44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 4, 2023 11:00AM
- Dec/4/23 1:12:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we want to hear a ruling. This is a serious issue. What I am seeing, though, is like allowing a free pass to take partisan shots that are needless. If we are going to have a chamber that does the job of dealing with something as serious as this, I want to hear a ruling. I do not need to see this descend into this kind of partisan gamesmanship. I am asking you to bring the proper focus to this.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:22:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Conservatives are trying to talk the clock out, but if there is a question of privilege from a committee, it has to be brought from the committee. The member did not have that support, so he is trying to overrule the Chair of the committee, who made a ruling.
It is up to you to, then, decide whether you are going to overrule the Chair of a committee to whom this was brought forward and who had the support of the majority of the committee. It would set a very bad precedent for the Speaker to allow the member to override a committee Chair. I do not think that is within our rules.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:37:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am doing my best but I am constantly interrupted.
Standing Order 116 directs us to bring these matters to the attention of the House. I believe the member for Winnipeg North supported the addition of Standing Order 116(2)(a) and (b). This was a proposal from the previous government House leader, I believe. He could propose further changes to the Standing Orders, if he does not believe that members should be able to bring these matters to the House.
Here is what happened at 4:25 p.m. on October 31, at the natural resources committee. I began to speak. I was given the floor. The chair said that he was going to ask all members; there was myself and then the member for Timmins—James Bay. I began to speak. At the time I said that I would seek to move a privilege motion at committee regarding the breach of privilege for the member for Peace River—Westlock. I said that the chair had breached his privileges by refusing to allow him to speak on Bill C-69.
I would ask the Speaker to review the record regarding the breach of privilege as it pertains to the member for Peace River—Westlock.
This is not the only instance. At 4:25 on October 31, I took the floor and spoke to the matter of privilege. There were various repeated interruptions as I sought to make the argument. I, nonetheless, continued to make the argument in the midst of those various efforts to silence those arguments regarding the privilege.
The chair did not, at the time, issue a specific ruling about whether or not this was, in his view, a matter pertaining to privilege. As members know, if a question of privilege is raised at committee, the chair then makes a determination, if he sees it as being a matter relating to privilege. If he deems it to be so, then a debate ensues on privilege.
The chair did not specifically say that he considered it a matter pertaining to privilege, although my understanding at the time was that it was a matter pertaining to privilege and he had deemed it so, because he allowed the debate to continue.
Again, I go to, at 5:05, the chair, the member for Calgary Skyview saying that I had the floor, where I left off. At that point I continued and the debate continued. Actually, it continued through until the end of the meeting on October 31, and then it resumed, the same meeting of the natural resources committee resumed on November 1. I still had the floor.
The chair said that when we concluded the last meeting, I had the floor and he wanted to provide me the opportunity, and asked whether I would like to cede the floor or continue. I said that upon serious reflection of the matter, I had decided I would like to keep the floor because I had more to say and would do so.
Thus, I continued on the point. This was on November 1. Subsequently, the chair, I gather having maybe learned some rules that he had not previously been aware of, and of which there are a good many, said much later—
547 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:54:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, to your point about exceptional circumstances, that is consistent with a ruling of Speaker Fraser on March 26, 1990. I would submit that if there ever were an instance in which there are exceptional circumstances, it is in regard to this matter.
This, after all, goes to the heart of the administration of the House and protocols that were breached, causing enormous embarrassment to all members.
On that basis, I would submit that the failure of the Prime Minister's Office and the PCO and other relevant departments controlled by the Prime Minister to turn over documents within the 10 days is a matter that is quite appropriately raised in the House in the absence of a committee report. An extraordinary set of circumstances led to the commencement of this study in the first place. Moreover, I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this resulted in the resignation of the former speaker, indeed, underscoring the degree to which this matter is extraordinary.
Before I was interrupted by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, I would note that the power—
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will just continue addressing the question of privilege that was raised on Friday by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
I had gotten to the point in my dissertation as to the ruling that Speaker Milliken made in 2002 about the minister of national defence at that time. He is quoted as saying that misleading a minister or a member has been considered a form of obstruction and, thus, a prima facie breach of privilege. The Speaker accepted the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House and made the following statement: “Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation.”
The Speaker went on to say:
On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. I therefore invite the hon. member for Portage--Lisgar to move his motion.
On November 4, 2003, the member at the time for Scarborough—Rouge River presented to the House the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, which documented how the former privacy commissioner had deliberately misled the committee and provided false and misleading information to it. The member for Scarborough—Rouge River rose later in the sitting on a question of privilege to charge the former commissioner with contempt of Parliament based on the contents of the report. On November 6, the Speaker delivered his ruling and found the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege.
On April 10, 2008, the member for Charlottetown at the time raised a question of privilege alleging that the RCMP deputy commissioner provided false and misleading testimony to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts at a meeting on February 21, 2007. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts reported the matter to the House. and the Speaker found that a prima facie case of contempt had been established.
On February 17, 2011, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood and other members argued that a minister had made statements in a committee that were different from those made in the House or provided to the House in written form. These members argued that the material available showed that contradictory information had been provided. As a result, they argued that this demonstrated that the minister deliberately misled the House and that, as such, a prima facie case of privilege existed.
In a ruling of March 9, the Speaker said:
The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is this: as the committee has reported, when asked who inserted the word “not” in the assessment of the KAIROS funding application, in testimony the minister twice replied that she did not know. In a February 14 statement to the House, while she did not indicate that she knew who inserted the word “not”, the minister addressed this matter by stating that the “not” was inserted at her direction. At the very least, it can be said that this has caused confusion. The minister has acknowledged this, and has characterized her own handling of the matter as “unfortunate”. Yet as is evident from hearing the various interventions that have been made since then, the confusion persists. As the member for Scarborough—Rouge River told the House, this “has confused me. It has confused Parliament. It has confused us in our exercise of holding the government to account, whether it is the Privy Council, whether it is the minister, whether it is public officials; we cannot do our job when there is that type of confusion”.
On February 25, 2014, the then House leader of the official opposition raised a question of privilege regarding statements made in the House by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. He claimed that:
...the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville had deliberately misled the House on February 6, 2014, during debate on Bill C-23, the fair elections act, when he stated that he had witnessed evidence of voter fraud firsthand. He further argued that the matter was not resolved by the statements made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville on February 24 and 25, where he admitted that, contrary to his original claim, he had not actually witnessed what he had originally claimed to have witnessed. In his view, this was not a simple case of someone misspeaking; he argued rather that it was a case where the member deliberately chose to take something he knew not to be true and present it as eyewitness evidence—something so egregious, it constituted contempt.
In delivering his ruling, on March 3, the speaker at the time cited that:
Speaker Milliken was faced with [this] in February 2002 when the then Minister of National Defence, Art Eggleton, provided contradictory information to the House. In ruling on a question of privilege raised about the contradiction, Speaker Milliken stated on February 1, at page 8581 of Debates:
I am prepared, as I must be, to accept the minister’s assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House.
The same Speaker went on to conclude:
In keeping with that precedent, I am prepared to accord the same courtesy to the member for Mississauga—Streetsville.
At the same time, the fact remains that the House continues to be seized of completely contradictory statements. This is a difficult position in which to leave members, who must be able to depend on the integrity of the information with which they are provided to perform their parliamentary duties.
Accordingly, in keeping with the precedent cited earlier in which Speaker Milliken indicated that the matter merited “...further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air”, I am prepared in this case for the same reason to allow the matter to be put to the House.
On November 3, 1978, the member for Northumberland—Durham raised a question of privilege and charged that he had been deliberately misled by a former solicitor general. The member had written in 1973 to the solicitor general, who assured him that, as a matter of policy, the RCMP did not intercept the private mail of Canadians. On November 1, 1978, during testimony before the McDonald commission, the former commissioner of the RCMP stated that they did intercept mail on a very restricted basis and that the practice was not one that had been concealed from ministers. The Speaker ruled on December 6 that there was indeed a prima facie case of contempt.
I will go back to the original question raised by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. He said on November 4 that he had been told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence that a decision had not yet been made in answer to a question that he had here on November 21 about the replacement of our CP-140 Aurora aircraft.
The parliamentary secretary stated:
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. We need to replace the CP-140 Aurora patrol aircraft. However, we need to replace them with something that will serve the operational capability of the armed forces. No decision has been made yet.
The parliamentary secretary's second answer was even more specific. She said, “Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear today. No decision has been made.”
A few days later, on November 28, in an answer to questions from the member, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement said:
Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for acknowledging the expertise of aerospace workers not only in Quebec, but also in Canada. That is why the decision we will soon be making is an important one....
We know that the next day, November 29, there were multiple media reports that the government was going to be buying the Boeing Poseidon P-8A patrol aircraft.
Global News stated, “sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter, said that last week”, which was November 23, “cabinet green-lit the purchase of 16 P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft to replace the half-century-old CP-140 Auroras.”
It went on to say:
Two of the sources, including a senior government official, said the Treasury Board held a special meeting Tuesday night [November 28] and approved the contract, which a U.S. agency has listed at US$5.9 billion (C$8 billion).
Therefore, the announcement did finally get made officially on November 30 to sole-source the P-8 from Boeing.
This question of privilege does not call into question the replacement of the CP-140 Aurora patrol aircraft or the process of awarding that contract to Boeing. To be clear, Conservatives want to procure equipment for the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Armed Forces; we just want to do it faster, and we want to make sure we are procuring the kit and equipment our armed forces are asking for.
This question of privilege is with respect to whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Public Services and Procurement intentionally misled the House.
Based on the timing of events I just laid out, I support the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot's question of privilege. The answers from both the Minister of Procurement and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence were misleading to the House and the defence industry, and I would suggest that this constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege.
1626 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 6:41:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a right to speak in this House. If you do not believe I have a right to speak, then you should make a ruling. He told me to step outside over something—
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 7:20:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for those comments on this bill and why we are at the stage we are at today. We are here because the Conservatives on the committee are trying to make sure the government understands there is a whole bunch at play here. Number one is jobs. Number two is we are wasting our time here again and again.
That time is being wasted because the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on this twice now in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act where it sets the guidelines, but most recently in the Impact Assessment Act where it says very clearly what is provincial jurisdiction and what is federal jurisdiction.
Will he admit that he has to go back and get an actual judgment ahead of time, a pre-ruling, on whether this transcends federal jurisdiction to step into exclusively provincial jurisdiction at this point in time?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
