Debates of March 9th, 1998

House Of Commons

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

This is not the way Parliament works.

In conclusion, I will only say how sad it is to see that those who claim they want to save Canada can think of nothing better than waving—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

They had better listen, they might understand better what Quebec is all about.

Those who think they can save the country by waving pictures and flags, singing the national anthem, and making such a racket in the House of Commons that they disrupt the debates, those who think this is the way to save Canada, are a thousand miles away from the understanding needed to nurture a constructive dialogue which might lead them to where they want to go.

This is not the way to go forward. This is not the way to make progress, and they should know that. Everybody in Quebec thinks the flag war started in this Parliament by the people opposite and now waged by the official opposition is ridiculous. Everybody thinks it is absolutely unconscionable that in Canada the only way to counter sovereignists' arguments is to wave the flag and sing O Canada at inopportune moments. But this is the sad truth.

How weak they are those Canadians who, instead of arguing, find nothing better to do than waving colours and symbols! Are all the champions of the country cheerleaders?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Could be.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

In conclusion, I will say that we support the motion. We want these issues out in the open. I believe every member mentioned in the article should withdraw his comments and realize that this has gone way too far.

This is going beyond the struggle between pseudo-federalists and sovereignists. This is going much further than it should. This is turning into infighting among federalists, who are self-destructing, because they do not even respect the bare minimum, namely Parliament, the Parliament of Canada, the very Parliament we separatists have always respected and will keep on respecting, whether they like it or not.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a great day for Parliament. Perhaps we are being put to the test. There are a number of issues that are being mentioned, some of them, I think, indirectly, but there are only two issues that we are being asked to debate at this particular point.

We are not being asked to debate the appropriateness of the so-called flag issue. That is still awaiting your decision, Mr. Speaker, although some of my friends think this might be the point and place for that debate.

I think it is fair to say that people got caught up in an emotional demonstration in the House of Commons, motivated for the very best of reasons. Others felt it was inappropriate. But that is not what we are talking about here.

I think all of us also appreciate the fact that our constituents watch this House operate on their television sets and by and large are not impressed often with what they see. Today is a good example of that.

Today we are supposed to be debating the budget, Mr. Speaker. We are not debating the budget. We are debating some alleged comments that some people made about the procedure before the House.

This is not necessarily a question about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to say anything you want about anybody or anything. It is within certain accepted rules. How we behave in here in also based on a long established set of traditions and rules. We make a point of memorizing those rules. As members of Parliament we have books presented so that we know what the rules of order are. We know what is expected of us in the House. What is it?

You are being asked, Mr. Speaker, to decide whether or not a few days ago the proper procedures were followed. We are awaiting that decision. That is not what is before us at the moment. Brought to us by the House leader for the Progressive Conservatives was the alleged comments made by a number of members from various political parties that may bring into question your integrity when bringing down a decision about the appropriateness of behaviour in this House. That is the question before us.

I listened with interest to the spokesperson for the Liberal Party who said now they have no choice. You have ruled that this is a prima facie case of privilege that now must go on to the appropriate committee—the procedure and House affairs committee—where it will be dealt with appropriately. The so-called alleged comments will be addressed. That is where it will be dealt with.

Surely if we are going to do the right thing for this Parliament, we do not challenge your rule now. We do the right thing and vote to send this to the appropriate committee which is a standing committee of this House represented by all political parties to finalize and deal with this unfortunate issue.

I would urge my colleagues, let us make this a unanimous vote. You have asked us to support your decision. That is what this vote is all about. For goodness sake, colleagues, let us not separate at this point on this critical issue. Let us send it off to committee where it will be dealt with appropriately in a dispassionate way where everyone will have the chance to have their say. This will then be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

I am urging, not only on behalf of my party, that we all support this motion unanimously.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion by the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. Again, as the last speaker said, this has nothing to do with flag waving or singing songs; it has everything to do with an attempt to influence your decision and intimidate, as far as I am concerned.

If you consider that members from the government party and the official opposition both took a position that said if you did not as Speaker make a decision that they wanted that they would make every effort they could to remove you as Speaker, I think that has to be intimidation and a deliberate attempt to influence your decision. If you consider the timing, this is what is critical here. Had they made these comments after your decision, that would be one thing, that they should question your decision, but to do it just before your making a decision is a deliberate attempt to try to influence your decision.

In the newspaper article in question none of the members talked about their position. They did not try to support their position. All they did was try to intimidate the Speaker by the threats, as it says here in the newspaper article: “we'll demand Parent's removal as Speaker if he rules in favour”. As another member said: “There will be grave consequences if he doesn't rule in favour”. Two other members warned “that Parent will face demands for his resignation if he does not rule it the way we want him to rule”.

In my view, there is no question about this being a deliberate attempt to influence your decision. As the previous speaker said, I urge all members to make this a unanimous decision to have this go to committee and have it resolved.

[The 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 Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Banks; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Fisheries; the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton, Highway System.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in this debate I want to address an aspect of the procedure that we are dealing with here. Some members have referred to this as being a matter where we should be voting in favour of the motion to support the ruling of the Speaker.

I bring to members' attention my understanding of the rules here, that we are not voting to support or not support the Speaker. What we are doing is voting on a motion moved by our colleague, and that motion is on the floor because the Speaker has ruled that there is a prima facie breach of that privilege of the House.

This does not mean that there has been with certainty—agreed to by all members—a breach of those privileges.

The ruling of the Speaker allows this motion to come to the floor and to be debated on and adopted or not, as we see fit. So the whole issue of whether or not there has been a breach of privilege still remains in the hands of members and the Speaker did not, and I say this respectfully, wish to become one of the voters or movers of the motion.

Whether we vote for or against in this particular instance, we are not voting for or against the Speaker. We are already here in the House with the Speaker who has our support. That is not at issue.

All of the issues surrounding whether or not there has been a breach of the privileges of the House will be taken up by a committee of this House which we set up for that purpose and that committee will report back to the House with the report. At that point in time every member of this House will have an opportunity, dependent on the rules of the House. to debate the report and the House may or may not adopt the report.

That report may make recommendations as to how we should deal with this issue if all the facts are shown to be correct, how we should deal with it among ourselves as members of Parliament given the issues involved. It involves a number of our colleagues.

I wanted to make that point in the hope that the debate this afternoon would not get too much into the flag issue and too much into support or non-support of the Speaker—we always support the Speaker—but whether or not the matter should be taken up by all members through the committee we have designated for that purpose.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a few points on this debate.

I agree with others who have said that it is an unfortunate detour from the regularly scheduled business of the House that we are even engaged in this debate. We are because the House leader of the fifth party decided he wanted to bring it. That is unfortunate in and of itself. Besides that, it is interesting to me and the rotation here has allowed me a minute or two to calm down, which is probably just as well.

I have difficulty engaging in debate someone who I cannot exceed in decibels, which would have been the case had I followed the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois who seems intent that he believes in that old adage that when your argument is a little weak, yell louder and perhaps someone will believe you. That is unfortunate.

We should engage in the debate and the merits of this motion before the House. I would argue with people who would say we must be unanimous, with those in the House who say it is not appropriate that we would even dispute the motion before the House, to debate it, the pros and cons. Would it be because we are a flock of sheep?

I say not, Mr. Speaker. I say that you have brought this to the House for the House to make the decision and that is why you have brought it to this place, so that all of us could bring our collective wisdom on this decision to see whether it will be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee or whether it will not.

If, Mr. Speaker, the standing orders gave you the power to just by fiat declare it to be so, that is what the standing orders would say, but they do not say that.

You have come to the House and have asked for a decision and for people wherever in this House to say that now we should not debate it, now we should give it unanimous consent or we somehow are flying in the face of our Speaker, that is nonsense.

We support the Speaker in his decisions but we also support the decision of the House of Commons as a collectivity. It is our right to speak on this motion and others and vote as we see fit, not to be coerced by people who somehow think it is wrong to speak our minds, and to vote the will of our constituents or our own minds in this case.

Specifically I want to say a couple of things on this matter. The silly season has struck early with this motion by the House leader of the Progressive Conservatives.

I think back to the last parliament when we dealt with a case of contempt of Parliament or privilege. I think it was contempt. It was the case of Mr. Jacob which was brought forward as a contempt of Parliament because he had urged members of the armed forces to consider joining the Quebec army the moment after the referendum.

That was a very serious issue that pro or con needed to be examined. For goodness' sake, the defence critic of the official opposition at that time urged people to leave the Canadian Armed Forces the moment after a referendum and join the Quebec army, which does not even exist. It was quite a statement and it was referred to committee.

What happened in committee? That is why I am worried about this motion. It went to committee and what happened was that the majority in that committee took control of the agenda, took control of the committee, and did not listen to the debate. What they did was ramrod through a decision, in that case saying that Mr. Jacob was not in contempt according to the majority, supported by the official opposition at that time. In fact many speakers thought they should actually condemn the Reform Party for even bringing up the issue.

Imagine being concerned when someone says that someone should desert the Canadian army and join the non-existent Quebec army and we are the ones who are chastised. It is ridiculous. It is just silly, sick and perverse that people who bring up things as a bona fide contentious point of privilege and contempt of parliament instead are chastised in the public House of Commons for even bringing up the case. It is ridiculous in the extreme.

That is what will happen to this motion too if it gets sent to committee. The silly season sets in. That is what happens when they do this sort of thing. The House leader of the fifth party should know that. It goes off to committee and there it sits and waits for days and weeks and months while it festers away instead of being dealt with it as it should have been dealt with quickly and put aside.

I will not vote in favour of the motion as it stands because this thing should have never gone the route it has gone today. It is unfortunate Progressive Conservatives have chosen to tie up the House in this way. It is unfortunate that we will have to deal with it. We will have to push it through to a vote. Then perhaps it will be sent to committee where it will languish away, festering and burbling away in the back rooms of this place instead of being dealt with quickly and succinctly as it should have been all along. Therefore I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the words “Ottawa Sun ”.

In that way we can say that if people believe this is harsh on the Speaker or harsh on the House, let them say so. This should not be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This should be treated as any newspaper article should be.

I can envision the PC Party bringing its Frank magazines in here next week and saying “Oh, my goodness, look, another article that somehow brings things into disrepute. We had best haul everybody out in front of everybody again and shut down the procedure of the House”.

It is ridiculous. It should not be happening. We should be on to the business of the budget. That is why this motion in effect should say that hon. members can say what they want about the newspaper article, but we are not going to waste our time here and we are not going to waste our time in committee on a motion that should have never been brought to the House to begin with.

[The Speaker]

I will take the amendment under advisement. We will have a look at it. I will continue with the debate.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since you are about to make a ruling, I would like to tell you that if this amendment completely alters, as I think it does, the nature of the motion moved by the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, it should obviously be ruled out of order.

I have been listening with a mixture of amusement and sadness the arguments of the official opposition chief whip to the effect that a newspaper report should not be given so much significance. He said we should not give too much importance to comments reported in the media. Maybe the official opposition chief whip has just realized now that he is a public figure, that his comments can indeed be reported in the media, and that his comments as a member of this House are of some import.

He said he finds it distressing that this issue has been raised in the House. On the basis of remarks made outside the House concerning a deputy speaker, our former colleague for Rosemont was urged to withdraw his statement, despite the fact it had not been made in the House.

In my view, there are precedents, whether the official opposition chief whip likes it or not. Just two weeks ago, he condescendingly likened the members of the Bloc Quebecois to deer dazed by oncoming headlights. Listening to him a moment ago, he made me think of a child who has just broken a window pane, and closes his eyes pretending it did not happen.

What has happened is quite serious. Rather that letting the issue rest, as you asked, and wait for your ruling, a few members have decided deliberately to add fuel to the fire and inflame the situation, so that the debate has not been made more civilized, but uglier.

I hear the chief whip of the official opposition saying “My, it is so sad we have to talk about this, that we have to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, that we have to drag members' reputations through the mud for months on end”.

The chief whip of the official opposition was far less scrupulous when what was involved was dragging the reputation of the former member for Charlesbourg through the mud, as he did outrageously a while ago by totally misrepresenting the words of that hon. member. The former member for Charlesbourg, I would remind you, had not invited the members of the Canadian Armed Forces to join the armed forces of an independent Quebec, but had merely raised that possibility. This matter was thoroughly examined by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and it was decided at that time that there was no contempt of Parliament,

Probably the chief whip for the official opposition, being disappointed and somewhat frustrated with that decision, is referring to it today in order to indicate just how unfortunate and regrettable it would be if his colleagues were to have to appear before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to answer for something they said which was reported publicly in the media.

Mr. Speaker, I speak for my colleagues in stating that we are going to support this motion because it makes sense. We are going to support this motion because it is normal, if MPs challenge the authority of the Chair when it is required to make a ruling and attempt to influence that ruling with intimidation and threats, that they must face up to what they have said.

We are therefore going to support this motion, because it is obvious that we should, and also because, as some of our colleagues have pointed out, you have asked us to do so.

[The Speaker]

I have looked at the amendment to the motion. I refer hon. members to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 568, which states:

It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made, either to a question or to a proposed amendment, should be so framed that, if agreed to by the House, the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.

On that basis I find the amendment out of order.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would not for one instance disagree with any ruling that you make with respect to this issue being a prima facie case of breach of privilege. I realize that you have carefully considered the issue and you have consulted with the experts you have around you.

My concern is with the motion itself. I have to say to my House leader and to my colleagues on all sides of the House that I believe the motion is of sufficient importance that we should treat it as an issue of conscience and as a free vote.

It is for this reason. If my colleagues speak out in criticism of you, Mr. Speaker, which is what this is all about, and they are then as a consequence brought before a committee of the House and required to defend what they have said, I feel that their punishment has been meted out, that they have been called to account, that there have been sanctions.

As I spoke earlier, I believe in our parliamentary system and our democracy that every MP should have a right to criticize anyone as long as the criticism falls into the realm of fair comment. In this instance the criticisms fell into the realm of fair comment. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you would have found ample precedents on other occasions where MPs have suggested because of a Speaker's ruling that the Speaker's election may be in jeopardy at some future time.

I am concerned that this issue strikes at the very heart of the freedom of MPs to speak out both within and without the Chamber. If they do not feel free to speak out, if they hesitate to speak out because of some perceived sanction that may be imposed upon them at a later time by their colleagues in committee, I do not think we will get the debates, either in the Chamber or in public, that we need in order to proceed to consider the issues carefully in a democratic fashion.

I hesitate to say this because I always want to support my side in the House. I considered very carefully the comments of the government House leader. However, on an issue as close to the heart as the freedom of every one of us in the House to speak out, both within and without the House, I have to say I cannot support the motion.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few points. I want to respond to the NDP member for Kamloops who suggested that you really want this to go to committee. I believe that is not accurate at all. Your reason is that we are debating it before the House because you want the House to decide without question.

I want to respond to the member who brought the motion forward, the Progressive Conservative member who has drawn an analogy to a civil case. I do not see this analogy and I will explain why.

It is true before the courts, or the general public for that matter, that litigants are not permitted to lobby the judge, the arbitrator or a juror when making a decision.

I submit that is not the issue here at all. When the original motion was brought forward, or the point of order, I was also standing along with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. As is your role, Mr. Speaker, you recognized him. I respected that and I sat down. I did not have a chance to voice my concerns, but I had twice gone looking for you and was unsuccessful in finding you. This was an important enough issue for me that I wanted to talk to you and say that I at least have to voice my concerns to you on this point of order. I was absolutely going to try to influence your vote, without question. I believe that is perfectly appropriate in these circumstances.

I also believe it is perfectly appropriate if the public telephones you or faxes you or lobbies you to put their comments on the record.

This is an issue about your integrity. I believe that is why you are sitting in the chair. That is why we elected you. We are confident that you will make a decision which we will respect.

I had every intention of lobbying you, Mr. Speaker, because I did not have an opportunity to speak on the original motion and I felt it was very important that I do so. I disagree with the analogy which was made by the member of the Progressive Conservative Party that if this were a civil court case it would be improper to lobby you outside the House concerning your decision.

I am sure you have received faxes from the public, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of this importance. I am sure you have received phone calls from the general public. I would respectfully submit that the general public is not in contempt. They have every right to send information to you.

It is a matter of voicing our opinions. It is very important to me that you hear my concerns. I will not do that now. I want to, but I have not been able to do it. I will respect your decision, but again I think I have the right to let you know how I feel.

Some members have chosen to do that through the newspaper. We deal with it all the time. Every single day we see things in the newspaper about members of the House, their staff and other government officials. We have to filter through them to know what they mean.

Mr. Speaker, I have the highest respect for your office and for that matter for yourself. I will put that on the record. However, had I walked out of here and somebody had stuck a camera in my face and had asked me for my comments, I would have stated them quite openly, quite honestly and quite appropriately I may add with no disregard for your office whatsoever.

Again I will say that I respect your decision to let the House decide the issue. The other point of order is a separate issue entirely. We must respect your decision. We must respect your office. You are sitting in that chair because we put you there and because we believe in your integrity. Otherwise you would not be there. I am convinced of that.

I will not support the motion. Although I may not have chosen to lobby this way, other members have. They feel quite strongly about the issue and want to have their comments on the record. You are sitting there waiting to make a decision, which you can do with total impartiality.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. I did not realize until I arrived here this afternoon that this tempest in a teapot had taken on a new proportion.

I want to begin by going back to my first year in this city, 1980. I and my good friend, the late Norman Wood who was a senior bureaucrat for many years, were given the job by the then prime minister of Canada to do an analysis of the Government of Canada presence right across the country. The purpose of doing this study about the presence of the Government of Canada at that time was to try to figure out why there was such a deep-seated feeling of western alienation when the Government of Canada had done all kinds of things especially in western Canada.

We travelled from coast to coast and placed special emphasis on western Canada. My very dear friend Norman Wood and myself took slides. We took thousands of pictures.

We discovered that there were literally thousands of Government of Canada services right across the country but especially in western Canada where the Government of Canada presence did not exist. There were agricultural buildings, there were youth services in colleges and universities. The Government of Canada was providing all of these services but with no Government of Canada presence.

Shortly thereafter we got the Canada word mark with the flag on top. We put these signs and flags not just in western Canada but right across the country. The whole purpose of that was to make sure the Government of Canada presence was recognized. It was not hidden in some back office. It was out there for the public to realize that this Chamber actually did useful things in every region of the country.

I say that because I do not want anybody in this Chamber to think for a second that my commitment to the flag, my commitment to the Government of Canada have diminished in any way, shape or form since 1980.

With reference to this incident, last week the member for Rimouski—Mitis came into our committee. I have had a very good relationship with her over the last two terms. I asked her quite openly what the big fuss was over the flags at the Olympic games celebration.

The member responded in what I thought was quite a constructive way. She put a bunch of pictures on the table which I wish we could display to Canadians. She was not objecting to the Canadian flag per se. When the initial comments were made she was referring specifically to that avenue where representatives of all countries were in the Olympic village and the Canadian presence, which we celebrate, outnumbered the presence of any other country by about 20:1. My colleague from Scarborough Centre was there and he concurs with this.

There is a sense that the member asked whether it was distasteful to have this many flags. Those remarks were blown right out of proportion. I know some people will stand up and say that I am in bed with the separatists. If members choose to take that line of thinking, then that is their privilege in this House. It is very important that we understand the origin of this member's remark. I believe quite frankly that the member was not spitting on the flag, she was not jumping on the flag. She was merely making a comment about whether this was artistically the right thing.

[An hon. member]

That is nonsense.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

That is fine, the member can say it is nonsense, but I have my privilege to stand in this House and say what I think just as that member does and I happen to disagree.

I am not in bed with the separatists. Anybody who has been in this Chamber for the last 10 years knows that I find dealing with the separatists to be a very tough situation. I also believe we should understand. If a member makes a remark that suddenly becomes coast to coast front cover headlines when it was a musing thing, not a statement of hurt nor a statement to diminish Canada but a comment, then it is important to take it in the whole context.

In emotional moments in this Chamber, whether we sing O Canada, show the flag five times or a hundred times when our athletes or astronauts come home, it is the privilege in my own view although I defer to your judgment, Mr. Speaker, of all of us to emotionally show excitement and gratitude. On that score, I separate again from the separatists.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to you, and I am totally loyal to your judgment in this, that it is very important that a person not be condemned, hung out to dry, when it was a simple musing comment. In no way, shape or form in my judgment was she stomping on the flag.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are talking about a serious matter.

This afternoon we are talking about something that concerns us all, that concerns you personally as well, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about respect for democracy in the House. We are talking about your ability to lead the House to conclusions. And we are talking about respect for this ability as it relates to the institution of the Parliament of Canada.

A few moments ago, our Liberal Party colleague referred to remarks made by the member for Rimouski—Mitis with respect to the large number of Canadian flags she saw in Nagano. The remarks made at the time were respectful of the institution and the flag and all they evoke.

What we saw on Thursday, two weeks ago, and I was in the House, profoundly shocked me. I feel that a country's flag is something sacred. It is more than just a piece of fabric, more than just colours. It is something that represents a people. I respect the flag of Quebec, I respect the flag of Canada, and I respect national flags.

National anthems also have a sacred character and, in my view, may not be used whenever and however people wish. It would be ill viewed, as I think everyone here would agree, if a student were to stand up in the middle of a class and begin singing the national anthem or waving flags in the name of freedom of expression. There is a time and a place for everything.

What happened here, two weeks ago, upset me precisely because we used a flag, the Canadian flag, and a national anthem, O Canada, at an inappropriate time.

During oral question period, the time allocated to hon. members for putting their questions and to ministers for answering them is quite limited, and you see to it, Mr. Speaker, that we keep things rolling. The disruption that occurred during our proceedings meant that some hon. members who could have asked questions did not have time to do so, and that the ministers did not have time to answer them. I know as you do, Mr. Speaker, that the House cannot operate properly under such circumstances.

After the incident, Mr. Speaker, you said—I was there—that you would take the matter under advisement and that you would get back to the House. In the meantime, some hon. members have questioned your eventual decision.

Mr. Speaker, once you have made the decision, anyone who disagrees with it will be free to say so. But until you make a decision, it is our duty to give you the time you need to ponder the issue and make the necessary consultations, and to put our trust in you.

You have my confidence and I think you also have the confidence of the vast majority of the members of this House. However, some have allowed themselves, publicly and openly, not in private conversations but in front of the media, to question the decision that you will make. Worse still, they indicated that they would withdraw their confidence in you should your ruling not be what they think it should be.

This is totally unacceptable. Such behaviour jeopardizes the democratic institutions that are Parliament and the House of Commons. If I speak freely here this afternoon, it is because I know that hon. members, whether or not they agree with my comments, will listen and let me exercise the right to speak that is mine since I was elected through a democratic process.

Hon. members also know that I do the same when you recognize them, Mr. Speaker. They enjoy the same freedom of speech, because they were also elected through a democratic process. I respect your authority because we collectively decided that you, our fellow member of Parliament, would ensure that the debates take place in a climate of respect that is conducive, hopefully, to the best possible outcome, and, more importantly, that is consistent with democracy.

I listened to some members, and sometimes I just cannot believe my ears. Whatever happened to respect for democracy among those of our colleagues who are trying to influence your decision, to kill debate, and to put a lid on the issues, instead of allowing a debate that would lead to a solution?

I do not know what your decision will be. I will anxiously wait for it, like many of us here. However, I do know that if your decision is made within the rules of our parliamentary system, it will get the support of a majority of members of this House, as are all decisions made in this fashion. We are bound by a democratic pact and this is why I will accept your decision, whatever it is.

If I had the authority to do so, I would apologize to you on behalf of the members of other parties who more or less threatened you. I do not have this authority, but it makes me very sad to see certain members show such disrespect for you.

Since I feel this is a fundamental issue, I would like to propose an amendment to the motion before us.

I move:

That the motion be amended by adding, between the words “referred” and “to the Standing Committee”, the word:

“immediately”.

[The Speaker]

The motion, as worded, is in order.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate today. I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[The Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

(Motion agreed to)

Order In Council Appointments

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages a number of order in council appointments which were recently made by the government.

Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.