PRISM::Advent3b2 17.25

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 148 Ï NUMBER 162 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 42nd PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, April 7, 2017 Speaker: The Honourable Geoff Regan CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) 10309 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, April 7, 2017 The House met at 10 a.m. The same point is reiterated at page 541. That is why the privilege motion is not printed in today's Order Paper and is not under debate today, even though the House has not come to a decision one way or the other. Prayer Ï (1005) [English] What we got yesterday from the hon. member for Brossard— Saint-Lambert was some procedural legerdemain, a magic trick. She PRIVILEGE said that her colleague filed a notice of motion to initiate a study on DISPOSITION OF PRIMA FACIE QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE this issue at the procedure and House affairs committee. Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am rising today on a question of privilege following yesterday's proceedings concerning the question of privilege raised by the members for Milton and Beauce. As I will establish in my argument, Though we are not generally supposed to trouble the chair with no other government in history has treated a Speaker's finding of a procedural matters in committee, I will say that a point of order was prima facie case of privilege in such a reckless and cavalier manner raised last evening concerning the inadmissibility of that notice of as we saw yesterday. The way the Liberals tried to cover it, by trying motion. In short, and for the context of the House, the concern is that to have the committee self-initiate a privilege study, could lead to it goes beyond the order of reference for the procedure and House unintended but very dangerous consequences. Affairs committee found in Standing Order 108(3)(a). The deputy government whip noted at committee last evening that the rule As we know, the Speaker found a prima facie case of privilege on contains the words “among other matters”, which she believes gives this matter. The hon. member for Milton then moved the appropriate her good authority to proceed with her notice. motion, and a debate ensued. After question period, the hon. member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert moved that the House do now proceed to orders of the day, and the motion was adopted. Mr. Speaker, I am now asking that you again find a prima facie In my view, that phrase captures those things that are provided for case of privilege on the basis of the evidence and submissions in the Standing Orders, such as the automatic referral of statutory tendered last month as well as the very relevant precedent of the reports under Standing Order 32, such as the Chief Electoral Speaker's own ruling yesterday morning. Officer's report on the 2015 general election and the time-sensitive review of it, which has been held hostage by the government House Last evening, following proceedings in the House, which I leader's discussion paper; or by an order of reference from the outlined, I gave notice to the Speaker, via the table, and pursuant to House, such as bills and cases of privileges. Standing Order 48, of my intention to rise on this question of privilege this morning when the House opened. In other words, I am raising this at the earliest opportunity. This might seem like the movie Groundhog Day. I am asking that The chair, mere moments before midnight, informed the we have a do-over of yesterday. Let me explain why and why it is committee that the clerk ruled it in order. Make of that what you procedurally in order. will, Mr. Speaker. On the strength of that so-called ruling, a majority at the procedure and House affairs committee can now, and in the Page 148 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second future, simply decide, anytime it wishes, to study some issue and edition, makes it clear that motions to proceed to orders of the day write a report leading to recommendations to find someone in are in order during debate on a privilege motion. Page 149 explains contempt of Parliament, to jail people, or even to expel members. the consequences of such a motion being adopted. It states: Imagine what Parliament is going to become during a minority [Should] a motion to proceed to Orders of the Day be adopted, then the privilege government. As I said in my opening comments, this is an motion is superseded and dropped from the Order Paper. unintended but very dangerous consequence. 10310 COMMONS DEBATES April 7, 2017 Privilege Let me be very clear. The Conservative Party, Her Majesty's loyal Let me state clearly that never has a motion to proceed to orders of opposition, wants to see this critical issue studied by the procedure the day been before adopted during a privilege debate. This is and House affairs committee. Our main concern here is that the completely unprecedented, and, I would argue, is an extremely government not disregard the rules of this place, and we feel the dangerous precedent that denies members their fundamental right to need to clarify whether the committee can deal with the privilege vote in this place. Why is that? As a matter of logistics, I would say matter without a proper reference from the House. that it is to avoid this Groundhog Day atmosphere I described earlier. As a matter of principle, it is a simple acknowledgement of the By reviving the question of privilege in the House, we take the importance of allowing the House to take a decision on a motion opportunity to ensure that the procedure and House affairs concerning the privileges of this House. These privileges are committee can study this important issue, this question of our rights guaranteed in section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, often referred as parliamentarians, with the full confidence of a sturdy procedural to by its original title, the British North America Act. The law of footing. parliamentary privilege has been held by the Supreme Court of Ï (1010) Canada to be a body of constitutional law, a body of law on equal footing with that of the charter. Turning to an explanation of the procedural consequences of yesterday's manoeuver by the government, the House did not decide As I said, this situation is entirely unprecedented. I think the for or against the merits of a committee study on this question of appropriate path forward lies in the analogous situation of privilege privilege. Therefore, the so-called “same question rule” is not cases that get revived following prorogation. Allow me to offer the triggered. Chair two examples. Citation 558(1) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms On May 26, 2003, at page 6413 of the Debates, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada, sixth edition, states: Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege initiated by Mr. An old rule of Parliament reads: “That a question being once made and carried in Boudria, and the procedure and House affairs committee was tasked the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the with a study. Parliament was prorogued that November, before the judgment of the House.” committee could report. On February 6, 2004, at page 243 of the In re-finding a prima facie case of privilege, you would not risk Debates, Mr. Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege contravening this ancient rule. In fact, a consequence of the motion raised by Mr. Breitkreuz, which revived the earlier case. adopted yesterday is, I would submit, to put us back to where we The Chair ruled at the time, stating: started. For example, if that motion was moved during concurrence debate, it would take the actual motion debated off the Order Paper, As I indicated in the previous session, this was a bona fide question of privilege. Accordingly, in my view, the question remains a question of privilege. The but any other motion on notice concerning the same report could be committee did not completely report on the matter which it is entitled to do. moved the very next day. The member whose motion was flushed, so Accordingly I give the hon. member leave to move his motion. to speak, could simply re-file another notice of motion and begin anew. In a second incident, one I referenced a moment ago, on June 18, 2013, at page 18550 of the Debates, the Speaker's predecessor, the The same goes for motions of instruction, which can be moved hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, found a prima facie case of during routine proceedings. That is to say, one is back where one privilege raised by the hon. minister of fisheries and oceans. That began and can reinitiate the same identical proceeding in the usual case, in fact, had actually been raised by the hon. member for Coast fashion appropriate to that class of motion. In the case of of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, the member whose motion has concurrence and instruction motions, that, of course, would be sparked the very debate going on at the procedure and House affairs giving 48-hours' notice by way of the Notice Paper. In the case of a committee, on the unprecedented power grab proposed by the privilege motion, I say it would be in raising a question of privilege Liberals. asking you to find a prima facie case of privilege and moving the Ï (1015) appropriate privilege motion.

Load more