Laurie Hawn

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of her remark, my colleague asked what are we doing there. We are there to make a difference. She outlined some of the areas where we have made a difference. Forty thousand fewer babies are dying every year because they have basic health care. There are more women in Afghanistan's parliament than there are in Canada's Parliament. Thousands of small businesses have been started, mostly by women. Those are just three areas, and there are more things that we are there to do.

I have a simple question for her: If Canada and like-minded countries like Canada are not there and cannot be there to help the Afghan people to some prospect of a decent life, then who in her fantasy world would be there?

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a really short question for my hon. colleague. The special committee is under way right now. As he mentioned, the opposition controls that committee. They are the masters of their own fate.

Does it not make sense for the special committee to finish its work before we run off with our hair on fire seeking a public inquiry?

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I just have a couple of questions and a quote for my hon. colleague.

First of all, when he repeats Mr. Colvin's claim that we were rounding up farmers, cab drivers and so on, that testimony was specifically, very clearly and very credibly, repudiated by all three generals. The only people who were turned over to the NDS were people who had clearly been involved in explosive or firearms activities, through gunshot residue, through capture while in the act, and so on. To say we were turning over complete innocents is just simply a false statement.

We talked about the ICRC. When asked if reports had been sent to Canadian authorities at any time since Canadian combat forces arrived in Kandahar to fight the Taliban in 2006, Mr. Fillion of the ICRC declined to comment, citing his organization's policy:

We do reserve the right to go public when all other means are exhausted. This has not happened in Afghanistan because we have a constructive dialogue with all the relevant parties, including Canada.

So how can my hon. colleague suggest that the ICRC was somehow implying, as per his implication, that we were doing something wrong?

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

That was the previous government.

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there were so many misrepresentations in my colleague's testimony that I cannot possibly cover them all.

The document he showed Mr. Mulroney was from mid-2007 after we were already taking action. He said that they had asked for the documents by December 2. He should check his calendar. It is not December 2. The sanctions that we were to be talked about was if somebody broke the law in testimony, not simply that he or she would testify. There are many others, but I will go to a question.

He said whom he believes. He left out the generals. He has called the generals arrogant. My colleague from Vancouver South has repeated allegations that the testimony of the generals was morally weak and legally flimsy. He said that they were singing off the same song sheet, implying that perhaps there was some collusion. Maybe they are singing off the same song sheet because they are simply telling the truth.

Is my colleague calling the generals liars? Is he calling them morally weak and legally flimsy, or does he put some faith in the Canadian Forces and the leadership that he claims he does?

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is in the public domain, from the CBC as a matter of fact. The reports only surfaced after Graeme Smith published his reports. I would ask the question, where is Mr. Colvin getting his information?

With respect to the comments about whom the government wanted to hear from and so on, as we do not repeat what happens in camera, I would just say that the member was not being factual when he made those statements.

There is one source who spent a total of an afternoon outside the wire, visiting one prison, talking to four prisoners. He did not know where they came from. One of them showed some signs of abuse. That is the “he said” side. On the “everybody else said” side, we have three high-ranking, highly respected generals, a senior diplomat who was Colvin's superior, and numerous other people saying the opposite.

Is the member saying that that one source is more credible than all those other sources?

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, obviously this is an important issue, and it is an emotional issue. I want to quickly point out two things and then ask a question.

Mr. Colvin's memos in 2006 did not relate to abuse. They related to conditions in the jails. His reports basically said that the jails were not that bad. His reports in 2007 came to light after Graeme Smith did his article-

[Privilege, November 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on this important issue. As has often been stated, real matters of privilege and contempt are rarities and ought not to be treated lightly. The complaint raised by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre and the content of the third report of the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan are matters the government treats with profound gravity.

The committee report makes a serious allegation. Let me quote in brief the full report:

On Thursday, November 26, 2009, the Special Committee agreed to report the following motion:

That the Committee believes a serious breach of privilege has occurred and members' rights have been violated, that the Government of Canada, particularly the Department of Justice and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, have intimidated a witness of this Committee, and obstructed and interfered with the Committee's work and with the papers requested by this Committee.

Therefore this Committee reports the breach to the House so that it can consider the matter.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings Meeting No. 17 is tabled.

Respectfully submitted,

There follows the name of the chair, the hon. member for Lethbridge.

Mr. Speaker, the question before you is whether or not this is a prima facie case that would merit giving precedence over all other business. That decision must be based on evidence before the House. My respectful submission is that the committee has not sent sufficient evidence to the House. All we have is the one sentence accusation that:

--the Department of Justice and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, have intimidated a witness--

There are no specifics set out, no names of persons, no record of events, and no details that could be tested. How on earth can an inanimate agency, a department, intimidate any person? People can; a department cannot.

The committee did append to the report the minutes of meeting 17. I searched diligently and I expected to find in meeting 17 a record of attempts to secure specific documents or exchanges with named officials of the Government of Canada, or written requests from committee officials for specific records that would spell out a chronology of invitations and responses or requests to named individuals for specific records. Let me quote the entirety of the committee record on this matter.

“[The member for Ottawa Centre]: Mr. Chair, just before we start, apologies to our guest, I just want to raise a point of order before we start. I actually want to go back to the motion that was passed yesterday with regards to documents and the requests that this committee put forward to the government and the requests for the documents. I want to, first of all, establish whether or not the documents arrived? If any documents arrived, did you put the request forward and did any documents arrive as to that request?”

“The Chair: Yes, that's correct, [the member for Ottawa Centre] that your motion indicated, the motion that passed, that the requests for these documents be put before Mr. Mulroney appear. That request went into the department last night at 8 o'clock as information provided to me by the clerk and I understand from officials today that the documents requested are at translation today”.

“[The member for Ottawa Centre]: Mr. Chair, in light of the fact that we haven't received documents and in light of the fact that this committee did request documents prior to Mr. Mulroney's attending committee, I just want to put forward this motion. It's a very quick one. It's regarding the documents and we can get on to the business of the day”.

“Mr. Chair, I think it's important to establish as I mentioned yesterday at committee the importance of committees of Parliament be able to do its work and to do that we need to have same documents that are available to witnesses. We saw this yesterday. We had two retired members of the forces accessing documents that we couldn't access. So the following motion I want to put forward, Chair, and will distribute 'that the committee report to the House that it believes a serious breach of privilege has occurred and members' rights have been violated. That the Government of Canada particularly the Department of Justice and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade have intimidated a witness of this committee and obstructed and interfered with committee's work by withholding the papers requested by this committee. Therefore this committee reports the breach to the House so that it consider the matter'. Mr. Chair, we have important business ahead of us as I mentioned”.

“This isn't an attempt to filibuster. This is a straight forward motion. I would like to have this committee consider it, to vote on it and to move on. If I could just explain the words in the motion. We have asked for documents. We have asked that these... not just once. I asked when Mr. Colvin was here for his documents. He wasn't able to provide those documents. He was told that if he did provide those documents, there would be consequences for that. I think that this... to put it mildly, unfortunate, that a committee of Parliament isn't able to have information to conduct its business. I believe that's a breach of privilege and that's a straight forward motion and I'll stop at that”.

“[The member for Edmonton Centre]: Well, Mr. Chair, several points. First of all, beginning with the latter one, Mr. Colvin does not have authority to provide those documents to the committee even if he chose to. I believe, Mr. Chair, that the motion passed yesterday, that certain motion which was mine as it was the last motion passed takes precedence over other motions. If you want to split hairs, [the member for Ottawa Centre's] motion was that documents be requested... I know this is really going to split a hair, be requested before Mr. Mulroney appeared not that they be delivered. That may be splitting a pretty fine hair but it is literally true. The other point, Mr. Chair, is that motions without unanimous consent require 48 hours notice”.

“The Chair: That is the case if it's a motion to do with something that the committee is not engaged in. Just to clarify the 48 hour rule, I'll read it here:

The 48 hour notice to be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration and that the notice of motion be filed with the clerks of the committee and distributed to members in both official languages.

This refers directly to the subject that we have under discussion. So I believe it's in order.

Any further discussion?”

“[The member for Edmonton Centre]: I would request a ruling, Mr. Speaker, on my other point that the third motion passed yesterday took precedence over ^member for Ottawa Centre's motion”.

“The Chair: I don't think this motion that [the member for Ottawa Centre] has presented circumvents Mr. Mulroney from presenting today at all. He will in my present today.

Any further discussion?

All those in favour of this motion?”

“(Motion agreed to)”

That is the entire case transmitted by the committee to the House of Commons.

There is an assertion that a witness has been intimidated. Who is the witness? What is the evidence? What are the specifics? It is not good enough to make an unsupported statement to pretend that this is a prima facie evidence. Nor is it sufficient for individual members of a committee to bring material to the House that does not stand in the name of the committee. Material not contained in the committee report cannot be given the authority of a report from the committee. This is the entire report.

What should the House expect in the instance of a genuine allegation of obstruction or denial of information?

First, we are entitled to know what has been requested, from whom and when it was requested, what response was made, by whom and when, and where is the written correspondence from the committee officials.

Let me quote from your ruling, Mr. Speaker, of last Thursday, November 26 when dealing with a complaint by the member for St. John's East. You stated:

If a report comes to the House, it is up to the Speaker to decide whether that report then allows a member to raise a question of privilege arising from the report, which will then get priority treatment in this House as befits a question of privilege.

I refer hon. members to pages 151-2 of O'Brien and Bosc, and this is in committee, where it states:

If, in the opinion of the Chair, the issue raised relates to privilege...the committee can proceed to the consideration of a report on the matter to the House. The Chair will entertain a motion which will form the text of the report. It should clearly describe the situation, summarize the events, name any individuals involved, indicate that privilege may be involved or that a contempt may have occurred, and request the House to take some action.

That did not happen in this report. The requirement that specific information must be included in the report itself is also reinforced at page 145 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice:

A matter alleged to have arisen in committee but not reported by it may not generally be brought to the attention of the House on a complaint of breach of privilege.

Why did the committee not come to the House to request an order of the House to produce specific papers? Options are available. The House may agree or not agree with the request of the committee. That option has not been pursued.

Instead the committee is asking the House of Commons to stop all other business to soothe the hurt feelings, condemn two departments of the Government of Canada, as well as all the persons who work in those departments, and the committee is asking the entire House of Commons to do the work that the committee has not done.

It is not enough to throw a one-sentence report together to hijack the work of the House of Commons. This is what O'Brien and Bosc state at page 979 under the discussion of committee powers to send for papers and records:

In practice, standing committees may encounter situations where the authors of or officials responsible for papers refuse to provide them or are willing to provide them only after certain parts have been removed. Public servants and Ministers may sometimes invoke their obligations under certain legislation to justify their position. Companies may be reluctant to release papers which could jeopardize their industrial security or infringe upon their legal obligations, particularly with regard to the protection of personal information. Others have cited solicitor-client privilege in refusing to allow access to legal papers or notices.

These types of situations have absolutely no bearing on the power of committees to order the production of papers and records. 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 this power to order the production of papers and records. However, it may not be appropriate to insist on the production of papers and records in all cases.

In cases where the author of or the authority responsible for a record refuses to comply with an order issued by a committee to produce documents, the committee essentially has three options. The first is to accept the reasons and conditions put forward to justify the refusal; the committee members then concede that they will not have access to the record or accept the record with passages deleted. The second is to seek an acceptable compromise with the author or the authority responsible for access to the record. Normally this entails putting measures in place to ensure that the record is kept confidential while it is being consulted: in camera review, limited and numbered copies, arrangements for disposing of or destroying the copies after the committee meeting, et cetera. The third option is to reject the reasons given for denying access to the record and uphold the order to produce the entire record.

Since committees do not have the disciplinary power to sanction failure to comply with their order to produce records, they can choose to report the situation to the House and request that appropriate measures be taken. Among the options available to the House is to endorse, with or without amendment, the committee's order to produce records, thus, making it a House order. In the past, the House has sometimes found persons failing to comply with an order to produce records guilty of contempt of Parliament. On occasion, it has even exercised its disciplinary powers.

This latter observation is important. There is a strong emphasis on the committee coming to the House and requesting the House to assist its work by ordering the production of a specific documents order for the production of papers and letting the House pass judgment on each document. Instead, this committee fails to ask the House to enforce its request. It is only interested in labelling unknown conduct of unknown persons and government departments as obstructionist, intimidating and contemptuous.

The House expects a higher standard of proof at the prima facie stage. Is there sufficient information presented by the committee to demonstrate that there has been interference, intimidation or contempt? The committee report contains not a single specific allegation.

As to the specific issue now before you, Mr. Speaker, and as is stated at page 145 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

—the issue put before the Speaker is not a finding of fact, it is simply whether on first impression the issue that is before the House warrants priority consideration over all other matters, all other orders of the day that are before the House.

There is no information that would justify a finding by the Speaker that all other business should be set aside to consider an undefined and unknown issue. To find otherwise is to give an instruction to every committee that they can control the business of the House through whimsey and mischief. That is not what we are about. It is not what the special committee on Afghanistan should be about.

The basic point is that something happened in a committee that can only come before the House if the committee reports it and it is the content of the report that is flawed and lacking specific information. The member for Ottawa South speaks only for himself, not the committee. The committee report speaks for the committee.

[Points of Order, November 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, during question period there is a lot of noise and, as we all know, people get carried away with their emotions, but I want to point out that the hon. member for Toronto Centre referred to the Minister of National Defence in very uncomplimentary terms and in language that is clearly not parliamentary. I would simply ask that he rise and apologize.

[Child Protection Legislation, November 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be part of a government that has a proven record in protecting Canadians.

We have introduced legislation to fight gangs, organized crime and white collar crime and to curtail identity theft.

This week, the Minister of Justice introduced legislation that would make reporting online child pornography mandatory. This legislation is the next step in our government's efforts to fight the sexual exploitation of children. It would require suppliers of Internet services to report tips they receive from the public to a designated agency. At the moment, such actions are voluntary. The bill would set graduated fines for failure to comply.

A mandatory reporting regime across Canada would strengthen our ability to protect our children from sexual predators. It would help police to rescue these young victims and to prosecute the criminals responsible.

We must always remain on the offensive when it comes to keeping our children and neighbourhoods safe. I would like to thank the Minister of Justice and all members of this House who are working on this legislation and I encourage it to be passed in a timely manner.

Working together we can deliver real results for Canadians. That is why we were elected.