Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a few brief comments to my colleague's intervention, because it is very important to underscore the way this message was transmitted to my colleague.

We have all been in the House when people say things after emotions get the better of them, and we might chalk something like that up to a heat-of-the-moment exchange. However, what the Minister of Justice did was write a message intimating a threat to my colleague's reputation and his standing in the legal community and then sign his full signature block to it. In other words, it was not just a message from one colleague to another or from one opposing side to another. This was a message delivered by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. That was at the bottom of the email. The minister was exercising an action with his Attorney General hat on. That was him in his office as Attorney General, the highest legal office in the land, and as Minister of Justice.

That is the context in which it was sent. It was an official communication from the member, acting in his capacity as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. However, do not take my word for it. We will table the email so the Chair can see what was said and understand the point we are making.

I want to make a comparison, if I could. Imagine a similar scenario. We have members of this House who, before they were elected, were in the armed forces. Some of them may have intentions to go back to the armed forces. We have a colleague who is a reservist. Imagine the Minister of National Defence writing, in the capacity of Minister of National Defence, a similar message to a member saying they saw their actions in QP or they noticed something and are going to make sure the rest of the member's fellow servicemen and servicewomen know what they just did, or saying that based on what was done, they are going to make sure the member's regiment understands what just happened, doing so as Minister of National Defence. It is egregious. That is the context in which we are raising this point.

I also want to make the point that in Canada, these threats of disciplinary action are increasingly becoming the fashionable way of imposing political uniformity and enforcing political viewpoints within the country's self-governing professions. Members of the Ontario bar have, over the past half-decade, been having a back-and-forth battle about whether to oblige lawyers to adopt statements of principles, whereby they must profess to hold certain beliefs, whether or not they actually do, the failure of which would lead to disciplinary hearings. We all know what is happening to well-known commentator Jordan Peterson, who is defending against disciplinary proceedings with the College of Psychologists of Ontario for, among other things, re-tweeting the words of the Leader of the Opposition and posting criticism of the Prime Minister's former principal secretary, Gerald Butts.

However, let us not mistake the power and gravity of an attorney general's efforts to stir up a disciplinary complaint from within the legal community. An attorney general is not just some random person, a random lawyer or even a random Liberal off the street who might muse about such things. Any lawyer who aspires to a judicial appointment to a superior court, the Federal Court, a court of appeal or even the Supreme Court of Canada must have the favourable recommendation of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to advance through the cabinet appointment process.

I just want to add a couple of points. Paragraph 15.14 of Erskine May, 25th edition, says:

To molest Members on account of their conduct in Parliament is also a contempt.... [T]hreatening a Member with the possibility of a trial at some future time for a question asked in the House...or proposing to visit a pecuniary loss on them on account of conduct in Parliament have all been considered contempts....

To attempt to intimidate a Member in their parliamentary conduct by threats is also a contempt, cognate to those mentioned above. Actions of this character which have been proceeded against include impugning the conduct of Members and threatening them with further exposure if they took part in debates... [and] summoning a Member to a disciplinary hearing of their trade union in consequence of a vote given in the House....

It is a well-established principle that witnesses appearing before parliamentary committees largely enjoy the same privileges as members. The jurisprudence concerning witnesses threatened for their participation at committees would also be relevant to consider in the circumstance. Indeed, in our own House, Mr. Speaker Fraser, on December 4, 1992, at page 14631 of the Debates, found a prima facie case of privilege after the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation threatened a witness with a lawsuit concerning the evidence she gave to a subcommittee.

Erskine May, 25th edition, meanwhile, explains at paragraph 15.21:

On the same principle, molestation of or threats against those who have previously given evidence before either House or a committee will be treated by the House concerned as a contempt.... Such actions have included...censure, punishment or dismissal by an employer.

In relation to that latter proposition, I would refer the Chair to paragraph 40 of the fifth report, in the 2003-04 session, of the U.K. House of Commons Committee of Privileges, which states:

We do not accept Mr Hewson's evidence that Ms Weleminsky's evidence to the Constitutional Affairs Committee was not ‘the final straw’. Mr Hewson, with the active encouragement of the majority of his Board, sought to initiate the formal disciplinary process against Ms Weleminsky after the 17 June Board meeting as a result of the evidence she gave to the Constitutional Affairs Committee. We do not believe that a code of conduct or Board rules can override the rights and obligations of witnesses to select committees, a view in which we understand the Attorney General concurs. Mr Hewson’s attempt to ‘call Ms Weleminsky to account’ for the evidence she gave was, in our view, a contempt of the House.

I would argue that the justice minister's intention is patently clear. Disciplinary proceedings will be encouraged to be brought against my colleague because he dared to speak out about or show support for the Conservative Party's position that the Liberal government's special rapporteur process was a monstrosity of compounding conflicts of interest.

The House must take a firm stance against egregious actions like this. As the defender of the House's rights and privileges, it falls to you, Mr. Speaker, to signal that this kind of conduct will never be tolerated here among hon. members.

I thank you very much for considering the opposition's points on this.

Andrew Scheer

$631,397.00