meeting. Just so that we have a little background, and I think it would be wonderful to see a decision, I will review other aspects of the discussion that have been taking place.

I want to plant the seed of motivation in members' minds. What is motivating members to bring this forward at this time? I will not comment extensively on the issue of timing. I was surprised that it came up now: I would have thought it would have come up earlier today, when the member had time to raise the issue and chose not to. That is another issue, even though it is somewhat important, when taking into consideration matters of privilege.

I want to spend a bit of time on the issue of motivation. The previous Conservative speaker, for example, said that the Liberals were expecting the Chair to do what he did. That is a very serious allegation, if we think about a member of the House accusing members of trying to manipulate the Chair to suspend, when I was the one who was speaking at the time. I can assure the House that I was not trying to manipulate the Chair to suspend the meeting. I was just getting under way with my comments on the issue when the Chairperson raised what I thought was a valid point. If we listen to the sponsor of the motion, the sponsor of the motion talked about the hard workers: those unsung heroes of interpretation services. They do a fabulous job—

Language Interpretation ResourcesPrivilegeGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I will interrupt. If we can be as concise as possible with whatever issues or facts that the hon. member believes pertain to the argument, it would be appreciated.

Language Interpretation ResourcesPrivilegeGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to do that.

The point is that I was prepared to continue. I was not trying to intimidate the Chair or get him to suspend the meeting. My recollection is that the Chair stated a concern regarding the interpreters, those unsung heroes, those hard-working individuals, and whether we would be able to continue. As well, he wanted to be able to adjourn at the time adjournment was supposed to take place.

Immediately following that, points of order were raised at the standing committee that stated the chairperson could not do that. I commented at the time that I did not believe we should have a committee proceed if we could not provide bilingual services. I made that very clear.

The Chair was fairly clear with the concerns he had and, right away, the opposition started to get excited about the fact that the Chair could not do that. The Chair has a responsibility. I refer the Speaker to some of the committee meetings under the Harper administration where we saw, for example, a Chair who would just suspend a meeting. They have that capability.

A Chair can actually say that they have heard enough. They do not even have to listen, and can just make the decision to suspend a meeting for whatever reason. Members can always raise it.

The member who moved the motion said that he hopes to get you to respond, Mr. Speaker, but in the interim he believes there is an opportunity for informal discussions to take place that could resolve the issue. I am suggesting that this probably would have been the most likely happy scenario if members had concerns. In fact, there are House leadership teams and other venues where this could have been talked about.

To try to use the floor of the House of Commons to say that the Chair or the government is trying to prevent the work of the health committee is a stretch. I believe the standing committee has the ability to resolve it, as other standing committees have done in the past with adjournments and suspensions.

I will review everything that has been said and possibly get back to you, depending on what follows my comments. I appreciate you taking the time to listen to me.