Jack Harris

[Privilege, June 16th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, on whether Canada is back or not, Canada is back, but in what form? I guess that is the question. We could certainly debate that. The expectation was that Canada would be different. That was the promise of the Prime Minister back in 2015. We have not seen a lot of evidence of that, and I believe we are struggling to retain or regain the reputation that we once had.

However, I would rather answer the second question, which was about whether or not the government is refusing to comply. Obviously the Liberals have been stonewalling the attempt to get the information. The government has continued to do that and is continuing to do it here tonight. It has given no indication that it wishes to compromise or find a way to do this in a way that would work.

The Liberals have clearly offered nothing, only the non-response of having a committee that is not of this Parliament deal with these documents. The government is refusing to comply tonight, instead of agreeing with the motion and moving on.

[Privilege, June 16th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question asked by the member, who is very adept at making these arguments in Parliament and understands the role of every member of the House. He makes the interesting point that every member on both sides of the House who is not in the cabinet also has a duty to hold the government to account.

What is interesting in this case is that the resolutions that are referred to in the motion, the resolutions of March 31 and May 10, which were adopted by the committee, were adopted unanimously. The Liberal members of that committee, the Conservative members of that committee, the Bloc member of that committee and the NDP member of that committee all supported a notion that these documents must be made available because there was an expression of disbelief in the opinion being offered to the committee that these documents needed to be withheld for national security and other reasons, including privacy.

That is something that is important to know. It is that this committee was unanimously seeking to hold the government to account and was unanimously seeking to be able to examine the required papers to do so. It is a very important point.

[Privilege, June 16th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate tonight. I know the member for Kingston and the Islands is not, but I am because I think it is a very important debate. It underscores the extremely seminal basic right that is now recognized fully by our Parliament, the House of Commons and members of the House of Commons, to hold the government to account.

We hear that time and again, but in this government's mind it appears to simply be a cliché, because Liberals seem to be taking the same position that was taken by the Conservative government in 2010.

In 2010, the Conservatives took this position in the House when the Afghanistan committee asked for documents related to detainees who had been captured by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, turned over to Afghan authorities and subsequently tortured. It was important for the Afghanistan committee to examine this question and determine what was happening, how it may have happened and what the government and military officials knew and did not know. All of those questions were extremely important in terms of Canada's legal obligations under the Geneva convention and in terms of various extremely serious matters regarding Canada's international affairs and reputation, and all that went with them.

That was more serious, one might argue, than this particular circumstance, yet the government of the day took that position in 2010. I know something about it, because I acted as a member of the Afghanistan committee and participated in debates that were similar to this one in terms of what the powers of committees are and what the powers of the House are versus the executive.

I will read from Speaker Milliken's ruling of April 27, 2010. I participated in the debate and in the argument leading up to it. Speaker Milliken said that:

With regard to the extent of the right, the Chair would like to address the contention of the Minister of Justice, made on March 31, that the order of the House of December 10 is a breach of the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and the legislature.

Speaker Milliken had just concluded that the Chair must conclude that the House did indeed have the right to ask for the documents listed that the order of December 10, 2009, referred to. He went on to say that:

It is the view of the Chair that accepting an unconditional authority of the executive to censor the information provided to Parliament would in fact jeopardize the very separation of powers that is purported to lie at the heart of our parliamentary system and the independence of its constituent parts. Furthermore, it risks diminishing the inherent privileges of the House and its members, which have been earned and must be safeguarded.

That separation of powers is between the executive branch and the legislative branch, which has the constitutional duty to hold the government to account.

In his conclusion, Speaker Milliken said that:

As has been noted earlier, procedural authorities are categorical in repeatedly asserting the powers of the House in ordering the production of documents. No exceptions are made for any category of government documents, even those related to national security.

He goes on to say that:

...it is perfectly within the existing privileges of the House to order production of the documents in question. Bearing in mind that the fundamental role of Parliament is to hold the government to account, as the servant of the House and the protector of its privileges, I cannot agree with the government's interpretation that ordering these documents transgresses the separation of powers and interferes with the spheres of activity of the executive branch.

That is a powerful statement. It resulted in an order being made for the production of documents by the Speaker, and it was reaffirmed today by the current Speaker in his ruling. I think it will go down in history, as well as Speaker Milliken's ruling, with the previous ruling having been followed in other legislatures for its authority.

The current situation is not much different. Obviously the circumstances are different, but the principle is fully the same about who ultimately has the authority to access the documents, to decide how to dispose of them and to decide how to protect national interests in the name of security. The Speaker, in my opinion, made a very good, strong ruling dealing with the questions put before him and found a prima facie case of a breach of the rules of Parliament. Having found that, the appropriate motion was expected to be made. He found that the motion that was offered by the Conservatives was not in keeping with the precedents of the House. As a result, a break was taken so that the motion could be revised.

The other issue decided by the Speaker in his ruling today was with regard to a solution. I think that, as the member for Kingston and the Islands said, there is clearly a responsibility that goes with that. That responsibility is for the House to take and make measures to ensure the security of the documents. It is up to the House to do that. The House has done so in the motion that was made before it. The alternative, presented by the government in its response, suggested that it should go before the national security committee of parliamentarians. That was the government's solution. From everything that I know, this was the first time the government and the House proposed how they would deal with the question of Speaker Milliken's ruling. The committee was set up just for situations like that.

I first heard about that when the government responded to questions about why it did not comply with orders of the House made on June 2, as well as with the March 31 and May 10 orders of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. That was the first time it was presented, to my knowledge, as to why NSICOP had been set up. As the Speaker ruled, this was not an answer as to how the House should deal with questions of national security if that is not what the House determined.

It has been argued at the Canada-China committee, and in the House here tonight, that the NSICOP committee is made up of members of Parliament and members of the Senate. It involves two branches of Parliament but is not a committee of Parliament. It says so right in this act. Members are appointed by the Governor in Council, which is the cabinet, and they are appointed to serve “during pleasure”, which means they can be removed at time. NSICOP also makes its reports to the Prime Minister, who has the right to demand that the reports be changed and has the right to withhold documents from the committee, and all of the other things that the executive branch has in dealing with the bodies it creates.

The Speaker quite rightly concluded, when this argument was presented to him, that the act makes it clear that it is not a committee of Parliament. He stated that:

It exists outside of Parliament.

In these circumstances, the Chair cannot conclude that the documents submitted to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians fulfill an order of this House or of its committees.

He goes on to say:

Nothing in the act affects or limits the privileges of the House to order the production of documents, even those with national security implications. It is for the House and not for the government to decide how such documents are to be reviewed and what safeguards to put in place, if any.

That is what has happened. The House itself has passed a motion that provides for safeguards, provides for a method of dealing with that, and that was something that was discussed by Speaker Milliken and was also recognized by the Speaker. The Speaker, when he was dealing with this matter, said in his review of Speaker Milliken's April 27, 2010, ruling that Speaker Milliken was still concerned even after he found that there was a failure to deliver unredacted documents to the House. He said he was still concerned about the issues raised.

As the Speaker said today, Speaker Milliken:

...deemed it wise to ask members to continue their discussions for a limited period of time before allowing the member who had initially raised the question of privilege to move the usual motion for debate. Indeed, the order in question offered no measure to protect the confidential information contained in the required documents....

He went on to suggest some of the ways that this could be done. He suggested that they have some discussions about that. He said the results of these discussions would in no way affect his ruling but that “the Speaker's intention was simply to offer a final delay to allow time to reach a compromise.”

Then he went on to say something else, and this is the contention that the member for Kingston and the Islands made. It was that there was no protection made for security. He said:

In the current situation, the order adopted provides that the office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel first examine the documents, redact them using specific criteria and discuss them with the members of the Special Committee in camera. The Minister of Health was also called to appear, and did so on Monday, June 14, in an effort to continue some form of dialogue. It is...not up to the Chair to [decide] the extent of the measures taken, but to note that they were considered. There is thus no reason to allow an additional delay.

We did have the Minister of Health at the Canada-China committee on Monday. The minister was asked many times to acknowledge that the NSICOP committee was not a parliamentary committee, and she deferred on answering that question and just said that it had security privileges.

That is not an answer to the question, and it is clear that the Speaker of the House has acknowledged that the excuse being offered by the government is not valid, that it is not acceptable that the NSICOP committee be the depository of these documents, that in fact the motion made today in the usual form is in order for this House to deal with, and that it is in order for this House to pass this motion. This motion is one that the House is entitled to make and it is up to the House to decide whether to accept the motion or not.

I think the matter is very simple. I am not going to go deeply into the question as to why these documents are necessary. They are necessary clearly because the Canada-China committee requires them in order to conduct its duties and carry out its responsibilities to hold the government accountable and to look into the relationship between Canada and China. Those are specifically its obligations under the motion creating that special committee.

The committee has been doing that. It has been looking at the security issues and dealings between the microbiology lab in Winnipeg and the labs in China that were China's responsibility. They were dealing with very serious and dangerous viruses and with security measures to be undertaken in order to properly look after the security of the people of Canada, the security of the labs and the security of public health.

That is a simple matter, well within the jurisdiction of the committee under its mandate, and it is up to the committee to decide what papers it needs to do that. Having had the support of the committee and the support of the House, it is the responsibility of government now to fulfill that obligation and make those documents available in the manner that has been suggested.

The government refuses to do that. This motion is required in order to purge the finding of contempt on the Public Health Agency of Canada that will be found if the motion is passed. It will be found in contempt for its failure to obey the order of the House and produce the documents so that they can go to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel in order for him to carry out his function of helping to redact the documents and follow through on the motion put before the House.

That is all I wish to say. This is an extremely important issue. It involves the basic understanding of how Parliament works and the responsibilities members elected to the House undertake when they take their own oaths of office. In fact, it is a function of our democratic society that the House has the ultimate power and that the executive is to be held to account by the House of Commons.

If it were not for that, we would not have a democracy but a rule by the cabinet, by the executive, and not by the House of Commons, by the people who are elected directly by the electors. That is our democratic system. This is a function of upholding that democratic system. It is a sacred trust that we have, by which we are required to carry out and support the efforts of our committees and the work we are doing by requiring under this motion that these documents be produced.

[Privilege, June 16th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, we just heard that other committees were trying to receive information from the government and they failed to get it. We now have a clear ruling from the Speaker. The government's response, in this case, was to send the documents to NSICOP, which we argued was not a committee of the House and answers to the Prime Minister. The Speaker concluded that committee exists outside of Parliament and that the documents submitted to it does not fulfill the order of the House.

Is he satisfied that this is so, that this is the first opportunity we have had to get the government to recognize and fulfill an order of a committee for documents, now made by the House, and that this is the time for the government to comply with these orders and produce the documents?

[Privilege, June 16th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to what the hon. member was saying. I find it curious that he tries to enlarge the debate to a whole bunch of other matters that he is concerned about with the official opposition. That is delaying matters. The reason we are here today is because the government itself refused to follow the precedents of this House, the ruling of Speaker Milliken on April 27, 2010. It clearly states the powers of the House of Commons for members of the House of Commons, members of Parliament, to have access to documents. It is a seminal ruling. It was confirmed again today by the Speaker.

The simple way of ending this debate is to just agree to comply with the rulings of the Speaker and with the order of the House and produce the documents so they can be produced to the committee in accordance with the ruling of the Speaker who is satisfied that the provisions have been made for their protection. That is the simple answer to his argument.

[Members Not Seeking Re-election to the 44th Parliament, June 15th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you, the House leaders and the whips for organizing this event this evening, to give me and the others who are not running again an opportunity to speak to Parliament and to make what has been called a farewell speech. However, a few things about that seem a little funny or odd to me. We may of course all be here again in September if there is no election, so it is a bit of an “in case” speech. Also, it is a farewell speech made from 1,500 miles away through Zoom and it is also for some of the people who I have not really come to know since 2019, when I was once again elected. It is a little unfortunate in that way because of the pandemic.

We have been hard at work despite the lack of personal contact, doing a lot of great things. We are continuing to do that even today when I had the honour of concluding the last speech on a private member's motion on dental care for Canadians. We have just completed a report that will be presented to the House on racism and policing in Canada, which I had the honour of initiating with others last July. We are very busy. We were very much enjoying our work in these last few days that we voted to stay open until midnight. One wonders who would want to leave all of this. It is so much fun and so dedicated, and we seem to be enjoying our work.

One might ask why we would want to leave. For me, part of the answer is that I came to the House in the 33rd Parliament, having been elected in a by-election when Ed Broadbent was in his prime as leader of the NDP and Brian Mulroney was the prime minister. At that time, I learned very early as a parliamentarian, and I think the member for Malpeque made note of this, that I could play a role even in a majority Parliament and be effective in amending legislation or contributing to the debate and influencing the course of events under debate in the House.

We had a very strong group of members of Parliament under Ed's leadership. I do not think anyone from the 33rd Parliament remains here. I know Wayne has 28 years of service, but he started in 1993. I am sorry to hear from the member for Malpeque that Mike O'Neill has passed away. He was my legislative assistant in 1987-88. The member for Malpeque had a great man to work with him. He understood Newfoundland and Labrador pretty well too. I am glad he served him for so long. I saw him many times over the years.

I was then defeated in the 1988 general election and I was not to return to the House as a member for 20 more years.

I will tell one little story. When I first ran in 1987, the seat I ran for was St. John's East. No New Democrat since Confederation in 1948 and hardly any Liberals had been elected to that seat. Maybe once or twice back in the sixties a Liberal was elected. I had offered myself to the nomination.

I was practising law at the time. When I went to see a judge to sign some papers, the judge, who had served provincially, said to me, “Well, Mr. Harris, I hear you're going into politics, if it could be said that running for the NDP was going into politics.” I was supposed to laugh because it was supposed to be a joke. Then he spent the next 45 minutes telling me what a great honour it was to be a politician. A “noble calling” he called it, to play a role in making the laws that govern our people. He talked about his experiences with Joey Smallwood, etc.

He was not right about the question of whether I was going into politics, although I never believed I would have the kind of career I did, with 10 years in the federal Parliament and 16 years provincially, but I never have forgotten the phrase “noble calling”, that we are here to serve our people, that we have a role to play, that it is an important one and it is a big honour to do that.

When I was defeated in 1988, I did not really think of a pause in the parliamentary sense. I took what I learned in Parliament and I brought it to the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1990. I was elected five times, serving for nearly 16 years, most of them as leader of the New Democratic Party in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I came back in 2008 at the behest of Jack Layton. I was here until 2015, serving mostly as the defence critic, with stints as public safety critic and justice critic. I really enjoyed the inspirational leadership of Jack Layton who brought us to official opposition status. He then very sadly and tragically died and was replaced by Thomas Mulcair, who, as we know, is considered one of the most effective opposition leaders in modern times.

I was, unfortunately, defeated again in 2015 and had a four-year hiatus as a former member of Parliament, but I did enjoy some time with the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians. I highly recommend that to anyone who is leaving the House. It is a great group of people and it is a good way to keep in touch with former colleagues as well as some people who we did not serve with but got to know. Whether we leave voluntarily or otherwise after the next election, it is a good idea to keep in touch with those with whom we have served.

I came back in 2019, which is why I am here today. I did not really want to belabour this story except to provide some background to my unique parliamentary experience with bookends that span a total of 34 years. The member for Malpeque served 28 years, but they were consecutive. He did not have the variety I had. He is a seasoned member of Parliament, having served all his time here. He had more significant experience to draw on in the House.

I have enjoyed all my years as a member of Parliament. It has been a great experience and, as everyone else who is to speak I am sure will say, it is an honourable profession. It is also a big honour and privilege to serve constituents in the House of Commons. We cannot do that without their support, and I thank very sincerely all the voters of St. John's East. Whether they voted for me or not, they were my constituents. I thank them for their support over the years, for the privilege of serving them in the House of Commons and being their voice, and doing my best to do that.

I also represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as the only New Democrat from our province, and, right now, I am the only opposition member from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The voters and the constituents are the heartbeat of politics. We communicate with them, work with them and help them when we can. I have always loved and enjoyed very much the people part of politics.

Ten minutes is not much time to say a lot other than to thank people, thank to the volunteers, campaigners and donors who made this possible. We also have to thank our families. Without the kind of support we get from them, we would not be able to do our jobs.

My wife Ann and our three children, Amelia, Sarah and John, have been a great support for me. They have encouraged me and have enjoyed my work. I thank my staff who helped me do my job. I could not do it without them. I thank my constituency staff and Ottawa staff who have helped my constituents as best they can. It is amazing what we can do for constituents in the system we have.

We also have great staff on the Hill. The Library of Parliament's resources have been fabulous for me and have helped with our committees, and we all know that.

I want to reiterate what the member for Malpeque said about our Parliament. It is not perfect. A lot of work needs to be done to make our world perfect and our Parliament perfect. However, it is a great system for the voices of the people to be heard, to work together with other parliamentarians to try to make things better. As I said, it is a noble calling.

I want to encourage young people who are thinking about a career in politics to take the torch, to carry the torch and to do the job. It is a noble calling. It is worth doing and it is a worthy way to work to make our country better and to try to make the world better and safer. There are plenty of things to do and not enough people to do them, so please take up the cause.

[Federal Dental Care Plan, June 15th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to conclude debate on this very important motion, which calls for the establishment of a federal dental plan for all Canadian families with a family income of less than $90,000 a year and who do not currently have a dental care plan. It envisages free coverage for those with incomes less than $70,000 and a sliding pay scale for those over. This would be an interim measure toward the inclusion of full dental care in Canada's health care system.

I want to thank those who have spoken in favour of the motion, and especially my colleagues, the member for Vancouver Kingsway and the member for Vancouver East. I also want to thank all the people and organizations from across the country who have been working so hard on this issue and have been supportive of this motion.

Canadians are justly proud of our health care system because universal medicare is a defining element of our society. When we ask about it in public opinion polls, it is regarded as a national treasure. Our system ensures that regardless of social status, income or where in the country people live, they are entitled, as a matter of right, to access physicians and hospital care and treatment. However, dental care is not included. It was supposed to be. The vision of Tommy Douglas, who is considered to have provided the inspiration for medicare in Canada, was for a comprehensive system that included dental care.

The Royal Commission on Health Services, which laid out the plan for our current system, reported in 1964 and called for universal public dental services as part of a national health care plan. However, it noted that the shortage of dentists was so acute at the time, it would be impossible to implement a universal system, though it was a priority. That is no longer true, yet today most dental care is not covered by any public insurance plan. In Canada, 94% of spending on dental care is private and only 6% comes from government programs. This is the second-lowest level of government spending on dental care among the OECD countries. As a result, many are left behind and do not get care.

About 35% of Canadians have no dental coverage at all, and more than 20% of Canadians avoid going to the dentist because of the cost. Left untreated, poor dental hygiene is linked to many chronic health conditions that would largely be prevented with proper dental care.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that this plan would benefit over six and a half million people in Canada who are not covered by dental insurance and are unable to afford the cost. That includes more than half of Canadians with low incomes and seniors over 60 years old, and more than 25% of women. Some 30% of young people would benefit from this program. These are young adults who are no longer covered by their family plan or who never had a plan in the first place. Unsurprisingly, low-income and marginalized Canadians are hurt the most, with Canada's most vulnerable population having the highest rates of dental decay and disease and the worst access to care. The sustained cost for this program has been estimated by the PBO to be $1.5 billion annually. It is not a small sum, but it is less than one-half of 1% of Canada's current health care costs.

Some have opposed the plan on the grounds that health care is a provincial responsibility under the Constitution, but that is mistaken. The Supreme Court of Canada has defined it as a shared jurisdiction. Hospitals fall under provincial jurisdiction, but health care is shared, and the federal government can provide for a dental service.

The Conservatives have suggested that rather than having a national plan, we should support the status quo patchwork of dental coverage. However, millions of youth, seniors and low-income families are falling through the cracks. Dental care as a part of health care must be accessible for all people in Canada.

The Liberals have said that we do not have enough data or the right kind of data, and that it will take until 2024 to get there and we need more studies. However, we know there is a desperate and urgent need for dental care, which is all we need to know to take action. This is an interim measure that we can put in place immediately while we collect the data and work out the details with the provinces for a universal system.

This is a health issue. This is a social justice issue. This is an equality issue. It can be put in place right now. It is a practical solution to address the significant health care inequality in our country. This is a problem we can fix and we must fix.

I want to urge all members of Parliament, each of whom has access to excellent health and dental care benefits through the House of Commons, to vote in favour of this motion. As I said, it is a problem that we can fix and we must fix.

[Public Safety, June 10th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the public safety committee heard that the continued use of solitary confinement in Canadian prisons amounts to torture under international law. Black and indigenous people are severely over-represented in Canadian prisons as a result of more than a century of systemic racism, and are therefore more likely to be subject to this torture. Lack of transparency, oversight and direction have allowed it to continue. It must stop. Torture must stop. Systemic racism must stop.

When will the Liberal government end state-sponsored torture of Canadian citizens in our prisons?

[Privilege, June 8th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I rise today, virtually of course, to speak and intervene on the question of privilege raised yesterday by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, the opposition House leader, in reference to the order of this House that was issued on June 2, 2021, by a motion before the House. The matter has been referred back to the House, as it has not been complied with. It was raised yesterday by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, and the member for Jonquière spoke on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. I wish to add my remarks. I will not be long.

It was a lengthy intervention by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who gave an extensive outline of the authorities. I want to underscore the importance of obeying House orders, in particular when it relates to the issue of sending for papers and records. The government ought to recognize the supremacy of Parliament in these matters.

This has been a long-standing issue before the House, and it is very clear that the power to send for persons, papers and records is part of the privileges, rights and immunities of the House of Commons, which it inherited when it was created. This is found in section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and also in section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act. This constitutional right is essential for Parliament as a legislative and deliberative body, so that it can deliberate, legislate and hold the government to account. This, of course, is outlined in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 137.

As is very clear:

The Standing Orders do not delimit the power to order the production of papers and records. The result is a broad, absolute power that on the surface appears to be without restriction. There is no limit on the types of papers likely to be requested; the only prerequisite is that the papers exist in hard copy or electronic format, and that they are located in Canada.

No statute or practice diminishes the fullness of that power rooted in House privileges unless there is an explicit legal provision to that effect, or unless the House adopts a specific resolution limiting the power. The House has never set a limit on its power to order the production of papers and records.

This is also from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 985.

A number of authorities have been mentioned by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent in this discussion, and I will not repeat them all here. The principal one for the House is the decision of Speaker Milliken from April 27, 2010. As Bosc and Gagnon note, he ruled that “it was within the powers of the House to ask for the documents specified in the House Order, and that it did not transgress the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of Government.” That is the basis for the order and request, and the failure to fulfill it is, in my view, a prima facie breach of the privileges of the House, which the Speaker has been asked to find.

I support that request and will go on to say as well, as mentioned by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent and the member for Jonquière, that the government's solution to the order is an excuse. It sees putting the documents in their unredacted form before the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians as a reference to a parliamentary committee. That is clearly inadequate and is, in fact, quite wrong in law and fact. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians is not a committee of Parliament and does not report to Parliament, except by way of filing documents that have been vetted by the prime minister. This is explicitly stated in its legislation. I will read it for the benefit of members. Subsection 4(3) of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act states:

(3) The Committee is not a committee of either House of Parliament or of both Houses.

It is designed with a job and mandate, as specified in the legislation, to review:

(a) the legislative, regulatory, policy, administrative and financial framework for national security and intelligence

This is the power of the committee, under the aegis of the legislation. It reports to the Prime Minister, who can delete anything from its report, and is essentially not a function of the House. It is, rather, a separate body that provides some oversight of the national security issues of government. However, it is a governmental body, not a parliamentary body.

My party and I reject the notion that this is an adequate response to the request and the order of the House, and I wish to underscore and support the expectation that the Speaker will rule this a prima facie breach of the privileges of members of Parliament, and that we will have to consider the appropriate remedy as a House, in the exercise of its powers, to deal with this breach of a question of privilege.

Those are the remarks that I wish to make today in support of the notion that this be a breach of the privileges of the members of the House of Commons.

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 8th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe there is consent that I be given an opportunity to intervene on the question of privilege raised yesterday by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.