Matthew Dubé

[Privilege, April 11th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the debate we are having right now relates to the fact that the Speaker of the House of Commons has ruled that by ending the debate on the question of privilege raised by the member for Milton and the member for Beauce respectively, the government acted in an unprecedented and unacceptable manner. Accordingly, he decided to allow us to resume this debate.

When one says “unprecedented”, I think the meaning is pretty clear. As many people like to say, and with all due respect to my Conservative colleagues, this kind of thing did not even happen in the previous Parliament under Stephen Harper.

My colleague wants to talk about conversations and the importance of sharing ideas. Does he not understand that preventing us from expressing those ideas and having our say effectively ends the conversation? Can he also explain why, in his comments, he keeps avoiding the fundamental issue, that is, that the Speaker ruled that the government acted in an unprecedented and unacceptable manner when it tried to end the debate on the question of privilege? I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

[Privilege, April 11th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He talked about what happened to our former colleague, Yvon Godin.

I would like to talk about his amendment. I believe that the matter raised by the members for Beauce and Milton, the former member for Acadie—Bathurst, Mr. Godin, and others, is coming up much too frequently.

I do not want to call into question the work that RCMP and security officers are doing on the Hill. They are doing an outstanding job of keeping us safe and protecting Parliament Hill. Still, I think this needs to be a priority for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It really is happening way too often. I think we need to put an end to this problem once and for all.

I would like my colleague to comment on what we can do to ensure, as much as possible, that MPs are no longer accidentally or deliberately prevented from getting to their workplace.

[Justice, April 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like some clarification.

We received notice that you will be ruling on a question of privilege. Obviously, these questions are of the utmost importance to the House. I am aware of past practices of the House and have personal experience in the matter, and I wanted to ensure that the ruling will be made before we move to orders of the day.

[Public Safety, April 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, a number of active cellphone data tracker devices were recently discovered in downtown Ottawa, and in the wake of these revelations, the minister admitted that the RCMP and CSIS use this type of equipment.

He suggested that the future national security committee consider the issue, but that is not enough.

Will the minister acknowledge how urgent it is to take action, modernize our laws, and implement the appropriate and necessary legislative measures to govern the use of this type of equipment?

[Privacy, April 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, following revelations regarding cellphone data tracker devices hidden in Ottawa and at the Montreal airport, the RCMP has confirmed that it uses that kind of cellphone surveillance device.

The RCMP insists that all surveillance activities are consistent with Canadian laws, but we still hear reports of scandals involving journalists being wiretapped, legal action to obtain journalistic sources, and surveillance of indigenous activists.

Will the government bring in a real legal framework to govern the use of these kinds of devices in order to protect the privacy of Canadians?

[Privilege, April 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the response to my point of order.

It is important to note that there was indeed agreement on our part. I would therefore appreciate it if my colleague would refrain from questioning our intentions. I will not speak for my colleagues on this side of the House, but I believe they feel the same way.

I think it is important to note there is agreement and I do not appreciate the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader putting into question our intentions on this side of the House, despite the debate on this important issue.

[Privilege, April 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, and I apologize to my colleague for interrupting him, but I just want to raise an issue. I think all members in this House were expecting, as you were, at the opening of the doors, a motion from the government to hear from the Prime Minister on matters of great importance.

I just want to raise in this House that while we continue to debate this critical issue of privilege, whenever the government is ready, we are also ready to hear from the Prime Minister on important matters, and we still have not heard that motion.

[Privilege, April 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that was meant for the member who just spoke, who can be long-winded at times.

I would like to add a few points to my Conservative colleague's arguments.

Yesterday, the ruling was pretty clear on the importance of the issue. With being here for nearly six years now, it is something that has come up many times. The Speaker did say:

The importance of the matter of members' access to the precinct, particularly when there are votes for members to attend, cannot be overstated. It bears repeating that even a temporary denial of access, whether there is a vote or not, cannot be tolerated.

That is very important. Contrary to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons suggested, nobody is second-guessing the committee's work. What is at issue is the fact that the government prevented the House of Commons from exercising its authority on a matter before it under the Speaker's authority.

Quickly, being mindful of the request to be sensitive to the time, I want to read from O'Brien and Bosc, page 141:

Great importance is attached to matters involving privilege. [...] The function of the Speaker is limited to deciding whether the matter is of such a character as to entitle the Member who has raised the question to move a motion which will have priority over Orders of the Day; that is, in the Speaker’s opinion, there is a prima facie question of privilege. If there is, the House must take the matter into immediate consideration. Ultimately, it is the House which decides whether a breach of privilege or a contempt has been committed.

We and our Conservative colleagues believe that, by playing these procedural games, the government prevented the House from exercising its authority on this issue.

The last quote I want to read is from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, page 62:

Any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt of the House. Contempt may be an act or an omission.

This is a very important issue. Considering the importance that the Speaker ascribed to this matter in his decision, considering that this is a key issue that comes up regularly, and considering that the government prevented us from proceeding with debate and prevented the House from exercising its authority, if this is not a question of privilege, it is certainly a question of contempt of the House or at least a question that has a significant impact on members' ability to do their job.

I will end on that. I think it is critical that the House be allowed to be seized with these matters, and in particular in the current context, where we see, as my Conservative colleague pointed out, the government attempting to unilaterally change the rules of this place. It is critical that we have the ability, as parliamentarians and as this place, to be able to be seized with this question and decide as a collective on this question, and not have the government unilaterally pushing us into its agenda that it feels we should be seized with.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that what you just heard will enable you to make an informed decision on the members' ability to do their job and move forward on an issue that the Speaker considers to be crucial. The issue of members' access to the House of Commons comes up far too often. This is a vital question of privilege.

[Privilege, April 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to the question of privilege.

I would like to begin by thanking my—

[Standing Orders of the House of Commons, April 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, after the way the Prime Minister treated electoral reform, his treatment of parliamentary democracy has about as much credibility as a Pepsi commercial.

I know that the Prime Minister is looking forward to having this discussion. He wants to hear passionate speeches and get our suggestions, but the problem is the process. All it would take to launch the discussion that he so badly wants is to assure us that the changes will not be made unilaterally.

I will give the Prime Minister another chance to give us those assurances today, right now. Will he promise not to make any changes unilaterally, yes or no?