Joe Comartin

[Securities, February 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, this government is not able to see what is so obvious to the rest of the country: the takeover of the Toronto Stock Exchange needs meaningful input from the public. All we are asking is that the Prime Minister do what is required of him by law, in other words, the bare minimum.

Will the Prime Minister keep sitting on the fence, or will he finally recognize the significance of this takeover and announce a full public consultation?

[Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole Act, February 11th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, maybe this will be more of a statement than a question to the parliamentary secretary, because he does not know. It is not much use asking the question of anyone on that side of the House.

The reality is that at any given time, somewhere in the range of 1,500 people incarcerated at the federal level are eligible for the one-sixth exemption. We do not know who composes that, but I can tell the member what I have been able to discover up to this point, that white collar criminals form less than 1%. Those are the figures we have right now.

If the Conservatives really want to do something, why do they not just bring forward a bill that targets white collar criminals, as opposed to everybody else who may in fact be entitled, by any objective standards, to the use of this section? Why do they not do that? Then they would get the support of both ourselves and the Liberal Party.

[Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole Act, February 11th, 2011]

I am not sure that is in order, Madam Speaker. Can we have a ruling as to whether that motion by the government House leader is in order?

[Criminal Code, February 11th, 2011]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-628, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (consent).

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that really should not be coming forward by way of private members. The Minister of Justice should have brought this in quite some time ago.

These particular sections of the Criminal Code discriminate against the gay community with regard to sexual activity and the age of consent with regard to that sexual activity.

The pertinent section has actually been struck down by more than one court in this country, including at least one appeals court. In spite of that, the government, and the previous Liberal government, have not moved to correct that discrimination which exists in the Criminal Code and this bill in fact would do it.

Members will see that there are 12 or 15 sections of the code that have to be amended in order to do away with that discrimination against the gay community

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Criminal Code, February 11th, 2011]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-627, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting).

Mr. Speaker, this is a piece of legislation that we would be amending that goes back hundreds of years, back to the British parliament. It was introduced as part of the transfer of legislation here.

At the current time, we are allowed to bet in Canada legally in several areas, but in particular on sports activities, and only if it is three or more events. That is the legality. It is strange how that came about. I do not fully understand it.

The effect of this bill would be to allow us to bet on individual events. There is a great deal of criminal activity that is going on, both inside and outside the country, where moneys are flowing out and Canadians are betting illegally on those activities.

This would be a way of allowing government, and government agencies, to run these events much as we allow for casinos and horse racing betting, so it would move it into that area. I have heard from all the casinos and a good number of the provinces. They want the ability to do this.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canada Border Service Agency, February 11th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the CBSA is creating a centralized office in southern Ontario. Windsor is Canada's largest border gateway. In addition, we are in process of building a new bridge. Therefore, we were not surprised to hear that an independent, impartial study recommended that office be set up in Windsor.

Instead, what has happened is the office is going to the Minister of Justice's riding along with 100 jobs from Windsor.

Will the Conservative government explain to the House, to the Canadian people and to my constituents how that political interference could come to that kind of a decision?

[Privilege, February 11th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is relevant that we understand where that came from. I will stop with the examples in that regard but it is fundamental to this democracy in Canada that we have access to these documents.

I will now go to the points you made in your ruling, Mr. Speaker, back on April 27 of last year. I will quote from that decision because when we look at what is going on here, there is absolutely no way that this confidence that is being claimed exists. As I finish, I will be talking specifically about the provisions within the Evidence Act and the Information Act to show even more extensively that this information has to be divulged to the Canadian people as a whole.

However, within the context of Parliament, you ruled at page 19 of the hard copy of that decision of April 27, that:

Before us are issues that question the very foundations upon which our parliamentary system is built. In a system of responsible government, the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation.

Embedded in our Constitution, parliamentary law and even in our Standing Orders, it is the source of our parliamentary system for which other processes and principles necessarily flow, and it is why that right is manifested in numerous procedures of the House, from the daily question period to the detailed examination by committees of estimates, to reviews of the accounts of Canada, to debate, amendments, and votes on legislation.

That is very pertinent to the request that was made by the finance committee.

You go on to say:

As I noted on December 10, 2009, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states at page 136:

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

Mr. Speaker, at page 978 to 979, you state:

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 type 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 the power rooted in the 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.

If I can just digress for a second, that is very pertinent to what is being requested. We know from a number of things that the paper exists. There are some points that we expect the government will say, such as that there are some limits on this, but I will come back to that in a few minutes.

You go on further, Mr. Speaker, by quoting Bourinot's fourth edition at page 70, to state:

The Senate and House of Commons have the right, inherent in them as legislative bodies, to summon and compel the attendance of all persons, within the limits of their jurisdiction, as witnesses, and to order them to bring with them such papers and records as may be required for the purpose of an inquiry.

In the arguments presented, the Chair has heard this power described as unabridged, unconditional, unqualified, absolute and, furthermore, one which is limited only by the discretion of the House itself. However, this view is not shared by all and so it is a privilege whose limits have now been called into question.

Again, you were referring to the position that the government took at that point, under a national security argument, that we were not entitled to the documents that were being sought.

Mr. Speaker, you went on to say:

The government's view is that such an unqualified right does not exist for either House of Parliament or their committees.

That was the position the government took. Again, I just find it very troubling that it is taking that position again now. You went on to say:

The executor, the holder of the sensitive information sought by the House has competing obligations.

That was the argument it was making at that time. I will not go on because that argument had more to do with the issue of national security and that is not being raised in this one.

I want to go on because the claim for confidence that we got was a cabinet confidence as opposed a ministerial claim for confidence. I do not know if the government was trying to make a differentiation there.

Mr. Speaker, you went on in the same decision, to state:

...Bourinot’s Second Edition notes that even in instances where a minister refuses to provide documents that are requested, it is clear that it is still ultimately up to the House to determine whether grounds exist to withhold documents.

It is not in the minister's control and not in the cabinet's control. It is only here in this House that that decision can be made.

Mr. Speaker, you go on to quote Erskine May as an additional authority for that. Again, I want to emphasize the historical nature because it goes way back. There is no basis on which the government can be doing what it is doing at this point.

Mr. Speaker, you quote Erskine May stating:

...underlying the Bill of Rights [1689] is the privilege of both Houses to the exclusive cognizance of their own proceedings. Both Houses retain the right to be sole judge of the lawfulness of their own proceedings, and to settle—or depart from—their own codes of procedure. This is equally the case where the House in question is dealing with a matter which is finally decided by its sole authority, such as an order or resolution, or whether (like a bill) it is the joint concern of both Houses.

That power resides here in this chamber, or in the other House, but not in the hands of a minister or the cabinet, which is really what is being claimed at this point, if the short answer and short denial we got can be understood without any interpretation.

Mr. Speaker, you go on in that to look at other legislatures, Australia in particular, where it had made similar findings as to what you found in that decision.

Mr. Speaker, you ultimately concluded, at page 27 of the hard copy, 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.

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.

The government is certainly not claiming that in this case.

You went on, Mr. Speaker, and drew the very definitive conclusion and made the decision that there was no authority to hold back those documents, that provisions had to be made for those to be released if we accepted the government on its face that they were national security documents.

Here we are talking about documents that are of a financial nature, information that is clearly available, as well as the information on the cost of the prisons and those related crime bills.

I also want to note that we have heard from the Liberal Party, both from the member for Kings—Hants and the member for Mississauga South, on this point and the official opposition is taking the same position. We are taking the same position and are asking you to uphold the decision you made last year, in this case.

I have the position taken by the Bloc Québécois in the arguments it made on March 18 of last year before your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Its position was that there was no basis for the government's claim and even less, if you look at that. However, I would draw to your attention the argument that was made at that point. You may want to consider that if the Bloc does not speak to this before you make your ruling.

I have one final point, which moves more into the legal area. There is a provision in the Canada Evidence Act, section 39, that sets out a procedure by which the government must exercise its right to claim cabinet confidence and under what circumstances. Then there is the Access to Information Act that sets out in section 69 where it cannot claim that under some circumstances. I will just deal with the criteria.

Normal procedure is for the Clerk of the Privy Council to certify which documents cabinet confidence can be claimed and where it applies. We do not know if that has been done here. For the two pieces of information we want, we got a bland denial. We do not know if the Clerk of the Privy Council, because we do not have that fact in front of us, has certified some of these documents as being within cabinet confidence.

Under the procedure set out in section of 39 of the Canada Evidence Act, the Clerk of the Privy Council is required to exclude from any claims of cabinet confidence discussion documents. It would be our position, based on the information that we are seeking, that it would fall into the category of discussion documents and, therefore, the confidence does not apply.

However, even if it does apply and the documents can somehow be construed as not being discussion documents, which I find hard to imagine as my mind is not quite that creative, although maybe the government is, subsection 69(1)(3) sets out that a claim of confidence is only applicable until a decision is made. In this case, it is quite clear that the decision around corporate tax breaks was made several years ago in the form of a budget. All of the crime bills have been tabled in the House and some have even passed. On all of that, a decision has been made in both cases.

I want to quote section 69 so it appears in Hansard. Subsection 69(1) sets out the fact that there is a double step. The right to access the rest of the act is all the authority one has, both as individuals and as individual members of this society, and we have to ask for information from the government.

Subsection 69(2) defines who fits into that category where information does not have to be given and the cabinet is part of that. It states:

Definition of “Council”

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “Council” means the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, committees of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, Cabinet and committees of Cabinet.

Right now we have a claim by the government that it is a cabinet confidence. We do not know if any certification has been done under section 39. However, under section 69 of the Access to Information Act, the documents are only excluded if a decision has not been made, which brings us to subsection 69(3), which is an exception. It states:

(a) confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada that have been in existence for more than twenty years;

We are not claiming that. However, then it goes on to say, “discussion papers described in paragraph (1)(b)”, and there is a long description. Clearly the information we have sought, and was sought by the finance committee, would fit into that category.

It goes on to say in subparagraph 69(1)(3)(b)(i), “if the decisions to which the discussion papers relate have been made public”. I go back to my point made earlier. The tax breaks for the corporate world, particularly large corporations, were made in a budget in either 2007 or 2008. Those decisions are public because they have been implemented and the corporate world has been receiving those major tax breaks.

There is a second category that also says, in subparagraph 69(1)(3)(b)(ii), “where the decisions have not been made public, if four years have passed since the decisions were made”. There is no absolute claim to privilege on an ongoing basis. However, the section that is applicable here is subparagraph 69(1)(3)(b)(i,) which states that if the decisions have been made public, that information has to be made available to the public, including to this chamber.

I am setting out that information because I do not know what the government will argue. Up to this point, it has not come before us to make its argument. If the government tries to shelter under section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act and under section 69 of the information and privacy act, it does not hold water. There is just no basis for that.

In summary, what are we faced with? We are faced with a government that is clearly attempting to thwart the work of us as individual members of Parliament. It is again a significant underpinning for our democracy that members of Parliament have information of that nature, not only for the purposes of our role in this chamber and in committee, but in the general public so we can share that information with the general public. It is very much striking at the heart of our democracy.

I have cited the authority, as well as your ruling, Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, the practice that has grown up literally for more than 300 years. I have also cited the legislative authority with regard to cabinet confidentiality.

I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that it is absolutely imperative that you rule in favour of the request for finding a breach of privilege by the member for Kings—Hants. The message did not get through to the government 11 months ago. It is repeating the same misbehaviour, so it is absolutely crucial that the message go very clearly to the government that it is not allowed to take these kinds of undemocratic steps to thwart the work of individual members of Parliament and to thwart information getting out to the general public.

[Privilege, February 11th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that correction.

The request for the finding of privilege that was brought by the member for Kings—Hants is troubling in that he had to do this on behalf of both the members of the finance committee, at least the opposition members of the finance committee, and all of us in the House. I say that in light of your ruling 11 months ago; a historical ruling by any standards in this House.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want you to feel that I am buttering you up, but the reality is that the ruling was also a historical ruling in any number of other legislatures that use the Westminster system of representation in Parliament. It was acknowledged as such in a number of other legislatures.

Therefore, it is very troubling, given the nature of the request for the finding of privilege or breach of privilege at that time on the issue of the Afghani detainee issue, that we are back here less than a year later on essentially the same issue.

The Conservative government of the day is claiming cabinet confidence and refusing to divulge information to the finance committee members that is clearly necessary for them to do their job. That is the essence of the privilege request.

I think it is important that we walk through what has happened here.

There were requests at the finance committee for two types of information. This goes back to November 17, 2010. I will quote from the committee minutes at that point and from the report issued by the committee and presented to the House the first week of February.

On November 17, the committee reported that:

The committee also orders that the Government of Canada provide the committee with electronic copies of the following: Five-year projections of total corporate profits before taxes and effective corporate tax rates (2010-11 to 2014-15);

The response from the government, I have to say from discussing this with some of the members of the committee, was a bit surprising. It was an immediate verbal response at that time by members of the committee. I am not even sure that the government leadership was involved in this.

Subsequently, there was a response from the government as follows:

Projections of corporate profits before taxes and effective corporate income tax rates are a Cabinet confidence. As such, we are not in a position to provide these series to the Committee.

That was the first one.

We know that the cost of the government's prime legislation, if I can use that generic term, has been an ongoing debate in the House, in various committees of the House, and in the general public.

Again, it is crucial that we have this information in order to engage in the debate and the discussion around those issues, not only in the House but in the country as a whole.

Therefore, the committee asked the government, in effect, ordered the government, to produce information with regard to a series of crime bills. That is set out in the report from the finance committee.

The attempt on the part of the committee is obviously to make informed decisions on legislation that is before the House and to share that information with other committees. There is a whole series of bills that the committee set out in the order for information.

I will not quote all of the bills because it is in the report, but I will quote the information that members on the finance committee wanted with regard to those pieces of legislation before the House or those which have already been passed. They wanted to know:

--the incremental cost estimates broken down by Capital, Operations & Maintenance and Other categories;

For a government that touts its fiscal prudence, it is interesting to note that it is unwilling to give that information to other members of the House in order for them to make decisions based on facts and good economic planning. Economic planning or public policy cannot be done without the facts. They wanted the costs.

The committee wanted to know:

--the baseline departmental funding requirement excluding the impacts of the bills and Acts, broken down by Capital, Operations and Maintenance and Other categories;

Members also wanted to know:

--the total departmental Annual Reference Level (ARL), including all quasi-statutory and non-quasi-statutory items, including Capital, Operations and Maintenance and Other categories, including the incremental cost estimates;

Finally, the finance committee asked for:

--detailed cost accounting, analysis and projections, including assumptions, for each of the bills and Acts, conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Guide to costing.

Finance committee members are asking for information that we know is available because it is required under Treasury Board criteria. We know from past practice that it is available and it has been submitted to ministers. In most cases, these bills would have also been in front of cabinet.

The government's response to that was:

The issue of whether there are any costs associated with the implementation of any of the Government's Justice bills is a matter of Cabinet confidence and, as such, the Government is not in a position to provide such information or documents.

By claiming cabinet confidence, the government absolutely refused to provide the information to the committee.

As I said earlier, the report containing this information is before the House, before you, Mr. Speaker, and is the basis on which the request for finding a breach of privilege was brought before the House.

To digress for a moment, I would like to make this important point. Both of these issues, the estimates of what the savings are going to be to the private sector by the tax cuts and what the projection for profits for those corporations is going to be, are crucial to the country. This may be the defining issue in the next election.

This is not a periphery area that we are trying to get information on. It is essential that we have this information in order for Canadians to understand the issue. At a personal level, it is absolutely crucial for us as members of Parliament to have the information when we are voting on the budget, on monetary bills, and a number of public policy issues.

As justice critic for my party, I have been asking for this information from justice ministers and ministers of public safety for four years, and regularly I get two answers.

First, the cost analysis has not been done, and I have to wonder about the truthfulness of that answer. That may have been accurate earlier on when the government came into power in 2006, but that has not been the case since then. We know that these projection analyses have been done on the capital cost of the crime bills, and on the operation and maintenance costs.

Just last week our critic on public safety had some material leaked to him showing how many more employees were going to be hired by Corrections Canada. The government has that information.

The whole issue of crime legislation has been a centre point for the government. It has been a centre point for the Conservative Party before it was government. However, when we try to ascertain the facts as to what this will cost, how many additional prisoners we will have in custody, we are denied that information.

Again, this is not a peripheral issue here. It is a very basic one that is very much in public debate not only in the House but across the country. That debate has been both in this House and in committee. It has been narrowed down to a very narrow scope because we cannot get access to this information.

With regard to its history, as I have previously stated, we have had the refusal from the government. Of course, it is not the first time it has done this, as I have said earlier, because of your ruling. It is just vitally important that it is not allowed to get away with it.

Last night, as I was preparing some notes on this, I was thinking about how important information and knowledge is. We hear the cliché that knowledge is power. That is really what this is about. It is a very fundamental part of our democracy and, in particular, of the parliamentary system. We can go back hundreds of years and I will be making some reference to that.

Historically, over centuries, the theory and principle of the divine right of kings was undermined once people realized that because one was born to a certain family, it did not give that person divine powers to govern better than a person who was born a peasant. This allowed democracy to flourish.

Also, throughout the Renaissance period in particular, if we look at advancements such as the development of printing and the ability to communicate information and knowledge, we see a huge increase in the rate at which democracy came to the fore.

Governments, particularly in Europe but also true in other areas of the world, restrained the development and sharing of scientific fact and information as they feared it would undermine their control.

As a species, and I will move into Star Trek fairly soon if I continue on this way, we find ourselves seeking out information because we believe it enhances our lives as well as our lifestyles. For instance, we proved that the Earth was not flat by moving beyond the continent that we were on at the time.

All of that is the basis on which the Westminster system determined that parliamentarians have an absolute right to information.

We as a country developed and so did our democracy. For instance, we instituted the CBC, the Canadian Broadcast Corporation, in an effort to share more information to help unify the country because it allowed us to know and understand more about each other.

We are doing the same thing in this generation with the Internet, which is now also used to share information, as our--

[Privilege, February 11th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, we gave notice that the NDP will be speaking this morning regarding the privilege motion that was brought forward by the member for Kings—Hants I believe on Monday of this week.

At the outset, it is troubling that we are having this debate on this motion, given the historical ruling you made--

[Criminal Code, February 9th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to this bill, which I am certainly in favour of.

As we have heard from others, there is already a section in the Criminal Code that deals with the crime of impersonating a police officer.

There are two aspects to it. One is where a person represents him or herself as being a police officer and the second is where a person uses a badge, article or articles of the uniform to allow people to draw the inescapable conclusion that the person is a police officer. Those are already offences.

This bill would add a subsection that would require a judge, after a person has been convicted of those offences, to take into account as an aggravating factor if the impersonation had been used as a tool to commit another crime.

When I first read the bill, I thought that is what judges would do in most cases. My initial reaction was whether it was really necessary, but what really convinced me to support the bill was the letter that I received from the member for Red Deer, the proponent of this bill.

He spoke in the letter about the need to reinforce the trust we all must have in our police forces and officers. I want to commend the member both for the letter and his initiative in this regard because it strikes at that point. Occasionally, there will be a judge who may not take this into account, though I think in most cases judges would.

It is a way for this legislature to say, not just to the judiciary because, as I say, it is not so significant there but to the Canadian public, that if someone has committed such a crime and has used it as a tool to commit another crime, the legislature condemns that conduct and is asking the judiciary to make sure it takes it into account as an aggravating factor when a sentence is imposed. That is one of the reasons for supporting the bill.

I do not think we can be too careful about the need for the legislature of the country to be very clear about its support for the criminal justice system generally and for the actors within the criminal justice system. It is very important that we ensure the Canadian public is always onside in the sense of feeling a great deal of confidence in our judges, prosecutors, defence counsel, and certainly in the police.

In a large number of cases, the vast majority of Canadians will only come into contact with the criminal justice system through police officers. Unless people are called as witnesses or charged with an offence, they do not see the other actors. That is not to say the other actors are not important as they are crucial to the system, but the face of the level of confidence that we need in the criminal justice system is the front line police officer.

I had an experience when I was in Japan a few years ago on a public safety issue. I got the opportunity to spend a bit of time there observing the Japanese people, who have one of the lowest crime rates in the world, substantially lower than ours. I am exaggerating a bit, but on almost every corner there is a little structure that the street police use as their base. They are all over the place in the larger cities in particular.

That allows those police officers who staff those small units to have immediate, intimate contact on a daily basis with people who live in those neighbourhoods or who do their business in those neighbourhoods. It is very obvious that the relationship is a comfortable one with the sense that a person could turn to these officers if there are any problems and they will be there to provide service to the citizenry of that country.

We look at how successful that is. It is their key ingredient in keeping their crime rates low. It is the kind of thing we would like to see adopted here and practised. We have been doing this on a fairly regular basis, moving our police officers out of the large, institutional settings, and more and more trying to have them operating out of neighbourhood settings.

My wife was working at the west end of the city of Windsor for a number of years. While she was there, one of the changes she saw in the crime rate, which was a fairly high crime rate, was that they moved just two police officers into the neighbourhood, into a house, and used it as a mini headquarters. It had a dramatic effect over the years in reducing the crime rate, a good deal of the crime rate, by the way, coming over from Detroit. However, because they were having that day to day contact with the citizenry of that area, that was really a great methodology for reducing the crime rate.

If we have someone who would take advantage of that very fundamental, crucial relationship we need between the citizenry and the police officers and raise the mistrust level, then they have to be dealt with quite severely. The section here that is being proposed as an amendment very much goes to that fundamental change that we require in the Criminal Code to emphasize, to have this legislature emphasizing, how important it is to have that relationship rock solid.

We get the rogue police officers using physical force in excess, and that undermines it, but so does this in many respects. Whatever we can do in the way of amendments to the Criminal Code in our practice, funding police officers across the country, will ensure that relationship does not deteriorate. If it does in those first steps, we go to a chaotic society.

I have been in other countries where I have seen the fear in the citizenry because the police are either corrupt or they are abusive with their power. We can never go down the route of undermining them.

We will be supporting the bill. I think all of my caucus is in support of this private member's bill.

We have discussed a little bit with the member for Red Deer about having an amendment to the bill that would be clearer with regard to the judicial responsibility to give reasons if this section is to be invoked. We have been having some discussion about that and we should see that at committee. I expect the bill to go to committee very rapidly and hopefully to be dealt with at the justice committee rapidly as well.

Those are all the comments I have, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the bill.