Speech (House debate)

{
    "time": "2019-03-22 10:05:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Mr. John Nater (Perth\u2014Wellington, CPC)",
        "fr": "M. John Nater (Perth\u2014Wellington, PCC)"
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p data-HoCid=\"5833608\" data-originallang=\"en\">Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have given the necessary one hour notice to the Chair of my intention to rise on such a point.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833609\" data-originallang=\"en\">I rise on a question of privilege today related to the departure from the Liberal caucus of the hon. member for <a data-HoCid=\"214048\" href=\"/politicians/celina-caesar-chavannes/\" title=\"Celina Caesar-Chavannes\">Whitby</a>. At its heart, I believe this is a breach of privilege flowing from a violation of section 49.8 of the Parliament of Canada Act. Allow me to explain.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833610\" data-originallang=\"en\">On Wednesday of this week, just before question period, we learned the news of the hon. member for <a data-HoCid=\"214048\" href=\"/politicians/celina-caesar-chavannes/\" title=\"Celina Caesar-Chavannes\">Whitby</a> becoming an independent, which happened shortly after the weekly caucus meeting of the Liberal Party had broken up.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833611\" data-originallang=\"en\">Later that afternoon, the CBC aired an interview with the hon. member, conducted by Chris Rands, a producer with that network. She told Mr. Rands:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833612\" data-originallang=\"en\"> I just think it was important to, you know, I understand that there's a lot of people that supported me that were disappointed in, you know, what I did, doing the interview that I did, and I think that it's important to understand that, you know, while I support the values and principles of the Liberal Party, that it might be good since that message did go out, that I sit as an independent for the rest of the term that I'm here. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833613\" data-originallang=\"en\">There was more, but I will leave it there.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833614\" data-originallang=\"en\">Those are words that I have read to the House, but I do urge the Chair to review the footage of that interview. I say this, and I want to tread delicately here, because it was the demeanour of the member that particularly struck me during that interview. The member seemed disappointed, to put it politely.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833615\" data-originallang=\"en\">What I, and what many who watched that interview, saw was someone who was not just disappointed to part ways with her colleagues, which is understandable, or even a touch of regret with the decision, but that I saw and what I think most people would have seen was a visceral look of shock.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833616\" data-originallang=\"en\">I do not speak about this to put the member for <a data-HoCid=\"214048\" href=\"/politicians/celina-caesar-chavannes/\" title=\"Celina Caesar-Chavannes\">Whitby</a> in an awkward place but because I genuinely believe that her so-called resignation is what some might describe as \u201ca negotiated resignation\u201d. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833617\" data-originallang=\"en\">Picture the ultimatum that may have been put to her as I have perceived it, that she had until the end of the day to resign or she would be kicked out, and that it was her decision. That last part sounds familiar.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833618\" data-originallang=\"en\">My point is that I truly believe the hon. member for <a data-HoCid=\"214048\" href=\"/politicians/celina-caesar-chavannes/\" title=\"Celina Caesar-Chavannes\">Whitby</a> was, or was threatened to be, kicked out of the Liberal caucus, that is to say her departure from caucus was not a free and voluntary action on her part.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833619\" data-originallang=\"en\">That brings me to section 49.2 of the Parliament of Canada Act. This section provides:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833620\" data-originallang=\"en\"> A member of a caucus may only be expelled from it if: </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833621\" data-originallang=\"en\"> (a) the caucus chair has received a written notice signed by at least 20% of the members of the caucus requesting that the member's membership be reviewed; and </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833622\" data-originallang=\"en\"> (b) the expulsion of the member is approved by secret ballot by a majority of all caucus members. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833623\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Next, I want to refer to portions of section 49.8 of the act:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833624\" data-originallang=\"en\"> 49.8 (1) At its first meeting following a general election, the caucus of every party that has a recognized membership of 12 or more persons in the House of Commons shall conduct a separate vote among the caucus members in respect of each of the following questions: </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833625\" data-originallang=\"en\"> (a) whether sections 49.2 and 49.3 are to apply in respect of the caucus: </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833626\" data-originallang=\"en\"> .... </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833627\" data-originallang=\"en\"> (3) The vote of each caucus member, in each vote, is to be recorded. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833628\" data-originallang=\"en\"> (4) The provisions referred to in each of paragraphs (l)(a) to (d) apply only if a majority of all caucus members vote in favour of their applicability. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833629\" data-originallang=\"en\"> ... </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833630\" data-originallang=\"en\"> (6) The outcome of each vote is binding on the caucus until the next dissolution of Parliament. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833631\" data-originallang=\"en\">These provisions were added to the law in 2015 after the Reform Act, 2014 was enacted, a private member's bill sponsored and championed by the hon. member for <a data-HoCid=\"213919\" href=\"/politicians/michael-chong/\" title=\"Michael Chong\">Wellington\u2014Halton Hills</a>. It was a bill that was supported by several members of the Liberal caucus who today sit in the House, including the right honourable member for <a data-HoCid=\"214115\" href=\"/politicians/justin-trudeau/\" title=\"Justin Trudeau\">Papineau</a>.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833632\" data-originallang=\"en\">It was reported by the Canadian Press on November 5, 2015, that the Liberal caucus failed to conduct the votes required by section 49.8 of the act. Also at the time, the Ottawa Citizen reported that, \u201crather than vote yes or no to each of the four provisions, Liberal MPs voted during their first caucus meeting on Thursday to send the issue to the party\u2019s biannual convention in Winnipeg next year.\u201d</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833633\" data-originallang=\"en\">As for the vote specifically applying to section 49.2 of the act, the <a data-HoCid=\"241624\" href=\"/politicians/dominic-leblanc/\" title=\"Dominic LeBlanc\">intergovernmental affairs minister</a>, who was then the government House leader, was quoted at the time as saying, \u201cDo you want a discussion in a caucus now of 184 people to reflect on what may be personal, sensitive, family matters? That is something that we weren\u2019t prepared to decide or vote on now.\u201d He went on to say, \u201cI don\u2019t know if in all circumstances it would be appropriate or even desirable\u2026to have a caucus seized of all kinds of this personal and complicated information.\u201d</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833634\" data-originallang=\"en\">With all due respect to the member, who is a veteran of this place, that is not what Parliament has, by the act of Parliament, ordered to happen in each parliamentary caucus after each general election. Deferring the mandatory votes to a party convention is also not an available option. Needing to bring party machinery into line is perhaps an argument to vote no to the proposals, but it is not a legitimate reason to avoid voting, which is, to say, to break the law. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833635\" data-originallang=\"en\">After I had finished my prepared notes for this morning, I came across a Toronto Star article from this morning in which the member for <a data-HoCid=\"213903\" href=\"/politicians/john-mckay/\" title=\"John McKay\">Scarborough\u2014Guildwood</a> is quoted in reflecting on those votes that did not happen. The article says, \u201cAsked if there had been a recorded vote, [the member for Scarborough\u2014Guildwood] shook his head. 'Nothing like that ever happens in caucus, it's very straightforward, it's consensus. Nobody ever really opposed it.'\u201d </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833636\" data-originallang=\"en\">That is from yesterday's Toronto Star in an article by Tonda MacCharles. Again, it is further confirmation from a sitting member of the Liberal caucus that those four votes did not happen as required by law. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833637\" data-originallang=\"en\">Further, the hon. member for <a data-HoCid=\"213919\" href=\"/politicians/michael-chong/\" title=\"Michael Chong\">Wellington\u2014Halton Hills</a> has written to the current <a data-HoCid=\"245290\" href=\"/politicians/david-lametti/\" title=\"David Lametti\">Minister of Justice and Attorney General</a> seeking clarity on whether or not the law was applied in that case. He has publicly stated that a letter would be forthcoming, clarifying one way or the other. Again, the House should be seized with the fact that the letter is expected and should have matters of substance in it to the matter at hand. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833638\" data-originallang=\"en\">Going forward to the questions at hand, because of the events this week, these issues have rushed to the foreground and to the matters before the House. Tonda MacCharles of the Toronto Star wrote that, \u201cWho decides who's in and who's out of Liberal caucus? Is it the prime minister? Is it caucus? You can be forgiven for not knowing.\u201d </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833639\" data-originallang=\"en\">The article later reminds us that the Prime Minister \u201csuggested it would be his call, telling reporters he was 'reflecting' on their future\u201d, referring both to the member for Vancouver Granville and Markham\u2014Stouffville. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833640\" data-originallang=\"en\">As my colleague, the hon. member for <a data-HoCid=\"213919\" href=\"/politicians/michael-chong/\" title=\"Michael Chong\">Wellington\u2014Halton Hills</a>, has pointed out, the authority to expel a member of the Liberal caucus is questionable, because the <a data-HoCid=\"214296\" href=\"/politicians/justin-trudeau/\" title=\"Justin Trudeau\">Prime Minister</a> and his leadership team deprived Liberal MPs of being able to exercise their rights at their first caucus meeting following the 2015 election. It is because of that that I believe the hon. member for <a data-HoCid=\"214048\" href=\"/politicians/celina-caesar-chavannes/\" title=\"Celina Caesar-Chavannes\">Whitby</a> has had her own rights disregarded. Her departure from caucus occurred without the safeguards and due process for backbenchers that the Reform Act contemplated. That is why I am raising this question of privilege today, and I believe that it meets the requirements for timeliness. Indeed, this is the first occasion where a consequence of the failure to vote in 2015 has come to a head. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833641\" data-originallang=\"en\">As for the matter of honouring the statute law, I recognize that Speakers in the past have generally declined to intervene on questions of law. However, this is no regular question of law. The collective privileges of the House of Commons include the right to regulate its internal affairs, which is sometimes also known as the privilege of exclusive cognizance. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833642\" data-originallang=\"en\"> <em>House of Commons Procedure and Practice</em>, Third Edition, Bosc and Gagnon, observes on page 122 that:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833643\" data-originallang=\"en\"> The right to regulate its own internal affairs does not mean that the House is above the law. However, where the application of statute law relates to a proceeding in Parliament or a matter covered by privilege, it is the House itself which decides how the law is to apply and the House's decision cannot be reviewed in the courts. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833644\" data-originallang=\"en\">Reference has been made to this in paragraph 34 of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid, which interested members can search out if they are so curious, and I know many members would be curious.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833645\" data-originallang=\"en\">At page 183 of <em>Parliamentary Privilege in Canada</em>, second edition, it states:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833646\" data-originallang=\"en\"> The privilege of control over its own affairs and the proceedings is one of the most significant attributes of an independent legislative institution. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833647\" data-originallang=\"en\"> The right to regulate its own internal affairs and procedures free from interference includes: </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833648\" data-originallang=\"en\"> ... </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833649\" data-originallang=\"en\"> 4. The right to administer that part of the statute law relating to its internal procedure without interference from the courts. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833650\" data-originallang=\"en\">I would also like to refer the chair to page 102 of Erskine May, 23rd Edition, which states:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833651\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Both Houses retain the right to be the sole judge of the lawfulness of their own proceedings, and to settle or depart from their own codes of procedure. This is equally the case where the House in question is dealing with a matter which is finally decided by its sole authority, such as an order or resolution, or whether (like a bill) it is a joint concern of both Houses. The principle holds good even where the procedure of a House or the rights of its Members or officers who take part in its proceedings depends on statute. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833652\" data-originallang=\"en\">Statutory requirements may previously have been adjudicated as matters of privilege in our House in the past. For example, on April 19, 1993, on page 18,105 of the Debates, the Chair held that the failure to produce a document required to be laid upon the table under the terms of the Customs Tariff constituted a prima facie case of privilege. Mr. Speaker Fraser, at the time, said the following:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833653\" data-originallang=\"en\"> As the hon. member succinctly stated when this very issue was raised in February 1992: \u201cSubsection 59.5 of the Customs Tariff is a statutory provision and statutes of the highest form of command that can be given by this House. In my view the disregard of that legislative command, even if unintentional, is an affront to the authority and dignity of Parliament as a whole and of this House in particular. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833654\" data-originallang=\"en\"> It is an opinion that I share and that I expect to prevail in this Chamber. The statutory laws which have been agreed to by members of this House do serve a purpose and are meant to be respected. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833655\" data-originallang=\"en\"> ... </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833656\" data-originallang=\"en\"> The requirements contained in our rules and statutory laws have been agreed upon by this House and constitute an agreement which I think all of us realize must be respected. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833657\" data-originallang=\"en\">More recently, statutory provisions in the Canada Elections Act concerning the right of members to sit and vote were held by the Speaker's immediate predecessor to be matters for the House of Commons to adjudicate. These rulings can be found at pages 18,550 of the Debates for June 18, 2013, and page 9,183 of the Debates for November 4, 2014.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833658\" data-originallang=\"en\">The importance of this House adjudicating requirements of section 49.8 of the Parliament of Canada Act are underscored by section 49.7, a provision which lawyers would refer to as a privative clause because it ousts the jurisdiction of the courts to conduct judicial review.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833659\" data-originallang=\"en\">If you, Mr. Speaker, decline to exercise jurisdiction to entertain breaches of the statute here, then members of caucuses, like the Liberal caucus who flagrantly ignore the law, have no protection and no recourse when their rights are trampled. Because of the lack of judicial recourse, general restraint on Speakers interpreting the law and the House's privilege to manage internal affairs, I respectfully submit that the way forward, indeed the only way forward, is to allow the House to deal with this matter.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833660\" data-originallang=\"en\">Accordingly, I urge you to find a prima facie case of privilege. I would, therefore, be prepared to move a motion to refer the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee so as to allow it to investigate this specific instance and to consider the best way forward to allow for the enforcement of the requirement to conduct votes under section 49.8 of the Parliament of Canada Act.</p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"5833608\" data-originallang=\"en\">Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, je soul\u00e8ve une question de privil\u00e8ge. Comme il se doit, j'ai donn\u00e9 \u00e0 la pr\u00e9sidence un pr\u00e9avis d'une heure quant \u00e0 mon intention de soulever une telle question.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833609\" data-originallang=\"en\">Je soul\u00e8ve une question de privil\u00e8ge aujourd'hui en ce qui concerne le d\u00e9part du caucus lib\u00e9ral de la d\u00e9put\u00e9e de <a data-HoCid=\"214048\" href=\"/politicians/celina-caesar-chavannes/\" title=\"Celina Caesar-Chavannes\">Whitby</a>. Selon moi, il s'agit fondamentalement d'une atteinte au privil\u00e8ge d\u00e9coulant d'une violation de l'article 49.8 de la Loi sur le Parlement du Canada. Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, permettez-moi d'\u00e9tayer mon raisonnement.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833610\" data-originallang=\"en\">Mercredi dernier, tout juste avant la p\u00e9riode des questions, nous avons appris aux nouvelles que la d\u00e9put\u00e9e de <a data-HoCid=\"214048\" href=\"/politicians/celina-caesar-chavannes/\" title=\"Celina Caesar-Chavannes\">Whitby</a> avait d\u00e9cid\u00e9 de si\u00e9ger comme d\u00e9put\u00e9e ind\u00e9pendante, d\u00e9cision qu'elle a prise peu apr\u00e8s la fin de la r\u00e9union hebdomadaire du caucus du Parti lib\u00e9ral.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833611\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le m\u00eame jour, dans l'apr\u00e8s-midi, CBC a diffus\u00e9 une entrevue que la d\u00e9put\u00e9e en question a accord\u00e9e \u00e0 Chris Rands, un producteur rattach\u00e9 \u00e0 ce r\u00e9seau. Voici ce que la d\u00e9put\u00e9e a d\u00e9clar\u00e9 \u00e0 M. Rands:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833612\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Je pense que c'\u00e9tait important. Vous savez, je suis consciente que de nombreuses personnes qui m'ont appuy\u00e9e ont \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9\u00e7ues de ce que j'ai fait, c'est-\u00e0-dire d'avoir accord\u00e9 une entrevue. Je pense qu'il est important de comprendre que, m\u00eame si j'appuie les valeurs et les principes du Parti lib\u00e9ral, mon geste avait peut-\u00eatre du bon, puisque j'ai fait passer mon message en d\u00e9cidant de si\u00e9ger comme ind\u00e9pendante pour le reste de mon mandat \u00e0 la Chambre. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833613\" data-originallang=\"en\">Elle en a dit plus, mais je vais me contenter de cet extrait.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833614\" data-originallang=\"en\">Ces mots, je les ai lus, mais j'encourage la pr\u00e9sidence \u00e0 regarder l'entrevue t\u00e9l\u00e9vis\u00e9e parce que \u2014 et je p\u00e8se bien mes mots \u2014 c'est l'attitude de la d\u00e9put\u00e9e qui m'a surtout frapp\u00e9 pendant l'entretien. Elle m'a paru d\u00e9\u00e7ue, pour le dire poliment.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833615\" data-originallang=\"en\">Ce que j'ai vu, tout comme les nombreuses personnes qui ont regard\u00e9 l'entrevue, c'\u00e9tait non seulement une personne d\u00e9\u00e7ue de quitter ses coll\u00e8gues, ce qui est tout \u00e0 fait compr\u00e9hensible, voire qui regrettait un peu sa d\u00e9cision, mais une personne en \u00e9tat de choc.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833616\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Je ne dis pas cela pour que la d\u00e9put\u00e9e de <a data-HoCid=\"214048\" href=\"/politicians/celina-caesar-chavannes/\" title=\"Celina Caesar-Chavannes\">Whitby</a> soit mal \u00e0 l'aise, mais parce que je crois sinc\u00e8rement que sa pr\u00e9tendue d\u00e9mission pourrait \u00eatre qualifi\u00e9e de \u00ab n\u00e9goci\u00e9e \u00bb.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833617\" data-originallang=\"en\">On peut imaginer l'ultimatum qui lui a peut-\u00eatre \u00e9t\u00e9 lanc\u00e9. Tel que je le per\u00e7ois, elle aurait eu jusqu'\u00e0 la fin de la journ\u00e9e pour d\u00e9missionner, sinon elle serait expuls\u00e9e du caucus. Elle devait \u00e9galement dire que c'\u00e9tait sa d\u00e9cision \u2014 cette derni\u00e8re partie me semble famili\u00e8re.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833618\" data-originallang=\"en\"> L\u00e0 o\u00f9 je veux en venir, c'est que je crois sinc\u00e8rement que la d\u00e9put\u00e9e de <a data-HoCid=\"214048\" href=\"/politicians/celina-caesar-chavannes/\" title=\"Celina Caesar-Chavannes\">Whitby</a> a \u00e9t\u00e9 expuls\u00e9e du caucus lib\u00e9ral, ou a \u00e9t\u00e9 menac\u00e9e de l'\u00eatre, c'est-\u00e0-dire que son d\u00e9part du caucus n'a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 une d\u00e9cision libre et volontaire de sa part.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833619\" data-originallang=\"en\">C'est ce qui m'am\u00e8ne \u00e0 l'article 49.2 de la Loi du Parlement du Canada, qui indique ceci: </p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833620\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Un d\u00e9put\u00e9 ne peut \u00eatre expuls\u00e9 d\u2019un groupe parlementaire que si, \u00e0 la fois: </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833621\" data-originallang=\"en\"> a) le pr\u00e9sident du groupe parlementaire re\u00e7oit un avis \u00e9crit, sign\u00e9 par au moins 20 % des d\u00e9put\u00e9s du groupe parlementaire, demandant que l\u2019adh\u00e9sion du d\u00e9put\u00e9 soit examin\u00e9e; </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833622\" data-originallang=\"en\"> b) l\u2019expulsion du d\u00e9put\u00e9 est approuv\u00e9e, au scrutin secret, par la majorit\u00e9 des d\u00e9put\u00e9s du groupe parlementaire. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833623\" data-originallang=\"en\">Je veux aussi citer des parties de l'article 49.8 de cette m\u00eame loi: </p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833624\" data-originallang=\"en\"> 49.8(1) Lors de sa premi\u00e8re r\u00e9union apr\u00e8s une \u00e9lection g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, le groupe parlementaire de chaque parti comptant officiellement au moins douze d\u00e9put\u00e9s organise, aupr\u00e8s de ses d\u00e9put\u00e9s, la tenue d\u2019un scrutin distinct sur chacun des \u00e9l\u00e9ments suivants: </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833625\" data-originallang=\"en\"> a) l\u2019applicabilit\u00e9 des articles 49.2 et 49.3 au groupe parlementaire; </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833626\" data-originallang=\"en\"> [...] </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833627\" data-originallang=\"en\"> (3) Les votes de chaque d\u00e9put\u00e9 sont consign\u00e9s. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833628\" data-originallang=\"en\"> (4) L\u2019applicabilit\u00e9 des dispositions mentionn\u00e9es aux alin\u00e9as (1)a) \u00e0 d) n\u00e9cessite le vote favorable de la majorit\u00e9 de l\u2019ensemble des d\u00e9put\u00e9s du groupe parlementaire. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833629\" data-originallang=\"en\"> [...] </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833630\" data-originallang=\"en\"> (6) L\u2019issue des scrutins lie le groupe parlementaire jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la dissolution du Parlement. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833631\" data-originallang=\"en\">Ces dispositions ont \u00e9t\u00e9 ajout\u00e9es \u00e0 la loi en 2015, apr\u00e8s la promulgation de la Loi de 2014 instituant des r\u00e9formes, c'est-\u00e0-dire un projet de loi d'initiative parlementaire parrain\u00e9 par le d\u00e9put\u00e9 de <a data-HoCid=\"213919\" href=\"/politicians/michael-chong/\" title=\"Michael Chong\">Wellington\u2014Halton Hills</a>. Ce projet de loi a \u00e9t\u00e9 appuy\u00e9 par de nombreux d\u00e9put\u00e9s lib\u00e9raux qui si\u00e8gent \u00e0 la Chambre aujourd'hui, y compris le tr\u00e8s honorable d\u00e9put\u00e9 de <a data-HoCid=\"214115\" href=\"/politicians/justin-trudeau/\" title=\"Justin Trudeau\">Papineau</a>.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833632\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le 5 novembre 2015, La Presse canadienne a rapport\u00e9 que le caucus lib\u00e9ral n'avait pas tenu le vote requis par l'article 49.8 de la loi. De plus, \u00e0 pareille date, l'<em>Ottawa Citizen</em> a rapport\u00e9 que: \u00ab plut\u00f4t que de voter pour ou contre chacune des quatre dispositions \u00e0 l'occasion de leur premi\u00e8re r\u00e9union du caucus jeudi, les d\u00e9put\u00e9s lib\u00e9raux ont d\u00e9cid\u00e9 de reporter la question au congr\u00e8s bisannuel du parti qui se tiendra l'ann\u00e9e prochaine \u00e0 Winnipeg. \u00bb</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833633\" data-originallang=\"en\">En ce qui concerne le vote qui s'applique express\u00e9ment \u00e0 l'article 49.2 de la loi, le <a data-HoCid=\"241624\" href=\"/politicians/dominic-leblanc/\" title=\"Dominic LeBlanc\">ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales</a>, qui \u00e9tait alors le leader du gouvernement \u00e0 la Chambre, aurait dit ceci \u00e0 l'\u00e9poque: \u00ab Voulez-vous avoir une discussion sur des questions qui pourraient \u00eatre personnelles, d\u00e9licates et familiales au cours d'une r\u00e9union du caucus qui compte maintenant 184 d\u00e9put\u00e9s? Nous ne sommes pas pr\u00eats \u00e0 prendre une d\u00e9cision ou \u00e0 voter sur cette question \u00e0 l'heure actuelle. \u00bb Il a ajout\u00e9: \u00ab Je ne sais pas s'il serait appropri\u00e9 ou m\u00eame souhaitable en toutes circonstances [...] pour un caucus de se pencher sur toutes sortes de renseignements personnels et compliqu\u00e9s. \u00bb</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833634\" data-originallang=\"en\">Sauf le respect que je dois au d\u00e9put\u00e9, qui est l'un de ceux qui a le plus d'anciennet\u00e9 ici, ce n'est pas ce que le Parlement a, par voie l\u00e9gislative, ordonn\u00e9 \u00e0 chaque caucus parlementaire de faire apr\u00e8s chaque \u00e9lection g\u00e9n\u00e9rale. Il n'est pas non plus permis de reporter des votes obligatoires jusqu'au congr\u00e8s du parti. Le besoin d'harmoniser le fonctionnement du parti pourrait justifier le rejet des propositions, mais ce n'est pas une raison l\u00e9gitime pour ne pas tenir de vote, autrement dit, pour enfreindre la loi.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833635\" data-originallang=\"en\">Apr\u00e8s avoir fini de pr\u00e9parer mes notes pour ce matin, je suis tomb\u00e9 sur un article du <em>Toronto Star</em> de ce matin dans lequel le d\u00e9put\u00e9 de <a data-HoCid=\"213903\" href=\"/politicians/john-mckay/\" title=\"John McKay\">Scarborough\u2014Guildwood</a> est cit\u00e9 \u00e0 propos des votes auxquels on n'a pas proc\u00e9d\u00e9. L'article dit: \u00ab Quand on lui a demand\u00e9 s'il y avait eu un vote par appel nominal, [le d\u00e9put\u00e9 de Scarborough\u2014Guildwood] a secou\u00e9 la t\u00eate. \u201cIl n'est jamais rien arriv\u00e9 de tel dans le caucus. C'est tr\u00e8s simple. Il y avait consensus. Personne ne s'y est jamais vraiment oppos\u00e9.\u201d \u00bb</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833636\" data-originallang=\"en\">C'\u00e9tait dans le <em>Toronto Star</em> d'hier, dans un article sign\u00e9 par Tonda MacCharles. L\u00e0 encore, un d\u00e9put\u00e9 du caucus lib\u00e9ral confirme que les quatre votes exig\u00e9s par la loi n'ont pas eu lieu.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833637\" data-originallang=\"en\">Par ailleurs, le d\u00e9put\u00e9 de <a data-HoCid=\"213919\" href=\"/politicians/michael-chong/\" title=\"Michael Chong\">Wellington\u2014Halton Hills</a> a \u00e9crit \u00e0 l'actuel <a data-HoCid=\"245290\" href=\"/politicians/david-lametti/\" title=\"David Lametti\">ministre de la Justice et procureur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral</a> pour qu'il lui confirme si la loi avait bien \u00e9t\u00e9 respect\u00e9e dans ce cas. Le ministre a affirm\u00e9 publiquement qu'il pr\u00e9senterait prochainement une lettre qui allait clarifier la situation. Encore une fois, la Chambre devrait se pencher sur le fait qu'une lettre \u00e0 venir doit traiter de sujets importants pour la question qui nous occupe.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833638\" data-originallang=\"en\">En raison des \u00e9v\u00e9nements de cette semaine, ces enjeux ont \u00e9t\u00e9 projet\u00e9s \u00e0 l'avant-sc\u00e8ne et ont \u00e9t\u00e9 soulev\u00e9s \u00e0 la Chambre. Tonda MacCharles, journaliste du <em>Toronto Star</em>, a \u00e9crit ceci: \u00ab Qui d\u00e9cide des personnes qui peuvent rester au caucus lib\u00e9ral ou qui doivent le quitter? Est-ce le premier ministre? Est-ce le caucus? On vous pardonnera de ne pas le savoir. \u00bb</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833639\" data-originallang=\"en\">Plus loin dans l'article, on nous rappelle que le premier ministre \u00ab a laiss\u00e9 entendre que la d\u00e9cision lui reviendrait en disant aux journalistes qu'il \u201cr\u00e9fl\u00e9chissait\u201d \u00e0 leur avenir \u00bb, c'est-\u00e0-dire \u00e0 celui des d\u00e9put\u00e9es de Vancouver Granville et Markham\u2014Stouffville.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833640\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Comme l'a soulign\u00e9 le d\u00e9put\u00e9 de <a data-HoCid=\"213919\" href=\"/politicians/michael-chong/\" title=\"Michael Chong\">Wellington\u2014Halton Hills</a>, le pouvoir d'expulser un d\u00e9put\u00e9 du caucus lib\u00e9ral est discutable, car le <a data-HoCid=\"214296\" href=\"/politicians/justin-trudeau/\" title=\"Justin Trudeau\">premier ministre</a> et l'\u00e9quipe de direction du caucus ont emp\u00each\u00e9 des d\u00e9put\u00e9s lib\u00e9raux d'exercer leurs droits lors de la premi\u00e8re r\u00e9union du caucus suivant les \u00e9lections de 2015. C'est pour cette raison que, d'apr\u00e8s moi, les droits de la d\u00e9put\u00e9e de <a data-HoCid=\"214048\" href=\"/politicians/celina-caesar-chavannes/\" title=\"Celina Caesar-Chavannes\">Whitby</a> ont \u00e9t\u00e9 l\u00e9s\u00e9s. Son d\u00e9part du caucus s'est fait sans les garanties ni le processus pr\u00e9vus pour les simples d\u00e9put\u00e9s dans la loi instituant des r\u00e9formes. Voil\u00e0 pourquoi je soul\u00e8ve cette question de privil\u00e8ge aujourd'hui, et je crois qu'elle respecte le d\u00e9lai. Bien s\u00fbr, c'est la premi\u00e8re fois qu'il y a une cons\u00e9quence au fait que des d\u00e9put\u00e9s n'aient pas vot\u00e9 en 2015.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833641\" data-originallang=\"en\">Pour ce qui est du respect de la loi, je reconnais que, dans le pass\u00e9, les Pr\u00e9sidents ont g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement refus\u00e9 d'intervenir sur des questions de droit. Toutefois, il ne s'agit pas d'une question de droit ordinaire. Les privil\u00e8ges collectifs de la Chambre des communes comprennent le droit de r\u00e9gir ses affaires internes, ce qu'on appelle aussi parfois le privil\u00e8ge d'exercer une comp\u00e9tence exclusive.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833642\" data-originallang=\"en\">\u00c0 la page 122 de l'ouvrage <em>La proc\u00e9dure et les usages de la Chambre des communes</em>, Troisi\u00e8me \u00e9dition, de Bosc et Gagnon, on peut lire ce qui suit:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833643\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Le droit de r\u00e9gir ses affaires internes ne signifie pas que la Chambre est au-dessus de la loi. Toutefois, lorsque l'application de la loi porte sur les d\u00e9lib\u00e9rations du Parlement ou une question prot\u00e9g\u00e9e par le privil\u00e8ge, il revient \u00e0 la chambre elle-m\u00eame de d\u00e9cider de la fa\u00e7on d'appliquer la loi, et sa d\u00e9cision ne peut \u00eatre assujettie \u00e0 un examen judiciaire. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833644\" data-originallang=\"en\">Il est fait mention de ce droit au paragraphe 34 de l'arr\u00eat de la Cour supr\u00eame du Canada dans l'affaire <em>Canada (Chambre des communes) c. Vaid</em>. Les d\u00e9put\u00e9s int\u00e9ress\u00e9s peuvent consulter cette d\u00e9cision s'ils sont vraiment curieux et je sais qu'ils seront nombreux \u00e0 le faire. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833645\" data-originallang=\"en\">\u00c0 la page 191 de la deuxi\u00e8me \u00e9dition de l'ouvrage intitul\u00e9 <em>Le privil\u00e8ge parlementaire au Canada</em>, on peut lire:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833646\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Le privil\u00e8ge de r\u00e9gir ses propres affaires et d\u00e9lib\u00e9rations est l'un des attributs les plus importants de toute institution l\u00e9gislative ind\u00e9pendante. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833647\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Le droit de r\u00e9glementer ses affaires et sa proc\u00e9dure internes sans ext\u00e9rieure ing\u00e9rence comprend: </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833648\" data-originallang=\"en\"> [...] </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833649\" data-originallang=\"en\"> 4. Le droit d'appliquer les lois qui concernent sa proc\u00e9dure interne sans intervention des tribunaux. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833650\" data-originallang=\"en\">Je renvoie \u00e9galement la pr\u00e9sidence \u00e0 la page 102 de la 23<sup>e</sup> \u00e9dition de l'ouvrage d'Erskine May, o\u00f9 il est dit:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833651\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Chaque Chambre a le droit d'\u00eatre seul juge du caract\u00e8re licite de ses travaux et d'\u00e9tablir ses propres codes de proc\u00e9dure, ainsi que de d\u00e9roger \u00e0 ceux-ci. Ce principe s\u2019applique, que la Chambre en question soit saisie d\u2019une affaire qu\u2019elle seule peut trancher, comme dans le cas d\u2019un ordre ou d\u2019une r\u00e9solution, ou encore qu\u2019il s\u2019agisse de d\u00e9terminer si une affaire (un projet de loi, par exemple) concerne \u00e0 la fois les deux Chambres. Ce principe s\u2019applique m\u00eame lorsque la proc\u00e9dure de la Chambre ou les droits d\u2019un de ses membres ou agents de participer \u00e0 ses travaux sont \u00e9tablis par une loi. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833652\" data-originallang=\"en\">Certaines obligations l\u00e9gales ont d\u00e9j\u00e0 fait l'objet de d\u00e9cisions relatives au privil\u00e8ge \u00e0 la Chambre. Ainsi, comme on peut le voir \u00e0 la page 18105 des D\u00e9bats, le 19 avril 1993, le Pr\u00e9sident a statu\u00e9 qu'il y avait de prime abord mati\u00e8re \u00e0 question de privil\u00e8ge parce qu'un document qui, aux termes du Tarif des douanes, aurait d\u00fb \u00eatre d\u00e9pos\u00e9 \u00e0 la Chambre, ne l'avait pas \u00e9t\u00e9. Je cite ici le Pr\u00e9sident Fraser:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833653\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Voici ce que disait le d\u00e9put\u00e9 quand exactement la m\u00eame question a \u00e9t\u00e9 soulev\u00e9e en f\u00e9vrier 1992: \u00ab Le paragraphe 59(5) de la Loi concernant les droits de douane est une disposition l\u00e9gale, c'est-\u00e0-dire la forme la plus cat\u00e9gorique d'instructions donn\u00e9es par la Chambre. \u00c0 mon avis, la violation de cette instruction, f\u00fbt-elle involontaire, constitue un affront \u00e0 l'autorit\u00e9 et \u00e0 la dignit\u00e9 du Parlement, en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, et de la Chambre des communes, en particulier. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833654\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Je partage cet avis, et j'esp\u00e8re qu'il sera appliqu\u00e9 en cette Chambre. Les dispositions l\u00e9gislatives qui ont eu l'aval des d\u00e9put\u00e9s de la Chambre ont une utilit\u00e9 r\u00e9elle et il y a lieu de les observer. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833655\" data-originallang=\"en\"> [...] </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833656\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Les prescriptions du R\u00e8glement et des lois ont \u00e9t\u00e9 ent\u00e9rin\u00e9es par la Chambre et constituent une convention qui doit, tous les d\u00e9put\u00e9s en conviendront, \u00eatre respect\u00e9e. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5833657\" data-originallang=\"en\">Plus r\u00e9cemment, le pr\u00e9d\u00e9cesseur imm\u00e9diat du Pr\u00e9sident a jug\u00e9 qu'il incombait \u00e0 la Chambre des communes de se prononcer sur les dispositions l\u00e9gislatives de la Loi \u00e9lectorale du Canada concernant le droit des d\u00e9put\u00e9s de si\u00e9ger et de voter dans cette enceinte. On peut trouver ces d\u00e9cisions \u00e0 la page 18550 du hansard du 18 juin 2013 et \u00e0 la page 9183 du hansard du 4 novembre 2014. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833658\" data-originallang=\"en\">L'importance de laisser la Chambre se prononcer sur les exigences pr\u00e9vues \u00e0 l'article 49.8 de la Loi sur le Parlement du Canada est soulign\u00e9e dans l'article 49.7, une disposition que les avocats d\u00e9criraient comme une disposition privative parce qu'elle prive les tribunaux du pouvoir de mener des contr\u00f4les judiciaires.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833659\" data-originallang=\"en\">Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, si vous refusez d'envisager la possibilit\u00e9 qu'il y ait eu des infractions \u00e0 la loi en l'occurrence, les membres des caucus, comme le caucus lib\u00e9ral qui enfreint la loi de mani\u00e8re flagrante, n'auront aucune protection ni aucun recours quand leurs droits seront bafou\u00e9s. En raison de l'absence de recours judiciaire, des restrictions g\u00e9n\u00e9rales impos\u00e9es \u00e0 la pr\u00e9sidence et au privil\u00e8ge qu'a la Chambre de g\u00e9rer les affaires internes, je soutiens respectueusement que la solution \u2014 la seule solution, en fait \u2014 est d'autoriser la Chambre \u00e0 se pencher sur la question.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5833660\" data-originallang=\"en\">Par cons\u00e9quent, je vous exhorte \u00e0 conclure qu'il y a, de prime abord, mati\u00e8re \u00e0 question de privil\u00e8ge. Je serais pr\u00eat \u00e0 proposer une motion visant \u00e0 renvoyer la question au comit\u00e9 de la proc\u00e9dure et des affaires de la Chambre afin qu'il puisse l'examiner et envisager le meilleur moyen d'appliquer l'exigence relative \u00e0 la tenue de votes, qui est \u00e9nonc\u00e9e dans l'article 49.8 de la Loi sur le Parlement du Canada.</p>"
    },
    "url": "/debates/2019/3/22/john-nater-1/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/john-nater/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/4338/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "10541231",
    "h2": {
        "en": "Privilege",
        "fr": "Privil\u00e8ge"
    },
    "h3": {
        "en": "Alleged Process Used to Determine Liberal Caucus Membership",
        "fr": "L'all\u00e9gation d'utilisation d'un processus pour d\u00e9terminer l'adh\u00e9sion au caucus lib\u00e9ral"
    },
    "document_url": "/debates/2019/3/22/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2019%2F3%2F22%2F"
    }
}