SoVote

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

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Sep/16/24 11:10:54 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-379

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by greeting everyone and wishing everyone a happy and pleasant return. I encourage my colleagues to work for the common good and in the collective interest rather than their personal interest. It is a subtle message. Some will hear it; others, not so much. That is where I wanted to start. We are talking about Bill C‑379, which seeks to amend the Criminal Code to curb motor vehicle theft. The bill seeks to establish a minimum prison sentence of three years for a repeat offence when a person commits that offence three times. The Bloc Québécois agrees with the principle. We will vote in favour of the bill so that it can be studied in committee. Our colleagues know how we work. We will determine whether it is good for Quebec and Quebeckers. If that is the case, we will vote in favour of the bill. We think this could improve things. However, a lot of questions remain about the bill's current wording, such as the aggravating circumstances. The bill would add another aggravating circumstance: the fact that the offence was committed for the benefit of organized crime. We agree with that, but this part already exists. The Criminal Code already contains a provision on that. Adding it serves no purpose. It is probably more of a political statement, a way to claim credit for doing it, than a material change to the legislation. We will study the matter and, if necessary, we will keep this aspect. However, our research shows that this provision exists in the legislation already. There is also a provision preventing the use of conditional sentences. We do not necessarily disagree with this, but we would like to sound a note of caution and raise questions in committee. We must always ensure that judges have the discretion to use their own judgment. As their title suggests, these people are supposed to have good judgment. We need to trust them to use it. Throwing a young person in jail for a first offence and having them spend three years behind bars alongside career criminals may not always the best option to foster rehabilitation and reintegration. What we want is to reintegrate these people into society and the job market in a way that is constructive. We will study this. I am not saying we will oppose this clause when push comes to shove, but we have questions about it. We are also backing the bill because we want to support the people on the ground. Bloc Québécois members are constantly on the ground. We have just come back from spending the summer in our ridings. We were on the ground, myself included. I try to visit a different region of Quebec each summer so I can talk to residents about their realities in connection with my portfolio, which is agriculture and agri-food. This summer, I visited the north shore. My time there was brief, because I had to go home to deal with events in my riding. My riding was hit hard by torrential rains, so I had to cut my trip short. Nevertheless, I was able to spend a few days on the north shore and gauge the mood in the region. That is important. In passing, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the people of Berthier—Maskinongé for their resilience. They showed tremendous resilience this summer in the face of these very unfortunate circumstances. I would also like to tip my hat to all the local elected officials, who are on the front lines when such things happen. When a city experiences flooding, they are the ones in the trenches calling for aid. People know me and know that I try to be very present and offer plenty of support. I kept in direct touch with all these people, and I tried to support them as best I could. Anyway, I digress. I was talking about what is happening on the ground. The Montreal police department is asking for harsher sentences for auto theft under the Criminal Code. It has reported some troubling findings. One is that stealing cars is far more profitable and less risky than selling drugs. Of course, we do not want to encourage criminals to sell drugs either, but when we compare the two, it does not seem like auto theft is being tackled very aggressively, which may explain why this crime is so popular and growing exponentially. In short, as I said at the start of my speech, as legislators, let us work for the common good. When cars are stolen, manufacturers are not particularly affected because the insurance company pays out the claim and the owner buys another car. That means auto theft may even increase manufacturers' sales numbers. The important thing is that we work for Canadians. Who is going to pay for all this in the end? It is ordinary folks, who will have to pay more for car insurance. We have all seen insurance premiums shoot up in recent years. If they continue to go up, it is our fault, since we are doing nothing about it. We need to fix the problem. I heard the parliamentary secretary say that not just one jurisdiction is responsible. That is just a way of shirking responsibility. He also said that the government held a summit on car theft. It was all just smoke and mirrors. When the media started putting the pressure on, it became clear that the Liberals had been doing nothing about this issue for far too long. That is the hallmark of this tired Liberal government. It is a wait-and-see government. It sticks its head in the sand whenever there is a problem, hoping that it will take care of itself. This government only acts when it has its back to the wall. Our job as the opposition is to put it in that position and tell it to do something. Auto theft is surging, particularly because of technology. Take smart keys, for example. They seem like a magic solution to make life easier, but they have actually made it easier to steal cars. All the thief has to do is use an amplifier or a computer that they plug into the on-board diagnostics socket to clone the key's signal. Then they can easily drive off with the car. They park it somewhere for a few days and wait to see if it is noticed. Once they are sure it has not been noticed, they load it in a container, drive it to the port and ship it out. That is the big problem. The bill before us is interesting in certain respects, but it fails to address some sizable gaps, such as the inspection of containers prior to export. What is the justification for requiring a warrant to open containers at the port, even when they are suspicious? A judge needs to issue a warrant, so that complicates matters. Meanwhile, law enforcement officials say that the port already has a security service, so they are not patrolling those areas. For the 871,000 containers that left the Port of Montreal in 2022, how many inspectors were there? I hope members are sitting down before I give the answer. According to the Canada Border Services Agency, there were five. There were five inspectors for 871,000 containers. Then they are surprised that auto theft has become so popular and is happening so much. Sooner or later, something needs to be done. This is the same Canada Border Services Agency that was responsible for the ArriveCAN scandal. This resulted in a shameful waste of public funds because of cronies who lined their own pockets, their buddies' pockets and the pockets of four or five other middlemen. This is off topic, but I need to point out that the same thing will happen with pharmacare and dental plans that go through private companies. The government needs to transfer the money to Quebec and let us manage these areas ourselves. Getting back to the topic of auto theft, there is a problem with the Canada Border Services Agency. There is negligence. The media even reported that some suspicious containers were not inspected because someone's shift was over or someone was not working evenings or weekends or had something else to do. I am not saying that all this is true. I know the importance of avoiding populism, unlike some other individuals here in the House, but this does raise some serious questions. As for the Canada Border Services Agency, the Bloc Québécois is on record as saying, and I would like to reiterate it now, that in light of the ArriveCAN scandal, the CBSA should be placed under third-party management. If the government wants to be serious, it must intervene. Just look at the way the port of Montreal is managed and inspected. There are five inspectors for 871,000 outbound containers; there was a refusal to provide an inspector for a special squad that would have worked on vehicle exports; and there were requests from Montreal's police chief. The penalties for those who export the cars need to be increased. This is something we could have control over. There is a lot of work to be done on this file. The Bloc Québécois will go to committee with an open mind but also with a lot of questions and a lot of suggestions for improvements, as we always do in the best interest of Quebeckers.

1618 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Sep/16/24 11:20:58 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-379

Mr. Speaker, I wish a good morning to you and to all of my colleagues in the House. I trust that everyone had an enjoyable summer back in their ridings. Here we are on the first day back. I am pleased to rise today during Private Members' Business as the NDP's public safety critic to share some of my thoughts on Bill C-379. I know that the member for Prince Albert, who introduced the bill, is coming at this issue with sincerity. I think every member in the House, no matter what political party we belong to, understands that the issue of car thefts in Canada is serious. It is not a victimless crime. We all represent communities that have suffered from it. It is certainly something for which we need an all-encompassing policy response to effectively deal with it. The bill before us today, Bill C-379, is a relatively short bill, as most private members' bills are. Essentially, the main part of the bill is seeking to increase the minimum term of imprisonment for repeat offenders from six months to three years. Before I get into a discussion of the bill itself, I want to acknowledge the severity of car thefts in Canada. I am a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. That committee has been conducting a study into this very issue, and we are getting close to when we will be able to hopefully table a report in the House of Commons with recommendations for the government. That report, of course, will be based on the full spectrum of witness testimony we heard at committee. To put this in context, there has been a significant increase in vehicle thefts across the country. According to Statistics Canada, there were 83,416 vehicle thefts recorded in 2021. Then a year later, in 2022, that number jumped to 105,673, which is a significant increase in just one year's time. Between February 26 and May 23 of this year, the public safety committee held six meetings, with a total of 42 witnesses, and 11 briefs were submitted. Committee members were also invited to take a trip to the port of Montreal, so they could see in person what CBSA operations are like there and some of the challenges that CBSA members deal with in how they inspect containers, because that is the primary port through which stolen cars in Canada exit our country to find lucrative markets abroad. It is a very big problem. There is an incredible amount of transnational criminal organization that goes into these operations, and the payoff can be quite significant. For one stolen car, people can fetch a price of anywhere from $30,000 to $60,000, or even higher. It is a significant return on the investments that criminal organizations make to do this. However, I would like to underline this point by encouraging members to wait for that report so that we can review the recommendations within it. I do believe that, to effectively deal with this problem, we need an all-encompassing and holistic approach, which would rely on not only criminal law but also a variety of policy measures and programs, to tackle it. The main problem I have with the bill is its reliance on mandatory minimums as a cure-all for a very real and complex problem. The reason for that is that, if we look at the evidence, and there is a tremendous amount of evidence out there, it shows very clearly that mandatory minimum sentences produce substantial harm with no overall benefit to crime control. That is our guiding star in this debate. We want crime control. We want to see it come down. The evidence, which is very clearly available, shows that mandatory minimums do not have a beneficial effect on that. They represent an intrusion of the legislative branch into an area that is under judicial jurisdiction. They constrain judicial discretion. There is evidence that they deepen racial disparities in the criminal legal system and cause far-reaching harm to individuals, families and communities. I say this in the context that auto theft, the crime itself, is not victimless. We have to keep it in balance that, when a person experiences a car theft, it is a very real problem we must address, and it causes a significant amount of hurt in our communities. However, I firmly believe, and the evidence bears this out, that sentences must be based on individual contextual factors relating to each offence and each offender, rather than on one-size-fits-all legislated minimum sentences, which often result in ineffective, expensive and unduly harsh periods of incarceration. The John Howard Society has done a meta-analysis of 116 studies on this subject from both Canada and the United States. It is a massive analysis of the literature and evidence that is out there. One of the main findings is “custodial sanctions have no effect on reoffending or slightly increase it when compared with the effects of noncustodial sanctions such as probation.” I do not want to beat a dead horse on this fact. Members here have a variety of tools at their disposal. They have the Library of Parliament and can read that same evidence, but this point needs to be hammered home: It is very clear that mandatory minimums do not deter crime. There is evidence that, if we put in lengthier periods of incarceration, we could actually see an increase in recidivism among offenders, and that is certainly not a result that we are aiming for. I also want to talk a bit about the cost because, in addition to the fact that mandatory minimums affect indigenous, Black and racialized Canadians in a very disproportionate way, there is also the fact that the cost of housing an inmate in a federal institution has now reached $428 a day. If we multiply that by 365, we see that the cost for an individual in a federal institution, per year, is $156,220. That is an astonishing cost to taxpayers and far more expensive than crime prevention and social outreach programs, which often have much better results and a far better track record. If we were to take that cost, which is a fact borne out by the statistics, under the member's proposed Bill C-379 and its mandatory minimum of three years, we are looking at an expenditure of nearly half a million dollars per person convicted under this change to the law alone. Anyone who is sentenced for over two years is automatically placed in a federal institution, whereas those sentenced to two years less a day are under provincial jurisdiction, but those provincial incarceration costs are relatively similar. I am not saying that jail time is not justified in certain cases, but I maintain that this is up to the trial judge to determine, given the facts of the case and the nature of the accused who is before the judge. We should be putting far more resources into a variety of programs, such as the training resources for youth program or the help eliminate auto theft program, which has had very good success in the province of Manitoba since 2014 and 2015. Those results showed a 30% reduction in gang involvement. The results also indicated that 95% of the people did not receive new charges while in the program, 93% of the property offenders in the program did not receive new charges, there were zero new auto theft charges during the program period and 95% of the participants did not receive new offences against person-related charges. If we look at those results and the cost of these programs, compared to the $156,000 per year to put someone in a federal institution, we see that the cost of these programs ranged anywhere from $7,000 to $10,000 per participant, and they had amazing success rates. I do not want it to escape the Conservatives that, during their time under the Harper government, there were significant cuts to the RCMP budget and the CBSA budget, which put us in the position we are in now. Just last year, in December 2023, the Conservatives voted against the estimates that provided important funding to the RCMP, the CBSA and Public Safety Canada. In conclusion, New Democrats want to see action against the auto theft crisis, but we want to see investment in those prevention programs that obviously have a track record and are more cost effective to the taxpayer. On that, I will stick by my principles. Despite all the rhetoric from the Conservatives, they know that the evidence does not support their argument. What is borne out by the evidence is that crime prevention programs are where we need to be putting those smart taxpayer dollars for effective results.

1489 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Sep/16/24 11:31:08 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-379

Mr. Speaker, common sense Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. This bill, which we are talking about today, Bill C-379, will be one step in the stop-the-crime initiatives that we have undertaken. I do not know if one remembers when one received one's driver's licence, but I do remember when I received my driver's licence. Buying my first car, buying my first vehicle, was a huge milestone in my life. Where I come from, in the country, a vehicle is freedom. The ability to drive is freedom. That is why, from my perspective, auto theft is such a heinous crime. It takes away a person's freedom. Auto theft has been a long-standing problem in northern Alberta. It has more recently reached Toronto, and suddenly, this country is seized with it because of that. Auto theft has been a major challenge, going back a very long time. Since I have been, probably, three years old, I wanted to be an auto mechanic, and I achieved that goal by the time I was 21. I was able to see first-hand and was able to interact with the auto theft deterrent systems on vehicles quite extensively. I programmed thousands of keys for people who either lost their keys or wanted an extra key, or something like that. I would program them when I worked for Chrysler dealerships. It was called the SKIM program, or “sentry key immobilizer module”. That system was introduced in 1998. By 2006, every Chrysler product had it. When I quit in 2015, there had never been a case of somebody being able to undermine that system. It had been an incredible system, and it had worked very well. Around 2015, people had figured out a way to beat that system. Here we are, today, with no real way for auto manufacturers to build a system to deter or to make a secure key, without maybe even going back to a hard key again. I do not know about the vehicles that members drive, but most people do not have to put their keys in the doors to make them open anymore. It is not a hard key; it is a digital key. Maybe we have to go back to hard keys. I am not sure about that. Those were relatively easy to get around as well. I have had extensive experience with that, and I have watched the progression of these systems grow. I have enjoyed being part of that sort of thing. I also had the luxury of being an owner. My very first car, in fact, was a Chrysler Neon. In 1999, that was the most stolen car in Edmonton. I also owned a Jeep TJ, which, in another year, was the most stolen vehicle in Edmonton as well. For both of those vehicles, the police put out sting vehicles. It did not take very long, and they just had to arrest a few people stealing those sting vehicles, and they went from being the most stolen to the least stolen over just a couple of weekends of doing sting operations and charging people with auto theft. That was bringing people to justice. We hear a lot from the NDP around mandatory minimums, how they do not work, and things like that. The deterrence effect of the law is a real thing. Bringing people to justice is a real thing. A real thing is ensuring that Canadians understand that if one steals a vehicle, one will go to jail. For the police to have the backup, to feel that they can pursue this and to ensure that the police have the resources to do this, those are all other things, but private members' bills cannot spend money. This bill is taking one part of the law that we can affect with a private member's bill. I want to thank the member for bringing this bill forward and for ensuring that we can put into effect that deterrence mechanism to ensure that justice can be brought when our vehicles get stolen. For many people, their vehicle is their lifeline to the world. Their vehicle is often a personal statement. They have a lot invested in their vehicle. To wake up in the morning and to discover one's vehicle missing is a huge insecurity that builds in one's life. In many cases, people work out of their vehicles. Their vehicles are their places of work. To wake up in the morning and to discover that their entire business is missing, that all of their tools and that all of their livelihood is missing because somebody stole their vehicle, is often the case. Over the last couple of years, we have seen that the Liberal government's soft-on-crime initiatives have led to increases in auto theft. Why is that? It is because there are no deterrents anymore. I have had constituents come in and talk to me about the fact that the people stealing these vehicles are brazen. They know that they are going to get away with it. They know what to say when they are stopped with a stolen vehicle to get out of it. The justice system has been a failure at bringing these people to justice, and because of that, there is no deterrence to auto theft. The police are more than frustrated with this. They will build a case and make an arrest, only to have the courts slap the person on the wrist and build a revolving door to put the person out on bail. We have addressed this as well in other areas, saying that it should be jail, not bail, for repeat offenders because we see folks who have been charged with auto theft, out on bail and stealing more cars. This has become a major thing. I do not know if members have seen in the news that one of the suggestions as a solution for this is to leave one's keys near the door to ensure that one's family is not violently offended by an auto theft attempt. That does not seem like a solution. We have seen the cost of living rise across the country, and auto theft is contributing to that. The increases to the insurance rates because of auto theft is making one more thing in our lives more expensive. We are seeing it all around in the distress that people are feeling because they cannot make ends meet. The fuel they put in their cars is one of those things, but their insurance is another thing that keeps on being driven up by the 105,000 cars stolen each year in Canada. All of these things together mean that we need to address auto theft, and I think this bill is a good step along the way. We hear criticism from the NDP that we need a holistic bill. This is a private member's bill, and private member's bills are not allowed to spend money. We are not allowed to build big national programs that cost a whole bunch of money to set forward a strategy that will need money. Therefore, if we can push the government to do those things, that is great. I think we need that to put forward these sting operations that I experienced back in the early 2000s, when auto theft was also a challenge. There was a focused, concerted effort to bring auto theft down. A lot of levers were pulled to make that happen. That is when we saw the rise of immobilizer systems installed on vehicles as well. The manufacturers, insurance companies, government and community associations got involved, and we were able to bring auto theft down. However, now we see that this lack of deterrence from the soft-on-crime Liberals has driven up auto theft. We have also seen technological advances by the thieves. I am hopeful that this bill will pass and that we will bring in that deterrence piece of the puzzle to ensure that we have a strong deterrence, that the police have the tools, that prosecutors are able to bring these people to justice and that vehicle thefts go down. However, this bill is just the first small piece on the start. We hope it will inspire the government to take bold action to bring auto theft down across the country. If it is unable to do that, common sense Conservatives stand ready to stop the crime, axe the tax, build the homes and fix the budget.

1444 words

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Sep/16/24 11:40:54 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we should give careful consideration to this bill and study it in committee. That said, neither the Bloc Québécois nor I are prepared to vote for it in its current form. Make no mistake: We need to tackle the problem of auto theft. In 2022, according to the reams of figures I have looked over, 10,595 car thefts were reported in Quebec. Over the same period, 70,000 were reported in Canada. That is huge. It means that more than 29 vehicles were stolen per day in Quebec, a 138% increase from 2016. Obviously, this has unfortunate consequences for car owners who have their vehicle stolen, but it also affects all vehicle owners and drivers. Car insurance premiums increased by 50% between 2012 and 2022, mainly due to the increase in car thefts. This is a major problem that needs to be addressed. We in the House of Commons must deal with many types of crimes. Crimes against the person are something the Bloc Québécois cares deeply about. However, just because auto theft is less serious does not mean we should neglect it, because it is still a major problem. That being said, the Bloc Québécois is inherently against mandatory minimum sentences. We all know that mandatory minimum sentences have next to no effect on people who commit crimes. The same goes for the ban on conditional sentences. The bill proposes banning conditional sentences and also increasing the minimum sentence from two years to three years. I must say that I do not really believe in all that. This bill was introduced in good faith, I am sure. I think that the people introducing it believe this would have a positive impact. We in the Bloc Québécois do not believe that. However, we think we need to tackle the problem. In particular, when it comes to increasing sentences, we think that the fact that the theft was committed on behalf of a criminal organization should be an aggravating factor. Everyone in the House knows that we have been pushing for more aggressive and serious action against criminal organizations since 2015. At the time—I think it was in 2016—I tabled a bill to create a registry of criminal organizations to make it easier to identify them, streamline the prosecution of crimes committed for their benefit and possibly consider membership in such an organization or the use of emblems to identify as a member or supporter of a criminal organization a crime. The bill was rejected at the time, but here we are again. We have not given up, we will continue to fight. When we look more closely at car theft, we can see that the real problem does not lie with the young men or women who go out drinking on a Saturday night and decide to steal a car. This is of course a problem, but the real scourge is the organization behind the thefts, the criminal organizations that pay and encourage often disadvantaged youth to commit these crimes on their behalf. I agree that it is important to punish the individual who actually stole the vehicle. However, as I said earlier, I think that punishing them with mandatory minimum sentences and banning conditional sentences is a bit much, because we are not allowing the judge hearing the case to adapt the sentence based on the particular situation. Personally, I believe in our judicial system. I think that we need to trust the judges who hear the arguments to determine the right thing to do. We believe that minimum sentences are useful in cases of crimes against the person, since it allows us to send a clear message. Minimum sentences may well make certain individuals think twice, namely those who would otherwise commit crimes against the person on impulse or for all sorts of reasons; we should be tough on them. We need to stop the epidemic of vehicle theft. I would not say that they apply in every case, but in many cases we support mandatory minimum sentences. However, when it comes to car theft, I think it is almost counterproductive to deprive ourselves, as a society, of the assessment a judge can make of a particular situation after hearing all the evidence. Mandatory minimum sentences are therefore a bit of a problem. Systematically refusing conditional sentences is another problem. We need to trust our judges. However, when there are aggravating circumstances and when the crime is committed for the benefit of a criminal organization, I agree. It think that is essential. We still have a lot to discuss. We are sitting in the House of Commons and adopting provisions to amend the Criminal Code. That is a federal jurisdiction. Too often, the federal government tries to interfere in the provinces' jurisdictions, and we call it out every time, but this is clearly a federal jurisdiction. In fact, I would say that I still have a hard time understanding why there have been no results after all these years. I am a younger member of the House. I have been here since 2015. For nine years we have been working on this, and nothing has come of it. There have been others before me, but we never managed to tackle criminal organizations severely enough. I think we should be ruthless. Criminal organizations need to be effectively and harshly sanctioned. That being said, there is another option when it comes to mandatory minimum sentences. We have always looked at crimes to determine whether they merit mandatory minimum sentences. I have shared my thoughts, but could we also consider another way of eliminating crime or perhaps rehabilitating a person who has committed a crime? I think we could. I think that we should look at that more closely. I am thinking among other things about the electronic bracelets used when criminals are released. I wonder whether, instead of sentencing a person who stole a car, for example, to two or three years in prison, regardless of the number of years, we could put them in prison for six months or a year and then have them serve the rest of their sentence out in the community, but wearing an electronic bracelet. It would be more difficult for criminal organizations to recruit individuals wearing an electronic bracelet. I do not think that many criminal organizations would want to hire people to commit crimes if they are being monitored through an electronic bracelet that can provide information about who and where they are at any given time. That would be risky. This might also help rehabilitate those people, who, rather than going back to their former life of crime might choose—not all but some of them—to try to abide by the rules of our society, the society we ultimately want to have. This is not a cure-all. I am not saying that it is the only solution, but it is a solution that we could look into. Perhaps I might also change my mind at some point for all sorts of reasons that I am not aware of today, but I do not think that we should cut corners when looking into this issue. Minimum sentencing is counterproductive, but I support alternative ways of rehabilitating individuals. I think that is a good idea. In closing, we need to be tough on crime committed by criminal organizations, and the Bloc Québécois can be counted on to support these kinds of sanctions. In the meantime, let us study this bill in committee and see how it can be improved in the interest of all Quebeckers and Canadians.

1295 words

The Speaker

Sep/16/24 11:50:41 a.m.
Watch

Now the hon. member for Prince Albert has the right of reply.

12 words

Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC)

Sep/16/24 11:51:00 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank everyone here for giving the bill its due consideration, going through it and providing some good insight into what we should or should not be doing. I also want to thank the House for the ability to raise this issue on behalf of Canadians; it is a very serious issue. Canadians are saying they want to see action on auto theft. They want to make sure that things are being done to stop this. It is costing them a lot of money, causing harm, affecting personal safety and creating a lot of stress. This is an issue that actually needs to be addressed by the House of Commons, and the bill provides that option. I have heard members from different parties give their opinions and views. Some had really good ideas. I know the member from the Bloc talked about how he is willing to get it to committee. That is all I was asking for. That is all Canadians were asking for: a chance to get it to committee and then look at it in a very serious manner, bring in the appropriate witnesses, the police chiefs, the police unions, the judges and the appropriate people, including members from the so-called summit that they had. They could bring in the experts from there, if they have data to do that. The NDP talked about some of the programs in British Columbia and Manitoba. They could bring that data to committee and then look at that and see how we can craft it into something that we can make work here in Canada. Doing nothing is not an option. Doing nothing means we have not listened to one word our constituents have told us this past summer. Constituents have talked about crime. If members were going door to door, crime would have been one of the top two issues constituents would have talked about. This could go to committee. It could be massaged and changed. I am open-minded on that. I am the type of person who is not overly partisan. I just like to move the yardsticks and make sure that, at the end of the day, Canadians have benefited. That is the goal of this piece of legislation, to get it there so we can talk about it and look for the best practices. When I look at the response from the member for Winnipeg North, he talked about the programs they had in Manitoba and how good they were. I will remind him that auto theft is up 62.5% in Winnipeg alone. That is not the rest of Manitoba. From 2015 to 2022, it was up 62%. We can go right across the board, right across Canada, and these numbers are astounding. This is a real issue that Canadians want to be talking about and want us to work on. This is an example of how parties can actually work together to accomplish something that would benefit all Canadians. However, we have seen a partisan attack by the Liberals. Basically, they are saying that there is no problem, even though they had a summit on it. Even though they have put it into their budget and started to allocate money next year on this, $14 million a year, they are saying it is not a problem. They are just closing their eyes and putting their head in the sand. It matches the reasons the party is so out of touch. The Liberal Party has lost touch with Canadians. It does not understand what Canadians are asking them to do. The Liberals do not understand the role they have as a government to represent Canadians and to actually bring in laws to protect Canadians. Do I need to repeat that? Here is a prime example: We could go to the committee and bring forward different ideas from different provinces, groups and associations. I have no issue with any of that. At the end of the day, we need to have a piece of legislation coming out of the House of Commons that actually attacks the issue and reduces the crime. What is the best way to do that? If we do not go to committee, if we do not get it there, then we are saying to our constituents that it is not a big enough issue or that we do not care. That is how it is going to be received. That is what they are going to think. When members go door knocking, constituents will ask about crime. Will members say that we had a private member's bill but voted against it? Constituents will ask why. Why would we not get it to committee and talk about it? Why would we not keep an open mind, as I am willing to do, and actually put a piece of legislation forward that may lower auto crime, actual insurance rates and people's feeling that they are unsafe in their homes? There are lots of options here, but one that should not be considered is the option of not taking it to committee and talking about it. If the government wants to go down that path, it explains why the Liberals are where they are in the polls. They have lost touch with Canada and Canadians. They do not represent what constituents are asking them to do. They have their own opinions, but instead of listening, the Liberals are going back to preaching to them. That does not work, and the next election will prove that.

928 words

Consideration

The Speaker

Sep/16/24 11:55:37 a.m.
Watch

The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

51 words

The Speaker

Sep/16/24 11:55:37 a.m.
Watch

Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question.

11 words

Ready

The Speaker

Sep/16/24 11:56:39 a.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, September 18, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

23 words

Mr. Randy Hoback

Sep/16/24 11:56:39 a.m.
Watch

I request a recorded vote, please.

6 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Sep/16/24 11:56:39 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would suggest that we suspend for a few minutes until noon, so we can get things under way under Government Orders.

29 words

The Speaker

Sep/16/24 11:56:48 a.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

The Speaker

Sep/16/24 11:56:59 a.m.
Watch

The House is suspended until noon.

6 words

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

Sep/16/24 12:00:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege following my notice under Standing Order 48 concerning the failure of the government to comply with the order that the House adopted on Monday, June 10. A majority of the House voted that day to compel the government to produce a series of unredacted records concerning Sustainable Development Technology Canada, a body engulfed in Liberal scandal in recent years, leading to its being dubbed the “green slush fund”. For the purpose of making those documents available to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the government has failed to comply and failed to obey this House order, as we learned this summer when the law clerk and parliamentary counsel reported to the House through you on July 17. Mr. Speaker, you are being put into a situation like your predecessors were so conspicuously placed in, to address a serious impasse over document production. As your well-regarded predecessor, Speaker Milliken, said on April 27, 2010, at page 2042 of the Debates, in a widely acclaimed ruling, “Before us are issues that question the very foundations upon which our parliamentary system is built. In a system of responsible government, the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation.” The current obligation originates from the Conservative opposition motion adopted on the heels of an utterly scandalous Auditor General's report. Over the summer, yet another officer of Parliament, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, also weighed in, finding the former Liberal hand-picked chair of SDTC guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest Act twice. There is little doubt the Liberal government must be held to account over this debacle, which is why the House decided to exercise one of its ancient powers to compel the production of papers. Indeed, as a mark of how old the power is, Erskine May treated it as a settled matter in the first edition of his self-titled treatise on parliamentary procedure, published in 1844, at page 309: “Parliament, in the exercise of its various functions, is invested with the power of ordering all documents to be laid before it which are necessary for its information.” House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, elaborates, at pages 984 and 985, upon the scope of that power: The Standing Orders do not delimit the power to order the production of papers and records. The result is a broad, absolute power that on the surface appears to be without restriction. There is no limit on the types of papers likely to be requested; the only prerequisite is that the papers exist in hard copy or electronic format, and that they are located in Canada. They can be papers originating from or in the possession of governments, or papers the authors or owners of which are from the private sector or civil society (individuals, associations, organizations, et cetera).... No statute or practice diminishes the fullness of that power rooted in House privileges unless there is an explicit legal provision to that effect, or unless the House adopts a specific resolution limiting the power. The House has never set a limit on its power to order the production of papers and records. This is a critical point and one to which I will return. In a May 2019 report on the power to send for papers, the United Kingdom House of Commons procedure committee concluded, at paragraph 16, that “The power of the House of Commons to require the production of papers is in theory absolute. It is binding on Ministers, and its exercise has consistently been complied with by the Government.” In recent years, our own House has, however, encountered several incidents of government refusals to provide records which it or its committees have ordered to be produced. Most famously, there was the very high-profile, high-stakes decision of your longest-serving predecessor, Speaker Milliken, concerning documents regarding the Afghanistan conflict following a Liberal opposition motion, which the House adopted in December 2009, requiring the public tabling of 40,000 unredacted pages of sensitively classified records about operations in an active war zone, with zero provision for their safekeeping. Bosc and Gagnon explain, at page 139, the subsequent events: the Government refused, citing national security concerns. Questions of privilege were raised based on the House’s absolute right to order documents. The Minister of Justice insisted that as the government had a duty to protect information that could jeopardize national security, that right was not without limits. On April 27, 2010, Speaker Milliken ruled that it was within the powers of the House to ask for the documents specified in the House Order, and that it did not transgress the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of Government. Thus, the Speaker concluded that the government’s failure to comply with the House Order constituted a prima facie breach of privilege. However, he gave the parties two weeks to develop a mechanism that would accommodate the Government's concerns over national security and the House's right to receive the documents. As a result, three of the four recognized parties negotiated an agreement in principle to have an ad hoc committee of parliamentarians convened to review the 40,000 pages in question and to vet them for future tabling. Meanwhile, in 2011, another prima facie case of privilege was found in respect of efforts by the Standing Committee on Finance to obtain documents with financial information. Allow me to summarize for the House the pertinent developments there. In autumn of 2010, the finance committee requested certain financial information from the government and ordered the production of various documents concerning economic projections and costing estimates. The government responded that certain of the documents sought constituted cabinet confidences. In February 2011, the finance committee agreed to report the foregoing events to the House. That report, the finance committee's tenth report, was presented, and a question of privilege was raised. While awaiting a ruling, the government tabled in the House some documents responsive to the finance committee's requests, and in any event, the House adopted an opposition motion ordering the production of the same documents. Subsequently, on March 9, 2011, Speaker Milliken ruled on the question of privilege, finding a prima facie case of privilege, whereupon a motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was adopted. That committee then presented its 27th report on March 21, 2011. While most of the report dealt with the government's invocation of cabinet confidence, something which is an issue in the present case but not a central one, there are still two notable items in the report's summary of the evidence which are relevant to quote. First, at page 4, Mr. Robert Walsh, House of Commons Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, “indicated that the Speaker had concluded in his ruling that Parliament has the right to receive all the information that it requires, but the government may decide to refuse to provide this information. In that event, the government must convince Parliament that its decision is well-founded.” Later, at page 9, Mr. Ned Franks, professor emeritus in the Department of Political Studies at Queen's University, “affirmed that he sided with Speaker Milliken and declared that, in his view, the government was not entitled to limit Parliament's power to receive information.” On March 25, 2011, the House considered and adopted an opposition motion proposed by Michael Ignatieff, which stated, among other things, “That the House agree with the finding of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that the government is in contempt of Parliament”. Where the House subsequently agreed with the 27th report's conclusions, it stands to reason that the House likewise endorsed the analysis leading to it. Most recently, there was the famous 2021 case concerning the Winnipeg lab documents. As most of us will recall, in spring 2021, the then special committee on Canada-China relations adopted two orders for unredacted copies of documents concerning very troubling reports out of Winnipeg's National Microbiology Laboratory. When those orders were not honoured on June 2, 2021 to compel the production of the same documents, the government persisted in its refusal to comply. That led to a question of privilege on which your immediate predecessor ruled, on June 16, 2021, at page 8548 of the Debates, when he reaffirmed that “at the heart of the parliamentary system, and firmly anchored in our Constitution, there are rights and privileges that are indispensable to the performance of members' duties.” The House, in turn, on June 17, 2021, adopted a motion to find the Public Health Agency of Canada to be in contempt for its failure to obey an order of the House, and accordingly ordered its president to attend at the bar of the House to be admonished and to hand over the documents. That led to the historic moment on June 21, 2021, when Iain Stewart, the agency's president, stood at the bar to be admonished by the Speaker in the following words:

1551 words

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

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

Sep/16/24 12:16:21 p.m.
Watch

On the next page, they articulate the well-established categories of contempt, including: deliberately altering, suppressing, concealing or destroying a paper required to be produced for the House or a committee;... without reasonable excuse, refusing to answer a question or provide information or produce papers formally required by the House or a committee; [and] without reasonable excuse, disobeying a lawful order of the House or a committee.... In the present case, the government has disobeyed a lawful order of this House. It has failed to provide all of the papers that were formally required by this House, and in so responding, many papers were altered or outright suppressed through the redaction process. On June 10, the House ordered the government to deposit a series of documents concerning SDTC, the Liberal green slush fund, with the law clerk within 30 days. No redactions or other alterations were contemplated by that order, nor was any information permitted to be otherwise withheld, though I would not be surprised if there is a fresh update for us today. We do know, based on the law clerk's July 17 and August 21 reports to you, Mr. Speaker, which you tabled the same days, that the Department of Finance, Sustainable Development Technology Canada and the Treasury Board Secretariat each provided only partial responses. Several government institutions redacted the records they deposited with the law clerk, including the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency; the Business Development Bank of Canada; the Canada Revenue Agency; the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency; the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development; the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities; the Department of National Defence; the Department of Natural Resources; Public Services and Procurement Canada; Western Economic Diversification Canada; Export Development Canada; the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario; Pacific Economic Development Canada; the Privy Council Office; the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council; and the Standards Council of Canada. I would add that the Department of Natural Resources also decided only to provide the House with records from the director general level and higher. For those not familiar with government hierarchy, a director general is a pretty elite bigwig within the government. They are typically at least four layers above a typical frontline worker. Who knows what pertinent information from the front lines, so to speak, was concealed by this manoeuvre? The House order certainly did not contemplate this approach. Three other organizations fall into both of these categories, by providing incomplete responses and redacting what they did provide: Innovation, Science and Economic Development; the Department of Justice; and the National Research Council Canada. For its part, the justice department brazenly put the House on notice that some 10,772 pages of relevant documents were “completely withheld”. The Communications Security Establishment, meanwhile, simply wrote that it was refusing to turn over any documents, even redacted ones. Then we have the case of the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, the body that manages a quarter of a trillion dollars of public sector pension assets, which claimed it is not part of the government. I guess it is not just campaign managers who are distancing themselves from the Liberal Prime Minister. The Auditor General, for her part, also refused to provide documents, referring to her obligations under the Auditor General Act to honour whatever security restrictions the government imposes on its information. Not only has the government refused to comply with the House's order; it has also shackled the Auditor General, an officer of Parliament, from being able to comply as well.

592 words

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

Sep/16/24 12:21:33 p.m.
Watch

I want to pause here to recognize the Privacy Commissioner's, our former law clerk's, gold standard approach. He provided a set of records with what he called proposed redactions along with a clean copy of the records, because, as he wrote, “these provisions [of the Access to Information Act] do not limit the House of Commons' constitutional authority to seek and obtain information and documents.” At least he gets it. Regardless, there is clear and convincing evidence before the House today that a contempt was committed by the government's flagrant and systematic disobedience to the House's June 10 order. While I think it is clear-cut, it is, of course, ultimately a decision for the House to take. In his March 9, 2011, ruling, Mr. Speaker Milliken cited page 281 of Sir John Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, fourth edition: But it must be remembered that under all circumstances it is for the house to consider whether the reasons given for refusing the information are sufficient. The right of Parliament to obtain every possible information on public questions is undoubted, and the circumstances must be exceptional, and the reasons very cogent, when it cannot be at once laid before the houses. From there, the Chair added, at page 8841 of the Debates: It may be that valid reasons exist. That is not for the Chair to judge. A committee empowered to investigate the matter might, but the Chair is ill-equipped to do so. However, there is no doubt that an order to produce documents is not being fully complied with, and this is a serious matter that goes to the heart of the House's undoubted role in holding the government to account. The U.K. procedure committee, in its May 2019 report, concluded, at paragraph 16, “The way in which the power [to require the production of papers] is exercised is a matter for the House and not subject to the discretion of the Chair.” That committee commented, at paragraph 35, similarly to the views of Mr. Speaker Milliken, on the means of assessing compliance: There is no recognised procedure to assess the papers provided to the House as a whole in response to a resolution or order, and no means of appeal against non-compliance, short of raising the issue as a matter of privilege. Where papers have been provided to a body of the House, compliance has been easier to assess. Select committees in receipt of papers have been able to review the information they have received and to determine whether the House's instructions have been complied with. The U.K. procedure committee concluded, at paragraph 86: The House alone determines the scope of its power to call for papers. In its consideration of each motion it is able to discern whether an inappropriate or irresponsible use of the power is sought, and whether it is being asked to require the production of information from Ministers on a scale disproportionate to the matter under debate. We expect that in each such case the House will continue to exercise its judgment in favour of a responsible use of the power. A similar point was also made in the first report of our House's former Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, tabled on May 29, 1991, and of which the House took note on June 18, 1991: It is well established that Parliament has the right to order any and all documents to be laid before it which it believes are necessary for its information. ... The power to call for persons, papers and records is absolute, but it is seldom exercised without consideration of the public interest. In our present case, the House has before it, I would submit, a thorough record upon which to take a decision. The law clerk's reports, with the annexed correspondence from assorted deputy heads, lay before the House both sides of the argument. Personally, I side with the law clerk and his defence of the rights of Parliament. For those who would advocate that we must temper the House's authority with a willingness to accept the government's decisions to withhold information, supposedly in the name of the public interest, I would recall that these balancing acts are represented within the House's own self-restraint and not by any veto exercised by an outside authority. Mr. Speaker Milliken articulated the concept on April 27, 2010, at page 2043 of the Debates: It is the view of the Chair that accepting an unconditional authority of the executive to censor the information provided to Parliament would in fact jeopardize the very separation of powers that is purported to lie at the heart of our parliamentary system and the independence of its constituent parts. Furthermore, it risks diminishing the inherent privileges of the House and its members, which have been earned and must be safeguarded. As has been noted earlier, procedural authorities are categorical in repeatedly asserting the powers of the House in ordering the production of documents. No exceptions are made for any category of government documents, even those related to national security. Therefore, the Chair must conclude that it is perfectly within the existing privileges of the House to order production of the documents in question. Having established that it is for the House to decide how to exercise its authority in ordering the production of papers, how can we go about such mechanisms to strike the right balance?

925 words

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

Sep/16/24 12:27:02 p.m.
Watch

As you recall, in the 2010 case of Afghanistan documents, the House ordered some 40,000 pages of records to be produced in the original and uncensored form forthwith, even though the complete disclosure of them could have prejudiced Canada and her NATO allies' interest in a conflict zone. That prompted Mr. Speaker Milliken to suspend the effect of his ruling to allow a critical gap to be filled. In 2021, we were dealing with about 600 pages involving professional and counter-espionage investigations while the motion had embedded a series of safeguards, like having the records vetted by the top-secret-cleared law clerk. That gave your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, the comfort to allow a motion to proceed immediately from his ruling. In the present case, the House adopted the motion for the purpose of making these documents available to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada's national law enforcement agency. To ensure adequate confidentiality for information that might be sensitive in any potential criminal investigation, the June 10 order established a procedure whereby institutions would directly deposit the records with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, who, in turn, would transmit them to the RCMP. The documents were not tabled nor were they meant to be tabled. Instead, the law clerk was directed to prepare a report to the House to be tabled by you. In other words, the documents in question are not open to public inspection. Privacy interests are protected. The documents are, literally, simply being transferred within the federal government from one institution to another institution, the RCMP, through the good offices of our own law clerk. It is incumbent upon us to act, and act now, in the face of this disregard for the House's authority. To quote page 239 of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition: Disobedience to rules or orders represents an affront to the dignity of the House, and accordingly the House could take action, not simply for satisfaction but to ensure that the House of Commons is held in the respect necessary for its authority to be vindicated. Without proper respect, the House of Commons could not function. I recognize that the government will undoubtedly try to lay the blame at the feet of the public servants who prepared the documents and applied the redactions. However, it is not the public service but the cabinet that is accountable here on the floor of the House of Commons. On September 15, 2021, in preparation for this Parliament, the Privy Council Office provided a briefing note to Paul MacKinnon, then the deputy secretary to the cabinet and a former Chrétien PMO staffer, a former senior staffer for the current Minister of Agriculture and, if I am not mistaken, a brother of the Minister of Labour, to advise that “in the event that parliamentarians press for the release of confidential information, the appropriate minister or ministers should take responsibility for the decision to provide or withhold the information.” Mr. MacKinnon, in turn, on November 24, 2021, immediately following a question of privilege being raised concerning the Winnipeg lab documents, sent a briefing note to the then government House leader, stating, “Consistent with the principles of responsible government, the ultimate accountability for deciding what information to withhold from or release to parliamentarians resides with the responsible minister. Public servants do not share in ministers' constitutional accountability to the Houses of Parliament but support ministers in this accountability, including by collecting and transmitting documents to Parliament.” Those are the words of the Prime Minister's own department. We think that it is only fair that the Prime Minister should heed the words of his own officials. The Prime Minister needs to take responsibility for a whole-of-government failure to respect the will of the House of Commons. That is why the motion I intend to put forward, should you agree that this is a prime facie contempt, would reiterate the House's June 10 order and direct all government institutions that failed to comply with the original order to get their act together and deposit with the law clerk all of the documents we originally ordered, without any redactions this time, and to do so within one week. For good measure, the motion would also express the House's view to urge the Prime Minister, consistent with the spirit of the principles of responsible government, to make his view clear and known to those delinquent government departments that he expects the House's order to be complied with this time. In the interim, you have an important decision. The House of Commons, Canadians and hundreds of years of constitutional parliamentary government are looking to you to allow us to stand up for the ancient rights of the people's elected representatives. I know it is customary to reflect and ponder on arguments made on these types of questions of privilege, but this is a very easy decision. We just have to ask ourselves the following questions. Did the House adopt a production order? Yes, it did. That is not a matter of opinion. That is in the Journals and you know that, Mr. Speaker. Was the order complied with? No. Some provided partial responses. A few withheld documents. Most of them redacted them. Again, it is not my opinion. It is not a subjective analysis. That is in a report tabled by you, Mr. Speaker, and written by the law clerk on how the government complied with the order.

922 words

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

Sep/16/24 12:32:17 p.m.
Watch

The law clerk's reports lay out all of these facts and are there on the table. Mr. Speaker, you could quickly consult with him and make your ruling right now. Thank you.

33 words

The Speaker

Sep/16/24 12:32:31 p.m.
Watch

I would like to thank the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for his substantive and comprehensive question of privilege that he has put before the House. It is my understanding and it is a normal tradition that we would hear from the different party House leaders as to their comments on this and I hope that they will do so forthwith. I see that the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising.

76 words