House of Commons Hansard #80 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was billion.

Topics

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

I will take the question of privilege the hon. member for Red Deer has raised under advisement and get back to the House in due course.

The second notice is from the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege resulting from the comments made by the Prime Minister's director of communications, Scott Reid, on national television, CBC Newsworld , on Thursday, March 17, 2005, slandering my reputation as a member of Parliament which, in effect, slanders the reputation of all members of the House.

The remarks were only recently brought to my attention and this represents the first opportunity to bring this question of privilege before the House.

It has become an unfortunate, unsavoury practice in Canadian politics to malign the reputations of individuals who have been elected to serve the people of Canada. There is an expectation that members of the Prime Minister's staff, as they represent the Prime Minister, would demonstrate restraint and some degree of professionalism in the exercise of their duties. Many Canadians judge the words they are speaking as though they were coming from the Prime Minister's mouth himself.

It is ironic that when a senior member of the Prime Minister's staff maligns the reputation of a member of Parliament, they, in effect, malign the reputation of their boss, the Prime Minister, as surely as they are attacking all of our reputations and the reputation of the House.

In the case of Mr. Reid, as the Prime Minister's director of communications, his comments were tasteless and over the top. I am tabling a copy of those comments, Mr. Speaker, for your review and determination on this question of privilege.

On March 22, 1983, on page 24027 of Hansard , the Speaker ruled:

A reflection upon the reputation of an Hon. Member is a matter of great concern to all Members of the House. It places the entire institution under a cloud, as it suggests that among the Members of the House there are some who are unworthy to sit here.

Rightfulness, fair play and the people I represent in the riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, along with a great many fair-minded Canadians who are quite frankly shocked at the comments of the Prime Minister's representative, demand that I challenge the comments made by that individual. Justice cannot be served if this slanderous comment against me is left unchallenged and unresolved.

On page 214 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada there is a reference to reflections on members. It states:

The House of Commons is prepared to find contempt in respect of utterances within the category of libel and slander and also in respect of utterances which do not meet that standard.

As put by Bourinot, “any scandalous and libellous reflections on the proceedings of the House are a breach of the privileges of Parliament and libels upon members individually”.

I would also refer you, Mr. Speaker, to a Speaker's ruling from October 29, 1980 at page 4213 of Hansard . The Speaker said:

--in the context of contempt, it seems to me that to amount to contempt, representations or statements about our proceedings or of the participation of members should not only be erroneous or incorrect, but, rather, should be purposely untrue and improper and import a rung of deceit.

The comments made by the Prime Minister's employee were not only incorrect but I charge Scott Reid with deliberately and maliciously making a statement that was politically motivated and was a deliberate attempt to tarnish my reputation.

With the daily unfolding spectacle of the sponsorship scandal, many accusations will be made and many reputations attacked, including, in all likelihood, the reputations of members of the House.

A strong message regarding what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to members of the House, particularly comments coming from someone in the position of personal spokesperson of the Prime Minister, will send the right message in the days and weeks ahead as the House seeks the truth regarding the missing millions in the sponsorship inquiry.

An MP's staff should not be allowed to get away with what the MP himself would be held account to. If you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Ottawa—Vanier Ontario

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger LiberalDeputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, after hearing the comments of the hon. member opposite, I think you will agree that the question of privilege does not apply in this case. First, these comments were made by someone who is not an MP and, second, these comments were not made in this House.

Allow me to make the following comment: in both cases, it would be quite easy to determine rather quickly that this matter is certainly not a question of privilege.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege to add to what the deputy government House leader said.

If every time a member of the House was unhappy about comments made by a spokesperson for another party or another member outside the House, Mr. Speaker, you would be hearing a lot of questions of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you would suggest to the member that her recourse, if she feels that she has recourse, lies outside the House. She has a number of civil remedies available to her if she feels so aggrieved. This certainly is not a question of privilege.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

I have listened to the hon. member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke on this point. She did not read out the offending comments but she did say that she would make them available to the Chair and I will look at those comments.

However I must say that I have concerns about which privilege it is she is alleging has been breached in this case. It is entirely possible that she may have a grievance but that is something that is not normally dealt with by the House.

Statements made outside this place, and the rulings she quoted were all ones with which I quite agree, but I am sure they dealt with words that were used in the House by one member in relation to another member, which would be the subject of a question of privilege if the privileges of the member were breached by the comments that were made. That sometimes happens in the House. Members do get up and say that unparliamentary terms were used about them and get the Chair to order the withdrawal of the word if in fact it was unparliamentary, or to get an apology from the member who said the words. Speakers can do that.

However, Speakers do not have authority over those who are not members of the House and who make statements, even if they are employees of members of the House in making them. If those persons came before a committee and made statements there, perhaps the member would find that her privileges as a member were in some way breached. However statements made outside the House by others, whoever they may be, I do not believe are the subject of claims for privilege in the House.

While I am prepared to look at the sheet that she said she would table and if necessary come back to the House, my guess is on everything I have heard today that there is no question of privilege here.

I have a point of order from the hon. member for Newton--North Delta.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Gurmant Grewal Conservative Newton—North Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, during question period today a Liberal member and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made statements tarnishing my character, integrity and honesty.

The minister accused me of having my constituents post bonds payable to me. That is absolutely false. Neither I nor my staff have ever done so. This issue was raised in the media and has been corrected in the media. The minister should do the honourable thing and stand up and apologize to me and my constituents.

I reserve the right to raise a question of privilege down the road after I review the blues from question period.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Eglinton—Lawrence Ontario

Liberal

Joe Volpe LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, I guess members of the opposition are learning the damage that is caused by allegation, innuendo and slander. However I am not into that game.

All I did was simply read the transcripts from a committee hearing wherein the member for Newton--North Delta actually admitted to all of those things that he now alleges have been fabricated by those on this side of the House. Not only is that type of feeble defence absolutely abhorrent, it is doubly so because the activity to which the member admitted compromises the integrity not only of the immigration system but in fact of the concept of government and service by members of Parliament to their constituents.

If there is anything for which to apologize, I think that the Leader of the Opposition, who is so smug in his concern that others abide by his standard, might stand up in the House and dissociate himself from that practice or admit that he has actually been directing it.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Calgary Southwest Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper ConservativeLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will take a look at the blues on that kind of allegation. I think the member knows full well that was a news story that was not correct. He would have us believe that the member of Parliament for Newton--North Delta got up in committee and admitted to some kind of inappropriate or criminal behaviour. Seriously, nobody believes that.

There was a story in the newspaper that was erroneous. I believe the newspaper has even corrected the record on that. We will certainly look at what the hon. member said.

However I must say, with this minister, that I read with some interest his comments about the Sikh community in Toronto. I now see him slandering a Sikh member of Parliament. I think this kind of behaviour toward Sikh Canadians on behalf of the minister of immigration is unacceptable.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

It seems to me that we are getting into a debate. If the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has something new to submit to the Chair on this I will hear it, but I do not want to have a continuation of the kind of debate we are getting into here.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to at least address a point of order that must be raised. I never suggested that there was criminality. I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition accuses his own members of same. I would remind him as well that all the constituents who approached his member of Parliament are from that same Sikh community that they have so desperately maligned. Perhaps it is time that he came out of the closet and stopped being the spineless chameleon that he is known to be.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

The Speaker

We will hear one more submission on this from the hon. member for Newton--North Delta but I do not think we need to hear more than that.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Gurmant Grewal Conservative Newton—North Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, the minister has restated false information and has misled the House with respect to the citizenship and immigration committee meeting.

I clearly stated in the committee that I had not taken money from anyone. Why--

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

There is a transcript. Read the transcript.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

You're a bigot, Joe.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Who gets the money?

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

The Speaker

Order, please. I would urge hon. members to come to order in this case. I have heard enough argument on this matter. My suspicion is that this is a dispute as to facts. However, in the circumstances I am going to review the transcript of the committee that was mentioned. I will also review the remarks made today by hon. members and get back to the House in due course.

I have another point of order from the hon. member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask your judgment, your ruling and your response to what I believe is a problem with Bill C-38 in clause 3. With the consent of our justice critic, I will read part of that clause. It states:

It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

The authorization to solemnize marriage is really a matter of provincial jurisdiction but the clause implies that somehow it is a federal responsibility. I am asking whether this clause should be in the bill. I would like to receive a response from the Chair whether in fact it has been indicated that it is ultra vires and it is unconstitutional and therefore should not be in the bill. I would like your ruling in respect of that so that this clause could be removed from the bill.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

The Speaker

I am sure the hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin knows that the Speaker does not make rulings on matters of law; on parliamentary law perhaps, but not on the law of the Constitution or on other laws that affect us. The question of the interpretation of the section of the bill is one that would be determined by a court if the bill in fact becomes law. At the moment, it is a bill before Parliament and Speakers in the past have not ruled on the constitutionality or otherwise of clauses in a bill.

What they may decide is whether the terms of a bill are in compliance with a prior resolution of this House, a ways and means motion, for example, or a royal recommendation in respect of a money bill, but beyond that, Speakers do not intervene in respect of the constitutionality or otherwise of provisions in the bills introduced in this House.

Rulings of courts may chuck out some of the clauses that are adopted by this House in a bill, but that happens after the House has passed it and the Senate has passed it and it has received royal assent, because even the courts have no jurisdiction in the matter before.

The usual ground for ruling an issue unconstitutional is either that it is in breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or that it contravenes the provisions of our Constitution with respect to the division of powers. Those are the normal grounds. It is not for the Speaker to make rulings on those grounds.

I hate to disappoint the hon. member, but I am powerless in the circumstances to assist him. He will have to wait and, if the clause passes, deal with the matter in a court somewhere else.

The hon. opposition House leader is rising on a point of order.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, you have already indicated to the House that you intend to review the blues of what transpired not only during question period but during the dispute that arose between my colleague from Newton—North Delta and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

I would ask that you review this very carefully in regard to some of what I believe was inappropriate and unparliamentary language used by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. If you do find that indeed those comments were unparliamentary, he had the honourable option to withdraw and apologize to my colleague and to the House but he did not choose to do that. Therefore, I would ask that if you find that is the case, you raise it at a future time and ask him to withdraw those comments.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

I thank the hon. opposition House leader for his vigilance in this regard. There was a lot of unparliamentary language used by more than one hon. member in the course of the exchange, which is partly why I was putting an end to it. While I appreciate the hon. member's comments, if I reviewed it too carefully and found a whole lot, we might spend a long afternoon on apologies after that particular episode. I am not sure that it would be worthwhile to have the House spend its time doing that, but of course I will bear his comments in mind as I do the review, as I always do.

The hon. member for Calgary--Nose Hill is rising on a point of order.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have obviously decided that your life has been too boring and want to give you some interest.

I rise with respect to a point of order on questions I asked in question period. They were with respect to a review of some financial matters of the Liberal Party of Canada. You questioned that and in fact you ruled that those questions were not properly in order.

I would like to point out to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, that it was the government itself that raised these audits in the House, not the opposition. I would also like to point out that the so-called audits dealt with money which came from the taxpayer through contracts awarded by the Government of Canada.

I would also like to point out that we have a responsibility to ensure that public funds are properly dealt with, no matter what their final destination is. We have a difficult situation where we have a government whose members are all members of the Liberal Party, of course, and I believe that on behalf of taxpayers we are entitled to get to the bottom of this situation. Particularly when the government raises defences like a so-called audit or a review of financial matters in the House, we in the House should be entitled in reply to question the matters that are raised by the government.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that you review this matter and advise me as to the points I have raised.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

I thank the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill for her intervention.

Yes, I ruled the questions out of order and I did so on the basis that they dealt with internal party matters. If the audit had been one that was paid for by the government at the request of the government because of problems and had been ordered by the ministry specifically, I might have had more sympathy, but that does not appear to be the case.

I do not know all the facts. I will review the situation, but it looked to me as though this was a standard review that had been done by someone and the report was made. Whether it was at the request of the commission or some other person, I do not know, but normally party finances are not the administrative responsibility of the government even where there is a case of government moneys having been paid to the party for some reason or another. That is why I disallowed the question.

We have had a lot of questions on whether government funds were properly expended, but that was not the question the hon. member asked. It was about the internal affairs of the party and for that reason I ruled the question out of order. She was not the only one who had that misfortune today.

I will review the matter and get to the back to the House should I feel that my ruling was incorrect. I will let her know accordingly.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point. I draw to your attention that you yourself just used the term “normally”. I would suggest to you that we are in uncharted territory here, because the government itself, as my hon. colleague just indicated, was using these forensic reviews, not even audits but forensic reviews, of their party books as a shield to try to deflect the attention being paid to those funds as allegedly coming from the public through expenditures under a government program.

Therefore, I would contend that it should be admissible to probe further in this regard, because these are not normal times.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

Even if the forensic audit was being used as a shield for the purpose intended, questions about the internal party financing are out of order. I do not understand why one necessarily would make the other follow, but as I have indicated to the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill, I will review her arguments and questions on the point and come back to the House, if need be, to make appropriate adjustments.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, be read a second time and referred to a committee.