House of Commons Hansard #115 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was report.

Topics

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, Canada is the only G7 country that is drawing from the COVAX program, and that just reflects the fact that our government has not been effective in getting vaccinations to Canadians. It is now drawing from this program that was generally designed to provide equitable access to vaccines to support the needs of developing countries.

I know a source of disappointment for a lot people is the sort of general failure of the government in making vaccines available, but also that the result of that is not just affecting Canadians. This choice the government is making to draw from COVAX is also affecting people around the world.

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:10 a.m.

Don Valley West Ontario

Liberal

Rob Oliphant LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Madam Speaker, I note the member's concern about two things, and I want to ask him about the campaign pledge that was made during the last federal election by his party, which was to dramatically reduce foreign aid. He ran on that party platform to reduce foreign aid, yet today he seems to have had a complete change of heart, or a change of head, and I would like him to comment on that. I would also like him to comment on the government's response to recommendation 10, which is very positive, to understand that absolutely we support COVAX and will support vaccine distribution.

Does he have any response to the government's response on recommendation 10?

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, it is very clear from the numbers what the Conservative record in government has been with respect to international development. Leadership was shown by the Mulroney government and the Harper government around maternal and child health. It is important to always be asking how we can increase our effectiveness. Part of increasing that effectiveness is supporting the world's most vulnerable, and part of that is removing red tape for charitable organizations, such as with the reforms to direction and control. I will say again that our leader has been very clear about not reducing aid levels.

In terms of the member's question about COVAX, the government has offered financial support to COVAX. However, the government has not, on its own, been able to secure supply necessary for Canadians and thus has gone to COVAX. The fact is that Canada is behind. People can see that, around the world, other countries are certainly ahead of us in being able to open up, and that reflects the failure of the government to make vaccines available. The point about COVAX is that failure does have consequences, not just for Canadians, but also for people in developing countries.

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

Madam Speaker, I did not really understand what the member had to say, especially with the hon. parliamentary secretary's question about the Conservative campaign commitments with respect to decreasing foreign aid. With what the member is saying right now, there seems to be a kind of duplicity.

Can the member clarify for us if he believes that Canada needs to provide more aid or not, based on his party's platform?

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I think I was very clear that we effectively saw cuts, in terms of aid as a share of GNI, from the time of the Harper government to the current government. Going forward, Conservatives have committed to maintaining our aid levels and also to taking steps, such as the reform of direction and control, that would remove red tape and effectively deliver far more in terms of dollars to the front lines. If we remove that unnecessary red tape through processes like direction and control, we can do so much more good around the world.

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank our hon. colleague for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for sharing his time with me to comment on the third report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, as well as the effects of the pandemic on some of our most marginalized countries.

To date, more than 112 million people around the world have been infected by the COVID‑19 virus and 2.5 million people have died. This pandemic rocked our world. As of March 11, 2020, it was designated a global pandemic and things are just now getting back to the new normal, whatever that looks like. I think this report is important to see how Canada can not only do its part helping those here at home, but do its part on the world stage, which is always important.

Out of the report came 10 recommendations. I have been part of committees in the past that have studied important issues such as the suicide epidemic in our first nations, sexual trauma within our military and the impacts of post-traumatic stress disorder on first responders and those who serve our country and communities. Another report we studied was on the impacts of changes to the Fisheries Act from the previous Harper government to the Liberal government in the previous session. These reports are important. We hear from witnesses who give us a different perspective from the ones we 338 members of Parliament, who have been elected to represent the electors in our fine country, bring to the House. It would not be in line with one of my speeches if I did not remind the House that it does not belong to us, to the Prime Minister, to the Speaker or to me: It belongs to the electors. This is the electors' House.

The report that we are tabling today talks about Canada's contributions on the world stage, and the impact of the COVID pandemic worldwide. The 10 recommendations that came out of this were for the government to play a lead role in the global response to COVID‑19 with the aim of:

ensuring a coordinated, timely and needs-based response to the vulnerabilities created and exacerbated by the pandemic in crisis- and conflict-affected areas.

We know that in developed countries such as our own, and to the south of us, the impact has been immeasurable, but for countries deeply affected by conflict and for some of our most marginalized countries that impact has been absolutely devastating. COVID has had an immeasurable impact on them. My colleague talked about the COVAX program that developed countries pay into to support the purchase and supply of vaccines for underdeveloped countries. Sadly, what we saw from the current government was that Canada shamefully had to apply to dip into it. It took vaccines that were destined for underdeveloped countries and administered them here within our own borders. This was because of the government's failure early on to take the pandemic seriously.

On January 27, 2020, I stood in the House and said to the Minister of Transport, as I was the then shadow minister for transportation, that Canada was the gateway to and from Asia and that we were the jumping-off spot for international travel. Many Europeans and people from all around the world enter our country through our ports and airports and then travel domestically.

I challenged the government at that time on what it was going to do to secure our borders. In response I was called a racist, and I was told I was fearmongering. I challenged the health minister the next week about what steps we were going to take at our airports and ports to ensure those frontline airline and aviation personnel, as well as those on our borders, had the PPE they needed to stay safe. Again, I was chastised for fearmongering.

At every step of the way, we have seen that the government has not heeded any of the early warnings. If it had, we would not be at the end of third wave. Hopefully, we will not get into a fourth wave. What stopped the third wave, or put the brakes on the third wave, was the fact that the government had to get into or apply to the COVAX program, an international program that was designed to supply underdeveloped countries with the vaccines necessary to weather the storm.

Our Prime Minister is with other world leaders as we speak, talking about how COVID has impacted the world and how it really changes our perspective. We talk about getting back to normal, but what does that normal look like? Then we talk about the new normal. This report has 10 recommendations that the government could hopefully heed. As I alluded to earlier, as a member of Parliament, I have been part of a number of different studies. Sadly, what I have seen is that the recommendations go unheeded, much as they did back in January 2020, at the very beginning of this pandemic.

If only the government had heeded our recommendations and questions at that time, I believe Canada would be in a far better state than we are today. Perhaps we would not be in a third wave. Perhaps things would be opening up. Perhaps Canadians would be able to see their relatives and loved ones, and hug them and be with them.

We are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel, which is great. However, this report details some things Canada could to to make sure that, if heaven forbid, another global pandemic were to take place, Canada would be right there, prepared to help not only here at home but also on the world stage. That is rightfully where we should be. That is our position. Canada should always be that beacon of hope. Canada should be there to lend that helping hand.

As I mentioned, there were 10 recommendations. I read out recommendation 1. The second recommendation is:

That, by allocating new funding, the Government of Canada increase its contributions to international humanitarian appeals in line with the growing demands on the humanitarian system, while ensuring that assistance reaches the most vulnerable people based on need, including in relation to food security, child protection, education and health care in emergency settings, psychosocial support, and gender-based violence prevention and response services.

Again, I hope our government heeds these recommendations. Our hon. colleague, in his intervention, mentioned three important recommendations. I want to go to the third one that I think is important:

That Canada lead and coordinate, with like-minded nations, an expansion of a feminist agenda specifically addressing domestic abuse and gender-based violence during COVID lockdowns....

That is a feminist agenda. We know that our government holds that dear to its heart. We know that the incidents of domestic violence, suicidal ideation and anxiety have been felt here at home, which is why we challenged the government to implement 988, a simple three-digit suicide prevention hotline.

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

Madam Speaker, I really was paying attention to the member's speech, and he talked about how this House does not belong to us. He said that it belongs to the people who trusted us to come here, represent them and do the work that they require us to do to move this country forward.

Therefore, why is the member's party preventing legislation that would provide support to local businesses in Canada and to workers here in Canada? Why has his party been voting consistently against providing that support to Canadians?

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, the comments from my hon. colleague, for whom I have great respect, are simply misleading. Every step of the way, we have worked tirelessly on a team Canada approach. Sadly, what we have seen is a government that chooses to do whatever it wants to do. The Liberals are in power. They have their legislative agenda. Why are they dithering and delaying on the important pieces of legislation that they would like to see brought forward?

We have, in full honesty, worked diligently since the very beginning in offering a full team Canada approach. I am saddened by the comments from my hon. colleague. I know she is better than that.

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:30 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

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

Madam Speaker, everything that the member has said could have easily been said during what was supposed to be debated today, which is the budget bill.

The Conservative Party of Canada is playing a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. The Conservatives' intention is not to have a genuine debate on the issue. That is the reason why they moved adjournment. Their irresponsible behaviour is at a great cost to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

When is the Conservative Party of Canada going to stop playing the political, partisan games that it has been playing for the last little while so the government can continue to work with willing opposition parties to serve Canadians well in the House of Commons, as opposed to the games being played by the Conservatives? We want to work. Why does the Conservative Party not want to work? Why does it want to play a destructive force?

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, that is simply not true. This is coming from a government that prorogued last summer right when Canadians were desperate for their relief programs, which were just about to end. Why did the Liberals prorogue? They prorogued to cover up another scandal by the government, by this Prime Minister.

It is absolutely false, and again there are more falsehoods coming from the other side. It is really disappointing when we have tried so hard to work in concert with the government, and at every step of the way, it has either prorogued Parliament or filibustered at committees. It is the most corrupt government that we have ever seen, and I am appalled by that question.

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech, and the previous speaker's as well, regarding this report and their work on direction and control. The government stated that Canada would be back on the international stage, and yet the record does not show that. I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.

I understand from previous Conservative administrations that Canada's percentage of foreign aid was up to 0.55%, or fifty-five pennies out of a hundred dollars of gross net income, under the Mulroney government. It was up to 0.37% and 0.38% under the Harper government, yet in the last several years, it has hovered between 0.26% and 0.28%.

The Liberals say they are back, yet we continue to drop in our place in the world. I wonder if my colleague could comment.

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right. We have seen the government master very well the manipulation of the media in spinning the story about how Canada is back. What we have really seen is that the Liberals have taken first nations children to court, that they are a government plagued by scandal, and that they continue to only look after their Liberal friends and family. This is a shame. It is truly shocking.

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I hope Canadians can see and understand what is going on here, which is that the Conservatives are being a destructive force in the House. They are intentionally doing everything they can to prevent legislation from getting through.

The previous member just said a few minutes ago that he wanted to work with the government, yet what they are trying to oppose right now, what they are trying to prevent from getting to a vote, is a motion to extend the hours of the House so we can continue to do that work on behalf of Canadians.

Canadians should also know and realize that it is only the Conservatives who are playing these games. The NDP and the Bloc are clearly demonstrating that they want to be part of putting forward legislation.

One has to ask oneself, what is it that the Conservatives do not want to see get put forward as legislation? What legislation are they so afraid of? I would argue that it is Bill C-6, a bill to ban conversion therapy. We saw the tactics that they were up to on Friday, intentionally delaying the House.

A member is heckling me right now. I do not think we have to go too far into her record to see how she feels about conversion therapy.

They are intentionally trying to prevent the House from moving forward on progressive legislation such as conversion therapy. We saw what they did on Friday. They held up the House so that we could not debate that. They are doing it again now. They do not want legislation that will protect Canadians, particularly members of our LGBTQ community, to pass in the House.

I am proud to stand with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP to make sure that legislation like Bill C-6 gets put into law as quickly as possible.

With that, I move:

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

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:35 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:35 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Call in the members.

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

Vote #139

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

I declare the motion carried.

Alleged Breaches of Privilege Presented in the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege.

Today, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics tabled its second report. Following the notice I gave you earlier today once that report was tabled, I would like to present you, Madam Speaker, with this question of privilege.

The second report represents the culmination of the ethics committee’s study of the Liberal government’s ethical messes, created under the guise of helping Canadians during the COVID-19 pandemic, all amounting to a pattern of corrupt behaviour. I will set that aside for a moment.

It also presents the House with what I believe are several contempts and breaches of privilege. I should thank the Chair in advance for the indulgence in hearing my submission because regrettably the second report lays out no fewer than seven matters of privilege. Thankfully though, several of them can be grouped together under common themes, which should help us move through some of those points more efficiently.

For everyone's benefit, and in my view, there are three breaches concerning the failure of witnesses to appear before the ethics committee as ordered by this House on March 25. Then there are a further three breaches concerning the government's instruction to those witnesses to defy an order of the House. Finally, there is a matter of misleading or interfering with the evidence provided to committees by the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth.

Let me start with the witnesses' failure to appear. On March 25, the House of Commons ordered, as recorded at pages 699 and 700 of the Journals, the following:

That, with a view to support the authority of committees in their important inquiries of public interest:

(a) regarding the study on questions of conflict of interest and lobbying in relation to pandemic spending by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

It continues:

(ii) Rick Theis, the Prime Minister's Director of Policy and Cabinet Affairs, be ordered to appear before the committee on Monday, March 29, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.,

(iii) Amitpal Singh, the Deputy Prime Minister's Policy Advisor, be ordered to appear before the committee on Wednesday, March 31, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.,

(iv) Ben Chin, the Prime Minister's Senior Advisor, be ordered to appear before the committee on Thursday, April 8, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.

Further down, it states:

(c) should the Prime Minister instead appear before the committees mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b), at any of the dates and times mentioned, for at least three hours, the witness otherwise scheduled to appear, and any other witnesses scheduled to appear before the same committee at a later time, be relieved of their obligation to appear pursuant to this order.

This mode of proceeding whereby the House adopts an order in aid of committee proceedings might be unusual, it is not irregular. Australia's Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, 14th edition, for example, notes at page 51, “The Senate may order particular witnesses to appear before committees. The Senate may also order documents to be produced to committees.”

In any event, appendix A of the second report informs us that the committee agreed to report to the House through that appendix that each of the three witnesses were absent at the appointed times. Furthermore, appendix A confirms that the Prime Minister did not appear on behalf of the three witnesses as the House permitted in its order.

It is well known that a question of privilege must be raised at the earliest opportunity. Given that the March 25 decision of the House makes a hybrid creation of a House order an exclusive aid of a committee proceeding, it raises the question as to the correct venue for bringing forward a complaint concerning any breach.

Our procedural authorities suggest that when committees are involved, the matter must first come to the House through a committee report. Pages 152 and 153 of Marc Bosc and André Gagnon's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, confirms. It states, “Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme situations, they will hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings only upon presentation of a report from the committee which deals directly with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual Member.”

On April 12, that is to say on the first day the House sat following the absence of the witnesses, the law clerk and parliamentary counsel was a witness at the ethics committee, and I asked him for his advice in this exchange.

At page 22 of the evidence, I asked:

In this specific case, sir, of an order of the House being issued for persons to appear at committee and documents to be presented or delivered to committee, what process needs to be followed? Does it first need to be referred by the committee chair to the House, or as it is an order of the House, can the issue simply be raised by a member to the Speaker directly?

The law clerk replied:

Normally, the Speakers have indicated in rulings that, if a matter relates to a committee and to information to be provided to a committee, it would generally be the practice to wait for the committee to first address it, giving the opportunity to the committee to determine it is satisfied.

On the basis of the advice I received, I awaited completion of the ethics committee's work before raising this matter on the floor of the House of Commons, as I am doing right now.

Before moving along, there is one further timing aspect I should speak to since I anticipate the Liberals may address it when they answer these arguments. The committee agreed to request a response pursuant to Standing Order 109 from the government to the report. While Standing Order 109 bars motions for concurrence in the report until the response is tabled or 120 days have elapsed, whichever comes first, I would respectfully submit that this constitutes no barrier to a question of privilege.

Bosc and Gagnon are, for example, silent on the matter. Moreover, Standing Order 48(1) clearly directs “Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.”

Page 81 of Bosc and Gagnon describes breaches of privilege and contempts of Parliament. It states:

Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a “breach of privilege” and is punishable by the House. There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege: tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; ...or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands...

Bosc and Gagnon, on the very next page, favourably refers to the 1999 report of the United Kingdom Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege that attempted to set out various categories of known contempt. The eighth item in that list is “without reasonable excuse, failing to attend before the House or a committee after being summoned to do so.” It is followed by the tenth item “without reasonable excuse, disobeying a lawful order of the House or a committee.”

The point is made even more succinctly at paragraph 15.5 of Erskine May's Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 25th edition, which states “Witnesses who refuse to appear may commit a contempt.”

Paragraph 15.7 meanwhile states:

A particular rule which, if disobeyed, may give rise to proceedings for contempt is the refusal or neglect of a witness or other person to attend either House or a committee when summoned to do so.

These issues go to the heart of Parliament's privileges, a body of law which allows us to carry out duties and responsibilities on behalf of our constituents and whose origins are ancient and anchored in the Canadian Constitution.

Page 137 of Bosc and Gagnon observes the following:

By virtue of the preamble and section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, Parliament has the ability to institute its own inquiries, to require the attendance of witnesses and to order the production of documents, rights which are fundamental to its proper functioning. These rights are as old as Parliament itself...

Indeed, paragraph 234 of the 1999 U.K. report that I just mentioned notes, “At least since Elizabethan times committees have been examining matters where witnesses were required to appear.” To be clear, that is not referring to our present sovereign, but to Her Majesty's namesake who reigned as Queen of England from 1558 to 1603.

Derek Lee, a former Liberal member of the House, for his part, at page 6 of his 1999 book The Power of Parliamentary Houses to Send for Persons, Papers & Records, dates the origin of this power back to the reign of King Edward III, which spanned half of the 14th century.

Alpheus Todd, a former parliamentary librarian, wrote in his 1840 book The Practice and Privileges of the Two Houses of Parliament, at page 313, “It is an essential and undisputed privilege of both Houses of Parliament, which they possess in common with every other court, to summon Witnesses before them for examination upon any subject on which they may require information to guide them in their deliberations.”

The breadth of these powers rooted in our established role as grand inquest of the nation is described at page 190 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, “The only limitations, which could only be self-imposed, would be that any inquiry should relate to a subject within the legislative competence of Parliament, particularly where witnesses and documents are required and the penal jurisdiction of Parliament is contemplated. This dovetails with the right of each House of Parliament to summon and compel the attendance of all persons within the limits of their jurisdictions.”

A moment ago, I referred to the principle that breaches of privilege at the committee level should first be reported from the committee. Bosc and Gagnon provides some examples of such reports, at page 153, which states:

Most matters which have been reported by committees have concerned the behaviour of Members, witnesses or the public, or the disregard of a committee order. Committees have reported to the House on the refusal of witnesses to appear when summoned; the refusal of witnesses to answer questions; the refusal of witnesses to provide papers or records; the refusal of individuals to obey orders of a committee; the divulging of events during an in camera meeting; the disclosure of draft reports; and witnesses lying to a committee. Committees could report on instances of contempt, such as behaviour showing disrespect for the authority or activities of a committee, the intimidation of members or witnesses, or witnesses refusing to be sworn in.

Maingot, at pages 239 and 240, outlines how Messrs. Theis, Singh and Chin's disregard of the March 25 order of the House amounts to contempt:

Disobedience to rules or orders represents an affront to the dignity of the House, and accordingly the House could take action, not simply for satisfaction but to ensure that the House of Commons is held in the respect necessary for its authority to be vindicated. Without proper respect, the House of Commons could not function. Thus, disobedience may well be considered contempt, bearing in mind that the House will, in mitigation of any punishment that may be imposed, be mindful of the surrounding circumstances.

Disobedience of rules or orders is an obvious contempt and would include refusing to attend at the Bar of the House after the House had so ordered, refusing to personally attend and to produce the documents requested by a committee (the formal contempt would only be recognized when the committee reported the incident to the House and the House took action)...

As I noted, the matter of a House order for a witness to attendance at a committee is not a common creature. Nonetheless, our House has experienced this disobedience to its orders for witnesses to appear in the House.

Pages 130 to 132 of Bosc and Gagnon recount some of these examples. The first two entries relevant to this question of privilege begin on page 130:

On March 31 and April 1, 1874, Louis Riel (Provencher) was ordered to attend in his place in the House for having fled from justice in the matter of the Red River Rebellion and the murder of Thomas Scott. He failed to attend and was later expelled from the House....

In 1891, the Public Accounts Committee reported that André Senécal, an employee of the Government Printing Bureau, had failed to appear when called as a witness. The House adopted a motion summoning him to appear at the Bar. When he failed to do so, the House ordered that he be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, who could not locate him. No further action was taken.

The latter case concerning Mr. Senécal, a public servant holding the office of superintendent of printing, begins in the House's records at page 454 of Journals on August 27, 1891, when the public accounts committee reported that Mr. Senécal failed to appear when summoned, though the sought-after witness claimed he was following medical advice and, furthermore, had offered his resignation from his government position.

While Bosc and Gagnon noted that no further action was taken concerning Mr. Senécal, it was not for a lack of trying. The acting sergeant-at-arms, Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Smith, informed the House, at column 4747 of the Debates for September 1, 1891:

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to report that the witness Senécal left Ottawa on or about the 24th ultimo, and, although I have made careful enquiry, I have been unable to ascertain his present whereabouts. In consequence of his absence, the Order for him to attend at the Bar of the House this afternoon, was left with a member of his family at his Ottawa residence.

A further incident, this one involving a member of the House being investigated in a corruption scandal, is recounted by Bosc and Gagnon at page 136. It states:

In 1891, Thomas McGreevy (Quebec West) was accused by Israel Tarte (Montmorency) of corrupt practices concerning construction work in the harbour at Quebec City, and the matter was referred by the House to the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Mr. McGreevy refused to answer questions put to him while appearing before the Committee. The Committee reported this to the House on August 12, 1891, and requested that the House take action. On August 13, Mr. McGreevy was ordered by the House to attend in his place on August 18. On that day, Mr. McGreevy was found not to be in attendance and the Sergeant-at-Arms was ordered to take the Member into custody.

The records of the House concerning Mr. McGreevy show that the orders of the House were not mere words printed on paper. When Mr. McGreevy did not appear at the appointed hour on August 18, 1891, column 4001 of the Debates shows that Mr. Speaker Peter White updated the House on the matter. He stated:

I am informed by the Clerk that a copy of the Order of the House of Thursday last, duly signed by himself, was forwarded by post on Friday last to Hon. Thomas McGreevy at Quebec, when it was learned that he was not at Ottawa, and a telegram communicating the Order was at the same time sent to him at Quebec. The manager of the North-Western Telegraph Company at Quebec has informed the Clerk that the telegram was duly delivered to Hon. Thomas McGreevy on Friday last at 2.45 p.m., in the office of the Richelieu and Ottawa Navigation Company.

When the House ordered Mr. McGreevy into custody, Lieutenant-Colonel Smith did not just keep a copy of the order in his pocket; he jumped on a train and he went in pursuit of the absconding MP. Page 422 of the Journals for August 20, 1891, reveals the following entry:

Mr. Speaker informed the House, that, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 18th instant, he had issued his Warrant to the Acting Segeant-at-Arms for the taking into custody of the Honourable Thomas McGreevy, and that he had received the following report from that office: —

House of Commons

Ottawa, 20th August, 1891.

Sir, — I have the honour to report that I reached Quebec yesterday, at 3 o'Clock, p.m., and at once made diligent search for Mr. Thomas McGreevy at his residence, office and other places, but could not find him. Later I was informed, on what I considered good authority, that he had left Quebec by the Grand Trunk Railway, but I was unable to ascertain his destination. I have no doubt that he left Quebec several hours before I arrive in that city.

I have the honour to be, sir

Your obedient servant,

Henry R. Smith,

Acting Sergeant-at-Arms, House of Commons

In the end, the privileges committee, which had been investigating the corruption allegation against Mr. McGreevy, completed its work and reported back to the House. Bosc and Gagnon note the outcome at page 136:

On September 29, the House adopted a resolution finding Mr. McGreevy guilty of contempt of the authority of the House by not attending in his place when ordered, as well as being guilty of certain other offences. The House then adopted a second resolution expelling Mr. McGreevy.

This was based on the findings of the privileges committee.

Going back to Bosc and Gagnon's list, which I introduced earlier, at pages 131 and 132, the next relevant case is the following:

In 1894, two witnesses (Jean Baptiste Provost and Omer Edouard Larose) failed to appear when summoned as witnesses before the Privileges and Elections Committee. The Committee reported this and asked for “the action of the House”. A motion was adopted summoning the two witnesses to appear before the Bar. They failed to comply and the House ordered them to be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms in order to be brought to the Bar of the House. They later appeared, answered questions and were discharged.

This 1894 case concerned two Quebec City grocers who failed to appear when summoned by a committee that was undertaking another corruption investigation respecting a member. They based their refusal on the fact they had not been advanced money for their travel expenses. The witnesses persisted in their refusal, even in the face of an order of the House of Commons but, as noted, the House ordered them into custody and the Sergeant-at-Arms saw to it.

Upon being called to the bar, Mr. Provost and Mr. Larose were each asked by Prime Minister Sir John Thompson the same two questions recorded at pages 299 and 300 of the Journals for June 13, 1894, which state:

1. Have you any explanation to offer of your disobedience to the summons of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of this House requiring your attendance before the Committee, and of the Order of The House requiring your attendance at the Bar of The House?

2. Are you prepared to undertake to The House that you will, if relieved from custody, attend and testify before the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections at the first meeting of the Committee and at each meeting thereafter until relieved from further attendance?

Following the two witnesses' positive answers to the latter question, the House discharged them from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

As for a witness defying an order to appear at committee, at page 548, Odgers comments that Australian Senate orders of this nature have had a different experience from our March 25 order. It states:

In all such cases the orders were complied with and witnesses duly appeared, or, in one case, required documents were produced. They were all public office-holders; this procedure has not been used in respect of private citizens.

The United Kingdom's House of Commons on the other hand, quite recently had an experience closer to our own. In 2018, that House's Digital Culture, Media and Sport Committee reported to the House that as part of its study into “fake news” it had invited, then ordered, Dominic Cummings, who had been the campaign director for the Vote Leave campaign in the 2016 Brexit referendum to appear for the purpose of giving evidence.

Mr. Cummings defied the order and on June 5, 2018, that committee reported to the House that his absence “constitutes a serious interference with the ability of this Committee to discharge the task assigned to it by the House.”

In response, on June 7, 2018, the U.K. House of Commons passed the following motions recorded at pages 1 and 2 of the Votes and Proceedings:

Resolved, That this House takes note of the Third Special Report of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee (HC 1115);

Ordered, That Mr Dominic Cummings give an undertaking to the Committee, no later than 6 pm on 11 June 2018, to appear before that Committee at a time on or before 20 June 2018.

Page 5 of the Votes and Proceedings for June 20, 2018, shows that the committee's chair reported to the House that Mr. Cummings failed to comply with the House's orders. Then on June 28, 2018, the House referred the matter to its committee on privileges. After the privileges committee reported back to the House of Commons—

Alleged Breaches of Privilege Presented in the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is clearly using a question of privilege, which is a sacred tool to be used in the House under very important and exceptional circumstances, for the sole purpose of delaying a debate on the very important motion of extending the hours of the House. I would ask you to consider the clear objective and motive of what he is doing and perhaps encourage him to allow the House to get on with the business that Canadians rightfully deserve of us.

Alleged Breaches of Privilege Presented in the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON

Madam Chair, on that point of order, I would encourage all members to stay and hear my response on points of order.

The issue I am raising is of tremendous importance to the House. The timing of this item being referred to the House is directly dictated by the government. First, the government sets the agenda of the House. Second, this was the first available opportunity that I had to rise following the tabling of the report by the committee chair, which contained the report back from him that these witnesses had failed to appear.

With respect to the importance of this versus the importance of the item the member wishes to debate, this item deals with an order of the House passed by a majority of members that ordered witnesses to appear. It was not complied with.

I will continue, with the Chair's permission, to make the case as to why it is an affront to parliamentary democracy when an order of the House is defied. I have not been repetitive in what I have offered. I have not deviated from the subject at hand. As I have said, I raised this at the first available opportunity and did notify you, Madam Speaker, at least one hour prior to my rising on this point. I appreciate your consideration.

Alleged Breaches of Privilege Presented in the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. The member has been talking about Louis Riel and train robberies. That is literally what he has been talking about.

This is going to make a great video later on for showing how the Conservatives are filibustering the House. I am sure that the member does not want his constituents in his riding, which is less than 100 kilometres from here, to find out about the antics he has been up to.

However, there certainly has to be some form of relevance here when you, Madam Speaker, are considering this.

Alleged Breaches of Privilege Presented in the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

I am going to listen to advice and will be back in a few moments.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

Alleged Breaches of Privilege Presented in the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON

Madam Speaker, the relevance of the point that the member has mentioned is that it dealt with individuals who were found in contempt of this place. Individuals failing to follow an order of the House may be found by the House to be in contempt.

One of the issues at hand is that we had ministers of the crown interfere with an order of this House by instructing witnesses, who had been ordered by this place to appear at committee, not to appear. The comparison between what may be found in contempt, with the example given by the member of Louis Riel, and the potential for contempt by ministers of the crown to have openly and publicly stated in written form that they instructed individuals to defy an order of the House is certainly—

Alleged Breaches of Privilege Presented in the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

I get the hon. member's point. I will get back to the House.

On advice, I would like to remind the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes that:

A Member recognized on a question of privilege is expected to be brief and concise in explaining the event which has given rise to the question of privilege and the reasons that consideration of the event complained of should be given precedence over other House business.

I will give the hon. member a few more minutes to make his point. This is just a reminder to be concise in explaining his reasons.