Mr. Speaker, before I get into the details of this charge, I need to briefly comment on the authority and the responsibility of the House in this regard.
This charge, while separate in itself, does involve other jurisdictions such as the Board of Internal Economy and the Treasury Board. I will submit precedents demonstrating that a breach of the rules under another jurisdiction embodies a breach of a standard of behaviour for members of parliament that Speakers have considered in the past when deciding prima facie questions of privilege.
In addition, I will argue that the jurisdiction of the House over its members and its right to impose discipline is absolute and exclusive, and that the conduct of members that touch on or is part of another jurisdiction does not preclude the House from taking action.
But first I will present the details of my charge against the member for Saint-Maurice. It has been brought to my attention and to the attention of the public by journalist Sean Durkan in articles published in the Ottawa Sun on August 2 and August 5, 1998, that the Prime Minister used taxpayers' money to pay campaign workers which helped him secure a victory in his riding in the last election and the election before that.
The records of Elections Canada, which I have here, will say the Prime Minister's office paid campaign workers $43,389 with taxpayer money. This is more money than the average candidate gets to spend on the total of their campaigns.
Mr. Durkan reported in the Ottawa Sun that an official in the Prime Minister's office confirmed that this money was spent deliberately. In the same article there is confirmation from Treasury Board that its guidelines for cabinet ministers regarding paid staff during election campaigns apply to the Prime Minister and that they were breached by the Prime Minister. These guidelines can be found on page 19 at section 3.5.6 of the document entitled “Guidelines for Ministers' Offices” dated June 6, 1997.
The national director of the Liberal Party confirmed with the Sun that the Prime Minister kept about 15 of his political staff on the public payroll during last spring's election campaign and also paid campaign workers with public funds when he led the opposition in 1993.
I reviewed the rules set out by the Board of Internal Economy regarding this issue and it is clear that the Prime Minister breached the rules set out by the Board of Internal Economy.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of my presentation I will provide you with a copy of this rule, copies of the news articles and the relevant sections from the records of Elections Canada and the guidelines from Treasury Board. I will now address why and how this House should take up this issue.
I refer to page 115 of Erskine May's 21st edition, page 192 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada and to a Speaker's ruling from Hansard of October 29, 1980. These references describe acts which may constitute contempt as having no limits and how it would be impossible to discount any act or omission as a contempt just because there were no specific precedents for that act or omission.
Since there do not need to be clear guidelines in the way of the usual precedents, a Speaker, in deciding these matters, may have to consider some other standard of measure. I will present examples where it is apparent that Speakers use the standards of behaviour found and set out in the common law as guidelines for appropriate behaviour for members of parliament.
In relation to the responsibility of this House and the conduct of members, I will establish a parallel between the common law and the laws of the Board of Internal Economy and the Treasury Board.
There are many examples where the House involved itself in matters relating to members of parliament and the law. In many of these cases the Speaker ruled in favour of a prima facie question of privilege allowing the House to consider whether or not the violation of the law was offensive and inappropriate behaviour for a member of parliament.
My point is not that the violation of these laws has anything to do with the jurisdiction of the House but they represent standards which the Speaker can use to determine that a charge against another member is valid enough to be considered prima facie.
With that in mind, I refer to page 103 of the 21st edition of Erskine May:
The two Houses are enabled to safeguard and enforce their necessary authority without the compromise or delay to which recourse to the ordinary courts would give rise.
Citation 46 of Beauchesne's sixth edition tells the story of the House taking action against a member for an old conviction of forgery with respect to the granting of timber limits.
In 1891, for instance, there was the case of Thomas McGreevy who was charged with scandals in the public works department. The House was satisfied that there was enough evidence against Mr. McGreevy and took action before the courts came to a conclusion.
In 1995 the member for Charlesbourg was charged by another member for sedition even though the matter had been raised in the courts. The Speaker in ruling that the matter was a prima facie case of privilege was not concerned with the details of the Criminal Code nor the court case itself. The Speaker was influenced by the fact that sedition is a serious charge and considered as evidence the facts contained in the letter sent to the Canadian military from the member for Charlesbourg.
In both the 1995 case and this 1998 case there were reports in the media complaining of an activity of the members and a concern that nothing can or will be done under the law. Another similarity is that in both cases the evidence was conclusive.
In the 1995 case the House took up the matter independently from the common law and independent from any guidelines set out by any other body. It is my hope that the House will do the same with this 1998 case against the Prime Minister.
As stated earlier, the conduct of a member measured against the standard of appropriate behaviour set out by a law often adds sufficient weight to the argument against the accused member, resulting in the Speaker's ruling in favour of a prima facie question of privilege.
Other references setting standards can be found in the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada on page 238. It states that while the standing orders refer only to offering money for the promotion of any matter before parliament, the House would treat equally severely the acceptance of money by a member for anything a member may do. In the final analysis “the House of Commons may set whatever standard it sees fit in respect to the conduct of a member”.
The Board of Internal Economy has set a standard for all members of parliament when it created bylaw 305. The Treasury Board has set the same standard for cabinet ministers in guideline 3.5.6. Both these bodies consider the use of public money in the way the Prime Minister has used public money as improper.
The Prime Minister, in authorizing and accepting public money to help him win an election, violated a serious bylaw and a guideline, bringing into question his integrity as a member of parliament. The Speaker must take into account the violation of this bylaw and the guidelines of the Treasury Board in his determination as to the validity of this charge.
The other matter that must be addressed is that this violation has been reported in the media and the impression left in the public's mind is that one of the members of this House has acted against the law and because of his position is exempt from the law. The article of August 5 says: “Guess what folks? If our Prime Minister doesn't like the rules, he can break them and there's nothing we can do about it”.
In addition, there is the impression left in the minds of the members of this House that the Prime Minister is more equal than other members with respect to their privileges and their standard of conduct.
I believe that both these impressions are serious enough on their own merit to be considered by this House on a question of privilege. Such impressions left unchallenged cast a dark shadow over this institution. Accordingly, I believe this House must do three things.
First, it must invoke consequences against the member for Saint-Maurice for his improper use of public funds. Second, it must clarify the impression left in the public's mind that a member of this House is above the law. Third, it must return confidence to all members of this House that the Prime Minister or any other member does not enjoy special privileges above those enjoyed by the rest of the members of this House with respect to their conduct as members of parliament.
Mr. Speaker, if you rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.