John Nater

[Privilege, April 11th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his question.

This is the first time in the history of Parliament that the government has interrupted an important debate on a question of privilege raised in the House. Thus, this is the first time in the history of this place that there has not been a vote on a question of privilege.

Never before in the House has the government shut down the opportunity to actually have a vote on a matter of privilege that is before it. This is parliamentary history without precedent. Every other precedent in O'Brien and Bosc has been clearly delineated to have been a matter that had been dealt with by the House. This has not been the case, and it is truly unfortunate that such heavy-handed tactics would be employed by the government on such an important matter of privilege.

[Privilege, April 11th, 2017]

moved:

That the question of privilege regarding the free movement of Members of Parliament within the Parliamentary Precinct raised on Wednesday, March 22, 2017, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that your ruling today is truly a testament to your position as Speaker, and to the Speakers who have gone before you. Truly, the role of the Speaker is one of the utmost principles in our parliamentary democracy, and I think today, in the long line of Speakers who have gone before, you have found the appropriate ruling.

After all, often the role of the Speaker is determined to be one of a referee, and we often hear that referred to in tour groups and among university lecturers. However, the role of the Speaker is so much more than that. The Speaker is truly the defender of the rights and privileges of this place.

I am reminded from time to time of the words of a great English Speaker, William Lenthall, who said with great conviction to the King in his place in his time, when met with King Charles I, the executive of the day:

...I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this house is pleased to direct me whose servant I am....

Today the Speaker made such a ruling and stood up to the face of opposition from the government ministers.

Let me begin my remarks by saying that I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

It is in a way unfortunate that we have to have a redo of this debate. This debate was properly started last week when the Speaker did rightly find a prima facie case of privilege, and it is troubling in two manners: first, the nature of the incident itself, that two members of Parliament were prevented from undertaking their duties of voting in this House; and second, by the unfortunate actions that were undertaken by the government in preventing this matter from coming to a vote.

As the Speaker rightly found in his ruling, this is unprecedented. Never before in the history of this place has a matter of privilege been dealt with in such a way. Never before in this place has the government shut down and prevented all 338 members of this House from voting on a matter of the privileges of us as parliamentarians. Every other case of privilege has been dealt with one way or another through a vote, either in the affirmative or in the negative, but not in this case.

This is most unfortunate. It is unfortunate for so many reasons. If, as members in this House noted before, the government is allowed to proceed in this manner on this case, how many times going forward will votes on questions of privilege be prevented from coming to a vote in this House by the duly elected members of this House?

I want to state the great respect I have for this institution and for those who serve this institution. I want to state as well the respect I have, specifically, for the parliamentary protective service, in whom I have the utmost of confidence for defending us and keeping us safe as parliamentarians.

In my short time as a parliamentarian—I have only been elected for about a year and a half—I have always felt safe in the exercising of my duties here in this place, and indeed, another speaker in last week's debate, quoted from the back of our ID badges, and I think it is worthwhile to reread that into the record:

Under the law of parliamentary privilege, the bearer has free and open access at all times, without obstruction or interference to the precincts of the House of Parliament of which the bearer is a member.

In fact, the law of parliamentary privilege is enshrined constitutionally in section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, also more commonly known to us in its original title, the British North America Act, 1867.

Let us remember exactly what took place on budget day. Two members of Parliament, at least, were affected. We know of at least two. There could have been others as well. There was indication from the Speaker's original ruling that there were others potentially on the buses who were also denied access. However, at least two members, the members from Milton and Beauce, were unable to attend a vote in this House, in this place.

The outcome of that particular vote is not relevant. The fact is that they were prevented from doing their duty, the duty that they as elected members of this place are entrusted to do on behalf of their constituents. All of us have that duty to the constituents we are honoured and privileged to represent.

Let us imagine for just a moment how this could have played out differently. Imagine there had been a vote of confidence and members were prevented by one way or another from attending this place to vote. Certainly in this case there is a majority government and one or two members not exercising their vote may not seem like a significant matter. Let us think back into the not-so-distant past to May 2005. There was a budget vote, a confidence vote in this very House. The Paul Martin Liberals were on the ropes. It looked as if they could be defeated. A couple of lucky floor crossings and the support of an independent member of Parliament meant that it ended up in a tie vote. Mr. Speaker Milliken at the time was forced into the position of breaking that tie vote in the affirmative. One vote would have made the difference, in that case, of an election, the dissolution of Parliament, or the continuation of that government. It would have been one vote.

In fact, in this Parliament not too long ago on Bill C-10, on a Monday morning, or afternoon by the time we voted, we had a tie vote in this House on a piece of government legislation. One vote would have made the difference between that piece of legislation moving on to third reading and that piece of legislation being defeated in this place. The Speaker at the time was forced to once again break a tie. Interestingly, in a majority government, that does not happen very often, but it happened in that case. I would point out that it is somewhat ironic that the government is currently proposing changes, and one of the changes it has mentioned is perhaps sitting earlier in the morning, but if we use the example of Bill C-10, that vote was in the early afternoon, so I would be surprised how many members might be in this House at that time.

We are faced with the question now of where we go from here, where we move forward in the appropriate manner. As my motion clearly states, it is appropriate at this point that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, as it is the appropriate location. I know there have been flimsy procedural efforts for the committee to self-direct to undertake its own study of privilege, but as we know, the Standing Orders clearly state that matters of privilege do not fall under the mandate of the procedure and House affairs committee, and it falls on the House to direct the appropriate committee to undertake a study of the privilege. After all, the rights and privileges of this House are a matter for this House to undertake.

I do feel a bit like Bill Murray in the movie Groundhog Day; we are redoing the same battle again and again, the same debate that has been undertaken. I have been told I am better looking than Bill Murray. I am not so sure about that, but I will say this. On a matter as important as the privileges of this House, a procedurally flimsy effort by the government to shut down the debate is truly unfortunate. Two members were denied the right to vote and now, by the Liberals' efforts, the attempt was to deny 338 members the right to vote. That is truly unfortunate.

It is unfortunate that it is being done at the same time that the procedure and House affairs committee is undertaking a Standing Order change, a change that would be done unilaterally without the support of opposition parties. The government states that it wants to have a discussion on the matter. A discussion can only happen if both sides are listening and discussing. The privileges of this House are of the utmost importance to each and every member of this House. It is not a matter for the government to decide. Rather, it is a matter for this House to decide by way of a vote.

[Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, April 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Yukon is very proud of Yukon and proud of his riding and I thank him for his comments.

However, I want to comment on what we just saw from the government House leader. After only one day of debate on this bill, she has given notice of time allocation. She has given notice of time allocation at the same time on Bill C-25 after very little debate.

She said that an agreement could not be reached through the usual channels. Well, it is tough to reach agreement when the government is ramming changes to the Standing Orders down the throats of the opposition.

She said that she wants us to have a conversation on the Standing Orders, yet there is a motion before the procedure and House affairs committee to have the guillotine at the end. It is a forced change.

Our party believes that to have a real discussion we need consensus from all parties in this House, as has been the tradition in this House. I think it is unfortunate that she has given notice of time allocation on two bills which have had one day of debate.

[Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, April 10th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today on Bill C-17.

Listening to the debate thus far today, I am reminded of former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, who certainly had a love of the north. He also had a love of this place, a love of Parliament. I am reminded of one of his more famous quotations, in which he said, “Parliament is more than procedure--it is the custodian of the nation's freedom.”

I am reminded of this now more than ever. Last Friday, I raised an important question of privilege about two members who were denied their right to vote, and then the Liberal government shutting down the vote on a question of privilege, never allowing that question of privilege to come to a vote in this House.

As well, I think of the Standing Orders standoff that the Liberals have orchestrated in the procedure and House affairs committee. It is, unfortunately with a heavy heart, that we have to stand in here and debate, not the important rights of our members, as we ought to.

Therefore, I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

[Standing Orders of the House of Commons, April 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the unnecessary Standing Orders standoff has continued for nearly three weeks, and the Liberal House leader says that she wants to have a conversation. However, a conversation only works if she is willing to listen. All Canadians expect a voice in the House, not just the Liberal front bench.

Why are the Liberals so afraid of accountability and transparency?

[Privilege, April 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today on a question of privilege following yesterday's proceedings concerning the question of privilege raised by the members for Milton and Beauce. As I will establish in my argument, no other government in history has treated a Speaker's finding of a prima facie case of privilege in such a reckless and cavalier manner as we saw yesterday. The way the Liberals tried to cover it, by trying to have the committee self-initiate a privilege study, could lead to unintended but very dangerous consequences.

As we know, the Speaker found a prima facie case of privilege on this matter. The hon. member for Milton then moved the appropriate motion, and a debate ensued. After question period, the hon. member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert moved that the House do now proceed to orders of the day, and the motion was adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I am now asking that you again find a prima facie case of privilege on the basis of the evidence and submissions tendered last month as well as the very relevant precedent of the Speaker's own ruling yesterday morning.

Last evening, following proceedings in the House, which I outlined, I gave notice to the Speaker, via the table, and pursuant to Standing Order 48, of my intention to rise on this question of privilege this morning when the House opened. In other words, I am raising this at the earliest opportunity.

This might seem like the movie Groundhog Day. I am asking that we have a do-over of yesterday. Let me explain why and why it is procedurally in order.

Page 148 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, makes it clear that motions to proceed to orders of the day are in order during debate on a privilege motion. Page 149 explains the consequences of such a motion being adopted. It states:

[Should] a motion to proceed to Orders of the Day be adopted, then the privilege motion is superseded and dropped from the Order Paper.

The same point is reiterated at page 541. That is why the privilege motion is not printed in today's Order Paper and is not under debate today, even though the House has not come to a decision one way or the other.

What we got yesterday from the hon. member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert was some procedural legerdemain, a magic trick. She said that her colleague filed a notice of motion to initiate a study on this issue at the procedure and House affairs committee.

Though we are not generally supposed to trouble the chair with procedural matters in committee, I will say that a point of order was raised last evening concerning the inadmissibility of that notice of motion. In short, and for the context of the House, the concern is that it goes beyond the order of reference for the procedure and House Affairs committee found in Standing Order 108(3)(a). The deputy government whip noted at committee last evening that the rule contains the words “among other matters”, which she believes gives her good authority to proceed with her notice.

In my view, that phrase captures those things that are provided for in the Standing Orders, such as the automatic referral of statutory reports under Standing Order 32, such as the Chief Electoral Officer's report on the 2015 general election and the time-sensitive review of it, which has been held hostage by the government House leader's discussion paper; or by an order of reference from the House, such as bills and cases of privileges.

The chair, mere moments before midnight, informed the committee that the clerk ruled it in order. Make of that what you will, Mr. Speaker. On the strength of that so-called ruling, a majority at the procedure and House affairs committee can now, and in the future, simply decide, anytime it wishes, to study some issue and write a report leading to recommendations to find someone in contempt of Parliament, to jail people, or even to expel members. Imagine what Parliament is going to become during a minority government. As I said in my opening comments, this is an unintended but very dangerous consequence.

Let me be very clear. The Conservative Party, Her Majesty's loyal opposition, wants to see this critical issue studied by the procedure and House affairs committee. Our main concern here is that the government not disregard the rules of this place, and we feel the need to clarify whether the committee can deal with the privilege matter without a proper reference from the House.

By reviving the question of privilege in the House, we take the opportunity to ensure that the procedure and House affairs committee can study this important issue, this question of our rights as parliamentarians, with the full confidence of a sturdy procedural footing.

Turning to an explanation of the procedural consequences of yesterday's manoeuver by the government, the House did not decide for or against the merits of a committee study on this question of privilege. Therefore, the so-called “same question rule” is not triggered.

Citation 558(1) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, sixth edition, states:

An old rule of Parliament reads: “That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House.”

In re-finding a prima facie case of privilege, you would not risk contravening this ancient rule. In fact, a consequence of the motion adopted yesterday is, I would submit, to put us back to where we started. For example, if that motion was moved during concurrence debate, it would take the actual motion debated off the Order Paper, but any other motion on notice concerning the same report could be moved the very next day. The member whose motion was flushed, so to speak, could simply re-file another notice of motion and begin anew.

The same goes for motions of instruction, which can be moved during routine proceedings. That is to say, one is back where one began and can reinitiate the same identical proceeding in the usual fashion appropriate to that class of motion. In the case of concurrence and instruction motions, that, of course, would be giving 48-hours' notice by way of the Notice Paper. In the case of a privilege motion, I say it would be in raising a question of privilege asking you to find a prima facie case of privilege and moving the appropriate privilege motion.

Canvassing O'Brien and Bosc for precedent privilege debates, where the motion offered by the hon. member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert was carried, and Appendix 15 of the volume, which offers a handy table of cases between 1958 and when our current privilege procedure was set down in 2008, shows that it has never been done before. Each prima facie case of privilege catalogued from pages 1289 to 1297 shows that every privilege motion debated was either adopted or defeated by the House of Commons. Each case of privilege since 2008, again, saw the relevant motion come to a vote, with only one exception. That exception was the case of the privilege motion moved by the hon. minister of fisheries and oceans on June 18, 2013, which happened to be the last sitting day of the session. The debate had been adjourned, as governments are much more likely to propose during privilege debates. A prorogation followed before the House sat again.

Let me state clearly that never has a motion to proceed to orders of the day been before adopted during a privilege debate. This is completely unprecedented, and, I would argue, is an extremely dangerous precedent that denies members their fundamental right to vote in this place. Why is that? As a matter of logistics, I would say that it is to avoid this Groundhog Day atmosphere I described earlier. As a matter of principle, it is a simple acknowledgement of the importance of allowing the House to take a decision on a motion concerning the privileges of this House. These privileges are guaranteed in section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, often referred to by its original title, the British North America Act. The law of parliamentary privilege has been held by the Supreme Court of Canada to be a body of constitutional law, a body of law on equal footing with that of the charter.

As I said, this situation is entirely unprecedented. I think the appropriate path forward lies in the analogous situation of privilege cases that get revived following prorogation. Allow me to offer the Chair two examples.

On May 26, 2003, at page 6413 of the Debates, Mr. Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege initiated by Mr. Boudria, and the procedure and House affairs committee was tasked with a study. Parliament was prorogued that November, before the committee could report. On February 6, 2004, at page 243 of the Debates, Mr. Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege raised by Mr. Breitkreuz, which revived the earlier case.

The Chair ruled at the time, stating:

As I indicated in the previous session, this was a bona fide question of privilege. Accordingly, in my view, the question remains a question of privilege. The committee did not completely report on the matter which it is entitled to do. Accordingly I give the hon. member leave to move his motion.

In a second incident, one I referenced a moment ago, on June 18, 2013, at page 18550 of the Debates, the Speaker's predecessor, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, found a prima facie case of privilege raised by the hon. minister of fisheries and oceans. That case, in fact, had actually been raised by the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, the member whose motion has sparked the very debate going on at the procedure and House affairs committee, on the unprecedented power grab proposed by the Liberals.

In any event, as I mentioned earlier, prorogation followed before debate could be concluded and a vote taken, so on October 17, 2013, the member made a request to revive the case of privilege, and at page 66 of the Debates, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said:

For the same reasons given in my ruling last session, in my view, the matter remains a prima facie question of privilege, and accordingly, I now invite the hon. member...to move his motion.

These two precedent situations stand for two different propositions I want you to consider, Mr. Speaker. First, as I mentioned in introducing them, they are analogous to the situation in which we find ourselves this morning. A prima facie case of privilege had been found, a motion had been proceeded with, and some subsequent procedural interruption came along before the privilege process could come full circle.

Second, you will note that members who raised the second question of privilege to revive the matter were not the same members who raised the initial prima facie case of privilege. For that matter, in those cases, the second motion was moved by a member of an entirely different political party.

To conclude, I do not believe that the Liberal trick yesterday was procedurally appropriate, and worse, it could create a dangerous precedent if it becomes standing operating procedure around this place.

You, Mr. Speaker, are currently seized with a couple of other questions of privilege raised by my colleague on which we eagerly await rulings. However, it becomes a natural concern to me if the Liberal government's go-to move will now be quickly to move to proceed to orders of the day, killing the privilege motions, should you find prima facie cases while there is an offer of a fig leaf of a procedurally suspect notice of motion at committee.

This is not the way to handle the serious matters raised by the Speaker's ruling, serious matters which, as a prima facie case of privilege, warrant priority consideration over all other business of this House. In fact, it smacks of utter arrogance by the government against the Speaker, the guardian of the rights and privileges of members of this House as an institution. No other government in history has, as I related moments ago, treated a Speaker's finding of a prima facie case of privilege in such a reckless and cavalier manner.

If we think about it, we are in an ironic situation. We debated a motion respecting two members being denied the opportunity to vote because of the issues addressed in yesterday's ruling. The government then resorted to a too-clever-by-half manoeuvre, which attempted to deny all 338 members of this House the right to vote on the issue concerning our privileges as parliamentarians that allow us to represent our constituents. This shocking development is sadly consistent with the earlier steps we saw in Motion No. 6 last year, and now the unilateral power grab cloaked in a pleasant-sounding label of a discussion paper.

Please note that we, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, support our Speaker, and we understand the challenging role the Chair has and most certainly support the Speaker's first ruling. In fact, we supported it to the point of wanting to be absolutely certain that it receives the priority it deserves at the procedure and House affairs committee.

Mr. Speaker, assuming your assessment has not changed since yesterday morning's ruling, I am now prepared to move the appropriate motion to vindicate the Chair's established role in deciding prima facie questions of privilege so the House can make decisions on these serious topics.

[Tartan Day, April 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today is Canada's seventh annual Tartan Day. This is an opportunity for us to celebrate the nearly five million Canadians of Scottish heritage.

In Perth County, we are celebrating the unveiling of the Perth County tartan. Under the leadership of Perth County Council, the Perth County tartan was created to honour the 150th anniversary of Confederation.

The tartan colours are green to represent our deep agricultural roots and fertile land, blue to represent the rivers and streams, red to commemorate the sacrifice of our early settlers and pioneers and the veterans who fought so hard for our freedoms, and gold to reflect the industrious nature of the people of Perth County.

I would like to thank and congratulate all of those involved in the creation of this wonderful tartan, including councillors Helen Dowd, Doug Kellum, and Bob Wilhelm and committee member Pauline Hartfeil.

I am proud to wear this tartan as a part of our county's proud and rich heritage.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, April 3rd, 2017]

With regard to aircraft usage by the Canadian Embassy and Consulate in Ukraine and by the Canadian Embassy in Poland between May 25, 2016, and July 13, 2016, excluding regularly scheduled commercial flights: (a) what flights or aircraft rental were paid for or utilized by the embassies or consulate; (b) what were the costs associated with each flight or aircraft rental; and (c) what were the details of each flight, including (i) date, (ii) departure location, (iii) arrival location, (iv) list of passengers, (v) type of aircraft?

[Privilege, March 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on the questions of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. members for Beauce and Milton. As you know, both hon. members were delayed by security from coming to the House and as a result missed a vote.

On December 1, 2004, the Speaker found sufficient grounds to find a prima facie matter of privilege on a similar matter where members' free movement within the parliamentary precinct was interfered with during the visit to Parliament of the president of the United States.

Stemming from that incident, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs stated in its 21st report:

The denial of access to Members of the House—even if temporary—is unacceptable, and constitutes a contempt of the House. Members must not be impeded or interfered with while on their way to the Chamber, or when going about their parliamentary business. To permit this would interfere with the operation of the House of Commons, and undermine the pre-eminent right of the House to the service of its Members.

On September 14, 2014, regarding the member for Acadie—Bathurst, the Speaker found a prima facie question of privilege and ruled:

The denial of access by members to the precinct is a serious matter, particularly on a day when votes are taking place.

On May 12, 2015, the Speaker found that a prima facie question of privilege existed after the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the member for Toronto—Danforth complained that, while attempting to access the parliamentary precinct through the East Block entrance in order to attend a vote in the House, the shuttle bus they were on was stopped temporarily by an RCMP officer. While acknowledging the need to keep Parliament secure, the members insisted this physical obstruction constituted a denial of reasonable timely access to the parliamentary precinct, thereby impeding these members from performing their parliamentary duties.

In 2012, there was a question of privilege raised by the member for Winnipeg Centre, regarding difficulties experienced by certain members in gaining access to the parliamentary precinct during the visit to Canada by the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. On March 15, 2012, the Speaker ruled that this constituted a prima facie question of privilege.

In view of the strong body of jurisprudence I have presented today, I trust that you will find there are sufficient grounds for a prima facie matter of privilege.

In conclusion, yesterday two members of the opposition were denied the right to vote. This is a very serious matter, particularly at a time when the government is attempting to ram through reforms that will cripple the opposition's ability to hold the government to account. I look forward to learning more details of this matter, and if necessary, l will return to the House to add further submissions based on those details.

[Points of Order, March 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The picture taken by the member for Don Valley East is on Twitter. It has been uploaded. I would encourage you to direct the member to delete that picture. Consistent with the rules of the House and privilege of this hon. place, that picture should be removed with all due haste.