Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 31 - 45 of 1727
View Yves-François Blanchet Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about the nature of the request because I cannot simultaneously interpret—
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The problem is that we cannot hear the member for Beloeil-Chambly properly because he is not using the official equipment provided by the House.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Order. I would ask for the attention of the House.
Even if we could understand—barely— what the hon. member for Beloeil-Chambly was saying, it was not clear enough for the interpreters. It was therefore suggested that the member start in one official language and then repeat the same thing in the other official language so that everyone could understand. Is that agreeable to everyone?
Hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: That is how we will proceed. The hon. member for Beloeil-Chambly will start in the official language of his choice and then repeat the same thing in the other official language. The hon. member for Beloeil-Chambly.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-06-21 15:19 [p.8856]
Mr. Speaker, I will make myself clear so everyone understands what I am saying.
We have to follow certain rules. Yes, there are technical considerations, but location matters too. I completely understand what motivated the member for Beloeil—Chambly, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, to do this on National Indigenous Peoples Day and to do it in an indigenous centre. That puts us all in a positive frame of mind. Plus, his proposal, which he read in both official languages, was unanimously adopted.
I invite the Speaker to issue a recommendation about whether we are supposed to be in the House, in our parliamentary office or in our riding office. If it should so happen that we are not in one of those three places, I believe, although we would have to reread what has been said about this, that we are expected to inform the House in advance so officials can make sure everything is working properly.
For today, it is understandable. I would be the first to agree, because Wendake is in my riding. We can move symbolic motions like the one moved today. However, I think we need a rule, should a member choose to speak from somewhere other than the House of Commons.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I thank the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who raised a very good point.
I would like to remind all members that the House is a neutral place, as free of symbols as possible. Sometimes, we do not notice it at all, but it is very important to make sure that the House is as neutral as possible.
It being 3:22 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 17, it is my duty to ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to admit Mr. Iain Stewart.
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2021-06-21 15:26 [p.8857]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House how the government believes we can move forward on the the issue of the document order from June 2. Today, I wrote a letter to you in which I go into some detail on this issue, and I would like to explain to the House what I proposed in this letter, if I may.
The House of Commons adopted a motion on June 17, 2021, which states, “That the House find the Public Health Agency of Canada to be in—”
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-06-21 15:26 [p.8857]
Mr. Speaker, we shall follow the rules step by step. You were talking about the June 17 decision. There is someone here, and we are asking this person to table documents. Do what you have to do, and after that we will see if there are any documents. If there are none, we will address it.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I have made my statement. I ask all members to sit and wait while we consult. It is a matter that we must go over. As I said, this is a very unique situation. I want to make sure that we get it right on all sides. This is not to show any favouritism to one side or the other; I just want to go over it.
The Chair is in the hands of the House. Nothing in the order of June 17 provided for the possibility of taking measures, nor does the order give the Chair the authority to respond to the situation the House is currently facing. It is up to the House to decide.
I will go back to the hon. government House leader and ask if the point of order he is raising is directly related to what we are discussing now. If it is not, I would ask him to please inform the House and we shall continue.
The hon. government House leader.
View Blake Richards Profile
CPC (AB)
View Blake Richards Profile
2021-06-21 15:30 [p.8858]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe you were interrupted while trying to finish the statement you were making. You were admonishing the Public Health Agency of Canada, and I think you should be able to finish your statement before there is a point of order responding to that statement. I think you should have the right to—
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
To correct the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie, I was done and about to dismiss Mr. Stewart when the hon. government House leader rose on a point of order to bring information forward. It was brought after. Right now we are dealing with that to see if it is directly related.
This is what I am going to do. I will listen to what the government House leader has to say and then determine relevance afterward. If it is way out of whack, I will stop him, but I believe what he has to say is related.
I stopped the hon. member because what he brought up was not exactly correct.
Mr. Blake Richards: I have a point of order.
The Speaker: I think we will listen to what has to be said and then we will deal with that after.
The hon. government House leader.
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2021-06-21 15:31 [p.8858]
Mr. Speaker, it is totally related.
The president of the Public Health Agency of Canada has worked diligently to try to comply with the order of June 2, 2021. He has done so in a manner that balances the rights of parliamentarians to have access to information with the duty of the government to protect information related to national security and privacy.
The Parliament of Canada Act states in section 4 that the privileges, immunities and powers of the two Houses are to be those that were held in 1867 by the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, and such privileges, immunities and powers as are defined by an act of the Parliament of Canada.
The Parliament of Canada, in exercising its legislative authority to define the privileges of the Houses, may circumscribe those privileges and has done so. A statute may be made expressly applicable to the Senate and the House of Commons or may apply implicitly, by necessary intendment.
As well, statutes of Parliament may impose duties of non-disclosure on government officials. As the Supreme Court observed in Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid in 2005, “Legislative bodies created by the Constitution Act, 1867 do not constitute enclaves shielded from the ordinary law of the land.”
Furthermore, in Chagnon v. Syndicat de la fonction publique et parapublique du Québec, Justice Rowe, in concurring with the majority of the court, added, “...expecting a legislature to comply with its own legislation cannot be regarded as an intrusion on the legislature's privilege. It is not an impediment to the functioning of a legislature for it to comply with its own enactments. Accordingly, when a legislature has set out in legislation how something previously governed pursuant to privilege is to operate, the legislature no longer can rely on inherent privilege so as to bypass the statute.”
Parliamentary privilege has been circumscribed by valid statutes, and the House of Commons cannot now choose to relieve itself from their application.
As we know, the Minister of Health referred the matter and provided unredacted documents to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, given the expertise of the members of the committee in matters of national security. The committee has a broad mandate to review Canada's legislative, regulatory, policy, administrative and financial framework for national security and intelligence. It may also—
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2021-06-21 15:34 [p.8858]
Mr. Speaker, the connection to the matter before us will soon be clear.
Of course the government wants to collaborate. That is what it has been trying to do from the start, in a way that respects parliamentary privilege and extremely important national security issues.
I am going to skip a whole section of my presentation and jump right to my proposal.
We are putting various options before you, all of them valid, in my opinion. I think it would be worth your while to read them so that we can find a solution that works for all parliamentarians and all parties.
I will not be very long.
The first option relates to what I call a memorandum of understanding regarding Afghan detainee documents. In response to the ruling by Speaker Milliken in 2010, the government and the opposition agreed to a memorandum of understanding that created an ad hoc committee of parliamentarians to review national security documents. It included safeguards and a panel of arbiters to determine how the relevant and necessary information could be made available to MPs and the public without compromising national security. A similar memorandum of understanding could be used for the review of the documents that the House has ordered.
As a second option, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel could be assisted by national security specialists.
The motion adopted by the House on June 2, 2021, states, in part:
(d) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall confidentially review the documents with a view to redacting information which, in his opinion, could reasonably be expected to compromise national security or reveal details of an ongoing criminal investigation, other than the existence of an investigation;
(e) the Speaker shall cause the documents, as redacted pursuant to paragraph (d), to be laid upon the table at the next earliest opportunity and, after being tabled, they shall stand referred to the special committee;
While the government accepts that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel has the appropriate security clearance to review the information, we do not believe he has the necessary training or expertise in national security-related information to make the necessary assessment. Disclosing sensitive information could have a number of negative side effects for our intelligence agencies. These include, inter alia, revealing covert methods of operation and tradecraft and investigative techniques; putting at risk human sources and their families; and identifying or helping to identify employees, internal procedures and administrative practices. Finally, it could have a severe impact on Canada's reputation as a responsible security partner.
Assessing the damage caused by disclosure of information cannot be done in the abstract or in isolation. Seemingly unrelated information can be used to develop a more comprehensive picture or “mosaic effect” when added to information already known, thereby revealing further tradecraft. Declassification of documents needs to undergo a review which takes into account the potential impact on covert methodologies, sources and relationships.
The government is open to providing the unredacted documents to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel if the House of Commons agrees that national security specialists can assist him in this process and that other appropriate safeguards be put in place.
It is our hope that the government and the opposition can come to a reasonable solution that ensures that the government can continue to respect its obligations to protect national security, and the House of Commons can effectively do its work.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have now had Mr. Stewart here for about half an hour. He has been standing diligently at the bar. I think it would be appropriate for the Speaker to allow him to leave now, so he can get back to the important work he has been doing over the last 15 months looking to protect this country.
I would ask that the Speaker allow Mr. Stewart to leave at this time. I think the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc have proven their point, and now it is time for him to be able to depart.
Results: 31 - 45 of 1727 | Page: 3 of 116

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data