SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 67

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 9, 2022 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 67 - May/9/22
Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)
  • May/9/22 12:12:08 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Simcoe—Grey on May 5, 2022. In our view, it is deeply concerning. The email discussions referred to by the member do indeed amount to interference by the executive in parliamentary work that is the sole responsibility of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. There was an email chain concerning the preparation of drafting instructions for a report on a study the committee has been conducting on differential outcomes in Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada decisions. In our view, it is deeply concerning that the chair communicated with employees of the executive branch to receive guidance on how the committee report should be drafted by non-partisan analysts, who must be impartial and independent in their professional duties. However, contrary to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons alleged last Friday on the matter, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Privy Council Office could in fact be trying to interfere with the work of the committee in this situation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government said that the emails chains make it clear that the advice from the minister's office was to suggest an approach to the drafting of the report to ensure that the government's position was understood by the Liberal members on the committee. The very fact that ministers are suggesting how parliamentary committee reports should be drafted is what is troubling and disturbing. I remind members that the committee is required to be completely independent from the government and that it is meant to monitor what the department and the government are doing. It is rather ironic that the department and the Privy Council Office can give opinions on certain findings and recommendations that could cause embarrassment for the government. The House recognizes that the government must not see a draft committee report before it is approved by the committee members. That said, the committee and committee staff cannot be instructed by the federal public service, cabinet or the government. We understand how this might not be viewed as a breach of a specific privilege. However, according to Bosc and Gagnon in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, beginning at page 81, “any action which...tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions...or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House” may be found as a contempt of Parliament. It is up to the House itself to consider any misconduct as contempt and to deal with the situation as it sees fit. In this case, the email chains informing the immigration minister's office of the committee's work and the replies from his staff giving instructions raise concerns about the independence of the House in managing its own business. We must not forget that, initially, as the member for Simcoe—Grey mentioned in referring to Bosc and Gagnon at page 62, parliamentary privileges were considered and established “to protect the House and its Members...from the power and interference of the King and the House of Lords”. It is important to remember that the House must oppose any attempt or action by the government suggesting interference in the work of parliamentary committees, which must remain independent in accordance with their mandate. The Bloc Québécois believes that the facts raised require the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to be mandated by the House to conduct a broader study on the real or potential issues of government interference in the reports of parliamentary committees.
620 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border