Christine Normandin
Saint-Jean, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, let us look at the Prime Minister 's record so far. He betrayed the climate. He betrayed our culture by leaving billions of dollars on the table. He made multiple concessions to Donald Trump with nothing to show for it.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we take stock of this parliamentary session, there are two things that Quebeckers will remember. The first is how the Prime Minister betrayed the environment by putting an end to Canada's fight against climate change and by pushing the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie to resign.”
“Mr. Speaker, July 1 is fast approaching and, when it comes to tackling the housing crisis, there is a prominent local figure who stands out from the crowd and refuses to give in to fatalism.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are confusing their parliamentary majority with the right to do what they want, when they want. The time allocations never seem to stop, which is especially odd considering that their bills are certain to pass.”
“Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister has nothing but contempt for the work of Parliament. He is ramming through draconian laws using closure. He is concentrating all powers in hands of cabinet. He is using those powers to deregulate industry for the benefit of primarily American companies or to suspend certain laws.”
“His dreams are never an end in themselves, but rather the starting point for great achievements. As he prepares to welcome a new addition to his family, I send him my warmest wishes for happiness. Just like his projects, this new adventure holds great promise for the future. I would like to thank Jean-François.”
The complete record
Every one of 373 lines we hold for Christine Normandin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, that still speaks to his policy. Wise men say only fools rush in. The Prime Minister already made an appointment last week that turned all of Quebec against him. We are just trying to give him a chance not to make the same mistake twice. When Mark Wiseman talks about imposing immigration policies on Quebec, even if it makes them howl, he is showing his contempt not only for Quebec, but also for democracy. There are 44 Liberal members from Quebec. Will one of them stand up and tell the Prime Minister to appoint someone else?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is considering appointing Mark Wiseman as ambassador to Washington. Mark Wiseman is one of the co-founders of the Century Initiative, a policy that aims to increase Canada's population to 100 million people and is at the root of Quebec exceeding its intake capacity. He said that 100 million Canadians by 2100 should become federal policy “even if it makes Quebec howl”. He used the term “howl”, which is something dogs do. Does the Prime Minister really think that Mark Wiseman can represent Quebeckers in Washington?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to someone with a remarkable professional career. She has been a colleague for six years, but she is now also a friend: Diane Godin, has been a pillar of my office and has played a key role in political life since 1994. Over the years, she has served five members with remarkable professionalism: Louise Beaudoin, Yves Lessard, Bertrand Saint‑Arnaud, Dave Turcotte and myself. We like to tease Diane, but she epitomizes being young at heart. Diane is our version of Dominique Michel. Sometimes she talks about retiring, but we remind her that we cannot do without her, and rightly so. She is a rock star when it comes to community connections. Not a day goes by without someone telling me about the incredible service she provides to the public. Her empathy and kindness are her greatest assets.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has been promising a bill to combat hate speech for six years. That is six years of making promises to groups that feel threatened and six years of saying that it is important to take action against hate. Their bill actually had a chance of passing for once, provided that the religious exemption was abolished, as unanimously called for by the Quebec National Assembly, but the Liberals blew it. They are backtracking once again. Why is the Prime Minister choosing to side with the Conservatives and the religious right rather than Quebec and concerned groups?”
“Mr. Speaker, for weeks, the Conservatives have been trying to sabotage Bill C-9 and the Bloc Québécois's amendment to put an end to the religious exemption for hate speech in the Criminal Code. We have learned that the Prime Minister 's Office has also been been quietly sabotaging the work of the Bloc Québécois and the Minister of Justice . If we want to know where the Prime Minister stands on any issue, we just need to look at the Conservatives' position. Why would the Prime Minister rather sabotage his own bill than put an end to the religious exemption?”
“I would simply like you to clarify the following: If a question cannot pertain to anything other than the business of the House, should the same not apply to an answer?”
“Chapter 11.11 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , fourth edition, states the following: There are no explicit rules which govern the form or content of replies to oral questions. According to practice, replies must be as brief as possible, deal with the subject matter raised and be phrased in language that does not provoke disorder in the House. As Speaker Jerome summarized in a 1975 statement on question period, several types of responses may be appropriate. Ministers may: answer the question; defer their answer; take the question as notice; make a short explanation as to why they cannot furnish an answer at that time; or say nothing. Nowhere does it say that the response can be about something that is not related to the business of the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, you clearly established your right to cut short questions before they were even finished if, in your opinion, they were not related to government business. In two days, not once, not twice, but three times, the government's response not only had nothing to do with the question but had even less to do with the business of Parliament. This goes beyond the issue of adjournment debates. It is truly a deliberate weaponization of the work of the House. It is an insult to the democratic institution that is the House, and an insult to people's intelligence. I would like to ask you to clarify the extent to which it is allowed, during question period, to say any old thing, both when asking a question and when answering it. I would like to quote from the procedure handbook we were just given.”
“Mr. Speaker, religion should never serve as an excuse to commit crimes, including incitement of hatred. The National Assembly is demanding an end to the religious exemption that allows this abuse. However, the Liberals are still ignoring the will of Quebeckers and bowing to the will of a handful of dogmatic religious leaders. Tolerating this kind of discourse is not respecting freedom of religion or freedom of expression. It is not keeping an open mind toward diversity; it is being cowardly in the face of violence. Will the Liberals come to their senses?”
“Mr. Speaker, we thought that the Liberals had finally agreed to repeal the exemption in the Criminal Code that allows people to incite hatred under the guise of religion, but today we are learning that nothing could be further from the truth. Just as we began debating the Bloc Québécois's amendment to repeal the religious exemption, the Liberals said that they wanted to cancel all meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice until 2026. They are obviously afraid to adopt the Bloc Québécois's amendment. They are obviously capitulating to religious lobbies. Will they come to their senses and do away with the religious exemption, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, it pains me to see the Liberals compromising their values like this. The oil deal with Alberta will position Canada as one of the world's worst environmental offenders for decades to come. It confirms that the Liberals have sold out all of their principles to the same oil companies that are the majority shareholders of the Conservative Party. Ultimately, it is not surprising that members are defecting from the Conservative Party to the Liberal Party, since they are both pursuing the same policies. The real question is this: Why are there not more Liberals following the example of the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie and resigning?”
“Mr. Speaker, the oil deal between the Liberals and Alberta is climate betrayal. Canada is walking away from the global fight for the environment. The Liberal member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie confirmed this yesterday on Tout le monde en parle . He said, “If we are being honest with Canadians, we can no longer meet our 2030 targets. With the recent announcements, it's not possible”. Will the Liberals be as honest as that member and admit to the public that they have no intention of meeting their targets?”
“Mr. Speaker, again, the Liberals rigged the referendum. The “yes” side acted democratically. The proof is in the noble way Quebeckers accepted the results in 1995, believing that democracy had spoken, even though that democracy was tainted by the Liberals. The Liberals rigged the results and Jean Chrétien would have gone even further if the “yes” side had won to prevent Quebeckers' votes from being recognized. With a third referendum looming, will federalists finally engage in democratic debate instead of relying on cheating and fearmongering?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are cheaters. We knew it in 1995, and now we have proof. The then immigration minister has confirmed that Jean Chrétien asked him to fast-track citizenship applications for as many people as possible so that they could vote in the referendum. The Liberals are admitting that they used immigration to rig the vote. Last month, Jean Chrétien also admitted to all the dirty tricks he was prepared to use if the “yes” side won, in order to avoid recognizing the democratic votes of Quebeckers. The Liberals are cheaters. If Quebeckers hold another referendum, will the Liberals cheat again?”
“Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister was ignoring COP to meet with sultans in Abu Dhabi, Canada was receiving a barrage of criticism. Two thousand organizations from around the world gave Canada the fossil of the day award for backtracking in the fight against climate change. Canada is a world champion of pollution. Oddly enough, the last time Canada received the fossil award was in 2014. The Canadian prime minister at the time, Stephen Harper, also ignored COP. Is that a coincidence or are the Liberals setting us back 10 years?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had two choices this week. He could go to Brazil, to COP30, to show that he has not completely capitulated in the fight against climate change, or he could go to the Middle East to make deals with oil monarchies. He chose the oil monarchies, just as he put oil companies first in the budget by offering them billions of dollars in tax credits and exempting them from a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions. It is hard to imagine that before getting into politics, he was a champion of green finance. Does he realize that by betraying his values, he is also betraying the former director of Équiterre, who is sitting to his right?”
“The Parliamentary Budget Officer has explicitly requested Parliament's support in obtaining the data necessary for his budget analysis, and his inability to obtain that data prevents members from debating important elements of the budget in an informed manner. I would therefore ask the Chair to rule that there is a prima facie question of privilege so that the House can discuss ways to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with the assistance he needs to fulfill his mandate.”
“That is why they are governed by the Parliament of Canada Act. Since members of Parliament were denied an analysis based on all the information deemed necessary by the Parliamentary Budget Officer himself as an officer of Parliament, it seems logical to raise the issue of a potential breach of parliamentary privilege. I therefore agree with the member who raised this issue. It is up to Parliament itself to intervene to defend its powers and those of its officers. The violation of a legal obligation to provide a document constitutes a serious breach of privilege, since it undermines the authority and dignity of the House. In closing, this is not the first time this has happened. It is a recurring and systemic problem within Parliament that exists regardless of the political party in power.”
“It is incumbent upon the House itself to assert its powers and protect the Parliamentary Budget Officer's mandate under the Parliament of Canada Act. The ultimate goal of those provisions is to assist members in their work as parliamentarians. The offices of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor General of Canada were created precisely to allow all elected members of the House of Commons to fully carry out their role and hold the government to account. The Parliamentary Budget Officer provides independent economic and financial analysis to the Parliament of Canada. This allows for better fiscal transparency, which ensures a better understanding of economic and fiscal policies and greater accountability. Officers of Parliament are and must remain independent of the government.”
“Parliament itself enacted specific legislation to guarantee that the Parliamentary Budget Officer remains independent while performing his duties. These measures were specifically designed to elevate the quality of parliamentary debates and ensure that there is greater transparency and accountability in budgetary matters. The Parliamentary Budget Officer requested that the government provide him with additional information regarding the budget that he deemed necessary to fulfill his mandate, as provided for in subsection 79.4(1) of the Act. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the government has a legal obligation to co-operate with the Parliamentary Budget Officer's requests as an officer of Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege raised by the member for Edmonton West on November 17 brings up what we believe is an important issue. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's assertion that the government has unjustifiably delayed or refused to provide essential information is very troubling and shows that his ability to fully exercise his mandate under the Parliament of Canada Act has been impeded. According to section 79.01, the Parliamentary Budget Officer shall "support Parliament by providing analysis, including analysis of macro-economic and fiscal policy, for the purposes of raising the quality of parliamentary debate and promoting greater budget transparency and accountability". The act is clear and unequivocal.”
“Mr. Speaker, try to imagine how the people at TVA feel about the Liberal message. The Liberals are talking about historic investments in culture, but there is not a penny for TVA. The government does not care about them. That is the message that the Liberals are sending to the people at TVA. These same Liberals are the only ones who refused to appear on TVA, which was asking for money because it has run out. TVA broadcasts our music and our stories. It sparks debate. Quebeckers identify with TVA, but Ottawa could care less. What do the Liberals have against our television?”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebecor announced last week that it is laying off 87 employees in its media division. Over the past two years, nearly 800 people have lost their jobs at TVA. That is a tragedy for Quebec culture. It is a tragedy for news diversity in Quebec. Quebec's largest private television network is teetering on the brink, and Ottawa is just watching it die a slow death. How many more layoffs will it take before the government wakes up?”
“Mr. Speaker, indeed, we should base our decisions much more on data and science than on media hype, which can sometimes be politically slanted, but can also lead to decisions that do not achieve the desired outcome. Unfortunately, when it comes to releasing accused persons, if we had more data, we could make better decisions. I still think that it is worth sending the bill to committee because it contains some interesting provisions. Often, when there is complete disagreement on the principle of a bill, it is rejected at the second reading stage. However, since there are elements in this bill that may be of interest, it is worth sending it to committee, but the work done there will have to be based on statistics and science.”
“If I had to draw one conclusion, I would say that systematically keeping more people in prison while awaiting trial is not a solution and will not automatically lead to safer streets. We need to be able to work in those gray areas. However, yes, rehabilitation is a key aspect and it is certainly associated with additional funding.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack in this question, but I would like to repeat a statistic I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. There are more accused persons awaiting trial in prison today than there were, say, five years ago. During the Liberals' time in office, more accused persons have been kept in prison than in the past, yet the Conservatives are complaining that it is not enough. However, it is important to remember that keeping offenders in prison comes at a cost and that this is money that is potentially not being invested in rehabilitation programs. Is there a lack of funding for rehabilitation and for mental health programs in halfway homes? Yes, there is. However, several factors are linked to this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's question. However, he may be conflating different issues. The issue of extortion, as addressed in Bill C-14 , is important. However, from what I read, the Conservatives' request for an emergency debate does not specifically target extortion itself; rather, it focuses on the fact that the government is letting people with a known criminal past into the country and that those people are then committing crimes here. Members may or may not agree with the substance of the Conservatives' request, but I think these are two different issues that need to be looked at separately. We do need specific sanctions for extortion crimes, but we also have to consider the fact that people who may be more likely to commit such crimes are being let into the country.”
“It might be worthwhile to look into this aspect at committee, as it seems to be one of the bill's blind spots. In light of the section on the YCJA, which adds some valuable elements to the bill, we suggest that the bill be passed at second reading and referred to the committee so that it can be studied in greater depth with a view to making good recommendations while still preserving certain essential criteria, such as judicial discretion. That work will be particularly meaningful. I would like to take the few seconds that I have left to thank two of my colleagues—they know who they are—for the groundwork they did on Bill C-14 . They have already given us some good ideas about what we should be looking at in committee. I want to acknowledge them here, and I will certainly be calling upon them again for additional matters.”
“The amendment establishes that the definition of a violent offence is based on whether it caused harm, including psychological harm, rather than on whether the offence involved the use of force, in line with the Supreme Court's rulings in this area. This could be a good amendment. Still, it remains to be seen whether it is actually useful, given that the court has already codified this. However, the bill has a blind spot with regard to offences involving a firearm. There is a definition of what constitutes a violent offence, which was not defined in the YCJA, but offences involving a firearm are left out altogether. As we know, firearm use is a serious problem among young offenders nowadays. It is extremely difficult for Crown attorneys to get someone committed to custody for an offence involving a firearm.”
“The bill says that the active record for someone who has been the subject of an investigation that was subsequently dropped should be retained longer than for a young person who has been convicted. There are some minor contradictions like this that will need to be addressed. One interesting amendment to the YCJA is the codification of the definition of “violent offence”. The bill codifies what was determined by the Supreme Court in 2005. It expands the application of the definition of “violent offence” found in paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Act. The emphasis is on the repercussions of the offence on the victim, rather than the legal characterization of the offence.”
“For example, one of the clauses seeks to fill a sort of legal vacuum in the YCJA regarding the length of time a record is kept when a young offender is the subject of an investigation and the investigation is dropped. The courts have attempted to fix this legal vacuum by suggesting record retention periods. A retention period is codified in the bill, but the proposed period may need to be reviewed, because the bill suggests that records should be retained for two years for a young person who is the subject of an investigation that is discontinued, whereas when a young person is convicted of an offence but given an absolute discharge, their record is kept for one year.”
“There are also clauses dealing with freedom of expression that should be studied in committee, including the one that would make interfering with access to essential infrastructure an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes. In a way, would this not curtail freedom of expression, for example in the event of protests that may be deemed illegal? Certain protests that took place not too far from here come to mind. That could potentially be considered an aggravating circumstance. Do we want to go down that path? That raises some questions. That being said, we should not throw the baby out with the proverbial bathwater. Some of the amendments proposed in the bill are interesting, particularly with regard to the YCJA, the Youth Criminal Justice Act.”
“That would conflict with the principle set out in section 718 of the Criminal Code, which provides that sentencing should have certain objectives, including “to denounce unlawful conduct” but also “to deter the offender” and “to separate offenders from society, where necessary”. Sentencing also seeks “to assist in rehabilitating offenders” and “to provide reparations for harm done”. Lastly, sentencing should “promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or the community”. There are already provisions for analyzing how a sentence should be imposed. Would this bill not override these provisions by systematically imposing consecutive sentences?”
“Members may be tempted to systematically tell judges what they should do and to tie their hands, but that could lead to situations that would simply not make sense, situations where judges would be forced to do things they do not want to do, just because parliamentarians tried to be more cautious than those on the ground were suggesting. (1015) There is a possibility that some things might conflict with certain provisions in the bill. For example, section 718 of the Criminal Code already sets out how a sentence is determined. It would conflict with one element in the bill, namely consecutive sentencing. For repeat offenders, the bill would require consecutive sentences for offences arising out of the same initial event.”
“The judge analyzes the accused person's record and also looks at the nature of the offences. A great deal of data is taken into consideration by the judges. They have some discretion, and it is not a given that a person will be released so easily. People must not think that judges have no tools for keeping accused persons in custody while awaiting trial. An in-depth analysis of the bill is in order. I would like to go over some general clauses and provide a few examples of what is in the bill. As a reminder, judicial discretion is generally a central consideration when analyzing the justice system.”
“We may want to eliminate the possibility of a crime being committed by a person awaiting trial, but the only way to achieve that would be to systematically imprison everyone who is accused of any offence, however minor. This would very likely create other problems, not least of which would be prison overcrowding. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that prisons are often referred to as schools for crime, so increasing the prison population could potentially create more problems than it would solve. All of this must be kept in mind. It is also important not to give in to the temptation to think that the judges analyzing an accused person's risk of recidivism do not take a whole host of criteria, particularly the person's criminal history, into account when they determine whether the person should be released.”
“Contrary to popular belief, we know that the number of inmates awaiting trial has never been higher. Considering how many bail reform bills that have been tabled, a lot of people seem to believe that accused persons are normally released pending trial. However, inmates awaiting trial accounted for 64% of the prison population in 2019-20. By 2022-23, the percentage had gone up to 72%, which is extremely high. This is not a great look for Canada. I believe the only country with a higher percentage is the United States, which is not exactly a good role model, generally speaking. The idea that accused persons are systematically being released is therefore a misperception. The other factor to consider is that there is no such thing as zero risk of recidivism.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-14 , which is quite a substantial bill with a relatively broad scope. It is clear that this is something that the House has been very interested in. Several private members' bills have been introduced that deal directly or indirectly with the same subject as Bill C‑14. I expect that this will open the door to some very interesting debate, if not in the House, then at least in committee. According to the minister , Bill C‑14 seeks to tighten bail rules. It also affects other aspects of the Criminal Code and even the Youth Criminal Justice Act, or YCJA. I will not get into all of the details because there is a lot of material in there, but I do want to go over a few aspects of the bill. Before I do that, however, I just want to give a little background on the situation.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister is looking at the wrong paper. The Liberals are cutting their program to plant two billion trees. That is what I asked about. They also reduced carbon pricing, and they are also using Bill C‑5 to bypass their own environmental assessments. All the environmental measures introduced under Justin Trudeau, as feeble and inadequate as they were, are being abandoned one by one. The government is taking no steps forward and two steps back. They could actually pass for Conservatives. Therefore, the question is: Do the Liberals believe in climate change?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have announced that they are scrapping their plan to plant two billion trees. This proves once again that they have completely missed the point. Everyone laughed at them over this program, not because it was a bad program that needed to be scrapped, but because the Liberals were simply incapable of planting the trees. Everyone laughed at them because, year after year, they missed their target. Today, we learned that they are scrapping the program. Instead of changing tack when they mess up, they prefer to give up. Is that really the Liberal approach?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government is talking, but it is not negotiating. The government is listening, but it is not hearing. Canadians do not want an election. What they did want, however, was a minority government. Had they wanted the Liberals to behave like a monarchy, they would have given them full control. For three elections in a row now, voters have been telling them to work with the opposition and negotiate. In 2019, 2021 and 2025, the results were the same; yet here the Liberals go again with threats of an election instead of getting down to work. After three elections and with only 24 hours to go before the budget, is it not time that the Liberals got the message?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are just 24 hours from the budget being tabled and the government is still threatening an election. Quite frankly, the public is not impressed because it voted for a minority government. A minority government is supposed to work with the other parties to get its budget passed. The government can take its pick of potential supporters. There are three to choose from, so it is ridiculous that, with just 24 hours to go before the budget, the Liberals are still not negotiating and are content to make threats about a Christmas election. Will they finally respect the will of the people and get to work?”
“Finally, on a more personal note, I want to highlight the victory of our young former colleague Raphaël Guérard, who was elected mayor of Princeville in the first contested election in over 20 years. Congratulations, everyone. Long live democracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, democracy has spoken in more than 1,000 municipalities across Quebec. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to congratulate all the mayors and councillors who won last night. I want to wish those who were running for re-election as well as the first-time winners every success in fulfilling their mandate. They can count on the Bloc's friendly co-operation. I would also like to thank all those who had the courage to run for office but were less fortunate. Their commitment to their fellow citizens and to democracy is crucial, in victory as in defeat. I would also like to thank the citizens who took the time to vote, whether yesterday or during advance polling.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister is welcome to join the yes camp when he finally realizes that that is where he belongs. Until then, he is not the one who gets to decide what is important to Quebeckers. Quebeckers themselves will decide what is important to them, including their future as a nation. The Quebec nation deserves to make all of its choices on its own, like any other nation on this planet. If the minister is confident about Quebeckers' commitment to Canada, he should not be afraid of democracy. If he is confident that he would win in a future referendum, why does he not simply repeal the Clarity Act?”
“Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago, Quebeckers came within a hair's breadth of forming their own country. Now, the yes camp is back in action. I have a message for all the Quebeckers who were part of that movement. It is time to roll up your sleeves and start again. To all the Quebeckers who, like me, were too young or not even born yet, to those who have changed their minds or who were living abroad, my message is this: Now it is our turn. This is something that should be decided democratically, but the federal government is preventing us from making that choice with its Clarity Act. My question for the government is this. Will it commit to respecting the will of Quebeckers?”
“Mr. Speaker, what I am hearing is “let us keep talking”. The Liberals do not want to negotiate for support for their budget. They admit it openly. They do not want to invest in health care. They do not want to correct the injustice that exists regarding seniors' old age pensions. They do not want to transfer funding for housing and infrastructure with no strings attached. They do not want to pay back the $814 million stolen from Quebeckers to buy Canadian votes. They do not want to help young people become homeowners. They just do not want to do any of that. What they do seem to want is a Christmas election. Why will they not just admit that?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a minority government. If the government wants its budget to pass, it will have to negotiate with someone. At this morning's scrum, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons confirmed that he is talking with the opposition parties, just not negotiating. He said it himself. He does not even call that negotiating. He says that the opposition's requests regarding principles are a non-starter. In short, he is willing to talk but not negotiate. He will talk, he will chat, but that is it. Does he really want his budget to pass, or does he just want to trigger a Christmas election?”
“As a member of Parliament and a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I believe it is important that the committee look into this matter in order to prevent a precedent from being set and to ensure that instruments for interpreting the code cannot be amended or introduced without parliamentary oversight. Mr. Speaker, I am therefore asking you to find that there is a prima facie case of breach of parliamentary privilege, and I believe that it must be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.”
“However, I will say that I went on the commissioner's website and could not find the forms referred to by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes on Friday. Therefore I was unable to see the violation raised by the member first-hand, but in any event it is important to remember that this requirement in section 30 of the code is not a simple administrative detail. It is meant to ensure that the tools and mechanisms used for its interpretation and application are validated by democratically elected bodies. Although the commissioner performs his duties independently, he is not above the rules established by the House.”