36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 65
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 16, 2000
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| motion
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1010
1015
1020
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1025
| Mr. John Williams |
1030
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1035
| Mr. André Bachand |
1040
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1045
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Sitting Suspended
|
1110
| Sitting Resumed
|
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1115
| HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
| The Speaker
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Motion
|
1120
1125
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1130
1135
| >Amendment
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1140
1145
1150
1155
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1200
| Mr. René Laurin |
1205
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1210
1215
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1220
| Mr. John Williams |
1225
1230
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1235
1240
1245
1250
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
1255
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1300
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1305
1310
1315
1320
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
1325
1330
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1335
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1340
1345
1350
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1355
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
1400
| LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| BRITISH COLUMBIA FRUIT GROWERS
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| BARAKOVA MINE
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO
|
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1405
| WILLIAM BARKER, VC
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| HIGHWAY ACCIDENT IN SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE-DE-NICOLET
|
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| CANADA
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1410
| LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA CONVENTION
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| MANIGANCE FOLK GROUP
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1415
| QUEBEC
|
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1430
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION ACT
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. John Manley |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1435
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1440
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1445
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| INDUSTRY
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. John Manley |
| CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1450
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CANADIAN HERITAGE
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1455
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1500
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1505
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| The Deputy Speaker |
1510
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of Documents
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1515
| Comments in Chamber
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1520
| The Deputy Speaker |
| HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
| The Speaker
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1525
1530
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1535
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1540
| Mr. John Bryden |
1545
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1550
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1555
1600
1605
1610
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Mr. René Laurin |
1615
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Mr. John Bryden |
1620
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1625
1630
1635
1640
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1645
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1650
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1655
1700
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
1705
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1710
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1715
1720
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
1725
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1730
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1735
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
1740
1745
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1750
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1755
1800
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. John Bryden |
1805
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1810
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1815
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1820
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1825
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1830
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1835
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Motion
|
1840
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1845
| Suspension of Sitting
|
1850
| Sitting Resumed
|
1855
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 65
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, March 16, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's
response to three petitions, and I move:
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. Yesterday, a rather unusual situation occurred,
when a substantive motion was introduced in this House
questioning the impartiality of the services provided to
parliamentarians of our political party, the Bloc Quebecois.
The actions in question led us to take the most serious step
possible in a parliament, a motion of non-confidence in the
Speaker.
While there is before this parliament a motion of non-confidence
in the Speaker, something that has not occurred since 1956—it has
been 44 years since such a motion has been tabled in this House—a
motion amply justified by the abhorrent actions by the House of
Commons administration in connection with the confidentiality of
services provided to this party, yesterday, the government
refused to debate this substantive motion.
It preferred instead, because the Liberal Party convention is
starting, to run roughshod over Quebec with Bill C-20. There was
a vote against Quebec yesterday in this House. Today again, the
government is getting ready to run roughshod over this motion.
Parliament is in crisis, the Chair is in crisis, the entire
institution of democracy is in crisis.
The Liberal Party is using parliament as a partisan tool, on the
eve of its convention.
What is going on in this parliament? Watching as things unfold,
debating motions and bills, as if nothing were wrong. This
historical institution of parliament is in jeopardy, and the
Bloc Quebecois motion will not be debated. Do sovereignists no
longer have any place in this House? Do the members of
parliament representing Quebec—indeed 70% of Quebec is
represented by sovereignist members—no longer have a place?
1010
Does the fact that we have concerns about the Chair, that we are
questioning the institution, that we are the victims of an
unprecedented partiality of House of Commons services mean
nothing?
Mr. Speaker, what message are you sending to Quebec? That it is
more important to debate any old motion than it is to debate the
issue concerning the Chair? Will the government members from
Quebec allow scorn to be heaped for long on the right of
Quebecers and on democracy in this parliament?
Yesterday, we had a discussion. I spoke to you outside the
House. I respectfully put my point of view to you.
If the Parliament of Canada is not in fact a partisan instrument
used by the Liberal Party, because the Liberal convention is
coming up, and if the Parliament of Canada has an ounce of pride
left, it seems to me that the Chair has full authority to decide
that, in this House, we will not do as the government tells us,
but will debate a fundamental issue.
Does democracy still have any meaning in this House? Are the
individuals legitimately elected by the people of Quebec
entitled to speak? Are they entitled to question the
institution? Are they entitled to want to debate the question
of impartiality? Are they entitled to debate their rights or is
it more important to proceed to government orders?
In what kind of country are we living? What is going on? Does
parliament no longer have any value? Have parliamentary
principles disappeared? Is it that, because the government wants
to get rid of the separatists in this parliament, a
non-confidence motion concerning the Chair is unimportant? It is
business as usual.
When the Speaker leaves the chair he is replaced. You have all
the powers. You can decide. You, Mr. Speaker, can decide that we
will discuss the real issues. You can tell the people of Quebec
and the rest of Canada that you will not let this parliament
become an instrument of the Liberal Party of Canada. You can
tell Canadians that you consider the parliamentary institution
more important than the Liberal Party convention.
We know this is embarrassing for the government. We know that it
is a pain.
We know that it is annoying to have to tell Liberal supporters
“Parliament is in crisis. We acted in such a way that we will
now have to debate a motion”. We know that it is tedious, but it
is a serious issue. Parliament is not at the service of
partisanship. Parliament is here to allow parliamentarians to
hold debates in a democratic fashion.
The reason for this institution to exist is that, over the
course of history, people realized that conflicts could not be
resolved through violence and that it was not possible to lead
nations through a monarchy, with one person deciding and telling
others what to do. People realized that it was necessary for
their representatives to talk to each other.
There is a green carpet in this place, which is called the House
of Commons. One day, it was decided that England's districts
would be represented in a place where everyone would have the
right to speak.
Do you know what distance separates both sides of the House? The
length of two swords, plus a foot, plus an arm's length. Do you
know why? Because people used to fight in parliaments. But times
have changed. Today, we have an institution where it is possible
to settle ideological differences in a civilized manner.
Issues must be settled democratically. But for the first time in
years, actually for the first time in the history of this
parliament, we have taken a giant step backwards, with members
now being told that from now on in parliament decision are made by
the government and the government alone. It is disturbing to
the government to see separatists across the way, as if there
were no separatists in Quebec. Half the people in Quebec are
separatists and, the way you are acting, it will soon be three-quarters.
1015
I must tell you that there is a political price to pay. I want
the Speaker to know, I want this institution to know, I want the
officials who are here to know. They are accustomed to democracy
being respect and they cannot believe what is happening: they
are being denied their right to speak, and they cannot believe
the cavalier fashion in which this government is acting and its
partisanship in reducing the Parliament of Canada to slavery.
What is happening here is ugly, very ugly.
Everyone is outraged. I am outraged. People who are watching us
are outraged. Quebecers are outraged. International democracy is
outraged, because this will be known.
I know that there are democrats on the other side, people
listening right now, and I appeal to their sense of democracy.
It will become known in certain countries that the Parliament of
Canada, which is challenging its Speaker, because the rights of
an entire political party have been violated, does not wish to
discuss the problem. It prefers to present a motion to proceed
with the orders of the day. It prefers to pass a bill that will
take away the rights of Quebecers. It prefers to consider a
motion by the Progressive Conservative Party, which is very
interesting in itself, I agree, but is completely out of step
with what is actually happening here.
The institution of parliament is in crisis. Canada is in crisis
and there is a price to be paid. I cannot believe that there
are not members opposite who, deep down, agree with what I am
saying.
Whatever my opposition to this country, if there is anyone who
respects the institution of parliament, it is I.
I have told my colleagues a hundred times that we must respect
parliament because, when parliamentary debate ceases, when
people believe that democratic expression is no longer possible,
there is a serious problem.
Today, I appeal the government's decision. As the Speaker, as
the guardian of my rights, as the guardian of the rights of this
political party, as the guardian of the rights of all the
opposition parties, as the guardian of the rights of all members
of the House who are not members of cabinet, and as the guardian
of ministers' right to speak, I ask you now to require the
government to take the much more urgent route of a substantive,
rather than an ordinary, motion.
If you fail to do so, if you fail to listen to us, Mr. Speaker,
not only will you disappoint us, not only will you strike us a
hard blow—we separatists will understand that we are not
important in this parliament, that the vote of the thousands and
millions of Quebecers who elected us means nothing here in
Ottawa, and I did not think it had come to that—not only will you
be denying the representation of all these members, but you will
also be allowing an extremely sad message to be sent to
international democracy.
The message will go out that the institution of parliament in
Canada is in crisis and that it prefers to resort to motions.
That is inadmissible, and I can understand—I am speaking for
myself, not for my party, but people might support what I
say—that nothing more can be done in this institution. In every
forum, I will explain it very ardently to Quebecers. I know that
right headed federalists will find it sad that I should do so,
but in all the forums in Quebec, in all the radio stations, in
all the media, I will explain to citizens that nothing more can
be achieved in the Parliament of Canada. Even though we have
been elected, we are second-class citizens.
The fact that the rights of all these members are trampled on
does not matter at all to the Chair. The members just have to
deal with some motions about health or whatever, routine
business. It just does not matter. The Bloc Quebecois, which
represents two thirds of Quebec, has been cheated. Our rights
have been trampled on.
We have been the victims of a process that carries for us a high
political price.
We want to defend ourselves legitimately. We want to explain to
citizens that the only tool we, sovereignists, have in this
Parliament is our voice, the possibility to speak, to explain
our views, to confront our ideas and to confront the government.
1020
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, you are party to that situation. You, the
Deputy Speaker, the Speaker and all those in position to make
decisions—better let me speak, because I might as well tell you
that this may be the last time I speak in this Parliament—are all
accessories to this dubious manipulation. The Chair is now
serving the Liberal Party. That is the message people will get
if you fail to made a decision.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have given the hon. member
for Roberval a lot of latitude in his remarks on the point of
order he raised, because I must hear it. However, I think he is
going a little too far when he suggests that the Chair is
conspiring with the government on this point.
The Chair is here to rule on points of order. This is why I have
listened to the hon. member. At this point, I would like to
continue with other members and make a ruling. However, that
ruling will be made in the context of our practices and the
precedents of this House, which, no doubt, the hon. members will
quote for me. As we must continue, I recognize the government
House leader.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk too long on
this matter, since it is a point of order. This is not a period
of debate. I will limit myself to a few comments.
First, the government has no intention of letting such an
accusation against the Chair sit for long on the order paper.
It is of course not true. The government too would like to
debate the charge, this motion of non confidence as it was put,
in the very near future. I do not agree with this accusation,
but we will talk about it again, and I am quite prepared to
debate it.
However, I think you should be aware of certain facts. First, I
intend to meet with the House leaders of the other parties.
I would like to set a date in the very near future so we may
purge the House of this accusation. As I have said, I do not
agree with the accusation at all, but I will debate it when the
time comes. I think we could do so in the coming days, and I am
prepared to initiate discussions with the other House leaders.
Today had been allotted to one of the opposition parties, not
only as a matter of practice, but in keeping with our
constitutional conventions of there being a number of opposition
days—in this case, seven—before the budget votes to pay our
employees' salaries, benefits to Canadians, social benefits and
everything else we have to pay are concurred in.
An hon. member: Bring a tear to our eye.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, pardon me, but a constitutional
expert over there is offering us advice on the importance of
opposition days and how they operate.
In the meantime, with the greatest respect for the institution
and for the Chair, it is our intention, after I meet with the
opposition House leaders, to put this matter on the order paper
in order so that it may be debated, so that we may see the end
of it. Today, however, I would like address the motion by the
Conservative Party, this being a day previously allotted to that
party. No doubt hon. members will recall that I had allotted
Monday for it, moreover.
That is what I wanted to say to the Chair, but I certainly do
not want to drag this matter out in parliament.
When the motion comes before the House, I too will have the
opportunity to make a big speech, and it will not be the least
bit like the one we have just heard. It will of course differ a
great deal. I will, however, give it only then, out of respect
for the traditions of this House and the way we have to do
things.
1025
In the meantime, I submit that the motion as moved by the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, is perfectly in
order, that voting on it ought to follow immediately, that we
should carry on our usual work day today, and that a meeting
among the House leaders ought to be held, as I have just
proposed.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motion which is before
us on a point of order. I would like to draw your attention to
Marleau and Montpetit, starting at page 365 under Routine
Proceedings, and I quote:
The daily routine of business, commonly referred to as “Routine
Proceedings”, is a time in the daily schedule when business of a
basic nature is considered, providing Members with an opportunity
to bring a variety of matters to the attention of the House,
generally without debate.
We have an issue being brought forward by a member of one
political party that is perhaps uncomfortable for us to discuss
here but nonetheless is on the order paper and will therefore
have to be discussed.
To continue, at page 369 of Marleau and Montpetit dealing with a
precedent, I quote:
On April 13, 1987, the government attempted to skip over certain
rubrics under Routine Proceedings when the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister moved that the House
proceed from “Tabling of Documents” to “Motions” which, if
carried, would have had the effect of superseding all intervening
rubrics. The Speaker had ruled out of order a similar motion
only a few months earlier. A point of order arose, a debate
ensued and the Speaker reserved judgment.
This is exactly what is happening here today where the
government wants to bypass Routine Proceedings because of its
convenience and its desire, not the House's desire, and therefore
this precedent I think applies specifically.
In his ruling Speaker Fraser expressed concern and in the end he
ruled that the motion could stand but stand for that one time
only. At page 370 of Marleau and Montpetit he stated:
The article finishes up:
He elaborated further that the decision was circumscribed by
events for which the rules of procedure offered no solution and
was not to be regarded as a precedent.
That particular issue arose because the government's agenda and
the agenda of the House was being seized by various motions and
issues that disrupted the proceedings of the House and the House
could not do its business. That is not the case before us at the
moment. The government can do its business. The government just
does not want to handle the daily routine of business and issues
being raised by members of the House.
I would like to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, some
historical content that the House of Commons has to defend itself
against the crown, the government. The Speaker is the person who
speaks on our behalf as members of the House of Commons. The
Speaker has to uphold the rights and privileges of us as members
in the House against the crown.
We have before us a motion to pass by opportunities of members
to bring to the House issues which they feel important. We have
had the government House leader and the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister who represent the government dictating to
the House that we will do their business rather than the business
of the House. This is the issue, Mr. Speaker. You have to
uphold the members, not uphold the crown. That is your duty and
it is our privilege that you do so.
Government members have spoken about this being an allotted day
and that these allotted days have to get through because we are
coming to the end of the supply period. Without going into a
great deal of historical reference, we know that allotted days
are the final crumbs that we in the House have to debate the
business of supply and the granting to the crown of supply in
order for it to do its business.
It is the final few crumbs left on the table for us to hold the
government to account.
1030
Because it has squeezed that final few crumbs right to the end
of the supply period and denied us during the normal period of
supply the right to debate these issues, the government now finds
that its agenda is constrained in order to allow us the few
crumbs and rights that we have through allotted days.
The point is that you have a duty, Mr. Speaker, to uphold the
privileges of the House against the crown. The crown does not
want us as members to debate issues that we could bring up under
Routine Proceedings. I ask you to rule the motion out of order.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be very brief with my remarks. To reinforce what
my hon. colleague from St. Albert has just said, what we are
debating, this particular point of order, strikes to the very
essence of this Chamber itself.
Nothing could be more serious than when a political party brings
a motion of non-confidence in the Speaker. I cannot imagine what
could be more serious. Whether I, my colleagues or other
colleagues in the House from whatever party agree with that
particular motion is irrelevant. How could the House continue to
do its business as long as that black cloud hangs over this
place? We must deal with it.
For the government to move to bypass, to circumvent Routine
Proceedings in the manner in which it has and to crack the whip
on its backbenchers to get them to fall in line and to basically
turn their backs on their own rights and privileges just to
support their party and the government, is despicable, to be
quite blunt.
If this were allowed to continue, as it did yesterday and as the
government has moved to do today, I suggest that there is room
for each and every member in this Chamber to rise on a point of
privilege. It is our privileges that are being usurped by the
government trying to wipe Routine Proceedings off the orders of
the day and move to its agenda.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
some very good points have been made. I start out by saying that
when, not if, the motion of non-confidence in the Speaker comes
before the House, I do not intend to support that motion. That
is, as the hon. member before me just said, irrelevant to the
point which we are debating today.
I think there is kind of a natural tendency, and I give the
government House leader the credit of thinking that it is a Tory
opposition day and we do not want them to lose their day, et
cetera. That is kind of a reasonable way of thinking, but the
more I think about it, the more I hold to the view that I held
yesterday.
I assumed that yesterday we would go through Routine
Proceedings, get to motions and have the debate on the motion of
non-confidence in the Speaker. That did not happen because we
moved to go to orders of the day.
Again, that was related to the government's agenda. That was
not related to any particular urgency with respect to Bill C-20,
as I argued over and over again in this Chamber and in committee
that there was no particular urgency that required that bill to
be passed yesterday. By way of being consistent with my own
views on this, I have to say that we now have a repeat of that
situation.
The government House leader has suggested that perhaps the House
leaders could get together and decide when this motion could be
debated. At first glance I thought perhaps that was something
for the House leaders to discuss. To the extent that that leaves
it in the domain of the government as to when this will be
decided, I have to say on reflection that I do not think that is
acceptable.
1035
What if there was a genuine atmosphere of non-confidence in the
Chair, which I would dispute? Nevertheless, what if there was?
Would we for one moment think that it would be appropriate for
the government to put off resolving that matter? We would not.
I do not think it is the prerogative of the government, by
virtue of this procedural manoeuvre of moving to go to orders of
the day, to determine when it is that the House will be seized of
a matter that is pre-eminently a matter for the House and for the
Chair, and not for the government.
What happens between the Chair and the House is not a matter to
be managed by the government. It is a matter to be managed
between the Chair and the House. We have a procedure for doing
that. We have Routine Proceedings and we have motions, and that
is the time at which it should come up.
As for my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party, I
know how I would feel if I thought my opposition day was about to
be lost because of this. On the other hand, I think there is
certainly an argument to be made for holding up for all time the
right of the House to manage this kind of issue as opposed to the
government and that would be a higher principle than preserving
one's opposition day.
A very strong argument can be made based on some of the things
that have already been said, but also based on the principle that
this is something that should be dealt with at the earliest
possible opportunity. It is something that should be dealt with
on a timetable determined by the House and not by the government.
I know some people will say that it will be the House that will
pass the motion to go to orders of the day and so the House will
have spoken, and make that sort of argument, but we know full
well that argument has its limits because it will be the
government that will determine whether or not that motion passes.
Sometimes there are occasions when we should go beyond the
quasi-political fiction that when the majority speaks the House
speaks. There are some things that belong to the House in a
sense that goes beyond what the majority can decide in terms of a
vote, that have to do with the House itself, and that have to do
with the relationship between the Chair and the House. I would
just urge the Chair to take this matter very seriously.
It also looks or has the potential to look—and I do not think
it is in the interests of the Chair or of the House to look this
way—as if there is a reluctance on the part of the Chair to have
this dealt with, and I do not think that is true. That is not
the attitude that the Chair has toward this motion and certainly
it is not the attitude that it should have.
Rather than creating the impression that there is any anxiety
about that debate, it would be better in terms of precedent,
procedure, the relationship between the Chair and the House, the
prerogatives of the House itself and finally the perception of
the Chair itself, to deal with this at the earliest possible
moment pursuant to the procedures that we have established for
this, that is to allow us to go through Routine Proceedings. It
will be inconvenient for all concerned, but democracy is
sometimes inconvenient, as we found out to our sleep deprivation
in the last few days.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will
be brief. We have listened to all those who spoke on this issue.
We have had a long week. We voted for 36 hours.
I believe that both these questions are very important. First of
all, as some have said, we have to preserve what is left of our
powers as opposition parties, that is to propose subjects and
have a specific day to discuss them. However, it is equally true
that a motion of non-confidence in the Speaker is also a very
important element.
What happened here since the beginning of the week undoubtedly
heated things up, so why not deal with both issues today?
Why not ask the consent of the House to sit tonight and discuss
the Bloc Quebecois motion. We sat for nights to vote on a bill,
so why not do our regular day of work and debate the supply
motion and keep on sitting tonight to discuss this very
important subject?
1040
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Conservative Party made a very interesting suggestion and I
imagine you will eventually draw it to the attention of the
members of the House.
My colleague from Roberval has explained in very eloquent terms
the philosophical, historical and political reasons why you
should declare out of order the motion introduced by the
Secretary Parliamentary to the Prime Minister.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few
moments to go over some more technical considerations.
In the last few hours, we have had time to carefully read
through some literature, namely Erskine May, Beauchesne and
Marleau-Montpetit, to determine if there was actually something
allowing a motion such as the one introduced by the government
to have precedence over a non-confidence motion against the
Speaker.
We found nothing which could justify a decision that a motion to
proceed with the orders of the day has precedence over a
non-confidence motion against the Speaker.
Yesterday, you made a decision.
Some might argue that this decision was motivated by the fact
that the House was subject to an order imposed by the government
through the double gag procedure used Monday regarding Bill C-20
and that consequently, since it was on the agenda of the
government and that there was only one day left for third
reading, the Chair had no other choice and felt compelled by
this order of the House to give precedence to the motion
introduced by the government yesterday.
Earlier, the government House leader made some fallacious
arguments to justify that we revert once more to Government
Orders, though a non-confidence motion against the Speaker is on
the Order Paper.
He said: “We have an opposition day. There are only a few left.
We have little time for these opposition days, so we must hurry
to allow every party to have its opposition day”. The same
government that pressured this House for close to four weeks to
ram through Bill C-20 before the Liberal Party of Canada
convention, thus using the House for purely partisan purposes,
could easily have reserved a number of days for the business of
supply. It did not do so. It resorted to partisan tricks to make
the House do what it wanted and have Bill C-20 passed according
to its own agenda.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, we consulted the appropriate
literature. The books on procedure clearly state that a
non-confidence motion concerning the Speaker takes priority over
any other issue.
The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons showed the
true autocratic nature of this government a few moments ago when
he said that the government does not intend to let this issue go
on for very long. But it is not up to the government. It is not
a decision that rests with the government. It is a decision that
rests with the Chair. It is a decision that rests with the
House.
Mr. Speaker, since you are the protector of the rights of each
member of this House, the protector of the rights of the
opposition, of the minority in this House, I urge you to deem
the motion presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime
Minister out of order, prima facie.
1045
The existing literature contains no reference, provision or
precedent suggesting that the motion presented by the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister can take
precedence over the non-confidence motion.
By contrast, as I said, there is every indication that the
non-confidence motion must take precedence over any other issue,
and I am asking you to rule on this, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I concur
with the hon. member from the NDP and with the hon. members from
the Bloc.
We are supposed to be in a democratic society. We come here and
the people expect that it will be democratic within the House of
Commons. If there is a non-confidence vote then it is imperative
that it be debated and debated by both sides of the House. All
of us, every person who is here, should have a say in that.
This is a very serious situation. If we were not allowed to do
that, if we were not allowed to debate it, then the people of
Canada would probably say—maybe we want to do this; who
knows—that they are taking all the Liberals out in the next
election if we do not have an opportunity here to show that their
voices have been heard. That is for sure.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there might be disposition
to an agreement that is developing. I would like to have the
actual wording of it in a few minutes, but the general
understanding, to express it right now, is that at the conclusion
of Government Orders this afternoon the House would not proceed
with the private member's item, that debate on the motion in the
name of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois would commence at that
time, that the debate would conclude at 11 p.m., and that it
would be followed by a 15 minute bell and a vote.
I think that is the general thrust. I would put that in the
form of an official motion. I seem to note general agreement for
that across the way. If that is the case and if there is an
understanding that would be the case, we would be prepared to
withdraw—
The Deputy Speaker: I will assist in this matter at once.
I am quite prepared to suspend the sitting for a few minutes to
allow discussions to continue.
The Chair wishes to consider its position in light of the
submissions that have been made by the hon. member for Roberval,
the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River, the hon. member
for Winnipeg—Transcona, the hon. member for
Richmond—Arthabaska, and the government House leader.
[Translation]
This is a very serious situation. The Chair has taken note of
everything that was said and I would like to thank all members
for their assistance.
SITTING SUSPENDED
The Deputy Speaker: Therefore, I will now suspend the sitting to
the call of the Chair.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 10.48 a.m.
1110
[English]
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 11.10 a.m.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations
and I think there would be consent for the following motion. I
move:
That the motion in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary to
Prime Minister be withdrawn;
That the House proceed to Motion No. 59;
That no later than 6.30 p.m. this day, all questions necessary
to dispose of Motion No. 59 in the name of the member for
Laurier—Sainte-Marie shall be put and a division or divisions be
deemed to have been requested, provided that the division or
divisions may not be deferred and the division bells shall ring
for 15 minutes and provided that Members Statements and Oral
Questions shall also be held today at the usual times.
I understand that if we did not have that in the motion we
perhaps would not have question period. Further:
That the allotted day previously scheduled for this day be held
tomorrow, March 17 and that any vote requested on the allotted
day be deferred until Tuesday, March 21 at the conclusion of
Government Orders.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the proposal of the
government House leader. Is there unanimous consent of the House
to allow him to move this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the motion, but I
want to ensure there still will be an oral question period at
the expected time.
Hon. Don Boudria: Of course.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Fine. I had not understood that.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I want to thank all hon. members for
their assistance in coming to this arrangement. I also want to
say that with respect to the debate that is about to then happen
I want to urge all hon. members to conduct themselves in
accordance with the very best traditions of parliament. I would
like to cite, if I may, from Redlich, The Procedure of the
House of Commons, something about such a debate. It states at
page 146:
The rules prescribe that due notice of motion must be given that
on some future day a vote of censure upon the Speaker will be
moved. It need hardly be said that such an event is abnormal and
happens but rarely, and that such a motion would only be acceded
to by the House if the circumstances fully justified it....it
would appear seriously to undermine the exalted position and
dignity of the Speaker if, in addition to his application of the
rules being open to challenge upon special and important
occasions, it was competent for every member to call in question
the Speaker's authority whenever he chose, and if he was liable
at all times to be called upon to defend the correctness of his
decisions.
I commend these words to all hon. members.
* * *
1115
[Translation]
HOUSE OF COMMONS
THE SPEAKER
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) moved:
That this House resolve that it no longer has confidence in the
Speaker, since it is of the opinion that he showed partiality in
deciding that the question of privilege raised by the honourable
Member for Rimouski-Mitis on Wednesday, March 1, 2000, was
unfounded and in rejecting the point of order raised by the
honourable Member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, to the detriment of
the rights and privileges of all the Members of this House.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out
that the hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois will share his time
with the hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
make some remarks before dealing with the fundamental issue.
I want to thank all opposition parties for making the government
understand the necessity of debating this issue, even if today
marks the launching of the Liberal Party convention. I want to
thank more particularly the PC members who agreed to postpone
their opposition day.
I think that, in doing so, they are showing a deep respect for
this institution. I cannot really say the same about the
behavior of the government party so far.
Here is my second point.
Some people claimed that we tried to use this motion as a tactic
to delay debate on Bill C-20. This is totally ludicrous; this
argument is not valid because we proposed to submit to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs two cases
that, according to us, are still in contravention of the
procedures of the House.
If the proposal submitted by the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis
had been accepted, the debate on Bill C-20 would not have been
delayed, we would not be debating this matter today, and there
would have been no motion. We do not want to point fingers or to
make heads roll, we only want to help this Parliament work in a
better way and to make all its members feel as equals, because
this is what they are and because there are no members more
equal than others. This is basically our position.
Let me remind you of the facts.
This fight over a bill negating democratic rights in Quebec,
Bill C-20, has been very emotional. There was no reason, except
the Liberal convention, to ram this bill through the House. And
it is because of this that the House is now in this predicament.
Not only has democracy in Quebec been under attack, but even the
process has been interfered with. Fanaticism has reached new
heights. The quality of debates in this institution and even the
very possibility of having debates in this place are stake.
We submitted a substantial number of amendments. Many of them
were ruled out, and we did not object. To our great surprise,
however, two amendments we had not even submitted were ruled out
of order. It is a bit surprising to get a ruling before one's
case has be made. We had a hard time understanding what was
going on.
This raises the issue of the basic principle of confidentiality
in the dealings between members of the House and the legal
counsel who are there to serve them. How can the House make a
ruling, how can it have knowledge of an amendment we intended to
submit but did not? But we did get a ruling. We think this is a
serious matter, and that the whole situation should be looked
into.
1120
The second item is the 144 or so amendments which we brought
forward. After we had tabled them, we were told by House
officials: “They are not in order because they contained the
word sovereignty.” According to them, this is an ill-defined
concept which has nothing to do with Bill C-20, which speaks only
of secession. Very well, we said, we will change “sovereignty”
to “secession” in all these amendments in order to reflect the
advice we have been given.
This we did, and the decision was the same. Now we are
beginning to wonder. Either we were badly advised,
intentionally or not, but we followed that advice, and this
reflects on the quality of the services provided.
Or we were properly advised and they did not think we were going
to use the word “secession”, and logic had nothing to do with
it.
The only logical thing to do, if it can be called logical, was
to reject them. Otherwise, there was a risk that Bill C-20 would
not go through this week, and what is most important for this
government is not so much this bill as the convention of the
Liberal Party of Canada. We are well aware that the Prime
Minister wants to arrive with the bill in his pocket, not with
some scandal floating around. Neither goal was achieved.
This is why we challenged these two decisions and told the
Speaker that it was vital that they be reconsidered. We opened
the door, as we have always done since our arrival here, because
we respect this institution.
We will always remember as a fundamental and historical lesson
on what a parliament is this maxim used by our anglophone
friends “We have to agree on how to disagree”. We totally agree
with that.
We are not here—it is hopeless, even if it would be nice—to try to
win people over to our side, but rather to represent those who
elected us. That is our job. We must use the debate to shed some
light on the situation and to see to it that even those who do
not agree with us as well as the people in general better
understand where we are coming from. I think it is a very
democratic way to proceed.
We left a door open in suggesting that this matter be referred
to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I
remind members that this would not have delayed the debate on
Bill C-20 and would have corrected the situation with regard to
the debate on Bill C-20, but it would have given us a way to see
to it that such a situation does not occur ever again.
I still have difficulty understanding why this door was slammed
shut after we had opened it. As I said when I moved this motion,
I wished I did not have to do such a thing because I have
learned, over the years, to work with the Speaker. We have had a
good relationship so far. I hope that, despite all that has
happened, it will be possible to restore this relationship
because the door is still open.
This is not just about you. It is about this institution. It is
about our rights. It is about the rights of all members. We
cannot accept that the clerks, for example, can make a ruling
because they are aware of our intentions because of the
amendments we want to propose, whereas this is not the case for
ministers. They have their own legislative counsel. We become
aware of their amendments when they appear on the Order Paper.
There should not be a treatment for the ministers and a
treatment for the other members. That, in my opinion, is
fundamental. I am not saying that there was malice or not, but
that there is a problem. And when there is a problem, it is our
duty to deal with it, and the more so if there is an element of
doubt hanging over the institution's impartiality. What we want
is to improve the climate of debates.
1125
We know that debates are tinged with emotion, but in spite of
all the emotion involved, we must be sure, not at 50%, 60% or
70%, but at 100% that everyone of us here is equal. We must be
100% sure that our mechanisms are good. However, when we see
that these mechanisms are not working properly, it is imperative
that we correct them. That is what was proposed in the question
of privilege raised by the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis, and in
the point of order raised by my colleague, the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry.
In both cases, we were wondering about the reasons why the Bloc
members came to feel sure they had been treated differently,
without suggesting that is was due to malice.
That is something the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs could have examined. That could have been decided as
soon as Monday.
I will end my remarks on that note and let my colleague, the
member for Roberval, complete our representation and explain the
situation. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, in all friendship, that we
have to settle that question, and that is the question that
matters to us. This is what matters to us.
The Speaker: The debate will proceed as follows: to start with,
there will be 20 minute speeches followed by 10 minutes for
questions and comments. As we heard earlier, the hon. member of
the Bloc Quebecois will be sharing his time with the hon. member
for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I join the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois to thank members of the opposition
parties, who accepted this debate, which is of paramount
importance to us, and made it possible.
The questions I would like to ask at this time are: why is there
a parliament and why are we here today? Why have we been elected
to this parliament?
Parliament was not created to be used by the government or the
monarch but to serve the people. Parliament is much more ancient
than democracy; at the time of the monarchy, it was decided to
bring together elected representatives of the people to act as a
check and balance, give advice and tell the king “We like this,
but we do not like that”. The voice of the people could be heard
through parliament.
Parliament was never meant to be used by the king, the monarchy
or the government. Parliament's role is not to support the
government. Its role is to express ideas and to serve as a check
and balance to the huge powers of the executive. This is why
ministers and the Prime Minister have to answer questions by the
elected representatives of the people every day. It is a normal
process. We call it democracy, and this is what gives it
strength.
The government, before making important decisions, must submit
to a public debate and face all members of parliament. This
process allows us to improve legislation; it is the fundamental
difference between a monarchy or a dictatorship, where decisions
are taken and imposed from the top down, and a democracy, where
the government does not have all of the power.
Of course, it does have the power to manage the affairs of the
country, but this power is subject to public debate.
For the government, there is a political price to pay when
decisions are taken. This is what democracy is all about. This
is what we are doing here. I hope that members understand that
they have an important responsibility to express views that
differ from the ones held by the government, since government
members are bound by the principle of cabinet solidarity.
1130
Opposition members are here to express points of view. This is
why society has been able to solve problems without fighting.
There is no more bickering, no more war; we do not fight any
more, we debate. We have found a civilized way of expressing
points of view.
It is all very well for those who have the majority to rule, but
they will have to pay a political price for their actions. If
those actions are not good, then parliament can debate them. It
alerts the population. The media are an integral part of the
democratic process and they ensure that our decisions, our
debates are made known to the public.
This forces the government to improve its legislation. It
restricts the scope of the government's activity. It does not
give the government all the power because parliament acts as a
check and balance.
There are three principles underlying parliament. The first is
that parliament is totally independent from the executive.
Parliament is where the people are heard. Parliament should not
have to serve the executive. Parliament is not the servant of
the executive; it is rather a check and balance to the
executive. The second principle is that the Speaker has to be
neutral.
Mr. Speaker, I tell you this sincerely. I consider that you have
always made very high quality rulings in this House.
I wanted to say this to you during this debate. The Chair must
maintain this neutrality at all cost because the Speaker is the
one who protects me. He is the one I called upon this morning,
asking “Does our presence here means something or not? Just
because we are separatists, does that mean we do not have the
right to speak?” It is up to the Speaker to protect me, give me
the right to speak, allow me to put questions to the government
and make my point of view known. You have always done this
admirably.
The third principle is the one of confidentiality regarding
everything going on here. Every political party has the right to
work in full confidentiality, to avail itself of the services of
the employees of the House, who serve us admirably.
We call upon the Clerk, we call upon the Sergeant-at-Arms, we call
upon the whole staff that works here, and we always get
impeccable service. We are entitled to such service.
Those with a long career in parliament know that their first
duty is to set aside their political opinions and be as generous
with a separatist—even though we are in the federal parliament—as
with a government member. They have always done so admirably.
But a problem has occurred. There has been a breach of the
principle of confidentiality and openness with respect to a
political party, in doing its job; as a result of administrative
measures taken in the past, and to which we subscribed in good
faith, the confidentiality of the services of the legislative
counsel who is here to serve members, be they members of the
Bloc, Conservatives, members of the Reform Party, New Democrats
or even Liberals, has come under question.
The work of the legislative counsel must be absolutely
non-partisan, and entirely confidential. He is a person who works
selflessly to allow members to put their point of view across,
draft a bill, or draft amendments. All this is in the realm of
political strategy, it is a sensitive issue, it is hard to do.
It is a sensitive issue because the legislative counsel must
abstain from expressing his own opinion. He has to be an expert
at the service of MPs of all political stripes, and that is hard
to do.
The way the work is organized has, however, resulted in a
situation where their proximity with the clerks of the House of
Commons, and the fact that the computer, a new working tool, now
allows people to access anything that is being worked on, has
led to certain elements of the Bloc Quebecois strategy—and it
could just as easily have been the Reform, the Conservatives or
the NDP—being used in good faith by someone wishing to expedite
decision-making on whether to accept or reject amendments. This
is what the Speaker has to do, and a number of people are
involved in it.
1135
What I wish to say is this. Unfortunately, a problem arose. It
has now been realized that this close proximity means that
confidentiality is no longer assured. One of the basic
principles of parliament is right of access—and I know that the
Liberal members across the floor are completely in agreement
with me—to non-partisan technical assistance.
This is why I believe you need to reconsider the ruling that was
made, perhaps a little too hastily, or perhaps without all
aspects being presented.
I would ask you to reconsider this decision, because it is
fundamental and it concerns one of the principles of parliament.
Everybody will come away from this motion with their head a
little higher if you make one of the following decisions.
The first would be to re-establish the matter of confidentiality
by changing our current procedure, which no longer ensures
confidentiality for us.
The second would be to provide resources directly to the parties
to enable them to have their own legislative counsels to ensure
their data will not be disclosed again. Otherwise, we will have
to assume that confidentiality is no longer valued by
parliament, and I know that this is not the case.
Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to propose the withdrawal of
this motion or to vote against it if you honestly agreed to give
the principle of confidentiality its full due. Administrative
changes are required: either the parties must be given their own
legislative advisors or this matter must be put before the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for its
consideration and recommendations.
This is what we are asking you, it is the aim of the motion. I
am sure that, in your usual wisdom, you will consider our
remarks to be extremely serious and intended to serve parliament
and nothing else.
In concluding, I move:
This is simply to make it clear that the matter was raised then.
I consider it important to add it. It does not change the
substance.
I would ask you to consider our request with your usual
open-mindedness and you will have our full support. But it seems
to us something must be done to ensure confidentiality.
The Speaker: The amendment is in order.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, as is the
custom, that I am pleased to take part in this debate, but it
would be an exaggeration, because a parliamentarian cannot be
pleased to take part in this kind of debate.
This is a very serious debate. Personally, not only do I see no
reason to have such a debate today, but I also think that the
Chair has always acted in a proper and totally impartial manner
in this House.
When the member presented this motion to the House, he said that
the rights and privileges of all parliamentarians were at stake,
as well as democracy itself and the confidence that all members
must have in the Speaker.
1140
I agree with the member, probably only to the extent that the
motion concerns the rights and privileges of all members, and
also the principles of democracy.
First, I would like to talk about political objectivity and
impartiality. I do not intend to review the points that are
being disputed but rather to stress the impartiality of the
procedure and practices followed by our Speaker.
In the ruling you issued in March on the point of order raised
by the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry regarding motions on
amendments relating to Bill C-20, you pointed out that the
decision was made, and I quote:
As for the question of privilege raised by the deputy House
leader of the Bloc Quebecois relating to the issue of
confidentiality of the information between the legislative
counsels of the House and the members of parliament, the Speaker
concluded, and I quote:
Certainly, no one can claim that members of the other political
parties received copies of these motions. I still do not know
what they contain.
Mr. Speaker, you continued as follows:
Consequently, I am unable to find that this constitutes a prima
facie question of privilege or a contempt of the House.
In other words, Speaker's rulings were made with respect for the
impartiality of your position and for the rules and practices of
the House of Commons of Canada.
Members often disagree on the content of a piece of
legislation—there is nothing unusual about that. In fact, there
is a whole group of people in our society who do nothing but
differ on the interpretations to be given to legislative
documents. They are known as lawyers, and that is how they earn
their living. There is therefore nothing strange about
lawmakers sometimes differing in their interpretations.
We can also disagree on the wording of the Standing Orders. But
there can be no disagreement about the impartiality of the
Speaker, about the impartiality of the personnel who support the
Speaker, and about the impartiality of the Speaker's rulings.
Of course, we have a proud tradition of impartial speakers.
Your are such a speaker, and your predecessors were as well. As
I am fond of telling my colleagues in the House, I have been
around this building for many years. I began working here on
October 25, 1966. Many of my colleagues were much younger when
I first entered the House.
Even in the days when my duties were very different, I sat in
the gallery so as to listen to the debate and the rulings of the
Speaker at the time, the late Lucien Lamoureux.
1145
I attended his funeral in Aylmer, Quebec some time ago. He
represented the riding of Stormont—Dundas, now so ably
represented by the chief government whip.
Later on, I heard the rulings of Speaker Jérôme and of Speaker
Sauvé, who later became Her Excellency the Governor General, as
well as those of Dr. Lloyd Francis, John Bosley and John Fraser,
not to mention yourself, Mr. Speaker. This does not mean I was
always in agreement with the Speaker's rulings, far from it, in
fact.
Sometimes rulings are brought down, which do not please this
side of the House or on the other, but that does not mean the
rulings I did not like were partisan and in favour of the other
side of the debate in question. That is not the same thing.
The differentiation must be made.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: That is not what the problem is.
Hon. Don Boudria: Some hon. members are saying that is not the
problem, or the issue.
Yes it is, actually, because what we have before us today is a
motion of non-confidence. This is not a debate about whether
members ought to have additional privileges, whether there
should be legislative counsels for each party. That is not what
we are debating today. It ought to be, but it is not.
What we have before us is a motion of non-confidence in our
Speaker. That is what we are debating.
The duties of the Speaker of this House date back to the
creation of the institution. We have taken our inspiration from
the British tradition, dating back to at least 1376. At that
time, the Speaker of the House of Commons was the spokesperson
for the House to the Crown, as is our Speaker today.
A few days ago, Mr. Speaker, representatives of the various
political parties accompanied you in presenting the engrossed
Speech from the Throne to Her Excellency. This presentation of
the throne speech is a highly symbolic gesture, and one which
lets us know that you are indeed still the representative of
this House to Her Majesty, and in the Canadian context, to Her
Excellency the Governor General.
Upon taking up your post, you stated in this House that you were
its servant, not its boss. That is true. You have powers that
were vested in you by us all. You have powers that we have given
you.
Moreover, our parliamentary traditions, in recent years at
least, have changed the procedure for electing the Speaker of
the House, precisely to increase the confidence that we all have
in the Chair. Mr. Speaker, you were elected twice by your peers
in this House, by secret ballot.
You are not the Speaker of the government, you are not the
Speaker of the Liberal Party, nor are you the Speaker of the
Reform Party or that of the Bloc Quebecois. You are the Speaker
of us all. We all chose you.
This is my position in this debate and I hope that I am
reflecting the views of all those who sit here and who, after
careful consideration, may decide to give you their unanimous
support later on today.
1150
Perhaps additional services could be provided to
parliamentarians. Perhaps we, in this House, could decide to
organize the legislative services differently, perhaps not.
These are all important issues—
Mr. Bob Kilger: Administrative issues.
Hon. Don Boudria: —administrative issues, as the chief government
whip rightly pointed out. We could also change the rules of the
House. But, of course, the Speaker will never change our rules.
He interprets them, he is our servant. It is up to us to change
the rules and to ask the Chair to administer them for us. This
is how things must work in a parliament.
As we speak, a House committee is considering changes to the rules.
This was precipitated somewhat by the hundreds of amendments
that were brought forward at report stage but, at the same time,
the committee is considering all kinds of possible changes to
the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. There is also the
Board of Internal Economy, on which I and the chief government
whip sit, under Your Honour's chairmanship, as do members of
other political parties.
If we want to, we have the necessary tools to increase services
to members if there are deficiencies in that area. The members
opposite maintain there is some kind of lawyer-client
relationship with the legislative counsel. Nowhere is this
written.
We could very well decide that it will be so in the future, not
retroactively, but it would be possible for each party to have
its own legislative counsel or it own legislative services,
which would then be assessed by someone acting on behalf of the
Chair. If that is what we decide to do in the future, fine. I am
prepared to join this consensus or at least to debate the issue
at the Board of Internal Economy and to change the rules if
necessary.
But the Speaker of the House should not be blamed for any
perceived deficiency in our services. I am not even sure a
deficiency does exist. At any rate, any service we do not have
here in parliament was certainly not taken away by the Speaker.
That is for sure.
You know full well, Mr. Speaker, that at the start of your
mandate we, those of us sitting on the Board of Internal
Economy, tightened up the services available to members. We did
away with some, but, once again, it was not you who took them
away; it was I, he, the others on the board representing our
various caucuses.
You chair the meetings, you seek consensus and, of course, you
and your staff, who are highly qualified and who work faithfully
for us, recently day and night, help put in place the services
available to all members, as voted on by us all together. I
have a hard time understanding, in fact I do not understand at
all, why discrepancies at that level could be considered your
responsibility.
To summarize very briefly, I think, Mr. Speaker, and it is my
firm conviction that, first, your rulings are fair. I am
convinced you are not involved in partisan politics. You are
fair and therefore not partisan.
1155
What some of our colleagues are after does not involve
confidence or non-confidence with respect to you, Mr. Speaker.
If members wish to refer this matter to a committee of the
House, to the Board of Internal Economy or an ad hoc committee
comprising the leaders, I would willingly sit with my
colleagues.
In the meantime, I would ask, at the end of today, that one of
them rise and, in a symbolic act, seek unanimous consent to
withdraw this motion.
In according you this unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, we will be
in a way expressing our full confidence in you, something I have
always had in you and which I hope we all have both in you and
in the manner in which you acquit yourself of your duties.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to direct my hon. colleague the government
House leader to this issue.
The Reform Party of Canada as Her Majesty's official opposition
feels that this particular issue is one of the most important
issues that can ever be brought before this Chamber. We have
already heard a number of members refer to the need for the
impartiality of the Chair. Debating this issue is of supreme
importance. The Speaker of this place is tasked with the job of
upholding the rights and privileges of each and every member
equally.
In debating this issue among Reform Party members it soon became
apparent that the only way to address this was to have a free
vote. If there was ever a reason to have a free vote on an
issue, this one would be it, rather than taking a caucus position
as we often do when we debate other issues, because of the
importance that we have placed upon the Speaker's position.
The Speaker is tasked with upholding the rights and privileges
of each and every one of us. Each and every one of us should be
called upon to grapple with his or her conscience, with his or
her projection of whether you, Mr. Speaker, have always acted in
an impartial manner over the past number of years. We came to
the conclusion that each member would have to make that choice
for himself or herself.
I would ask the government House leader if it is his
understanding that the Liberal members in this Chamber will be
doing likewise.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the issue of internal
party discipline is very interesting. I have no idea what it has
to do with the debate at hand.
We could exchange with members across the way which party kicked
out more members than the other party. It could go on for a long
time. There are remnants of that scattered all over the back row
on that side of the House. I do not know what that would
accomplish. I recognize the hon. member is the whip for his
party but he is asking me a question for a whip. I am not the
whip but perhaps he will participate in the debate later.
The most important thing for us to remember is twofold. First
let us not trivialize this in that manner. I do not think we
should do that. Second, we should all remember that there was a
free vote. There were several. In 1993 the votes were so free
that we had a rather curious situation of a tie.
After several votes, and then a subsequent vote, each one as free
as the previous, it resulted in the excellent choice of you, Mr.
Speaker, to hold the high office which you now hold.
1200
Again, in 1997, not only were the votes free but they were
secret. We did not even know who was first or second after we
voted. The only thing we knew was who was last because that
person was eliminated from the ballot. Through all these votes
we arrived at the choice of Speaker, a choice of which I am
personally very proud. I hope that I am saying what all of us,
or nearly all of us if all of us is not achievable later today,
will also say.
That is the important issue in this debate today. We are not
discussing what whip is bigger than the other whip. We are
discussing whether or not we have confidence in the Speaker, and
I do.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like the
hon. government House leader to explain what he means by his
remarks.
What we are seeking today is not additional services from the
House legislative counsel or clerks. We called for changes
because there arose a situation which gives us cause to believe
that there has been a breach of the confidentiality we expect.
Information was passed from the legislative counsel to the
clerk.
In his ruling, the Speaker tells us that this should be seen as
a normal state of affairs, something to which we were not
accustomed before because it was not the situation then.
The Speaker having told us this, we no longer trust the team
with whom we are dealing because there has been a loss of the
confidentiality we need. It is a fact that amendments we had
discussed only with legislative counsel were rejected, meaning
that this information—we clearly had proof—had been passed on to a
clerk. So this is one occasion on which we have good reason to
lose faith in the existing system.
Furthermore, if, pursuant to the ruling of the Speaker, it is a
normal state of affairs that the clerks should work with the
legislative counsel within the allowed framework, the same
situation occurred when we were advised to use the word
secession instead of sovereignty. Which we did. If the
legislative counsel works jointly with the clerk, they should
have been in agreement. We did what we were told and, at the end
of the day, over one hundred of our amendments were turned down,
just because we did what we were asked to do.
We believe that sometimes the clerk works in co-operation with
the legislative counsel, and other times, he does not seem to do
so. Where are the confidentiality and the trust we are entitled
to? This is why we introduced a non-confidence motion. I would
ask the clerk—we are not asking for the Speaker's head—to make
sure this does not happen again.
We have nothing against the current Speaker, but we are opposed
to situations that result in our being unable to work in total
confidence.
If the government House leader is willing to change his mind on
this, I will point out to him that we had already suggested that
this motion be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs for discussion. If this had been accepted, we
would not be having this debate today. But it was turned down.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it takes some twisted logic to
reach the conclusions I have just heard from the hon. member
across the floor. The non-confidence reads as follows:
That this House resolve that it no longer has confidence in its
Speaker, since it is of the opinion that he showed partiality—
This is what is in the non-confidence motion. If it were the type
of motion the hon. member has described, then it would not be a
non-confidence motion, but something else again. Coming from the
members, a motion could be formulated along these lines “That
this House change the organization of its legislative counsel;
or that this House change the method by which legislative
counsel interacts with the clerk” or some such thing.
1205
This is an interesting debate, but it has no connection with the
non-confidence motion. That is why I am saying that, at the end of
the day, this non-confidence motion might be withdrawn, because it
is the wrong approach.
If the objective is what the hon. member has just described to
us, I hope he and his colleagues will ask the House to withdraw
it. This gesture of unanimity—for it will require unanimous
consent to do so—will in itself express the confidence we have in
you.
Second, the hon. member's response to another part of the
question is “It is not a debate about getting extra resources”.
Well now, I am quoting the hon. member for Roberval, who was
speaking about getting the necessary resources; I quickly jotted
down what he was saying. That may not have been the purpose of
the motion as moved by the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie,
but the member who shared his speaking time referred to this as
one of the reasons why this non-confidence motion was before us.
I am therefore asking the hon. member to look later on at
today's Hansard to see what his own colleagues had to say,
because that is exactly what this is all about.
I will be affirming my confidence in you later on today, Mr.
Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
normally when I rise to my feet I say it is a pleasure to address
the House. While it is a privilege today it is not particularly
a pleasure that we have to debate this motion, but debate it we
must at this time. Before I start I would like to mention that I
am splitting my time with the member for St. Albert.
So far the speakers I have heard have skirted the real issue we
are debating today. I do not really believe that the members did
not like your ruling because of the confidentiality issue that is
in the motion. I do not think that is it at all, because we
dealt with the same issue back in the previous parliament when
the member for Yorkton—Melville brought forward almost an
identical concern of confidentiality of legislative council. He
brought it to the attention of the House at some length in a
detailed presentation to the Speaker. At that time there was a
ruling on that, and I did not see any of the Bloc members rising
up in arms over it. You dealt with it, Mr. Speaker, gave it a
ruling and we moved on.
I still believe we need to address the issue of confidentiality.
I believe we need a change in the standing orders but that can be
done and should be done in committee. It should be brought back
for all of us to agree to, and I think we can do that readily.
It is not really about the confidentiality issue. It is not
because the clerks and the staff have not done their jobs
properly. In my opinion they have done what they have been doing
as long as I have been here, since 1993 certainly. They have
consistently served the House with incredible professionalism. I
say that as someone who came here in 1993, not knowing what to
expect but has been consistently pleased and honoured to be able
to work with the clerks and the staff of this place. It is not
about them in my opinion at all.
It is not because question period has become unruly and the
ministers have quit giving answers or anything like that,
although that is true. It is not about the unruliness of the
place at all.
I would argue we are here because parliament is becoming
increasingly dysfunctional and increasingly irrelevant because of
the actions of the government. That is what this is about. No
one from the Bloc has mentioned it, but this comes the day after
Bill C-20 was pushed through the House in what I think was a very
undemocratic manoeuvre by the government. That is what we are
talking about today. This is a response to the frustration felt
by opposition parties in this place. I believe, although I do
not have inside knowledge of their meetings, that is what this is
all about.
1210
To summarize just briefly, I believe there are three things that
make this place tick. The first is that partly we run this place
based on the rules. We have rule books. We have Beauchesne's,
the standing orders and the new book of Canadian parliamentary
rules put together by our clerks. In part it is the rules that
make this place work. We respect the rules. We interpret the
rules. It is part of what makes the House of Commons work well.
Second, this place is built on goodwill and honourable
agreements between men and women of this place. That is why, Mr.
Speaker, you consistently rule when someone stands in their place
and says something that you take them at their word, as you have
to, as you must, as we all must. That is the only way the place
functions.
We function on the honour system. We come together, whether it
be in this place or in your chambers or in another room, and come
to an agreement on how we are going to proceed. All the rules in
the world cannot cover all the eventualities so we work together
as honourable people should. That is the second thing we do and
have to do.
The third thing, and the reason we are in this debate today, is
that the government has an obligation to govern. It has been
elected to do that, and I give it that. It also has an
obligation to respect the rights and minority rights of the
smaller opposition parties in the House of Commons. It has
consistently failed to do that. It is out of that frustration
that this motion is before us today.
I could speak at great length on this issue, but in the short
time available to me I will go to the immediate past history. I
think of last fall during the debate on the Nisga'a agreement
where time allocation was brought in at every stage, restricting
our ability and the rights of the opposition parties to debate
and bring their concerns forward on one of the most important
agreements in Canadian history.
To get back to the honourable agreement idea, we were finally
able to push the government to agree to have the committee
travel. It was not going to travel at all. When we finally got
out in the field we found out that the witnesses we expected at
those committees were all flown in from hundreds of miles away to
stack the committee to make sure that opposition voices and
points of view were not heard. That started to build the
frustration.
We are at a record setting level of time allocation rage that
this government is on. By far it exceeds what happened in the
Brian Mulroney government. It has been 63 times that we have had
either time allocation or closure motions since the government
took office just over five years ago. It was 66 times in the
entire 10 years that the Tories held office. This motion is
before us today in response to the frustration of not letting us
debate this stuff. That is a shame because the target in my
opinion is totally wrong.
I think of the two most important bills that the government has
tabled this year, Bill C-20 and Bill C-23. They are both
important bills whether or not we agree with them. I happened to
agree with Bill C-20 and voted in favour of it. Even when we try
to agree with the government and work with it to advance a piece
of legislation, we still say let us hear the opposition points of
view. Let us bring in a good array of witnesses. Let us travel
and talk to the different provincial governments on what one
might argue is the most important act this parliament has ever
passed on the division or separation of another province.
What happens? The government consistently brings in closure
here. It brings in closure in committee. It does not allow the
committee to travel. It restricts the witness list. At every
stage it sticks us in the eye with a burnt stick and says “You
have to do it our way. We have all of the power because we have
the majority”. The frustration level continues to build because
of that.
How can an opposition party do its job when at every stage,
whether in this place or in a supposedly independent committee,
the government uses its majority to tell the minority parties
that have opposition views or contrary views that not only will
they not carry the day, which is one thing, but that it will not
even listen to them. That frustration level is exactly why we
are debating this motion today, Mr. Speaker. It is not about
you, as far as I am concerned. I am going to vote against this
motion, gladly.
It is not about you doing your job, Mr. Speaker. It is a
response. This is the climactic moment of a series of arrogant
Liberal government moves which have restricted the ability of
opposition parties to do their work. It is because of that,
sadly, that we are here today.
1215
I do not agree with the motion and I wish we were not debating
it, but I know full well what it is about, and no one should kid
themselves. It is not about you, Mr. Speaker. It is not about
your consistency in the job. It is not about that at all. It is
in absolute hand-wringing frustration of trying to deal with this
government.
What happens in committees? Forty per cent of the committee
reports that are supposedly drafted in committee are released to
the press before they come to the House. We have been on our
feet many times about that. We may as well read the whole budget
in the press before it comes to the House. Legislation is given
to other people before it comes to the House.
Time and again we see the House, this parliament, treated as a
second-rate institution instead of the first-rate institution it
should be. Instead of treating MPs with dignity and the House
with dignity, the government asks if it can get a media spin out
of something. Can it force something through with its majority?
It is a shame.
The other bill is Bill C-23. It is another important bill,
whether we agree with it or oppose it. Why has the government
restricted the debate? Why has it restricted the witnesses? Why
has it refused to travel? Why? Because it does not tolerate
opposition views.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, you will remember that saying of
people who have died in defence of the theory “I may not agree
with your point of view, but I will die defending the right for
you to make it”. That is what is wrong with this place. It is
not you, Mr. Speaker. It is not the staff. It is not the
legislative counsel. It is a government that has consistently
refused to listen to other points of view and give the minority
parties, who represent over 50% of Canadians, the chance to make
those points known.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague from
the Reform Party, who comes from an area of the country where I
grew up. I also do not believe this is about you, Mr. Speaker.
In fact, I plan to defeat the motion. I was going to defeat it
the second it was brought forward.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley mentioned the frustration that
we feel because of what the government is doing. He is a member
of the official opposition. Imagine how he would feel being a
member of the fourth party in the House of Commons, trying to get
issues across.
One of the most eloquent speakers in the history of the country
debated Bill C-20, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona. I
believe he was speaking on behalf of all Canadians in wanting
that debate to be extended. There are many people who have
expert opinions and very wise opinions on Bill C-20, but of
course they were not allowed to speak to it.
The member also knows that it is not just this government. From
1984 to 1993 we watched the Conservative government ram through
legislation like the GST, the most hated tax the country ever
saw. It was rammed through the House and then former prime
minister Brian Mulroney stacked the Senate with his friends.
John Buchanan from Nova Scotia was one of those appointed to the
Senate. His whole purpose was to say yes to the GST.
The frustration we feel in opposition is quite evident, but the
government backbenchers must be awfully frustrated as well. Can
the hon. member shed some light on how backbenchers must feel
when the government is controlled by the Prime Minister's office
and not necessarily parliamentarians when legislation is brought
forward? They do not get a chance to debate the legislation as
well.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I will comment on that by
citing two recent examples which frustrated this side of the
House but must have driven that side of the House nuts. The two
examples I would bring are the following.
The first is a motion brought forward by the government House
leader, Motion No. 8, which sat on the order paper for a day or
two before, by all reports, about 40 Liberal backbenchers said
that the motion would take away the rights of not only the
opposition parties, but also the rights of government members on
the Liberal side to even bring amendments to bills.
1220
If Motion No. 8 had passed—and, thankfully, it was withdrawn
under pressure from all sides of the House and the government's
own backbench—it would have allowed every member of parliament
to introduce one amendment. Imagine if the House leader of the
NDP had been allowed to bring forward one amendment to Bill C-20.
He was successful in having two amendments passed; not just
brought forward, but actually passed to improve the bill. If
Motion No. 8 had been brought forward it would have curtailed the
rights of every single member of parliament except those in
cabinet. Members of the cabinet would have had infinite ability
to amend at will. That is the first example.
The other example that I bring forward is a current problem,
which has been in the newspapers for the last week or so, which
has to do with the immigration committee. There are three
issues.
The committee was dealing with a minority report on changes to
the immigration system. Members passed a motion in the committee
stating that the report would be considered in public. That
motion was passed by members of the committee.
What happened? Immediately the chair moved that the committee
proceed in camera and refused to have a vote on whether to
proceed in camera. Even though a motion had been passed that it
be a public debate, the committee proceeded in camera to consider
the report.
As well, documents were given to us from the immigration
department detailing an entirely new immigration act and how it
would be presented to the House, including information that the
minister would sign off on the new bill on March 7, when the
committee had not even tabled its report or recommendations.
What happened? The committee was treated with complete disdain
by the government. The government completely ignored the input
of members of parliament on that committee.
We now have the bill in our hands. It is not a draft bill. The
deal is done. The die is cast. The committee was treated with
absolute disdain by the government, which had already signed off
on the bill. The government ignored the wishes of the committee,
proceeded in camera when it voted to proceed in public, and has
now run roughshod over the rights of not only members on this
side of the House but also on that side of the House.
Those are just two examples of how the backbenchers on that side
must feel about the way they are treated by the frontbench.
The Speaker: Before I recognize the next member to speak
in this debate I want the House to know that I am giving all
possible latitude to this particular motion. However, I think
that once in a while members should at least refer to the issue
we are talking about today. I am going to give all of you all
kinds of room, but I would like you to bring it back a bit so
that we can tie it together. As you know, because you have all
read the motion, this is about confidence in the Speaker.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
is certainly not a gala day for the House in that we are debating
this particular motion. You have just commented on the fact that
the debate seems to be rambling on to other areas, and you have
heard what the opposition had to say with respect to the
frustration we have felt because of the actions of the
government, the actions of the crown, which has manifested itself
in an expression of non-confidence in you. For that I feel that
this House is not being well served by the motion. I want you to
know, Mr. Speaker, that I will vote against the motion.
I looked at the question of privilege raised by the member for
Rimouski—Mitis. I did not find that her privileges had been
violated. We are privileged people as members of parliament. We
have been given and have wrestled from the crown the right of
free speech and the right to be protected from the crown, and we
ask you, as the Speaker, to uphold these rights.
When I looked at the question of privilege that was raised by
the member, I did not find that she had brought forth the fact
that the crown, the government, had infringed upon her freedom of
speech, nor denied her some of the rights which we have wrestled
from the crown over the many, many years since the Magna Carta
was first signed in the United Kingdom.
1225
As we know, that was the first time that power was wrestled from
the monarchy, who had to consult the barons and the aristocracy.
Since that time it has evolved to the common people which the
government has to consult to obtain their concurrence before
anything can be done.
We have a large body of privilege which protects us. Through
the evolution of the parliamentary democracy in the United
Kingdom we have come to have a Speaker who speaks on our behalf.
That is why the person is called the Speaker.
I would like to quote from Marleau and Montpetit, at page 256,
concerning the historical perspective of the Speaker of the
House. It states:
The year 1642 marked the end of the Crown's influence over the
Speaker, when Charles I, accompanied by an armed escort, crossed
the Bar of the House, sat in the Speaker's chair and demanded the
surrender of five parliamentary leaders on a charge of treason.
Falling to his knees, Speaker William Lenthall replied with these
now famous words which have since defined the Speaker's role in
relation to the House and the Crown:
May it please Your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see, nor
tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to
direct me, whose servant I am here; and I humbly beg Your
Majesty's pardon that I cannot give any other answer than this to
what Your Majesty is pleased to demand of me.
Unfortunately, Marleau and Montpetit continue to say:
While Speaker Lenthall's words heralded the end of the Crown's
influence over the Speakership, it was the beginning of the
government's authority over the Chair.
That is an unfortunate statement because the government should
never have authority over the Chair in this House. There have
been times when we have been frustrated by rulings of the Chair,
but the important thing is that the rulings be fair and that they
abide by the rights and privileges that we have wrestled in the
past from the crown.
I would ask the hon. members of the Bloc Quebecois before they
vote this evening to examine the question of privilege raised by
their member and the Speaker's ruling. I know of their
frustration against the government, but I do not expect them to
take their frustration out on you, Mr. Speaker, because you are
there to uphold our rights, and provided you uphold our rights,
you are doing your job. I would beseech members of the Bloc
Quebecois to examine the privilege which they felt had been
impinged upon, to look at your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and find, in
the words of this motion, that you did indeed make the proper
decision.
Mr. Speaker, you have a responsibility every day to uphold our
rights. I can think of a time when I rose in the House in the
last parliament to deal with an issue concerning an income tax
bill. In 1993, at the beginning of the 35th Parliament, we
changed the rules to allow bills to be sent committee before
second reading, the concept being that the principle of the bill
could therefore be debated at committee. As we know, second
reading is to deal with the principle of the bill. Therefore, if
the bill was sent to committee before second reading we could
debate the principle of it. However, an income tax bill is dealt
with first by a ways and means motion, which draws, in essence, a
circle around the bill. Therefore, it cannot be debated in
principle at committee because if it goes outside the ways and
means motion it is illegal. I guess that would be the word. The
Chair ruled that it was perfectly legitimate for it to go to
committee before second reading. I found that offensive because
I felt that the government had won; the Speaker had sided with
the government.
The rights that we have as individual members have to be upheld
by you, Mr. Speaker, and if there were ever any doubt in your
mind, you must err in favour of the individual member.
I remember the words of our very competent clerk who spoke to me
one time and said that in this country, with the Westminster
style, we have government in parliament and we have Her Majesty's
government sitting in the front bench, the Privy Council, the
cabinet.
They are also members of this House and have the responsibility
of representing the crown in the House. We have seen how they
have used their authority to put motions on the order paper that
were flagrant violations of the rights of the House. We had one
earlier this morning but fortunately they withdrew it.
1230
It is rhetorical and hypothetical to say how the Speaker will
rule, but I would hope that whatever the decision, the first
priority of the Speaker is to uphold the rights of the individual
member against the representatives of the crown who sit on the
front benches over there.
As members know, we have won these rights at great cost. I may
be wrong in my date, but I think it was in 1392 that one Speaker
in Westminster literally lost his head because he stood up and
defended the rights of free speech by individual members in the
House of Commons.
I beg the members of the Bloc to reconsider their position on
the motion. I do not feel it is fair that they have expressed
their frustrations against the crown in a motion of
non-confidence against you, Mr. Speaker. That is patently unfair
because you, Mr. Speaker, are here to uphold our rights against
the crown, and in this particular motion I believe you ruled in
an appropriate fashion.
The Speaker: I do not want to make light of this because
this is an important debate, but I for one am very happy that
they stopped cutting off the Speakers' heads.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to oppose the motion that is before the House and to
make an argument as to why I think the motion should not only be
opposed but why it is inappropriate.
It is obvious that there is a disagreement between the movers of
the motion and the Chair and this is not unusual in parliamentary
life. Mr. Speaker may recall that I have had the odd
disagreement with the Chair myself over the years, both with the
current occupant of the Chair and previous occupants of the
Chair. I recall finding myself very disagreed with, shall we
say, by Speaker Fraser at a time when I urged him to intervene to
prevent time allocation on a motion having to do with free trade.
He took a different view of what his responsibilities and
capabilities were under the rules at that time. That was a
ruling which very much favoured the government.
The fact is that what I had urged the Speaker to do on that
occasion, if it had been done, would have frustrated the will of
the government. However, the Speaker made a decision on the
basis of what he thought were the rules, the precedents and the
responsibilities of the Chair which had the byproduct of being
favourable to the government. I do not believe the decision was
made with the intention of being favourable to the government,
but all decisions taken by the Chair have a byproduct. They
either suit person A's strategy or person B's strategy. They
suit the strategy of the government, of a particular opposition
party or whatever and that cannot be avoided.
To suggest that because a particular ruling favours one party
over another or one side of the House over the other and that is
in itself prima facie evidence of partiality, is to either
misunderstand the notion of impartiality or trying to make an
entirely different sort of political point in the guise of
challenging the impartiality of the Chair.
1235
I think the motion is ill-advised. These motions should occur
rarely and they do occur rarely. It is very rare indeed that
there is an authentic feeling of the Chair having acted in a way
that is not impartial and that would fully justify such a motion.
There have been occasions in the past but they have been very
rare, and I think they should be rarer still; that is to say, I
think we would have been better off without this motion.
A point has been made and it is worthy of discussion. What we
have before us is in some respects not just a particular strategy
of a particular political party on this side of the House, but I
think it is fair to say that what we have here is a manifestation
of a growing frustration in the House with the way things have
operated around here for the last little while.
The opposition House leader spoke at some length, almost to the
point of having to be brought to relevance by the Chair, about
many of the things that have frustrated the opposition in this
parliament. However, they are relevant to explaining for the
sake of the Chair why it is that this motion is before the House.
In that sense there is some relevance because we do seem to be
developing a parliamentary culture in which we can no longer
delay the passage of legislation by debating legislation.
Delay has an important political function. Delay has the
important political function of getting in the way of a
government that may want to be doing something so fast that the
public does not catch on to what it is doing until it is over.
Getting in the way of the government may have the legitimate
political function of getting in the way of a government that
wants something to happen in a way that does not permit those in
a civil society who are opposed to what it is doing, to have
their say before the bill is passed either before committee or in
all the other various ways that people find to make their views
known.
Delay is a very important function of what it is that opposition
parties do. At a previous time, when there was much more
opportunity to delay by debate, it was a bit of parliamentary
chicken being played with public opinion: Was opposition members
holding up the thing too long? Was it finally time for them to
shut up and let the thing go or did the opposition have a point,
and should it continue to be debated in the hope that the
government will change its mind?
Both opposition and government had to gauge public opinion. The
opposition might have said that it had its say on it and that it
should let it go, or the government might have said, no, it
needed to let the opposition keep talking because a lot of people
out there were really upset and a full airing of the issue was
needed. We do not have that any more. We do not have the game
of what I refer to as parliamentary chicken with public opinion.
We have developed a parliamentary culture where if something is
really important we have time allocation right away; by right
away, I mean within two or three days. A couple of examples come
to mind because frankly this has not been a parliament in which
we have had a lot of really significant legislation. It has been
kind of parliamentary light. We have had changes to the Canada
pension plan, Bill C-20 and a couple of other significant pieces
of legislation. The first thing the government did was move time
allocation after a couple of days of debate.
You are in a kind of catch-22, Mr. Speaker, that is very
problematic for the opposition.
If we know that the government has the intention or at least the
habit of moving time allocation, then some opposition parties are
driven to other forms of obstruction. We then have the
government saying that we are obstructing the bill and that we do
not really want to debate the bill so it brings in time
allocation. If we debate the bill for a couple of days, it says
“Well, we have had lots of time to debate the bill” and it
moves time allocation. We kind of lose either way.
1240
This is the kind of frustration that is now being visited upon
you, Mr. Speaker, and unfairly. You are the prisoner of the
rules of the House. You have to act according to the rules of
the House and, unfortunately, the rules of the House are not
always devised by the House in the best sense of the word. Many
of the rules that the opposition parties find most frustrating
and distasteful are not rules that were devised by the House in
the best sense of the word, that is to say, by all party
agreement. They are rules that have been imposed on the House by
this government and by previous governments in the interest of
achieving a certain amount of advantage for the government over
the opposition.
This has a cumulative effect and you, Mr. Speaker, have to
enforce these rules, and we have what we have here today.
The so-called genesis of the motion, the dispute about the
limits of confidentiality and whether solicitor-client
relationship pertains just between the member and the legal
counsel they are dealing with, or whether it is between the
member of parliament and the whole team, are things that need to
be sorted out. It is not a question of assuming that the way
things operate now in that respect are totally correct.
As a parliament and as a House we need to have a good look at
that because obviously some members have some problems. They
feel there should be watertight compartments where there is a
great deal of leakage from one person to another or one element
of the system to another. There seems to be no consensus as to
whether or not that sharing of information between legal counsel
and the table and clerks of committees is in violation of some
principle or not or whether it is a practice that has grown
without much scrutiny but which sometimes has negative
consequences. All these things need to be looked at.
What is really happening here today is the result of the
cumulative frustration felt by opposition parties.
Mr. Speaker, you have heard me make the point before that you
are a prisoner of the rules of the House. Certainly what almost
happened a week ago would have put you in solitary confinement,
to extend the metaphor. Motion No. 8, under the guise of
appearing to give you more power over what amendments would or
would not be accepted at report stage, would have given you a
certain power. It would have said that you had the power but
that you could only use it that much. You would have been in an
even tougher position than you sometimes find yourself in now.
I know the Chair cannot say so, but it is not hard to imagine
that the Chair shared the relief of the opposition when the
motion was withdrawn.
I think you, Mr. Speaker, should actually have more power than
you do. As I say, you have heard me make this argument before,
but what is needed in the House is for the Chair to have more
power, even more power over amendments at report stage, not more
power over amendments at report stage as delineated by the
government but according to your own judgment as to what is
appropriate at report stage. You should also have more power
over time allocation.
If we could arrive, as a parliament, at a place where we could
agree that the Speaker should have that kind of power, then the
opposition, it seems to me, would feel much better about this
House than we do if we knew that in times when the government was
abusing its power, that you as the Chair felt you had the power
to step in and protect the opposition from illegitimate or
ill-advised use of the power of time allocation.
1245
I say with respect that was not the particular intention. What
I am saying is in keeping with the spirit of the intention of the
McGrath committee when we recommended back in 1984-85 that the
Speaker be elected by secret ballot of the House of Commons. That
first happened in 1986 when Speaker Fraser was elected after 13
ballots.
The idea of making the Speaker the creation of the whole House
as opposed to an appointee of the government was so that the
Speaker would be able to have more power than Speakers previously
have had. I would say not out of any criticism of the Chair at
this time but as a general point which I have made not just to
you, Mr. Speaker, but to a previous Speaker, that I do not think
that intention behind the secret ballot has been completely
seized.
Speakers have argued, as you have and as Speaker Fraser did,
that they need to receive more instruction from the House, that
there needs to be more of a consensus from the House if that is
the way the Chair is going to act. I respect that although I
would still argue to the contrary.
I would hope that given that this is the consistent position of
the Chair on this matter, that at some point as a House or
through a recommendation from the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs, or however it comes about, we could arrive at
a position where the Speaker would have more power to protect the
rights and privileges of opposition parties not to have debate
shut down. I would hope that we could arrive at a place where
delay is seen as legitimate and is permitted to happen in the
form of debate rather than in the form of finding whatever
procedural loophole can be found and carrying it to the point of
the ridiculous just to call attention to the plight of the
opposition with respect to any particular bill.
That calls into disrepute the whole House. It calls into
disrepute the democratic process. We do not do anyone any favours
by looking like a bunch of people who cannot manage their own
affairs or who have to vote for 48 hours continuously and that
sort of thing. This does not do anyone any good as far as I am
concerned.
There is another point that I would like to make before I sit
down. Unfortunately it is those kinds of parliamentary antics
that get the attention of the media. We do not belong to just a
parliamentary culture, we belong to a certain kind of media
culture.
If we were debating something intelligently day in and day out,
would there be anyone in the galleries or anyone paying any kind
of attention? Would anyone say that a good point was made about
a bill and then someone else would make a counterpoint? That
would actually inform the public about what was going on in
parliament, what good ideas were being exchanged and what the
opposing arguments were. We could do that until the cows came
home and no one would pay any attention whatsoever, but boy, if
we vote all night or we have some kind of procedural spat, then
we are all out there in the foyer talking about it.
The media thinks this is the democratic equivalent of worldwide
wrestling or something. I have always liked wrestling but I do
not like this kind. I would rather that we conducted ourselves in
a way that was superior to the way that we have been conducting
ourselves and that we had the assurance that some attention would
be paid when we do conduct ourselves as I think we should. That
is something that is far beyond the power of the Chair to change
and seems far beyond my power to change. It is something that
all of us can continue to work on.
In the meantime I think this motion is ill advised. Perhaps a
reference at some point or a spontaneous initiative on the part
of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs could
look at the whole process of how amendments are dealt with when
they are being drafted and whom they are shared with, where
confidentiality lies, where solicitor-client relationship
obtains, et cetera.
That is all worthy of discussion, but it has nothing to do with
whether or not you are acting impartially, Mr. Speaker. Therefore
we in the NDP intend to vote against this motion.
1250
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would just
like to make a comment and say that this motion is not a
personal attack on you personally, but rather the sign, I would
say, of a deep malaise in this House, where we had the feeling
the Chair was been held hostage by the party in power, which is
unacceptable.
If there is someone in this House I trust it is you, Mr.
Speaker. Because up to now—I was elected here seven years ago—you
have been fair in all your rulings.
But lately in the House we have sensed quite a change in the
attitude of the government regarding your authority, and this is
unacceptable.
So, I wanted to make this comment. I can assure you that for my
part, as a member of parliament, if we come to an agreement and
manage to restore your powers, you will always be able to count
on my support.
However, if we decide to introduce amendments to a bill and call
upon a legislative counsel, and this person keeps our documents
confidential, it does not make sense that they should become
common knowledge.
I am working on amendments to a particular bill. I am wondering
whether I am going to call upon legislative counsel because I do
not trust them. If, as an elected member of parliament, I can no
longer trust the people who are supposed to help me draft
amendments or work on bills, and if I feel my rights as an MP
are being breached, I cannot work properly. I will no longer
feel like defending the interests of my constituents here in the
House. I do not believe this is what my constituents want.
I do not know how you are going to solve this, but I believe
that somehow we are going to have to make sure that your powers
are fully restored and you can freely decide and choose. Second,
we have to find a way for us members to restore our trust in the
people who are supposed to work for us here in the House and to
eliminate partisanship.
[English]
The Speaker: I guess the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona can comment on the commentary.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: That is what I intend to do, Mr.
Speaker. I think the member made a point which is relevant to the debate
and relevant as to why the motion which she appears to support
should not be supported. The member said that as far as she is
concerned it is not about the Chair, it is not about you, Mr.
Speaker. It is about how she feels about these other things that
have happened.
All I am saying is I understand how the member feels about these
other things that have happened and I think there are some
problems that need to be sorted out. However I do not think that
they can be sorted out by this process. I suppose we could say
the Bloc members were creating a procedural opportunity to talk
about what they wanted to talk about, but I think it was an
unfortunate choice of a procedural instrument.
A non-confidence motion of the Speaker is something that should be
saved for things that really do have to do with a lack of
partiality on the part of the Speaker or some other serious
charge. It is not that what the Bloc is concerned about is not a
serious matter, but to try to fit this square peg of a concern
about all the things that the member has mentioned in to the
round hole of whether or not the Speaker should be censured I
think is a mistake.
1255
The motion is not going to carry if I read the House correctly.
When that is all over I think we will have debased the currency
of motions of censure of the Speaker and we will still have the
problem that the member talked about. We will have to find
another way to deal with it. Whatever that other way of dealing
with it is, is the way we should have sought in the first place.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wanted to thank the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona for his discourse and for what I consider to
be his wise comments. He is a member of longstanding in the
House and has a great insight when it comes to matters such as
these.
I was going to ask him if he was part of the World Wrestling
Federation because he mentioned things in his speech about
wrestling matches and such. I did not think that was salient to
the debate so I will not ask that. What I would rather do, given
his long and distinguished career in the House, is ask him for
his view and thoughts on some of the misguided barbs that came
the Speaker's way.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, I want you to understand where I stand
on this matter. You have done a very effective job in the House.
It is a tough and difficult job. It requires patience, good
judgment and the kinds of things that are necessary to keep 301
people reasonably in fashion and informed in a manner consistent
with what I believe Canadians want the House to represent. I
commend you in terms of the kind of approach you have taken, the
attitude you display and quite frankly, the professionalism that
is yours as a result of the kind of experience that you bring to
the position.
I think the member referenced this somewhat in his speech. I
want to ask the member whether or not some misguided barbs that
came the Speaker's way perhaps were displaced anger and
frustration and the Speaker happened to get in the way of that.
There are all kinds of reasons and motivations for why these
things occur.
I did want to get the hon. member's perspective on that. Perhaps
he would oblige the House by answering that question.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, first I will say to the
hon. member that if he wants to learn more about the relationship
between wrestling and politics, he should not talk to me. He
should talk to the governor of Minnesota.
In some respects I answered the question. In my speech I
indicated that I thought the speaker and others had said the
same, that unfortunately through this motion the Speaker has
become the object of a frustration that would be better directed
at finding a solution to some of the problems that people feel
exist with respect to some of our processes here. There may have
been certain things said about or to the Speaker, certainly not
by me but perhaps by others, which would fall in the same
category as being ill advised and out of place. This kind of
anger should be directed at either the government to the extent
that the government is culpable, or to the whole process to the
extent that we collectively have some responsibility for making
sure the place works better than it does.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as you and the House well knows,
there was a gentleman who was in the House for many years, Mr.
Stanley Knowles. He respected the House, the rules of the House
and especially the Speaker probably greater than any other
parliamentarian who has ever been here.
The member for Winnipeg—Transcona knew that gentleman very
well. Could he briefly comment on what Mr. Knowles would say on
a motion of this nature?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I make it my practice not
to try to speculate as to what other people would do in certain
circumstances, particularly those who are no longer with us.
With the greatest respect, I would decline to try to speculate on
what Mr. Knowles would have thought in this case. I know he had
a strong predilection over the years for upholding the Chair and
showing great respect for the institution of the Speaker. People
may be able to draw conclusions from knowing that.
1300
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I will be using the full time. Sometimes in the House one is not
really anxious to speak on issues and sometimes one is, and this
is one time that I feel very privileged to have the opportunity
to speak.
When I walked in this morning it was interesting to look around
and think how strange a world we work in and how strange the
situation is. We are actually here debating whether or not you
should keep your job, Mr. Speaker. That is a very strange issue
to be discussing. It would not happen in any other walk of life.
Can we imagine the Royal Bank discussing in public whether or
not employees or management personnel should keep their jobs?
While you sit there, Mr. Speaker, we are discussing whether or
not you should keep your job, not only in front of 301 members
but in front of millions of people who are watching this debate.
Before I go any further, I want to say that we in the
Conservative Party feel you should keep your job and we will be
voting that way in the end.
The Canadian public should understand what a different world we
work in. Just in the last two days we have certainly seen
circumstances to prove how different our world is from the normal
world of the working person, the employee in the private sector.
If members of a company discussed in public whether or not a
person should be kept in their position of employment, they would
probably be charged with infringement of the rights of privacy of
an individual or could be charged with constructive dismissal.
You could charge us with constructive dismissal if we were in the
private sector. This is how much of a strange environment we
work in.
Your job is certainly not easy. Every time you make a decision
you automatically make some people disappointed. Every decision
you make makes some people disappointed. Sometimes we are
disappointed in your decisions. Sometimes we are elated if you
support our position, but every time you make a decision you will
disappoint someone. We should all understand that you can never
make everybody happy in your job. It is a very difficult job.
In 1988, when I was first elected, I remember we were on the
government side and we had an awful lot to say in the selection
of the Speaker at that time. The Speaker was one of our members.
Even although the Speaker was one of the members on the
government side, I am sure we were just as disappointed in his
rulings as many times as the opposition was, but perhaps the
opposition did not realize that at the time. I just want to
point out that yours is a difficult job and we understand that
you cannot please everybody all the time.
I also think we should understand that this whole issue arose in
a very emotional situation. I do not agree with the Bloc's
position and their main purpose of being here, which is to
separate from Canada. I do not agree with that, but I definitely
agree with their right to be here to state their position.
I also want to point out that last night after we were through
we went back into the lobby. I just happened to be on the phone
in the phone booth in the lobby and I watched the Bloc members
and how they handled the disappointment of the decision we made
on Bill C-20.
I have never seen a group of people so emotionally disappointed.
They showed their emotion with tears, hugs, holding hands and
everything. I respect that, I really do, but it struck me how
emotional it has been for them. This is very important to the
Bloc members. I admire them for their passion. I admire them
for their ability to plead their case as strongly as they do. I
admire them for the position they take, even though I do not
agree with it. I truly do.
When we pass a tax bill, a Canada pension bill or a veterans
bill, we do not see members going back in the lobby and hugging
each other and showing tears of emotion one way or the other.
When we talk about helicopters or even HRDC, that does not
happen. That is what happened here. This is a very emotional
debate and this non-confidence motion is tied up in the whole cloud of
the emotion of the debate.
1305
I say to Bloc members that I was truly moved last night, to the
bottom of my heart, by how much it affected them, and how much I
admire what they do and how they do it. I do not agree with them
but I admire how they do it.
We are dealing with a real serious issue. It is a very serious
charge. Although we deal with debate every day in the House of
Commons, we do not often deal with this. This is the first time
I have ever had to deal with it. We are actually discussing the
removal of the Speaker from his position.
You are our leader. You are our umpire. You are the one who
makes sure that everybody is dealt with fairly and that everybody
has his or her share of time in the House, an opportunity to
speak. No matter whether or not you agree with it you always
ensure, as it is your job to ensure, that we have our say and are
treated fairly. From where we sit it appears that you do that.
We are now being asked to consider removing you from your job.
We do not agree with that. On one hand we do not agree
necessarily with your decision on this issue, but it is your job
to make decisions and it is our job to respect those decisions.
We totally support your tenure in the chair as our Speaker and
will not be supporting the motion that would have you lose your
job.
I go back to some of the issues like the emotion I was talking
about. Many things have brought us to this point today. This is
not just about something that happened in the administrative
office of the Speaker. It is all involved with the emotion in
terms of Bill C-20. It is involved in the tactics the government
is taking, the tactics it has used throughout this parliament to
try to restrict debate, limit our ability to move amendments and
thwart us in our job. This is part of our frustration, aside
from the emotions.
The situation was exacerbated because of the nature of the bill.
If this decision had been made about the helicopter issue or
another issues it probably would have never come to this censure
motion. I hope, Mr. Speaker, you understand that is part of this
whole thing.
Also, it is a reaction by all of us on the opposition side to
the abuse that the government has made of the rules to try to
expedite debate, to take shortcuts and to restrict us from doing
our job.
It is interesting that I just came across some notes from when
we were in government. Some Liberal members took offence when we
invoked time allocation. When the minister of Indian affairs was
in opposition he said that parliamentarians who represent the
people should not be so quick to ram agreements through the
House. That is exactly what the government is doing now. The
minister of public works said:
We could have debated it in order to afford all members an
opportunity to receive criticisms and comments from their
constituents, to urge the public to understand what we are
talking about, to understand all about this...bill that we are
trying to push through as fast as we can during the night.
That is what the Liberals said about the Conservatives when the
Conservatives were in power, and now they have invoked time
allocation a record 63 times to do exactly what they were so much
against when they were in opposition.
The government has tried to distort the rules and abuse the
rules, especially in the case of Bill C-20 which has been so
emotional. It stopped debate at second reading. It limited the
powers of the committees. It refused to travel to hear people
all over Canada even though every Canadian will be affected by
this maybe some day. It attempted to restrict the power of the
MPs to present amendments.
This bill is extremely emotional and extremely important to Bloc
members. They felt thwarted in their job. They felt frustrated,
as we all do, but for them it was exacerbated because of the
importance of the bill. That should have been taken into
consideration throughout the debate.
The first issue is the ruling from the Speaker concerning
confidentiality from the law office of the House that we are
dealing with today. We disagree with the decision from the
Chair. The notion of all House employees being part of the team
equally under the blanket of secrecy and therefore privy to
everything is not the same as a solicitor-client relationship.
We have to have confidential meetings with House officials. We
have to be able to deal with them on a confidential basis. We
have to expect that our discussions with them in drafting bills
and amendments and everything else is confidential and not to be
shared with anyone else in the office, any other party and
especially the public.
1310
We support the Bloc in its point but we feel it is an
administrative issue and certainly not a reflection of the
Speaker who presides in the chair. It is a problem that we would
want addressed. We would certainly want to be assured that
confidentiality is a priority in the House. We expect
confidentiality to be just that and nothing less.
I often wonder if this had been government information whether
it would have been shared or presented in the same way. I
suspect it would not have been, but I hope that is not the case.
In the instances which were brought to the House by the Bloc
House leader we believe the secret information was shared too
broadly in an attempt to provide services under trying
conditions. I emphasize trying conditions. We view this as
extremely serious when confidential information is shared. We go
to the legal advisers and we treat them as solicitors. We need
confidentiality, especially in the adversarial relationship we
have in the House.
Members in this caucus have received written assurances from the
House lawyers that consultations on these matters will be kept
confidential. We certainly hope the Speaker will take steps to
ensure that those assurances are followed through, but there is a
cloud over these professional consultations now because of this
situation. It is a clear impediment to the way we do our work.
Nonetheless the Speaker's finding on this issue was in support of
what happened and we tend to disagree with that decision.
However, again, it is the Speaker's right to make that decision.
As a party and as a caucus we will work to change the system. We
will use the powers we have within the administrative structure
to pursue that end. After all, we create the rules. These are
our rules. They are not the Speaker's rules. If the rules need
to be changed or enforced in a different fashion, it is our
responsibility to see that is done, as well as the Speaker's. The
tools are there to do this and we will use them. We do not need
to have the Speaker step down in this case, not even close to
that.
The remedy is there in committees and the Board of Internal
Economy. Although we disagree with the ruling we accept it. We
do not find it sufficient reason to remove or even censure the
Speaker. We oppose this motion. Nothing happened here that
could even come close to causing the Speaker to lose his job.
As I said earlier, we do not always get the decisions we want
from the Chair. We do not always like the decisions but we
accept them. We know that is the Speaker's job and we know that
he cannot always rule in our favour even though we are almost
always right.
I was elected in 1988 and the Speaker at that time made
decisions that we found disagreeable or even offensive sometimes
to us even though we elected the Speaker. We accepted them in
the same way we accept the Speaker's decisions now. We know the
Speaker does not write the rules. He does not invent the
administrative practices, but it is the Speaker's job to ensure
that they are administered in the proper way.
I wrote this speech prior to the passage of Bill C-20, which
changes many things I was going to say, but it does not stop me
from saying that during the great debate on Bill C-20, and it was
truly an experience to be involved with that debate, the
government refused to let the committee seek opinions of
Canadians in Quebec, in Nova Scotia and in British Columbia.
We were driven by an agenda to meet the Liberal convention that
started last night, today, tomorrow or some time. The whole
agenda was driven to get this done and passed before the Liberals
had their convention. To do that they had to run over some of
us. They had to run over some members of the Bloc. They had to
run over some rules in the House. I believe that was a driving
factor and it should not have happened considering how important
it is, especially to the Bloc members.
Mr. Lynn Myers: They might even vote twice on the same
amendment.
Mr. Bill Casey: We are entitled to two votes. The
government House leader is especially culpable in this. The
House leader has a special duty to parliament.
He is an officer of the House and he has a special duty to ensure
the rules are followed. He has a special duty to not follow the
rules or instructions of the PMO and to protect the procedures
and the operations of the House. Otherwise the House will pay
and that is what we are doing here today. Because the rules were
abused and because there was a temptation to take shortcuts and
restrict the process, we are paying the price today. Mr.
Speaker, you are paying the price today because you have to sit
and listen to this.
1315
During the short time in dealing with Bill C-20 we have seen
members led down a path where their rights have been curtailed,
the rights of Canadians to be heard in committee have been
trampled and important relationships which make this place work
have been thrown in the trash barrel, all in the interest of
getting the bill passed in time for the Liberal convention. I
truly believe that the Bloc moved this motion in an emotional
moment, in a cloud of uncertainty while we were dealing with an
issue that is so important to them. I do not believe this would
have happened with any bill or issue other than Bill C-20.
Mr. Speaker, we as a party will not support the motion to have
you lose your job, not even for a moment. The previous speaker
for the Bloc indicated that it was not a reflection against you,
Mr. Speaker. I think it is quite pertinent to have said that.
Considering the emotion and all the clouds surrounding this
whole issue, the rush to judgment and time allocation and
restrictions, the emotion felt by the Bloc members which I cannot
underestimate or understate, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask
the Bloc members if they would now withdraw the motion. They
have indicated that it is not against you; it is against the
administration practices used in one serious instance. Rather
than go through a vote, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Bloc
members if they would withdraw the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Through you, my colleague asked the members who moved the motion
to consider withdrawing it.
What I want to say is this: after first listening to all
members, including those of the Bloc, we truly think that
nothing justifies to open wider the scar that the Speaker has to
endure in terms of the tradition. This is a very serious motion
and we understand everybody's arguments.
But I think, after hearing what all our colleaques have to say,
that if, through you, we cannot ask the Bloc to withdraw the
motion while recognizing certain administrative problems, we,
the Progressive Conservative Party, would ask the House to do
it.
I put the question to you, Mr. Speaker, and depending on your
answer, we will ask the House to withdraw the motion.
The Speaker: First, the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska
cannot move such a motion. Second, I would like to ask the hon.
member for Cumberland—Colchester a question.
[English]
I have to understand. Is the hon. member seeking permission to
get unanimous consent from the House? Is he seeking to put a
motion for unanimous consent? Would he answer my question,
please.
Mr. Bill Casey: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am asking for
unanimous consent that this motion be withdrawn.
The Speaker: It is in order at this time to put the
motion.
1320
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the proposal made by the
Progressive Conservative member is well intentioned. I might
tell him that, in his speech this morning—and I will make mine in
a moment—the Bloc Quebecois leader indicated that he was prepared
to withdraw the motion. However, we will not withdraw that
motion unless the Chair indicates it is the intention of the
Chair to take a very close look at this issue and to make sure
that the problem we raised is corrected.
Perhaps I could elaborate on this issue in my speech. However,
under the circumstances and in the absence of any commitment
whatsoever, I must say that we will not give consent to withdraw
that motion.
[English]
The Speaker: I am going to get to that motion in just a
second, but first I am going to go to a point of order.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Following the constitutional law of parliament, it would
only be competent for the mover and seconder of the motion to
consider withdrawing it. There is no issue of delegation of
powers to other members.
The Speaker: As I said before, it would require unanimous
consent first. This House by unanimous consent can do almost
anything it wants.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. whip of the
Bloc Quebecois for his openness. Ultimately, the issue is
whether the House and the Chair can find a way to begin
discussions on the various points raised this morning.
I am a rookie in federal politics, but I can tell you that this
motion is a very important one. As I said earlier, if we manage
to heal today's scar, while at the same time addressing the
issues raised by a number of parliamentarians, including the
whip and the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, parliament will
regain a lot of the nobility it has lost since the beginning of
the day.
I conclude by asking this question: Is it possible, in your
opinion and in the opinion of the parliamentarians who are
gathered here today, to get to the core of the issue without
tearing apart our parliamentary system?
Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to rise on a
point of order because I do not wish to lose my right to speak.
I will leave it to you to debate the points of order so far. I
want to be sure not to lose my turn in questions and comments
following the speech by the Progressive Conservative member who
was the last to speak in the debate.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will take this opportunity to speak briefly to this
point of order following the comments made by the Bloc Quebecois
whip.
First of all, when I arrived here today, I found it to be a
particularly sad day for parliament, for this institution to
which we all belong. But as I listen to the speeches by members
of all political parties, I am beginning to regain my enthusiasm
and faith in our institution, because there is less and less
talk of the confidence we have in the Speaker.
1325
So far, we have been unanimous in our support of and our
confidence in you as the Speaker. We are perhaps finally
getting around to identifying more specifically the problem
which has led to the debate today, which is one of
administration.
I would hope that, particularly those who sit with you on the
Board of Internal Economy, the board which you chair, are aware
that it is one of the structures to which we turn to try to
improve our institution, with human resources or additional
funding to improve our services, so that we will be better able
to serve our constituents and do our job as parliamentarians.
But we must recognize that the Chair itself cannot act
unilaterally.
As a servant of the House, the Speaker relies on us as
parliamentarians to convey to him the values and the rules by
which we wish to be guided and the way in which we wish this
parliament to function.
[English]
I know we all sincerely want to be very respectful of one
another and in doing so we are being respectful of the
institution. I submit on the one hand, to repeat myself as I
think it is important, the Speaker cannot unilaterally make
changes.
I look forward to hearing more from my colleague from Verchères
on this because I think we are finally getting to the crux of the
issue here. There is a debate about an administrative issue,
some would say a shortcoming. I do not think for any of us it is
quite clear yet as to what it is.
If I could take a bit more time in case I do not get an
opportunity to come back, I could offer a new perspective to the
debate. While all of us are privileged from time to time to be
asked to take on certain responsibilities, in my short tenure
here I have had the opportunity to be associated with you, Mr.
Speaker, and I respectfully submit even more importantly with the
institution, in sharing with you the Chair which is so symbolic
of this democratic institution. You as the guardian and the
servant of this House as the chair occupant elected by all of us,
by your peers, have never left any doubt as to your integrity,
your fairness and in particular your deep love for this
parliament.
In that former life, I worked closely with your associates, with
the clerks, the men and women who work very closely with you and
advise you and advise us. I went as religiously as I could to
those morning meetings in 139-N. I have some very fond memories
of those meetings.
I saw the men and women who worked on our behalf through you to
make this place run the way it does, as well as it does and as
effectively and efficiently as it does. Certainly they talk to
each other. I was there and heard about how this party wanting
to do this and that party wanting to do that. Certainly they
talk to each other but never, ever, in the three years or more I
was associated with the Chair, did I ever see one instance or
even the slightest indication that anything that was taken from
one party would be shared with another party in the House. I am
sure that was the case for many, many years before I came here
and that will never change nor should it.
1330
In closing, there was an offer made in the first intervention
from the government's side by the House leader. He made the
offer that we would welcome the opportunity, through whatever
mechanism or agreement there might be among the House leaders and
the parties, to discuss the issue and to find a resolution to
that administrative problem, or perceived administrative problem
at this time until I know more about it. I am confident that
given the goodwill of the men and women here working on behalf of
all Canadians, we can find a solution to that administrative
challenge.
The Speaker: You must admit that this is a strange point
of order. Nonetheless, I see the hon. member for
Cumberland—Colchester is on his feet and he had the floor, but I
will go to the member for Charlevoix. After that he will have
his chance to question if we decide to go on.
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to address the
concerns and ensure that this does not occur again, I make an
amendment to my request that we consider by unanimous consent to
have this motion withdrawn.
I would like add to that motion a condition that the Board of
Internal Economy be ordered to examine as a matter of priority
the legal services provided to the members of the House, and not
only would that be ordered but it would be agreed by all parties
that agreed to that motion, if it is agreed to.
The Speaker: We will deal with this in two sections, as
my colleague from Edmonton Southwest has said often. Does the
hon. member have the unanimous consent to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following the
speech by the hon. member from the Conservative Party, I would
like to make a comment. I want to thank his party for giving us
the opportunity, because this is their opposition day, to debate
a motion which was on the Order Paper and to which priority was
given today.
In previous speeches, reference was made to how the members of
the Bloc felt last night at the time of the vote on Bill C-20 at
third reading. I can tell you that the hon. member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry has worked very hard, as did the staff in
the leader's office and all members of the Bloc who have read
Bill C-20 over and over and were aware of its importance for the
future of Quebec.
First of all, we want to state clearly that it is up to the
National Assembly to decide the wording of the question and then
it will be up to the people of Quebec to decide their future.
It is true that, yesterday, third reading was very emotional for
Bloc members. The first time I voted for the Parti Quebecois was
in 1970, and from then on I have always voted for sovereignist
parties.
I would never have been a federal member here in Ottawa had the
Bloc not been created after the failure of the Meech Lake
accord.
I understand that members from Ontario, Manitoba and all across English
Canada voted in favour of Bill C-20. What I had trouble
understanding and what made sad was seeing the Liberal members
of Quebec vote, with a smile on their face, in favour of a
measure to put a gag, handcuffs and fetters on Quebec. They said
to Quebecers “You are not intelligent enough to decide your own
future”. I had trouble with that.
1335
It gave me a better understanding of why Liberal members from
Quebec voted in favour of the Constitution in 1982, a
Constitution that was never accepted by any Premier of Quebec,
whether sovereigntist or federalist. No Premier of Quebec ever
accepted that Constitution. However, 74 Liberal members of the
House voted in favour of it.
Since yesterday, I understand things better, because I saw
Liberal members of Quebec vote in favour of Bill C-20, the famous
clarity bill. This legislation will ask “Is the question
acceptable or not, is the majority acceptable or not?” That is
what affected us.
In closing, I want to ask a question to the Progressive
Conservative member who spoke before me. I know that the
Progressive Conservative Party is somewhat divided on this
issue. If he had been a member from Quebec whose role is to
defend Quebecers' interests, would he have voted in favour of
the bill?
[English]
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the
member, I am a member from Nova Scotia. I hope I represent the
interests of Nova Scotia in the way I vote on issues. I respect
his right to represent his constituents in the way he feels he
should vote. However, that is not the issue we are talking about
on this motion.
He mentioned in his comments that I remarked on the emotion. I
believe the government made a mistake in not anticipating how
strongly the Bloc members felt about this issue. The government
should have gone out of its way to make sure that members had the
opportunity to speak, to bring witnesses and to participate in
the debate even more than usual rather than invoking time
allocation, restricting the committee meeting and restricting the
travel of the committee. All kinds of committees travel
everywhere. Here was a committee that was extremely important,
especially to the Bloc members, and it was restricted from any
travel whatsoever. Then there was an effort to try to restrict
our ability to put forth amendments.
I believe the government made a mistake in the way it handled
this. It should have given them more consideration rather than
less. In that way the hon. member could have ensured that the
concerns of his constituents were well heard and that he was
allowed to do his job. However, because of the tactics that were
used, many of the Bloc members were completely prevented from
doing their job of protecting the concerns of their constituents.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this has been a very interesting morning, as several speakers
have suggested.
I compliment the members of the Progressive Conservative Party
for voluntarily conceding their opposition day on a matter that
is of great concern to them, to debate a motion which I believe
they and other parties will not be supporting.
In a certain sense, one is reminded of Nelson Mandela's
principle of healing and reconciliation after periods of great
intellectual torment and turbulence such as we have experienced.
It has been an experience to go through those exhausting hours of
debate overnight. It is in a way a trial by ordeal. Many
members of this parliament have been through it three times in
the last three years. The issue that must of course arise is,
can we not do better.
You have been a very indulgent presiding officer, Mr. Speaker,
on a matter affecting your privileges and the privileges of the
House as an institution. You could have restricted the debate by
applying criteria of relevance but you have, sir, if I may say
so, shown great generosity in allowing the debate to sometimes
stray.
1340
Allow me, though, on the most immediate technical point to make
one statement that I think should be on the record. We have an
enormous respect for the technical staff attached to the office
of the Speaker. These people are not appointed on the basis of
ideology or political preference. They are career people. They
are professionals. They are technocrats. They serve the
Speaker. They will serve your successor whenever that time comes
and they will serve no matter what government is in office. I
think that should be on record. The Speaker's staff is an
extension of the Speaker himself.
Many Speakers are not constitutional lawyers. There is no
reason why they should be. They do not necessarily have a great
knowledge of parliamentary precedents. The staff supply that
detailed knowledge, the history. It is for the Speaker to decide
how to use the history. But without that staff, the Speaker
could not function. I think it is agreed on all sides that the
office of the Speaker, the technical staff, are beyond any
reproach and we all have enormous confidence in them.
History has been referred to here. You, yourself, Mr. Speaker,
in a moment of passing humour, referred to people losing their
heads, your predecessors in that office. That was at a fairly
early time. I am reminded of the comment of the great Mr.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that it is revolting to have no
better justification for a present day position than that so it
was in the time of Henry II. These are old precedents and we
have to review history creatively as something that develops.
The office of Speaker has changed. There is certainly a great
difference between the office of Speaker in the pre-modern
period, which I suppose could take us up to the time of King
James I, and the period afterward. The notion of a contest
between the Speaker and the government of the realm is out of
date. It was surpassed by the economic and social developments,
the English civil war which was a battle between two rival
elites, the passing of power from the aristocratic group to the
landed gentry, still to be continued later on. The precedents
from that era have to give way to the modern office of Speaker
and the modern parliament. Today parliament is vastly different
from what it was before the Hanoverian kings came into Great
Britain and before the system of cabinet government developed and
responsible democracy. When Dicey speaks of the sovereignty of
the king-in-parliament, he is speaking of parliament as an
institution, the government, but the Speaker is a part of that.
This is recognized in the further legitimacy given to your
office, Mr. Speaker, by the principle of election, which, as we
all know, is very recent in this country. I think it only goes
back to your immediate predecessor. However, the extra
legitimacy is there to invest you with powers as part of the
whole constitutional system of the country.
What Dicey referred to as the thing that makes work the new
modern parliament and the modern system of checks and balances
within it, was the observance of the parliamentary constitutional
rules of game within parliament by opposition and by government.
The minority has its rights but so does the majority and the
Speaker's function is there to see that the business of the
country is not unnecessarily delayed or obstructed. There is a
judgment call here that he has to exercise.
As I said, in the last three years of this parliament there have
been three different occasions of these marathon all-night
sittings that certainly exhaust members and, continued
indefinitely, might certainly do worse than that. If there can
be 400 amendments to a bill of two or three pages and two or
three clauses, then why not 4,000 or 40,000? So we are getting
into a very practical issue.
It is interesting to note that other parliaments than our own
have changed their procedure. In some ways the pre-emptive
concern since the quiet revolution with Quebec issues has
obscured the task of modernization and updating of parliamentary
institutions and parliamentary processes and we have lagged
behind.
1345
I referred in another context a couple of days ago to Mr.
Smith Goes To Washington. Jimmy Stewart, the great actor,
spoke 22 hours in a filibuster to hold up what he thought was an
ignoble project. They cannot do that any more in the United
States Congress.
Just imagine Mrs. Thatcher's Britain or Clement Atlee's Britain.
The House of Commons in Great Britain, from which we derive our
inspiration if no longer our binding precedents, functions
differently today.
We have passed the stage of the Victorian gentlemen's club of
the late 19th century when parliament debated two or three bills
a year sometimes. We are into hundreds of pieces of legislation
and everybody has to understand that. The parliamentary rules
need re-adjustment, and the Speaker in the same way, in a
creative, progressive interpretation of history, interprets his
lot in that way. I find in this sense that what we have done in
the last week is unproductive and uncreative.
If one asks “Does the Speaker not have inherent powers in
relation to amendments and legislation?”, the answer is yes.
Every piece of legislation, every amendment, is scrutinized in
terms of its grammatical accuracy. It is scrutinized in terms of
the congruence of the French and the English languages.
I believe also, Mr. Speaker, although I have never asked you
about this point, that you exercise a prudent control over what
might be called the bowdlerization of the language or
inappropriate expressions within it. Is it not within the power
of the Speaker to control what he might consider redundant,
superfluous or trivial amendments? Can we have an amendment to
an amendment? I will not say this in relation to the debate on
the clarity bill, but on the Nisga'a bill we had amendments
replacing a semicolon with a colon. Surely we are at the point
where the functioning of the modern parliament and the role of
the Speaker requires the Speaker to use powers, to consult with
the technical officers of the staff and, if necessary, to use his
discretion to strike out certain measures.
This is not uttered, though, as a criticism of the conduct of
all the participants of the great debate of the last few days.
As we have all said, there was great feeling in many parts of the
House and it is possible that some or all of the main actors
might act differently if they were doing it again. Nevertheless,
I think the spirit of this motion and the way in which this debate
has emerged would be to allow all parties, in the calm and
healing spirit after the debate, to consider seriously ways of
modernizing our procedures and ways of supporting the Speaker in
the constructive use of his inherent, prerogative powers. Can we
not do it differently?
I would have hoped that a more constructive measure would be to
have somebody, whether it is the committee on procedure and House
affairs, come back with suggestions for avoiding these marathon
debates; come back perhaps as they have done, I think under your
guidance, Mr. Speaker, with the all-party committee that selects
private members' bills for giving priority; to come up with
suggestions that would aid the Speaker in saying to people who
are sponsoring legislation or sponsoring a great mass of
amendments to be reasonable and to consider also the rights of
all parliamentarians and the country to have business adopted in
an expeditious way. Can we not agree on this? I would hope
there would be attention to this.
It occurs to me that not everybody has used the facilities
available. It amazed me with the Nisga'a treaty, for example,
when I was faced with a unanimous report of an all-party
parliamentary committee, that we would then later have a marathon
debate in parliament. The whole notion of committees was that
parliament would delegate responsibility to the committees and
then would trust the committees and respect their judgment.
Could this have been done with the clarity bill?
We had an extensive debate in December. Was a legislative
committee necessary? It is these sorts of matters that now can
be approached by all parties.
1350
We should stress that what emerged in all parties, and I think
also with our colleagues in the Bloc, was a recognition of your
office, Mr. Speaker, its own privileges and a respect for the
conduct of the office and the conduct of parliamentary officials.
We have trust in the institution of the Speaker. We have
confidence in the officers, including the staff members.
The constructive thing coming out of this debate is the
concession by all the parties in the House to suspend, with the
consent of the Conservatives, their day in parliament, which was
to be today, to get on to this issue; and you, sir, to allow a
larger debate on the conduct of parliament, which much transcends
the technical issue in this motion. That would be the
constructive lesson to draw from all of this.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few remarks.
They will be more in the form of comments, but I would appreciate
feedback.
What is one of the most important roles the Speaker in the House
of Commons plays?
I want to say at the outset where I am coming from. If the
Speaker were to err in his day to day decisions involving a
conflict between the government or the leadership and an
individual member, that ruling must always protect the individual
member. I am making that assumption at the outset.
The answer to my question “What is one of the most important
roles the Speaker plays?” is, to protect the rights of
individual members, to protect individual MPs from the power that
the crown exercises, the government, the people in authority over
us. We must always respect that authority. I respect your
authority, Mr. Speaker. As well, we must always ensure that
everyone here is accountable.
There are many ways that you, the Speaker, do this. Obviously
there are upfront decisions that you make every day in the day to
day proceedings of the House, in debate, in question period and
in the routine proceedings of the House. But there are also
behind the scenes activities that take place in parliament which
are very important to individual members. There are the support
services that assist members in their ability to represent their
constituents.
We deal primarily in this place with the making of law, the
rules that all Canadians must play by and, in order to assist us
in dealing with legislation, we as individual members need to
have good quality, confidential research and legal advice in
analyzing and drafting legislation and amendments. The
legislative support staff is used mainly by opposition MPs, as
the government has its own staff to do its work. MPs in the
House lose confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege with
their lawyers, but the government does not because it employs its
own.
Since 1993, and I think the member may agree with me, I have
watched the degeneration of debate in the House. We spend much
less time in actual debate than we did when I first arrived in
parliament. Why? It is because there has been a decline in the
democratic process, in the spirit in which affairs should be
conducted in the House. Much of that is due to the
heavy-handedness of government. Members of the opposition have
been trying to use the standing orders of the House to make their
voices known. The standing orders are there to ensure we have
democracy. Democracy needs to ensure that minority voices are
heard. I use the word “minority” loosely because we in
opposition represent 60% of the people of Canada.
I appeal to the Speaker to preserve that atmosphere of democracy
which should surround all the debate and support services in the
House. I cannot think of one good reason we cannot have client
confidentiality in the legislative support services provided by
the House of Commons. I have heard all of the excuses, like the
parties have negotiated the changes, the support staff work for
the House, et cetera, but the office of the Speaker exists to
protect us and must not allow any change in this area which
erodes the protection and support individual members must have.
1355
I thank the Bloc for introducing this motion. It allows me to bring
forth this concern.
I would like to make one more tiny point. The recent change in
policy of the House of Commons was really done behind the backs of
members—
The Speaker: I would love to give you more time, but there
are only 10 minutes for questions and comments, and I am going to
give the floor to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
made some very thoughtful comments. I think there has been
a very marked decline in parliament since we were both elected in
the class of 1993. I think a lot of this relates to the
unexpected but foreseeable consequences of televising the House.
This has put an accent on question period which has changed very
markedly from the traditional role of question period to a form
of most interesting and exciting soap opera. However, it has
taken away attention from the debates.
When I attended as a scholar in earlier years, the debates were
interesting and lively and, by the way, there was much
participation. I think that is something to consider. A logical
development of this would have been to invest the committees with
more power, to follow the way of the French or the American
committees. I think this is a reform that has been in waiting
for perhaps 50 years because we have been concentrating on other
things.
I would have one comment, though, on committees. The committee
on the clarity bill was a legislative committee. Once it is a
legislative committee it is within the domain of the Speaker to
exercise a certain degree of guidance over the conduct of the
committee. I am told that the Speaker's powers have not really
changed, even with the rules, but by custom they have been
allowed to fall in abeyance. I think there would be a good
disposition in the House to encourage the Speaker, whomever the
incumbent is, to exercise those inherent powers of the office
more fully and not to succumb to this loose parliamentary
practice where, in a sense, the House sometimes seems to be
conducting its own Rafferty rules.
I know, Mr. Speaker, you have had some vexation with this and it
might be a lesson from this debate to use your powers. You
would have the encouragement and support of the House to do that.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I will now go to the member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, but there are only two
minutes left before statements by members.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. I am sure I will still have
the opportunity to ask more questions this afternoon.
Many members have said that raising this issue was a serious
matter. What I would like to ask the member for Vancouver—Quadra
is this. Does he not believe that it is precisely because we
hold the office of the Speaker of the House in such high esteem
that we are convinced he is the only one who can settle the
dispute we are having, with regard to the legislative counsel
and the clerks?
He is the only one who can do it because they come under his
budget. He is the boss and he can decide when, how and what can
be done.
Is the member in agreement with this statement. As a
constitutional expert himself, could he tell me whether there is
another way, when we are in the middle of the debate on a bill,
when we have lost confidence in the way things are being run,
when the government refuses to put its bill on the back burner,
than to appeal to the Chair?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: I have every confidence in the office of the
Speaker of the House. He must exercise his authority with
confidence. He has the skills and he must be encouraged to
exercise his powers. Up to now the Chair has had a self-censuring
attitude. This has been going on for several decades
unfortunately, but that can be changed.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
1400
[Translation]
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today, the Liberal Party begins its biennial convention,
bringing together delegates from all regions of our country.
Men and women will come to discuss Canada's economic and social
future. They will determine the choices and options to meet the
challenges of 2000s.
In short, we will debate matters that are of public interest,
the facts of life and, most importantly, we will propose and
adopt ways to improve the quality of people's lives.
I therefore wish good luck to the organizers of this major
political event for our political party, and there is no doubt
our government will draw on the proposals made this weekend to
enrich its work.
* * *
[English]
BRITISH COLUMBIA FRUIT GROWERS
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, British
Columbia fruit growers are experiencing serious problems because
of low prices and high expenses in their orchards. In order to
compete in world markets many have begun replanting to high
density, better quality fruit trees.
Two such people are my constituents Bill and Sheila Ackerman,
orchardists in the Kelowna area since 1985. Until the orchard is
once again productive Bill and Sheila must rely on off farm
income.
Does the federal government commend the efforts of British
Columbia fruit growers? No. In a callous ruling government tax
collectors have chosen to restrict the deduction of legitimate
farm expenses, preventing the Ackermans from providing a decent
living for their family.
Farming in this country is already in jeopardy. Rulings like
this one will only contribute to its further decline. I strongly
oppose this decision and call for the ministers of agriculture,
finance and revenue to overturn this unfair ruling.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a report commissioned by Environment Canada reveals that
up to 100,000 seabirds are killed every year in the oily waters
off the coast of Newfoundland. I am certain that Canadians are
as angry as I am that these waters are being used as a dumping
ground for oily wastes by ships headed to the U.S.
Due to totally inadequate environmental surveillance and
ridiculously low fines for polluters, these ships pump their
bilge with impunity before they reach U.S. territory. A
conviction for fouling European or American waters can cost
shipping companies up to $1 million. In Canada the average
penalty for the few ships apprehended has been a puny $7,000.
When will this country get into active pollution regulation
enforcement and commit the funds to make our enforcers a real
threat to these environmental criminals? They cannot get away
with causing the slow death of seabirds in Europe or the U.S.,
but they do it in our waters where the fines are merely a cost of
doing business. I ask members—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
* * *
BARAKOVA MINE
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are concerned when disasters bring hardships
to and take the lives of people in regions around the world. I
rise today to draw the attention of the House to the Barakova
mine disaster which took place last Saturday in the eastern
region of the Republic of Ukraine.
The Barakova mine explosion was caused by methane gas mixed with
coal. This horrific tragedy is said to be the nation's worst
national industrial disaster since its independence in 1991. The
disaster claimed the lives of 80 miners, hospitalized many and
brought tremendous emotional suffering to families.
I join my constituents in the Ukrainian community and all
Canadians in extending my deepest sympathy to the survivors and
to the families of those who are now suffering as a result of
this disaster.
* * *
GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
pleased to take part in a round table discussion in Coutice in my
riding last Thursday. This meeting centred on economic
development and transportation in Durham. We had representatives
from agriculture, municipal government, truckers,
environmentalists, and indeed from all walks of life.
The people of Durham are tired of the finger pointing that the
Harris government of Queen's Park is so famous for. While we
work into the wee hours of the morning here in Ottawa, the
legislature in Queen's Park has not even sat this year. We know
which government is working for the people and which is not.
The people of Durham want government to work toward resolving
their health care problems. Canadians know that over $80 billion
in total health care spending, or around 9.2% of our GDP, makes
us one of the biggest spenders in health care in the world.
No, it is not about money. It is about management of that
money. The Harris government taking health care money out of
designated trust accounts and spending it on other things is part
of the management problem. The people of Durham want the Harris
government to stop playing cheap politics and get back to work.
* * *
1405
WILLIAM BARKER, VC
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this week marked the 70th anniversary of the death of Canada's
most decorated war hero, Lieutenant-Colonel William Barker, VC.
Lieutenant-Colonel William Barker, VC soared through the sky
during the first world war, shooting down 50 enemy aircraft in
his famous Sopwith Camel biplane.
Born in 1894 in Dauphin, Manitoba, Barker joined the Canadian
Mounted Rifles in 1914. He spent a year in the trenches before
transferring to the Royal Flying Corps where his efforts went on
to win him the Victoria Cross.
He died test flying an airplane near the Ottawa Rockcliffe
airport in 1930. His funeral was the largest ever in Toronto's
history with more than 50,000 spectators and a cortège of more
than 2,000 soldiers in uniform.
On June 1 the heritage minister will unveil a commemorative
plaque in his honour in Dauphin, Manitoba. The Snowbirds,
another Canadian icon, will take to the skies to celebrate this
special occasion. I invite all members to attend this historic
event.
* * *
[Translation]
HIGHWAY ACCIDENT IN SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE-DE-NICOLET
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this morning, in Saint-Jean-Baptiste-de-Nicolet, six
preschool children died in a highway accident.
Four children died on impact, a fifth child died on the way to
the hospital and another child died later. Three children
remain in hospital, one of them in critical condition.
On behalf of myself, the Bloc Quebecois and all members of this
House I offer my deepest sympathy to the families facing this
terrible catastrophe.
I would like them to know that we share their pain and hope they
may have the courage to carry on through this awful trial. I
would also like to express the hope that the children currently
fighting for their lives in hospital may fully recover as
quickly as possible.
I would remind all the families affected by this tragedy that,
as the great writer Alexandre Dumas said one day, those we have
loved and lost are not where they used to be, but they are with
us always wherever we may be.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
congratulate our Prime Minister, if I may, for his determination
to work on behalf of the interests of Canadians.
The bill on clarity in a way confirmed the supreme court opinion
that, unequivocally, a question on the future of Quebec had to
be clear, as did its results.
The Canadian government had to face up to its responsibilities,
and that is precisely what we are doing. What we are dealing
with here is our country, its future, and our determination to
preserve and improve it. That was the challenge faced by the
Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Today I wish to salute the courage and determination, and the
worthwhile accomplishments, of our Prime Minister, who is the
leader of a strong government, a team with the future of our
country, Canada, at heart.
* * *
[English]
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
three Canadian children have been illegally held in the state of
California for over six months. Yesterday Canadian authorities
met with their counterparts in the state of California to obtain
custody of these children, but instead of gaining custody they
will have to apply to a California judge three weeks from now and
hopefully obtain custody then.
They have already been there for six months and three more weeks
is entirely unacceptable, especially for young children to whom
three weeks is a lifetime.
I would like the Minister of Foreign Affairs to explain to the
House why sparing the life of convicted murderer Stanley Faulder
in a Texas prison warranted his direct personal intervention but
he will not lift a finger to help three Canadian children be
returned home where they belong.
* * *
CANADA
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House we passed an
historic bill, Bill C-20, to protect the interests of all
Canadians when it comes to the possibility of a province
indicating its desire to separate from Canada, but today a senior
American defence official is quoted as referring to Canada as the
51st state.
1410
The Canadian Minister of Industry is indicating his desire to
eliminate the foreign ownership rules of our most important of
industries. The Canadian Minister for International Trade is
still discussing ways of giving away our sovereignty and
resources such as water through the WTO.
The Conservatives and Reformers would only like the Liberals to
put up their for sale sign faster. Only New Democrats such as my
colleagues from Halifax West, Winnipeg—Transcona and
Regina—Qu'Appelle are standing up for Canada. I ask the
Liberals who are having their convention this weekend which flag
they will be flying, the Canadian flag or the American flag?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore knows that using
props in the House is quite out of order.
* * *
[Translation]
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA CONVENTION
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, instead of coming
up with a new face at the head of their party, the federal
Liberals have decided to give a younger look to their
membership, by inviting thousands of young people to attend
their national convention this weekend in Ottawa.
At first glance, it would seem that an old party could not be
faulted for wanting to rejuvenate its base of party faithful by
seeking memberships from young adults, whether students or
workers. However, when that objective prompts Liberal organizers
to approach a group of some forty students in the lower grades
of secondary school, 13, 14 and 15-year olds, holding out the
prospect of an all-expenses paid trip to Ottawa, and when this is
done behind the backs of parents and school administration,
there are grounds for objection. This is unacceptable and
irresponsible.
Thanks to the initiative of Jean-François Coderre, president of
the federal Liberal association for the riding of Joliette, that
is exactly what happened in a least one comprehensive high
school in my riding.
What next? Recruiting in the elementary schools or in daycare
centres? One may well wonder.
* * *
MANIGANCE FOLK GROUP
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
edition of the international folklore festival will take place
in Tokyo, Japan, in July. A total of 73 countries, including
Canada, will take part in this international event held under
UNESCO and the IOC.
Some 2,000 participants will present, through dance, the
cultural elements of their respective countries.
Canada will be well represented by the folk group Manigance,
from the town of Sainte-Marie.
Until now, this group has played a major role in the cultural
development of the region that I represent, and has been a
source of pride for all the residents of Beauce.
From now on, we will share that well deserved pride with all
Canadians, through this very prestigious international event.
I wish Manigance the best of luck during the event and I know
it will do a great job at representing our country at the world
level.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance was reminded on many occasions not to forget
health care in his new budget. In his budget speech of February
28 the minister indicated that post-secondary education and
health were the big priorities of Canadians. He then went on to
say that these two areas would receive a one shot infusion of
$2.5 billion spread over four years and 10 provinces.
In the case of Newfoundland, that amounts to $10 million a year
for four years. If we assign half of that to health care, that
is $5 million a year spread over 34 hospitals and health care
centres, about the cost of one doctor per institution.
The finance minister did not forget health care but he came very
close to forgetting health care. With an underfunded health care
system in crisis and a budget in surplus that simply is not good
enough.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, every year the world celebrates International Women's
Day. This year was no exception, and at this time I would like
to draw attention to the vital roles women play in our rural
communities and the contributions they make to the agriculture
industry in Canada.
Farm women are integral to the success of the country's
agriculture and agri-food industry. In addition, through their
volunteer work and their community leadership rural women play an
important role in strengthening their communities.
These women have helped to make the agriculture industry the
success that it is today. They will have a hand in shaping the
future and making this industry and their communities better
places in which to live and work. I applaud them for their
contributions.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, would you like a membership in a club that gives you
more time to lift weights, play baseball and ping-pong?
It is easy to join. One just needs to be an inmate at Drumheller
Annex in Alberta.
1415
The assistant warden says the reason for giving prisoners more
leisure activities is so they will not want to escape. Last year
Drumheller had nine escapees.
Apparently Correctional Service Canada has decided inmates spend
too much time just watching TV and chatting. What is CSC's
solution? Give the inmates more perks so they will not want to
escape. Officials are even going to add a gym, woodworking
equipment and an activity room. Is this part of prison
rehabilitation so inmates can get future jobs as ping-pong
instructors?
What will the minister offer victims and victims' families?
Law-abiding citizens must often deny their own children such
benefits in order to pay the taxes that provide perks for
prisoners.
Today's lesson for the solicitor general is prison is not
supposed to be fun and games.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary battle over Bill C-20 is over, but the political
fight has now begun.
The undemocratic nature of Bill C-20 reveals the base instincts
of this government, as it pursues its assimilating attack
against the people of Quebec, while showing its inability to
renew a federalism that is centralizing, dominating and
wasteful.
Through their support of this bill, the federal Liberals from
Quebec are showing their true colors and are confirming their
subservience to the interests of the rest of Canada.
The excellent budget brought down in the National Assembly this
week marks the beginning of economic deliverance for Quebec.
Pursuing the battle will make Quebec's social and cultural
deliverance a very close reality and its political emancipation
a greater possibility than ever.
Together, let us continue the fight, the fight for the freedom
of the Quebec people.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister thinks being a good MP means giving his own
riding more money than the entire province of Manitoba,
Saskatchewan or Alberta. Fancy that. His interference with HRD
grants and contributions is precisely what the HRD officials are
complaining about.
Now another briefing document that we have dealing with trust
funds in the Prime Minister's riding says “it would appear that
this section of the Financial Administration Act was not
respected”. That is an admission of guilt. Why were the police
not called in?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking about the
investments made in the Prime Minister's riding. Total grants
and contributions during the period of time that we were talking
about was somewhere in the area of $20 million.
Let us look at some of the Reform ridings. Let us look at North
Vancouver: $21 million. Let us look at Kelowna: $39 million.
Edmonton East: $45 million. Is the hon. member saying that those
ridings did not deserve those investments?
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
she might have just separated out the actual TJF grants. None of
these people were involved in fancy dealings either to get
somebody on board to help them out.
The minister gave us her opinion yesterday which probably a few
people appreciated but not many. Not only does her department
refer to widespread disregard for the law but so does this new
briefing note we have. Let me quote from it again. “It would
appear that this section of the Financial Administration Act was
not respected”. Her department thought the law had been broken.
It realized it.
Was it the Prime Minister's involvement that kept the police
from being called in on this?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to draft
documents. Yesterday they were talking about questions and
answers that were prepared by the department's communications
officials. They were hypothetical questions that were never
asked. They were hypothetical answers that were never given.
The employees in the Department of Human Resources Development
have never been instructed not to uphold the law.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
well let me assure her that even draft recognizes graft. It is
shameful that the minister continues to say—
The Deputy Speaker: I could not tell whether the hon.
member said draft or graft. I assume she said draft and I hope
that that is the case. I know she will want to continue with her
question.
1420
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, let me quote again from
the minister's own documents. They are not hypothetical. They
said, “We were told to be flexible and responsive and not to
lapse funds. Now we are being told we have to obey the Financial
Administration Act”. How about this one, “The rules are not
new. They are just being enforced now”. How about this one,
“It would appear that this section of the Financial
Administration Act was not respected”.
The evidence is here regardless of whether she would just hope
that it is a draft or not. I would like to ask the hypothetical
minister—
The Deputy Speaker: Not only is the member for Edmonton
North using inappropriate language, she has run out of time. The
hon. minister may reply to the allegations contained in the
preamble if she wishes.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party just continues with
Reform mythology. First of all Reformers told Canadians that $3
billion was missing. That is not true. Why do they not admit
that? Then they said $1 billion was missing. That is not true.
Why do they not say that?
What is true is that a department looked at itself, found that
it could improve its administrative practices and is doing just
that.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is always anxious to respond to allegations
we have not made. How about some that are clearly before the
House?
Yesterday the minister refused to answer direct questions about
her department's practice of violating the Financial
Administration Act. Today we have additional documents showing
the minister received clear advice that the Financial
Administration Act was not being respected.
I ask the minister again, why was her own government department
not obeying the law of the land?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I reject the accusations of the
hon. member.
Miss Deborah Grey: That is great, honey, but they are not
arguments.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Let us recognize what the hon. member
for Edmonton North said. Yesterday she was talking about girls.
Today she is calling me honey. To quote a dear friend of mine, I
am certainly not your honey.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure there are not many honeys
in the House. The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister may think this is a big yuk, but I can
assure you that Canadians do not.
We have a treasury board document that also advised the
minister, “One cannot create a trust fund within the CRF”, that
means public money, “nor can one try to get around it through a
shell game by using a so-called trustee”. That is exactly what
her department did in the Prime Minister's riding. An act of
parliament was violated but what did the minister do? She just
shrugged and said “Oh, that was inappropriate”.
Did the minister turn a blind eye because this was in the Prime
Minister's riding?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on a number of occasions
about the trust funds that the hon. member is making reference
to. In fact I agreed that it was not administratively correct
for the employee in question to have created those trust funds.
But the employee of the department did it in all good faith to
try to assist people getting jobs.
If the hon. member wants to suggest that the trust funds were
created and that someone gained personally from them, then let
her bring that fact and that information to the floor and we will
deal with it that way.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Prime Minister admitted that René Fugère had
represented him on one or two occasions. A little effort to
remember and especially a letter from his own office did the
trick.
I therefore ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he can confirm
that it was once or twice, or might it have been more like
three, five or perhaps ten times?
1425
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
important thing is that René Fugère was never an employee of the
Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister's spokesperson even confirmed this in the
National Post last May when he said that Mr. Fugère was an
active member of the Liberal riding association who, in the
past, had sometimes served as a volunteer and represented the
Prime Minister at certain events, and that that was all.
And that is all, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Prime Minister seems to like letters. I will read him
part of one:
I confirm that I have met with René Fugère on several occasions
since my election as the member for Saint-Maurice in 1994. Mr.
Fugère took part in numerous activities as the representative
for the federal member for Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister of
Canada. This is public knowledge—
This is signed by Claude Pinard, MNA for Saint-Maurice—the member
mentioned PQ MNAs, so we are obliging—and deputy speaker of the
National Assembly.
Does this not contradict the Prime Minister's version, and is
the government not rather concerned about Mr. Fugère's
activities in the PMO?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
see no contradiction, because René Fugère was never an employee
of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
Prime Minister acknowledged with our help that René Fugère had
represented him a number of times. He was not paid, of course;
he works on commission. It would really be beyond all if he had
two salaries.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that when René
Fugère, a man very close to the Prime Minister, who represents
him everywhere, intervenes with Human Resources Canada, he has
impact, almost like that of political intervention?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is mistaken in suggesting that Mr. Fugère
represented the Prime Minister, after making certain enquiries.
I believe that when Mr. Fugère did represent him it was without
pay and not as an employee of the Prime Minister, as I have just
said.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy
Prime Minister can say what he likes, everyone in the riding of
Saint-Maurice, it is common knowledge, knows that René Fugère
regularly represents the Prime Minister.
I have understood one thing, though. In the last election, the
Prime Minister said, and I quote “When something involving
Saint-Maurice ends up in a minister's office—I need not say
more”.
He should have said “When something involving Saint-Maurice ends
up in a minister's office—I need not say more. René Fugère will
attend to it personally”.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Prime Minister I totally reject the unfounded
insinuations of the hon. member.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health.
As the Minister of Health knows, the NDP believes that Bill 11
in Alberta is in violation of the Canada Health Act. The
minister has been reluctant to come to this conclusion. We do
have some legal opinions on this matter which we are willing to
table with his co-operation after question period.
I ask the minister, if in his final analysis he does not agree
with these legal opinions and with us and comes to the view that
in some legal way the Canada Health Act is not being violated, is
he prepared to change the Canada Health Act so this threat to
medicare that Alberta is now posing will be eliminated?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member knows I have not been shy at all in speaking about
Bill 11. I went to Calgary last week and I said it is not the
right thing to do because it will not help with the problems we
face. Private for profit medicine in Alberta has been proven to
have longer waiting lists, higher costs and there are issues
about quality of care.
The issue of the Canada Health Act depends on what the bill is.
Right now the premier is talking about amendments. We have not
seen regulations. It is not even at second reading. Let us wait
and see what happens in the legislative process.
In the meantime it is the wrong thing to do from a policy point
of view and we have said so.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is two weeks since the bill was tabled. It is four
months since the premier revealed what he intended to do.
Can the Minister of Health give the assurance to Canadians that
if the process he is hoping will work in Alberta does not work,
that he is prepared to use the Canada Health Act, or to
strengthen the Canada Health Act as is recommended by a
resolution coming before the Liberal convention this weekend, in
order to make sure that what is happening in Alberta does not
become a death sentence for medicare?
1430
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I can give the hon. member and the House the following assurance.
We will do whatever is necessary to protect the principles of the
Canada Health Act and to protect medicare in Canada. If the hon.
member has legal opinions he would care to share with us, we
would be happy to have them.
In the meantime, let us work together not only to discourage
private for-profit medicine, which we think is wrong, but to
strengthen medicare in Canada. Let us work together to renew
medicare for the 21st century.
* * *
LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION ACT
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry. The Lobbyists
Registration Act, which is enforceable by the RCMP, demands that
all lobbyists register with the registrar. Yet the Prime
Minister's friend, Mr. René Fugère, carries on his activity
lobbying different departments and never bothers to register.
The Prime Minister told the House that when he realized there
was something wrong at CITEC he picked up the phone and called
the RCMP, and rightfully so. Why has the Prime Minister or the
Minister of Industry not picked up the phone and called the RCMP
on René Fugère?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the information concerning allegations that Mr. Fugère
had not been registered and had lobbied was passed to the RCMP by
the registrar, which is the appropriate way that this should be
dealt with.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker,
violating the Lobbyists Registration Act is very serious and a
conviction results in fines of up to $100,000 or two years in
prison.
According to the minister, they have been in touch with the
RCMP. What I would like to know is has the minister informed the
RCMP that René Fugère lobbied for two hotels in the Prime
Minister's riding? Did he tell the RCMP that he lobbied for HRDC
for funds for a sawmill in the riding of Champlain?
What we would like to know is what information does the RCMP
have and when can we expect an answer back?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, of course the RCMP will conduct its investigation. It
will deal with the results of that investigation with prosecutors
from the Department of Justice in the normal course.
I do not expect that they will be consulting with the hon.
member on what they should do, but you can be assured, Mr.
Speaker, that the normal course of justice will be followed.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
access to information documents show that the Department of Human
Resources Development was requested to prepare an explanation of
an alleged misappropriation of funds connected to the $6 million
TJF grant to Iris Hosiery in Montreal. That was in June 1998.
Can the minister please tell the House the nature of this
alleged misappropriation and the government's response?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that in the case of
Iris Hosiery, 1,440 employees are now working there who probably
would not be without this relationship that includes Government
of Canada money, private sector money and, again, the acceptance
of the Government of Quebec.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, of
course what the minister leaves out is that it was supposed to
create 3,000 jobs for that money.
Let me quote from the access document. It says:
Please verify whether or not this is the first time that we heard
about the misappropriation of funds and what have we done/are
doing about this investigation?
That was two years ago. The minister said she wants to be
transparent. Here is her chance. Has the minister referred this
matter to the RCMP and if not, why not?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to the
3,000 jobs and that would have been the investment from the
government of $8.1 million. When we discovered, due to certain
complications, that not many jobs had been created, the
investment from the Government of Canada was reduced to $5.9
million.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in 1996, the
Council for Canadian Unity received $8.4 million from Human
Resources Development Canada to create jobs. Its rate of success
was 30%. Worse yet, it is estimated that the council made
$8 million in profits.
Can the minister tell us where the money went and what it was
really used for?
1435
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is talking
about a program called Experience Canada. Yes, indeed it is a
very important undertaking that encourages young people across
the country to find employment opportunities in another part of
the country so that they can enjoy and understand other cultures.
I can see why this hon. member would not like that approach.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in spite of
the mediocre results achieved by the Council for Canadian Unity
and its excessive profits, and in spite of the concerns
expressed by its officials, the council was just given a new
$9 million grant.
On what basis was the decision to give a new $9 million grant
made?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that on this file the
department is working with the Council of Canadian Unity to
address the needs of this particular program.
We on this side of the House believe that it is an important
undertaking to provide opportunities for young Canadians in any
part of this country to be able to travel to another part to get
work experience and experience about their country.
[Translation]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a $6 million grant
was given by Human Resources Development Canada to the Bas Iris
company, in the riding of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies. The owner of
that company has made a $21,000 contribution to the Liberal
Party.
What exactly is the connection between the two?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the democratic process allows citizens to
make contributions to any political party, our party or even
their party. In fact, if they would look at the record they
would find that transitional jobs fund grants have gone to
private undertakings that even supported that party.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, HRDC is
just full of political patronage. This $6 million was dished out
just before the 1997 election. This riding in fact was a pretty
tight race. The garment industry came along and said “Do not do
this. It will mess up the industry”.
Why was generosity to Liberals enough to overcome the complaints
and concerns of the garment industry?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the focus of the interventions of my
department are on individuals. In this particular case, 1,440
individuals who did not have the opportunity to work before now
have the opportunity.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in 1996,
the Council for Canadian Unity received $8.4 million. What was
the outcome? A total failure. As a reward for its poor
performance, HRDC gave it $9 million in 1999.
Is there some connection between the success of the Council for
Canadian Unity in obtaining funding and the presence in the
equation of another friend of the Prime Minister, Rémi Bujold?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say again that on this side of the
House we believe that a program like Experience Canada is worth
the investment.
I can confirm to the hon. member that the moneys that have been
provided to this program have only been expended for actual costs
incurred.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there
is a strange coincidence in this affair.
The Vice-President of the Council for Canadian Unity is also
vice-president of a company awarded a contract by the Council.
An hon. member: The buddy system.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Is this a repeat of the René Fugère
business, but this time with Rémi Bujold?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is obvious that the hon. member is against national unity, but
we do not share those views in the least. We are in favour of
national unity, and we are working in the interests of all
Canadians in this matter.
1440
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Iris
Hosiery received $6 million of taxpayers money that top garment
industry officials thought was crazy. Never mind the record of
the owner of Iris. Never mind the warnings of the industry.
Darn it all, there are socks to be subsidized.
Was the $21,190 that Iris and Mr. Badia donated to the Liberal
Party necessary to get this grant for Iris?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you must understand that from the point
of view of that party it is “never mind the 1,440 people that
are working”.
One of the things that is clear, and I will say it again,
members on that side of the House do not believe that the
Government of Canada should be working with communities and
individuals to ensure that they have the opportunities to benefit
from this great country. Well, we feel quite differently.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, never
mind all the garment workers who lost their jobs because of this
particular grant.
The industry officials indicated very clearly that many of the
garment industry workers would have to leave their jobs if Iris
got this particular grant. In fact, the Canadian Apparel
Manufacturers Institute warned that job losses would take place
right across this country. Iris got the grant anyway.
Is $21,190 the price of doing business with the government?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reject the allegation made by the hon.
member. If he has proof that there was something inappropriate
here, then let him bring it forward.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
Human Resources Development saga, the Prime Minister has
acknowledged that, if an investigation turned up serious
problems, the money would have to be repaid.
Is the Council for Canadian Unity exempt from the rules, or is
it going to pay back the money?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, any money forwarded to
this program was for actual costs incurred.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
[Translation]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. There is so much noise I
cannot hear the hon. member who is just over to my right. This
is unbelievable. Quiet down, please. We must be able to hear
the questions and answers.
[English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Finance.
In recent days questions have risen about the impact of the
Alberta government's flat tax on middle income people. Some have
suggested that middle income earners will actually lose part of
their tax cuts due to flat tax.
Could the minister explain what exactly is happening with this
tax?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's question is very pertinent.
Brad Severin, who is an eminent Alberta tax accountant, has in
fact confirmed the unfairness of the Alberta plan. He has said,
for example, that in the year 2001 the taxpayer earning $65,000 a
year will pay $170 more in taxes under Alberta's plan than under
ours. As Mr. Severin says, it only gets worse as time goes by.
By the year 2004 they will pay $440 more.
The question is: Why does—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure we would all like to hear
the question but there is a limit. The hon. member for Peace
River.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
the HRDC minister granted the $6 million to Iris Hosiery in
Quebec, she did so even though the president of the Canadian
apparel industry stated that this subsidy would jeopardize the
level of competition in the industry.
Let us try to get this straight. HRDC subsidizes a company
supposedly to create jobs even though it was told it would kill
jobs in the same industry by driving competitors out of business.
Was this done because Iris Hosiery was a large donator to the
Liberal Party of Canada? What else is it?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
1445
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
just happened to donate $21,000.
Listen to what the former HRDC minister had to say when he
announced this questionable grant: “Some would say today's
announcement has a strong pre-election aroma about it”. That is
it exactly. This grant really does stink.
Will the HRDC minister admit now that this had nothing to do
with creating jobs and everything to do with winning the election
in 1997?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was anticipated that the products from
Iris Hosiery were going to be for export.
I would note that the investment of the Government of Canada was
16.3% and that the company itself invested $54.9 million. I
would also say that this project was supported not only by the
local municipality, but of course by the Government of Quebec.
* * *
INDUSTRY
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
Recently the Minister of Industry was reported as saying that he
wants to go to the bargaining table to open up the question of
foreign ownership. He also predicted the end of foreign
ownership restrictions on Canadian airlines, communications
companies and even Canadian banks.
I want to know whether the Minister of Industry was speaking on
behalf of the Government of Canada when he said this. Is this
really government policy?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is incorrect. In fact what I said was that I
expected, as was the case in the last round of WTO negotiations,
that issues related to the ownership limits in telecommunications
would likely be something that we would look at moving forward.
There is some interest within the industry to do that as well.
However, I would point out, as the member suggests, that if we
were to make changes in ownership limits we would expect
concessions from our trading partners.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the minister did say that he would like to put these
issues on the bargaining table.
It seems to me that he wants to trade away our economic
sovereignty. The trading away of economic sovereignty would mean
the loss of political sovereignty. At the same time the Prime
Minister is saying that he wants to stop the Americanization of
this country.
I want to know how the minister's policy of bargaining these
issues away and putting them on the table squares with what the
Prime Minister is saying.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the difference between our view and the NDP view
is that we believe that Canadians can succeed in the global
economy.
We recognize that globalization is a reality of the changing
technologies, the changing investment structures and the changing
patterns of the world. Canadians can win in that environment.
Canadians win in the telecommunications sector. Whether they are
companies like Nortel, Newbridge or others, we get the jobs. The
jobs have to be here for us to succeed in that global economy.
That is the difference. Their walls would never work. The jobs
would go.
* * *
CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
internal Bank of Canada correspondence clearly states that over
the next 12 to 18 months there are plans to privatize the
administration of the Canada savings bond program.
Yesterday the minister said that the decision has not been taken
and in fact it is not being contemplated.
Was the minister not only half right? While no final decision
has been made, is privatization not being contemplated and have
companies not been approached?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, there are a number of options
which are being looked at in terms of the back office of the
Canada savings plan, which is currently being administered by the
Bank of Canada, such as merging it with a Department of Finance
agency, outsourcing conceivably to the private sector, but also
outsourcing possibly to Public Works and other government
departments.
Fundamentally, the privatization of the entire situation is not
being looked at. Outsourcing is certainly a possibility.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
outsourcing and privatization are fairly similar, but we are
talking about the backroom operation of the Canada savings bond
program.
1450
Will the minister commit to referring this important issue to
the Standing Committee on Finance for further evaluation before
any final decision is made?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is a member of the House of Commons
finance committee. If he wishes to raise it there and the House
of Commons finance committee would like to see the pertinent
officials appear before it, I would more than delighted to
comply.
* * *
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Apparently the Mike Harris government in Ontario plans to charge
a discriminatory $925 tax to Ontarians who wish to adopt foreign
orphaned children.
Can the minister confirm that indeed this is true and whether
there is any federal government involvement in this plan to
tax Ontarians?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that the
first I heard about this was when I read about it in the
newspaper. It is federal government policy that immigrant
children should not be charged the right of landing fee.
Furthermore, once the new citizenship bill is passed,
foreign-born children who are lucky enough to be adopted by
Canadian parents will enter Canada as citizens.
Furthermore, I guess I would have to say that first Premier
Harris picked on welfare moms, then squeegee kids and now it is
foreign orphans. I hope he will reconsider this policy.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister refused to answer a serious allegation
about a misappropriation of funds in the case of Iris Hosiery of
Montreal.
Farmers in my riding are going broke supporting the habits of
this minister. Her own department raised the issue of
misappropriation in an internal document.
Can the minister tell the House the nature of this alleged
misappropriation and has she referred the matter to the RCMP?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has details of an
issue that he would like to have referred, then let him bring
them forward.
In the case of this undertaking I want to be clear again that
the project was supported by the Government of Canada, it was
supported by the municipality, it was supported by the Government
of Quebec, and at the time it was a Bloc member who was in the
riding and he supported it very vigorously.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in the matter of the Council for Canadian Unity, Gordon
Bean, a senior official in the Department of Human Resources
Development, wrote in a letter that, despite all the staff
available, he felt the objectives on participation could not be
met. Nevertheless, the minister paid out $9 million to the
Council for Canadian Unity.
Will the minister acknowledge that this money is used only for
federal propaganda purposes and to pay off party chums?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we absolutely
believe that the right thing to do is provide opportunities for
young Canadians to travel the country, to get to know the
country so they can understand when they go home to share
their experiences with others, their families and neighbours.
We know the members of that party are not interested in that.
That is why we are here and they are there.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last year,
Canadian Heritage did not include the Fête nationale des Acadiens
in its calendar of national celebrations.
After pressure from the Acadian community and the SAANB, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage apologized and corrected matters.
This year, the same problem arose again. This is really
scornful treatment of the Acadians.
My question is as follows: When will the Minister of Canadian
Heritage settle this problem once and for all?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the member, who kindly informed
me of the error this week. As soon as he informed me, I
corrected it.
* * *
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I asked the
Minister for International Cooperation to provide a list of
companies dealing with CIDA that had been audited and paid even
if their file was incomplete.
1455
She provided a list of all the companies that had received
contracts, without indicating which ones had been paid even if
their files were incomplete.
Does the Minister have something to hide? Is she afraid that
these companies might include the ones that contributed $695,000
to the party in power in 1997 and 1998?
[English]
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, I am sure, is referring
to the CIDA Inc. program. No projects in CIDA are paid without
invoices being provided at any time.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
each year the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy results in
hundreds of Canadian children being born with fetal alcohol
syndrome or other alcohol related brain damage. Some provinces
have also reported that 50% of the inmates in our jails suffer
from this incurable but preventable tragedy.
Can the Minister of Justice advise how the Government of Canada
is responding to this very troubling statistic about fetal
alcohol syndrome?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me
congratulate the hon. member for the publication of his recent
book entitled Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: The Real Brain
Drain.
As the hon. member has pointed out, fetal alcohol syndrome or
fetal alcohol defects are completely preventable birth defects.
In fact, the young people born with these defects suffer from
lifelong health concerns and too many of these young people end
up in trouble with the law. That is why my colleague the
Minister of Health and I are working together with community
groups across the country to better inform and develop—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose
Hill.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I hold an HRDC document titled “Urgent
Request—Subject: Bas Iris—Transitional Jobs Fund Project”,
which states: “Please verify whether or not this is the first
time that we have heard about the misappropriation of funds and
what have we done/are doing about this allegation?”
The minister is being asked a very straightforward question.
There is an allegation in her own department of misappropriation
of public funds. We have heard nothing about the result of this.
The RCMP have not been called in that we are aware of. We are
asking her about the status. We are also asking—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me quote from a letter referencing
Manufacturier des Bas Iris from the department, which states:
[Translation]
“In these circumstances, I do not think it necessary to
recommend any change to the existing contract”.
[English]
The department looked at this and found that a change to the
contract was not necessary.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada
is the 51st state of the U.S., according to a top U.S. defence
official. The U.S. is preparing to deploy a national missile
defence system, violating the anti-ballistic missile treaty and
angering and provoking other powers, and it expects this
government to play ball.
Will the government say no to another arms build-up, no to
supporting the U.S. missile defence system and insist that this
entire matter be brought before the United Nations? Or, is the
government indeed comfortable with being called the 51st state?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the United States has
not taken a decision yet to deploy a national missile defence
system and Canada has not been formally asked to participate in
an NMD system by the U.S. Consequently, it is a completely
hypothetical question. We cannot yet take a position. There are
still too many unknowns.
I have to add that the U.S. has confirmed that the deployment of
a national missile defence system would require a change to the
existing anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972. The U.S. is
pursuing discussions with Russia on this matter.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I think the
minister has misunderstood my question. I will therefore repeat
it.
I was speaking of a list of companies dealing with CIDA that had
been audited and paid even if their files were incomplete.
She provided a list of the companies that had received
contracts, without indicating which ones had been paid even if
their files were incomplete.
Is the minister afraid that these companies might include the
ones that contributed $695,000 to the party in power in 1997 and 1998?
1500
[English]
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, as I have said before, no
payments are made without supporting invoices. Second, we will
not issue final payments to companies that do not submit final
reports that are satisfactory. Third, we now have a new method
of payment. A company will only be paid if it meets specific
results which are agreed to in advance.
I provided the hon. member with a complete list of all companies
that received CIDA programs.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Deputy Speaker: I draw the attention of hon.
members to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Seamus Brennan,
Minister of State at the Departments of the Taoiseach and Defence
and Government Chief Whip of Ireland.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning
democracy took a turn for the worse in the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food. On December 15, 1999, the committee
passed the following motion:
That this Committee study and report to the House about a clear
and mandatory labelling mechanism for genetically modified
organisms.
Contrary to the decision by the committee, the chair, despite
our repeated requests, has refused to call the sub-committee on
procedure in order to establish a schedule for calling
witnesses, drafting a report and so on.
In the face of this refusal, I tabled, in February, a notice of
motion to have the decision taken by the committee in December
1999 implemented.
This morning, we began the debate on this motion, but after one
hour, the question was put on the motion, contrary to Standing
Order 116 provides, and I quote:
116. In a standing, special or legislative committee, the
Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except
the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding
of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the
length of speeches.
Furthermore, at page 855, Marleau-Montpetit, provides:
In general, the rules governing the process of debate in
committees are the same as those in the House of Commons.
However, the Standing Orders exempt committees from certain
rules which apply in the House: those governing the election of
the Speaker, the seconding of motions and limiting the number of
times a member may speak on an issue and the length of speeches.
The decision by the committee chair contravenes the rules of the
House. And yet, Marleau-Montpetit provides on pages 856 and 857,
and I quote:
The Chair presides over the deliberations in committee,
recognizing speakers and ensuring that the deliberations adhere
to established practices and rules, as well as to any particular
requirements which the committee may have imposed upon itself
and its members.
1505
Although I had not finished speaking, the committee chair, once
again contrary to the rules established for the House and for
committees, immediately put my motion to a vote.
Marleau-Montpetit goes on:
Any ruling of the Chair may be appealed to the committee. There
is no appeal to the House on rulings of a committee chair except
through committee report.
Generally, if the chair had properly carried out his duty to
protect the right of expression of parliamentarians, he would
have allowed me to finish my speech, particularly since the
committee had never adopted the special rule limiting the
duration of interventions and the time allowed to debate a
motion.
Mr. Speaker, I once again appeal to your sense of democracy to
intervene and put an end to a situation that is, unfortunately,
occurring too often in committee.
You need to overlook the rule that you are not allowed to
intervene in committee deliberations. There have already been
instances of a Speaker intervening in order to put an end to a
practice that was jeopardizing members' freedom of expression.
I quote Beauchesne, 6th edition, citation 760(4).
760(4). In 1986, after a grievance was raised in the House
concerning procedure in a committee, the Speaker undertook to
write to all committee chairmen pointing out that when a
grievance is not resolved satisfactorily in committee it often
results in the time of the House being taken when the grievance
is raised in the guise of a question of privilege. (Debates,
December 9, 1986, page 1932).
It is your responsibility, under Standing Order 10, to intervene
in order to put an end to such practices. The credibility of
the House and of the committees is at stake.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member herself told us in
her arguments that the Speaker of the House did not have the
authority to reverse a committee decision, except after having
received a report from that committee that was tabled in the
House. In fact, the member herself indicated that her point of
order was clearly not a point of order.
I urge the Chair to be neutral and objective as it always is and
to not get into this exercise, since the member herself said
that doing so would go against the rules.
The Deputy Speaker: I note that the hon. member for
Louis-Hébert quoted the big book that we now have, thanks to our
clerk and to the other officers at the Table who worked very
hard to prepare such a document to help us. But the important
thing that she did not read is on page 885, and I believe the
Leader of the Government in the House alluded to it in his
comments. It reads as follows:
It is not in order for Members to allude to committee
proceedings or evidence in the House until the committee has
presented its report to the House.
I believe it is important that the hon. member raises these
issues concerning the rules in committees after the tabling of a
report. Further on, I read the following:
This restriction applies both to references made by Members in
debate and during Oral Question Period. If there is an
irregularity in the committee's proceedings, the House can only
be seized of it once it is reported to the House.
1510
I would hope that after a report, if a problem persists, we will
be able, at that time, to raise a point of order.
I want to deal with the other points of order, but first we will
hear the weekly business statement. The House leader of the
opposition.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think we have had quite a bit of kerfuffle over the last week or
so. We have had extended hours. We have had day and night
sittings. Given that the time allocation and all the other
things are behind us, I hope after today we are into a new era in
the House.
Could the government House leader tell us the business for the
rest of this week and for next week? In particular perhaps he
would address the fact that we have several supply days coming up
in a row next week. If there is a supply day on Wednesday, I
wonder if he has any plans to ask to extend the hours to make
that more of a regular supply day so that we can have a good
debate on the issue of the day.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all let me read the
business statement and then I will gladly answer as well the very
important issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition in the
House.
The business for the next week is actually quite
straightforward. The opposition House leader has alluded to it.
There are several supply days to proceed with between now and the
end of the supply period. Friday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday
shall be allotted days.
Next Thursday I hope that we can deal with the Senate amendments
to Bill C-6. I intend to raise this at the House leaders meeting
on Tuesday. In any event I would also like to proceed probably
even beforehand with the following pieces of legislation: Bill
C-10 on municipal grants; Bill C-12, the amendments to the Canada
Labour Code, and I understand that a number of members of the
House have made representations to proceed with this bill; and
Bill C-13 on the health institutes.
On the conduct of business next Wednesday, given that the day as
the hon. member has mentioned is somewhat shorter than other days
when we do allotted days, I would be prepared to negotiate with
other House leaders to offer an extension on that day to make it
at least somewhat more similar to other days. Of course that
would have to be arrived at by consent. But I think certainly on
our side of the House we are favourably disposed to doing that.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in the House and repeated again today in
response to questions on whether Alberta's Bill 11 violates the
Canada Health Act, the health minister said, “If the hon. member
has a legal opinion with respect to it now, I wish she would
share that with the House”.
I have two legal opinions commissioned by the Canadian Union of
Public Employees, one by Joseph Arvay and Murray Rankin with an
opinion on a number of issues in relation to the Canada Health
Act particularly regarding the proposed Alberta health care
protection act, Bill 11. The second is by Steven Shrybman and is
called “A Legal Opinion Concerning NAFTA Investment and Services
Disciplines and Bill 11: Proposals by Alberta to Privatize the
Delivery of Certain Insured Health Care Services”.
Both documents give the opinion that Bill 11 violates the spirit
of the Canada Health Act. Given what the Minister of Health has
said in the House, I would ask for unanimous consent to table
both documents.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to table
the documents?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1515
[Translation]
COMMENTS IN CHAMBER
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in the House, while the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs was giving his speech on Bill C-20, I
heard some particularly offensive and pejorative, not to say
racist, language.
I am certain that the member who used the expression “bras de
nègre”—
The Deputy Speaker: It is possible that the hon. member used
words in the House that were perhaps disagreeable to her and
perhaps even to other members, but the Standing Orders are very
clear: a point of order or question of privilege must be raised
as soon as possible. This should have been done yesterday and,
in my opinion, it is too late today. I hope that we can
disregard the problem, if indeed there is one, because it is a
bit too late now to raise the matter.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I find it regrettable that
the member for Joliette should not have an opportunity to
withdraw these words, because I am certain that he would have
wished to do so. But I—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Joliette has undoubtedly
heard what the hon. member said and I think that we should
consider the matter closed for now.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I know that
earlier the member for Louis-Hébert rose on a point of order
concerning what happened this morning in the Standing Committee
on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I wish to tell the government
House leader that I also understand that we cannot intervene
when the report is not finished.
However, I wish to point out that the entire issue debated this
morning concerned the agenda. It is difficult to prepare a
report when the chair does not even respect the points
previously agreed to.
The problem is as follows: on December 15, 1999, the committee
had already considered a decision and a majority of it had
agreed that, this morning, the chair of the committee was to
authorize witnesses being invited so that this point could be
discussed. But this morning, the committee literally refused to
discuss this issue, and it is important—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I agree with the hon.
member that it is important, but the points he is raising are
exactly the same ones the hon. member for Louis-Hébert raised.
I have already made a ruling on this, and it is up to the
committee. Committees are masters in their own house, as we say
in English, although the way I said it in French may not be the
right way. However, committees can reach decisions on these
matters, and when a report is tabled in the House after
consideration in committee, a ruling will be made.
If some hon. members have problems with the behaviour of a
committee or its chair, or anything of that sort, this must be
raised in committee, not here in the House. We are not a court
of appeal for the committees, except in very specific
circumstances, which are given in this excellent work one could
spend a whole afternoon consulting.
I would encourage the hon. member to do so, instead of raising
this matter in the House at this time.
[English]
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on two points of orders which both relate to things that
took place during Oral Question Period today.
Earlier the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit
Valley—Eastern Shore was chastised by you for using a prop in
the House of Commons.
Following that, a question was posed by the member for
Mississauga South to the justice minister who basically
advertised a book he had written so that all could see it and
it would be on camera.
1520
Given that the debate today on a point of order evolves around a
perception of a lack of impartiality displayed by the Speaker, I
think that also should have received a rebuke.
Second, in the last number of days the Speaker has disallowed
several questions posed by the official opposition on the grounds
that they were irrelevant to government policy. Today, the
member for Brampton Centre questioned the finance minister on the
implications of the Alberta tax move toward a single rate tax and
never made any connection to government policy.
Neither the questioner nor the answerer, and I use the term
loosely, made any effort. This appears to be an abuse of the
time allotted to members for asking questions of national import
of the government. That question should have been disallowed and
we should have moved directly to the next questioner so we could
get on with holding the government accountable for the use of
taxpayer money.
The Deputy Speaker: I am pleased to deal with both
points of order. The first relates to the use of props. The
hon. member is quite correct that the Minister of Justice did
make improper use of the prop and she received proper
chastisement from the Chair from the point of view of my finger.
In fairness, I was suspicious when I saw the minister pick up
the book but I thought she was going to quote from it, which of
course would have been proper use of the book had that been the
case. She did not. She only held it up and that is why she got
a finger lashing from the Chair.
I know that hon. members quail at the prospect. The member for
Edmonton North has quailed before when that has happened to her,
which is very seldom of course, and I know the Minister of
Justice felt the same nervousness. She knows that it is wrong to
have done that. A flag is a different thing from a book. One
cannot read a flag to the House and that is why I was quick to
jump in and it was too late to do anything else.
With respect to the second issue, the hon. member points out
that perhaps the Chair should have been a little more vigilant
and ruled the question about the flat tax out of order. However,
it is fair to say that the Minister of Finance from public
accounts in the newspaper has been urged to adopt a flat tax in
Ottawa as part of the national tax policy. I suspected that the
question having to do with the imposition of a flat tax in
another province was perhaps tied into the possible adoption of
such a policy at the national level and accordingly allowed the
question.
Given the nature of the answer perhaps that was unwise, but the
minister had his day and that was that. I cannot answer for any
other question periods since I am usually not in attendance.
I thank all hon. members for an entertaining number of points of
order this afternoon and we will now go to orders of the day.
* * *
HOUSE OF COMMONS
THE SPEAKER
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from
Edmonton North.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I thought a member of the Bloc Quebecois would resume the debate
after Oral Question Period.
The Speaker: We are following the same order as we do during
debates. I have the list here. The last member to rise was a
Liberal; it is now the turn of a Reform member. The Bloc
Quebecois will have its turn in due course.
1525
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address this
historic debate. It is not a debate that I take joy in
addressing. However it is one that I believe is crucial to the
future of this very institution. As I have stated many times in
this place, one of the main reasons I was motivated to run for
office was the need for parliamentary reform.
The motion brought forward by the Bloc today strikes at the very
heart of the democratic foundation the House is built upon. In
the six years I have been in this place, I have witnessed the
rights and power of individual members of parliament
systematically eroded. This power grab is especially troubling
in this parliament where the government has a mere 38% of the
popular vote. In an effort to protect its slim majority and to
impose its legislative agenda upon Canadians, the government has
put its agenda ahead of democracy.
It is your job, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that this does not
happen. You have been entrusted with upholding the traditions
and practices of the House of Commons, and I say with all due
respect that these traditions have eroded under your watch.
Points of privilege have been raised on numerous occasions by
members of the opposition. Few have ever been recognized as such
by the Chair. A great number of these grievances have been made
regarding the government leaking information to the media that is
meant for the House and the government implementing measures in
legislation before that legislation is even passed. This mocks
and misrepresents the role of parliament.
The defence against this attack on the institution of parliament
began in 1989, long before you occupied the chair, Mr. Speaker.
On October 10, 1989, over the GST controversy, the hon. member
for Windsor West, now the Deputy Prime Minister, was quoted in
Speaker Fraser's ruling as saying that it was clearly contempt of
parliament to misrepresent the role of this House. Speaker
Fraser went on to say:
I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker
ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will
not be as generous.
On November 6, 1997 the present Speaker, when ruling on the
controversy surrounding the government's setting up the Canada
Pension Plan Board before the legislation was passed authorizing
the government to do so, said:
—the Chair acknowledges that it is a matter of potential
importance since it touches the role of members as legislators, a
role which should not be trivialized. The dismissive view of the
legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of
our parliamentary conventions and practices. I trust that
today's decision at this early stage of the 36th Parliament will
not be forgotten by the minister and his officials and that the
department and agencies will be guided by it.
I personally raised the matter regarding the Canadian Wheat
Board on February 3, 1998. Nothing was done.
We had the naming of the head of the Canadian Millennium
Scholarship Foundation before there was legislation setting up
the foundation. It was raised in a question of privilege by the
hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill, and the Speaker did nothing.
It was not that long ago when the Minister for International
Trade on March 30, 1998 sent out a press release entitled
“Marchi Meets with Chinese Leaders in Beijing and Announces
Canada-China Interparliamentary Group”. At that time there was
no Canada-China interparliamentary group. The minister gave the
impression to some one billion people in China that the
association existed when parliament had not as yet approved it.
Again this was raised and the Speaker's ruling on November 6,
1997 was referred to. Nothing was done.
On April 20, 1999 the matter of the government leaking a
government response to a report of the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs was raised in the House. The next day the
government House leader apologized for the leak and assured the
House that it would not happen again.
The very next day after the apology the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development stood
in the House and quoted from an in camera meeting. There is a
litany of cases of leaked committee reports that goes unchecked
and unchallenged.
The Prime Minister announced the date of this year's budget
outside the chamber. As far as I know this has never been done.
It has always been announced in the House.
The most recent case is the leaking of Bill C-23. The act to
modernize benefits was given to EGALE before being tabled in the
House, allowing an interest group time to release a detailed
analysis of the bill before the critic of my party could even see
the bill. The member raised it and the Speaker, in my opinion, ignored it.
1530
A number of my colleagues from all parties spoke today of their
frustration with the way in which the government operates. I
think that is what is being expressed today in this motion.
In all of these cases, the Speaker made speeches on the
integrity of parliament yet never took action to protect it. Only
on two occasions did the Speaker find it necessary to recognize
the severity of a point of privilege; one, involving the former
member for Charlesbourg regarding the formation of a Quebec
militia, and the other was to censure two members of the official
opposition who criticized the Speaker in public.
On numerous occasions the Speaker was called on to defend the
integrity of the House and, in my opinion, did not do so.
Each member who is present tonight will be called on to make a
very personal decision. First, whether to vote strictly on the
basis of the motion or whether to vote based on their perceived
opinion of whether or not the Speaker has ruled in an impartial
and neutral manner during his tenure.
Second, individual members, if they decide the vote is not
limited to the actual motion before the House, will be called on
to wrestle with their own conscience as to whether they should
vote to censure the Speaker, support him or abstain.
Third, members will have to decide for themselves, should they
choose to vote in favour of censuring the Speaker, if their
dissatisfaction is more with the Speaker or the government's
abuse of power and the Speaker's inability to deal with that
abuse.
As I said earlier during my interventions on this debate, I urge
all members to consider this matter to be of the utmost
importance. I am sure they do. I urge all members in all
parties to consider this a real free vote of conscience. Each
member will have to grapple with their own conscience because
this is an issue of paramount importance to this place.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I was amazed by the remarks of the whip for the
Reform Party. He said that during the vote we should judge the
Speaker on the basis of his tenure since his election.
Let me caution the whip of the Reform Party. The motion before
us is very clear on the timeframe with which this motion has been
placed. The timeframe relates to the question of privilege and
the question of points of order raised by the Bloc Quebecois
around March 1, 2000 and for which the Speaker made a ruling on
on March 13. It is only around that time, as premised in this
motion before us, that we should base our vote of conscience as
to whether we must indeed censure the Speaker. I would caution
all members to do this with deliberate care. To go beyond the
letter of the motion will set a dangerous precedent. We will not
be honest with ourselves and we will not be true to our
intellect. We will be guided by our emotion and not by reason.
This House is a place for debate and a place where we can vent
issues. However, to suggest that we can vote on the basis of the
Speaker's tenure following his election and not on the basis of
the timeframe within this motion is setting a dangerous
precedent. I appeal to members not to do this. We can vote in
the way we would like to vote but let us vote intelligently on
the basis of the timeframe contained in this motion before us.
How would the member explain this?
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member across the
way had been listening to my remarks he would know the answer
before he made his intervention.
I do not take this lightly at all and I do not think the House
does.
This is not a normal proceeding. This is something that comes up
very seldom, as well it should.
1535
I stand by my words. I believe that different members at
different times vote on different things in the House in
different ways. However, it is up to each of us to decide what
is meant by our vote and defend that to our constituents when
called upon to do so.
I reject the fact that all we can do with this particular motion
is focus strictly on the motion. If we were to do that, if we
were to judge this solely on the basis of the motion in front of
us, in my estimation what we would be doing is disavowing
everything and every rule that you have ever made, Mr. Speaker,
and our feelings about that, whether we support those rulings or
not.
I do not want to see a case where every time we turn around
someone is bringing forward a motion like this; a different party
or a different member. This is serious business. This is not
something where every time the Chair rules on a point of
privilege or a point of order and we get upset about it because
we did not get our own way, that we will bring forward a motion
to censure the Speaker. This is much too serious for that.
I think everyone knows that because, to my understanding, the
last time this happened was in 1956, a long time ago. That is
why in my presentation I said that it was up to each and every
one of us to decide what we will base our vote on tonight, to
take it very seriously and to very clearly understand in our own
minds why we will be voting the way we will and to be prepared to
defend that to our colleagues, and, if it is a true free vote, to
our colleagues in our own party, to our colleagues in this
chamber from all parties and, most importantly, to defend it to
our constituents.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise and address this today and most specifically
to thank you for being in the Chair. I think that is important.
The most important part about it is the fact that you are sitting
in the Chair and that you, probably more than anyone, realizes
that this is not about two specific little rulings. This is
something that is huge, as my colleague has just mentioned. I
think all of us, and especially yourself, should realize what an
enormous issue this is.
By way of introduction I want to say that I appreciate
everyone's views on this. This certainly goes beyond partisan
politics. I know our caucuses had a lengthy discussion about
this. Everyone in the House needs to pay particular attention to
this. In fact, my own House leader in his remarks this morning
talked about the big issue here of government arrogance. He
thinks that because the government has had maybe a little too
much free rein with too much closure and too much time
allocation, a change in the standing orders may be something that
should be addressed. I appreciate that and I respect that.
Mr. Speaker, this motion is about you. You know it, I know it
and that is why you have been sitting in the Chair all day.
I will go back several years, Mr. Speaker. You and I have both
been in the House for several years. You will remember when I
came in 1989 we both sat under a different Speaker, Speaker
Fraser, who I appreciated very much. I did not get my way all
the time. I was treated as an Independent then, but I do
remember John Fraser taking me into his chambers and saying,
“You have been elected fairly and squarely, and even though you
are sitting as an Independent, I have to respect you and treat
you that way”.
When you ran after the 1993 election, Mr. Speaker—and I guess
we can be honest with each other—you and I both know exactly how
and why it is you are sitting in the Chair. There were
discussions, everyone had a vote and we supported you. I am not
complaining about everything you have done over the years.
Frankly, I cannot imagine anyone even wanting your job. I do not
know why you went for it but you did and you have sat through a
couple of very awkward parliaments, because of the separatist
issue more than anything we might think about. We have had very
raucous times in the House since you became the Speaker.
1540
Aside from all that, I think we need to look specifically at
some of the decisions that you have made. I will not quote at
great length from Hansard because I want to speak from my
heart today. I could go back to times—before the flag flap and
I was still here as an independent member of parliament and the
only representative of my party—when we were not allowed to even
question anything that the Speaker did.
You and I, Mr. Speaker, if we go back, will remember the time I
did an interview and someone asked me if I thought the Speaker
was being ruled or whatever by the Liberals. I remember making
the comment that perhaps some decisions do look like the Speaker
is in the hip pocket of the government. You will remember all
too well that when I got on a plane later that day you tracked me
to Alberta and you tracked me all weekend and then the day I came
back you will remember what you told me, Mr. Speaker.
Now, not many years later, it seems like it is just free rein
and it has become very public. There have been page-long
interviews about you and some of the decisions that have been
made. I do not think it is fair that we can go around
willy-nilly and say that the Speaker ruled against me. Dear
knows, you have ruled against me many times and you have had
every right to. I respect that, Mr. Speaker. Because I am
quick-tongued and I am mischievous you have to do that sometimes.
I respect that. You know that and I honour that. However, that
does not give me the right to say that it was not fair, that he
was hard on me so I will bring forward a motion of censure. That
is ridiculous and cannot happen every second Tuesday.
You will also remember, Mr. Speaker, a huge thing. Let me just
make reference to the flag flap. I do not want to use props,
dress up or do fancy things, but there was something that just
cut to the quick of my heart when someone, first of all,
equivocated for far too long on that issue and then said “No,
you cannot display your flag”. If I am proud of my flag, darn
it, I want to stand on the roof top. I do not want someone else
who happens to dislike my flag to be able to rule over this place
and have you under their influence to tell me that I cannot be
proud of it. That was the flap and you remember it. We were all
probably glad to get through those days.
Probably the most dangerous or frightening one I see is that our
legal counsel people have been muffled. You and I are not
lawyers, Mr. Speaker, but we know that when lawyers take an oath
of confidentiality they mean it. Now I think that not only have
we been compromised with the legislative counsel decisions that
you have made, but I think these lawyers themselves, who are
proud, passionate people and serve this place to the best of
their ability, are probably agonizing about the oath they took as
a lawyer. I think that your decisions have compromised them.
Would you, Mr. Speaker, like to tell a doctor in this place
“You cannot live by, in your very gut, the Hippocratic oath that
you took?” You know they could not do that, Mr. Speaker. We
were all here when Shaughnessy Cohen dropped among us. It was
devastating for us. How can you say to a doctor, “Oh, no”. How
can you say to a lawyer “No, I am sorry, the oath of
confidentiality that you took just does not matter any more.
Partisanship overrides it”. There is something frightening
about that and I think something dangerous as well.
I will finish up because we do not have much time to address
this and I want other people to be given a chance. Let me just
say, Mr. Speaker, because you realize that this is such a serious
issue, and I do too, that I have very serious concerns about the
very democratic rights of every member in this House regardless
of political stripe and so should you.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to make the observation. The member brought up
the issue of the flag flap.
I remember that very well as well. She uses that as an example of
an improper decision on your part, a bad decision I guess she is
suggesting. Anyway, it is a decision that she certainly does not
agree with. I do not know what she is exactly questioning but
she is using it as an example to question your integrity as a
Speaker.
1545
Mr. Speaker, I was there when you ruled on the flag situation
and I agreed with your ruling.
What are we to say? Are we going to be questioning your right
to sit in the chair? Are we questioning your integrity because
members on the opposite side disagree with you when in fact
members on this side agree with you? No matter what, when you
are a referee or a judge or looking on and trying to make
decisions involving human beings, not just human beings in this
Chamber but human beings in the entire country, then there is no
black and white. There is always going to be disagreement.
I ask the member what is the point of bringing up the fact that
you ruled in a way she did not agree with on the flag debate as
an example of why you do not belong in the chair at this time?
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, of course you know also
that was just one example that I used.
If I could answer in the clearest shortest way possible, I am a
July 1 baby and I happened to care pretty deeply about that so I
did disagree with your position, but I did not bring forward a
motion of censure on the Speaker. I thought I made that very
clear in my speech. There are all kinds of things that you have
ruled on that I have disagreed with. Who cares? Some of us
agree, some of us disagree. That is fine. The member over there
can certainly have his decision and say he agreed with you. That
is great. I disagreed with you. I got my say. I did not get my
way. That is fine. I respect that.
The actual point I referred to about the flag flap decision was
the fact that you equivocated for three weeks about it. You
probably went through more pain than any of the rest of us. I am
not sure if it was three weeks but it was a long time. Who am I
to give you advice but if you asked for it, I would probably say
the quickest decision is always the best decision. Maybe not the
spur of the moment decision but think it through.
I guess I have to go back to high school, Mr. Speaker. You know
that if we had students who were misbehaving we could not tell
them to just sit there for a while and we will come back by the
Easter holiday. You know that if there is to be punishment or a
decision to be made they will respect us as teachers better if we
think it through, then come back and be decisive. We know that.
The flag flap was just one example. Maybe it was not the best
but it is the one I was thinking of because I happen to be wildly
in love with those two Canadian flags hanging beside you. They
are gorgeous.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a very serious topic we are discussing today.
It brings emotions to the surface and we recount different
applications of rulings that you have made.
Actually all three of us share the same former profession as
teachers. Over time there is application of the rules and there
is a person who is in the place of determining the ruling or
application of rules to one team or another team, to one side or
another side. What would my colleague's perception be on the
application of the rules fairly to all groups, whether that be
members of different parties in this place or two different teams
in a sporting event? How might that factor into this debate as
well in the perceived application of the rules fairly to all
members from all sides?
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, someone finds it
disgusting. Someone finds me disgusting. I guess he is
certainly entitled to his opinion. Surely to heaven this thing
is bigger than some person's opinion about me.
Regarding the application of rules, we know it has to be to both
sides. You were a coach. I just had a kid from Niagara Falls in
my office yesterday who was talking about you as a football coach
in the glory days. You know also that if kids on your own team
mouth off at you or whatever and you do not discipline them, you
will have a lousy team and probably a pretty lousy record as
well.
1550
Just in terms of personal respect, in my coaching I remember
that it is easy to pick on the other side, but the girls on my
volleyball team at Dewberry School knew perfectly well that if
they did something wrong and Miss Grey said they would go to the
showers, they did not mess with it. They knew that was exactly
what was going to happen. One cannot favour one side over the
other. It does not work.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be using the entire 20 minute period. I am sure members
opposite will be delighted to hear that.
This is an interesting debate. In some of the speeches people
are positioning themselves in one sense to be great defenders of
the democratic process in this place. They are saying that they
are not attacking you for partisan reasons to perhaps go at the
government in a different way. That is what I have been hearing
all day. I find that quite remarkable. It is a subterfuge; that
is probably the best way I can think of it.
The motion of non-confidence in the Speaker comes from the party
that just lost all its amendments in relation to Bill C-20, the
clarity bill, and the fact that it is upset about that is
probably why we are even having this debate. Mr. Speaker,
instead of debating the issue of the status of health care in the
country that the fifth party wanted to put forward today on an
opposition day, we have found ourselves through negotiations with
the House leaders coming to an agreement that we should somehow
put that off for a day and debate this motion and talk about how
you are doing your job. To then hear people say that it is not
partisan makes me laugh. It is clearly and purely partisan
beyond a doubt.
In preparing for this job I sat with some excellent Speakers in
the provincial legislature. You will, sir, remember Speaker
Edighoffer, a fine gentleman who served the province of Ontario
in an exceptional way as Speaker. There was Speaker Warner.
Speaker Edighoffer was a member of the Liberal caucus when he was
elected and then he became Speaker. Of course one must then
withdraw from all those caucus and partisan activities, as one
should. Speaker Warner was a member of the New Democratic Party
when he was elected under Premier Rae. He too withdrew from
caucus participation because no Speaker can be involved in even
knowing what the government is thinking in terms of the policies
or platforms it is going to put forward.
We expect an awful lot of our Speakers in this place and in the
provincial legislatures and so we should. I thought about how I
could define what it is that we expect of the Speaker. Rather
than reinvent the wheel, I did some homework and came up with
something which I thought said it all. In 1986 the then Leader of
the Opposition, the Right Hon. John Turner, said:
You know what we demand of you, Mr. Speaker. Perfection! We
want fairness, independence, decisiveness, patience, common
sense, good humour, upholding the traditions of the House,
knowledge of the rules and an intuition for the changing mood and
tone of the House as we move through our days.
That is a fair definition of what the House expects of its
Speaker.
The other aspect of this is that you, sir, do not make the
rules. We do. Through the process that is put in place, the
House of Commons sets the rules down. We have a process whereby
they are approved by the House of Commons. I know you would agree
that in addition to all the issues of fairness, independence,
common sense and good humour, that you are in fact a servant of
the House of Commons. As a result you have to do a job in as
impartial a way as you possibly can and not get caught into any
kind of personal partisan feelings that would take away the
rights of anyone in a minority position.
1555
The reason I say that is I find it really interesting that
members opposite who have spoken here have begun their speeches
by saying that the government is heavy handed, that the reason we
are having this debate is that we have had too many motions of
time allocation and that they do not like the way the government
is operating and doing business. Mr. Speaker, what in the world
has that to do with you?
I would say it proves to me the point that this is nothing but
subterfuge and a way to say that they are mad that they lost a
bill, a vote, a motion, 400 amendments or whatever it is. They
cannot get at the government any more, and there is an
interesting reason for that by the way, so they will attack the
Speaker.
One of the Reform members said that the government only got 38%
of the vote. When I was elected in 1987 in the David Peterson
government that was about the percentage of vote we had in
Ontario. When there are five parties it is not the government's
fault opposition members cannot get their act together. It is
not the government's fault that they do not seem to be able to
agree on policies. We have what some refer to as a pizza
parliament with five different parties opposite. The standings
are that out of 301 seats we have 157 and that is a majority.
The next closest party has 58.
I can understand the frustration of the opposition because the
mandate was given to us, not by you, Mr. Speaker, not by your
office and not by the table officers or the staff. I want to
touch on that because not only is this subterfuge of attacking
you a way of getting to the government, but what they have
actually done by this motion of non-confidence in the Speaker is
to attack our staff and our table officers. I find that
particularly offensive and absolutely uncalled for.
I must admit I am surprised to see it coming from the Bloc. One
of the things I have been impressed with and surprised about in
this place is that if we take away the issue of Quebec
separatism, the members of the Bloc whom I have worked with on
committee are compassionate, caring, hardworking, dedicated
members of parliament. In fact I have travelled with some of
them to other places in the world. I have not found that they
foisted their particular brand of separatism on the people in
Strasbourg, France where I attended the Council of Europe. I
have found them to be very good MPs who contribute to the process
and the work in this place.
The Bloc members in a fit, a temper tantrum, and it can be
described as nothing else because they were out of ideas, they
were out of tools with which to try to shove wrenches into the
machinery of government, said “We cannot get those guys over
there, so we had better go after the staff”. How did they do
that?
The concern of the member for Rimouski—Mitis was that some 700
motions had been submitted quite properly, although there were
two the Bloc claim were never really submitted properly, and they
were rejected. There were well over a thousand. We would still
be here voting.
I would like somebody in this place, you, Mr. Speaker, or
anybody else, to tell me that the Canadian public sent any one of
us from any one of the parties her to stand up between 6 o'clock
at night and 6 o'clock in the morning and then 6 o'clock in the
morning to 6 o'clock at night three days running, 24 hours a day,
and have our names called to vote on a motion that would change a
comma to a semicolon.
That cannot be called democracy. That can have no basis in
governing this land. Lord knows it is difficult enough in your
job, Mr. Speaker, to try to govern 301 of us who can be unruly
because of the partisanship. This is a blood sport and we all
know that.
This is a tough business. There is some truth in that old saying
“If you can make it here you can make it anywhere”.
1600
You have a job that is really a thankless job. You try to keep
order, to keep direction and to find ways to ensure that. It is
not to direct anyone, not to direct government, not to direct
opposition. Members of this place have more freedom than any
institution in the world.
Bloc members have said that their privileges have been violated
because their amendments were not accepted. There is something
that goes with privileges in this country. It is called
responsibilities. Bill C-20 has three clauses and is one and a
half pages long. I understand their fervour, their passion,
their desire to lead their province out of Confederation. All
Canadians understand that. They also understand that is a
minority position in the province of Quebec today.
All the polls indicate that the desire for and the interest in
separatism are at historic lows, but I understand it probably
more than I did three years ago when I arrived in this place. As
I said before, I respect them for many of the things they do in
an effort to be members of this place. However, I would suggest
it is not responsible to submit over 1,000 amendments to a three
clause bill that is a page and a half long. Most of them, the
vast majority of them, were either redundant or simply not
substantive.
Without a doubt that is a clear message which says “we cannot
win this so how can we make it as uncomfortable as possible”. I
do not know what it costs to run this place. In some ways I find
that argument irrelevant. We are sent here and if it costs it
costs, but it is just such a waste.
We went through it with the Reform Party that took the same
approach to the Nisga'a treaty. I understood its passion. It is
not your fault, Mr. Speaker, that Reformers had 471 amendments
and it is not your fault that they lost them all. Lord knows I
have never been terribly supportive of the policies of the Reform
Party, but I did not see Reformers pull a tantrum and file a
motion of non-confidence in the Speaker just because they lost
the 471 amendments. They took their lumps. They went home to
western Canada, British Columbia, or wherever they are from, and
fought the battle at the local level.
That is what democracy in this place is about. This is an abuse
in my view. It is an abuse of you, Sir. It is an abuse of your
deputies. It is an abuse of the staff.
There are three types of members in this place. Members
opposite might find this hard to believe, but I am actually not a
government member in those terms. I am a member in support of
the government. There is a difference. Government members are
the cabinet. The Prime Minister and his cabinet are indeed the
government. The rest of us who were elected as Liberals choose
whether or not to be in support of the government. That is the
role we play.
We hear members opposite calling for free votes for people in
this place, that there are not enough free votes. I have never
been involved with a government where there is more opportunity
for free votes, more opportunity within the caucus system and
within the committee system to make changes.
The democratic process around here frankly is quite remarkable.
I say that from the backbenches where some would say on a clear
day I might have trouble seeing the Speaker. The reality is that
the process is in place for members, and I might add it is in
place for members opposite to have input.
1605
It is just past 4 o'clock. I am told that at 3.30 p.m. today a
press conference was held in this precinct where the critic for
citizenship and immigration released a yet to be finalized and
yet to be approved report of the citizenship and immigration
committee on the immigration and illegal migrant issue.
I find that incomprehensible and despicable. It shows a lack of
respect in you, Sir; a lack of respect in the committee; a lack
of respect in the traditions of this place, of every person who
has gone before us in this place. He is simply saying he does
not like this report. Do you know why? It is because he never
showed up at the meetings to help us write it. He released it
and accused the committee of not listening to him. It is
fundamentally wrong and childish. Yet that is happening.
I hear members stand in their places to talk to you about this
issue. They say that things have deteriorated around here. It
is quite interesting. We have members in opposition. We have
members in support of the government and we have members who are
the government. It has always been thus. We all have a role to
play.
I served for five years in opposition to what I thought was an
arrogant government. I thought it was a government that was not
listening, that got in by accident. It was the New Democratic
government that was in Ontario for five years. I can remember
thinking that if the people had a chance to vote again the
morning after the election they would never have put those guys
in power. They did not believe that was going to happen.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Respect the people.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: That is a fair comment. I would throw
that one right back over there: respect the people. We hear
members saying that we only have 38% of the vote. We have 157 of
the 301 seats. Whether or not the member likes it, it is called
a majority. Whether one uses old math or new math it is called a
majority and we are the government. It is not about saying we
are the government and we will do what we want. It is about
saying we are the government and we have—
Mr. Odina Desrochers: You are so stupid.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: That is a wonderful comment. We have
a member over there who called a minister of the crown girl
yesterday and today called a minister of the crown honey. Now we
have a member over there shouting that I am stupid. I suppose
many of my teachers would have agreed with that assessment. My
mother and dad at times certainly would have agreed with that
assessment. My wife who is in the gallery would agree with that
assessment on an ongoing basis.
Is that what we are down to? Is that the quality of debate in
this place: “You are stupid?” What is going on here? Members
will know that there are few in this place who get more
passionately partisan than I at times.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Is it possible?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: It is not probably possible, but I
would like to think, whether I am here or on that side of the
House, that I respect this institution and that I respect the
rules.
We know the difference and the reason we do not have brawls,
although we have come close on a couple of occasions. The
distance between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the
Opposition is the distance between two people holding swords with
the tips barely touching. Why is that? The symbolism of that
for me says it all about Canada. We do not kill one another. Our
weapons are our minds. Unfortunately some of the weapons are a
little less sharp than others. Our weapons are our minds. Our
ammunition is our words.
That is why it gets so heated in here. That is why we get so
partisan in here. That is how we do battle. That is how we
fight on behalf of the people who sent us here to represent them.
1610
I received an e-mail the other day in my office from a
constituent I have never met who referred to a recent newspaper
article in which there were some rather unfair criticisms of my
style and so on. The e-mail said “I do not agree with that
reporter. I want my MP to be heard. You keep it up”. I will
keep it up. There is no doubt about that.
This is a most reprehensible attack on you, Sir. It is a
reprehensible attack on the table officers, on the staff and on
the very institution that we would all die for. We know that.
Many have died for it. We celebrate our veterans when we bring
them here. We will continue to fight to uphold that democratic
principle.
If members do not like what they see they should not attack the
Speaker. They are trying to shoot the messenger who is just
doing a job. If they want to attack us that is fair ball and we
will give it right back.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously I cannot do justice to rebutting a 20 minute
diatribe with one minute but I will take a quick run at it.
The hon. member for Mississauga West chastized opposition
members for calling other members names such as girl or something
along those lines. Yet I note that he resorted to calling one of
my colleagues childish, reprehensible, despicable, and words like
that. I throw this right back at him.
He said that the motion the Bloc Quebecois put forward attacks
the staff and table officers. That is not how I read the motion.
Where in the motion does it say anything negative about the
clerks and table officers for whom I have the utmost respect?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer
the member because I think he has made a good point. In the
point of privilege the member for Rimouski—Mitis said the deputy
principal clerk sent a letter to the office, et cetera. Her
concern, as I understand it, was that 700 motions had been
rejected. Two of them had never been officially submitted.
Also, as I understand it, the staff were working from their data
base because they had worked with the member opposite to prepare
these amendments. With 700 amendments on their data base, they
did not go through them line by line and check them all off. Two
of them were not included in the total number submitted. I think
they probably made a mistake, but does that justify an attack on
them? Surely not.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Mississauga West speaks of respect for our institutions and the
public as if he were the embodiment of respect. But what could
be more disrespectful than to stop people from expressing their
views?
Unable to speak in the House, what else could Bloc members do
besides taking action and creating situations to alert the
public and the people who were being denied the right to speak
through their representatives in the House?
We voted for 40 hours. With 40 hours more, the committee could
have heard another 40 witnesses.
1615
This is what the Liberals did not want to hear. The Liberal
Party wanted to use our institutions, and even the Chair at
times, to justify its action.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I suppose if we had
another 80 hours we could have heard more witnesses.
How long do these members want to continue to debate the issue
of sovereignty? I can tell them that people in my riding and I
think people in the rest of Canada, including many people in
Quebec, are simply fed up with it. The bill put some clarity
forward. Who can argue against that? Who can argue against a
question, in all honesty, that simply asks: Do you or do you not
want to separate from Canada?
There were three paragraphs in the bill. The legislation
consisted of a page and a half. Do we need 1,000 amendments to
clarify it, or is that not, very clearly, simply an attempt by
the Bloc Quebecois to put a wrench into the machinery of
government?
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
will try to bring the debate back to the issue.
There have been some newspaper reports recently which have
suggested that the member for Mississauga West does not have any
substance in his speeches. I say unequivocally and on the record
that there was a smidgen of substance in the member's speech.
Personally I have respect not only for the Chair, not only for
the office, but for you personally, Mr. Speaker. I can say that
unequivocally as I stand here today. I would hold that very dear
and true to my party.
Mr. Speaker, you have a job that is almost impossible to do.
You have a job that takes the wisdom of Solomon. Obviously you
will have some difficulties in trying to satisfy each and every
member of the House. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that you
have the respect of our party.
I believe the member tried to put a partisanship twist on what
we, the Progressive Conservatives, did by giving up our supply
day so this motion could be debated. I would like some
clarification because, quite frankly, we gave our day so that
this motion could be debated. We did it because we felt it was
necessary that this motion get out of the way, and I would like—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mississauga West.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite will
be happy to know that my quarrel in this instance is not with the
fifth party. My concern is the abuse of the system because the
Bloc failed to derail the legislation.
I do not disrespect Bloc members for disagreeing with the bill.
That is their right as elected parliamentarians. But once we
lose in this place, we lose. That is the way it works. That is
reality. They cannot turn around and say, we lost, we cannot get
the government to change, so we will attack the Speaker. That is
wrong.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Answer the question.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have answered it. My problem is not
with the member for Brandon—Souris. He should take a Valium and
relax.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a comment for the benefit of the member for
Mississauga West, who was not in the House at the time of your
decision on the flags on the desks, which was raised by the
member for Edmonton North—
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, I was.
Mr. John Bryden: Anyway, it was raised by the member for
Edmonton North as an example of why the House should not have
confidence in you as the result of the decision on that occasion.
I want to remind Canadians of what happened on that particular
occasion when you ruled against having flags on our desks. I
remember vividly the member for Medicine Hat throwing the flag on
the floor of this Chamber. That flag lay on the floor of this
Chamber, on the rug with people walking around it, for some time
afterward.
I remember thinking to myself, Mr. Speaker, how wise your
decision was. The reason we do not have flags on our desks is
because it encourages us to use the symbol of our country for
partisan reasons. It was a very good decision.
1620
Further to that, I realize that party, not the Bloc Quebecois
because I appreciate it moving this motion in protest and it has
a right to do that, but the Reform Party constantly confuses
attacking the government with attacking parliament. The decision
with the flag was a case where the Reform Party was attacking
parliament. Again we hear the Reform Party attacking you, Mr.
Speaker, when it really means that it wants to attack the
government. It is dissatisfied with the government, but
constantly it confuses it, and it is such a shame.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the fifth
party for agreeing to give up its opposition day today so that we
could debate this motion. If that settles the member down and
reduces his blood pressure, I am happy to contribute.
The member referred to the flag debate. I was in this place.
It was at the beginning of this parliament.
We hear people talking about decorum in this place. Let us take
a look at what has happened.
I remember a member of the Bloc picking up his chair and walking
out of this place. He took it to his riding. That is real
decorum, that is. We have the young people stealing the
furniture for goodness sake.
I remember members opposite wearing Mexican sombreros and doing
hat dances outside. I do not know what they were protesting.
People painted a car with a Canadian flag and drove it all
around Parliament Hill.
These are parliamentarians. I think that Canadians are a bit
embarrassed. They become embarrassed with the kind of nonsense
they see in this place. I think it is a shame that the Bloc
wants to take it out on you, sir.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
during such a serious debate, one of such grave importance, I
was surprised to hear language befitting back street brawls.
I was also surprised to hear, in this House, statements that
trivialized, minimized, and ran down the approach the Bloc
Quebecois has undertaken today.
Before I get to the heart of the issue, I would like to make a
brief aside.
I heard the member for Mississauga West say that his
constituents are fed up with this issue, that they do not want
to hear one more word about the Constitution and Quebec's place
within or outside Canada.
Very few countries in the world can say that one of their
original constituents, a province, a founding nation was and
still is excluded from a constitutional reform, which, in this
case, took place in 1982. Few countries in the world can boast
of such a sorry record, a sorry performance: deliberately
excluding from and keeping out of their Constitution an entire
people, a founding people of this country, a founding province
of the Canadian federation.
That being said, I want to go back to the heart of the debate.
This morning, I heard an hon. member say “Mr. Speaker, we are
here to determine whether or not you should lose your job”. As
if the only thing at stake here was the job of one individual,
namely yourself, Mr. Speaker, as the Speaker of the House of
Commons.
We have heard that it is the responsibility of the Speaker of
the House to take decisions and the responsibility of members to
abide by those decisions. During the course of almost seven
years that we have been sitting here in this House, Mr. Speaker,
you have made decisions that were sometimes in our favour, and
sometimes not.
1625
We have always accepted your decisions, as it is our duty to do,
because we have always had great confidence in you and in the
institution that you represent as the Speaker of the House of
Commons.
Some members, like the hon. member for Mississauga—West, have
tried to make a direct connection between this motion of
non-confidence in the Speaker and Bill C-20.
I think that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois has clearly
stated—obviously the hon. member for Mississauga—West was not
listening when he made his speech this morning and therefore did
not hear this—that no such connection can be made between Bill
C-20 and the non-confidence motion we are currently debating,
because, had you ruled that there was a prima facie case of
privilege with respect to the amendments—I will come back to that
later—and had consequently heard or allowed the hon. member for
Rimouski—Mitis to move her motion, the issue would now be before
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Long before Bill C-20 was passed, this issue could have been
referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, and today we would not be debating this motion of
non-confidence in the Speaker. Therefore those who see things in
a negative way and try to imply there is a link between this
non-confidence motion and debate on Bill C-20 are mistaken.
What we are referring to is the fact that the Bloc Quebecois
prepared a number of amendments, with the help of legislative
counsel, in preparation for the report stage, gave rise to this
interpretation, because some seemed to think that it was way too
many amendments for a bill with only three clauses.
This is not just a bill containing three clauses, it is a bill
that goes to the heart of democracy in Quebec, that deals with
the very existence of Quebec whether inside or outside Canada,
or even with the future of any other province since the
government wants us to believe it applies to all the Canadian
provinces, and involves the future of any province either inside
or outside Canada.
It is not just a bill with three clauses; it is a fundamental
bill, probably one of the most fundamental bills we will have
had to vote on in this House. Yet the government rammed it
through the House, rushing through every stage. Not one stage
was disposed of in a normal and reasonable length of time. We
rushed through every single one of them.
Closure was imposed at second reading. They wanted to impose
closure in committee to limit work. Since they were not able to
do so, they imposed closure in the House, at report stage and at
third reading. Double closure was imposed.
As I was going to say, it just happened that for this bill we
drafted a number of amendments with the help of legislative
counsel and we moved a number of those amendments. Surprisingly,
we realized that two of the amendments drafted with legislative
counsel yet never moved had been ruled out of order. What a
shock.
There was a second surprise: a number of other amendments that
we had moved were ruled out of order based upon technical
criteria.
For example, the bill referred to secession, so the word
sovereignty was beyond its scope. We went back to work and
replaced the word sovereignty by the word secession just to
please the Liberal government and, surprise, surprise, these
amendments were again rejected.
1630
Members will understand that we wondered about the impartiality
with which we were treated with during the whole process. We
wondered about the confidentiality that must exist between the
members of parliament and legislative counsel. We thought that
it was so important that we raised a question of privilege. Why?
Because we were convinced that there had been a breach of
confidentiality.
We learned that this administrative change had been made about
three years ago by the officers of the House.
As a member of the House, I had not been made aware of that.
Moreover, I am also a member of the Board of Internal Economy,
and even though I do not usually miss a lot of board meetings, I
never heard about the fact that this client-lawyer privileged
relationship, this relationship of confidentiality between
legislative counsel and members, had been changed, that someone
somewhere had decided that legislative counsel would be required
to share their knowledge of amendments with the clerks.
I must tell you that this is hard to swallow because it shows
that there is a double standard in the House.
When the government puts amendments on the Order Paper, does it
submit them to the clerks beforehand? Of course not. Why then
should the amendments prepared by members of the House with the
legislative counsel be shared with the clerks? Why has the
client-lawyer type relationship of confidentiality between
members and legislative counsel been broken? We do not know.
What we do know, however, is that when we raised this question
of privilege in the House, the Chair considered it. You then
said, and I will quote you directly:
I am unable to find that this constitutes a prima facie question
of privilege or a contempt of the House.
You continued by saying:
Hon. members should understand that House legislative counsel do
not work in isolation. There is no separate database for
legislative counsel as the hon. member suggests. The legislative
database supports the work of all persons having duties within
the field of legislative support operations.
I revert to my question. How is it that the government can put
amendments in the Notice Paper without having to share the
knowledge of these amendments with the clerks?
I wonder how things worked here before this administrative
change, which, as a member of parliament and a member of the
Board of Internal Economy, I had never heard about, except a few
days before all these incidents occurred, was implemented and
even before—to go further—computers began to be used in the
House, even before legislative counsel could put draft
amendments into databases.
Am I to understand from your ruling that, at one time, clerks
would sneak into the legislative counsel's offices, open their
filing cabinet, go through their files to see what they
contained, which amendments had been prepared, for whom and for
what purpose?
1635
It seems to me that, except for the desire to speed up their
work and make it easier during the night after we submitted our
amendments, nothing can justify that a clerk should consult the
legislative counsel's databank to avoid inputting all the
information once more, reprint and reformat everything, to make
an end of it. That's it, that's all.
This certainly makes the work of the clerks easier, but in the
past, when everything had to be done manually, how far did the
clerks go to make their work easier? Did they go as far as to
search through the legislative counsel's filing cabinets?
I am told that this change was made just three years ago.
Therefore, you cannot suggest that it has always been done in
the past.
When something as fundamental as the trust that should exist
between each hon. member and a legislative counsel is breached,
there is something more important, more serious, and with more
far-reaching consequences at stake than a simple decision by the
Chair with which we should comply.
Through your decision, you have somehow validated a practice,
and that prompted us to raise the question of privilege. Mr.
Speaker, for reasons I have a hard time understanding, you have
decided that there was not a prima facie case that the
privileges of members of Parliament had been breached, when we
were deeply convinced that there was a case.
We thought we had clearly demonstrated that the trust, the
confidentiality that must exist in the relationship between the
hon. members and the legislative counsels, had been breached.
Instead, in your ruling, a ruling that really shocked us, for
the reasons I mentioned earlier, you validated this new
administrative process.
If we cannot be sure anymore that the work we do with the
legislative counsels will not be used for other purposes, surely
you can understand that we seriously question the system. We are
questioning it because we are there are other bills before the
House, and we are working on a number of amendments regarding
them.
We have heard the government House leader make a statement to
the effect that, in light of what was happening with Bill C-20
and with Bill C-3 coming up for consideration, the government
better take action. That is why he introduced his infamous
Motion No. 8. Forced to backtrack on that motion, he has now
placed Motion No. 9 on the Order Paper. He is taking precautions,
in anticipation of what will happen with Bill C-3.
How can the government House leader claim to know what is going
to happen?
Considering the events of the last days and weeks, the situation
with the two amendments of the Bloc and also what happened with
the other amendments declared out of order after we changed
them, you will understand that it was rather disturbing to hear
the government House leader say that he knew what was coming.
How can he know that? How could he know what was coming unless
someone somewhere informed him?
The relationship of trust has been breached. Mr. Speaker, the
ruling you made on the question of privilege by my colleague
from Rimouski—Mitis is not just a ruling like any other. I want
to tell you right away that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois was
heart broken at having to move a motion of non-confidence in the Speaker.
1640
You know me well enough to know that I have profound respect for
you and your office. You know that I respect you and your
office. You also know that, if we are debating this motion today
it is not, contrary to what the hon. member for Mississauga West
said so outrageously, to satisfy some political agenda. That is
not the object of the exercise.
It is unworthy of the hon. member to try to reduce what is now
happening to a single manoeuvre or ploy by the Bloc Quebecois
because we are exasperated by our failure to defeat Bill C-20.
That is not what we are doing today.
There is a saying that if wishes were horses, then beggars would
ride. I repeat that if you had simply allowed my hon. colleague
from Rimouski—Mitis to move her motion, allowed it to be debated,
we would have long ago stopped talking about this question,
except in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
where it would have been considered. This matter deserves due
consideration. When you decided not to accept it, you brushed it
off, and a fundamental relationship, a relationship of trust was
definitively breached.
It might not be too late, but I want you to know that, contrary
to what some might say, now it is not a question of whether we
want to get rid of you or not. Because of the ruling, because of
what has taken place, something very alarming, I am concerned by
what the leader of the government said. He said “We knew what
was coming”. But how can he know what is coming? You see, the
relationship of trust has been breached.
We did not have any other choice, and I must tell you that we
were heartbroken to have to introduce this non-confidence motion.
I would like to think that before the end of the day, something
will happen that will allow us not to vote on it, otherwise my
colleagues and myself will have no choice but to stand up in
this House and vote for this motion. It would be a very hard
thing to do, but there would be no other choice.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have had the privilege of serving in the House for
three terms. I have always thought that this was one of the
greatest honours and privileges of my life.
I have always considered this was the nation's boardroom, the
boardroom of Canada. This is the chamber where we come together
to build a better Canada. Mr. Speaker, you are the chairman of
this board. This is not the Prime Minister's chamber. This is
not the chamber of the Liberal Party or the chamber of the Bloc
Quebecois. This is the chamber of Canada.
In the last six years something different has happened in this
Chamber. Through the democratic process duly elected members
from the province of Quebec have come here to say they are not
here to build Canada but to begin a separate country called
Quebec. There have been times when I found it very difficult to
deal with this situation, but I have always tried to the best of
my ability to work with members of the Bloc Quebecois on certain
social issues where I felt we were together and on which I think
they have done a great job on behalf of all of Canada.
Last week during debate on Bill C-20 the Bloc Quebecois put
forward 1,000 amendments.
1645
Had you not been fair, Mr. Speaker, you would have ruled many of
them out of order. You made this entire chamber of Canada submit
to the right of those members of parliament to put all their
motions through. In summary, I want to say that action ratified
your fairness in this Chamber and I continue to support you.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say two
things about what my hon. colleague said. First, I think it is
not totally accurate and correct to say that members of the Bloc
Quebecois are not here to build a better Canada. Of course, we
are here to promote the sovereignty of Quebec. This is our main
goal. But we are also here to defend the interests of Quebecers
within Canada until Quebec becomes a sovereign country.
We never thought that our role was to make Canada a less
attractive country, because we wish to maintain very close ties
with the rest of Canada. Besides, it is not in our interest to
make Canada a less attractive country or to portray it as such.
That being said, with regard to the issue raised by our
colleague, I believe he is getting things mixed up when he says
that you showed your sense of fairness and justice by accepting
a certain number of amendments, namely the 300 amendment
proposals to Bill C-20 moved by the Bloc Quebecois. How could you
have rejected those amendments? What right would you have had to
refuse amendments that were acceptable and in order, simply
because they had been moved by the Bloc Quebecois? Could you
have refused them for this reason alone?
I am not referring here to the amendments that you duly
accepted, despite the very subjective and partisan evaluations
made by certain people across the way. I am not referring to
that. I am referring to amendments that were refused without
even having even been moved, and to amendments which were
refused after having been changed on the recommendation of the
same people who had refused them and which were nevertheless
ruled out of order.
Now, if the hon. member cannot understand that, maybe he should
listen instead of shouting.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the intervention from
my Bloc colleague. I must say I disagree with a lot of the
interventions from this side of the House, but I agree with what
he has said and I will probably support him in the vote. This is
not a partisan issue. I believe that we have to look at it as
such because the Speaker of the House—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I refer to my previous intervention
for those who are making catcalls. I would like to give a
positive suggestion at this point.
The Clerk of the House and the law clerk are both appointed by
the government. They are governor in council appointments. The
Prime Minister's Office puts those people in place. One
suggestion I can make is that these positions should be filled in
the same way as the Speaker's position. The names should be put
forward and approved by two-thirds of the members of the House.
I am asking if my colleague from the Bloc would agree that may
be a positive suggestion. We have the whole question of
confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege being put into
question. The Speaker has a problem in that regard. I put that
positive suggestion forward. I think we have to resolve some of
these things.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Reform
Party has raised a very important issue.
In a country that claims to be a model of democracy but that
recently mocked parliamentary democracy as never before by
passing a very vague bill on clarity, a bill that, according to
the members opposite, was intended to protect the people of
Quebec against themselves, we have a pretty strange democratic
process, if we consider that the Chief Electoral Officer is
appointed by the governing party, the returning officers in each
of the Canadian ridings are appointed by the governing party and
the Clerk and the Deputy Principal Clerk of the House are
appointed by the governing party.
1650
There are also a number of government agency officials that are
appointed by the governing party, but at least the governing
party has the decency to pretend to consult with the other
political parties in the House, in some instances. Does it
really take their opinion into account? That is another story.
But at least, there is some sort of consultation.
It might be time now to consult more seriously with the
political parties for the appointment of the main officials in
this House.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
only a short comment to make. If we have enough time, certain of
my colleagues will speak to the motion as such.
Mr. Speaker, you can rest in peace. I heard nothing serious
about you or about the Chair. I am not impressed with the fact
that such an important motion, one that is very rarely used in
parliament, has been moved. As we say in English, I ask my
colleague from the Bloc Quebecois “Where's the beef?” in terms
of the motion concerning the Speaker.
I have a lot of respect for the whip, who made a good speech.
Undeniably, there is a problem, but then to make a connection
with you, in a motion that takes precedence over everything
else—I ask the whip to for an explanation. I also want him to
explain to those who are watching us and who are calling my
office to find out what is going on.
I ask the whip to enlighten me.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, in response to the comment
made by my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party, I
must say that I did not find his arguments very compelling
either.
He should know, which does not seem to be the case, that members
of the opposition have very few recourses in the House. I heard
the parliamentary leader of the New Democratic Party say this
morning that, yes, the problem raised by the Bloc Quebecois was
serious, but it was not the right solution.
I agree with him. We proposed another solution before that. We
proposed that this whole issue be referred to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, but the Speaker
refused. What kind of recourse do we have left after that?
Once the basic relationship of confidentiality and trust with
certain officials of the House has been breached and once the
Speaker has ruled that everything is all right, that there is no
problem, that there will be no discussion and no attempt to find
a solution, there is no other option for us, as members of an
opposition party, than to say that we think the Speaker did not
give a good ruling and that, consequently, we cannot have
confidence in that ruling.
What kind of recourse do we have left? Maybe the brilliant and
distinguished member for Richmond—Arthabasca will be able to find
an answer to this question for me.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to debate the motion before us. I would like to
refocus the debate on the motion itself. I shall divide my time
with the member for Brossard—La Prairie. Motion No. 59,
introduced by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, reads:
That this House resolve that it no longer has confidence in the
Speaker, since it is of the opinion that the Speaker exhibited
partiality in determining that the question of privilege raised
by the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis on Wednesday, March 1,
2000 was out of order and in rejecting the point of order raised
by the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, to the detriment
of the rights and privileges of all of the members of this House.
Thus two points are raised as a basis, in effect, for censuring
the Speaker of our House. First, there is the censure language,
that “this House resolve that it no longer has confidence in the
Speaker—to the detriment of the rights and privileges of al
members of this House”. To this I say clearly and unequivocally
that you have continued to earn my trust and confidence, Mr.
Speaker, although from time to time I might have differed with
your interpretation and adjudication of the application of rules.
Furthermore, I say with equal resolute confidence that my rights
and privileges have not been adversely affected.
1655
I support your ruling given on March 13 on the question of
privilege raised on March 1 by the deputy House leader of the
Bloc Quebecois. It is this ruling by you, Mr. Speaker, that is
used as one of the bases for the censure motion before us. No
doubt the Bloc Quebecois did not particularly like your ruling,
but I submit that dislike of a ruling in itself does not
establish that you were partial when you rendered that ruling.
To allow the censure motion to prosper on the basis of this
point would in effect condone a successful challenge to your
ruling, an approach which is clearly forbidden and explicitly
prohibited in the standing orders of our House. I will read
Standing Order 10 at page six:
The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide
questions of order. In deciding a point of order or practice,
the Speaker shall state the Standing Order or other authority
applicable to the case. No debate shall be permitted on any such
decision, and no such decision shall be subject to an appeal to
the House.
To allow the censure motion on this basis would also in effect
say that the member for Rimouski—Mitis who initially raised the
question of privilege has an impartiality and a level of wisdom
superior to the Speaker.
I would submit that you continue to display superior competence
and wisdom. I also believe that you have been impartial at all
times. For these reasons I respectfully submit to the House that
the censure motion before us loses ground and should be defeated.
I say to my colleagues, through you, Mr. Speaker, that this
approach, as unintended as it might be, on the part of the Bloc
Quebecois by way of this motion, although it might be an
imaginative tool to bring back debate on the clarity act bill,
which received third reading and passage in the House yesterday
and now goes to the Senate, and although it might be a tool to
bring attention to other issues, allows challenge to the ruling
of the Chair, the servant of the House. It is clear that to
allow that would be in clear breach of our standing orders in the
Chamber.
The rule is there and is intended to maintain decorum in and the
dignity of the House. Without it there would be chaos. For the
same foregoing reasons the House should reject the second point
of the censure motion in rejecting the point of order raised by
the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry. Indeed, the sponsor
of the censure motion said in opening debate that we must
investigate and revisit that ruling. That is a clear indication
of trying to challenge the ruling itself.
Let me state for the record of this debate, Mr. Speaker, the
essence of your ruling on the question as found at page 4376 of
Hansard for March 13:
In this case, I note there is no mention of any breach of
confidentiality whereby the text of proposed motions of the hon.
member or her party has been made known to persons working
outside the field of legislative support operations or to other
members. Confidential information proprietary to the Bloc
Quebecois and several of its members remained completely and
absolutely confidential. Consequently, I am unable to find that
this constitutes a prima facie question of privilege or a
contempt of the House.
1700
Your particular ruling was sound and impartial. It merits the
support, confidence and trust of all members of the House in the
best traditions of our parliamentary democracy. In compliance
with Standing Order 10, a ruling of the Speaker should not be
subject to appeal to the House.
Let me now address the argument raised by the House leader of
the Reform Party in debating the censure motion before us. He
said that the censure motion is not about the question of
confidentiality, nor about the performance of the clerks and
legislative counsel of the House. The Reform Party House leader
went on to claim that the censure motion is a result of the
government misreading the Bloc on Bill C-20.
The whip of the Reform Party also claimed that there should be a
free vote as we judge our confidence in the Speaker based on the
Chair's performance during your tenure, Mr. Speaker, since your
election by the House a few years ago.
Let me just caution colleagues that the censure motion before us
is very specific as to the two considerations which we have to
vote on. They are the Speaker's ruling to which I alluded
earlier as well as the timeframe during which the question of
privilege and the point of order for which the aforementioned
ruling was rendered, which was on or around March 1, 2000.
To extend the timeframe beyond the substantive scope contained
in the censure motion as a basis for our voting would be ill
advised to say the least. It would be reckless at its worst in
the tradition of parliamentary democracy. It would be
vindictive. It would be a mockery of our human conscience.
Let me end with a quote from The Procedure of the House of
Commons by Josef Redlich. On the question of a vote of
censure upon the Speaker it states:
It need hardly be said that such an event is abnormal and happens
but rarely, and that such a motion would only be acceded to by
the House if the circumstances fully justified it...it would
appear seriously to undermine the exalted position and dignity of
the Speaker if, in addition to his application of the rules being
open to challenge upon special and important occasions, it was
competent for every member to call in question the Speaker's
authority whenever he chose, and if he was liable at all times to
be called upon to defend the correctness of his decisions.
I appeal to my colleagues. Let us exercise due diligence and
care. Let us vote based on reason, based on our established
rules and order and based on wisdom. Let us summon the reason of
goodwill in us. It has been with the gift of the Canadian
electorate that we are here in the House. Let us use that gift
wisely in a way that present and future generations can be proud
of our place in this hallowed Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to have confidence in you.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are currently debating a motion of non-confidence in the Chair.
This motion was introduced by the Bloc Quebecois.
A number of statements by my Bloc colleagues lead me to believe
that this is just an excuse to keep on debating a bill the House
has already disposed of, a bill I believe is strengthening my
rights, my prerogatives and my duties as an elected member of
parliament, a highly democratic bill, contrary to what my
colleagues across the way might think.
Only seconds ago, the Bloc Quebecois whip claimed he is here to
defend the interests of Quebecers. What a coincidence, so am I.
I do not intend to reopen a debate that has already taken place
in full compliance with our democratic and parliamentary rules,
but rather to tie this political issue with the motion before us
today.
1705
I will explain. In the speech he gave this morning, the leader
of the Bloc Quebecois said “The Prime Minister wants to arrive
to the convention of his party with Bill C-20, the clarity act,
in his pocket, not with scandals floating around”. I thought the
issue was the Chair, not the Prime Minister.
This same member also said, referring to the Chair, “I am not
saying there was malice, but that there is a problem”. To
introduce a motion of non-confidence in the Chair does suggest
that the Chair has lacked integrity and acted with malice. It is
a blatant contradiction of terms by the leader of the Bloc.
The reason behind the motion is not the quality of the work of
the Chair, but rather a political fight. The non-confidence
motion in the Chair is a means being used for a political cause.
How can anyone pretend to be a democrat while at the same time
being prepared to use for political purposes the very symbol of
democracy, the Parliament of Canada and its Chair?
This morning, the hon. member for Joliette reinforced the
extremely unpleasant feeling that, for the Bloc, the end
justifies the means. He said in so many words that the issue was
not a lack of confidence in the Speaker.
It may not be a matter of lack of confidence, but a motion of
non-confidence in the Speaker has been moved. This is
inconsistency at its best.
Obviously, Speaker's rulings may be challenged, but I do not
think this a valid reason to question the Speaker's integrity.
Our Parliament is an eminently respectable institution, but it
was created by human beings. It is managed by human beings. This
means that it is fallible. By essence, it can be improved.
When we have the privilege of being elected, we inherit many
responsibilities, one of which is to constantly strive to
improve this institution with due respect for all its members,
with dignity, and by rising above partisanship.
We have just spent almost 40 hours straight voting on
amendments. Regardless of the content of these amendments, the
process itself is totally absurd. This is the second time in a
few months that all members have been held hostage. Surely the
operation of our institution could be improved.
The right of all parliamentarians to debate is a fundamental
right. But systematically obstructing the business of the House
is not a right. It is a practice that reflects great weaknesses,
a practice, not a right, which should be more tightly
controlled.
Should a suggestion be made that we try to improve the operation
of the House, I would go for that. If the suggestion is to find
new ways to protect the democratic rights of all members of
Parliament, again, I agree. But I would not agree to withdraw
the confidence of the House in the Chair.
This morning, the hon. member for Roberval expressed his respect
for the Canadian institution. In that spirit, I urge him to
withdraw this motion, which serves no one and does not
contribute to the respect and dignity of the House and its
Chair.
Failing that, in the name of integrity and out of respect for
our institution, I will have no choice but to vote against this
motion.
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, first and
foremost I want our friends from the Bloc to understand that we
want our people from Quebec to be part of Canada. We know it is a
very emotional situation, we really do, but I want to say that we
in our party have great respect for you, Mr. Speaker. I cannot
believe that anyone would put on the floor of the House a
non-confidence motion in you, Mr. Speaker, in any of our clerks
or in any of our people. I cannot believe it.
I understand that this is an emotional situation. I understand
that there is a long debate, there has been and will continue to
be I am sure in the future. But we want you to know, Mr.
Speaker, that we do have respect.
I know from personal experience having been here with only two
of us in our party, Jean Charest and myself, that had it not been
for you, Mr. Speaker, I would probably never have stayed.
But you encouraged me to be here because my people elected me and
you treated me fairly. I find that you treat us all with
respect. That is what it is all about. Yes, if there has been a
mistake and if we do not agree perhaps with every decision you
make, that is life. You do not agree with all the questions that
we ask and I can understand that.
1710
Certainly that is what this is all about. That is the
democratic process and our colleagues have to understand that.
I ask my colleagues to withdraw the non-confidence motion. That
motion is not the right thing to do. I ask that they consider
that immediately. Yes, we want them to be able to debate. Maybe
they should have had the 1,000 amendments and have been able to
debate them, but I cannot agree with putting forward a
non-confidence vote on our Speaker. I will not agree with it and
neither will my colleagues. I ask that they withdraw the motion.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I concur with my colleague from Saint John and my entire
caucus. We support you.
We recognize that this debate came about primarily because of
the frustration that the Bloc was experiencing with regard to
Bill C-20. None of us disagree with the Bloc's sensitivity to
this issue. That was exhibited through debate with the
frustration and so on. It has led to a high level of frustration.
I think the motion was launched on the basis of frustration,
nothing more nothing less.
Mr. Speaker, it is the same frustration we all feel and which I
know you felt when you were sitting here as a backbench member of
parliament. I have taken the opportunity today to look at your
career as a member of parliament. You are like any of us here.
You earned your way to stand in this place and represent your
constituents. I think you have done an extremely good job.
I was with you in a previous parliament, Mr. Speaker. I guess
we share a commonality. We know what it is like to be a
backbencher on the government side. My experience is it was
probably more frustrating to be a backbencher on the government
side than it is on the opposition side. This job by definition
is frustrating regardless of what side we sit on.
There is a commonality between yourself and myself as members of
parliament. You earned your way here. You sat out a term in
that you were defeated in a general election in 1984 when your
party was not very popular. I would not consider that a personal
defeat but you had the fortitude to stand up and run for office
again and you came back to this place. I did the same thing in
1993. I experienced personal defeat and came back to the House
in 1997. Few members have that opportunity. Most of us will not
go through that fight to earn our place, our right to stand in
this place and defend our constituents, defend the things we
believe in.
For the most part I think we do it fairly well. As members have
stated here earlier in the day, it is one of the few countries in
the world with a true democracy. We could almost identify with
our 10 fingers, on two hands, the true democracies in this world.
The number does not extend much beyond a couple of handfuls. It
is a very small number of countries. Every night we see in the
newscasts countries that have civil unrest, where decisions are
made at the point of a gun and where there is no true democracy.
This is a place we can be proud of. People back home, my wife,
my family, my own flesh and blood sometimes get a little
discouraged by what they see happening in this place. It goes
back, Mr. Speaker, to how you got here, how I got here and how
everyone else got here.
1715
It is a tough and brutal business. The weapons we use are
merely words. From time to time we do get exercised. I have
become exercised, because we are here fighting for what we
believe in.
Members disagree in the House. You, Mr. Speaker, have seen it
time and time again. We will fire away at a cabinet minister, or
vice versa, and when it is all over we will walk outside, shake
hands or pat each other on the back and go back at it the next
day because we honour that tradition. We honour the right to do
that in this place.
Mr. Speaker, you are merely the referee. You have the toughest
job. Being prime minister is not easy. Being the leader of the
opposition or the fourth or fifth party is not an easy job, but
it is easier than your job. We elect you to referee this place
and we expect you to be perfect. We expect you to rule every
time according to the way we see things. We always want to be
right, but we very seldom are, and you do the best job as a mere
mortal to referee this very intense setting. On a day to day
basis you do it as good as anyone ever has, including Speaker
Fraser, for whom you have a great deal of respect, and a Speaker
I served under.
You were elected by us. I was elected by the people back home
to stand in this place to state how I see it. They gave me the
right and the privilege to do that. We gave you the privilege to
referee this very intense forum.
You have heard comments today that, as a mere mortal, I do not
know if I could take them. I could not.
An hon. member: You could not, trust me.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of our
caucus is speaking. He often tells me that if I do not like what
he is doing as chairman, then I could do it. However, I could
not. My personality does not lead me to be a referee.
Mr. Speaker, you are defenceless. In this place our weapons are
our words. Sometimes we go off the mark a bit, using words that
might be unparliamentary or taking a jab here and there. It is a
tough job in which we want perfection, but we will never have
perfection.
There have been some debates which have taken place in the House
over the years which have led to difficult circumstances for
Speakers. During the pipeline debate of 1956 a motion like this
was before the House and it had a disastrous effect on
parliamentary decorum and the role of the Speaker.
I was here during the omnibus bill which set up the national
energy program. The bells rang for 16 days. The Speaker was put
in a very precarious position. At that time there was
frustration on this side of the House, so the Conservative Party
instituted that weapon and the bells rang for 16 days before the
issue was finally resolved.
That incident happened because of frustration on this side of
the House. The members were using the rules, as they saw them,
to send a message home. We have seen it in the House on a couple
of occasions. During the Nisga'a treaty debate the Reform Party
moved amendments which required us to vote around the clock
for 48 hours, but the bill still passed.
1720
Obviously the Bloc did that this week with Bill C-20. There
were some 400 amendments and we voted around the clock for 36
hours.
They are using tools which are available to them, but at the end
of the day they are extremely frustrated by the outcome.
However, it is wrong of them to take it out on the Speaker. They
are using the rules that exist. If there is any fault, I suggest
that it has to do with too much being on the agenda, forcing
human error. There is too much pressure being placed upon the
legislative ability of the clerks, who work through the procedure
and have to deal with what is before the House.
Human error will never be eliminated in this business. We are
all mortals. We are all human.
Mr. Speaker, we support you. I think this House supports you.
This is only on the agenda today because of frustration, nothing
more and nothing less. We want you there. At the end of the
day, I think you will find that you have a clear majority in the
House.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a comment
to make about the non-confidence motion against the Speaker of
the House.
I must first tell you that I have always considered you as a
distinguished person, a person who is extremely polite in the
House, fair, impartial and showing wisdom.
I suppose that the members of the Bloc Quebecois were extremely
frustrated with Bill C-20 on clarity.
Mr. René Laurin: This is irrelevant.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I would like to demonstrate that, in
rejecting some of the amendments made by members of the Bloc
Quebecois, you did show wisdom.
I do not have the list of amendments you rejected, but judging
by those you accepted—I would like to quote a few, to show
how ridiculous the Bloc Quebecois was.
Some amendments read “That the act come into force on February
1, 2005”; “That the act come into force on April 1, 2005”; “That
the act come into force on May 1, 2005”; “That the act come into
force on June 1, 2005”—
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The Speaker: Order, please. I asked if anyone wished to ask a
question or make a comment. I saw only one member rise from his
seat, namely the hon. member for Carleton—Gloucester, and I
recognized him. Perhaps there were others. With five minutes
remaining, I was going to give him two minutes and a half and
then allow two minutes for the answer, because no one else had
risen.
Consequently he has about 26 seconds left.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I will never be able to
finish in 26 seconds, but I can understand the temper tantrums
of the spoiled brats in the Bloc Quebecois.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: These amendments said “This act shall come
into force—”
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Just a moment. Enough of these stupid
remarks. The member has to stop insulting us, and right now.
The Speaker: Order, please.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how to
respond to that, other than to say that this is a perfect example
of how tough your job is from time to time.
I hope that we can end this debate in a civilized way. I know
that emotions are running very high. It was very wise of the
House to have this debate today to allow us to vent our
frustrations.
In families, organizations and businesses when there is a
problem, they deal with it.
The good thing that is coming out of this exercise is that all
members—Bloc, Liberal, Conservative, NDP and Reform—will have a
chance to stand on their hind legs, say it like it is, get it
out, and then we can get on with the business of the House.
1725
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today with some pride and some disappointment. I am sure
there are members who realize that I have known you for many
years, probably longer than anyone in the House. I have known
you since you were an educator and an administrator. I have
known you through many elections, including the first time you
were elected as Speaker of this great House, which was repeated
four years later.
Mr. Speaker, I know the task that you have, to look after almost
1,400 employees, a large budget and to administer the House.
Part of it includes our table officers and the people who serve
to make sure that the House operates in an orderly fashion.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that many times you have asked for order
in the House, not for your benefit but for the benefit of
members. Many times you have to bring to our attention the fact
that we need to get down to the orders of the day.
I know that you as an individual like to give as much freedom as
possible to members and people in the House, and that sometimes
we end up taking advantage of that, to our detriment.
I am sorry the member for Edmonton North is not here, but the
member for Saint John mentioned earlier that you very strongly
practise democracy and freedom. You support, probably more than
anyone else, the underdog, the minority, the parties with one or
two members. You give them a chance to speak, to debate and to
be part of this institution. You do it not looking at numbers,
but looking at the individuals who represent the people of this
country. I thank the member for Saint John for her remarks.
You also tried, for many years, to improve the decorum of the
House, working with members of all parties to focus on the reason
we are here, which is to serve the people of Canada.
While you were a member you were the chairman of many
committees, no matter which party was in power, because your
abilities were respected and you were known to deal fairly with
the mandate of a committee.
As Speaker you are not here to favour one party over another;
you are here to encourage debate. I know that you defend
outright that the attacks in the House should not be personal,
but to the issues of the day.
1730
Mr. Speaker, I know you have a lot of respect for this
institution called the House of Commons. I know you believe very
strongly in the importance of proper debate and teamwork of one
party, another party, the table officers and the requirement for
many people to work together to make sure the House of Commons
functions properly. I know you review the precedents of the
House many times and use it as your guide. You also protect this
fine institution not just for today but for tomorrow and many
years to come and to protect our country, Canada.
Mr. Speaker, members have mentioned today that you have ruled in
favour of the Reform Party and you have ruled not in favour of
the Reform Party. I know you have ruled in favour of the Bloc
Party and not in favour of the Bloc Party. You have done the
same thing for the other parties, as the member for Saint John
said. You have ruled in favour and you have ruled not in favour.
You have ruled in favour of the government and you have ruled not
in favour of the government. I believe that is why you are there
as the Speaker.
To me, this is an example of your impartiality and respect for
the House and the House rules that we approve for you to carry
out. Mr. Speaker, it is for that reason that I find this
accusation of non-confidence totally outrageous and very
disappointing. Although people have said it is not a personal
attack on your integrity, I am afraid it is. That is very
disappointing to me.
I know of your patience and your fairness, Mr. Speaker. I am
sorry, and will probably want to apologize, that the opposition
has taken this opportunity to discredit you because they are
trying to get at the government for no valid reason at all.
Before I conclude, I forgot to mention that I will be splitting
my time with the member for Winnipeg South.
Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that I have full confidence in
your ability to fulfil the office of Speaker of the House so we,
as Canadians, can represent the 301 ridings. We are representing
Canadians and we will do it to the best of our ability, as best
possible as human-beings, for the good of our country called
Canada.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I admire
the member for St. Catharines. I think he has been a pretty good
and calm individual in the House. He has obviously expressed his
friendly relations with the Speaker.
The issue to me is really one of the legislative counsel. The
legislative counsel brought this concern to the House. I would
like to know from the member if he thinks that legislative
counsel should be able to keep a bond of client-solicitor
privilege with members it has received documents from. This is
one of the things that causes me concern. I believe this is a
very special privilege and somehow it seems to have been eroded a
bit with this issue.
Could the member comment specifically on the issue of
client-solicitor privilege as it relates to legislative counsel?
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the question and his remarks.
I am not a lawyer. I am a team player. I know that the table,
the legislative officers and the legal counsels all have to work
together for the good of the hon. member, for me and for every
member in this House. I believe, from the discussions we have
had today and from the input that our table officers, our legal
counsel and our legislators have received, that we will be
stronger for that. I believe they have to work together to make
this happen for us.
1735
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
painful to listen to the remarks made by the member opposite in
this context because during his whole speech—I repeat, during his
whole speech—he only talked about the past.
He talked about all the accomplishments, but he forgot something
essential, namely to talk about the issue we are debating today.
I would like to know his opinion on this subject.
Since this morning, the Liberals have been trying to divert the
debate we are having today. This debate has absolutely nothing
to do with what happened last night in a vote that was won by
the Liberals.
However, this debate is part of the process that led to that
vote last night. Normally, it should have taken place before the
bill was read the third time and passed. However, we know what
the ruling was. The government rode roughshod over democracy to
pass Bill C-20 so the Liberals could use this sad moment in the
history of democracy to glorify themselves this weekend.
I would like to know from the member opposite whether he agrees
that in 2000, not in 1940 or in 1950, we should be able to rely
on people to do their work fairly, to keep this information
confidential and not share them with partisan interests.
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, I
came here in 1993. It was my first time as a member of
parliament. The one thing I did over the first couple of years
was to understand and respect the clerk, the table officers, the
legal counsel and the Speaker of the House to do the right things
for this institution and for Canadians across the country who we
represent. Mr. Speaker, I maintain that full confidence in all of you.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to tell
you how pleased I am to be able to participate in this debate. I
was not aware, earlier this morning, that it was being called
today and had to negotiate fiercely in the back rooms to get
here. I wanted to be here because this is an issue that I feel
very strongly about.
I was first elected in 1988 in the provincial legislature in
Manitoba at a time when our party had only one member in the
House. All of a sudden, we became the official opposition
overnight, not unlike what occurred with the Reform Party. I was
made the House leader and, in the course of a very few hours, had
to learn and understand all the rules, the procedure, the
precedents and the history of the House in order to get a feeling
for how this place must work.
As I was sitting here earlier today listening to the member for
Edmonton North, I was interested when, toward the conclusion of
her remarks, she made a comment about being concerned about a
reduction in the democratic rights that exist in this House. I
forget exactly how it was phrased but it was in that general
area. I want to say that I agree with that. I think there is a
problem. I do not think it is a problem that occurred this week
or this month. I think it is a problem that has been growing
over the last 30 years. Some who are better would go back
further than that.
Because my particular interest is in the way in which
communication moves in the world, I argue that it is because the
world has speeded up so dramatically and there has been such a
demand on this place to change. It has resisted change so much
that one of the consequences has been that we have twisted some
of the ways in which we function in order to accommodate these
demands for speed by the external world rather than reform our
institutions internally.
I think we have to do that. It is an issue I study, an issue I
write about and an issue I will be speaking about a great deal
more. I wanted to take note that there is an important issue
underlying this.
1740
I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for
Intergovernmental Affairs and I did not feel good going into
committee and proposing the motion for time allocation on its
work. It was something that did not make me feel good. I do not
think that is the best way to function in a democracy but I did
it. Nobody told me to do that. I did it.
I stood up and voted for time allocation every time it was
proposed because I think this place is broken. However, if that
is the situation we are in, if that is the situation that has
been created and if that is the situation we have to live with,
then I will support those things that we need to do at this time
in order to make this place work.
One of the reasons I supported it as strongly as I did with the
Bloc members was because they had said that this place was not
working the way it was supposed to work. It was not “Let's come
together and debate ideas and see if we can find a constructive
way to build a better country”. Instead it was “We are not
going to allow this thing to happen, regardless. It doesn't
matter what you do, what you say, what you propose, or how long.
It is not going to change anything. All we are going to do is
obstruct”.
I supported it and I did some things that I hope, over the
course of the next two years, will bring some reform. It may
take longer. Our esteemed clerk will have a better sense of how
long it will take for this glacier to move. I think there needs
to be reform in how we function in the House.
Having said that, I want to tell all hon. members of the House
that it is not the role of the Speaker to do that. It is our
responsibility to do that. The referee does not make the rules.
There is something else I find interesting. When I served as a
house leader it was in a house where the Speaker was appointed by
the government and there was always a sense that the Speaker
really played on the other team. For the time I was in the
House, the Speaker was the Hon. Denis Rocan, whom I think you
know, Mr. Speaker. He became a good friend of mine because he
was so even-handed in the way he handled the work he did, even
though he was appointed by the government of the day.
Here that is not the case. This Speaker is our Speaker; not
our, as in we, the government, but all of us. We elected him. In
fact, if I recall, Mr. Speaker, in 1993 you ran against Liberals,
so you were elected by all of us. There were members from all
parties in the House who elected you.
I want to tell hon. members opposite that we do not agree with
everything he does. I have heard more than one member over here
express a bit of annoyance. It happens, but as the Prime
Minister often says, if the left is mad at us and the right is
mad at us, maybe we are doing the right thing.
It is a tough job to herd cats. It is a tough job to make this
place work because it is a feeling. We have a set of rules and
practices, but the Speaker also has the ability to understand the
House organically. If anything, I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that
at times you have gone too far in urging a member to retract a
statement and in trying to give somebody an opening to back away
from something they have done to transgress the rules. However,
I think that every time you have done it, you have done it out of
respect for the House and what the House is all about.
This is a fight between the Bloc and the government in this
particular case.
We do not expect the Speaker to fix that fight. All the Speaker
can do is referee and manage. We do not expect him to solve those
problems. We set the rules. This Chamber sets the rules. This
country sets the rules in the Chamber. It is not for the Speaker
to do.
1745
I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I hope there will be
opportunities over the next few years to debate how the House
might evolve and how the rules of the House and the operations
might evolve.
I profess to have not much but a little experience in this area.
I want to express my personal support and my absolute confidence
in you, Mr. Speaker. I am very sorry we are even having to
debate this motion today.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was not expecting to come to the House
this afternoon. I was busy in my office in the Confederation
Building, but I had the television on—
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I just want to know whether the member is on questions and
comments or debate.
The Speaker: Questions and comments.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard: I am on questions and comments. Mr.
Speaker, I heard the debate and I have come here to make a
comment.
First let me say that the House has to know I consider myself to
be a good friend of the Speaker. He and I lived together for
five years. He and I and others shared a condominium here in
Ottawa. I know the gentleman who occupies the chair. I respect
him. I consider him a personal friend. When he was first
elected as Speaker in 1993 I voted for him. I voted for him
again in 1997. I know this man. I know that he is fair. I
respect him. I know he does his job as well as anyone.
As a member of the House and as a friend, have I always agreed
with every decision that he has made? No. I think that my good
friend the Speaker sometimes is too soft on all of us and
sometimes I would expect him to be a little tougher.
He is a good referee. He is a good umpire. I find it very
strange that in this motion of censure the word “partiality”
would be used, that the good Speaker would be accused of
partiality. There is not a drop of partiality in his blood.
What I find interesting is that the Speaker allowed 410 motions
with respect to the clarity bill. What does that suggest, hon.
members? That suggests to me that the Speaker bent over
absolutely backward to allow every possible motion, every
possible amendment to allow the Bloc in this particular case, the
opposition, the mover to—
The Speaker: Order, please. I would like to go on
hearing the member but I am going to give the floor to the hon.
member for Winnipeg South in response to a comment.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I will keep my comment very
short. I believe the Bloc member has a question also.
Certainly I underscore everything that the member just said. In
fact it was the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia who
first introduced me to the Speaker and acted as a reference
really when I was trying to sort out who would be the person we
might choose as Speaker. It was an absolutely open vote. I have
always respected the choice that I made.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what I find
very disturbing in the comments by the member, with whom I
worked and for whom I have a lot of respect, is that he did not
address the issue.
I know he is intelligent enough to know there is a problem, but
he chose not to address it, and I find this disturbing. At issue
is the changing nature of the relationship between the members
and the legislative counsel. This is the issue. This is a change
we were not advised of.
1750
This change may well have been made in good faith, but we have
every right to consider it as a breach of our privileges as MPs.
We have the right to expect, when dealing with a legislative
counsel regarding a private member's bill, or when working on
amendments in a committee, that he will be the only one privy to
the amendment until it is published in the order paper.
[English]
Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, the member is right. The
member is entitled to know and entitled to raise a question of
privilege and expect the House to rule on it. That is a fact.
But in not being satisfied with the answer, is this what we will
see from the Bloc all the time? If one loses, loses and loses, is
the next arrow out of the quiver an effort to try to burn the
Speaker? I do not understand it. The problem we need to solve
is one which we need to solve, not the Speaker.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Macleod.
This is a difficult debate to participate in as you can
appreciate more than any of us. I say right off the bat that we
recognize the discomfort you have been put in because of this
debate. It is fair to say that most if not all members of the
House like you very much personally and are very sorry to have
seen this motion come forward.
The motion that has been put forward unfortunately is very
narrow. It makes it difficult for all parties of the House to
focus on exactly what we are debating. The motion talks about the
decision of a particular question of privilege and also a
decision to reject a point of order raised by another member of
the Bloc. Only at the end does it talk about this being to the
detriment of the rights and privileges of all members of the
House.
I would have liked to have seen less of a focus on two
particular decisions. I agree with members from the government
side and other members who have rightly pointed out that if we
are going to use our privileges as members to bring forward
motions simply to stamp our feet and to show displeasure when the
Speaker does not rule in our favour, clearly the House will
become dysfunctional. That would be totally unacceptable both for
members of the House and for democracy itself. That is one
observation I wanted to make about this whole thing.
There is in this debate and in the comments that have been made
a sense that perhaps members do not have entire confidence in the
impartiality of yourself in the chair at times, Mr. Speaker. I
think those comments have come forward. Not knowing you well and
personally, but over the six years in my dealings with you, I
know that you would be inclined to take those concerns extremely
seriously. I am confident that you would take those in the
spirit in which they are offered and would want to evaluate
whether there is any merit in that feeling because of course none
of us are disinterested, are we?
All of us have our own opinions and members of the House have
very strong opinions. We are not very shy about putting them
forward at times. That is why we must rely on you, Mr. Speaker,
as a referee to use wisdom, grace and good balance in ensuring
that the affairs of the House are conducted in a way that
reflects credibly on all of us but also on our country.
1755
This is not just about us. It certainly is not just about you.
This is about Canadians, our democracy and our parliament. We
are players in a drama that has significance for all of us in a
broader context. I know you are aware of this, having heard you
speak and knowing your keen appreciation of the history and the
parliamentary conventions of our country. But it needs to be said
that this is some indication that there is some discomfort
perhaps with balance and impartiality and I know that you would
take it seriously.
The question of privilege that was brought forward having to do
with legislative counsel is of concern to me as well. When my
colleague from Surrey brought this matter up in the House, I made
some comments on it also. I would commend to you the concern of
many members of the House with respect to legislative counsel on
two fronts.
One is their right and responsibility as professionals to act in
a way which respects the convention of solicitor-client privilege
without fear of being penalized or fear of being censored or fear
of not being treated fairly if they insist on doing that. This
is extremely important and I would suggest it should not rest
where it is at this point. It really does need to be dealt with
in a way that takes it beyond where we are today.
The other thing is the whole matter—and I know you are aware of
my feelings on this but I just want to mention them again
briefly—of this element in your ruling of the team. I would
suggest if one member of the team, being a member of parliament,
has information which is integral to his or her role and their
work as a member of parliament and it is shared with other people
against the member's knowledge and consent, it is far from
teamwork. With respect I think that element of your ruling did
not commend itself to my logic. I would say that this is a
burning issue which is not going to go away. It must be dealt
with in a way that is fair to everyone.
As a member who respects you and respects this institution and
democracy, the issue that sparked the debate on the motion today
is an issue that must be dealt with in a different way than it
has been today.
We have heard many opinions and you have many staunch defenders
which is good. I am sure this has been very positive for you as
you evaluate this debate. The issue is really whether this motion
is worthy of support by members of the House. I would suggest
that this is not a partisan matter, certainly not for me. This
is not about the opposition or the government or about the Bloc
or Reform, or other parties. This is really about whether we are
prepared to submit ourselves to your authority acknowledging that
to some degree this is a decision which cannot be taken
frivolously or in a personal way.
We are all part of caucuses and we disagree with our colleagues
from time to time. We even disagree with our leaders from time
to time as you well know. This must be done with humility,
grace, good sense, balance and an appreciation of the needs of
the organization.
Your role is absolutely vital in the House of Commons.
We appreciate the fact that you have operated with the skill, the
grace, the good humour and the forbearance in many cases that you
have shown. In my view perhaps this debate has helped to air
some things and to bring to your attention perhaps some of the
concerns on the minds of members. I think members who have been
forthright enough to engage in the debate are to be commended.
That is a very difficult thing to do because of the high respect
in which both you and your office are held.
1800
I would say that this has been, although painful, perhaps a
healthy debate and one in which all of us have learned some
things. I hope those comments will be helpful to members and to
you in the context of the issue we have been discussing.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
many interesting points have been made by members. I would ask
the member to consider whether or not this place should be
operated in a sense of rigidity and that all things should be
applied to the full extent and letter of all the rules and
procedures of this place, or whether or not a certain discretion
should be used given that the objective is that the House should
be working. I think we all know the old saying about being
careful of what you ask for because you may very well get it.
I am concerned as a backbencher that if we continue to abuse the
privileges and the rights we have in this place what will happen
is that we will be forced to undertake certain reforms within
this place which in fact will tighten the rules even further and
further erode the privileges, rights and opportunities that
ordinary members of parliament have in this place.
I just pose to the member whether or not in terms of the
ultimate outcome here the discretion and the wisdom of the Chair
applied in this case were appropriate and indeed in the best
interest of this place.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises
some very cogent points. I would suggest to him, though, that
the word rigidity is a bit of a loaded word. When points of
order and questions of privilege are brought forward to the Chair
a precedent or what has happened before is always consulted. We
have Beauchesne's referred to in almost every case, both by those
who bring forth points and by the Speaker in responding to them
and making rulings.
There has to be some stability and some order in the way these
things are approached. We cannot sort of have one thing one day
and another thing another day like situational justice. There
has to be some order and some reason for things that are done.
The member talks about wanting to make sure the House works. The
simple answer to that is for whom. We disagree with things that
Bloc members have done but they are part of the democratic
process and have a right to have the House and the process work
for them as well. I think we need to be very fair minded about
that.
The member scared me a bit when he said we would be forced to
change the rules. It sounds like a bit of a threat. I would say
with the government's majority and with some of the things its
members have attempted in the last few days, perhaps that would
not be a good thing to put on the table during this debate.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a very direct question. This motion very
specifically challenges the impartiality of the Speaker and
accuses the Speaker of being partial in a decision and presumably
in other decisions. In this context that means that the Speaker
is being accused of being partisan, because nothing occurs here
that is not partisan if it is partial.
I would like to ask the member who just spoke if this is what
she really means. Does she feel that in supporting this motion
she has lost confidence in the Speaker's ability to be impartial
and that indeed she is accusing him of being partisan?
1805
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, the member, as he so
often does, cut right to the heart of the matter. My simple
answer is that I think there are some signals and some discomfort
in this debate with the issue of impartiality from time to time.
I mentioned that in my remarks.
In my view, Mr. Speaker has not demonstrated a degree of
partiality that would demand full censure from the House. That
is why I said that although this debate is positive it is
probably too narrow at this point to urge members to vote in
favour of this motion. I hope that responds to the member's
question.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I also feel
a little chagrined at being asked to rule on my own confidence in
the Speaker. I look upon the Speaker as a referee and arbiter of
the rules.
I remember quite well that one of the first things I did when I
came here in 1993 was to meet the various candidates for Speaker,
yourself included. I had an opportunity to query you on an issue
that I thought was important. I tried to decide whether or not
you would be impartial. You convinced me that was important at
that time. I am frank to admit that I gave you my vote. It was
a secret ballot so no one would have ever needed to know that,
but that is the way I voted.
I have found myself a little frustrated with some of the
democratic processes in the House lately. I did not enjoy the
process of debate, time allocation and restriction on the
committee work on Bill C-20, the clarity bill. I believe there
were mistakes made on both sides. There was obstruction going on
in the House. I am not sure how I would have responded, if I
were on the government side, to that obstruction. I did think
that some of the things that were done were hasty and more
heavy-handed than they needed to be.
On the processes of the House, in the last little while we have
had two major bills where there has been significant opposition
pressure brought on the government. We did bring those pressures
to bear on Nisga'a to express our concern with the way this new
bill had come through. The Bloc did the same thing with Bill
C-20. It brought every mechanism that it could to bear to
express its vigorous displeasure with that bill.
This, however, does not come down to whether or not the vigorous
opposition that can be mounted should somehow be stifled. Neither
does this come down to an issue of friendship with the Speaker or
personal admiration for the Speaker. To me this comes down to
the issue of whether or not these legal counsel, these officers
who are there to give us help in crafting and organizing our
affairs and to give us advice on making amendments to make sure
that they are technically correct, can do their job if there is
not the confidence of the members in them. I believe and echo
the comments of my colleague who just spoke that this is the
central issue we are debating.
I am not a solicitor. I know little of solicitor-client
privilege. I am a physician. I know a lot about doctor-patient
privilege. I know if I broke that privilege when I was
practising and doing my job that I would be censured to a degree
where I could not practise. I do not see the difference between
solicitor-client privilege and the very sacred privilege between
the physician and the patient.
In my view there is one way that I as a physician could release
information on my patient, and that was with the patient's
permission. It needed to be written and dated. Then I could
share the information with the health team, with specialists,
with the technicians doing blood tests, with those doing the
tests that we ran and with the nurses in the OR.
That is the only way I could share that information. If the
patient gave me documentary evidence I could send the records to
a solicitor, and only then.
1810
I believe that our table counsel need to have the permission
directly and specifically of the member for whom they are working
before they release that information to the team. It would be
very straightforward.
There are times when the team should know every word that is
being proposed. There are times when that is not appropriate,
where for strategic reasons or for whatever reasons the
information should not be shared by the team.
At the heart of this issue is not Bill C-20, not the Nisga'a
treaty, and not all the mechanisms we have for expressing our
displeasure. At its heart is that very issue. Can legislative
counsel function properly if they share every piece of
information with the team? My comment is that they cannot.
I feel that legislative counsel will have to withdraw from those
duties and keep their oath of office if that is what is expected
of them. I would ask that this not just be looked at by the
Speaker but by the table officers themselves, by the individuals
who direct the affairs of the House. I believe that this ruling
needs to be reviewed and revisited. I expect that this will be a
healthy review of that specific ruling.
I will be voting my personal confidence in the Speaker tonight
when we vote. I do not say that in any way to ingratiate myself
with the Speaker, but only because I have found the Speaker to be
partial on issues where I expected partiality and impartial where
I have expected that to take place. I share those thoughts in
sincerity with the Speaker and with the table officer. I
appreciate the opportunity to do so.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately
did not hear the beginning of the speech by the member who spoke
before me. I think I heard the last half, with which I agree.
Given this type of a debate, is the role of the Speaker not to
ensure some respect for democracy?
Let me explain what I mean. The fact that four cannibals decide
to eat a fifth one does not make it democratic. A decision taken
by a majority is not necessarily democratic.
Closure used to be an exceptional measure, but now it is the
rule. Not one bill gets through this House without closure any more.
I would like the hon. member who just spoke to tell me if he
does not think that part of the Speaker's role is to be able to
intervene in such a case. I know there is another side to this.
I would like to hear his explanation.
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, for me, what is at stake here is
not the Speaker, but the legislative counsel. If the legislative
counsel had the privilege to review the circumstances in this
case, the rules have to be changed.
I have confidence in the Chair in this instance, but I think
that there must be a special relationahip with the legislative
counsel.
1815
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my colleague mentioned a topic which is dear to my
heart, which is the solicitor-client privilege between
legislative counsel and members of parliament. If legislative
counsel are taking orders or taking instructions not only from a
member of parliament but also from someone else as to what
information must be shared and when and how, that clearly creates
a conflict of interest because they would have instructions from
two difference sources which have two different interests.
What does that do for him as a member of parliament? How does
he feel about his confidence in the working relationship he would
then have with legislative counsel and his confidence in the
assistance and the quality of advice he is receiving under
circumstances where that individual is—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, that does cut to the heart
of the issue. It would in fact make me reticent to use legal
counsel in the House. It would make me consider carefully going
outside the House for legal counsel. I think it would be a shame
if our legal counsel withered away, because surely they have the
experience, they have the background, they have the abilities to
look at all the legislative things in a way that legal counsel
normally would not do.
I personally would be very uncomfortable having the two sides
reviewing legislation in that way.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be splitting my time with the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington.
I want to participate in the debate, having listened to the
points raised. Perhaps I will start by responding to the member
for Calgary—Nose Hill who, in answer to a question that I posed
to her, suggested that somehow I was opposed to reforming the
House. I want to repeat my statement for her.
My statement was that the reform would be necessary, to the
point where it would add further constraints to the rights and
privileges of members. I think that is different from reforming
the House to have changes which will make us more productive.
The idea is that we are all members of parliament. We enjoy
certain rights and privileges. I would like to think that the
fullest extent of those rights and privileges could be enjoyed by
all members regardless of party.
The point I was trying to make was that we have opportunities to
abuse our rights and privileges in this place. We can create
literally hundreds of report stage motions. We can grind this
place to a halt. We can put notices on the order paper for
concurrence in committee reports. Every day when a bill is to
come before the House for debate someone can rise on a
concurrence motion and take up the time of the House simply to
talk about anything that might have been talked about in a
committee report. This place could grind to a halt.
Most members probably could think of a valid reason to stand on
points of order, questions of privilege or points of information
simply to take up a bit of time. It is not in our best interest,
obviously. The best interest of all members is to use the time
of the House and the resources that are available to us wisely.
We are judged as a group on how wisely we use the time of this
place.
The motion before the House has to do with a very serious
matter. I concur that it is a serious allegation. I concur that
something has to be looked at carefully, but I am wondering
whether the arguments that have been made should to be put into
two different contexts.
One is the whole aspect of whether the points being raised by the
people who would like to see something done are more directed at
the problems they have with the governing party and with the
strategies that the government uses in exercising the authority
it has been given as opposed to the problems they have with our
parliamentary process. I would put that on one side.
1820
The other question is whether we are talking about the rules we
will generally follow in regard to the macro picture of how we
will deal in terms of the legislative counsel, the Journals
branch and all of those resources we have, as opposed to
considering this particular case. In this case one has to look
at the substance of what was going on, the issue at hand and the
strategy.
When I found out that there would be hundreds of motions before
parliament at report stage on Bill C-20, it was clear to me, and
clear to absolutely everybody, that it was a move of
demonstration. It was simply a demonstration to handcuff the
House and force it to go through a process.
Had there been 1,000 amendments we would have been here for
three full days. It would not have achieved anything, other than
keeping all members and people who support this place here. I am
not sure that was a good use, so I looked at Beauchesne's. I
have not looked at the new book, but I looked at Beauchesne's
concerning report stage motions. It said that report stage
motions were meant to allow members who were not on the committee
an opportunity to have some input and influence on legislation.
That is one of the reasons we have report stage motions.
I looked at what we were voting on and asked, how could it be?
There were motions dealing with punctuation. There were
literally hundreds of motions changing the same thing, adding a
word here or there, which had nothing to do with the substance of
the bill. I would have thought that maybe the Chair would have
had the opportunity to simply say that they were not in the
spirit in which report stage motions were intended and rule them
out of order.
I just cannot see the whole issue of trying to tie up this place
simply for a demonstration because some members will not get
their way and the government will get its way. In a majority
situation that is what happens.
The outcome of what took place here probably was the right
outcome. It was the right outcome, in the best interests of this
place and the people of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, in my six or seven years as a member of parliament,
I have found that your wisdom and insight, trying not to apply
rules on a rigid basis but trying to help us to be better
parliamentarians, makes us all the better for it, and I will give
you my support.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for my colleague from Mississauga South and is
very simple.
Most members of this House deeply believe in the need for
confidentiality in some professional relationships.
I want to ask my colleague this: Does he believe confidentiality is
essential to the role we have to play as parliamentarians? Also,
does he believe that it is the role of the Speaker to insure
that this confidentiality be restored if it can be clearly
demonstrated that it has been questionable?
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, it is a fair question. The
member is asking for rigidity within the system that really is
not in the best interest of the House.
If the member were going to be straight on this issue, what the
Bloc was doing was making a demonstration. It was not a
constructive effort to deal with the legislation.
I support the principle of maintaining confidentiality and the
spirit in which our rules are set up, but when members, either
individually or collectively, abuse the rules of parliament or
the privileges of parliament, then I expect the Speaker and those
who run this place to make sure that the downside is mitigated as
much as possible.
1825
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of Order. I
apologize to my colleague. I will be brief. There are a few
minutes left in this sitting on this motion. To avoid division
in parliament, to avoid a division of the rules which unite us,
I would ask if, a few minutes before the end, the Bloc could
withdraw its motion—
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. André Bachand: —since everything has been said, and we could
then move on to something else.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: No.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
much respect for my Bloc colleagues. In my opinion they are the
best opposition members because they have a good understanding
of the parliamentary issues in the House of Commons.
I find it sad that they should have chosen this means to protest
the outcome of Bill C-20.
Protest, in a democracy, is very important, and I feel it was
appropriate for the Bloc members to protest. What I do not
understand is the position of the Reform Party.
[English]
I understand why the Bloc might want to put
this motion forward and support it when the vote comes. What I do
not understand is why the Reform Party indicates that it will
support this motion. While a protest is perfectly correct in a
democracy, and I understand why the Bloc wants to protest, I do
find that the Reform Party has confused the issue of being angry
at the government for various decisions made by it and believing
that they must attack parliament instead of the government.
There has been a long tradition in the House of the
Reform Party confusing what the government does with what Mr.
Speaker does. I think that is very sad. As I mentioned earlier,
the flag debate was a classic example. Members of the Reform
Party attacked the Chair, attacked this parliament, on the issue
of whether or not a flag should be at their desks. I will always
remember the occasion when partisanship really did affect our
very symbols. Our symbols are the flag and this parliament and
your position, Mr. Speaker. I will always remember the day when
the member for Medicine Hat threw the Canadian flag on the floor
because he disagreed with your decision.
I implore the Reform Party, please do not attack parliament
through the Speaker. Do not attack the institution that is the
very foundation of our democracy. Let the Bloc Quebecois have
their protest. But I urge the Reform Party to vote against this
motion.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to state right now that I am a Reform Party
member and proud of it. I want to clarify for the member that I
did not support this motion at all. I know many of my colleagues
will not be voting in support of this motion. I just wanted to
get that straight.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the
member opposite. I think this is certainly a motion that we
should all vote our consciences on. I expect the Reform Party
and every party, including the members of the Liberal Party, to
vote their conscience on this issue.
1830
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to
allow my hon. colleague from Laval Centre a short period of
comments and questions for a maximum of five minutes.
[English]
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I will just make one comment.
The third millenium is starting in this House in a very sad way.
The reputation of democracy in a developed society like ours, at
least that is what it is claimed to be, was tarnished with
passage of Bill C-20 on third reading last night. As if it were
not enough, we are dealing today with a motion of non-confidence
in the Speaker.
Clearly that does not suit the government, and we can understand
that. Why this non-confidence motion?
This motion is before the House following a ruling made by the
Speaker on a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for
Rimouski—Mitis about a lack of confidentiality between
parliamentarians and legislative counsel. The right to
confidentiality is a fundamental right for any parliamentarian.
If this right does not exist when all parliamentarians actually
believe it does, there is a problem. It is a bit like the veto
for Quebec.
For years, we believed that Quebec had that right. But Quebec
was faced the hard fact. Quebec has never had, does not have,
and will never have a veto within Canada as we know it today.
I know it was not easy for the leader of Bloc Quebecois to move
this motion on March 13. Nobody in my party could have done so
lightheartedly.
Like quite a few of my colleagues, I have been in this House
since January 17, 1994. I remember quite well your first
election to the Chair. You were chosen by your peers.
In doing so, they said they totally trusted your judgment, the
judgment of an experienced parliamentarian able to rise above
the crowd and serve the interests of democracy, which each and
every one of the 301 members democratically elected to the House
stand for.
Over the years, as a member of this House, I have often
appreciated the quality, the moderation and the clarity of your
rulings. Of course, you have not always pleased everyone, but
we all know that it is impossible, and not always a good thing,
to try to please all of the people all of the time, especially
peers.
Mr. Speaker, I can easily imagine how hard this whole situation
is for you, but I also think that adversity brings out the best
in us.
What I am asking of you is that you acknowledge the importance
of confidentiality in the conduct of professional discussions
between members of parliament and their advisers in the best
interest of Canadians and Quebecers.
I would ask you, as the prime and most important servant of
parliament, to restore this confidentiality.
1835
Healthy parliamentary democracy demands its restoration. Each
and everyone of us will have the certainty of being fully
equipped to best serve the interests of those who elected us.
In acting on this request, which I know to be supported by all
parliamentarians of good faith on both sides of the House, you
will show yourself to be a great Speaker and your prime
objective to be the provision to all of your members of services
appropriate to their duties.
It is your responsibility, it is within your power, and I
sincerely believe that your decision will reinforce the
confidence placed by this House in the Chair, since it will
leave no doubt as to the manoeuvring room you must have in the
performance of your duties.
Through your courageous act, you will show that, in this
parliament, there is but one class of member, men and women able
to assume to the best of their ability the responsibilities
given them. You are the agent of parliamentary democracy, and I
know you will prove this to be so, in stellar fashion.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. There might perhaps be unanimous consent for the
following motion. I move:
That Motion No. 59 be withdrawn and replaced by the
following:
That the issue of the confidentiality of the work of the
legislative counsel be examined by the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs; that the various possible solutions,
namely
(a) the restructuring of the service to ensure confidentiality;
or
(b) the reallocation of current resources to the various
political parties to allow them to have their own legislative
counsel services
be reviewed by the Committee, and that a report proposing
concrete solutions be tabled in the House by June 1, 2000.
If we had unanimous consent, I think we could perhaps vote on
this motion.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Given the serious nature of the motion, and so that all members
understand it clearly, I wonder whether we should not repeat it,
because there may be some members who were not giving it their
full attention. I have no trouble with it, but I suggest that,
just to be very sure, we repeat the motion.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to
move the following motion:
That Motion No. 59 be withdrawn and replaced by the
following:
That the issue of the confidentiality of the work of the
legislative counsel be examined by the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs; that the various possible solutions,
namely
(a) the restructuring of the service to ensure confidentiality;
or
(b) the reallocation of current resources to the various
political parties to allow them to have their own legislative
counsel services
be reviewed by the Committee, and that a report proposing
concrete solutions be tabled in the House by June 1, 2000.
1840
[English]
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think the issue before the House is very important. I believe
the House leader of the government asked the hon. member to
please repeat the motion for the benefit of members so they could
clearly understand that the solution was an agreed upon solution
by all parties. I believe that the member who said no was not in
the House at the time the motion was read and it is important. I
would therefore ask that the motion be put again for clarity to
ensure that this particular member did not misunderstand.
The Speaker: I am in the hands of the House. Do hon.
members want the motion re-read? The hon. member for Mississauga
South has asked to have the motion re-read for whatever reason.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I ask for
unanimous consent to move the following motion:
That Motion No. 59 be withdrawn and replaced by the
following:
That the issue of the confidentiality of the work of the
legislative counsel be examined by the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs; that the various possible solutions,
namely
(a) the restructuring of the service to ensure confidentiality;
or
(b) the reallocation of current resources to the various
political parties to allow them to have their own legislative
counsel services
be reviewed by the Committee, and that a report proposing
concrete solutions be tabled in the House by June 1, 2000.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I have listened to this being read three times. I would
like to have some assurance from the government House leader that
this will be taken seriously and not simply taken into the back
room and destroyed so that we are back in the same position that
we were before.
If I can have that assurance from the government House leader I
will not stop this.
1845
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this is not my motion but I
am certainly willing to commit the government to its full
co-operation to have the committee report on that by the date in
question of June 1. The original date was a little earlier in
the earlier motion but two House leaders, I was one and there was
another, proposed that it be backed up so that we could live with
the commitment. So the answer is yes.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have it
more clear than that. I would like to know if the government is
committed—
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Speaker: Order, please. We are negotiating this on
the floor of the House. We seem to be rushed into it. I am going
to suspend the House for five minutes. Do whatever talking you
have to do and then I am going to either go ahead and ask about
this motion or I am going to call a vote. You have five minutes
to straighten yourselves out.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.46 p.m.)
1850
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 6.50 p.m.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked
earlier if the government were prepared to co-operate in a way to
produce the report by June 1 to improve the parliamentary counsel
services as described in the motion that was just read on the two
different points. I am willing to give the commitment that the
government would do just that.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval is seeking
unanimous consent to put a motion. Does the hon. member have
unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1855
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Speaker: I have received notice from the hon. member
for Beauharnois—Salaberry that he is unable to move his motion
during private members' hour on Friday, March 17, 2000.
[Translation]
As it was not possible to switch the position in the order of
precedence, I ask the clerk to drop the item to the bottom of
the order of precedence on the order paper.
[English]
Private members' hour will thus be cancelled and the House will
continue with the business before it prior to private members'
hour.
It being 6.56 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.56 p.m.)