House of Commons Hansard #67 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was jury.
The Speaker
I have received notice of a number of points of privilege with which I propose to deal immediately. As members know, points of privilege are the most important points so I intend to hear them immediately. The first point of privilege I will hear is by the member for Crowfoot.
Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege and I wish to place my case before you this morning.
Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 24 reads:
The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of Parliament are rights which are absolutely necessary for the due execution of its power. They are enjoyed by individual Members because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members.
Committee members provide a service to the members of the House. By not reporting a bill back to the House a committee impedes members from performing their legislative duties.
On December 13, 1994 Bill C-234 was referred to the justice committee by a majority of votes in the House. The Minister of Human Resources Development and the member for Vancouver Quadra, along with 72 of their colleagues, the hon. member for Saint John and the Reform caucus voted to send Bill C-234 to the committee, engaging its services to conduct a thorough review and investigation of this private member's bill and then report back to the House.
We expected the bill to be reported back to the House so that this House could make the final determination on the bill and not just a few committee members beyond the authority of the House.
It is this House that gave life to the bill and only this House has the authority in its final determination. For the committee to kill a bill which was given life by this House and a majority of its members is a violation of our privileges as members of Parliament.
The committee decided that Bill C-234, which became Bill C-226, was not to be reported back to the House. It was this action which has breached my privileges as a member of this House.
The Liberal members of the committee voted on each and every clause of this private member's bill and they voted not to report it back to the House. The Liberal members killed Bill C-226. The members of the justice committee are in contempt of Parliament for their actions.
Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 639(1) states:
A bill must pass through various stages, on separate days, before it receives the approval of the House of Commons.
Citation 679(2) states:
To commit a bill means to refer it to a committee, where it is to be considered and reported.
I suggest reported back to this House.
Mr. Speaker, if you rule this is a prima facie question of privilege I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the point raised by the hon. member. Respectfully I disagree with him when he indicates that the action taken by the committee was wrong, that it breached his privileges and that some members were in contempt of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will recall that the last session of Parliament dealt with a bill known as Bill C-203. It was dealt with at that time in committee H under the former structure. The committee was very ably chaired by the hon. member for Welland. Bill C-203 at that time, in committee, was killed by an action of certain members who moved that the deliberations on the bill be terminated sine die. In other words, the action of the committee made the bill disappear.
That issue was dealt with by the chair of the committee at the time, the hon. member for Welland. Then it was raised in the House by another hon. member. On February 26, 1992 the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona rose in the House and claimed that this was an issue of privilege and that the action of the committee was wrong.
In a subsequent ruling by the then Speaker of the House of Commons it was determined that in fact this was not privilege and the matter was dropped.
The action on Bill C-203 was far deeper than the one brought to our attention today by the hon. member. It was not just a committee which determined that the bill should not be reported, it was actually a motion that the bill be killed in committee. Even that was not ruled to be unparliamentary by the Speaker at the time.
By the way, the motion that was put by the committee, that the consideration of the bill be terminated sine die, was ruled by the chairman of the committee at that time, the hon. member for Welland, to be totally in order.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that with the two excellent rulings I have just brought to your attention you would agree with me that this is not a case of privilege.
Privilege
The Speaker
The hon. member for Welland is quite the fellow I understand. Is this on the same point of privilege?
John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have a few different points to add to this point of privilege-
Privilege
The Speaker
Order. Would the hon. member respond? Is this on the same point of privilege?
John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB
It is on the same point, Mr. Speaker, with additional information.
Before I present my arguments on the point of privilege I would like to reflect what the government whip said in the arguments he put forward. The instance that he talked about referred to deferring on a sine die basis and we are talking here about an entirely different situation.
I believe that my privileges and the privileges of the House have been breached. The justice committee has thwarted the rights of individual members to discuss a private member's bill-
Privilege
The Speaker
I am sorry to interrupt, but I have just been told we have no interpretation. There must be some technical problem.
Will the hon. member stand down until we get this small problem resolved?
We can resume, as everything seems to be working now.
I am sorry. The hon. member may continue.
John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again I would like to reiterate my original comments in rebuttal to the arguments put forward by the government whip. He pointed to an incident where a bill was deferred sine die, without a date, so that it might be recalled at some future indeterminate date. There is a major difference between deferring it to some future point and deciding unilaterally that a committee will not deal with the issue. Note the specific difference.
I would like to continue by putting my argument on this point of privilege. I feel that my privileges and the privileges of the House have been breached.
The justice committee has thwarted the rights of individual members to discuss a private member's bill on the Criminal Code and has instead promoted the interests of a ministerial bill, Bill C-45, above the interests of a private member's bill on exactly the same matter.
The order of precedence and the logical conclusion to debate Bill C-234 was ignored. According to Beauchesne's 6th edition, paragraph 1010, after committee consideration, a bill such as this is placed back on the Order Paper for consideration in the House at report stage.
The subject of Bill C-234 is section 745 of the Criminal Code. By not reporting the bill back to the House, the justice committee has unduly intervened in the performance of all members' individual legislative duties. The committee has obstructed the rights of all parliamentarians. It has also given the appearance of prejudice toward the minister and the government.
Erskine May's 21st edition states that:
-any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as contempt even though there is no precedent for this offence.
By not reporting back to the House, the justice committee has interfered in two ways. First, it decided that the business of a minister was more important than due process or the business of a private member. Second, the committee has circumvented the authority of the whole House in this decision. On an issue as important as this one, the matter should have been brought to the House for a decision.
According to Beauchesne's, 831(2):
A committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from, the Order of Reference. (Bourinot, p. 469.)
In this case, the committee circumvented the order of reference. In so doing it has created the appearance of preferential treatment to the government. Members cannot fulfil their duties if the committee does not report back to the House.
Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , page 14 states:
Individual privileges of members of the Senate and House of Commons are the absolute immunity they require to perform their parliamentary work; corporate privileges are the necessary means for each House to effectively discharge its functions. Thus a breach of any privilege constitutes a contempt of the House rather than of the member-
Mr. Speaker, if you rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move a motion. Again, I draw your attention to the fact that the committee decided not to report back the House rather than deferring it sine die as the government whip would suggest.
Privilege
The Speaker
From what I can gather, the point being made today is that a decision that was taken in committee should be reported to the House. I believe that is the point that is being made.
Privilege
The Speaker
I take every point of privilege as a very important point. I want to hear debate on it but if a point has been made I would appeal to hon. members not to intervene to make the same point.
If there is another point which needs to be made on this point of privilege then I am prepared to hear it. However, members will understand that as your Speaker I reserve the right, if I do not hear a new area being discussed, that I will probably not hear all of what is being said.
Do I have another intervener on the same point of privilege? The hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam.
Daphne Jennings Reform Mission—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, I believe I have additional information on this topic.
I rise to support the hon. member's question of privilege. By not returning Bill C-234 I too believe that the privileges of this House have been breached. How can we as members fulfil our function as legislators if committees refuse to report bills back to this House?
From Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , pages 12 and 13:
In order to perform its function as a legislative body, a legislature requires absolutely certain privileges, rights or immunities; that is to say, it cannot carry on unless it has them. It will be seen that a distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character or subordinate nature. It is a means to accomplish a purpose or fulfil a function.
I say the members of the justice committee are in contempt of Parliament for refusing to send both Bill C-234 and my own bill, Bill C-245, back to the House. In both cases the bills were referred to committee by a majority of members, unanimously in the case of my grandparents bill, and we deserve to have an opportunity to know what transpired.
A committee is a creature of the House but it is not supreme and should not make assumptions about what the House may want to consider. It should consider and report all bills referred to it as part-
Privilege
The Speaker
With the greatest of respect to you, my colleague, I believe the point being made was made a little earlier. I am taking notice of what has been said. I suggest that from what I can get from the point of privilege of the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam, this is the same area that has been covered.
Is there any new information members want me to take under consideration before making my decision? I will hear from the hon. member for Fraser Valley East.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add one or two points on this point of privilege. As has already been mentioned and as you can tell today, many members have written to you and have expressed this problem with the privileges of all members of the House, not just in the Reform caucus, although certainly we are bringing it to your attention.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot overemphasize the need for you to deal with this very seriously, as I know you will. Each of us goes to a lot of work on these private members' bills. I have two more coming out of a 15,000 name petition which will come to the House. That is why we treat them seriously, and I know that you do.
The only other point I could add to this, which has been well stated already, is that there is also the established practice of the House. As you are well aware, when you are presented with two amendments at report stage, one calling for the deletion of an entire clause and one calling for an amendment of a clause, you group those together, we debate them together and that is the way they are dealt with.
However, you always call the question on the deletion before the amendment. In other words, you let the House decide if it wants to delete it entirely or if it wants to amend it. In this case, what has happened in committee is that we are not able in the House to deal with whether the House wants to delete it in its entirety and deal only with an amendment. Our chance to debate that, discuss that and vote on it has been taken away from us because it has been deleted in committee and we have not had that chance to vote.
I ask that, taking the established practice Speakers have worked with in the past, you work with that to see that it is a case of privilege that we have not been able to discuss the points that we should be able to here in the House. Our privileges have been contravened.
Ray Speaker ReformLethbridge
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of quotations I would like to have given you from Beauchesne's and Maingot, but I will not go through that. Some of my colleagues have already done that.
However, I make reference to one with regard to former Bill C-226, now Bill C-234, and how it was handled in committee. I refer to page 12 of Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada where he describes that function:
Parliamentary privilege is the necessary immunity that the law provides for members of Parliament, and for members of the legislatures of each of the ten provinces and two territories, in order for these legislators to do their legislative work.
What we are saying is that our parliamentary privilege was taken away by that committee, when a group that has a majority of government members on it, Liberal members, decided it did not like what was in the bill. It said that bill would not be reported back to the House.
On that basis, as a private member it took away my parliamentary privilege, my right to speak to the bill, to debate it on behalf of Canadian citizens and maybe to have the opportunity of keeping murderers in this country in prison for 25 years.
Privilege
The Speaker
Once again, the point was made and the hon. member for Lethbridge was giving greater assurance and more information with regard to his agreement with a certain part. I have let the hon. member say that. Once again I appeal to members that if they have another point to make, rather than simply saying they agree with this or that, I would be willing to hear new points on this matter.
Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have pointed out the sections of Beauchesne's that apply to this question of privilege. I believe this action is a breach of privilege. As my colleagues have said, it has impeded my ability to function as a member of Parliament.
Here is the point. A handful of members on the justice committee simply cannot arbitrarily decide if they are not going to report a bill back to the House and in that process denying members an opportunity to consider the bill at report stage. That is a fact.
The justice committee is not an entity apart from this legislature. It is an integral part of the legislative process and the functioning of the House. It has a duty to consider bills sent to it by the House and return them with or without amendments.
Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 639(1) says a bill must pass through various stages, on separate days, before it receives the approval of the House of Commons.
One of those stages must be report stage. However, the justice committee has decided to unilaterally alter the legislative process by not reporting the bill back to the House. This is wrong. I cite Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 679(2):
To "commit" a bill means to refer it to a committee, where it is to be considered and reported.
I also believe Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 831(2) may be of some help to you. I am sure you understand this one:
A committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from, the Order of Reference. In the case of a committee upon a bill, the bill committed to it is itself the Order of Reference to the committee, which may only report it with or without amendment to the House.
It is pretty clear that the justice committee has acted in an inappropriate manner.
Privilege
The Speaker
Once again, this is a reiteration of areas we have gone into before. I once again ask that if members have a new point to be made, that is fine. They may rest assured that should I take this under advisement, and I am in the process of making up my mind now, I will research this whole area completely.
I want to give that assurance to the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary North, AB
Mr. Speaker, I refer you to Standing Order 98(1):
When a Private Member's bill is reported from a-committee-
The clear wording of the standing order is "when", not "if".
Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, as hon. colleagues have pointed out, we feel this is a breach of our privilege. I point out that this was passed twice to committee by the House. As hon. members how can we fulfil our responsibilities as legislators if a committee sets itself up superior to the judgment of the House by deleting every clause in the bill passed by the House not once but twice, rather than being a servant of the House, which I believe committees are?
Privilege
The Speaker
I thank the hon. member. He is going over ground I heard this morning.
I would like the hon. member for Wild Rose to be very precise if he has something new to add to this debate.
Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. It is with reference to the same point of privilege.
I have been sent here, as we all have, to represent the people of Canada and to ensure that proper laws are in place to protect them. The people of my constituency of Wild Rose were expecting me to have a registered vote on a final vote for Bill C-34 in support of it. I am being denied that opportunity and I think that is wrong.
Privilege
The Speaker
I appeal to members again that if there is a new point I want to hear it. I want to hear all the new points. But if it is
simply a reiteration of what has gone on before I know members will appreciate that I will move in a little sooner.
Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, the points have been amply made and I will be very brief.
I was the one who seconded the bill and I would have introduced another bill if this bill had not proceeded through the House. Therefore I feel my privileges have been breached because that opportunity is now gone and I feel it is really important. If you rule this to be a question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.