Debates of April 22nd, 2002

Privilege

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The allegation was made that members of the Canadian Alliance jeered down a bill. The member should specify exactly who did that because it reflects on me as a member and the order of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Again, the Chair will not decipher what is or is not but will hear the debate. At the appropriate time members will rise from either side of the House and will have an opportunity to give their version of the facts as they see them.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an old ploy. When opposition MPs do not want to hear the truth, they interrupt the speech in order to throw off the speaker. Well, I will carry on and if the member is concerned about the jeering down, all he has to do is listen to the tape. I tape the House of Commons debates and very clearly at the point I made my remarks I was interrupted and one can hear the cat calls. Later on I could identify individuals but that does not help us.

Let us go back to the problem of private members' business because it is dysfunctional. It is not just the opposition that feels that there is something wrong and something has to be corrected.

Let me give the House an idea of what happened to my bill. My bill, which I had worked on for seven years, was finally drawn in the lottery. It is a lottery system and only chance determines whether a member's bill is drawn and is brought forward. One can wait for years, as I did, for my bill to be drawn. Then it goes before the committee on private members' business.

One of the difficulties, one of the bits of misleading information that has been going out on this issue is the suggestion that the committee on private members' business which determines the votability or non-votability of a private member's bill or motion is dominated by the Liberals. Well it is not. It is dominated by the opposition. There are only two Liberals on that committee and there are four opposition members.

When I came before the committee to see whether or not my bill could be deemed votable, that means whether it would have full debate, whether it would go through the process, whether it would be considered by my colleagues and even had a chance of becoming law, I knew it was doomed. The fact of it is that no Liberal bills are getting through the private members' committee as votable items. Since this parliament started, there have been 16 bills and motions that have gone through private members' committee and only two Liberal ones have been deemed votable, 14 have been opposition.

I knew I was doomed, my bill was not going to go anywhere. It was all the worse because I did things in my proposal to change the oath of citizenship. I proposed things that might be contentious among some members. I suggested for example that Canadians are a people united by the five principles of the charter. There are some members of some parties in this House who would find that very difficult to accept.

The way the committee on private members' business is structured, it only takes one person to defeat a bill in terms of its votability. It also works in secret, so all I can be certain of is that when I appeared before the committee and appealed to it to make my bill votable, the two Liberal members of the committee would have supported making my bill votable, but it was not. I do not know what the final debate was but we know it was opposition members who made it non-votable.

Well this is a terrible disappointment. Members work very hard and long on something like this and even if it fails in the end, they would like to at least have debate. In my case I was faced with only one hour of debate. When a member's bill is not made votable, it comes before the House, people speak for one hour on it, the member gets to speak 20 minutes, and then it dies. It goes, it disappears.

On that particular Wednesday we are referring to, because it was the 20th anniversary of the charter of rights and freedoms, I thought it would be appropriate to rise in the House and seek unanimous consent to make my bill votable. My bill basically would change the oath of citizenship to say that Canadians are a people united by equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. I felt it was very appropriate at that time to say such a thing. I rose to seek unanimous consent and as I said, most of the Canadian Alliance was in the House, for good reason as it turns out for their purposes, so my bill was shouted down.

I am sorry. They may not like that language but that is what happened on that occasion. It was a big disappointment and I sat down, but never in my wildest dreams would I have taken the action that the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca took only a few hours later. In his case his bill had been made votable.

In his case his bill had been made votable. All that was happening to his bill was there was a motion on the floor to instead of putting it through the process that takes it to the justice committee, it was being referred to an existing committee that was already looking into the question of drugs and the use of drugs. Remember that my bill was about the oath of citizenship. The member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca's bill was about decriminalizing the simple possession of marijuana.

Members can imagine my feelings when I saw all the Canadian Alliance in the House ready for this thing. There was a government motion here and when it went through, the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca got up from his place and he was in my line of vision. Canadians should know that it was not just a matter of touching the Mace. It was a matter of picking it up and holding it over his head and saying “Canada is no longer a democracy”.

I was ashamed because no matter what, if I cannot advance in the House in terms of what I want and what I want for Canadians, I will still always respect the House. Members cannot turn their backs on democracy by doing what happened with the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

I have to say that I do support the government's motion. I cannot accept that the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca was so overwhelmed by emotion that he had to do this thing. I was overwhelmed by emotion and I did not feel any urge to do that whatsoever.

We get caught in this place sometimes in our own rhetoric. I think the Speaker should be aware that the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca and other members of the opposition held a press conference the day before. I happened to catch it on the parliamentary channel. They discussed the fact that private members' business was not working properly and the opposition members were having difficulty. They talked about the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca's bill and the fact that there was a motion before the House that might derail it into another channel.

To those of us who are used to politics, it did appear that there was some sort of concerted effort, some concerted thought that day, before the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca stood in the House and came over and grabbed the Mace.

I note also that when I said my remarks and sought unanimous consent during routine proceedings, I was surprised to see all the members of the Canadian Alliance in the House. I do not want to cast aspersions, but maybe we should not be surprised that a formal protest was made, not only by the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, but most of the members of the Canadian Alliance walked out after his gesture.

There is no question we have to do something with private members' business. It is not good enough the way it is now. Opportunities for backbench MPs to advance legislation are almost nil, but it is not simply because of the government. It is because partisan politics has entered into private members' business. It is part of the problem in the committee for private members' business.

We have to find a way in which indeed none of us takes advantage of private members' business to advance a political party or to damage a political party. Every one of us here, when we have a bill to advance, it comes from our heart. I do not doubt the sincerity of the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca about his attachment to his legislation and what he was trying to do. I only challenge the way he expressed his frustration.

This is something that has to be fixed. It is something that should be fixed by co-operation among the various House leaders. As I understand it the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is studying the issue right now. As far as I am concerned, the committee should come up with a solution where there is no partisanship at all. It should make every bill that is drawn votable and that would solve the problem right there.

The bottom line when it comes down to the very end of it all is that we cannot advance private members' business, we cannot advance the rights of individual backbench MPs by showing any kind of disrespect for this institution. When we show disrespect for the symbols of this institution, we defeat ourselves and all Canadians.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I lifted up the golden mace that sits in front of us. At that time I said that Canada was not a democracy. Lifting the mace was a coldly, premeditated act of civil disobedience but it was not an act of anger. It was done to illustrate a fundamental violation of the rights of every member of parliament and, by extension, every single citizen of this country.

Last Wednesday the government violated our right to vote. Our right to vote is the thin red line that separates our country from dictatorships and from fascism. Last Wednesday the government crossed that line.

The issue here is not about the substance of the bill but about democracy. It is about the right of every member of parliament in the opposition and in the government to do our jobs as advocates for the concerns of our constituents and the concerns of our nation. Last Wednesday the government violated that fundamental right.

At that time I had some choices. Do I stand back and allow the violation of the fundamental rights of every Canadian and every member of the House to go unheard? Do I allow the government ruling on an amendment to kill a votable private member's bill to go unnoticed and have it seep into the morass of Hansard and forgotten? Or, do I shine a bright spotlight on the nine years of violations that the government has engaged in to remove the fundamental democratic rights of every MP in the House and every Canadian and on how the government has turned our country into a dictatorship?

Many members of parliament from across party lines have worked hard and earnestly to offer the government umpteen suggestions for making our House a democracy, to fight for what is right, to do the right thing for our constituents and to have the ability to advocate for our country and for the citizens of our nation.

The government has been whittling away for nine years, in an obvious way and sometimes by sleight of hand, our ability to do our jobs as members of parliament. It has removed our rights, and enough is enough. It is time for us as members of parliament to have our voices heard. It is time for us to tell the government that we are not going to take it any more, that we are not going to tolerate the continued violation of our fundamental rights as Canadians and as members of parliament. It is time we stood up and said that the rights of our constituents will no longer be violated.

I violated the traditions of the House, and I apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, out of respect for you as an individual and out of respect for the office that you hold. However I do not regret lifting up the mace to draw attention to the violation of Canadian rights. I will explain to you what happened.

Four years ago, in response to the closure of courts in my province of British Columbia, I began working on a bill that would decriminalize the simple possession of marijuana. My bill would not have legalized it, which is something I am opposed to. It would have decriminalized marijuana possession for the purpose of saving lives and money so our courts could become more efficient.

My bill was supported by many police groups, the Canadian Medical Association, church groups and others. It was made votable by members of the House. At second reading stage the government put an amendment forward to kill my bill.

The government knows full well that we have free vote in private members' business. It is the last bastion of democracy. It is the last place where we can offer solutions, fight for ideas and be innovative and yet the government slyly introduces an amendment saying that my bill will not be read any more, that it will not go on to committee and that the House will not vote on it in a fair fashion. The government whipped its members into passing an amendment to kill my votable private member's bill.

That was an utter violation of our democratic rights. It has driven a final stake through the heart of private members' business, the last bastion of democracy that exists in parliament.

This issue affects members from all party lines. The reason I took the course of action that I did was to show how bad private members' business has become. Out of the 239 private members' bills which have been introduced in the House, only five have been made votable and none from the government. Only two have made it as far as my bill did a little over a week ago. None have gone to committee stage.

As the member for Mississauga East knows, when a bill goes to committee stage the government votes away every word, letter and apostrophe from the bill that was passed in the House to kill that bill. It is an utter violation of that member's rights to put forth private members' business. The cost is $45 million. Imagine what we could do with $45 million? Imagine all the CT scanners, the MRI scanners and the nurses we could hire to treat the sick in this country instead of wasting it on the facade of democracy that this House has become.

The government likes to talk about committees where supposedly good work is done. Committees are nothing but a make work project for members of parliament. That is a tragedy because of the collective wisdom in the House. Every MP in the House has talent and skills that can benefit Canadians. Committees ought to be a place where that can happen. It happens in other countries. The problem with out committees is that they are used as make work projects to keep MPs busy and keep us stupid. They are controlled by the government. The parliamentary secretary, appointed by the Prime Minister's Office, will stand and whip the government members in line to do what the government wants, not what the MPs collectively want.

The government selects the chairperson of each committee. It does not allow the members of that committee to choose the best person among them. Is that not a violation of the rights of Canadians?

[Some hon. members]

Yes, it is.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

It certainly is.

It is a myth to say that we have free votes in the House. Everybody knows that the votes are whipped but is it just or is it reasonable? The fact is that the government has decided that every single vote in the House is a vote of confidence in the government, an absolute abuse of that statute. Votes, other than on money bills, which go to the heart of a government's agenda that it ran on, are not issues of confidence at all. What is the government so afraid of that it has to ensure that its members are whipped like cows and forced to vote according to what the Prime Minister's Office wants and not what their people want? The Liberals are afraid of democracy.

Are debates in the House meaningful? No. They are meaningless because the government's agenda is like pablum and the legislative initiatives that are brought to the House have no resemblance to the concerns of Canadians. Canadians want a job, good health care, education and safe streets. They want a democracy. They want their money spent properly and they want a clean environment. Do those issues come to the House? No, they do not.

Why are there no substantive bills in the House to deal with the myriad of issues that Canadians care about? Because the Liberals are riding at 49% in the polls they behave like amorphous opaque blobs of suet. They do it because they know they do not have to do anything. They have decided not to stand for anything.

This is a government run by the polls not by public interest. This is a government run for the Prime Minister's Office not for the people.

The government wants to put me on trial for hoisting the mace and violating a tradition of the House. Let this be a trial of the government on its mismanagement of the country, its mismanagement of the House and its violation of the basic rights of every Canadian.

Why it is that the government is not ensuring that we have a sustainable health care system? Why does it wait and let people suffer in silence or die while on waiting lists? Is that not a far greater crime than speaking about the bauble in front of us? Is it not a more egregious crime to allow the softwood lumber agreement to expire knowing full well that it will and not having a plan in place, throwing tens of thousands of people in my province of British Columbia out of a job and killing small communities?

Is it not a greater crime to allow our dollar to go from 73¢ to 63¢ and have the government say that it cannot do anything about it? Is that not a greater crime when that is a complete removal of the wealth of Canadians and it is killing jobs?

Is it not a greater crime to buy new Challenger jets when our military are using Sea King helicopters that are falling out of the sky, compromising the lives of our soldiers? Is it not a far greater crime to not have a coherent defence and foreign policy so our soldiers can do their jobs?

Is it not a greater crime that as our population ages nobody from that side is trying to ensure that we have a sustainable pension system for those on fixed incomes who will suffer in silence? They will endure lives of quiet suffering while the government fails to deal with the demographic challenges that will put pressure not only on our social programs but on the very economy that this country relies on. The failure to deal with this most pressing issue in a timely fashion will ensure that our seniors will be hurt, our social programs will be unsustainable and our economy will be a poor shadow of what it could be. Those will be the consequences of the government's failure to deal with this.

Is it not a greater crime that the cabinet ministers are squeezed between the unholy alliance of senior bureaucrats appointed by the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister's Office itself? I wonder if the public is aware that the senior bureaucrats are appointed by the Prime Minister so that none of the cabinet ministers can be innovative in their portfolios. They are forced to be mouthpieces of the Prime Minister's Office.

Many cabinet ministers have a lot of talent but they are inhibited and prevented from using those talents because if they try to innovate the Prime Minister's Office comes down on them like a tonne of bricks. They will get that fateful phone call telling them to shut their mouths and to not do anything more.

The backbench MPs from the government side are equally aggrieved by the Prime Minister's heavyhanded abusive violation of their rights. The Prime Minister's Office has turned this formerly democratic institution into its own private plaything. The Prime Minister's Office, which is made up of unelected, unaccountable, invisible minions of the Prime Minister, is using the country, the House and taxpayer money for its own benefit.

I hope the public understands that in the course of lifting the mace that all of us on this side and I hope on the other side will draw attention to the fact that we do not live in a democracy any more.

It costs the Canadian taxpayers a half a million dollars every year to send us to this institution. It is a great honour. Canadians have put their faith in us to advocate for them, to fight for their issues, to fight for what they want to do and to deal with the big problems that they are concerned about. Unfortunately, we cannot do our job and is that not--

[An hon. member]

That does not excuse you for your behaviour.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. It would appear that a large number of you are quite anxious to participate but I would simply ask you to be a little more patient. I will be here and we will make the time available.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last week I disrupted the House. Last week I violated the traditions of the House, for which I immediately stood to apologize to you personally, out of respect not only for your office but for you as an individual whom I respect.

However I would argue, and indeed Canadians across the country know very well, that a far greater violation has taken place in this nation, the violation by the government of our basic democratic right to vote. The government, specifically the Prime Minister's Office, has tied the arms and hands of every member of parliament together, bound them so tightly that we are unable to do any constructive work for the public good. We have become voting machines, and the members on the other side should be equally aggrieved by this situation.

This is an opportunity for every member in the House, from every political party including the government, to stand and say “we are not taking this anymore” and to take a stand for democracy, for our own consciences, for our constituents and for our country. If every member of parliament in the House does that, we will break the back of the control that the Prime Minister's Office has over the House and democratize parliament for all members of all political parties, so that one day this institution can truly be a democratic one where we can use our individual talents as MPs, and by God every member has that, to advocate and work for the Canadian public, for Canada and for the future.

If we do not stand for democracy then we become a victim of our circumstances. We become a part of the problem. We do not become a friend of democracy, we become its enemy and insidiously we become a friend of draconian, undemocratic, dictatorial, fascist behaviour that will make our country a mere shadow of what it can be.

I accuse the government of being undemocratic. I accuse the government of being a dictatorship. I accuse the government of being fascist.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca's mental confusion that led him to seize the Mace can be identified, or sourced , from one line in his speech, a single line in which he said that parliament was a facade of democracy. That is what he said. That illustrates the confusion that exists in the minds of so many members of the Canadian Alliance in attacking the government, which opposition members do. The opposition is not supposed to like the government, but in attacking the government they so often attack parliament. That is what is so wrong here.

I do not know about the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, but I believe this is the best parliament in the world. I believe Canada has the best democracy in the world. I am the first to criticize my government from this side. I do not agree with everything the government does, but we have the freedom in this House, in this place, to criticize the government, to work for change as in no other democracy and as in no other parliament in the world.

To attack parliament, when the member actually means government, and we will note in his remarks that it was the government that was punishing him for taking up the Mace, he again is confused. It was not the government that was offended by what he did. It was parliament. It was not the traditions of parliament that he offended. It was parliament itself that he violated. It was not just the government House leader who was outraged. I can guarantee that if the government House leader had not moved his point of privilege then I would have. If not me then it would have been someone in the opposition. We heard the opposition. The Bloc Quebecois and the members of the Conservative Party took the same position.

I really think that the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca ought to get it straight. The government may be what he is angry at but parliament is not his problem.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member from the other side should listen to his previous comments. He said that this is the greatest democracy in the world. In fact the member cited quite eloquently that his private member's bill was destroyed. He demonstrated the fact that his private member's bill, which should have been votable and which should have had its fair hearing, was destroyed because this institution was not a democracy anymore.

The member drives home the point, albeit unwittingly, that I have been trying to make, that this is not about me or the opposition. It is about all members of parliament and in particular the members on the other side. Of the 239 private member's bills that have gone through, none from the government side have been votable. That is an egregious violation of their rights as it is for us.

What we have is a situation, and the member and all members should understand this, that this is about our democratic rights. This is about the democratic rights of our constituents, and this is about Canada. This is about being able to vote. This is about doing our job as an MP. It is the essence of the most pure and fundamental rights.

That is what this is about. This is a protest to draw attention to the fundamental violation of our rights. The essence of the bills are immaterial. What is very relevant and essential is the fact that the rights of members, the rights of every person in the House, have been violated for nine years. Those violations are becoming more extensive and move egregious.

The member also has a significant disconnect with the public. The public desperately wants to see this place democratized. We saw today in the headlines that 69% of the pubic sees this place as being corrupt. It is not corrupt. It is just not a democracy. It is a dictatorship.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, may I say very sincerely and very sorrowfully to the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca that I think his interventions this afternoon are not worthy of him. We have heard him in the House over many years and I think this is a departure.

It reminds me of the story of the couple who were watching their son in a parade where the wife turned to her husband and said, “Look, everybody is out of step but my son, John”. I think that is what has happening here.

I want to put on the record the matter of the Waddell case. This is an historic debate. This does not happen every day where we have a situation like this. It happened about 11 years ago. It involved a member, Ian Waddell of Vancouver--Kingsway. There are some qualitative differences between that case and the case before the House this afternoon. I want to put some of that on the record.

The case involving Ian Waddell was night sitting. The House leaders had departed this place and the deputies who were acting in their place decided to have a short bell and a snap vote. Ian Waddell and Jim Fulton, the member for Skeena, were housed in the Confederation Building watching proceedings on television. They rushed to the Chamber to vote. There was a quick bell and there was not an opportunity for them to vote on a very important matter, that of seniors' taxation.

Mr. Waddell went to the Speaker of the day and asked him to return to the seat in order that they could have that vote. Surely, in that instance, Mr. Waddell's case was very strong. One of the fundamental rights of being a parliamentarian is having the ability to vote in this place. He was frustrated in that instance because the vote was taken away from him.

Mr. Waddell apologized. He was called before the bar. It was out of sheer frustration. It was not premeditated in his instance. The member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca has already told the House this afternoon that it was premeditated on his part.

I will simply close by saying that what we have heard today is unworthy of the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member made my point quite eloquently with the case of Mr. Waddell. Mr. Waddell's right to vote was violated. Last Wednesday the rights of not just one MP were violated, but the rights of every member of parliament were violated in that we could not vote. That is the problem. I am glad the member realizes that.

I will make another point. That member and many members of the House in this debate are out of step with the public. The public is our boss. The fact is this parliament has become the purview of the Prime Minister's office. Taxpayer money, the money the public gives to this House and to this institution, is being used by the Prime Minister's Office for its own gain.

I am making a plea. Oliver Cromwell in Great Britain asked for the removal of the mace. Oliver Cromwell said: “Take away that bauble, ye are no longer a parliament”. He did that because at that time Great Britain did not have a parliament. There were no public servants. There were no people working for the public good. Members of parliament were operating for their own good.

We do not have an institution here where members of parliament are operating for their own benefit. We have a Prime Minister's Office that is operating this House like a dictatorship. That is the fundamental problem we have.

I make a plea to every member of parliament in the House to have the guts and the courage to stand up for democracy, to stand up for the rights of their constituents, to stand up for their own rights and to vote against the government's efforts to censure me, not because I did not do anything wrong, because I did. I picked up the Mace and it was premeditated.

All hon. members should vote for the amendment and against the government's proposal. In doing so every member of parliament will say to the Prime Minister's Office that we are not taking it any more, that we have had it with this lack of democracy, that we have had it with this dictatorship and that we will move forward and build this institution by Canadians, for Canadians forever.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. I have been a member of the House for a long period of time, off and on over the last 28 years. I was here last Wednesday when the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca took the Mace. I was shocked. I felt violated as a member of parliament.

I think we have to try to bring some gravity to this debate. I am prompted to rise today by the insouciance of the Leader of the Opposition who stood in his place some hours or minutes ago and said his colleague was upset but he said he was sorry, so let us let it go.

I have great respect for the Leader of the Opposition. We have served in the House many years, going back to the early 1970s. He was a speaker of the legislature in British Columbia, as someone pointed out. I think he has done an admirable job as Leader of the Opposition while his party has gone through a very difficult period. I am very disappointed by his attitude in trying to justify the behaviour of the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

What gets me this afternoon is the indifference and self-indulgence we have seen displayed on the part of the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca. What is at issue here is not the grievance but the way in which he showed his displeasure.

We have all been aggrieved from time to time. We have all been upset. Politics is a difficult game. A former British prime minister in the 18th century called politics “the greasy pole”. We are always trying to make our point, always trying to get to the top of the argument, but somehow we just never quite make it. It is frustrating, but no matter the frustrations of individual members, one thing we have to do is respect the basic traditions of this place.

The hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca said this afternoon that referring the subject matter of his bill to committee transgressed the rights of all hon. members. Really? It did not transgress my rights. Who is the hon. member to speak for me?

Mr. Speaker, you or your associate were in the Chair. Did you rule the procedure out of order? No. It was the democratic will of the House that referred that bill to committee.

The hon. member may have been aggrieved, but if there was a breach of parliamentary decorum or of the rules, then it is for the Speaker to determine. It is not for the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca to stand in his place and be the guardian of parliamentary privilege and purity. That is not his role. He can express displeasure, but he cannot transgress the rights of all of us. That is what he did by picking up the Mace.

That Mace is symbolic. It is symbolic of all the privileges that we have as members. I will quote from Erskine May, nineteenth edition:

Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law.

We are talking about something that has come down from generations as an exemption from the law, something that each of us enjoys as members of parliament, privilege.

In Beauchesne's fourth edition, section 108.(1) states:

Anything which may be considered a contempt of court by a tribunal, is a breach of privilege if perpetrated against Parliament, such as wilful disobedience to, or open disrespect of the valid Rules, Orders or Process, or the dignity and authority of the House, whether by disorderly, contemptuous or insolent language, or behaviour, or other disturbing conduct, or by a mere failure to obey its Orders.

The hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca picked up the Mace. It has been stated this afternoon rather eloquently by the hon. member for Roberval about the Mace and its symbolism. Again, going back to Erskine May's nineteenth edition, on page 229 it states regarding the Speaker that:

As a symbol of his authority he is accompanied by the Royal Mace which is borne before him when entering and leaving the chamber and upon state occasions by the Serjeant at Arms attending the House of Commons, and is placed upon the table--

The chief characteristics attached to the office of Speaker of the House of Commons are authority and impartiality.

Mr. Speaker, that mace symbolizes you, and you are the servant of all of us because you have been democratically elected by all of us to arbitrate the day to day proceedings. It is not for me, Mr. Speaker, to question your judgment. In this case, you or your associate in the Chair found nothing wrong with the procedure. The hon. member did. The hon. member felt aggrieved and I understand that he was upset, but that gives him no recourse to insult the very basis of our parliamentary institutions, Mr. Speaker, which is the Mace representing you, the Speaker, representing all of us with our privileges. He does not have that right and he must apologize for his actions.

He could say he did apologize for his actions. On April 17 he rose in his place and said:

However I apologize to the House for touching the mace. I did so in the heat of the moment and to try to make the point that democracy was violated, four years of work was destroyed and people's lives were at stake. I did it to make a point. I should not have done it and I apologize to the House.

That is what he said on April 17, but today he rose in his place and said that his action was premeditated. Was he speaking from the heart and was he speaking of the truth on April 17 or was he speaking of the truth and from his heart today? I would submit that only by calling the hon. member to the bar of the House, before all members assembled, will he give us his true feelings on this matter and give an unreserved apology, because today he did not. He basically said earlier “I apologize”, and then he went on to say he has no regrets.

There is a lot of doublespeak in politics. It is part of the game. It is part of the thrust and parry of politics, but when we are dealing with privilege, when we are dealing with the basic rights of members of parliament, when we are dealing with the basic symbols of democracy, we do not have the luxury of being on both sides.

The hon. member either apologizes unreservedly or he is saying that he has no regret for his actions. Which is it? I submit that only by calling him to the bar of the House will we get the true story.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly enjoyed the minister's comments and how off base the poor gentleman is in not understanding the basic fundamentals of what took place last Wednesday.

I would ask to clarify my position on the apology, for his edification and for the House. I apologized to the Speaker for violating the traditions of the House. Apologizing to you, Mr. Speaker, and indeed to members of the House, is different from not regretting the act of actually picking up the Mace. The difference is that the hon. minister brought to light the fundamental reason why the Mace was picked up. The Mace was picked up because, as the hon. minister mentioned, the basic rights of MPs were violated.

I would ask the hon. minister, does he believe that the Mace represents the basis of parliament or does the minister believe that the right of MPs to vote is a far more important right and a far more important basis of this House?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member just does not get it. I am not the accused here. He is the accused.

A few moments ago I talked about the parliamentary traditions, the symbolism of the Mace as symbolizing your authority, as representing all of us as duly elected, with parliamentary privilege going back a thousand years. If the hon. member does not understand those basic facts then we have an even more serious issue to deal with.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the time for questions and comments on the minister's speech and I have every right to ask questions. The minister should do the right thing and respond to the questions with answers instead of trying to deflect them, because this goes to the heart of the issue. I am again going to ask the hon. Minister of Transport a very simple question.

The minister mentioned within his speech that he held to his heart that the very basis of the House, the most important things in this House are the basic rights of members of parliament. The basic rights of members of parliament are what we have to uphold as members of parliament. I will ask the hon. minister once again: Does he believe that the Mace is the basis of parliament and that we should uphold the Mace, or does the minister believe that we should uphold a much more important democratic tradition and right of all of us, the right to vote? Which is it, the Mace or the vote?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member does not get it. There was a decision, a deliberation of the House, to refer the subject matter of a certain bill to committee. The hon. member was on the negative side of that vote. He objected. However, that happens all the time. The House divides on almost every issue. That is parliamentary democracy.

The fact is that the hon. member would have greater cause if he were to say that he was prevented from voting, as was said by my colleague from Winnipeg in the Waddell case, where Mr. Waddell alleged that he did not have time to vote. Even then, the Speaker at the time ruled that he had breached privilege and he was called before the bar of the House.

The hon. member had a chance to make his point. He had a chance to vote, as all of us did. The issue here, as I said earlier in my speech, is that we are talking about the self-indulgence of the hon. member. The issue here is that somehow he believes that just because he has worked hard for a cause or a particular bill, as many people have, he has an inherent right to impose that will on the majority. He does not. That is democracy. That is a fundamental principle of democracy.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst, Société Radio-Canada; the hon. member for St. John's West, Fisheries.

Resuming debate on a question of privilege, the hon. member for South Shore.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of points raised in the House today and I would like to add several more to that mix.

I listened closely to the debate and to a lot of points that I wish I did not have to listen to. However this is a serious matter. Unfortunately I was not present to attend the vote last week as I was in the Netherlands at an important international meeting on forest biodiversity. Everyone at that meeting, including ministers from the government, had the opportunity to speak. They had an opportunity to speak because there were clear rules at that meeting just the same as there are clear rules in the House.

I have heard a lot of discussion about the rights of parliamentarians , whether it is the right to vote or whether the Mace holds more rights than parliamentarians. Quite frankly the issue is that decorum is a right of parliament. There are a set of rules in this place. When the British parliament and many other parliaments around the world were originally set up the desks on the government side were separated from the opposition side by a space of two sword lengths so no damage could be done to members on either side of the House. We have rules so we do not settle events outside of here. Dueling no longer prevails. The reason we have rules is to prevent wars in this country.

Decorum is what this issue is about. The hon. member broke the rules and has certainly broken decorum. He did it in a manner that lost focus on the important issue he was trying to raise.

We are disgusted and appalled with the debate today. The debate is no longer about the government shutting down private members' business. The spotlight is acutely focused on the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca. That is a mistake. One cannot say one is sorry, but. There is no but when one says one is sorry. I am sorry stops at the y, one does not add to it.

This is a serious matter. The member picked up the Mace, apologized immediately, but then turned around the next day and said his act was premeditated. I am assuming his apology was not as contrite as it could have been because the act was premeditated. The member walked out of the House.

He cannot represent constituents and Canadians from out there. Too many parliamentarians think they can represent Canadians in the newspaper. Too many parliamentarians think they can represent their constituents by disagreeing with the Speaker and by refusing to apologize and then getting thrown out of the House.

As an aside to this debate I would like to make a contribution for the Chair's consideration. When members of parliament are asked to leave this Chamber, instead of going out in the hallway to a phalanx of reporters and immediately to a scrum, they be told to use the back door. If members cannot stand up in this place, admit they have made a mistake, say sorry, leave the but off of it and move on, then they have to question why they are here.

There is a clearer reason why we have rules. I have heard a lot of discussion today. I have heard the words softwood lumber, medical technology and helicopters. It seems to me that at one time in the history of this place the Reform Party and other members of parliament voted against the helicopter procurement. I disagreed with that vote but I did not take away their right to vote that way.

I was in agreement with the private member's bill. Had I been here and had the opportunity to vote I would have supported the bill. It is my understanding all of the opposition parties did support the member, every one, yet the opposition parties are not all speaking in support of the actions on the Mace. This is a time when it is important to look clearly at the series of events that have occurred.

Clearly, the member broke the rules of the House. He apologized and now wants to debate the issue. I do not intend to debate the issue much longer. There is more important work that needs to be done.

Several times in the debate I heard about the dollars spent on parliamentary work and committees. There are a lot of dollars spent. It does cost money to run parliament. Democracy does not come cheap. Most democracies around the world have come at the expense of great bloodletting and major wars.

If the member wants to represent his constituents then my recommendation is to step outside the bar and apologize and put it behind us and move on. I have heard a lot about taxpayers' dollars. If the member is not willing to do that I would suggest that, until he does, he should forfeit his pay as a parliamentarian. That is what the dollars are being spent on.

We know as parliamentarians we live a dual life. We live the life of a federal representative in the Parliament of Canada and we live a life as a constituent representative. A member can do half of the job as a parliamentarian, but half of the job has to be done in this building.

My suggestion is we put this behind us. We all know that the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca is capable of doing good work in this place. This debate has been a sideline. It has been a mistake and it has led us away from the real issue of why the debate was even begun.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is surprising that the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca wants to dig himself deeper in this today. I do not know if he needs an extra shovel or not. He is earning a lot of disrespect from members who held him in high esteem.

I believe the member must be guilty of somehow catching an old copy of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington because that is the way this is all playing out. It is a poor rerun.

What incensed me, and I wonder if the hon. member for South Shore would comment, was that the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca went so far as to call Canada a Fascist country. We understand Fascism as Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany. How can an hon. member in all consciousness possibly compare our country with those Fascist regimes?

I have had private members' bills that actually went through second reading and then the House dissolved and I could not get them voted on again in the following parliament. I know the frustration that the hon. member feels. The reality is it is a democratic institution. We are sitting here and we have a majority government. A vast number of people in this country voted for the government. That is the ultimate democracy.

If the other parties were representative of all the people their numbers would not be so small. Their polling percentage would not be only 12%. The other parties are the minority group.

On the specific issue of his legislation, there are a number of people here that, guess what, do not buy into it, do not believe in the decriminalization of marijuana. Some of the people I saw voting against the legislation in fact were going the other way. They wanted the opportunity to defeat it here on the floor of the House.

A number of the Canadian Alliance members voted for the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca. Does that mean they were whipped as well? This whole thing is a ridiculous waste of our time. I wish the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca would sit down with himself and do a little bit of rethinking. Let us put the House back in order and get on with our obligations to the people of Canada.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Durham asked for a comment on the remark about Fascism. I believe that was made in the heat of debate and I would hope that the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca was not serious about that comment. I honestly do not believe he was but I am not going to pretend to answer for him because that is not my job in the House.

The greater issue that the hon. member raised regarding private members' business is a frustrating issue. It is doubly frustrating when we have a majority government. The votes are whipped and we have a much more difficult job of bringing proposed legislation forth. We all understand that.

I agree with the point made that this debate is becoming more than a waste of time. This is taking the emphasis off what the motion was to begin with and putting the emphasis on the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca. Quite simply that is wrongheaded, so I am quite content to sit down and not debate this issue any longer.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.