SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of Parliament

Hon. Andrew Scheer

  • Member of Parliament
  • Conservative
  • Regina—Qu'Appelle
  • Saskatchewan
  • Voting Attendance: 61%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $195,980.34

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 339 - Sep/19/24
Hon. Andrew Scheer
  • Sep/19/24 3:37:00 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, the Liberal House leader's argument was fourfold. She believes that the House order exceeded its authority in adopting the order, that redactions were authorized because the order did not explicitly require unredacted documents, that any use made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of the documents produced could amount to a breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the only permissible remedy here would be to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Permit me to address her arguments in turn. First, it would not surprise you, Madam Speaker, to know that I actually believe that the House order of June 10 was entirely within the authority and jurisdiction of the House and that clear jurisprudence will support my position. In her submissions, the government House leader cited page 190 of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, which states, “The only limitations, which could only be self-imposed, would be that any inquiry should relate to a subject within the legislative competence of Parliament”. While I will also revisit this citation from Maingot later, let me first add for good measure a quotation from page 1 of the Prime Minister's former caucus colleague Derek Lee's book The Power of Parliamentary Houses to Send for Persons, Papers and Records: “Based on principles firmly established in constitutional and parliamentary law (and apart from the following limitations pertaining to Her Majesty, other Houses of parliament and foreign jurisdictions), a House of parliament has the full authority to summon and compel the production of any document.” It is also worth recalling that the order originated from a Conservative opposition motion, and Standing Order 81(13) provides that, “Opposition motions...may relate to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada". I would respectfully submit that the motion debated on June 6 and adopted on June 10 was squarely within the jurisdiction of Parliament. It concerned Sustainable Development Technology Canada, an organization incorporated by Parliament through the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act. Many of its directors and the chair of its board are appointed by the federal cabinet, which is most certainly accountable to Parliament. Quite importantly, SDTC's operations are run with monies that have been appropriated by Parliament. The motion was precipitated by the bombshell report of the Auditor General of Canada, an officer of Parliament, which outlined a massive scandal. Conservatives were troubled that, given the conduct uncovered by the Auditor General and brave whistle-blowers, crimes may well have been committed. The criminal law is, of course, a well-established area of federal jurisdiction. The documents were to be transmitted to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada's police force, also established by an act of Parliament—
470 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border