Mr. Speaker, ordinarily I often start my speeches with it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. However, I am not going to say that today, because this is not something I relish, frankly, having to rise on a question of privilege.

I am rising on a question of privilege concerning an effort by the Attorney General of Canada to retaliate against me, in my eyes, or in the lexicon of parliamentary privilege, to intimidate me for sharing and supporting my party's position that the toxic mix of overlapping conflicts of interest involving the former special rapporteur required the calling of a public inquiry and his dismissal, as was voted on by our House.

During Thursday afternoon's question period, my colleague, the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, asked this question at 2:46 p.m.:

Mr. Speaker, it seems to be a comprehension issue for the minister. The question is about levels of conflict of interest with the government. We have the Prime Minister, who hired his friend, paying him $1,500 a day. That friend then hired Liberals. He hired Frank Iacobucci, from the Trudeau Foundation. He hired Liberal insiders, such as Sheila Block, and now we have this rapporteur, who is taking the same communications advice as the member for Don Valley North is getting. It is conflict of interest after conflict of interest.

Fire the rapporteur. Call a public inquiry. Will the Liberals do it today?

I pause here to note that the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes asked another question but it was not related to Justice Iacobucci in any way.

I stood along with many of my colleagues to applaud that question, as I agreed that there should be a public inquiry called. It zeroed in on a genuine issue of foreign interference that our nation was currently dealing with. Of course, since Thursday things have changed now with Mr. Johnston's resignation.

I now return to the events of Thursday. The Attorney General sent me an email stamped at 2:49 p.m., and I note that my recollection is that the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes spoke at 2:46 p.m., so it was three minutes later. It said, “See you clapping on attacks on Frank Iacobucci's Integrity. I will let the community know.” This was not a situation wherein the hon. Attorney General spoke to me privately after question period or sent me a note asking to chat. It was not a casual text or even a note signed with his initials or his first name. It was simply a signature block that said this was from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Typically, obviously in the House, I will speak with anybody at any time when appropriate.

The message might sound innocuous enough, but I worry and I do not take it that way. I reacted to a question put forward by one of my colleagues. The Attorney General said that he would take action by letting the community know. Therefore, the question I have is: What action and to whom? The community in question is presumably the legal community. We are obviously both from legal backgrounds. It does not matter whether he was referring to the legal community, the Italian community or my home community of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I have two law degrees. I was trained as a lawyer and I currently have a non-practising status with the Law Society of British Columbia. I served and was proud to serve the people of British Columbia as a former Crown prosecutor, and, like the Attorney General, I taught at a law school. I tried to teach students to weave ethics into their everyday decision-making as a lawyer. I believe that this is our role as lawyers. I know that the House of Commons is different and sometimes we will do things differently here, but it was something I really did strive to do, and that was the feedback I did receive from my students. I hope and presume that the Attorney General did the same when he taught students in his prior career.

What is this about? I take this to be about reputation. The Attorney General did not like that I clapped in response to a question. He said that he would let the community know, presumably the legal community.

I pause here to note that a lawyer's reputation is really everything. I may go back to the practice of law. I am still a non-practising member. I am less than 44 years old. There is a lot of time left in my career.

I have therefore concluded that the Attorney General communicated that my reputation would be damaged and that he would be the communicator of the information to do so.

This is problematic on two levels. First, there is an issue of parliamentary privilege, which I am raising now to you, Mr. Speaker. Second, in my view, the Attorney General got this wrong. The question did not question or impugn the reputation of Justice Iacobucci. I will be very clear. It called on him as a member of the Trudeau Foundation, which I understand to be a fact. I do not know Justice Iacobucci. I have never met Justice Iacobucci. I have always respected Justice Iacobucci.

We cannot forget the dynamic here. The Attorney General is a third-term parliamentarian. He has been a minister of the Crown for longer than I have been elected. He decides serious justice matters. He makes all federal judicial appointments. He is senior to me at the bar by nearly two decades. This is my first mandate. My party is not in government.

To be direct, this is the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, and he is telling a non-governmental MP that he will take action to diminish another member's reputation in the community. Surely he is aware, or should be aware, that his word as Attorney General will have significant weight. That is a problem on many levels. This behaviour, I respectfully put forward to you, Mr. Speaker, is a misuse of his office as the country's top lawyer.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states, at page 107:

In order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, Members should be able to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed.... Any form of intimidation of a Member with respect to the Member’s actions during a proceeding in Parliament could amount to contempt.

This is a long-standing and well-established principle in the law of parliamentary privilege, tracing its roots back to an April 12, 1733 resolution in the British House of Commons:

That the assaulting, or insulting, or menacing any Member of this House in his coming to, or going from the House, or upon the account of his behaviour in Parliament, is a high infringement of the Privileges of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament, and a high crime and misdemeanour.

Bosc and Gagnon observed, at page 109:

In order to find a prima facie breach of privilege, the Speaker must be satisfied that there is evidence to support the Member’s claim that he or she has been impeded in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions and that the matter is directly related to a proceeding in Parliament.

Here are the words endorsed by the Speaker in a landmark ruling on May 8, 2023. He endorsed, as I understand it, the words of Speaker Lamoureux at page 6709 of Debates on September 19, 1973, who said:

I have no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation.

Meanwhile, on May 1, 1986, Speaker Bosley held, at page 12847 of Debates:

If an Hon. Member is impeded or obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties through threats, intimidation, bribery attempts or other improper behaviour, such a case would fall within the limits of parliamentary privilege.

Bosc and Gagnon explain at pages 81 and 82:

The House of Commons enjoys very wide latitude in maintaining its dignity and authority through the exercise of its contempt power. In other words, the House may consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly.... This area of parliamentary law is therefore extremely fluid and most valuable for the Commons to be able to meet novel situations.

Throughout the Commonwealth most procedural authorities hold that contempts, as opposed to privileges, cannot be enumerated or categorized.... The United Kingdom Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege attempted to provide a list of some types of contempt in its 1999 report....

assaulting, threatening, obstructing or intimidating a Member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties....

assaulting, threatening or disadvantaging a Member, or a former Member, on account of the Member's conduct in Parliament....

While I hope to enjoy my electors' confidence for many years to come, I am also young enough that I could find myself practising law before I retire, or even by choice after retirement from the House or after any election that could come. That is the case for anybody here in this place. Remaining in good standing within the legal community is central to that potential path. An attack on my integrity impedes me as a parliamentarian, as a future practising lawyer and as a non-practising lawyer at this time.

It is my view that the House must take a firm stance against actions like this, and as the defender of the House's rights and privileges, it falls to you, Mr. Speaker, to signal that this kind of conduct among hon. members or by the hon. Attorney General will never be tolerated.

I do not relish this one bit. I never thought I would have to rise on a point of privilege. I certainly do not enjoy doing this, but this email struck me and I felt it was inappropriate.

If you agree with me, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion.

Frank Caputo

$736,168.00