43rd PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION House of Commons Debates Official Report (Hansard) Volume 149 No. 042 Monday, July 20, 2020 Speaker: The Honourable Anthony Rota CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) 2581 HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, July 20, 2020 The House met at 12 p.m. sions among the parties and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the follow motion. I move: Prayer That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the ● (1205) House, [English] (a) a bill in the name of the Minister of Finance, entitled An Act respecting fur‐ ther COVID-19 measures, be deemed to have been introduced and read a first RECALL OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS time and ordered for consideration at second reading later this day and on Tues‐ The Speaker: I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Stand‐ day, July 21, 2020; ing Order 28(3), I sent a notice calling the House to meet this day (b) at 3:00 pm on Tuesday, July 21, 2020, or when no member rises to speak, and I now lay this notice on the table. whichever is earlier, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and put without further debate or amendment all questions necessary to dispose of the second [Translation] reading stage of the bill, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it Furthermore, on Saturday, July 18, I sent every member a mes‐ shall not be deferred; sage explaining why the House was being recalled. Let me also ad‐ (c) if the bill is adopted at second reading, it shall be referred to a committee of vise the House that, in accordance with the representation made by the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported with‐ the government pursuant to Standing Order 55(1), I have caused to out amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, and deemed read a third be published a special Order Paper giving notice of government time and passed; bills and motions. I also wish to lay upon the table a letter from the (d) when the bill has been read a third time and passed, the House shall adjourn Leader of the Government in the House of Commons dated July 18. until Wednesday, July 22, 2020, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 26, 2020; I would like to say a few words before we begin today's proceed‐ ings. [English] [English] (e) the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and the Spe‐ cial Committee on Canada-China Relations be added to the list of committees in As was the case for the previous recalls of the House, I under‐ paragraph (e) of the order made on Tuesday, May 26, 2020; and stand that there will be agreement to see the application of Standing Order 17 suspended for the current sitting to allow members to (f) the application of Standing Orders 15 and 17 be suspended until Monday, practise physical distancing. I encourage all members to follow this September 21, 2020. and the other recommended best practices during today's procedure. The Speaker: Does the hon. minister have the unanimous con‐ [Translation] sent of the House to move the motion? Accordingly, members desiring to speak and address the Chair Some hon. members: Agreed. may do so from any seat in the House. [English] [Translation] Finally, I ask that all members tabling a document or moving a The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it motion sign the document and bring it to the table themselves. the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? The hon. government House leader. Some hon. members: Agreed. * * * [Translation] (Motion agreed to) BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE [English] Hon. Pablo Rodriguez (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been discus‐ The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. 2582 COMMONS DEBATES July 20, 2020 Privilege PRIVILEGE might well be a period of several months before the subcommittee could meet to deal with the matter. RESPONSE BY THE PRIME MINISTER Hon. Andrew Scheer (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. In this case, the problem is more substantive than just a simple Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege regarding an inci‐ matter of delay. It would appear that the committee of the whole es‐ dent that occurred in committee of the whole on July 8. I know you tablished by the government is unable to take any action except to are aware of this, because I made this case to you a couple of weeks rise, as you explained to us on July 8, Mr. Speaker. ago and you came back to the House and identified the unique cir‐ cumstances. I thought that now that the House is sitting, I would With respect to the content of my question of privilege, Mr. expand on the remarks I made that day. Speaker, I would like to bring your attention to a matter that was Mr. Speaker, I would first like to present to you my argument raised on November 3, 1978, by the member for Northumberland— that in this special case it is within your authority and duty as Durham. The member charged that he had been deliberately misled Speaker to rule on the matter raised in committee of the whole. As by a former solicitor general. The member had written a letter in you yourself noted on July 8: 1973 to the solicitor general, who assured him that as a matter of policy the RCMP did not intercept the private mail of Canadians. ...the situation is somewhat particular in that the question of privilege was raised in the committee of the whole and the procedure for dealing with it is quite dif‐ On November 1, 1978, during testimony before the McDonald ferent than it is in the House. Commission, the former commissioner of the RCMP stated that the What complicates this matter even further is that the work of the committee of RCMP did indeed intercept mail on a very restricted basis. The the whole today and the work scheduled this summer are strictly governed by an Speaker ruled on December 6, 1978, and found that this did consti‐ order of the House that limits these proceedings and dictates that the committee tute a prima facie case of privilege. must now rise. The situation is more than particularly complicated. The House The issue I raised on July 8 is similar in that a senior officer of order adopted on May 26 would appear to run counter to some of the House, the Ethics Commissioner, presented evidence that di‐ the more important tenets of our parliamentary democracy, such as rectly contradicts the evidence the Prime Minister gave the commit‐ Parliament's authority to defend members' privileges or take action tee in response to my question about the co-operation that his office to keep the executive accountable. Although the Liberals, with the will or will not be providing to the Ethics Commissioner. The support of the NDP, provided us with these occasions to talk in Prime Minister said, in reference to the SNC-Lavalin scandal, that committee of the whole, they effectively prevented members from he took unprecedented steps so that the Ethics Commissioner could, taking any action. “fully investigate the matter at hand.” Mr. Speaker, that is the point of my submission to you today and On July 8, I referenced three points that the Ethics Commissioner why I believe you should intervene on this question of privilege made in the “Trudeau II Report”. They directly contradicted the that arose in committee of the whole on July 8. Prime Minister. Page 156 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure ● (1210) and Practice explains the procedure when a member rises on a question of privilege in committee of the whole: First, the commissioner said: ...the Chair will hear the question of privilege. As in a standing, special, or leg‐ Because of my inability to access all Cabinet confidences related to the matter I islative committee, the role of the Chair is to decide whether the matter raised must, however, report that I was unable to fully discharge the investigatory duties does in fact relate to privilege. If the matter raised by the Member touches on conferred upon me by the Act. privilege and relates to events in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair will en‐ tertain a motion that the events be reported to the House. Second, he noted: The terms of the May 26 order do not provide for a motion to be Because of the decisions to deny our Office further access to Cabinet confi‐ moved. Therefore, the matter of my question of privilege cannot be dences, witnesses were constrained in their ability to provide all evidence. I was, reported to the House. therefore, prevented from looking over the entire body of evidence to determine its relevance to my examination. Decisions that affect my jurisdiction under the Act, Pages 152 and 153 of the third edition of House of Commons by setting parameters on my ability to receive evidence, should be made transpar‐ Procedure and Practice note: ently and democratically by Parliament, not by the very same public office holders who are subject to the regime I administer. Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme situations, they will hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings only upon pre‐ sentation of a report from the committee which deals directly with the matter and Third, he said: not as a question of privilege raised by an individual Member.