Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 1727
View Blake Richards Profile
CPC (AB)
View Blake Richards Profile
2021-06-23 15:17 [p.9059]
Mr. Speaker, as we are approaching the end of our session for the summer, I note that there are four outstanding questions of privilege.
There is a question of privilege from the member for Timmins—James Bay, in relation to the government ignoring a House order regarding taking indigenous children to court.
There is a question of privilege from the member for Carleton, regarding the government's inflation tax; and from the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, regarding the ethics committee and the fact that the government has ordered staff there to disobey the order to appear.
Then, of course, there was a question of privilege from our opposition House leader as well, related to the documents related to the Winnipeg lab, after the appearance at the bar by the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada on Monday.
While I appreciate that obviously you, Mr. Speaker, have to have some deliberations on some of them, and that is understandable, in particular the one from the opposition House leader, I would note, first of all, that there is some new information that has come to light, which is that the government has now filed an order in Federal Court with you as the defendant, Mr. Speaker, where the government is seeking to have those records and those documents sealed so that they can be hidden from Canadians. That obviously adds a very significant element of timeliness to this. When we have that being done by the government and the government has gone to that length to actually go to the Federal Court against you, Mr. Speaker, to try to see those documents sealed so that they cannot be seen by Canadians, that would add a very important element of timeliness to this.
I do believe that, on that question of privilege in particular, it does seem like there is a pretty clear set of facts there. You brought the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada to the bar and you admonished him. The documents were supposed to come with him. They did not. That is very clear. That is a very clear set of facts and very well established. We now have the government going to court to try to seal those documents, and that is shameful. I would think that there is very clear evidence there that we do have a prima facie case, so I would have expected us to see a ruling from you prior to the summer adjournment of Parliament.
Therefore, I just want to ask a three-part question so that we can get some clarity on where things are at with these questions of privilege.
Will you, Mr. Speaker, be delivering a ruling now, particularly on that question of privilege, given the timeliness of that matter, and on the other questions of privilege as well that I have raised here? If not, can you tell the House why not? In addition, what would happen with those questions of privilege should the government, as has been very widely speculated, go ahead and dissolve Parliament for an election? What would happen then to those questions of privilege?
I certainly hope, given that the government has now gone to Federal Court against you as the defendant, Mr. Speaker, trying to seal documents, that you will deliver a ruling prior to the summer. Could you answer those questions, please?
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I want to thank the hon. member for his question, and it certainly is a fair question.
Unfortunately, over the last week, the amount of resources required from the clerks and me has limited the resources that we have to put to the points of order and the questions of privilege.
One of the things I have prided myself on in being here is putting out a well-thought-out response that merits the position that I am in. One of the things that I did not want to do is to rush through that with limited resources and give a ruling that was not up to the level that is expected by members and that members have been used to.
Therefore, should Parliament dissolve today, I will not be able to do it right away. It will be done at the next sitting of the House, whenever that does happen, and we will have something that is very robust, something that makes sense and something that all members can have confidence in.
View Blake Richards Profile
CPC (AB)
View Blake Richards Profile
2021-06-23 15:22 [p.9059]
Mr. Speaker, in relation to the last question I had, I have more of a point of clarification than anything.
First, what would happen with those points of privilege should the government choose to dissolve this Parliament and go to an election? Would those points of privilege carry forward into the next Parliament?
Second, what bearing does the fact that the government has applied to the Federal Court to have those documents sealed have on this? Does that change anything about this point of privilege and about your ruling? Are you concerned about the fact that the government has applied to have those documents sealed and the effect that would have on this place and its ability to follow through on its orders?
It is a very serious matter when a government is taking the Speaker of the House of Commons to Federal Court in order to try to seal documents so that it can avoid being held accountable to Canadians. That is something that we all must take incredibly seriously in this place, because the very heart of democracy is at stake.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I want to thank the member for Banff—Airdrie. I just want to make sure that we got everything the way it should be and that the answer is correct.
The points of privilege and the points of order will be carried over, and it will be up to the Speaker at the time to look at it and take all the information as it evolves and make a decision at that time. I would not want to take that away from whoever the next Speaker is.
On the second point, we were told by the government House leader. He announced it in the chamber, and it is in the process. We will be taking that under consideration as we proceed.
The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-06-23 15:39 [p.9061]
Mr. Speaker, we are still reeling from the shock of the recent announcement about how the government is going to court against the House of Commons. As such, we would like some time to consider the motion the government leader just moved, which we agreed upon initially. However, that was before the events that just transpired. We will get back to you shortly.
View Mélanie Joly Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I was having technical problems, not with the vote we just had, but with the previous vote on the motion moved by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I would like to change my vote and vote in favour of the motion.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2021-06-23 17:07 [p.9070]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I seek the consent of the House to deliver a reply on behalf of the Green Party of Canada.
View Randall Garrison Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am rising virtually to ask for unanimous consent to make a few short remarks in tabling an NDP supplemental report to the justice committee's report on elder abuse just tabled by our very able chair, the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2021-06-23 17:09 [p.9070]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I am a member.
I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make a few remarks. I have tabled a supplementary report, and I would like to outline the basis for it, if my colleagues in the House do not object.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to clarify that the motion adopted to give the member special permission to present a supplementary report was to present the report, not to read the entirety of the report.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I was getting there. I would like to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary to be as concise as possible. I will let her continue.
View Blake Richards Profile
CPC (AB)
View Blake Richards Profile
2021-06-22 10:14 [p.8936]
Mr. Speaker, I understand that you are attempting to give the member some latitude here, but this time is intended to present a dissenting report or supplemental report. There have been attacks on other parties, and there have been all kinds of commentary here. I really do think, Mr. Speaker, it might be time to consider that it has been enough.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I understand the parliamentary secretary is wrapping up, so I will give her a bit more time and then we will go from there.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.
I seek the unanimous consent of the House, in all fairness, for the member for Lakeland to be able to share a few more comments about the Conservative dissenting report. I am sure she also has more to say. I wonder if there is unanimous consent to do that.
View Derek Sloan Profile
Ind. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I mentioned in my question, I had a parliamentary press conference that was censored by Facebook. People have reached out to me to say that they are unable to share it. That is problematic. Anything that goes on in the House should be able to be shared freely by Canadians.
I would like to seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House recognize that the House of Commons itself and the Parliament of Canada are a bastion of democracy and free speech; that members of Parliament enjoy special parliamentary privileges overseeing their ability to speak freely in Parliament, to discharge their duties freely and without constraint; that any Canadian seeking to share digital content of parliamentary functions should be able to do so freely and without constraint; that the government must strongly defend the rights of parliamentarians against the outside interference of social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter; and I call on the government to recognize that any potential suppression of information or censorship of parliamentary events, such as official press conferences, must not be allowed to happen and to officially sanction Facebook and Twitter for their actions.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
An hon. member: Nay.
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Greg Fergus Profile
2021-06-22 15:15 [p.8983]
Mr. Speaker, I had technical difficulties and could not complete my S.O. 31 as a result. I would ask for unanimous consent to do it now.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
All those opposed to the hon. member's request for unanimous consent will please say nay.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, in the past, you have not required unanimous consent to allow a member redo his or her statement. I expect you would apply the same logic this time.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I do not have a problem with it. The hon. member asked for unanimous consent. If he wants to retract that, I will allow him to go ahead.
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Greg Fergus Profile
2021-06-22 15:16 [p.8983]
I would be happy to retract that, Mr. Speaker.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Since there were technical difficulties, we will allow the member to go ahead.
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to clarify the record. The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations in question period talked about $48.8 million being given to Saskatchewan first nations. That number is incorrect. It is in fact—
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
That is beginning to turn into debate. A point of order is for referring to one of the Standing Orders and how it is contravened. Members often forget that and we get caught up, and that is fine. I thought I would point that out to remind hon. members.
View Alain Therrien Profile
BQ (QC)
View Alain Therrien Profile
2021-06-22 15:45 [p.8986]
Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to the question of privilege raised yesterday by the House Leader of the Official Opposition, who alleged that the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada did not fully comply with the order adopted by the House on June 17.
This question of privilege is quite appropriate. We are of the opinion that the order of the House was not followed in its entirety and that the House must act accordingly. It is time for it to act.
Last week, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel Philippe Dufresne sent a document to the Standing Committee on Finance regarding the committees' power to send for papers, since the committee was finding it difficult to get documents from KPMG on its study of tax havens. This letter from Mr. Dufresne provides some thoughtful clarifications on the question of privilege we are discussing today. Regarding the refusal to produce the documents, he said, and I quote:
Only the House of Commons has the disciplinary powers to deal with this type of offence. The disciplinary powers of the House include, for example, the power to reprimand a person who is not a Member (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 983, n. 164). In cases where the author of or the authority responsible for a record refuses to comply with an order issued by a committee to produce documents, the committee essentially has three options. The first is to accept the reasons put forward to justify the refusal (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 986). The second is to seek an acceptable compromise to obtain the information with certain measures in place. This could entail putting measures in place to ensure that the record is kept confidential while it is being consulted, such as in camera review, limited and numbered copies, and/or putting in place arrangements for disposing of or destroying the copies after the committee meeting (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 986, notes 180, 181, 182). It could also include having proposed redactions to the documents provided to the Committee or to my Office for review before any information is made public. The third option is to reject the reasons given for denying access to the record and insist on the production of the entire record (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 987). If a witness does not provide requested documents, the committee’s recourse is to report the matter to the House (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 983, n. 165; p. 987, n. 183). Once seized with the matter, the House takes the measures that it considers appropriate (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 983, n. 166; p. 987).
The letter from Mr. Stewart's lawyer was tabled in both official languages in the House this morning. Mr. Stewart has no intention of complying with the order of the House for the time being, which brings us back to the third option I just mentioned.
The House has already considered what action should be taken against the Public Health Agency of Canada as a result of Mr. Stewart's refusal to table the unredacted documents before the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.
The order adopted by the House on June 17 was adopted by a majority vote, and therefore the point of order raised by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is inappropriate. The Chair must rule on the solution, the remedy to be applied with respect to the documents that were requested but have still not been tabled in the House.
I will not repeat all the rulings and precedents that the House Leader of the Official Opposition referred to yesterday. However, I would like to come back to some of the fundamental issues he raised about the importance of decisions that are made by the House, and I quote:
If the House does not respect its orders, who will respect the laws adopted by the House? Who will respect the regulations adopted by the House? Who will respect the political decisions made after debates, albeit spirited ones, but decisions that were voted on by the individuals who were duly elected by the public?
Therefore, we ask that you take one of the conclusions proposed yesterday by the House Leader of the Official Opposition.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-06-21 15:11 [p.8855]
Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, when a member rises to move a motion in the House, they must always have the proper equipment. We saw that the leader of the Bloc Québécois did not have the necessary equipment. That being said, I think that all parties know what the leader of the Bloc Québécois wants to talk about, and I seek the consent of the House to let him continue.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-06-21 15:11 [p.8855]
Mr. Speaker, I think we all recognize that the member for Beloeil—Chambly is not set up correctly to address the House of Commons. We also know what he wants to talk about today.
What I would suggest to my colleague for Beloeil—Chambly is that he first make his presentation in French and then after that, if he can, translate it to be sure that every member will have access, in both official languages, to his proposition of the day.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The problem with the interpretation is due to the fact that the member does not have the proper equipment. Does the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly agree to proceed as the member for Louis-Saint‑Laurent suggested?
Results: 1 - 30 of 1727 | Page: 1 of 58

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

For more data options, please see Open Data