Sean Casey

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 12th, 2014]

With regard to government travel, since June 19, 2012: (a) which ministers of the Crown have used rented limousines while on official business, within Canada or elsewhere; and (b) for each such use, what was (i) the date of the rental, (ii) the location of the rental, (iii) the nature of the official business, (iv) the cost of the rental?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 12th, 2014]

With regard to the administration of electoral events, what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of all documents, reports or memoranda prepared by or for any department or agency since January 1, 2011, concerning (i) the Canada Elections Act, (ii) the Referendum Act, (iii) the operation or administration of either of those acts, or of regulations made under those acts, (iv) any proposed or contemplated amendments to either of those acts or to regulations made under those acts?

[Justice, May 8th, 2014]

Now, there is a great idea, Mr. Speaker.

The government botched the appointment of Justice Nadon. To deflect its incompetence, it is engaged in a smear campaign against the Chief Justice. The Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Judicial Council, the deans of law schools from across the country, experts, and academics have all raised serious concerns about this deliberate smear campaign.

How can the Attorney General defend his behaviour as a full participant in the smear of Beverley McLachlin?

[Justice, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General is suggesting that the Chief Justice brought this whole he-said-she-said affair upon herself, that she had acted inappropriately by making a phone call about a Supreme Court vacancy in July of 2013.

The government had months of notice. If the minister and the government really felt so strongly about that phone call, why did they not simply request that the Chief Justice recuse herself from the Nadon case and avoid the smear campaign that he and the Prime Minister are now on?

[Points of Order, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of question period regarding comments made in relation to the Right Hon. Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of Canada, and the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Nadon reference.

I direct the attention of all members of this place to O'Brien and Bosc, at page 616:

Attacks against and censure of judges and courts by Members in debate have always been considered unparliamentary and, consequently, treated as breaches of order....While it is permissible to speak in general terms about the judiciary or to criticize a law, it is inappropriate to criticize or impute motives directed to a specific judge or to criticize a decision made under the law by a judge.

Today we heard a spirited critique from the Prime Minister of the Supreme Court's decision in the Nadon reference, but more important, I remind the House of what the Minister of Justice said on Monday:

Mr. Speaker...my office was contacted by the office of the chief justice. After I spoke with her on that call, I was of the considered opinion that the Prime Minister did not need to take her call.One thing I can assure the hon. member is that neither the Prime Minister nor I would ever consider calling a judge where that matter is or could be before the court of competent jurisdiction.

As Acting Speaker McClelland noted on April 1, 1998, and found at pages 5653 of the Debates:

This is a longstanding tradition in our Parliament that we be cautious when we attack individuals or groups, particularly in the judiciary, and those who are unable to come in here and have the same right of free expression as we enjoy with impunity here.

A similar sentiment comes from Acting Speaker Thibeault, on June 9, 1998, wherein she said:

All Speakers of the House have always considered references to magistrates and tribunals unparliamentary when they took the form of a personal attack or blame. I will therefore ask the hon. member to choose his words carefully and to be careful about attacking the court.

I realize the government may say that this is an issue of parsing words and that its comments are neither blame nor critique. If that is the case, I certainly invite those members to clarify the record lest the impression remain that there is any allegation of wrongdoing on the part of the Chief Justice. However, that still does not solve whether or not the comments were proper in this place.

As Erskine May's Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceeding and Usage of Parliament, 24th edition notes, at page 396:

Certain matters cannot be debated except on a substantive motion which allows a distinct decision of the House. These include the conduct of...persons holding the position of a judge...Such matters cannot, therefore, be raised by way of an amendment, or an adjournment motion. For the same reason, no charge of a personal character in respect of these categories of person can be raised except on a direct and substantive motion.

This is the key line regarding question period, “No statement of that kind can be...included in reply to a question”.

Previous Speakers have voiced their concern about this practice, finding “comments about the judiciary are out of order”. That is at page 13354 of the Debates, of May 16, 1986, and that “...I am certainly not satisfied with that approach on the appointment of a judge”, regarding a question a member put on September 19, 1991, found at page 2401 of the Debates.

I think my point has been sufficiently made though I must draw the attention of the Chair to a decision of then Speaker Rodolphe Lemieux, dating to February 18, 1926. He said, on page 1106 of the Debates:

Under the rules of the House:All references to judges and courts of justice and to personages of high official station of the nature of personal attack and censure have always been considered unparliamentary.I would also call the attention of the hon. member to paragraph 234 (i) under rule 19, which says that a member must not:...cast reflections upon the conduct of judges of superior courts unless such conduct is based upon a substantive motion.

This idea also forms expression in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, fourth edition, wherein it is written:

The proper course for persons who feel called upon to attack the conduct of a judge is to proceed by way of a petition in which all the allegations are specifically stated so that the person accused may have full opportunity to answer the charges presented against him.

What we have seen from the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister are attacks on the judiciary and a sitting judge, comments imputing motives and maligning the reputation of a person who is not only not able to defend herself in this place, but whose sterling reputation is not even a matter open for debate.

Rather than parse words and dance around this issue, I ask the ministers responsible to withdraw any references made regarding the chief justice that might even remotely cash aspersions upon her conduct.

While you, Mr. Speaker, would be right to find the minister's comments have been unparliamentary and should be withdrawn, I would suggest for the members in question that rather than seek to defend such comments as permissible exercises, they should seek to clarify any misconceptions that the public may have gleaned from the debate as, indeed, the words we use not only are important as regards the traditions and practices of this place, but echo and resonate across the country to an attentive public.

In short, the government should apologize to the House for its comments that are unparliamentary, likewise apologize to the chief justice, and, similarly, to Canadians for their audacious behaviour that unwarrantedly brings the judiciary into disrepute.

I would ask all members to join me in congratulating the chief justice on recently beginning the 25th year on the court and for serving all Canadians with great distinction, as we hope she will continue to do for years to come.

[Justice, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let us focus in on the confidentiality breached by the Prime Minister. He has undermined the confidence in the process for the appointment of judges. There is one vacancy now and there is another approaching soon. How can anyone, including the minister, have any faith in the process after what the Prime Minister has done? Will the minister take any steps to restore integrity to the process or is he perfectly happy with the present state of affairs?

[Justice, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, senior Conservatives insisted on confidentiality when they complained to the media in the course of an unprecedented smear on the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Prime Minister then publicly breached the confidentiality of the selection process for Supreme Court judges.

Does the minister agree that the privacy of disgruntled caucus members merits greater protection than the Supreme Court selection process? Could he justify that?

[Business of Supply, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13, presently before committee, contains in it an immunity for the voluntary, secret, and warrantless disclosure of information by telephone companies. Bill S-4, presently before the Senate, expands the entities that can receive this information, so the two of them added together would result in greater lawful, warrantless, and secret disclosure of Canadians' subscriber information.

Does the minister not feel that Canadians have any right to know when and how their subscriber information is being disclosed to an increasingly broad audience?

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, April 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member indicated that the warrantless production of documents and the warrantless search is now a thing of the past, and that this element of Bill C-30 is not present in Bill C-13. However, there is something in Bill C-13 that would provide immunity to Internet service providers and telephone companies when they produce records at the request of law enforcement authorities. In order to make it easier for them, this immunity would apply to both criminal prosecution for the production of these records and any civil suit.

Given that the member's position is that there are no longer warrantless searches, is it not the case that there is now an incentive for co-operation among Internet service providers, or at least a disincentive has been removed, which is tantamount to having warrantless searches all over again? What the government is doing indirectly is what it tried to do directly, through Bill C-30.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, April 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the member talk about the privacy safeguards contained in the bill. I would say “incredulous” would be closer to the right word.

There is a provision within the bill that would provide an immunity for Internet service providers and telcos who voluntarily provide information. This is an immunity against civil prosecution and against criminal prosecution. Could the member explain how this immunity ties in with his thesis that there are privacy protections contained in the bill?