Debates of June 10th, 2021

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

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

Madam Speaker, in spite of the outburst from the member for Kingston and the Islands, I would note that as a courtesy to the House, I have combined multiple questions of privilege into this one. If the Chair would prefer, I can rise in succession on each point, but this will certainly be more brief than if I were to do that. However, I am not just raising one question of privilege. I note in your ruling that this does take precedence over the orders of the day. It is important to the function of this place. I will continue.

While the member for Kingston and the Islands continues to interrupt and is very concerned about the constituents in my riding of Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, I can assure him that Canadians are very disappointed that the government has found itself filibustering committees for 43 hours at ethics, 73 hours at Procedure and House Affairs and 35 hours at the Standing Committee on Finance. The Liberals shut down the study at the national defence committee by filibustering for more than 16 hours. I could go on with that list, so while the member for Kingston and the Islands continues to interrupt the proceedings of this place with his suggestions about how long this should take, I think that the precedents and the orders of this place have been quite clear and that for me to raise the multiple breaches of privilege of this place, which are older than any of us and are as old as this place itself, is tremendously important, so I will continue.

In response, the United Kingdom House of Commons on June 7, 2018, passed the following motion recorded at pages 1 and 2 of 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 order of the House.

Then on June 20, 2018, the House referred the matter to its Committee of Privileges. After the privileges committee reported back to the House of Commons, the House on April 2, 2019, adopted a motion on the committee's recommendation finding Mr. Cummings in contempt, and admonished him as recorded on page 1 of the Votes and Proceedings.

In opening this segment of my presentation, I referred to Bosc and Gagnon adding a caveat of “without reasonable excuse”. The present case, I would argue, can be dealt with very quickly considering that none of the three witnesses offered any excuse for their absence.

I acknowledge that two cabinet ministers wrote to the ethics committee chair to indicate that they would appear on behalf of the witnesses, but that does not constitute an excuse from the witnesses personally. In the alternative, I would say it does not amount to a reasonable excuse.

While I plan to address the government's position that staff are not compellable witnesses when I make my argument that the government's interference with the March 25 order of the House constitutes prima facie contempt in its own right, I have a few brief points at this juncture.

First, the government, through its House leader, advanced this position in debate in the House on March 25, yet the House still adopted the motion for this order.

Second, the House's order did actually permit someone to appear on a substituted basis in the name of ministerial responsibility: the Prime Minister. However, he did not appear as permitted by the order.

Third, the ethics committee did not accept the government's position. This can be seen from the comments in the second report as well as from the records of the meetings the witnesses were due to attend.

Fourth, should the Chair hold the view that it could still be weighed as a possible reasonable excuse, I would submit that the place to do that at this stage is through an amendment to any privilege motion that might arise from this proceeding on the basis the government can test the will of the House for its perspective on these matters.

In this case, it is quite clear. The House adopted an order, and the order was breached completely. There was no effort by the witnesses to meet it in any way, nor was any excuse advanced by them to be weighed by the House or for the committee to assess and report its findings. Therefore, with respect to the first three matters of privilege, the absence of Mr. Theis, Mr. Singh and Mr. Chin, I respectfully submit that you, Madam Speaker, should find prima facie contempt here.

On the next question of privilege, I wish to turn to the government's role in preventing Mr. Theis, Mr. Singh and Mr. Chin from appearing as witnesses at the committee. The government has freely admitted to this course of conduct, both in advance and at the time of the scheduled appearances.

In his remarks to the House on March 25, the government House leader said, at page 5,234 of Debates:

I say here today that ministers will instruct their staff not to appear when called before committees and that the government will send ministers instead to account for their actions.

Though I find such an openly defiant attitude to be contemptuous in and of itself, I will speak to the specific instances of interference concerning the three witnesses.

In advance of the March 29 ethics committee meeting, the government House leader sent a letter to the chair of the ethics committee, further to his statement to the House the week before, writing:

Accordingly, Mr Rick Theis, Director of Policy to the Prime Minister, has been instructed to not appear before the committee. In his place, I will attend the meeting on behalf of the government on Monday, March 29th.

We are not talking about train robberies anymore.

On May 3, at a meeting of the ethics committee originally convened on April 23, the committee adopted a motion, which can be found in appendix A of the second report, that says, at paragraph 5, that the committee noted that the government House leader appeared on Monday, March 29, 2021 instead of Rick Theis, “who followed the government instructions that staff are not to appear before committees which were outlined during the debate in the House on Thursday, March 25, 2021”.

I would like to add that the ethics committee did not accept the government House leader as a substitute witness in satisfaction of the order. Indeed, the committee, at the March 29 meeting, adopted a motion that states, “in relation to its study on questions of conflict of interest and lobbying in relation to pandemic spending, the committee invite [the minister] to appear.” He was treated as a separate witness, invited independently of and without any link to the March 25 order of the House.

When the government House leader appeared at the committee, he said, at page 13 of Evidence:

Based on the instructions I gave the other day, it was clear to Mr. Theis and other individuals that they wouldn't appear before committees and would be replaced by the appropriate ministers....

The minister even acknowledged, at page 8 of the evidence, that this was an unsatisfactory arrangement to the majority of the House, when he said:

I am aware that some of the members of this committee would rather be hearing from a staff member from the Prime Minister's Office, Mr. Rick Theis, but as I told the House last week and I want to make clear again, we fundamentally disagree with [that] decision....

At page 22, I asked whether Mr. Theis would have been fired had he ignored the government instruction and honoured the order of the House of Commons. The government House leader denied it, but defensively added, “Why are you asking that?”

Now, we turn to the other two witnesses: Mr. Singh and Mr. Chin.

In a letter addressed to the chair of the committee on March 30, the Associate Minister of Finance wrote:

Mr. Amitpal Singh has been instructed to not appear before the committee. In his place, I will attend the meeting on behalf of the government on Wednesday, 31 March 2021.

In another letter to the committee's chair, on April 7, the associate minister wrote:

Mr. Ben Chin has been instructed to not appear before the committee. In his place, I will attend the meeting on behalf of the government on Thursday, 8 April 2021.

The same motion adopted by the committee on May 3 and recorded in appendix A of the second report acknowledged, at paragraph 6, that the committee noted that the Associate Minister of Finance “also requested to appear on [Wednesday] March 31 and [Thursday] April 8, 2021 on behalf of witnesses Amitpal Singh and Ben Chin who followed the government instructions that staff are not to appear before committees which were outlined during the debate in the House on [Thursday] March 25, 2021”.

Earlier in my remarks, I cited page 81 of Bosc and Gagnon on a description of privilege, which is equally applicable in this separate question of privilege. From the list, which I had mentioned can be found at page 82, I would refer the Chair to the 11th and 13th items: “interfering with or obstructing a person who is carrying out a lawful order of the House or a committee” and “intimidating, preventing or hindering a witness from giving evidence or giving evidence in full to the House or a committee”.

Clearly, Mr. Theis, Mr. Singh and Mr. Chin were prevented from, and maybe even hindered in their ability of, carrying out a lawful order of the House of Commons, namely giving evidence to the ethics committee.

For his part, Maingot comments on page 240:

Obstructing, interfering with, or preventing execution or orders of the House or of a committee would be akin to aiding and abetting a person to commit an offence. Taking action to prevent an order of the House from being carried out could result in contempt because it also represents an affront to the authority of the House.

McGee's Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, fourth edition, states at page 774:

Any attempt to intimidate, prevent or hinder a witness from giving evidence in full to the House or a committee may be held to be a contempt. Such intimidation or hindrance may be overt (for example, physically preventing a witness from attending and giving evidence) or less overt (for example, offering a bribe to give false testimony, or taking legal action to prevent a witness from giving evidence or from producing all the evidence in his or her possession).

Page 1080 of Bosc and Gagnon adds, “Tampering with a witness or in any way attempting to deter a witness from giving evidence may constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege.”

Erskine May, at paragraph 15.21, declares, “Any conduct calculated to deter prospective witnesses from giving evidence before either House or a committee is a contempt.” The same point is also made in paragraph 38.59. Erskine May expands upon the concept at paragraph 15.22:

A resolution setting out that to tamper with a witness in regard to the evidence to be given before either House or any committee of either House or to endeavour, directly or indirectly, to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence is a contempt, was formerly agreed to by the Commons at the beginning of every session. However, following a report from the Procedure Committee which concluded that the sessional passing of such resolutions, although they had some value as statements of intent, did not add anything to the House's powers to deal with contempts or (in the case of tampering with witnesses or the giving of false evidence on oath) the relevant statutory powers, the House agreed in 2004 to dispense with them.

There have been in the past numerous instances of punishment for offences of this kind. Corruption or intimidation, though a usual, is not an essential ingredient in this offence. It is equally a contempt to attempt by persuasion or solicitations of any kind to induce a witness not to attend, or to withhold evidence or to give false evidence.

This matter was considered in 1935 by a committee of the Commons which reported that, in its opinion, it was a breach of privilege to give any advice to a witness which took the form of pressure or of interference with their freedom to form and express their own opinions honestly in the light of all the facts known to them; and the House resolved that it agreed with the committee in its report.

The annual resolutions referred to in that passage can be traced as far back as February 21, 1700, when the English House of Commons adopted a resolution, at page 350 of Journal, which says:

That if it shall appear that any person hath been tampering with any Witness, in respect of his evidence to be given to this House, or any Committee thereof, or directly or indirectly hath endeavoured to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence, the same is declared to be a high crime and misdemeanour; and this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.

Insight into just how severe, even in the case where contrition had been expressed, can be gleaned from Speaker Shaw-Lefevre's admonition of a witness at the bar of the United Kingdom's House of Commons on March 22, 1842, which is recorded at page 143 in Journal. It says:

John Ashworth, any interruption of the proceedings of this House, or of any committees of this House, can only be regarded as contempt of its authority, and your offence is much aggravated by the circumstances under which it took place. By improperly interfering with the testimony of a witness under examination, you did your utmost to obstruct the discovery of truth, and defeat the ends of justice. Such conduct cannot be allowed to pass entirely without censure; but that the House, always anxious to act with lenity, and taking into its consideration the contrition you have expressed, and believing that your offence was unpremeditated, has directed me to admonish you as to your future conduct; and I trust that this admonition will be a warning to others that this House will not deal so leniently with an offence of this description, if repeated by another individual. You are now discharged from further attendance upon this House.

Of course, in today's case, we have had defiance, not contrition, and coordinated planning, not unpremeditated actions.

Maingot, at pages 236 and 237, addresses the protection afforded to witnesses and others besides members and officers when they are engaged in parliamentary proceedings and committees. He says:

There do not appear to be any Canadian precedents of persons being so obstructed; yet, because the House of Commons need not be so constrained by lack of precedent, it may in its judgment find a person or persons in contempt after an examination of the facts in any particular case.

In Speaker Milliken's much-celebrated ruling on Afghan detainee documents on April 27, 2010, which we have heard about in recent days, he also made some less well-remembered comments on witness matters, including at page 2,041 of Debates, which says that “the procedural authorities are clear that interference with witnesses may constitute a contempt.”

Beyond the matter of the government's so-called “instructions”, at page 13 of the ethics committee March 29 evidence, the government House leader made the claim that “ministerial responsibility means that a minister can replace an employee who reports to the minister, not to Parliament.”

That is just not so. In fact, it is, in my view, a gross misstatement of several constitutional principles. Even if accepted, the government House leader's position is defeated by the facts. Two of the witnesses are employees of and answer to the Prime Minister, while the third is an employee of the Deputy Prime Minister. Neither of those two ministers offered to replace their employees. Of course, the House contemplated the very possibility of the Prime Minister attending on behalf of his employees, something he failed to do, either in accordance with the order of the House or with the policy articulated by the government House leader.

Ministerial staff enjoy no special status in law. Pages 981 to 983 of Bosc and Gagnon state quite clearly that:

The Standing Orders place no explicit limitation on this power. In theory, it applies to any person on Canadian soil.... In practice, certain limitations are recognized on the power to order individuals to appear. Because committee powers do not extend outside Canadian territory, a committee cannot summon a person who is in another country. The Sovereign (either in Canada or abroad), the Governor General and the provincial lieutenant governors are also exempt from such a summons.

This applies as well to parliamentarians belonging to other Canadian legislatures, because each of these assemblies, like the House of Commons, has the parliamentary privilege of controlling the attendance of its members and any matters affecting them. The same logic explains why a standing committee cannot order a Member of the House of Commons or a Senator to appear. At issue in all these examples is the power to order someone to appear; nothing prevents such individuals from appearing voluntarily before a committee following a simple invitation, apart from the obligation incumbent upon some of them to obtain leave from the House to which they belong....

Although they can send for certain persons, standing committees do not have the power to punish a failure to comply with their orders in this regard. Only the House of Commons has the disciplinary powers needed to deal with this type of offence. If a witness refuses to appear, or does not appear, as ordered, the committee’s recourse is to report the matter to the House. Once seized with the matter, the House takes the measures that it considers appropriate.

No where on those lists are ministerial staff exempt or political staff more generally. Moreover, there is no general authority for a minister to come as a substitute, though I would again observe that the House, in crafting its March 25 order, accommodated ministerial responsibility by permitting the Prime Minister to appear on behalf of his employees.

To contrast the government's selective approach to parliamentary accountability for those who work under them, let us look at the 1891 case of Mr. Senécal, the public servant whom I discussed earlier. In that case, Mr. Senécal's own minister sat on the committee to which he was ordered to attend, and according to the public accounts committee minutes of evidence for August 27, 1891, the minister did not claim some kind of higher principle of ministerial accountability to excuse the witness's absence. The minister stated:

In connection with the letter which has just been read from the Superintendent of Printing, I may say I have had no communication with Mr. Senécal, nor even with his family, and did not even know that such a letter would be sent to the Chairman of the Committee. In justice, however, to a man who is absent, and against whom I suppose it is necessary that the ordinary proceedings should be taken to force his attendance here....

I wish it to be well understood, as I stated before, I know nothing about the whereabouts of Mr. Senécal. I do not want to justify his action in writing a letter, or his leaving. I only think it is just for an absent man, to state what I know to be the case....

A former general legal counsel for this House Diane Davidson wrote in a 1994 paper provided to the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Twenty minutes ago you asked the member to be concise and encouraged him to wrap it up in a few minutes. I am wondering if those few minutes have expired so we can carry on with the business of the day.

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

Madam Speaker, as I noted to you following your ruling, I have multiple questions of privilege. I have moved onto a different question of privilege, as I noted for all members of this House, including the member for Kingston and the Islands, who I know is paying very close attention to what is happening in this place and is not worried about what videos he is going to make about the opposition holding the government to account.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that the member for Kingston and the Islands continues to challenge your authority as Chair, and I think that is despicable. It should not be allowed. I think you need to admonish that individual for continuing to challenge your role.

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

I have been trying to be quite open to the hon. member's position in that the hon. member is presenting multiple points of privilege, but notice was given of one point of privilege.

We have allowed for 45 minutes of presentation and argument. I would invite the member to try to sum it up in the next five minutes or so. We usually allow for the argument on a question of privilege once the Speaker has made a ruling on it.

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

Madam Speaker, my notice to you, respectfully, indicated that I was raising seven questions of privilege. I would invite you, should you require it, to suspend, and I could furnish you with a copy of the letter that was provided to your office, as per the requirement of one hour's notice, or perhaps the table officers would have the opportunity to get that letter for you.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the point of order mentioned by the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, I would hope that the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes is not challenging the ruling that was just made.

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

I will quote the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes's letter, which was received this morning. It does say, “'In the interest of bringing clarity to this procedure from now on, the Chair will not accept notices of questions of privilege based on committee reports until after the reports are tabled'”, quoting a ruling of Milliken, and which we did. The hon. member goes onto say, “I will argue that the report makes out no fewer than seven breaches of privilege in relation to failures” and it goes on.

The letter refers to one presentation. It says, “Should you find a prima facie case of privilege, I intend to move a motion which I have attached in draft”. This is, as I explained earlier, the normal procedure. When we receive notices of questions of privilege, we get a summary of what the question of privilege is. The Speaker then makes a ruling on the order of the question, and then the hon. member will have the opportunity to present the full case.

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

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

Madam Speaker, as I noted in the letter, there are seven separate questions of privilege, but it did say I would rise once. My indication to the Chair was that I would not rise seven separate times but one time for the efficiency of the House and so as to not waste the Speaker's time.

I would again appeal to that in your consideration of the amount of time afforded me to raise these multiple questions. If it is necessary that I furnish your office with additional letters following the conclusion of this question of privilege so I can raise the outstanding items, if that would lends itself to the efficiency of this place, I defer to your rulings.

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

The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock is rising on a point of order.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I refer you to Speaker Milliken's ruling from October 18, 2006, where he defines the issue of concise. It has nothing to do with length.

Speaker Milliken stated:

It is apparent to me from the examples cited above that the interpretation of the term concise in Standing Order 39(2) has evolved since this rule was first adopted. It is no longer interpreted to mean short or brief but rather comprehensible.

I would argue this definition of concise should apply across the board to all proceedings and to this question of privilege. I have been listening, and the material being presented is relevant and comprehensible to the matters before the House. It is my submission that the member should be allowed to finish his submission.

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

I thank the member for her contribution.

I will answer the point made by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. We have allowed for 45 minutes of presentation of arguments so far. Whereas the member claims there are seven different points, they are very similar, as are the arguments the member has brought forth.

I will allow for another few minutes of this, but when I am satisfied I have heard enough to go to the consideration of the prima facie case, I will then resume the proceedings.

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

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

Madam Speaker, a former general legal counsel for this House, Diane Davidson, wrote in a 1994 paper provided to the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations:

As to the status of public servants and Ministers as a question of law only, I would subscribe to the conclusion of the Ontario Law Reform Commission in its 1981 Report on Witnesses Before Legislative Committees...that these witnesses are in the same position as any other witness—in theory they could be compelled to testify on any issue, answer any questions or produce any document. There is no legally guaranteed immunity from Parliament's broad power to call for information, and therefore no special status is conferred.

New Zealand's House of Representatives shares the perspective as McGee notes on page 494:

The power to summon witnesses and order the production of documents is not limited in its application to public servants, Government bodies, or other public agencies. It extends to ordering individuals, corporate and private bodies to appear before the House or a committee to give evidence....

In 2013, the Parliament of the United Kingdom's Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege considered a government green paper on parliamentary privilege that, among other things, asked whether Parliament's ability to compel MPs, civil servants and judges should be extinguished. The committee, at paragraph 87, spoke powerfully against the idea of exempting government employees from the power to send for persons:

Reducing Committees’ powers to call for civil servants would rebalance the relationship between the legislature and the Executive in the Executive’s favour. The Osmotherly rules, which guide officials in their dealings with Committees of the two Houses, are a creation of the Executive, not of Parliament. As a matter of principle, we see no reason why civil servants should be in a different position from other members of the public.

The law clerk advanced the point that there is no immunity for ministerial staff when he appeared before ethics committee on April 12, and the committee thought fit in appendix A of the second report to include a summary of his evidence on this very point:

Mr. Dufresne stated that political staff and public servants have no immunity, by virtue of their positions, from requests to testify before parliamentary committees. He also suggested that the topics of discussion and the different roles that ministers and political staff play have been factors for deciding which person is the more appropriate witness to testify on a given topic.

As to that point, the authorities tend to describe the tendency to show deference toward public servants because it is, in a system of responsible government, ministers who, quite rightly, ought to account to Parliament for policy choices and overall government administration.

In the present case, we are not looking to have Messrs. Theis, Singh and Chin account for the merits of helping young Canadians during a pandemic, nor are we looking to discuss the Canada student service grant concept in its broadest terms as the vehicle to deliver the support. They are, bluntly, fact witnesses who directly participated in a number of transactions that led to WE Charity's partnership with the Liberal government being conceived, developed and refined. They personally possess direct knowledge of various transactions and could assist the committee in connecting many of the dots which ministers and senior officials, evidence and documents have laid out.

Reverting back to appendix A, the ethics committee further noted:

Mr. Dufresne argued that because the House of Commons ordered the witnesses to appear, only the House of Commons has the power to absolve a witness from that order.

In debates this year, the government has sought to compare itself to its predecessor. This was also addressed with the law clerk during his April 12 ethics committee appearance, which is summarized at appendix A:

In response to members’ questions, Mr. Dufresne explained that a similar situation occurred in 2010, when a parliamentary committee ordered political staff to appear. At that time, ministers appeared instead of political staff, based on the argument that ministers were the appropriate witnesses to respond to the committee based on the principles of responsible government. However, he noted that that instance was based on an order from the committee and not from the House of Commons.

I would also go further and point out that the committee in question, also the ethics committee, deliberated on escalating the absence of three staff witnesses into a report to the House, but on October 7, 2010, by a five to three vote, negatived a motion to make that report.

In the circumstances, I would argue that the 2010 ethics committee had, by majority vote, accepted the substitution of ministers for the staff witnesses. Indeed, as the law clerk observed, the originator of the order, the committee in that case, judged compliance with it, and by voting against taking further action, it demonstrated it was satisfied.

In short, only the originator of an order can assess compliance or give relief from it. Certainly ministers or even Prime Ministers do not have the authority to waive orders of the House respecting witnesses as the government House leader may claim.

Harry Evans, former Clerk of the Senate of Australia, wrote in a January 29, 1993 memorandum to the chairman of the Senate select committee on the powers, functions and operation of the Australian Loan Council, which forms appendix 5 of that committee's March 1993 interim report:

You have sought advice on the hypothesis that...the Prime Minister may have improperly interfered with a potential witness before the Committee by directing or encouraging that person, namely the Treasurer, not to assist the Committee or to appear before it. The Prime Minister enjoys no special immunity from the provisions relating to interference with witnesses.... Evidence that a minister wished to assist a committee and was deterred from doing so by, for example, threats of dismissal from office, could generate proceedings for contempt....

Since then, the Australian Senate has built up a body of experience with respect to the matter of ordering the attendance of ministerial staff at committees. Pages 566 and 567 of Odgers' recounts:

The question has occasionally arisen as to whether Senate committees may summon ministerial staff and departmental liaison officers to appear before them and give evidence. Such persons have no immunity against being summoned to attend and give evidence, either under the rules of the Senate or as a matter of law. Departmental liaison officers are not in any different category from other departmental officers. From time to time it has been suggested that ministerial staff are in a special category and should not give evidence before parliamentary committees. Such staff have, however, appeared before Senate committees and given evidence, both voluntarily and under summons. In February 1995 the then Minister for Finance, Mr Beazley, declined to allow the Director of the National Media Liaison Service (NMLS) to appear before a Senate committee to give evidence about the activities of the NMLS on the ground that that person was a member of ministerial staff. The Senate passed a resolution directing that person to appear before the committee, and he subsequently appeared and gave evidence accordingly. The preamble to the Senate's resolution pointed out that the NMLS was provided with public funds, and it was stated in debate that the resolution did not set a precedent for summoning ministerial staff, but the passage of the resolution indicates—

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

I call the hon. member to order. I think I have heard the gist of the question of privilege and we will proceed to orders of the day. I have made the decision.

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wanted to let you know that the NDP reserves the right to be able to respond to this question of privilege.

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

The hon. member is duly noted.

The hon. member for Manicouagan.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, same for the Bloc Québécois. We reserve the right to respond to a later time.

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

Madam Speaker, if you find it acceptable, I would like a future opportunity to perhaps furnish your office with some of my arguments in a written form. After having heard from other colleagues, I would also note that while the Chair has decided that the points were similar to this point, I would also offer respectfully that there is an issue dissimilar to those points in the matter of a minister of the Crown misleading a committee during testimony. I offer that for the Chair's consideration.

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

The hon. member will submit the whole document.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for La Prairie.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to discuss the motion moved by the Liberal Party that seeks to give us more time at the end of the session so we can continue to work on bills and extend our sitting hours. This will apply to three weekdays. On Monday and Wednesday, the House will sit until midnight, and on Friday, until 4:30 p.m.

That was not what was originally proposed. This is never usually a problem, because members here, especially Bloc Québécois members, are hard workers. When we are asked to sit longer, we almost always gladly say yes. We still have many bills to get through, and this will allow us to move them forward. At the same time, this year is different, which has made the debate a little more challenging, to say the least. After listening to the Conservatives for the past two days, it is fair to say that the debate has been a little more challenging.

This process normally runs like clockwork, so why is it more difficult this year?

It is because of the pandemic. We are working in a hybrid Parliament, and that complicates things. Because of the hybrid Parliament, we are currently having trouble keeping the committees operating as they should. We need to make choices because resources are limited and our incredible interpreters are overworked. We need to consider that the more time we spend in the House, the less time we will be able to spend in committee. That is a basic economic concept called “opportunity cost”. The gain from choosing one alternative means taking a loss somewhere else.

That is why the debate was a bit more acrimonious. I say that with all due respect. That is also why we discussed this issue with the government. The initial proposal would have eliminated eight committee meetings a week, which is huge. As we know, the work that committees do is extremely important. Eliminating eight committee meetings a week for the benefit of the House is all well and good, but it would have made the committee work more difficult. That is why time allocation was imposed.

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

I see the hon. member for Jonquière is rising on a point of order.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, did I hear my colleague from La Prairie say that he would be sharing his time with me?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry. My hon. colleague from Jonquière is absolutely right. I mentioned it, but I used my inner voice. I was unable to speak because my lips were zipped. It happens sometimes and I am very sorry.

You are very kind, Madam Speaker, to give us a chance to share our time. You will not regret it because the member for Jonquière is a great orator. You will be impressed by what he has to say.

Now, for the matter at hand. That reduced the amount of time we would have liked to have in the House. Of course, we must understand that these are extraordinary circumstances. In addition to the pandemic, which is complicating the work that we do in the House and in committee because of limited resources, there is something else going on. I will give my colleagues the scoop. They will be impressed by what I know. We are in a minority Parliament. No one seems surprised to hear that, I see.

This means that an election can happen at any time. Some may expect, and I say so with due regard, that elections may perhaps be called in August, September or October. Over the weekend, the Prime Minister appeared on different television stations. It is as though the Liberals are getting ready. It is as though he had put on his running shoes. It may not mean that he is going to call an election, but it might be about that. Now, we are going to prepare for an election.

There are lots of irons in the fire. A lot of documents are on the table and they just need a little push to be passed. In some cases, it represents the fruit of almost one year's labour. Some bills have been waiting for a long time, and we must try to pass them so we can say that our efforts bore fruit. That is always rewarding.

The Liberals recently told us that they have priorities, including Bill C‑6, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to conversion therapy, Bill C‑10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, Bill C‑12, Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, Bill C‑19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with regard to the COVID‑19 response, and Bill C‑30, budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1. Those are the government's absolute priorities.

The Liberals also have two other priorities that they would like to refer to committee. I will not speak at length about them, but I am talking about Bills C‑21 and C‑22. We need to move these bills along.

For reasons it has already given, the Bloc Québécois absolutely wants Bill C‑10 to be passed by Parliament and the Senate, because that is what the cultural sector wants.

Madam Speaker, you know Quebec as well as anyone. You are the member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert, and there are surely artists in your riding who have called and asked you to help get this bill passed because Quebec's cultural vitality depends on it.

Quebec's culture is very important; it is the soul of a nation. This bill must be passed. Quebeckers are calling for it, the Quebec National Assembly has unanimously called for it, and my colleagues know that Quebec's cultural sector is waiting for this bill. We want to be able to accomplish this goal we have been working so hard on.

Unfortunately, we must face the fact that the Liberal Party is in power. I have been in Parliament for a year and a half. I was expecting to be impressed. I thought it would be impressive to see 338 members of Parliament capably and efficiently managing a huge country. As I watched the Liberals manage their legislative agenda I was disappointed on more than one occasion, and even very disappointed at times. They did not seem to want to get anything done. It never seemed as though they were taking things seriously.

For example, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs worked very hard on Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act regarding the COVID-19 response. We held 11 meetings and heard from 20 experts at all levels, and we finished drafting the report after the Liberals had introduced the bill.

If I were a sensitive guy, I might have thought I had done all that work for nothing. It might have hurt my feelings. Think of how much work went into coming up with solutions to help the government draft a smart bill. Instead, the government chose to introduce its bill before the committee had even completed its study, without even looking at what we had to say. To top it off, the government waited another three months to bring it up for debate, and that debate lasted just four hours.

Then it decided to move time allocation because the matter was suddenly so urgent despite the fact that the government spent just four hours on it over the course of five months, choosing instead to engage in three months' worth of obstruction at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which wanted to move the bill forward but was working on prorogation and had asked the Prime Minister to appear.

Once the obstruction was over, we asked if we could carry on with our work, but the government accused us of delaying the committee's work when it was actually the Liberals who stalled things. Once again, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had to get to work on Bill C‑19 at the last minute.

That is how the government is managing its legislative agenda, and I could go on about that for hours. On Bill C‑10, the committee wanted the ministers to appear but the government stalled, forcing the committee to wait and obstructing the committee's work. When we were finally able to begin, we were like excited puppies waiting for visitors, but the government said we were too late. However, it is the government that has created the problem we are facing today. We are being squeezed like lemons, and the government thinks that if the committee members are not studying an issue, there is something wrong with them. This is what happens when the legislative agenda is not managed properly.

Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois will support this motion because we want to move things forward for Quebec.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary 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, with regard to Bill C-10, it was encouraging to see the Bloc support the time allocation motion so we could get the bill out of the committee stage.

I want to reflect on what has taken place in the last two and half plus hours. I will put it in the perspective of how the Conservatives squander opportunities and filibuster. In two hours, 24 members of the House could have, and should have, had the opportunity to debate the budget legislation. That would have allowed four members to debate at length and others through questions and comments. That is 24 members in two hours.

Could the member from the Bloc indicate whether he and his party would have preferred to have listened to what we heard today or to have debated the budget?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. Yes, of course we would have preferred to discuss Bill C‑30, among other things. However, we cannot say the Liberals are entirely blameless in this situation. I watched in committee as members of the Liberal Party filibustered non-stop for three months. As the saying goes, sometimes people see the speck of sawdust in their brother's eye but fail to see the plank—or even the whole sawmill—in their own.