Pablo Rodriguez

[Acknowledgements at the End of the Parliamentary Session, June 23rd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to humbly thank all of the House of Commons staff.

As everyone knows, the pandemic forced us to change our way of doing things and to reinvent everything. The House services demonstrated a great deal of resourcefulness and flexibility when putting in place the hybrid version of the House of Commons.

For that to happen, the rules of the House of Commons had to be rewritten, and a completely virtual Parliament had to be set up in both official languages. That was a massive undertaking. Thanks to everyone's efforts, we were able to participate in debates in the House, hold regular committee and caucus meetings and vote remotely. In my opinion, this is a model for everyone.

I would like to give special thanks to our interpreters. The process of setting up the virtual part of the House and committee proceedings was particularly difficult for them. The interpreters have had to deal with some serious challenges since the virtual and hybrid sittings began, including technical issues, sound quality issues and, of course, long hours. On behalf of myself, the entire government team and the entire Liberal team, I thank them for the absolutely outstanding work they have been doing since September. They can now take a well-deserved rest.

I also want to thank the Speaker and his team, as well as all House employees and staff working in ministers' offices and in the offices of MPs from all parties.

Lastly, I want to give special thanks to my fellow House leaders from the other parties. We do not always see eye to eye, but we have managed to build a relationship of trust. We have found ways to work collaboratively, of course, in a respectful and sometimes jovial manner. I wish each and every one of them a wonderful summer. I hope everyone is able to rest and spend quality time with their families.

I hope everyone will return to the House in good health.

[Points of Order, June 23rd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House: (a) in recognition of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, when the House adjourns on Wednesday, September 29, 2021, it shall stand adjourned until Friday, October 1, 2021, provided that, for the purposes of any standing order, it shall be deemed to have been adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28 and be deemed to have sat on Thursday, September 30, 2021; (b) documents deposited pursuant to Standing Order 32(1) on July 21, 2021 and August 18, 2021 shall be deposited with the Clerk of the House electronically; and (c) following Routine Proceedings later this day, the House shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 20, 2021, pursuant to Standing Order 28.

[Public Safety, June 22nd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague forgot to mention that we provided different options, which you are currently exploring.

The government obviously recognizes the fundamental role and rights of Parliament and parliamentarians, but it also recognizes the importance of protecting our national security and keeping certain things secret.

Therefore, we must find a solution. Unlike my colleague, who is trying to play petty politics by finger-pointing, we are providing options for you to explore. I hope that we will be able to work together.

[National Defence, June 22nd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois should take a step back and watch what it says.

We are talking about a man who dedicated his life to his country, a respected veteran, a man who is transforming how the Canadian Armed Forces work, a man who is focused on instituting a culture of zero tolerance for discrimination and harassment, a man who deserves our trust and respect.

The Bloc Québécois should look itself in the mirror and stop resorting to such petty attacks.

[Ethics, June 22nd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, there they go again: personal attacks on well-respected individuals. They keep doing that. Why? They want to hide their failure. They refuse to work. We remember a couple of weeks ago when it was 10 a.m., when people go to work, and the Conservatives decided they had worked enough and should go home. They refuse to work longer hours to adopt important legislation and they filibuster. If they do not want to help, they should get out of the way and let us help Canadians.

[Ethics, June 22nd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, is that the same guy who tried to shut down Parliament a couple of weeks ago? He is part of a group that refused to work longer hours to help Canadians. They filibustered important work we are doing for Canadians, and what are they doing now? They are just trying to change the channel. They should stop wasting time and help us help Canadians.

[Privilege, June 21st, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would ask that you take the statements I made during my point of order on the question of privilege and include them all in the debate.

I would add the following comments to the debate on the question of privilege.

The government respects the right of the House of Commons to order documents, but we also believe firmly in what the former House of Commons Speaker, Speaker Milliken, articulated in his ruling on April 27, 2010, where in the context of an order for national security-related documents he stated:

But what of the House’s responsibility regarding the manner in which this right can or ought to be exercised? The authorities cited earlier all make reference to the long-standing practice whereby the House has accepted that not all documents demanded ought to be made available in cases where the Government asserts that this is impossible or inappropriate for reasons of national security, national defence or international relations.

O’Brien and Bosc, at page 979, states: “—it may not be appropriate to insist on the production of papers and records in all cases.”

The basis for this statement is a 1991 report by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, which, as recorded on page 95 of the Journals of May 29, 1991, pointed out:

The House of Commons recognizes that it should not require the production of documents in all cases; considerations of public policy, including national security, foreign relations, and so forth, enter into the decision as to when it is appropriate to order the production of such documents.

He further stated:

Now it seems to me that the issue before us is this: Is it possible to put in place a mechanism by which these documents could be made available to the House without compromising the security and confidentiality of the information they contain? In other words, is it possible for the two sides, working together in the best interests of the Canadians they serve, to devise a means where both their concerns are met? Surely that is not too much to hope for.

Speaker Milliken's ruling is an important precedent to guide how both the government and the House can come to a resolution on this important issue. The government wishes to work constructively with all members of Parliament to find a solution that respects the balance of interest between the rights of parliamentarians to have access to information and the obligations of the government to protect information related to national security and privacy.

As we all know, given the sensitivity of the information in question, the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada gave notice to the Attorney General of Canada pursuant to subsection 38.01(1) of the Canada Evidence Act on June 20, 2021, advising that “sensitive or potentially injurious information” was at risk of being disclosed as a result of the June 17 House of Commons order.

Under section 38.02 of the Canada Evidence Act, “no person shall disclose in connection with a proceeding (a) information about which notice is given...”. This means that information subject to the notice cannot be disclosed until the Attorney General assesses whether its disclosure would be injurious to national security or after the Federal Court has ordered its disclosure.

That being said, the Attorney General can, at any time under the Canada Evidence Act, authorize disclosure of the sensitive information if he is satisfied that measures are put in place to safeguard it. Given this, the government wishes to work constructively with the members of Parliament to find a solution that reflects the balance noted above and is willing to continue to seek a path forward that does not require the court's involvement. This would require the agreement of the Attorney General of Canada.

I have offered concrete solutions. I spoke of two very real options that would allow us to resolve this.

I made reference to the memorandum of understanding. I gave the example of the documents relating to the Afghan detainees. That is one option that can be used by the House.

The second option is related to the law clerk and parliamentary counsel, assisted by national security specialists.

These two options are concrete and real, and they respect both the will of the House and all of the government's obligations with regard to privacy and the protection of potentially sensitive information, the disclosure of which could be injurious to the country, individuals and institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to take the time to analyze these two very concrete options and solutions so that we can work together with the opposition parties for the benefit of all parliamentarians, but also for the benefit of all Canadians, which is much more important.

[Points of Order, June 21st, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, the connection to the matter before us will soon be clear.

Of course the government wants to collaborate. That is what it has been trying to do from the start, in a way that respects parliamentary privilege and extremely important national security issues.

I am going to skip a whole section of my presentation and jump right to my proposal.

We are putting various options before you, all of them valid, in my opinion. I think it would be worth your while to read them so that we can find a solution that works for all parliamentarians and all parties.

I will not be very long.

The first option relates to what I call a memorandum of understanding regarding Afghan detainee documents. In response to the ruling by Speaker Milliken in 2010, the government and the opposition agreed to a memorandum of understanding that created an ad hoc committee of parliamentarians to review national security documents. It included safeguards and a panel of arbiters to determine how the relevant and necessary information could be made available to MPs and the public without compromising national security. A similar memorandum of understanding could be used for the review of the documents that the House has ordered.

As a second option, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel could be assisted by national security specialists.

The motion adopted by the House on June 2, 2021, states, in part:

(d) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall confidentially review the documents with a view to redacting information which, in his opinion, could reasonably be expected to compromise national security or reveal details of an ongoing criminal investigation, other than the existence of an investigation;

(e) the Speaker shall cause the documents, as redacted pursuant to paragraph (d), to be laid upon the table at the next earliest opportunity and, after being tabled, they shall stand referred to the special committee;

While the government accepts that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel has the appropriate security clearance to review the information, we do not believe he has the necessary training or expertise in national security-related information to make the necessary assessment. Disclosing sensitive information could have a number of negative side effects for our intelligence agencies. These include, inter alia, revealing covert methods of operation and tradecraft and investigative techniques; putting at risk human sources and their families; and identifying or helping to identify employees, internal procedures and administrative practices. Finally, it could have a severe impact on Canada's reputation as a responsible security partner.

Assessing the damage caused by disclosure of information cannot be done in the abstract or in isolation. Seemingly unrelated information can be used to develop a more comprehensive picture or “mosaic effect” when added to information already known, thereby revealing further tradecraft. Declassification of documents needs to undergo a review which takes into account the potential impact on covert methodologies, sources and relationships.

The government is open to providing the unredacted documents to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel if the House of Commons agrees that national security specialists can assist him in this process and that other appropriate safeguards be put in place.

It is our hope that the government and the opposition can come to a reasonable solution that ensures that the government can continue to respect its obligations to protect national security, and the House of Commons can effectively do its work.

[Points of Order, June 21st, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, it is totally related.

The president of the Public Health Agency of Canada has worked diligently to try to comply with the order of June 2, 2021. He has done so in a manner that balances the rights of parliamentarians to have access to information with the duty of the government to protect information related to national security and privacy.

The Parliament of Canada Act states in section 4 that the privileges, immunities and powers of the two Houses are to be those that were held in 1867 by the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, and such privileges, immunities and powers as are defined by an act of the Parliament of Canada.

The Parliament of Canada, in exercising its legislative authority to define the privileges of the Houses, may circumscribe those privileges and has done so. A statute may be made expressly applicable to the Senate and the House of Commons or may apply implicitly, by necessary intendment.

As well, statutes of Parliament may impose duties of non-disclosure on government officials. As the Supreme Court observed in Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid in 2005, “Legislative bodies created by the Constitution Act, 1867 do not constitute enclaves shielded from the ordinary law of the land.”

Furthermore, in Chagnon v. Syndicat de la fonction publique et parapublique du Québec, Justice Rowe, in concurring with the majority of the court, added, “...expecting a legislature to comply with its own legislation cannot be regarded as an intrusion on the legislature's privilege. It is not an impediment to the functioning of a legislature for it to comply with its own enactments. Accordingly, when a legislature has set out in legislation how something previously governed pursuant to privilege is to operate, the legislature no longer can rely on inherent privilege so as to bypass the statute.”

Parliamentary privilege has been circumscribed by valid statutes, and the House of Commons cannot now choose to relieve itself from their application.

As we know, the Minister of Health referred the matter and provided unredacted documents to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, given the expertise of the members of the committee in matters of national security. The committee has a broad mandate to review Canada's legislative, regulatory, policy, administrative and financial framework for national security and intelligence. It may also—

[Points of Order, June 21st, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, the point of order is totally related.