Jack Harris

[Privilege, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government has appointed a retired Supreme Court justice, Mr. Iacobucci, to review the documents and advise the government on this matter.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the government has the right to seek advice from anyone it wishes, whether it be Department of Justice lawyers or other lawyers, or retired justices who are continuing to act as lawyers. That is certainly the government's right. In this particular case, the government waited three months to even consult with Mr. Iacobucci.

As far as we are concerned, it is not a major concern to this House that the government is seeking advice. Obviously, we have respect for Mr. Iacobucci. The government has the right of course to consult with any number of people, but it does not change the order of this House. The order is binding, and with consultation or no consultation, the government must obey.

The government's establishment of a separate parallel process outside of parliamentary oversight, parliamentary accountability, or even involvement, does not satisfy the very explicit requirements of the House in relation to the documents. For all intents and purposes, therefore, the engagement of Mr. Iacobucci to give the government advice is irrelevant to this motion.

I would like to address the potential argument that the government may make to excuse its behaviour.

In O'Brien and Bosc, page 83, it states that a breach of privilege includes “deliberately altering, suppressing, concealing or destroying a paper required to be produced for the House...”. It may also involve failing to produce papers formally required by the House without a reasonable excuse, or disobeying a lawful order of the House without a reasonable excuse.

This includes the defacing of documents by redactions, expurgations, black marks or whatever we want to call it, and we have all seen those documents, certainly is destroying or concealing a paper required to be produced by the House, and therefore we expect to get them in their unexpurgated form.

The question is whether there is a reasonable excuse for disobeying an order of this House. It is clear to us that this a breach of the privileges of the House. In fact I would go so far as to say that the government's behaviour is tantamount to contempt for this House. The government may take issue with the phrase “without reasonable excuse”, and I want to address it directly.

There is no reference in our Standing Orders to national security. In fact we see the issue of national security as a red herring. Parliamentarians have themselves acknowledged the valid national security concerns and have repeatedly indicated their willingness to work around them.

The motion that passed in the House in December did not say that the documents must be publicly tabled, placed on the Internet or handed out to the public for all and sundry. The motion allows for flexibility and for an approach by the government to work with the opposition parties and parliamentarians to satisfy the concerns on all sides. It is not acceptable to use national security as an excuse to hide embarrassing information. It is also not acceptable to use it as an excuse when the government has made no attempt to work around it.

There are numerous ways that the documents in question could have been made available without divulging state secrets, and there is no reasonable excuse for failing even to address the issue in the House. These issues have been discussed with the parliamentary law clerk as to how a committee could receive documents and yet protect national security. What we need to do is find a way to acknowledge and respect the privileges of members of Parliament to hold the government to account on behalf of Canadians, while at the same time protect national security.

Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that there is a clear case for the finding of a prima facie breach of privilege, and if you agree, I am prepared to move a motion. I want to indicate that this motion has already been discussed with other members of the opposition parties. The Bloc Québécois has indicated that it supports our motion in this regard.

It is important to put the motion on the record to understand where I am coming from in terms of what we expect to see happen in order for the House to be able to exercise its parliamentary privileges, and at the same time, find a way to get these documents before it so that we can do our constitutional duty.

The motion would read as follows: “That the House considers that the government's failure to provide the documents specified in the order of December 10, 2009, is tantamount to contempt and therefore orders the Minister of National Defence, the Attorney General and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to be called before the bar of the House immediately and hear the Speaker read this order to them:

That it be an instruction to the Special Committee on Canada's Mission in Afghanistan to adopt rules and procedures for the reception and handling of the documents demanded by the House order of December 10, 2009, in a manner that safeguards national security and other confidentiality requirements while respecting parliamentary privilege, after receiving advice from the law clerk and parliamentary counsel;

That the special committee report these rules and procedures to the House no later than 21 calendar days following the adoption of this order, provided that if the House is not sitting when the report of the committee is completed, the report may be deposited with the Clerk of the House and it shall thereupon be deemed to have been presented to the House, provided that no later than 6 p.m. on the 20th calendar day following the adoption of this order any proceedings before the special committee shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the report shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment; and

That, on the 30th calendar following the adoption of this order, if the government has not provided all the documents to the special committee, which shall receive them on behalf of the House in their original and uncensored form, at the next sitting of this House the first order of business shall be the consideration of a motion that the Minister of National Defence, the Attorney General and the Minister of Foreign Affairs be found in contempt of the House and that such a motion shall have priority over all other business until it is decided in the same fashion as a motion relating to a question of privilege”.

Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to move that motion if you should find that there is a prima facie breach of the privileges of this House. I would note that there have been consultations on this motion with the table officers as to its form and compliance with parliamentary rules and it is in a form that we believe can be presented to this House.

That is my presentation on parliamentary privilege. I believe there has been established a prima facie breach of privileges of members of this House by the attempt of the government to delay and avoid accountability, and I ask that you so find.

[Privilege, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning the House of Commons' right of access to documents it deems necessary to hold the government to account.

As the Speaker of the House will know, the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan is studying the issue of Afghan detainees captured by Canadians, who may have been subjected to torture, and potentially Canada's complicity in violation of its obligations under international human rights law and other matters.

I will not repeat to the House how vital and fundamental such a responsibility of Parliament is. It is part of our duty, and one of the fundamental roles of the House of Commons, to hold the government to account. In order to assist us in doing that, Parliament has certain rights, privileges and powers.

It is only through this House and the elected members of this House that Canadians are able to hold the government to account. That is a basic tenet of our democracy. In fact, that right is recognized explicitly in section 18 of Canada's Constitution Act, 1867. In fact it has been, I suppose not surprisingly, recognized as a constitutional right in the House, notably on October 31, 1991 by Speaker Fraser, at page 4309 of that day's Hansard.

Also, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed, recognized and acknowledged that this is a constitutional right and a constitutional privilege of members of the House of Commons to carry out their work. It was recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly) found in the 1993 Supreme Court of Canada Reports at 1 S.C.R. 319.

In pursuance of its obligations to carry out the investigation, members of the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan asked for certain papers and have sought the assistance of this House to get them.

On December 10 this House passed the following motion:

That, given the undisputed privileges of Parliament under Canada’s constitution, including the absolute power to require the government to produce uncensored documents when requested, and given the reality that the government has violated the rights of Parliament by invoking the Canada Evidence Act to censor documents before producing them, the House urgently requires--

--I underline “urgently requires”--

--access to the following documents in their original and uncensored form:

The motion then notes the list of documents requested and follows with:

--accordingly the House hereby orders that these documents be produced in their original and uncensored form forthwith.

Forthwith, I suppose, is subject to some interpretation. However, over three months have passed since that House order was made and not one single document of any kind has been presented to the House in response to that order. In fact, 14 weeks have passed and no response has come from the government, nor has the government put in place, or sought to put in place, a parliamentary process to make these documents available.

There has been no approach, to my knowledge, to other members of the House or to members of the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan. There has been no attempt to devise a method for receiving these documents by members of Parliament, despite the publicly expressed willingness by me and others to discuss this issue and find a way of bringing them before the House.

Page 475 of O'Brien and Bosc states that orders for the production of documents must be met “within a reasonable time”. Given that the government prorogued the House on December 30 and we did not meet again until early March, the government has had plenty of time to work out a method to make these documents available to the House and to honour the order. The government has failed to do so.

We recognize that the government cannot and should not be expected to dump hundreds or thousands of pages of unredacted documents on the table of the House of Commons. That is not what the House has asked for. It has demanded its constitutional right for a procedure to hold the government accountable for its actions.

We are aware of national security concerns and we have indicated publicly our willingness to discuss these valid concerns and provide a method of protecting them. However, we are not prepared to compromise on Canadians' right to have an accountable government that does not use national security as a catch-all phrase to cover up embarrassing or damaging information.

In a number of press articles shortly after the vote in this House, the Canadian Press for example stated on December 12:

The Conservative government indicated Friday it was prepared to ignore a parliamentary vote calling on it to release uncensored information on enemy prisoners.

The Minister of Justice is quoted as saying:

Parliament exercises significant powers, yet Parliament also appreciates the importance of protecting confidential information.

He said:

The government's position on this matter is clear. We must make every effort to protect sensitive information that if disclosed, could compromise Canada's security, national defence and international relations.

Following the break and following the failure of government to deliver a document to members of Parliament, my colleague from Ottawa Centre wrote to the Minister of Justice on February 3, 2010 asking for the production of these documents. He said:

The production of these documents is essential to the ongoing study at the Special Committee on Canada's Mission in Afghanistan on the transfer of Afghan detainees. Canadians deserve full accountability from their government on the detainee file.

Then he said:

Furthermore, I would like to ask you as the Attorney General whether you will obey this House Order?

That was on February 3 and on March 11, over a month later, there was a reply from the Minister of Justice. In it he did not indicate that any documents would be forthcoming. In fact, he discussed the appointment of Mr. Iacobucci. He said:

Mr. Iacobucci will report to me on proposed redactions, including on whether the proposed redactions genuinely relate to information that would be injurious to Canada's national security, national defence, or international interests.

He went on to say:

Mr. Iacobucci will prepare a report in both official languages that I will table in the House of Commons. That report will include a description of his methodology and general findings.

I have both of those letters and I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table those letters.

[Afghanistan, March 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, day after day there are new stories about the government's mishandling of the transfer of Afghan detainees.

Included in today's revelations was the fact that last year when the National Directorate of Security complained about detainee inspections creating problems, the Conservative government agreed to limit them to once a month at the most and to give plenty of advance notice. The government has abandoned our legal obligation to uphold human rights, this time to appease the dreaded NDS.

How many more of these stories need to be published before we get a public inquiry?

[Afghanistan, March 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we have yet another revelation today that Afghan officials asked the government to build a prison where detainees could be held without the risk of torture. In response, the government made repeated false promises to the Afghans that a prison was coming while the government told this House that a new prison was a bad idea.

By failing to work with our NATO allies to ensure proper treatment of detainees, the government has ignored our legal obligation to protect human rights and has tainted Canada's international reputation.

Will the Prime Minister finally call a public inquiry?

[Afghanistan, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference outlined are a continuation of the government's secrecy on the whole matter, hiding the facts and disrespecting the rights of Parliament. The government even has Mr. Iacobucci reviewing Canada's annual human rights reports on Afghanistan, when the United States state department posts its on its government website.

When will the government stop hiding the facts and let Parliament get at the truth?

[Afghanistan, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference for retired Justice Iacobucci outline what we already know. This is a stalling tactic to delay and avoid accountability on Afghanistan torture. In fact, the only thing we have learned is that this will be a very expensive stalling tactic.

Mr. Iacobucci's interpretation of documents will not be guided by the constitutional powers of Parliament. His report will go only to the minister, and there is still no commitment to actually produce any documents for Parliament.

Why will the government not respect Parliament and let the Afghanistan committee do its work?

[Cougar Flight 491, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, March 12, was the first anniversary of the tragic helicopter crash off the east coast of Newfoundland, which cost the lives of 17 men and women working in the offshore oil industry. Families, friends and the whole community continue to mourn the loss of the passengers and crew of Cougar Flight 491 and our hearts go out to them. These deaths remind us of the risks so many workers undertake every day to support their families and to build our country.

Sadly, there are still many unanswered questions about the cause of the crash and whether it could have been avoided. A helicopter safety inquiry is under way in St. John's, the Transportation Safety Board is conducting an inquiry and, recently, questions have been raised about whether Transport Canada could have acted more quickly and possibly averted this disaster.

The commissioner has already called for a search and rescue response time of 15 to 20 minutes and this standard has been adopted by the Offshore Petroleum Board.

We want these families to get the answers they need and to know that we are committed to improving the safety and protection of workers in the offshore and throughout the country.

[Canadian Navy, March 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate and in the support for the motion by the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

As others have mentioned, this is not the most important issue facing Canada today, but it does recognize that naval traditions are important to people who serve in the navy, who serve our country, those who have served and those who are followers of naval tradition in our country. They are an important group of people. They serve or have served our country. They are fully supportive of this, and we can certainly offer our support today.

However, I wonder why it needs a motion of Parliament to make this change. No doubt there will be unanimous consent. I believe the member or his representatives have consulted with all parties in advance of bringing this motion forward. Surely the Minister of National Defence and the government could do this in the 100th anniversary year of the Canadian navy without a motion of Parliament.

We bring motions to Parliament and get them passed all the time, and the government does not even follow them. Perhaps the member feels his government will not do this unless there is a motion of Parliament to support him. I do not know. I do not want to get into that. We should keep on the high road with respect to the motion.

It is part of naval tradition going back, as I understand from my research, to the time of the Crimean War and the British navy. There may be some dispute about the facts, but my information from a Canadian website, ReadyAyeReady.com, which supports the navy and naval traditions, says that almost all the navies in the world, with the exception of the French and the American, have this naval curl, or 'Elliott's Eye' as it is called, as a part of their naval insignia. Maybe the member has other information, but that is what I have been told.

It was obviously a part of the Canadian navy tradition starting in 1910 when we first had our own navy separate from that of the British navy upon which we relied until then for naval protection.

The Canadian navy has played a very important role through the decades in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador and in the country. The Canadian navy was very active during the second world war.

In the Battle of the Atlantic, the Canadian navy played a tremendous role with convoy duty and also in protecting North American shores because there were torpedoes and U-boat activity in Newfoundland waters during the second world war. Ships were sunk, including a ferry called The Caribou running between North Sydney and Newfoundland. It was sunk by enemy action during the second world war, with great loss of life. The Canadian navy was very important to the defence of Canada and North America.

I think there is a lot of sentiment within the navy for the return of this naval curl as a distinctive mark of its uniform. We fully support that. It is important that this be done by the government this year. I believe there is strong support within the naval community, certainly within the armed forces, to do that.

Some of these traditions of the individual services were lost with unification in 1968. The colours of the uniform have been restored. I think the people in uniform like that. The navy is particularly fond of tradition. I think even the use of the colour blue in naval uniforms goes back, according to my very limited research, to around 55 BC when the Roman navy used the colour blue for its uniform.

It is a very long tradition for the navy to keep certain things that may be symbolic to it and important to it as part of its distinctiveness and the pride it has in its service to its country.

We do support this. The member is doing his job to bring matters before Parliament that are of interest to people. No doubt he was prompted to do that by people in the service who would like to see this happen. It is certainly appropriate for this Parliament to discuss matters of this importance.

There is a lot of time to criticize government policy on the budget, as we did earlier today, and will in the defence committee and other circles. We will certainly take every opportunity to do that.

However, as far as this motion goes, the member has brought up something that is important for us to support. He can count on the support of our caucus in this measure.

I hope, at least this time, the government will follow through on a motion of Parliament because I am sure the motion will be passed.

[The Economy, March 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor concerning pensions.

I agree with the member that AbitibiBowater employees were treated extremely badly as a result of the close-down last year and their pension crisis. Would the member agree with the position of our party with respect to people who are in receipt of the guaranteed income supplement?

We have costed out the cost of taking every senior in Canada out of the poverty level by changing and cutting out the next corporate tax cut planned by the government which will probably be in today's budget. Would he agree with us that we should forgo yet another corporate tax cut, which is already lower than the United States, and use that money to take every senior out of poverty? It would affect many seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador of whom about 60% rely solely on the old age pension and the GIS.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of points. The member for Mississauga South referred to Richard Colvin as a whistleblower. I would ask him to reconsider that. Mr. Colvin was doing his job in reporting to his superiors and warning them of the danger of breaching international legal obligations. He appeared before the committee—a command performance, one could say—at its request. He was also subpoenaed before the MPCC, and he was doing his duty to respond to the subpoena. I think it is proper to characterize him as a public servant doing his duty.

It seems that members on the government side appear not to take the obligations and precedence of Parliament seriously and the fact that Parliament has the overriding right to this. Is the member satisfied that the government is going to comply with this order, should it be passed by the House today?