Debates of March 9th, 1998

Privilege

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

That is the point. As the Reform whip has indicated, you have not made a decision but while you are considering the arguments, as the House leader for the Conservative Party put so eloquently, we ought not to be issuing comments that could be considered by yourself as a threat.

Before this ends it would be appropriate for those people who are quoted at least to indicate the point they were making if it was not a threat to the Speaker's decision. I put a simple question to bring this to an end. If it is not a problem, what were those comments intended to produce?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am also rising to speak in light of the comments attributed to me in this weekend's Toronto Sun as well as the Ottawa Sun .

Those comments do not refer to the Chair or to yourself, but obviously to a larger question: the privilege of all the members in this House.

The thousands of men and women who laid down their lives for this country, in defence of the unity of this country, are being insulted each and every day with the continuation of this debate. They fought for a united country and a united flag.

It is for those reasons that I have absolutely no desire at this point to suspend free speech, to allow members of Parliament not to be able defend themselves when veterans are talking to them about what is going on in this great House.

There are grave consequences to whatever decision should be made, Mr. Speaker. That is not a reflection on you. However, this Parliament should not dismiss it, in a rather dilatory fashion, by trying to throw out a couple of interesting rules which are suddenly conjured up, especially when the country is concerned about national unity.

I may have an opportunity to be quoted by a person of the press as to my position with respect to the flag. If that causes any difficulty to the Chair then I sincerely apologize for it, but I do not apologize for the unity of my country, nor do I apologize for the Canadian flag, especially with the separatists.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the leader of the Bloc to rise in his place and withdraw his accusation. He made a mistake. He was in error. He had his facts wrong when he directly accused me of comments I did not make. In the diatribe which he just gave he named me specifically. I think it is in order that he withdraw it immediately because it is a false accusation.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise—

[The Speaker]

I am listening.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker]

The member for Elk Island has the floor first, and you have it after him.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on what I think is a very solemn occasion. I want to assure you, the electorate of my riding and all Canadians that I have nothing but respect for this place, what it stands for, for your office, for your position and for the duties which you bear.

When I have expressed myself on this issue I want to make it very clear that I have done so on principles which I believe in very strongly.

My parents came to this country to seek freedoms, the freedom of expression being among them. I am here to defend that.

I would also like to speak specifically to the motion which the member from the Conservative Party is proposing concerning the issue before us. He is calling for this to be an immediate point of privilege. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there can be no immediate point of privilege since you have not yet brought your ruling. Therefore I think you need to rule against this being an immediate issue.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rose on a point of order, which, unfortunately, seems fruitless to me at this point, but I will make my point for other cases that may arise.

May I respectfully remind you that, last week, the Chair ruled that members with a flag on their desk would not be recognized so long as you had not made your ruling. You recognized our colleagues from Timiskaming—Cochrane and Elk Island, who, however, had a Canadian flag on their desk.

I want to make myself quite clear here. We have no objection to the presence of Canadian flags in this House. That is not the issue. The fact is that the Canadian flag, like the national anthem two weeks ago, was used knowingly not in an expression of pride in the flag or the anthem, but simply to interrupt, deride and intimidate one of our colleagues. What is unacceptable is the partisan use of a symbol that should be an object of respect. They lowered themselves in using it, as my colleague for Roberval put it, as a mere tool of protest.

I therefore remind you of the ruling by the Chair not to recognize members with a Canadian flag on their desk until the Chair has given its ruling.

[An hon. member]

They have no respect for the Chair.

[The Speaker]

Before giving the floor to the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River, I want to say that the hon. member for Verchères is right.

The Speaker in this Chair at the time ruled on the flags that were here. And there are some here now.

I think the matter before us at the moment is very important for Parliament. I would kindly ask the following of all members here.

Please co-operate while I am listening to a point of privilege, a privilege that affects all of us in this House. Because it affects all of us, it affects all Canadians. So I would ask you very respectfully, while I am hearing this point of privilege please remove the flags or leave them on your desks for a minute. I go to the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue we are discussing here now, and I know we all want to get back to the work we have come here to do this afternoon, is not what we are calling the flag issue. That matter has been taken under advisement by Mr. Speaker and by the House leaders. I am fairly sure we will end up with a resolution on that. For those members who want to push the flag issue or whatever, perhaps while our leadership in the House is dealing with this, this is not the most appropriate time to push the envelope.

I do not really want to talk about the flag here in the way it has been spoken of by some members. What I want to address is the point of privilege that has been raised by the House leader for the Progressive Conservative Party and it is a very important point of privilege.

At this point it is important for us all to realize that what has happened by this particular publication is that the office of the Speaker in which we place our trust, all of us as members, has been taken out of this place and taken out into the street. The office of the Speaker has been dealt with in a manner and in a way that the Speaker is unable by himself to deal with because of the nature of his office and the impartiality which he is called on to use and to exhibit as he works in this House.

Some of our colleagues have caused this to happen. Maybe they have been induced by aggressive journalists to make it happen. I will leave to colleagues the decision as to whether or not it should have happened, whether it was good or bad or right or wrong. But right now the member raising this matter of privilege has asked the Speaker to find that it is a matter of the privileges of this House, prima facie, and that he should take it under consideration and have the matter disposed of at the committee designated for that purpose.

Although all of us here will not be fully familiar with all the bits and pieces of the parliamentary privilege that goes in to making up the rules and the regime that I have tried to articulate here, I know that Mr. Speaker will have the full benefit of that in looking at this issue.

I submit that all you have to do today, and perhaps I make it sound like a simple question, is determine whether what has been alleged here today, which is generally not disputed, is sufficiently egregious vis-à-vis the privileges of the House to cause you to find that it is a prima facie breach of the privileges and to ask members to dispose of it.

I am not able to add my voice to whether it is or is not because the evidence is contained in a newspaper report and some of comments of members here.

I submit that is what we should be dealing with now. We should not be dealing with the broader matter of the so-called flag issue here.

The other minor comments that have come up that have caused members to react on both sides of the House I would hope could be dealt with very quickly so that we can allow Mr. Speaker to move on to the business of the House for the day.

[Ivan Grose, Liberal, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at this point I will make an admission. I was the initiator of the demonstration that was put on last Thursday.

It was to illustrate my patriotism, my love for my country and my love for the flag. I thought I and my country and this House had been offended. That was my way of demonstrating that I had been offended, my country had been offended and this House had been offended.

It may have been ill advised. It never was supposed to go this far. At this point I would ask hon. members on both sides of the House whether we could let this thing die and whether we could get on with the business that we are supposed to be doing for the people who elected us.

As far as I am concerned, it is a dead issue. I would ask all members, on both sides of the House, to adopt the same attitude.

We have important business to do and what we are doing now is not important business. I very much doubt that I can get unanimous consent, but I will try for it.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, as I said a little earlier, this is a serious matter. The hon. House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, the member for Kamloops and others have underlined the seriousness of this matter before the House. I would like the indulgence of the House.

[The Speaker]

I will suspend the House until 4 p.m. At that time I will return with a decision.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 3.40 p.m.)

The House resumed at 4.10 p.m.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, I thank you for your indulgence. I have sought advice and I have considered the matter that is before us today. It is very important that the House be seized with this matter.

I find a prima facie case and I am going to permit the hon. House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party to put his motion. After the motion has been put we will begin debate until we have ceased debating.

House Of Commons

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in light of your ruling that a prima facie case exists, I move:

That certain statements attributed to members of the House of Commons which may bring into question the integrity of the House of Commons and its servant the Speaker, appearing at page 7 of the March 8, 1998 Ottawa Sun , be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I rise to speak on this issue. It is unfortunate we have found ourselves in this position. It is obvious that what occurred here in the House of Commons invoked a visceral and emotional response from many of its members. That is not the issue or the point I wish to bring to the floor.

The main issue here is the integrity of this place and of you as our Speaker. What we have seen happen here is tantamount to an effort, deliberate or otherwise, to undermine your integrity. To make an analogy, I would suggest it would be totally inappropriate for litigators in a court case to step outside the court room to comment on a decision of a judge in the wake of that decision. What has happened in this case before the House is very similar to that. We have members of this House choosing to comment. I choose my words cautiously when I suggest that it may be for the purpose of threatening you, to make you decide in one way or another.

What has happened is very unfortunate. It is with regret that we have to go through this. If those members choose in their wisdom to withdraw or to clarify what they intended by making these statements in such a way, that may cause the issue to settle down. All members of this House must be very cautious not only in what they say on the floor of the House of Commons but also in what they say outside these doors.

Mr. Speaker, this matter must be dealt with by the entire House because you have found yourself in a compromised position as a result of what I would suggest is a personal slight to you as the Speaker. Again, it is with some regret that I move this motion but it is a very important matter which we must deal with. We should deal with it as quickly as possible so we can move on to deal with the very important business of the nation.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will take a moment to ensure all colleagues have knowledge of the exact content of the motion. I know earlier today there was at least the possibility of something somewhat different being moved. If I understand correctly, these are the precise words:

That certain statements attributed to members of this House of Commons may bring into question the integrity of the House of Commons and its servant the Speaker appearing at page 7 of the March 8, 1998 Ottawa Sun be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I do not want to speak for very long. I wish we would return to the budget debate. It is the reason many MPs are here today and their constituents expect them to speak on the budget. I want to return to that as quickly as possible but I will make a few brief comments.

Your Honour has ruled in his judgment which I respect that this is a prima facie case of privilege. We should support the motion now that you have ruled that way. In so doing that would indicate our support for Mr. Speaker which I look forward to do.

Members who are accused—and I use that word loosely—or whose reputations are being taken into question with this motion will have the opportunity to defend themselves. I hope they will be vindicated as I hope they meant no harm. I trust they meant no harm. I have been here a long time and I know many of the members personally. In my heart I believe they meant no harm. I hope in the end that will be the conclusion of the procedure and House affairs committee. It is for that committee to make a recommendation which will then be brought to the floor of this House.

Mr. Speaker, meanwhile we respect the decision you have made, a decision whereby there is a prima facie case of privilege. That is what you have ruled. Having said that, it is our duty to support the decision you have made by referring the issue to the committee as quickly as possible. I hope we will not have a prolonged debate on this issue.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this issue goes to the issue of freedom of speech in Canada. If we or any other member of the population of Canada are not free to speak our mind, if we are going to be shut down and censored, that is absolutely and totally unconscionable in the democracy of Canada. This cannot stand.

If this is referred to the procedure and House affairs committee, the matter will be dragged out which might be to the benefit of certain people who have ulterior political motives. More importantly these people who have very simply spoken their minds will then be dragged through a very long, arduous procedure, and for what effect?

It is absolutely unconscionable that we could possibly be voting in favour of a motion to turn this over to procedure and House affairs. We must at all cost stand up for the principle of freedom of speech and democracy.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is most unfortunate that we find ourselves in this kind of situation. There is a motion before this House to debate remarks, extremely offensive remarks made by some members, which go far beyond anything said in the past about the Chair as an institution and hopefully not about the person in the Chair.

Allow me to summarize the facts for the benefit of everyone. We will recall that some members disrupted oral question period. These are objective facts can anyone can verify. All members of this House are welcome to check the video recording of the proceedings if they want to.

Members disrupted oral question period by preventing one of our members, namely the member for Rimouski—Mitis, from putting her question to the government and preventing the government from answering.

To this end, they used the flag. Everyone respects the flag. Everyone respects the national anthem. Everyone respects Parliament. Or so they say. In fact, however, what the Liberal members, who now seem repentant, and members of the Reform Party, who are not repentant, did—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, when we talk about freedom of speech, surely we should be listening to what each other has to say. I would encourage all hon. members to listen to each other out of courtesy.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for enforcing my right to speak. I am grateful to you for protecting my privileges as a parliamentarian in this House. Were it not for you, I would not be able to speak in this place as the parliamentary leader of 44 members. That is incredible, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. I appreciate this parliamentary protection you are giving me. I appreciate the fact that your role allows democracy to have a voice.

Will anyone stand up to say that the people of Quebec who elected members of the Bloc Quebecois should not have a voice in this House? Is this what it has come to in this country: to think that the people of Quebec who voted for the Bloc do not have a say in the matters being debated? That is incredible. We must make them see reason.

We must also make them see reason about using the flag and the national anthem to disrupt oral question period. They would have used any pretence. However they would have expressed their disapproval, you would have called them to order.

If Bloc Quebecois members prevented Reformers from asking questions or the government from replying by making a lot of noise, by using the Quebec or the Canadian flag, or by doing anything else, Reformers and Liberals would be the first ones to say it is not right.

In this case, some members inopportunely and outrageously used their own flag—which they claim to revere and to have the utmost respect for—as a means to stop oral question period. This is no minor incident.

You must make a ruling. To be sure, no one questions your respect for the flag. You have one on either side of the Chair. This is a precedent, but it is not what is at issue here. What you must rule on is whether or not members of this House can stop oral question period at any time by using the Canadian flag or the national anthem, and whether or not they should be allowed to do so.

The decision that will be made—and I say this for the benefit of members, because the Speaker is, in a way, facing a dilemma—will not concern the flag, but the fact that oral question period was disrupted, in violation of the Standing Orders and, worse still, by using a flag that some feel should be revered. But this is not the issue.

Members of this House must not make the Speaker feel that, should he rule in favour of the separatists and against the flag, he would have to resign or be replaced. This is unacceptable. It is not the flag versus the separatists. When will they understand this? It is not the flag versus the separatists, it is respect versus contempt for the rules.

Reformers say Canada is a democracy that enjoys freedom of speech. In what kind of country can parliamentarians, in the name of freedom of speech, rise and wave the flag, or start singing O Canada, at any time, during oral question period, during debates, to interrupt proceedings and reconsider all parliamentary activities under the pretence of using the Canadian flag.

I sat to the members of this House that they should be very careful, because if a decision were made, with respect for the flag as a pretext, that the business of the House could be disrupted anytime, they might have some surprises the day Quebec decided to disrupt the business of this House. They would be very happy and would also need the rules of the House to be respected. We have always done so and we need them to respect those rules. This is not democracy.

How can the Reform Party invoke respect for democracy? It is not democracy to be able to interrupt question period whenever one feels like it, to play around with the flag. Is this democracy, Canadian style? It is not freedom of speech to be able to stand up in this House for any reason with flags and have fun while singing O Canada. Is this the freedom of speech of this country? Come on, this is not the way it works.

I plead with my colleagues. The fact is we do not have the right to do so, as parliamentarians, whatever our political opinions. I repeat that you are not here to protect political opinions, but to protect the right to speak of all parliamentarians, Mr. Speaker. You cannot be asked to enter into a partisan debate. Members should understand that. We understood that a long time ago in Quebec.

Perhaps this should be understood in some areas of Canada. This is not your problem. We have no right to ask you that. We ask you to protect our right to speak and to protect the choice of Quebeckers and of people from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Your duty is to ensure that, within the rules, these people can speak and express their opinions.

We have no right to threaten the Speaker when he is making a decision as to whether we can disrupt question period or not. Come on. It is common sense that no member in this House, with or without a flag, has the right to prevent question period from being held; no member ever had that right. The exercise of democracy means that the opposition can question the government.

When Reform members, the official opposition, plead for this, have they not understood anything about their role? They should be the ones to want to protect oral question period. They are at the centre of oral question period. Have they not yet understood that?

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

No, they do not understand anything.