SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 336 - Sep/16/24

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Sep/16/24 12:11:12 p.m.
Watch

The privileges held by the House of Commons are an integral part of the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Parliament of Canada Act. These rights include the right to require the production of documents.... The privileges in question, like all those enjoyed by the House collectively and by members individually, are essential to the performance of their duties. The House has the power, and indeed the duty, to reaffirm them when obstruction or interference impedes its deliberations. As guardian of these rights and privileges, that is precisely what the House has asked me to do today by ordering the Speaker to reprimand you for the Public Health Agency of Canada's contempt in refusing to submit the required documents. In parallel, the Liberal government, quite shockingly, initiated proceedings in the federal court against the House and its Speaker, seeking to block any further attempts to obtain the documents. Our then Speaker quite fearlessly fought back in court against a government of his own party background, seeking to have the government's court application thrown out. The Prime Minister's selfish and self-interested early election call brought an abrupt end to the federal court proceedings. In the new Parliament, an ad hoc committee of parliamentarians, similar to that in the 2010 example, was eventually established to look at the Winnipeg lab documents. In February of this year, its work on 600 pages of documents was finally tabled, some 35 months after the standoff in the special committee began. In the end, we discovered that most redactions were not about national security but about protecting the government from embarrassment. There have also been developments in the United Kingdom Parliament in recent years that some of our colleagues may not be fully familiar with. In the 2017 general election, the incumbent Conservative government did not secure a majority in the House of Commons. The Labour Party subsequently devoted some 10 of its opposition days in the first session of Parliament following that election to ordering the production of documents. Half of the motions were defeated by the House, and of the remaining five, four were responded to in a satisfactory manner by the government. It is the fifth motion that warrants our attention and was a case that prompted the U.K. House of Commons procedure committee to study the matter and issue its ninth report, entitled “The House’s power to call for papers: procedure and practice”, in May 2019, which I quoted earlier. On November 13, 2018, the U.K. House of Commons adopted the following motion, proposed by Sir Keir Starmer, who is now the country's Prime Minister: That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the following papers be laid before Parliament: any legal advice in full, including that provided by the Attorney General, on the proposed withdrawal agreement on the terms of the UK’s departure from the European Union including the Northern Ireland backstop and framework for a future relationship between the UK and the European Union. Subsequent events can be summarized by the following extracts from paragraphs 41 to 43 of the U.K. Parliament's procedure committee's 2019 report: Ministers advanced arguments against the motion from the Despatch Box, but did not seek to divide the House. The motion therefore passed unopposed. In points of order raised immediately after the House’s decision, Members sought to clarify the obligations on the Government arising from it: no Ministerial statement was made in response. An agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU on the UK’s withdrawal from the EU was endorsed by heads of state and government at the European Council meeting of 25 November 2018.... On 3 December the Attorney General presented to Parliament a Command Paper which purported to describe the “overall legal effect” of the agreement of 25 November 2018. On the same day he made a statement to the House...neither the Command Paper nor the statement made reference to the resolution of 13 November, and the Command Paper did not purport to be a return to the resolution of the House. Following the presentation of the government's command paper to the House, Keir Starmer, together with representatives of four other political parties, wrote to the Speaker alleging that the government had not complied with the terms of the resolution of 13 November. The Attorney General also wrote to the Speaker with his observations on the matter. He argued that the government was in considerable difficulty in knowing how to comply with the resolution. Speaker Bercow ruled, on December 3, 2018, at column 625 of the official report: The letter that I received from the members mentioned at the start of this statement asks me to give precedence to a motion relating to privilege in relation to the failure of Ministers to comply with the terms of the resolution of the House of 13 November. I have considered the matter carefully, and I am satisfied that there is an arguable case that a contempt has been committed. I am therefore giving precedence to a motion to be tabled tonight before the House rises and to be taken as first business tomorrow, Tuesday. It will then be entirely for the House to decide on that motion. The following day, after defeating a government amendment, the House voted to adopt the following motion: That this House finds Ministers in contempt for their failure to comply with the requirements of the motion for return passed on 13 November 2018, to publish the final and full legal advice provided by the Attorney General to the Cabinet concerning the EU Withdrawal Agreement and the framework for the future relationship, and orders its immediate publication. In response, the government produced a complete, unredacted copy of the Attorney General's legal advice the next day. According to the procedure committee's report, at paragraph 68, “The Attorney General later said that he had complied with the order of the House of 4 December 'out of respect of the House’s constitutional position.'” A government that respects the constitutional position of the House of Commons; let us all just imagine that for a moment. As I mentioned earlier, the Liberal government is, on the other hand, in my submission, in contempt of Parliament yet again. Bosc and Gagnon comment, at page 81: Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege: 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, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands....

1134 words

Context: House Hansard - 336 - Sep/16/24

Mr. Brad Vis

Sep/16/24 5:11:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will admit I am not an expert on constitutional law like my colleague from Kamloops is, but I do know, like every other Canadian, that intuitively our citizenship is something that is sacred. It is something that needs to be upheld, and a lower court decision should not be the determining factor on a matter of such importance as determining our citizenship. I will note again that the Liberals, on February 15, 2008, voted to eliminate the second-generation provision that is being debated here today, and I think the Liberals back then made a right decision. I call upon the Liberals to listen to their constituents and uphold the citizenship law as it is today with respect to the first-generation limit.

126 words

Context: House Hansard - 336 - Sep/16/24

Ms. Leah Gazan

Sep/16/24 9:59:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of levels to that. One is that it is so normalized, it does not even get covered. The fact is that six indigenous people, within a span of a couple of weeks, lost their lives at the hands of our so-called justice system and it barely made the news. What is making it worse is the extremist, misinformation, alt-right media outlets that perpetuate racism against indigenous people, including with things like residential school denialism. How we get our media and where our media comes from are just as important as what is covered, and the government needs to do a lot more to deal with the growing misinformation and to become a champion of justice. These are constitutional issues that we are talking about. The violation of human rights is so normalized in this country that it does not even make the news.

151 words